Quote:
Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy
Well that's where we disagree, and that is certianly fine. I think 500 HR is enough to get anyone elected to the Hall, regardless of anything else (assuming they didn't use PEDs). What you're saying above is, that if Dunn had 500HR and some other skill set to accompany it, then he could be considered for the HOF. Other players have gotten into the HOF having been known for just one skill.
Speaking of great fielders, look at Ozzie Smith. He sure didn't get in on his offensive numbers. He was known as a great defensive player - look at all the Gold Gloves. What did he do offensively? Not jack! He's has 2460 hits, only 28 career home runs, 793 RBIs, a .262 lifetime batting average. Had he been just a mediocre third baseman defensively, he would not be in the HOF. In other words, he got in ONLY on his defensive skills. He was a one trick pony.
I realize we're talking about 2 different position players, but my point is this. Why does Smith get in with only one set of skills, but not Dunn?
|
I don't know - I wouldn't have voted for Smith either. But since we are talking about HR's and your claim that 500 is enough, what is the problem with comparing Dunn to other guys who have 500 and are in the HOF? Seems like a logical comparison that is being avoided.
If you want to change the conversation to comparing Dunn to Ozzie Smith, that's fine, but his skills don't in any way compare to Dunn's. Whether or not Smith is HOF-worthy is another discussion.