OT: Did Adam Dunn ruin his Hall chances

[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.