OT: Did Adam Dunn ruin his Hall chances

[Peter_Spaeth]

Ozzie qualifies in one category, unlike the other two. And you expect much better batting stats from your first baseman than your shortstop. So when the shortstop is the greatest ever, you can forgive him a 2500 hit career with 600 steals.

[the 'stache]

I'm reading this, and surprised that there is any question about Reggie Jackson and Harmon Killebrew being Hall of Famers. Their career batting averages notwithstanding, both men were titans throughout their careers. Killebrew just mashed, and he did so during what is considered the second dead ball era, which , depending on which writer you talk to, extended either from 1964-1972, or 1963-1976. The first is what I have typically seen mentioned. Killebrew became a full time player in 1959, and his career ended in 1975. During that dead ball era, Killebrew hit 318 home runs, leading the AL in homers three times: 1964 (49), 1967 (44), and 1969 (49). He also hit 39 in 1966, and 41 in 1970. Only Hank Aaron (334) hit more home runs during that period than Killebrew, and he played that entire period in the National League, while Killebrew played in the American League, which was more affected by the era. Killebrew won six home run titles, three RBI titles, and led the league in walks four times. He won one MVP, and finished in the top five five other times. Reggie was a lot like Harmon. Just monstrous power. He didn't lead the league as many times, but there is no doubt the guy was a superstar in his era. Reggie won four home run titles, 1973 (32), 1975 (36), 1980 (41), 1982 (39). Just by comparing Reggie's titles to Harmon's, it's apparent that even though Harmon played in a tough era, there just weren't that many home runs being hit during Reggie's time. Reggie had some other big power years. He hit 47 in 1969, and didn't lead he league because Harmon hit 49. He hit 32 in both 1971 and 1977, and hit 29 home runs three different times, in 1968, 1974 and 1979.

Killebrew hit 573 home runs and drove in 1,584 runs. He walked 1,559 times.
Reggie hit 563 home runs and drove in 1,702 runs. He walked 1,375 times.

Both guys did their fair share of striking out, especially Reggie. But when you look back when they both played, these are the guys that put butts in the seat. There should be no question that both these guys belong, regardless of their batting average. .

Getting back to Keith Hernandez. Yes, he saved x amount of runs during his career. And that may not be a lot more than John Olerud's. But Hernandez revolutionized first base defense. There are more runs that he saved that will never show up in stats because certain plays were never attempted. When Keith Hernandez was on first base, other teams stopped bunting, because he was so aggressive. He would charge home plate, and throw out the runner advancing to second. Or, he would charge the bunter, and throw a strike to third while the pitcher covered first. That just didn't happen before Hernandez came along, at least not with the incredible frequency. And if you had a runner at third, you just didn't try to bunt to Keith's side. He was so accurate throwing the ball, he would get the ball to home before the runner arrived, and his throws put the catcher in perfect position. Hernandez was incredible at scooping pitches out of the dirt. He just did so many things at a high level. I remember on three, maybe four different occasions watching him grab bloop fly ball right inside the first base line, do a somersault, and make a perfect throw to the pitcher covering first base. I mean the guy was incredible to watch. I was never a Keith Hernandez fan, but the times I got to see him play, he always seemed to do something spectacular. And I wasn't used to seeing a first baseman that could move like he did. First basemen were big, lumbering guys who hit home runs, and if you were lucky, they weren't terrible defensively.

Hernandez deserved the eleven straight Gold Gloves he won. He won a couple Silver Sluggers, too. Most of the guys we discussed in the thread I started were pretty much borderline at best for the Hall, but Hernandez is a guy that I feel should have gotten a lot more consideration then he got. The guy was a winner, too. The Cardinals won the World Series with him in 1982. The Mets in 1983 were 68-94, and they hadn't won at least 70 games since 1976. The next year with Hernandez, the Mets go 90-72. In 1985 they add Gary Carter. Dwight Gooden is one of the best two pitchers in baseball. In 1986 they win the World Series.

Hernandez made the players around him better. He was a really good hitter. He was a spectacular fielder, maybe the best to ever play the position, at least in the modern era (with deference to Hal Chase and Fred Tenney.) I don't know if Hernandez is a Hall of Famer. I think he's awfully close. I think he was definitely better than 10% of the BBWAA vote.

[pbspelly]

Really it comes down to this, which would you rather have? I just don't think it's close.

