OT: Did Adam Dunn ruin his Hall chances

[packs]

There's no defending that season. But if you're going to knock him for it then Reggie should be in the conversation too:

1983: hit .194 with 140 K's in 397 AB's with a .290 OBP.

At this point Reggie had not yet hit 500 homers.

[nolemmings]

Conversation maybe, but Reggie still had 11 more hits than Dunn in 99 fewer at bats, and had more HR, RBI and 60 OPS points on Dunn. Oh, and he was 37 years old, not 31 like Dunn, who was coming over to own the AL once he got to put his glove away. Or not.

EDITED TO ADD: Dunn finished 6 plate appearances from qualifying for the batting title. Assuming he went 1-6, a slight increase in his average, he would have finished with the worst BA by a qualifying hitter in 100 years.

[bn2cardz]

Originally Posted by packs

There's no defending that season. But if you're going to knock him for it then Reggie should be in the conversation too:

1983: hit .194 with 140 K's in 397 AB's with a .290 OBP.

At this point Reggie had not yet hit 500 homers.

HAHA that is reaching. Reggie Jackson had already played 15 seasons after his rookie year debut. He was 37 years old.

Also Dunn has 3 worse season's than Jackson's second worst full (or aprox full, I dropped the requirement to more than 400PA, instead of the 502) in 1984.

Dunn's came 11 years after his rookie year debut and was 31. Also Jackson only got 458 PA due to injuries. Dunn only got 496 so that he wouldn't be considered the worst player in history. Again look at the overall RAA for the two players in their career, Jackson was at 313. He still attributed more than the average player did.

[Centauri]

By 1984, Reggie had 13 All Star appearances, 7 top tens in the MVP voting, winning in 73. Plus some medium level of success in the post-season, if I understand it right.

[packs]

I was just talking about all time worst seasons. Reggie's 1983 was pretty awful.

Do you think Reggie gets in first ballot if he retired after 1983?

Final stats if he did retire:

2,176 hits, 478 HR, 1435 RBI, 2106 SO's .268 ave


I have no opinion one way or the other. At least if he had retired in 1983 he would have avoided having more career strike outs than hits.

Keep in mind Reggie is a guy who got 93.62 % of votes in 1993. He received a higher percentage of votes than Ted Williams, Stan Musial, Joe DiMaggio and Roberto Clemente.

[D. Bergin]

These arbitrary HOF "lock" numbers are no longer applicable.

PED's, Bud Selig, Coors Field, the 24 hour news cycle, Advanced metric stats, etc.., etc.....have seen to that.

It's a case by case basis from here on out.

Hell, we might even be entering a new dead ball era. 250 HR's, a .280BA, and a .350 OBP might eventually get you in, if you stay out of the tabloids, don't do drugs, play with the right team, and inflate your Defensive WAR stats by cutting in front of team-mates to catch routine fly balls (Hello Jason Heyward).

[Peter_Spaeth]

Reggie was a rare player who was bigger than his stats due to his nickname, personality, and flair for the dramatic. The list goes on and on: the light tower home run, the straw that stirs the drink, the Reggie bar, being yanked from right field on national TV, and of course all the World Series dramatics. I think at any point after 13 years or so he was a lock first ballot HOFer.

[Runscott]

I was surprised he got in. To me, the HOF is for the truly great players, not just someone who is a personality with a bunch of t.v.-worthy moments and lots of time in the newspaper, along with being a very good, and well-above-average player. It's about 'great'. Unless you are a pitcher, you have to be a great hitter and a great fielder, and hitting involves average - .262 isn't a HOF batting average.

But before you start comparing Reggie to everyone else in the HOF, to me the HOF should be about half its current size.

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by Centauri

By 1984, Reggie had 13 All Star appearances, 7 top tens in the MVP voting, winning in 73. Plus some medium level of success in the post-season, if I understand it right.

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?

[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.