OT: Did Adam Dunn ruin his Hall chances

[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.

[ctownboy]

Here is a simple fact; starting in 2003, Dunn did nothing but try and pull fastballs located over the inner third of the plate and between the upper thigh and the belt for home runs. That is it.

Go and look it up. Compare his hits charts from 2001 and 2002 to 2003 and on.

Now, tell me, how many OTHER major league hitters could hit as many (or more) home runs as Dunn if their ONLY goal in the at bat was to get an inside fastball to pull? Fred McGriff had 494 home runs and a .284 batting average. How many more home runs do you think he could have hit if he had a .240 batting average because of swinging from his heels on inside fastballs?

Again, as a former Reds fan, I had the displeasure of watching Dunn play from 2001 until he was traded in 2008. His on base percentage isn't impressive and that is because there were hundreds (if not thousands) of times where a pitcher would throw balls towards or over the outer third of the plate and Dunn would NEVER swing at those pitches. Even with two strikes and a runner on third base. He would just look at the pitch go by with his bat on his shoulder.

If it were a called third strike, Dunn would get that dumb look on his face, turn around and walk slowly back to the dugout.

David

[Brian Van Horn]

Dunn excelled at two things which all power hitters do in their careers. Home runs and strike outs. As for hitting for average or playing defense? You can't discuss some things that didn't happen.

[the 'stache]

Good post, Tim.

Within the last year or so, I've started delving into player statistics again. I can't begin to tell you how many hours I spent on statistical analysis when I was growing up. I'd get my baseball cards, and start drawing out spreadsheets long before there were home computers to do it. I was doing Excel spreadsheets before Office existed. There are a bunch of new ones that I'm having to learn with the advent of sabermetrics. But I still find the old school stats are quite useful, and of those, OPS + is my favorite. It takes into consideration how often a player gets on, either by a hit, walk or getting hit by a pitch. It also mixes in their power. And then it adjusts for the ballparks that particular players has been playing in. I like OPS + because to have a high score, you have to excel as both a power hitter and as somebody who gets on base. And I would want my lineup filled with as many high OPS + guys as possible. Those are the complete offensive forces. I want hitters that can drive in runs with their power, or get on base if a pitcher isn't giving them anything to hit. It's not as broad based as something like WAR, but whenever I want to compare players within an era, or across eras, it's usually my starting point.

I still love batting average. It's fallen out of favor with a lot of statisticians, but I think that's a mistake. If a hitter's job is to get on base, yes, OBP is the ultimate measure of how effective a player is doing their given job. But I want to see the batting average component. To me, it's a pure metric. Before one starts tossing in things like BABIP, AVG calculates how well a player sees the field, sees and adjusts to the ball, and is able to deliver the ball where there's no fielder. And I want hitters with high averages because that tells me that they are effective with the bat. A player can draw walks for a variety of reasons. Power hitters might get more walks, if they are patient, because a pitcher doesn't want to get burned. So, that pitcher might throw around the outside of the strike zone. They may also get pitched around with runners on base. But in those instances where a pitcher goes after the hitter, I want somebody like a Clemente, or a Gwynn, or a Gehrig-guys that hit for pure average. Ted Williams drew a lot of walks. I mean walks made up for 138 points of his OBP. But the man could flat out hit, as shown by his career .344 average.

Originally Posted by 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.

[itjclarke]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

I still love batting average. It's fallen out of favor with a lot of statisticians, but I think that's a mistake. If a hitter's job is to get on base, yes, OBP is the ultimate measure of how effective a player is doing their given job. But I want to see the batting average component. To me, it's a pure metric. Before one starts tossing in things like BABIP, AVG calculates how well a player sees the field, sees and adjusts to the ball, and is able to deliver the ball where there's no fielder. And I want hitters with high averages because that tells me that they are effective with the bat. A player can draw walks for a variety of reasons. Power hitters might get more walks, if they are patient, because a pitcher doesn't want to get burned. So, that pitcher might throw around the outside of the strike zone. They may also get pitched around with runners on base. But in those instances where a pitcher goes after the hitter, I want somebody like a Clemente, or a Gwynn, or a Gehrig-guys that hit for pure average. Ted Williams drew a lot of walks. I mean walks made up for 138 points of his OBP. But the man could flat out hit, as shown by his career .344 average.

Perfectly said Bill. I too like to look at batting averages. A walk is not as good as a hit in all situations. Come late innings or playoff time, give me a guy that can swing it over a guy who's strictly a high OBP guy.

[nolemmings]

Originally Posted by timn1

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.

I agree with this, and your preferred stats reveal that even David Justice had a higher OBP and higher SLG than Dunn while playing for a similar period of time.

I am a firm believer that a HOFer must be elite or nearly so during his time in the game. Dunn has played 14 years and only received MVP votes three times. Worse, even in those three seasons he did not finish in the top 20 and received less than 3% of the vote, finishing tied or behind such legends as Marcus Giles, David Eckstein and Johnny Estrada. If you can't make any greater mark than that among your own contemporaries (even using Justice as an example again shows he received votes 5 times and finished 3rd and 5th, and Kong also received votes 5 times), why should I begin to consider you as worthy of a Hall for All-Time greats?