OT: Did Adam Dunn ruin his Hall chances

[the 'stache]

I've been doing my own RAA study, sticking to ten years only. RAA is, of course, runs above average. That means how many additional runs was a player worth to their team each year over an average Major League player. Somebody like Roberto Clemente was worth an additional 44 runs over an average Major League right fielder.

23.2 dale murphy
18.8 mark belanger
28.2 bobby bonds
21.2 don mattingly
22.8 thurman munson
27.0 dwight evans
36.2 robin yount
45.7 george brett
44.1 roberto clemente
28.5 keith hernandez
18.7 aramis ramirez
28.7 nolan ryan
23.7 ted simmons
26.4 sandy koufax
24.1 clayton kershaw
32.0 derek jeter
37.2 alan trammell
29.5 lou whitaker
30.9 dick allen
49.0 ken griffey jr.
26.1 fred lynn
4.5 adam dunn

By the way, it needs to be pointed out that at least one of these players, Clayton Kershaw, has not yet played 10 years. Kershaw has played seven. But I still took his total and averaged out by ten years. This should show just how dominant a player he is. His seven years of production is worth more than the best ten years of some other players. We also see how high somebody like Alan Trammell is. No doubt in my mind that he and Lou Whitaker both should receive more Hall of Fame consideration.

[clydepepper]

Well, Golly Bill - at least you included Dunn in your study. - and he sooo close.

[perezfan]

Numbers like this are great, and are fun to analyze. But the exercise doesn't really portray what these players did in clutch situations.... when the game was on the line, and it really mattered most.

Rod carew, for example, probably exhibits pretty favorable numbers (admittedly, I'm just guessing). But I can't ever recall that guy getting a clutch hit, when it truly mattered. Yes- tons of meaningless singles in blowouts and lopsided games. But watching the Angels play day in and day out, I just can't recall one situation where he really came through in a nail-biter. Plus, I don't believe he ever played for a pennant-winner (another key factor not captured by the metrics).

Didn't necessarily mean to pick on Carew... he was a great hitter. To me it's more about the player's contribution to the team when it truly mattered. And subsequently, the feelings that player elicited from us as fans. I know none of this makes Dunn a Hall-of-Famer... it probably knocks him down a peg or two lower, if anything

Just saying there's more to it than the numbers can convey.

[RichardSimon]

You had to be a Mets fan in the 80's and watch 100+ games a year to appreciate Keith Hernandez. Nobody ever, before or since, could play first base the way he did. About 5 years ago I actually saw him on the subway and told him he was the best first baseman I ever saw. He smiled and profusely thanked me.
I think he should be in the Hall of Fame.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by RichardSimon

You had to be a Mets fan in the 80's and watch 100+ games a year to appreciate Keith Hernandez. Nobody ever, before or since, could play first base the way he did. About 5 years ago I actually saw him on the subway and told him he was the best first baseman I ever saw. He smiled and profusely thanked me.
I think he should be in the Hall of Fame.

He is undoubtedly the best defensive 1B I've ever seen. Absolutely amazing player.

Question: If you could draft any 1B from the last 50 years, is he your #1 pick?

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by perezfan

Numbers like this are great, and are fun to analyze. But the exercise doesn't really portray what these players did in clutch situations.... when the game was on the line, and it really mattered most.

Rod carew, for example, probably exhibits pretty favorable numbers (admittedly, I'm just guessing). But I can't ever recall that guy getting a clutch hit, when it truly mattered. Yes- tons of meaningless singles in blowouts and lopsided games. But watching the Angels play day in and day out, I just can't recall one situation where he really came through in a nail-biter. Plus, I don't believe he ever played for a pennant-winner (another key factor not captured by the metrics).

Didn't necessarily mean to pick on Carew... he was a great hitter. To me it's more about the player's contribution to the team when it truly mattered. And subsequently, the feelings that player elicited from us as fans. I know none of this makes Dunn a Hall-of-Famer... it probably knocks him down a peg or two lower, if anything

Just saying there's more to it than the numbers can convey.

Carew played on a couple division winners - the Twins in '69 and the Angels in '79. His career numbers for "late & close" situations are .310/.386/.399 - down overall from his regular career numbers. All of his other clutch numbers are pretty much the same as his overall career.

[the 'stache]

Perezfan,

Actually, yes, statistics can and do accurately portray what players did in clutch situations.

You gave the example of Rod Carew never getting a clutch hit when it mattered, just tons of meaningless singles in blowouts and lopsided games.

Here is a link to Rod Carew's career splits, courtesy of Baseball Reference .com.

Actually, Rod Carew was a fantastic hitter in the very situations you said he was so poor in. Statistical analysis disproves your statements about Carew. Maybe you can reexamine your stance on statistical analysis in general.

First, examine Carew's career numbers when he came to bat with runners in scoring position:



Carew was a career .339 hitter with runners in scoring position. Quite simply, when men were on base, Rod Carew was the man you wanted at the plate, either to move the runners up further, or to drive them in.

What about clutch stats, breaking down the various situations?



Again, Rod Carew was outstanding. When he came to the plate with two outs, and runners in scoring position, he was a .310 hitter. When he came to the plate in a tie game, he was a .323 hitter. He was a .344 hitter when his team was ahead, and a .318 hitter when his team was behind. Carew has a phenomenal hitter in pretty much any situation you could think of.

Finally, in terms of leverage, Carew was again, outstanding. What is leverage? It is a quantification of the plays within a game that have the greatest impact on win probability. Doing well in high leverage situations means you are helping your team to win.