[packs]

I don't know what happened but John Olerud in my opinion was clearly the better player. Better peak seasons, hit over .350 twice compared to Hernandez not ever doing it, more power, higher OBP and SLG.

[Econteachert205]

If anyone involved with the creation of and initial inductions in the Hall were still alive they would be apoplectic about a conversation including names like Dunn, Hernandez and Olerud. Just because a bunch of marginal guys were voted in in the 1960's and 70's by the veterans committee does not mean its ok to continue the policy. Reggie Jackson: He is a no brainer yes on so many levels. To be honest, post WWII, Rookie card prices (minus rare series premiums) are the best indicator for Hall Of Fame worthiness. The market is the best judge of all.


btw Will Clark was as good as Olerud and Hernandez, which is to say NOT good enough for the hall.

[packs]

I think the discussion is really about how there's one guy who is no doubt a HOFer or just outside of being a HOFer in the eyes of many but for each of those players there is someone else who is only slightly less productive and seen as not even being close. So now we're talking about guys on the fringe or in and players that mirror them but are for one reason or another not even in the conversation.

I think the take away is that if a guy isn't exceptional in every sense of the word he has no business in the HOF.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by packs

I think the discussion is really about how there's one guy who is no doubt a HOFer or just outside of being a HOFer in the eyes of many but for each of those players there is someone else who is only slightly less productive and seen as not even being close. So now we're talking about guys on the fringe or in and players that mirror them but are for one reason or another not even in the conversation.

I think the take away is that if a guy isn't exceptional in every sense of the word he has no business in the HOF.

Yep. You could let in 25 or more players on the ground that they were better, as good or very nearly as good as someone already in, and then you would have to let 100 more in by the same logic. It never would end.

[bn2cardz]

Wow this "Dunn" thread really has many transitions and debates coming out of it. The Hernandez and Olerud is an interesting one. They are both similar. A stat that I have been looking at more is RAA (Runs above average, this looks at offense and defense combined).

Olerud 17 season career RAA: 273
Hernandez 17 season career RAA: 291

Olerud 7 Season RAA (His highest RAA seasons totaled): 244
Hernandez 7 Season RAA (His highest RAA seasons totaled):230

Olerud 10 Season RAA (His highest RAA seasons totaled): 275
Hernandez 10 Season RAA (His highest RAA seasons totaled):285

Olerud best RAA season: 57 in 1998, 55 from Rbat (Runs from batting above average)
Hernandez best RAA season: 50 in 1979, 40 from Rbat (Runs from batting above average)

Looking at this Olerud was the better batter, but his dominance over Hernadez drops after their 7 year bests. Olerud's 10 year is better than his career. Meaning he had 10 great years (not consecutive) but those were peak years in a 17 year career. Hernandez total gets larger even after his 10 best years, this to me shows that he was more consistent leading to a better career total.

I am still working a 7 and 10 year stat into all of the HOFers, but just comparing the two to the other 17 year career HOFers here is where their career RAA lines them up:

Name	Position	RAA	# Seasons
Bill Mazeroski	2nd	38	17
Rollie Fingers	P	60	17
Pie Traynor	3rd	115	17
Harry Hooper	RF	148	17
Monte Ward	SS	152	17
Orlando Cepeda	1st	159	17
Heinie Manush	LF	164	17
Roger Bresnahan	C	206	17
Chuck Klein	RF	224	17
Jim Bunning	P	234	17
Hugh Duffy	CF	240	17
Ernie Lombardi	C	243	17
Frank Chance	1st	257	17
John Olerud	1st	273	17
Joe Medwick	LF	285	17
Keith Hernandez	1st	291	17
Joe Kelley	LF	301	17
Hal Newhouser	P	314	17
Roberto Alomar	2nd	320	17
Bill Dickey	C	340	17
Bob Gibson	P	376	17
Eddie Plank	P	388	17
Harry Heilmann	RF	409	17
Johnny Bench	C	422	17
Christy Mathewson	P	470	17
Eddie Mathews	3rd	578	17

As seen they would be in good company with Joe Medwick in between the two of them and not a single 1st baseman above them. Looking at RAA/season average we can do a quick comparison to all the 1st basemen (but I do believe a 7 and 10 year comparison would be more accurate once I get that completed but as of now have only done aprox 30 HOFers).

