OT: Did Adam Dunn ruin his Hall chances

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by packs

Dunn not making the cut aside, I don't see how someone can say that if a player hits home runs well that doesn't warrant a HOF induction. Until the very recent past there was a number of home runs you could hit and make the HOF automatically.

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Because, as mentioned above, there used to be a number (500) of homeruns that a player could hit and automatically make the HOF. I believe that still exists.

That's flawed logic. Just because players who hit a certain number of home runs made the HOF, doesn't mean they would have done so if their batting average had sucked.

David - I'm not trying to be contentious here. I think that Dunn's batting average could suck, but there could be other things he does, above and beyond what the other 500+ guys did, that could make up for it. For example, if he was a great-fielding second-baseman, or stole bases and scored a lot of runs. I think his OBP is worth considering, but I don't think that's enough.

[CMIZ5290]

Originally Posted by Runscott

That's flawed logic. Just because players who hit a certain number of home runs made the HOF, doesn't mean they would have done so if their batting average had sucked.

David - I'm not trying to be contentious here. I think that Dunn's batting average could suck, but there could be other things he does, above and beyond what the other 500+ guys did, that could make up for it. For example, if he was a great-fielding second-baseman, or stole bases and scored a lot of runs. I think his OBP is worth considering, but I don't think that's enough.

I totally agree Scott...By the way, what is Dunn's career batting avg? I did not look it up before this post. Again, my argument is what has this guy done (even mediocre), other than hitting home runs? He reminds me a lot of Dave Kingman....

[Centauri]

Let me add a few comments:

1. the 1998 Yankees were the best team of my lifetime - and they had a total of 0 players with 30 HR's. They won with guys that had high batting average and high OBP. They were very hard to put down 1-2-3, which wore down pitchers and allowed them to be very good in the post-season. (editor's note: I am a big time Indians fan and quite to opposite of a Yankee lover).

2. Adam Dunn has 0 postseason AB's because his skills are fun to watch, but not winning baseball. We will see this October, but I expect that batting average to go down significantly.

3. The Hall of Fame should be that - the famous stars of the era, the truly great players. Compare stats across ages, but also within their era. Dunn does not look hall worthy in this era, IMO. Reggie Jackson was a force of nature for a decade, and a 5-time WS winner. Sure he wheezed across the finish line, but he exemplified super-star.

4. Gary Sheffield has 500 HR's? This blows my mind.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Runscott

For example, if he was a great-fielding second-baseman, or stole bases and scored a lot of runs. I think his OBP is worth considering, but I don't think that's enough.

Well that's where we disagree, and that is certianly fine. I think 500 HR is enough to get anyone elected to the Hall, regardless of anything else (assuming they didn't use PEDs). What you're saying above is, that if Dunn had 500HR and some other skill set to accompany it, then he could be considered for the HOF. Other players have gotten into the HOF having been known for just one skill.

Speaking of great fielders, look at Ozzie Smith. He sure didn't get in on his offensive numbers. He was known as a great defensive player - look at all the Gold Gloves. What did he do offensively? Not jack! He's has 2460 hits, only 28 career home runs, 793 RBIs, a .262 lifetime batting average. Had he been just a mediocre third baseman defensively, he would not be in the HOF. In other words, he got in ONLY on his defensive skills. He was a one trick pony.

I realize we're talking about 2 different position players, but my point is this. Why does Smith get in with only one set of skills, but not Dunn?

[CMIZ5290]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Well that's where we disagree, and that is certianly fine. I think 500 HR is enough to get anyone elected to the Hall, regardless of anything else (assuming they didn't use PEDs). What you're saying above is, that if Dunn had 500HR and some other skill set to accompany it, then he could be considered for the HOF. Other players have gotten into the HOF having been known for just one skill.

Speaking of great fielders, look at Ozzie Smith. He sure didn't get in on his offensive numbers. He was known as a great defensive player - look at all the Gold Gloves. What did he do offensively? Not jack! He's has 2460 hits, only 28 career home runs, 793 RBIs, a .262 lifetime batting average. Had he been just a mediocre third baseman defensively, he would not be in the HOF. In other words, he got in ONLY on his defensive skills. He was a one trick pony.

I realize we're talking about 2 different position players, but my point is this. Why does Smith get in with only one set of skills, but not Dunn?

How much higher was Smith's BA vs. Dunn? Just curious...Again, I have never seen a player strike out at the rate Dunn does...

[Peter_Spaeth]

Ozzie had a sheetload of stolen bases too.

And according to Baseball Reference's JAWS metric, Smith is 8th among shortstops and Dunn is 133rd (yep) among left fielders. Nuff ced.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by CMIZ5290

How much higher was Smith's BA vs. Dunn? Just curious...Again, I have never seen a player strike out at the rate Dunn does...

The BA doesn't matter because I wasn't comparing their careers against each other. I was merely pointing out that both Dunn and Smith were each only know for just one thing.

I think that the steroid era has minimized or cheapened the home run, especially with players like Bonds, McGwire, Sosa, etc. Had Dunn accomplished another important milestone instead of 500 HR (which I know he's not there yet), say like 3000 hits, I really don't think we would even be having this discussion and most everyone would agree that he was a future HOFer based on 3000 hits.

[CMIZ5290]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

The BA doesn't matter because I wasn't comparing their careers against each other. I was merely pointing out that both Dunn and Smith were each only know for just one thing.

I think that the steroid era has minimized or cheapened the home run, especially with players like Bonds, McGwire, Sosa, etc. Had Dunn accomplished another important milestone instead of 500 HR (which I know he's not there yet), say like 3000 hits, I really don't think we would even be having this discussion and most everyone would agree that he was a future HOFer based on 3000 hits.

I agree David, but he's a shitty hitter. He's probably 6'7", 285 lbs., if he just makes contact he's going to hit home runs. How many K's has this guy had in his career? I would venture to say it's in the top 10 of all time...

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Well that's where we disagree, and that is certianly fine. I think 500 HR is enough to get anyone elected to the Hall, regardless of anything else (assuming they didn't use PEDs). What you're saying above is, that if Dunn had 500HR and some other skill set to accompany it, then he could be considered for the HOF. Other players have gotten into the HOF having been known for just one skill.

Speaking of great fielders, look at Ozzie Smith. He sure didn't get in on his offensive numbers. He was known as a great defensive player - look at all the Gold Gloves. What did he do offensively? Not jack! He's has 2460 hits, only 28 career home runs, 793 RBIs, a .262 lifetime batting average. Had he been just a mediocre third baseman defensively, he would not be in the HOF. In other words, he got in ONLY on his defensive skills. He was a one trick pony.

I realize we're talking about 2 different position players, but my point is this. Why does Smith get in with only one set of skills, but not Dunn?

I don't know - I wouldn't have voted for Smith either. But since we are talking about HR's and your claim that 500 is enough, what is the problem with comparing Dunn to other guys who have 500 and are in the HOF? Seems like a logical comparison that is being avoided.

If you want to change the conversation to comparing Dunn to Ozzie Smith, that's fine, but his skills don't in any way compare to Dunn's. Whether or not Smith is HOF-worthy is another discussion.

[Runscott]

Not trying to avoid additional debate, but my internet is SO SHITTY (thank you Comcast) that I'm turning off the computer for the day.

Have fun, guys. Or have fungis.