How did Carew do in the most critical points in games for his entire career? spectacularly. He was a career .318 hitter in high leverage situations. In plain English, this means that when Carew came to the plate during the most critical moments in a game, he came threw.



Any way you look at it, Rod Carew was actually a highly successful clutch hitter. He was not by any stretch of the imagination just a singles hitter who padded his stats in meaningless games.

Originally Posted by perezfan

Numbers like this are great, and are fun to analyze. But the exercise doesn't really portray what these players did in clutch situations.... when the game was on the line, and it really mattered most.

Rod carew, for example, probably exhibits pretty favorable numbers (admittedly, I'm just guessing). But I can't ever recall that guy getting a clutch hit, when it truly mattered. Yes- tons of meaningless singles in blowouts and lopsided games. But watching the Angels play day in and day out, I just can't recall one situation where he really came through in a nail-biter. Plus, I don't believe he ever played for a pennant-winner (another key factor not captured by the metrics).

Didn't necessarily mean to pick on Carew... he was a great hitter. To me it's more about the player's contribution to the team when it truly mattered. And subsequently, the feelings that player elicited from us as fans. I know none of this makes Dunn a Hall-of-Famer... it probably knocks him down a peg or two lower, if anything

Just saying there's more to it than the numbers can convey.

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by RichardSimon

You had to be a Mets fan in the 80's and watch 100+ games a year to appreciate Keith Hernandez. Nobody ever, before or since, could play first base the way he did. About 5 years ago I actually saw him on the subway and told him he was the best first baseman I ever saw. He smiled and profusely thanked me.
I think he should be in the Hall of Fame.

Finally, somebody who understands why I am so pro Keith Hernandez being in the Hall of Fame. He transformed the position. He was absolutely spectacular with a glove on.

We can draw comparisons between John Olerud and Keith Hernandez until we're blue in the face. But Olerud played at a time when offenses in general were much more productive than when Hernandez played. Don't believe me?

Major League Baseball offensive averages year by year

Keith Hernandez played from 1974 to 1990. John Olerud played from 1989 to 2005.

During Hernandez' career, the average runs per game ran between 4-4.50. During Olerud's career, that jumped up to about 4.50 to 5.0 +. It was a hitter's era.

Originally Posted by Tabe

Even more amazing is that they needed a miracle in game 6 of the NLCS to even get to the World Series (does anybody REALLY think they were beating Mike Scott in game 7? I think not.) and a whole lot of luck in games 6 & 7 of the World Series to win the one title they did get.

But, yeah, really that group should have won at least one more. Same way I feel about the Tigers teams of the 80s.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by Tabe

He is undoubtedly the best defensive 1B I've ever seen. Absolutely amazing player.

Question: If you could draft any 1B from the last 50 years, is he your #1 pick?

I don't know if he would be #1. When everything is considered, he's awfully close. He didn't bring the power. But he could do everything else.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/MLB/bat.shtml

Look at some of the things he did with the glove especially.

[Peter_Spaeth]

"I don't know if he would be #1. When everything is considered, he's awfully close. He didn't bring the power. But he could do everything else. "

Awfully close to Albert Pujols? Come on.

I would also take Mattingly, Frank Thomas if you count him although he did DH as much or more as play first, and Bagwell, off the top of me head.

[perezfan]

Bill...

On the Carew thing, I really appreciate the time and incredible effort you put into that analysis. Very impressive, and I'm sure he did better in clutch situations than I was giving him credit for. I really didn't witness much of his earlier career with Minnesota.

My friends/family/co-workers' observations all occurred during his time in Anaheim- and the futuility waiting for him to deliver a clutch game-winning hit was off the charts. It eventually escalated to the point that we could only laugh about it. Of course the next day, the score would be 9 - 1 (whether winning or losing), and Carew would be 4 for 4. We all lamented... where were those hits when we needed them?

I guess you just had to live through it to fully understand. Might have been an isolated period, and thus not showing up in his career stats. Anyway, your analytical skills are incredible and I will defer to your expertise

[chaddurbin]

edit: letting the guy retire in peace...

[bn2cardz]

Just received the SI this week and the last page is a article title "Dunn and Done" about Dunn's retirement with a quick comparison to Jeter.

From the article:

Dunn, essentially, could do only three things: hit home runs, walk and strike out. Just under half of his 8,328 plate appearances ended with one of theat trio, a higher ratio than any other player in history with 4,000 plate appearances.

It is says just under half but the numbers are 4158 (462 HR, 1,317 Walks, 2,379 SO) to his 8,328 PA so that is 49.93%.

The article ended with:

Two weeks ago SI devoted 12 pages to Jeter as he reached the final measures of his swan song. Dunn gets these 723 words. He'd tell you that they were 723 words too many.

I would agree, but this was an interesting case study and led to a great conversation about a single stat HOFers and what constitutes a HOFer.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by bn2cardz

It is says just under half but the numbers are 4158 (462 HR, 1,317 Walks, 2,379 SO) to his 8,328 PA so that is 49.93%.

What were they thinking?

[bn2cardz]

Originally Posted by Runscott

What were they thinking?

Who? The ones that paid him $113 million?

Or is this in reference to me putting the specific numbers? My point was that they said just under half. To me that could have been anywhere between 40%-50%. Yet it really was right about 50% and if they rounded to say 50% no one would have faulted them. I guess I just like specifics ,

What is even more interesting about that is that the SO is more than the other two stats combined (specifically 133.73% of the other combined totals, or 28.57% of his PA).