OT: Did Adam Dunn ruin his Hall chances

[Runscott]

In my mind that is correct - no chance for Dunn.

Sent from my SM-G730V using Tapatalk

[Peter_Spaeth]

Scott, he had over 550 home runs and was the most famous and notorious player of his generation. I don't recall any surprise whatsoever.

[Runscott]

.262, Peter

Sent from my SM-G730V using Tapatalk

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Peter - I can assure you I was not the only one. .262 is weak by almost anyone's standards. Just as thete are some who think there is an automatic induction number for career hr's, I naively thought there was an automatic exclusion level for batting average, and it had to be somewhere above .262


Sent from my SM-G730V using Tapatalk

Joe Tinker was voted in at .262. How were his power stats? And I bet there were a number of others with lower averages pre Reggie. Maranville -- .258. Another great slugger. Ray Schalk -- .253. Killebrew .256 -- surprised there too?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Runscott

.262, Peter

Sent from my SM-G730V using Tapatalk

Slugging average. On base percentage. MUCH better by those metrics which were known well before the fancy WAR and OPS stuff.

[Eric72]

Regardless of whether we're discussing the Hall of Fame, the Hall of Statistically Superior Players, or the Hall of Relevant Athletes Who Played Professional Baseball, I would like to believe that all of us can agree on one thing. Adam Dunn simply does not make the cut.

Best regards,

Eric

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Slugging average. On base percentage. MUCH better by those metrics which were known well before the fancy WAR and OPS stuff.

.262 - his batting average wasn't HOF-caliber. Other stuff certainly was.

He was really good, but not great. Once they let Jackson in with his weak batting average, it helped promote the idea that 500 HR's was enough, and that nothing else counted - certainly batting average didn't. You could say that Reggie is one of the reasons that some people are talking about Dunn. Batting average obviously isn't important anymore.

[chaddurbin]

this is 2014, please stop talking about batting averages. next thing we're going to argue about is whether a pitcher with 12 wins deserve to win the CY?

this thread is about 200+ posts too many. a simple "no...because no one thought he was hof-material to start with" in the 2nd post would've suffice.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Runscott

.262 - his batting average wasn't HOF-caliber. Other stuff certainly was.

He was really good, but not great. Once they let Jackson in with his weak batting average, it helped promote the idea that 500 HR's was enough, and that nothing else counted - certainly batting average didn't. You could say that Reggie is one of the reasons that some people are talking about Dunn. Batting average obviously isn't important anymore.

Killebrew was in a decade before Reggie with a BA in the .250s.

[Runscott]

That's true. I conveniently did not bring up Killebrew

Jackson was more consistent while Killebrew had some massive HR and RBI years - many more than Jackson. But you are right - .256 batting average was mediocre, and if I'm going to kick Jackson out for that, I would have to remove Killebrew as well. My bias is probably that I always liked Killebrew and never liked Jackson. Kind of a 'Kirby Puckett vs Albert Belle' sort of thing.

It would be an interesting exercise to de-vote members from the HOF each year, until it was about half it's current size. I think there are many members who would get kicked out before either Jackson or Killebrew.

[packs]

Out of 111 members who were voted in on a regular ballot (not veterans committee), Reggie has the 17th highest voting percentage. Granted, I never saw him play and wasn't around for his peak. I think you're right about the perfect storm of factors around him.

[Centauri]

In addition to excellent reg season stats, HOF worthy, he played in 5 WS, won 4 of those (was injured for the WS on one of those Oakland teams) with 2 WS MVPs. For the 5 he played in, 27 games, he had a 1.2 OPS. He had a 1.7 OPS in the 77 series. Roided out Barry is impressed with that.

On the very biggest stage the game offers - WS with the Yankees, he was very truly the straw that stirred the drink.

Jackson deserved every vote he got. Dunn is just a guy.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by packs

Out of 111 members who were voted in on a regular ballot (not veterans committee), Reggie has the 17th highest voting percentage. Granted, I never saw him play and wasn't around for his peak. I think you're right about the perfect storm of factors around him.

