OT: Did Adam Dunn ruin his Hall chances

[wolf441]

Originally Posted by calvindog

As a Dodgers fan growing up in the 70s I hated Reggie. Notwithstanding the strikeouts and low career BA, his greatness could not be denied. 13 AS teams and 7 top ten MVP finishes are all that need to be said. He was the dominant player pretty much of his generation.

On another note, I always felt that stats shouldn't be the sole arbiter on HOF eligibility which is why I never bothered to think about them when considering a player whose career I witnessed growing up. Jim Rice to me always felt like a monster player of his generation. How could he not make the HOF? Similar to an extent was Steve Garvey. While his production fell off at the end thus him never being considered a serious HOF candidate, he surely was the best player on a decade of great Dodgers teams, was a perennial AS and MVP vote getter -- winning it once -- but finished just 400 hits short of 3000 and had a lifetime BA of .298. If he had 400 more hits is there by any doubt he would be in the HOF today?

+1. If anyone had told you in 1980/81 that Garvey not only wouldn't get in the Hall of Fame, but wouldn't even really be a serious candidate, what would you think at the time?

[rats60]

Originally Posted by wolf441

+1. If anyone had told you in 1980/81 that Garvey not only wouldn't get in the Hall of Fame, but wouldn't even really be a serious candidate, what would you think at the time?

Or after he killed the Cubs in the 1984 LCS. He is one of those guys that when you watched him, you thought HOFer, but when you look at his stats, you say no. He got 41.6% of the vote his 1st ballot. That is a number that generally means later induction. I wouldn't be surprised if the Golden Era Committee elects him one day.

As a comparison, Keith Hernandez never received 11% of the vote. I don't know why. He is another guy I always saw as a future HOFer.