OT: Did Adam Dunn ruin his Hall chances

[packs]

I don't think he's a HOFer either but I think he deserves more respect. His power was special.

[ejharrington]

Saying Dunn and Kingman do nothing but hit home runs is like Buddy Ryan saying Cris Carter did nothing but catch touchdown passes.

Love live KONG!!!

[timn1]

1000 times to the plate and on average he goes back to the bench 763 times?!?!?!?!?!?!? UGH!!!!!!!
_____________________________

You've been reading too many 1910 stats from the T205s. Do runs scored on walks not count toward the game score??

I don't see Dunn as a HOFer, but let's at least be fair- try 634 times in 1000.

His OBP is very respectable- higher than MANY HOFers. Granted most of those guys had other skills like fielding, but still, you sound like a know-nothing when you overstate your objections.

Addendum:

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--

[the 'stache]

At one point, it looked like Johnny Damon was going to get 3,000 hits. He stumbled at the very end, playing only 64 games in 2012 while hitting .222. So, he ended with 2,769 hits. But if a few things had gone differently, if just a few of those outs had become hits, another team looking for a veteran presence on a young team might have given Damon a 1 or 2 year contract. Damon still had some power and speed. He didn't run as often, but he was successful on 46 of his last 53 stolen base attempts. He had 16 home runs in 2011. So, it wouldn't have been shocking if he'd gotten to 3,000 hits.

Would Johnny Damon have been a Hall of Famer with 3,000 hits? I say no. Not even close. Why?

Led the league in runs scored once, in triples once, in stolen bases once.
Never won an MVP, a Gold Glove, or a Silver Slugger. Never finished in the MVP top 10.
His numbers just don't impress. .284 career batting average, 235 home runs, 1,139 RBI are pretty average considering the era he played in. 1,668 runs scored and 408 stolen bases in 511 attempts, that's more impressive.
Career slash line: .352/.433/.785 is ok, nothing special.

Now, in his defense, I think his best years were in Kansas City, so he didn't get the exposure, or recognition, that his play might have warranted. However, that never held players like George Brett, or Bret Saberhagen, or Dan Quisenberry from making names for themselves. In 2000, Damon was 19th in the MVP vote when he hit .327 with a league leading 136 runs scored, 214 hits, 42 doubles, 10 triples, 16 home runs, 88 RBI, 46 stolen bases (lead the AL) and an .877 OPS. That's not an MVP season, really, but 19th in the voting? That's a top-ten-in-the-MVP-vote season to me.

Also:
9 consecutive seasons over 100 runs scored.
522 career doubles, 109 triples, 235 home runs.

But, again, he could have ended up with 3,000 hits.

I think before this era, which was definitely geared towards offense, 3,000 hits and 500 home runs were just more impressive. Fewer teams meant that the overall talent level in the game was greater. Now you have players in the Major Leagues that wouldn't have made it to the Majors in the 60s or 70s.
You also have to remember that back in the day, seasons were only 154 games long. Now they're 162. That's not a big deal on a small scale, but if you play 15 to 20 years, that extra 8 games a season adds up. Play 20 years, and you've basically added a whole extra years worth of numbers to your career total. Play 15 years, and you've added an extra 120 games. That's an extra 130-150 hits for a good player, making that 3,000 hit threshold more attainable by those good, not great players who manage to stay in the game, and healthy, for a long period of time.

When you start to add all these things together-longer seasons, slightly watered down talent across the league, improvements to conditioning and strength training, a change to the mound height, etc...all these things make it a little easier for a player to get close to 3,000 hits. Then you start getting players who really shouldn't be considered for Cooperstown putting up numbers that twenty years ago would have warranted serious consideration.

[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--

[the 'stache]

Here are those two reports I referenced:

1960 to 1980


2000 to 2014


This isn't, of course, a perfect test, but it shows at least that in this era, there is a higher overall OBP across the board.

[Mountaineer1999]

Hits a bomb in first Oakland ab. He could sniff the hall if he hits 500.

[timn1]

with you about the relative imptce of OBP-- players between 1960 and 1995 were disadvantaged in that regard. And I wouldn't advocate kicking any of those guys out of the HOF.

However, my initial point was to undermine another poster's obsession with Dunn's low batting average. BA has to be the most overvalued stat in BB history.

In the final analysis, no single stat (OBP, BA, SLG, HR total) is enough to evaluate a player's overall career. I happen to think SLG and OBP are the most crucial ones, but even then Dunn doesn't make my HOF despite his undeniable skills in those areas. There is something to be said for all-around skill a la Molitor, Yount, Bench, Winfield, etc etc.

[Bored5000]

Originally Posted by ejharrington

Saying Dunn and Kingman do nothing but hit home runs is like Buddy Ryan saying Cris Carter did nothing but catch touchdown passes.

Not to hijack the thread, but there was much more at work with regard to that Buddy Ryan quote. That was Ryan's way of cutting Carter without publicly humiliating the guy by saying he was being released due to his addiction problem. Carter has long credited Buddy Ryan cutting him for helping save his life; not his career, his life. Carter also publicly thanked Ryan during his HoF induction speech.

http://www.csnphilly.com/football-ph...yan-hof-speech