No offense, but that means very little - the HOF is largely a popularity contest.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Centauri

In addition to excellent reg season stats, HOF worthy, he played in 5 WS, won 4 of those (was injured for the WS on one of those Oakland teams) with 2 WS MVPs. For the 5 he played in, 27 games, he had a 1.2 OPS. He had a 1.7 OPS in the 77 series. Roided out Barry is impressed with that.

On the very biggest stage the game offers - WS with the Yankees, he was very truly the straw that stirred the drink.

Jackson deserved every vote he got. Dunn is just a guy.

That's all true...and he batted .262

[Centauri]

LOL - just checked Dunn's WAR. In 14 seasons, he has a total of 16.9. He is barely better than average. Heck, Mike Hargrove had 30 as a player in the same number of seasons. Grover for the Hall!

[HOF Auto Rookies]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Peter - I can assure you I was not the only one.

Of course not, or he would have gotten 100% of the voting.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Runscott]

Brent, the great thing is that everyone here respects everyone else's opinion

[Peter_Spaeth]

Scott, if he had scattered 200 more singles across 20 seasons, thereby raising his average to .280 or so, would that really make that much of a difference? It seems obvious to me (and most people) that Reggie is an easy choice for the HOF, as was Killebrew.

[packs]

I was just surprised by how much support Reggie got. More people who saw him play thought he was a HOFer than people who watched Ted Williams play. That seemed unusual to me. Though admittedly the margin is very slim.

[Centauri]

Post season success matters. Ted, for all his greatness, was shut down in his only World Series. No rings for Ted, 5 for Reggie. Makes a difference.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Anyone who didn't vote for Ted did so out of spite. Nothing to do with post season. Obviously no human being on the planet realistically could have believed Ted was not an all time great.

[clydepepper]

& Mays & Aaron...just folks tried for the fifteen minutes= idiots! and, as you say, spiteful idiots!

Question: Will this thread last longer until it is Dunn, or will it just Peter out?

[icollectDCsports]

Suppose Teddy Ballgame's feuding with some of the writers didn't help him when it came time for his HOF vote. Still no good reason for them not to vote for him.

And more than 5% of the voters didn't vote for Willie Mays. Unreal.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Scott, if he had scattered 200 more singles across 20 seasons, thereby raising his average to .280 or so, would that really make that much of a difference? It seems obvious to me (and most people) that Reggie is an easy choice for the HOF, as was Killebrew.

Yeah, I know he's an easy choice for most. I got that. I'm listening to you and respect your opinion.

What if Reggie's lifetime batting average had been .240 or a little lower - would you still say he's a HOF'er?

More water and we eventually get to Adam Dunn.

[Peter_Spaeth]

The slippery slope!!

[Centauri]

LOL - if Reggie wasn't as good as he was, like much worse down to Dunn's level, what then?

[howard38]

Reggie was one of my favorites but I recognize that his deficiencies kept him from being a top tier hall of famer. But he was, IMO, a great hitter for most of his career. His numbers suffer not just from strikeouts but also because he played in a pitcher dominated era and for much of his career played in an awful park for hitters. Interestingly his career road BA is higher than three time batting title winner Carl Yastremzki's road BA.

I also think Reggie got a little too much credit for clutch hitting. As great as he was in the World Series he was pretty bad in the playoffs.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Centauri

LOL - if Reggie wasn't as good as he was, like much worse down to Dunn's level, what then?

The slope hasn't gotten that slippery yet, and I doubt it will.

Has there ever been any Hall of excellence where admission requirements became tougher as the years went by?

[packs]

Only one I can think of is golf. Used to be you only needed 50 percent. Now they have a smaller panel and you need 75. I think they also upped the minimum amount of tour wins.

[Runscott]

I wonder how many members the HOF would have today, if the voting was done only by current HOF members.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Runscott

I wonder how many members the HOF would have today, if the voting was done only by current HOF members.

Dunno, but if the voting was done by 54 members, based on threads I have seen, it might double.

[Centauri]

Medal of Honor. When it started, they were handed out liberally. But as decades passed, it became a much harder thing, to the point where by 2000 you pretty much had to be superhuman, and die int he effort to get it. Relaxed somewhat under Obama.

