Adam Dunn: Hall of Famer? (Also: Big Papi?)

[Bodie_Broadus]

Not before Olerud

So, never?

 

[MankyJimy]

Horrible defensive player. Career .236 batting average and .302 on-base percentage. Even the slugging percentage was below .500. The guy was power and nothing else and did not reach 500 home runs.

It has to be intentional, right? Right?

OK, maybe he wasn't great with the glove but I don't hold his OBP against him. In the era he played in, no one paid attention to that stat.

I just checked my 1981 Topps baseball card set.

"BB" is a category on the back of the cards.

I suppose you raise an interesting point, though. How much should our player evaluations take into account what was valued during that era, even if we later come to understand that it was flawed thinking? Eddie Collins had 33 sacrifice bunts in a year in which he hit .372, and 39 sacrifices in a year in which he hit .360. Ichiro has never had more than four. Tony Gwynn topped out at 11 and Wade Boggs at eight. But I bet Collins would have been criticized in his time if he didn't give himself up as frequently as he did. He's the all-time leader in sacrifices, and I'm willing to bet that they hurt his team more than they helped him. Was that his fault, though? That's how the game was played then.

In that case, Collins was executing a game plan. Kingman just had no discipline. A .302 on-base percentage is terrible. It was terrible then, too.

But no one cared back then if a hitter didn't have a good OBP. Kingman was one of the highest paid players in the game at his peak. Sure, Mike Schmidt was a better all-around player but I bet their paychecks weren't that different.

So based on that standard should we just induct Barry Zito and A.J. Burnett as well?

I'm not saying base the Hall of Fame off dollars earned.

But based on the "Fame" criteria I think Kingman belongs in. He drew fans to the ballpark and had clauses in his contract that awarded him bonuses based on his team's home attendance.

 

[Dick Whitman]

I think this concept hhas jumped the shark when Dave Kingman, let alone Adam Dunn, is being considered, and we're slagging on a. 372 hitter for bunting

I'm not sure what your beef with that is.

I made a perfectly reasonable point: The game has changed. As evidence, Eddie Collins batted .372 while sacrifice bunting 40 times a year. Do you really think that would happen today? Do you think that would happen any time in the last 50 years? Sixty years?

I'm not "slagging" on Eddie Collins. I was pointing out that the way the game is played and understood has changed, and questioning whether Eddie Collins should be punished for bunting to the detriment of his team, and whether, by comparison, Dave Kingman should be punished for swinging freely to the detriment of his team. It is possible - although doubtful, in Kingman's case, as BB's were already on the backs of baseball cards then and were a mainstream offensive measuring statistic - that the players thought they were helping their team with the way they were playing, when really they were hurting their teams.

 

[dooley_womack1]

Of course, you're assuming bunting is prima facie bad. Which I don't think is the case in a lot of circumstances.

 

[crimsonace]

Dunn is a Hall of Very Good player.

I've enjoyed him as a player, would have loved to have had him on my team and he does one thing very well -- hit the ball far -- but that's it. Strikes out a ton (yes, he walks a ton too, as a lot of HR hitters do). He's been a DH pretty much his whole career -- even when he was in the NL, he was one of the worst defensive outfielders I've ever seen

That he's played his whole career in small markets or for the White Sox -- which is basically like being a small-market team, given their limited appeal and exposure even in Chicago -- doesn't help him.

On the surface, Big Papi isn't much different, but he has one thing going for him -- Boston and the ESPN hype machine behind him.

 

[Dick Whitman]

Of course, you're assuming bunting is prima facie bad. Which I don't think is the case in a lot of circumstances.

No, I'm not. I am taking an educated guess that a .372 hitter could have helped his team more by swinging away 40 times than by sacrifice bunting 40 times. There might have been a handful of times when sacrificing was the right play in those situations, but I bet it was no more than four or five times, if that.

 

[Gehrig]

I'll admit I wasn't thinking terms of a player at a premium position like Jeter.

However, what about as a corner OF or 1B? Say if Ortiz and Ryan Howard switched places and Ortiz was a below average-bad defensive 1B.

If Ortiz was a career 1B with a 137 OPS+ and similar WAR (it would probably be lower since when he did try to field, he was terrible), he would be in the top 30-40 all time at the position. You'd need to support a HOF size of around 600 to get him in. His career is nowhere near a HOF career even if he played 1B. If he played OF, he would be a corner outfielder and a well below average one, so again, his WAR would probably be around 27-28. That is also nowhere near a HOF career.