Name	Position	RAA	# Seasons	RAA/Season avg
High Pockets Kelly	1st	57	16	3.56
Jim Bottomley	1st	98	16	6.13
Tony Perez	1st	155	23	6.74
Orlando Cepeda	1st	159	17	9.35
Eddie Murray	1st	242	21	11.52
Willie McCovey	1st	274	22	12.45
Harmon Killebrew	1st	280	22	12.73
George Sisler	1st	208	15	13.87
Ernie Banks	1st	284	19	14.95
Frank Chance	1st	257	17	15.12
Jake Beckley	1st	320	20	16.00
John Olerud	1st	273	17	16.06
Keith Hernandez	1st	291	17	17.12
Rod Carew	1st	424	19	22.32
Bill Terry	1st	334	14	23.86
Cap Anson	1st	667	27	24.70
Johnny Mize	1st	442	15	29.47
Hank Greenberg	1st	393	13	30.23
Dan Brouthers	1st	652	19	34.32
Jimmie Foxx	1st	695	20	34.75
Roger Connor	1st	648	18	36.00
Stan Musial	1st	809	22	36.77

This would show them as midlevel 1st baseman HOFers even above the previously debated Killebrew.

PS I am sorry about the spacing issue between the tables and the other text, but without using a table it is hard to keep it organized to be readable.

[clydepepper]

Originally Posted by bn2cardz

Wow this "Dunn" thread really has many transitions and debates coming out of it. The Hernandez and Olerud is an interesting one. They are both similar. A stat that I have been looking at more is RAA (Runs above average, this looks at offense and defense combined).

Olerud 17 season career RAA: 273
Hernandez 17 season career RAA: 291

Olerud 7 Season RAA (His highest RAA seasons totaled): 244
Hernandez 7 Season RAA (His highest RAA seasons totaled):230

Olerud 10 Season RAA (His highest RAA seasons totaled): 275
Hernandez 10 Season RAA (His highest RAA seasons totaled):285

Olerud best RAA season: 57 in 1998, 55 from Rbat (Runs from batting above average)
Hernandez best RAA season: 50 in 1979, 40 from Rbat (Runs from batting above average)

Looking at this Olerud was the better batter, but his dominance over Hernadez drops after their 7 year bests. Olerud's 10 year is better than his career. Meaning he had 10 great years (not consecutive) but those were peak years in a 17 year career. Hernandez total gets larger even after his 10 best years, this to me shows that he was more consistent leading to a better career total.

I am still working a 7 and 10 year stat into all of the HOFers, but just comparing the two to the other 17 year career HOFers here is where their career RAA lines them up:






























As seen they would be in good company with Joe Medwick in between the two of them and not a single 1st baseman above them. Looking at RAA/season average we can do a quick comparison to all the 1st basemen (but I do believe a 7 and 10 year comparison would be more accurate once I get that completed but as of now have only done aprox 30 HOFers).


























This would show them as midlevel 1st baseman HOFers even above the previously debated Killebrew.

PS I am sorry about the spacing issue between the tables and the other text, but without using a table it is hard to keep it organized to be readable.

Continuing the Adam Dunn discussion, that's great research Andy - do you think maybe you left just one HOF 1B out of your list?

I'm glad to see my two GA boys, Bill Terry and Johnny Mize fair so well against the competition.

Adam Dunn was a fun guy to watch and a humerous interview, but he has no place in the HOF - and, in his on self-effacing manor, he has frequently said so. I'll miss his modesty and his Kingman-esk or Balbonic style.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

The Mets in 1983 were 68-94, and they hadn't won at least 70 games since 1976. The next year with Hernandez, the Mets go 90-72. In 1985 they add Gary Carter. Dwight Gooden is one of the best two pitchers in baseball. In 1986 they win the World Series.

Keith Hernandez played 95 games with that 83 Mets team. Dwight Gooden arrived in 1984. In my opinion, he was just as important to the Mets turnaround. He won ROY and finished 2nd in CY Young voting. Hernandez and Gooden had similar WAR. Hernandez higher on Baseball Reference, Gooden higher on Fan Graphics.

[the 'stache]

Yes, I knew that. The 1983 season was a complete loss for the Mets. They also had a managerial change mid season. With George Bamberger, the Mets were 16-30. Frank Howard took them the rest of the way, going 52-64.