[bn2cardz]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Dunno, but if the voting was done by 54 members, based on threads I have seen, it might double.

No kidding. Threads like this one help remind me that even though I may disagree with some decisions made by the writers, that if "fans" voted it could be a lot worse.

[ejharrington]

I know people on both sides like to debate about too many / too few players but I think the Baseball Hall of Fame gets it right. Approximately 212 players (excluding Negro Leaguers) in Hall of Fame vs. approximately 18,000 players who have played MLB, or 1.2% of all players. To me, that is not "letting the floodgates open". At the same time, it is elite enough where every year very few players get in (unlike NFL / NBA/ NHL Halls of Fame) and there are some very good players excluded.

That being said, I will go to my grave believing Keith Hernandez is a Hall of Famer.

[jcmtiger]

This thread is to crazy. Dunn will never get into the HOF. Please!!!!! The HOF is for great players not average players.

Joe

[HOF Auto Rookies]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Brent, the great thing is that everyone here respects everyone else's opinion

Yes sir! Love learning about everyone's opinions on players and the history of the game. Again, I do not think Dunn is a HOF'er. He has tremendous power though


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CMIZ5290]

Originally Posted by jcmtiger

This thread is to crazy. Dunn will never get into the HOF. Please!!!!! The HOF is for great players not average players.

Joe

+1....Holy cow, I don't even know that I would count Dunn as an average player...

[CMIZ5290]

Originally Posted by HOF Auto Rookies

Yes sir! Love learning about everyone's opinions on players and the history of the game. Again, I do not think Dunn is a HOF'er. He has tremendous power though


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So did Dave Kingman...If I had a choice with the game on the line, I would take even him over Dunn....

[HOF Auto Rookies]

Originally Posted by CMIZ5290

So did Dave Kingman...If I had a choice with the game on the line, I would take even him over Dunn....

I'll pass on both


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mountaineer1999]

Wow! This is an awful lot of words about Adam Dunn, a guy I would have never put in the same sentence with HOF.

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by Centauri

By 1984, Reggie had 13 All Star appearances, 7 top tens in the MVP voting, winning in 73. Plus some medium level of success in the post-season, if I understand it right.

As a Dodgers fan growing up in the 70s I hated Reggie. Notwithstanding the strikeouts and low career BA, his greatness could not be denied. 13 AS teams and 7 top ten MVP finishes are all that need to be said. He was the dominant player pretty much of his generation.

On another note, I always felt that stats shouldn't be the sole arbiter on HOF eligibility which is why I never bothered to think about them when considering a player whose career I witnessed growing up. Jim Rice to me always felt like a monster player of his generation. How could he not make the HOF? Similar to an extent was Steve Garvey. While his production fell off at the end thus him never being considered a serious HOF candidate, he surely was the best player on a decade of great Dodgers teams, was a perennial AS and MVP vote getter -- winning it once -- but finished just 400 hits short of 3000 and had a lifetime BA of .298. If he had 400 more hits is there by any doubt he would be in the HOF today?

[wolf441]

Originally Posted by Mountaineer1999

Wow! This is an awful lot of words about Adam Dunn, a guy I would have never put in the same sentence with HOF.

In fairness, I think the thread stopped being about Dunn awhile back. Now it's more of a Reggie Jackson/what makes a Hall of Famer? thread.

My 2 cents, Jackson was a Hall of Famer. Not a top tier all time great. But if it's the Hall of FAME, then Reggie certainly qualifies. One of those guys that you wouldn't take a bathroom break when he was coming up to bat. Of course, there are quite a few other guys that you could say the same thing about (Canseco in his prime, McGwire, Joey Belle, etc), but they we're either PED guys, dicks, had too short of a prime, or all of the above...

[wolf441]

Originally Posted by calvindog

As a Dodgers fan growing up in the 70s I hated Reggie. Notwithstanding the strikeouts and low career BA, his greatness could not be denied. 13 AS teams and 7 top ten MVP finishes are all that need to be said. He was the dominant player pretty much of his generation.

