[the 'stache]

While those numbers are accurate, you want to make sure to consider the eras these different players competed in. Dunn has played in an era that heavily favored offense.

I just ran two quick reports on Baseball Reference. Between 2000 and 2014, there have been nine players to accumulate 3,000 or more at bats, and have a .400 or better on base percentage, and another, Miguel Cabrera, at .396.

Between 1960 and 1980, same 3,000 at bat threshold, there were only two players to have a .400 or better on base percentage, Mickey Mantle at .415, and Mike Hargrove at .403.

The point to this? Players in this era have a naturally higher on base percentage than players back in the era you just listed. Adam Dunn's skills as a hitter are downplayed too much, in my opinion. I don't care what era a player is in. Hitting as many home runs as he has takes skill. It might not be as impressive as before, but even with the prevalence of PEDS in the game now, you're still not seeing a flood of people hitting 500 home runs. And people need to keep that in mind. Yes, players might realize an increase in their seasonal home run totals for a time, but to get 500 means you were a consistently great power hitter for a long time. If a man averages 30 home runs a season, which is quite an achievement, they'd have to average 30 home runs for 17 seasons.

Originally Posted by timn1

Just to follow up, Dunn’s OBP is even better than I thought relative to HOFers:

.366 better than:

Clemente
Yount
Winfield
Perez
Puckett
Murray
Ripken
Dawson (.323, for cryin’ out loud)
Brock
Bench
Stargell
Banks
Medwick (.324 BA but lower OBP)
Lloyd Waner
and Sam Crawford !!


Equal to Santo
3 points below Molitor!

And these are only the guys elected for their hitting- Need I go on?

Again, I don’t think Dunn should be in the HOF but the idea really isn’t that bizarre--