OT: Did Adam Dunn ruin his Hall chances

[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.

[the 'stache]

Absolutely, Ian. And thank you!

If a high OBP guy comes up with the bases loaded in a playoff game, I'd rather he go for the hit than try to draw a walk. A hit could score multiple runs, or even clear the bases.

Originally Posted by itjclarke

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.

[pbspelly]

Not a Hall-of-Famer but he was actually a very productive player from 2004-2010, despite the strikeouts. During that time, he hit 231 doubles and walked 750 times, so he did more than just hit home runs (of which he hit 242 during that seven-year stretch). For that period, you had a guy who averaged 33 doubles, 35 home runs, 107 walks, and an OBP of .371 per year, which is typically somebody you want on your team. Keep that up for a few more years and you've got a bona fide Hall-of-Famer, regardless of the low batting average and poor fielding.

He aged quickly, though, and his production really fell off when he moved to the AL and into the designated hitter spot (which may have had something to do with it- some studies have found that players hit worse as DHs than as everyday fielders, but Dunn was not a good fielder so there would be a trade-off).

Sabermetricians tend to find him a fascinating player because more than almost any other player, his at-bats resulted in one the "three true outcomes," a home run, a walk, or a strikeout. See http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/201...omes-milestone

A lot of people found him boring to watch for the same reason.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by pbspelly

Not a Hall-of-Famer but he was actually a very productive player from 2004-2010, despite the strikeouts. During that time, he hit 231 doubles and walked 750 times, so he did more than just hit home runs (of which he hit 242 during that seven-year stretch). For that period, you had a guy who averaged 33 doubles, 35 home runs, 107 walks, and an OBP of .371 per year, which is typically somebody you want on your team. Keep that up for a few more years and you've got a bona fide Hall-of-Famer, regardless of the low batting average and poor fielding.

Hopefully you are wrong, even by today's watered-down standards.

I'm amazed at what the Hall of Fame would apparently consist of if some of our members were allowed to fill it up. Who's next? Steve Balboni?

[packs]

How does Steve Balboni compare to Adam Dunn? All people are saying is that Dunn wasn't just some throw away player. He had special power and was a very productive player during his prime.

[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?