On another note, I always felt that stats shouldn't be the sole arbiter on HOF eligibility which is why I never bothered to think about them when considering a player whose career I witnessed growing up. Jim Rice to me always felt like a monster player of his generation. How could he not make the HOF? Similar to an extent was Steve Garvey. While his production fell off at the end thus him never being considered a serious HOF candidate, he surely was the best player on a decade of great Dodgers teams, was a perennial AS and MVP vote getter -- winning it once -- but finished just 400 hits short of 3000 and had a lifetime BA of .298. If he had 400 more hits is there by any doubt he would be in the HOF today?

+1. If anyone had told you in 1980/81 that Garvey not only wouldn't get in the Hall of Fame, but wouldn't even really be a serious candidate, what would you think at the time?

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by ejharrington

That being said, I will go to my grave believing Keith Hernandez is a Hall of Famer.

Keith Hernandez was just John Olerud with less power. You think Olerud belongs in the HOF?

[Peter_Spaeth]

It's astonishing that Garvey didn't even make it to 275 HR. And looked at from today's perspective, he walked very little and his OBP wasn't that great.

[ejharrington]

Yes, that's what I wrote.. He was a great player who I was able to watch virtually every game from 83-88. I always thought he was the best player on the field, even better than Carter.

[sago]

Originally Posted by Tabe

Keith Hernandez was just John Olerud with less power. You think Olerud belongs in the HOF?

Hernandez is GOAT fielding first baseman. His range made the entire infield better. Overall better than Olerud.

[pbspelly]

We discussed Hernandez on another thread, and so I will re-print what I wrote there, since I still believe it:

Originally Posted by pbspelly

I don't have anything against Olerud, and really don't have an opinion about whether he deserves to be in the Hall (and Bill James,for one, has made the argument that Olerud does), but as an avid Mets fan for decades, I can tell you that Hernandez meant much more to his team than Olerud. Besides his fielding and hitting, Hernandez was the first team captain in Mets history and really kept a young, and notably rambunctious, team together. He was known for counseling pitchers during tight situations, a job usually designated for the shortstop, and even called pitches for some of the young guys.

His value is reflected in the MVP voting. Hernandez was named on the ballot eight different times, winning it once and coming close two other times. Olerud was listed only twice, coming in third in his best year.

And while Olerud was certainly an excellent fielding first baseman, Hernandez was so adept on bunts and at throwing to all bases that he changed the position. The Mets even used to have him handle outfield relay throws sometimes instead of the second baseman (although with Gregg Jeffries and Wally Backman at second, that is a bit more understandable). As one commentator has stated, "If you never saw him play, it's hard to describe how a first baseman can be such an impact player in the field. Just saying he won eleven consecutive Gold Gloves doesn't do him anything near justice. He was a master at fielding bunts, often cutting down the runner at second, and covered an enormous amount of ground. He covered a multitude of sins handling throws. Who else could hold together an infield that sometimes included Wally Backman at second, Howard Johnson at third, and Kevin Mitchell at short - on a first place team"

Bill James even devised a stat based on Hernandez, after figuring out that one way to measure a first baseman's range was to count assists at all bases other than first, and that Hernandez was making 20-30 more outs per season than the average team. He named it, "The Keith Hernandez Breakthrough.“

According to one sabermetric stat (Total Zone Runs), Hernandez's defense saved 117 runs in his career, the most ever for a first baseman. Olerud comes in fourth at 97, still excellent, but nearly 20% behind.

All this having been said, Hernandez still has to answer for a few things. Besides the short career and the admitted drug use, many consider his mustache and his "Just For Men" ads unpardonable.

[jbbama]

500 or not...i never thought he was HOF worthy

[rats60]

Originally Posted by wolf441

+1. If anyone had told you in 1980/81 that Garvey not only wouldn't get in the Hall of Fame, but wouldn't even really be a serious candidate, what would you think at the time?

Or after he killed the Cubs in the 1984 LCS. He is one of those guys that when you watched him, you thought HOFer, but when you look at his stats, you say no. He got 41.6% of the vote his 1st ballot. That is a number that generally means later induction. I wouldn't be surprised if the Golden Era Committee elects him one day.

As a comparison, Keith Hernandez never received 11% of the vote. I don't know why. He is another guy I always saw as a future HOFer.