All of David Ortiz's value comes from offense. If he played the field, the only people who would be advocating for his induction would be the same people who think that 400+ HRs should be an automatic lock for the HOF.

As it stands, he is not even the best DH on the outside looking in as this diagram clearly shows:

Rk           Player WAR/pos OPS+    PA From   To   Age    G
1      Paul Molitor    72.5  122 12167 1978 1998 21-41 2683
2      Frank Thomas    69.8  156 10075 1990 2008 22-40 2322
3         Jim Thome    67.6  147 10202 1991 2012 20-41 2516
4    Edgar Martinez    64.4  147  8674 1987 2004 24-41 2055
5     Brian Downing    47.8  122  9309 1973 1992 22-41 2344
6      Jose Canseco    39.2  132  8129 1985 2001 20-36 1887
7       David Ortiz    35.9  137  7597 1997 2012 21-36 1820
8       Chili Davis    34.2  121  9997 1981 1999 21-39 2436
9     Harold Baines    34.0  121 11092 1980 2001 21-42 2830
10        Hal McRae    24.7  123  8059 1968 1987 22-41 2084
11       Don Baylor    24.4  118  9401 1970 1988 21-39 2292
12    Travis Hafner    22.6  138  4386 2002 2012 25-35 1074
13    Willie Horton    22.5  120  8052 1963 1980 20-37 2028

A lot would take the top 3 on that chart and a majority would also take Edgar Martinez and draw the line between 4 and 5 on that list.

 

[Dick Whitman]

Dunn is a Hall of Very Good player.

I've enjoyed him as a player, would have loved to have had him on my team and he does one thing very well -- hit the ball far -- but that's it. Strikes out a ton (yes, he walks a ton too, as a lot of HR hitters do). He's been a DH pretty much his whole career -- even when he was in the NL, he was one of the worst defensive outfielders I've ever seen

That he's played his whole career in small markets or for the White Sox -- which is basically like being a small-market team, given their limited appeal and exposure even in Chicago -- doesn't help him.

On the surface, Big Papi isn't much different, but he has one thing going for him -- Boston and the ESPN hype machine behind him.

Couple of small points:

* I don't think it's fair to deny Dunn credit for walking because "all power hitters walk." Dave Kingman didn't walk, for example.

* I don't think that the White Sox lack for exposure in Chicago. They get as much coverage as the Cubs do in Chicago. It was once said that the Cubs are America's team, and the White Sox are Chicago's team. That's probably an exaggeration to a degree, but there's a kernel of truth to it.

 

[outofplace]

Horrible defensive player. Career .236 batting average and .302 on-base percentage. Even the slugging percentage was below .500. The guy was power and nothing else and did not reach 500 home runs.

It has to be intentional, right? Right?

OK, maybe he wasn't great with the glove but I don't hold his OBP against him. In the era he played in, no one paid attention to that stat.

I just checked my 1981 Topps baseball card set.

"BB" is a category on the back of the cards.

I suppose you raise an interesting point, though. How much should our player evaluations take into account what was valued during that era, even if we later come to understand that it was flawed thinking? Eddie Collins had 33 sacrifice bunts in a year in which he hit .372, and 39 sacrifices in a year in which he hit .360. Ichiro has never had more than four. Tony Gwynn topped out at 11 and Wade Boggs at eight. But I bet Collins would have been criticized in his time if he didn't give himself up as frequently as he did. He's the all-time leader in sacrifices, and I'm willing to bet that they hurt his team more than they helped him. Was that his fault, though? That's how the game was played then.

In that case, Collins was executing a game plan. Kingman just had no discipline. A .302 on-base percentage is terrible. It was terrible then, too.

But no one cared back then if a hitter didn't have a good OBP. Kingman was one of the highest paid players in the game at his peak. Sure, Mike Schmidt was a better all-around player but I bet their paychecks weren't that different.

So based on that standard should we just induct Barry Zito and A.J. Burnett as well?

And Vernon Wells. He must be one of the best hitters in the game because he is paid like it.

 

[Mizzougrad96]

Doesn't Harmon Killebrew have the lowest batting average of any modern-era player in the HOF? I think he's at .256. I know there are a few players known for defensive play that are in that range too... That's quite a bit higher than Dunn or Kingman.

I can't imagine someone with a career average under .250 ever being considered.

 

[cyclingwriter]

to me, dunn is the poor man's jim thome, who is the poor man's killebrew.

 

[Mizzougrad96]

Not saying Thome is better than Killebrew (I hate comparing players from eras that are so different) but I don't think Thome is anybody's "poor man" when compated to anybody.

If you have 600 HR you can stand on your own.