A lot of good things happened to the Mets in a very small period of time. The addition of Hernandez was so incredibly important for a few different reasons. He had a huge impact defensively. With him at first base, other teams stopped bunting because he was so good at rushing in, and beating the lead runner to second base. His range was incredible, and his arm was strong and accurate. Davey Johnson has said that the Mets actually changed how the Mets did their relay throws because Hernandez was so good. He brought a strong bat to the top of the lineup. But most importantly, he brought confidence to a team that had none. He made other players around him better. He was instrumental in helping the young players on the team believe they could win.

Davey Johnson started his managerial run with the Mets in 1984, too. He came to the club at the right time, as the team received a tremendous infusion of young talent that he would be able to mold. Darryl Strawberry was the NL Rookie of the Year in 1983. Then Dwight Gooden came up. The Mets had their own Bob Feller. Doc quickly became the most dominant pitcher in the National League. Not to be overlooked, the Mets added two other outstanding starting pitchers-Sid Fernandez, who the Mets acquired from the Dodgers, and Ron Darling, who the Mets had signed and developed. Darling threw in 5 games in 1983. In 1984, he would win 12 games, and Fernandez 6. In 1985, Fernandez would win 9 and Darling 16. In 1986, the year they won the World Series, Gooden would win 17, Fernandez 16 and Darling 15. Bob Ojeda, who the Mets acquired from the Red Sox would win 18. Rick Aguilera would win 10, and their dynamic left-right bullpen duo of Jesse Orosco and Roger McDowell would combine to win 22 games, and save 43.

That '86 team won 108 games. To this day, I am still amazed that Mets group only won one World Series.

Originally Posted by rats60

Keith Hernandez played 95 games with that 83 Mets team. Dwight Gooden arrived in 1984. In my opinion, he was just as important to the Mets turnaround. He won ROY and finished 2nd in CY Young voting. Hernandez and Gooden had similar WAR. Hernandez higher on Baseball Reference, Gooden higher on Fan Graphics.

[the 'stache]

I've been doing my own RAA study, sticking to ten years only. RAA is, of course, runs above average. That means how many additional runs was a player worth to their team each year over an average Major League player. Somebody like Roberto Clemente was worth an additional 44 runs over an average Major League right fielder.

23.2 dale murphy
18.8 mark belanger
28.2 bobby bonds
21.2 don mattingly
22.8 thurman munson
27.0 dwight evans
36.2 robin yount
45.7 george brett
44.1 roberto clemente
28.5 keith hernandez
18.7 aramis ramirez
28.7 nolan ryan
23.7 ted simmons
26.4 sandy koufax
24.1 clayton kershaw
32.0 derek jeter
37.2 alan trammell
29.5 lou whitaker
30.9 dick allen
49.0 ken griffey jr.
26.1 fred lynn
4.5 adam dunn

By the way, it needs to be pointed out that at least one of these players, Clayton Kershaw, has not yet played 10 years. Kershaw has played seven. But I still took his total and averaged out by ten years. This should show just how dominant a player he is. His seven years of production is worth more than the best ten years of some other players. We also see how high somebody like Alan Trammell is. No doubt in my mind that he and Lou Whitaker both should receive more Hall of Fame consideration.

[clydepepper]

Well, Golly Bill - at least you included Dunn in your study. - and he sooo close.

[perezfan]

Numbers like this are great, and are fun to analyze. But the exercise doesn't really portray what these players did in clutch situations.... when the game was on the line, and it really mattered most.

Rod carew, for example, probably exhibits pretty favorable numbers (admittedly, I'm just guessing). But I can't ever recall that guy getting a clutch hit, when it truly mattered. Yes- tons of meaningless singles in blowouts and lopsided games. But watching the Angels play day in and day out, I just can't recall one situation where he really came through in a nail-biter. Plus, I don't believe he ever played for a pennant-winner (another key factor not captured by the metrics).

Didn't necessarily mean to pick on Carew... he was a great hitter. To me it's more about the player's contribution to the team when it truly mattered. And subsequently, the feelings that player elicited from us as fans. I know none of this makes Dunn a Hall-of-Famer... it probably knocks him down a peg or two lower, if anything

Just saying there's more to it than the numbers can convey.

[RichardSimon]

You had to be a Mets fan in the 80's and watch 100+ games a year to appreciate Keith Hernandez. Nobody ever, before or since, could play first base the way he did. About 5 years ago I actually saw him on the subway and told him he was the best first baseman I ever saw. He smiled and profusely thanked me.
I think he should be in the Hall of Fame.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by perezfan

Numbers like this are great, and are fun to analyze. But the exercise doesn't really portray what these players did in clutch situations.... when the game was on the line, and it really mattered most.

Rod carew, for example, probably exhibits pretty favorable numbers (admittedly, I'm just guessing). But I can't ever recall that guy getting a clutch hit, when it truly mattered. Yes- tons of meaningless singles in blowouts and lopsided games. But watching the Angels play day in and day out, I just can't recall one situation where he really came through in a nail-biter. Plus, I don't believe he ever played for a pennant-winner (another key factor not captured by the metrics).

Didn't necessarily mean to pick on Carew... he was a great hitter. To me it's more about the player's contribution to the team when it truly mattered. And subsequently, the feelings that player elicited from us as fans. I know none of this makes Dunn a Hall-of-Famer... it probably knocks him down a peg or two lower, if anything

Just saying there's more to it than the numbers can convey.

Carew played on a couple division winners - the Twins in '69 and the Angels in '79. His career numbers for "late & close" situations are .310/.386/.399 - down overall from his regular career numbers. All of his other clutch numbers are pretty much the same as his overall career.

[the 'stache]

Perezfan,

Actually, yes, statistics can and do accurately portray what players did in clutch situations.

You gave the example of Rod Carew never getting a clutch hit when it mattered, just tons of meaningless singles in blowouts and lopsided games.

Here is a link to Rod Carew's career splits, courtesy of Baseball Reference .com.

Actually, Rod Carew was a fantastic hitter in the very situations you said he was so poor in. Statistical analysis disproves your statements about Carew. Maybe you can reexamine your stance on statistical analysis in general.

First, examine Carew's career numbers when he came to bat with runners in scoring position:



Carew was a career .339 hitter with runners in scoring position. Quite simply, when men were on base, Rod Carew was the man you wanted at the plate, either to move the runners up further, or to drive them in.

What about clutch stats, breaking down the various situations?



Again, Rod Carew was outstanding. When he came to the plate with two outs, and runners in scoring position, he was a .310 hitter. When he came to the plate in a tie game, he was a .323 hitter. He was a .344 hitter when his team was ahead, and a .318 hitter when his team was behind. Carew has a phenomenal hitter in pretty much any situation you could think of.

Finally, in terms of leverage, Carew was again, outstanding. What is leverage? It is a quantification of the plays within a game that have the greatest impact on win probability. Doing well in high leverage situations means you are helping your team to win.

How did Carew do in the most critical points in games for his entire career? spectacularly. He was a career .318 hitter in high leverage situations. In plain English, this means that when Carew came to the plate during the most critical moments in a game, he came threw.



Any way you look at it, Rod Carew was actually a highly successful clutch hitter. He was not by any stretch of the imagination just a singles hitter who padded his stats in meaningless games.

Originally Posted by perezfan

Numbers like this are great, and are fun to analyze. But the exercise doesn't really portray what these players did in clutch situations.... when the game was on the line, and it really mattered most.

Rod carew, for example, probably exhibits pretty favorable numbers (admittedly, I'm just guessing). But I can't ever recall that guy getting a clutch hit, when it truly mattered. Yes- tons of meaningless singles in blowouts and lopsided games. But watching the Angels play day in and day out, I just can't recall one situation where he really came through in a nail-biter. Plus, I don't believe he ever played for a pennant-winner (another key factor not captured by the metrics).

Didn't necessarily mean to pick on Carew... he was a great hitter. To me it's more about the player's contribution to the team when it truly mattered. And subsequently, the feelings that player elicited from us as fans. I know none of this makes Dunn a Hall-of-Famer... it probably knocks him down a peg or two lower, if anything

Just saying there's more to it than the numbers can convey.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

That '86 team won 108 games. To this day, I am still amazed that Mets group only won one World Series.

Even more amazing is that they needed a miracle in game 6 of the NLCS to even get to the World Series (does anybody REALLY think they were beating Mike Scott in game 7? I think not.) and a whole lot of luck in games 6 & 7 of the World Series to win the one title they did get.

But, yeah, really that group should have won at least one more. Same way I feel about the Tigers teams of the 80s.