Is Adam Dunn a potential Hall of Fame candidate?

[drowg14]

Originally Posted by HometownHero

Piazza was pure bat, he was one of the worst defensive catchers ever. If he came up in the AL he would have been a DH for the better part of his career if not the whole thing.

But he still played Catcher. And he put up those numbers while spending every defensive inning crouched behind home plate. Catching wears on the body moreso than any other position, over the course of a game, a season, and a career. If he had been a DH full time, I guarantee you his numbers would have been higher.

[HometownHero]

Originally Posted by drowg14

But he still played Catcher. And he put up those numbers while spending every defensive inning crouched behind home plate. Catching wears on the body moreso than any other position, over the course of a game, a season, and a career. If he had been a DH full time, I guarantee you his numbers would have been higher.

The whole point was very poor defensive players who were bad on the bases get into the HOF if they hit just like all glove players like Ozzie Smith make it even with a .666 OPS and one year over 100 Runs scored. Dunn has a shot at 600 HR and if he gets there with getting in the Top-10 in walks, over 2,000 hits and in the Top-50 in other stats he will have a legit shot at the HOF.

[BlackPete Ibold]

So what # would you put on Dunn's chances to get into the HoF?

I'm selling high at less than 1%...

[BlackPete Ibold]

To be a bit more fair, the reason I feel Dunn has no real shot at the HoF has more to do with the devaluation of the HR in the minds of voters post steroid era than his likely final compiled stats.

McGwire has been villified, and with good reason. But you also see plenty of metrics that show he was such an incomplete player that he doesn't deserve the HoF on merit anyway -- only a few great seasons (roid enhanced), majority bad ones, etc. I see plenty of articles to this effect every year the last few seasons, and it will continue with Bagwell and others.

Dunn doesn't even compare to Big Mac in the only area to compare, and that is HR. OBVIOUSLY Dunn is not a roider -- please do not think I am making that comparison.

I do think, though, that HoF voters have been and will continue to be forced to ignore the "magic" number of 500 HRs so often that it will no longer be an issue to omit a clean 500 like Dunn probably gets.

[MoneyInTheBank]

Originally Posted by New York Red

One thing you always hear in regards to a player being HOF worthy is, were they one of the game's greatest players in any particular decade? Adam Dunn has never even finished in the top 20 in MVP voting for any season. I think that stat alone takes him completely out of any HOF consideration.

Rafael Palmeiro won a Gold Glove Award at 1st base while playing DH. Awards that are voted on are filled with biases and misinformation. Baseball stats have no bias or misinformation. Maybe just how good he is as a hitter is underappreciated.

[drowg14]

Originally Posted by MoneyInTheBank

Rafael Palmeiro won a Gold Glove Award at 1st base while playing DH. Awards that are voted on are filled with biases and misinformation. Baseball stats have no bias or misinformation. Maybe just how good he is as a hitter is underappreciated.

I don't agree with the bolded part. All stats, traditional and saber, have biases imho. HRs can have a bias towards ballpark, RBI are bias towards opportunity, ERA is a bias towards ballpark/defense, wins is a bias towards quality of team, most saber stats have a bias of how you weigh certain factors.

I'm not saying this as an argument for or against Dunn, just as a general statement.

[New York Red]

Originally Posted by MoneyInTheBank

Rafael Palmeiro won a Gold Glove Award at 1st base while playing DH. Awards that are voted on are filled with biases and misinformation. Baseball stats have no bias or misinformation. Maybe just how good he is as a hitter is underappreciated.

So your point is, Adam Dunn having never finished in the top 20 in MVP voting in any single season is due to some sort of bias?

[Captain13]

Originally Posted by New York Red

So your point is, Adam Dunn having never finished in the top 20 in MVP voting in any single season is due to some sort of bias?

Yes, and that bias was he played on terrible Reds teams. He hit 40 HR with 100 RBI and 100 Runs, you can't convince me he wasn't in the top 10 players in the NL at least one of those seasons.

[nheath22]

Originally Posted by MoneyInTheBank

Maybe just how good he is as a hitter is underappreciated.

Dunn being "underappreciated" is exactly the reason why he has little shot at being considered for the hall. Players getting MVP votes and players making the hall of fame are based on very similar things including the perception of that player. "underappreciated" players don't make the HOF, even if their stats might be good enough (although as I have stated in previous posts, I don't think that Dunn's stats are).

[nheath22]

Originally Posted by Captain13

Yes, and that bias was he played on terrible Reds teams. He hit 40 HR with 100 RBI and 100 Runs, you can't convince me he wasn't in the top 10 players in the NL at least one of those seasons.

Let's look at his best seasons and compare. I would argue that Adam Dunn's "prime" or best season was probably 2004, the year he hit 46 HRs and had 101 RBIs. That year there were 5 other players (just in the national league) who all had at least 40 HRs. Out of those 6 players, he had the lowest BA, lowest OBP, lowest WAR, and was middle of the pack for walks.

2004 MVP NL Voting

So even in his best season, he was barely a top 5 offensive player in the NL. I don't think the bias was that heavy against Dunn. His WAR that year was only 15th in the NL.

[texasdave]

Originally Posted by nheath22

Let's look at his best seasons and compare. I would argue that Adam Dunn's "prime" or best season was probably 2004, the year he hit 46 HRs and had 101 RBIs. That year there were 5 other players (just in the national league) who all had at least 40 HRs. Out of those 6 players, he had the lowest BA, lowest OBP, lowest WAR, and was middle of the pack for walks.

2004 MVP NL Voting

So even in his best season, he was barely a top 5 offensive player in the NL. I don't think the bias was that heavy against Dunn. His WAR that year was only 15th in the NL.

I would just chip in with the fact that there were also 5 N.L. pitchers with a higher WAR value than Dunn that year. That would put him around the 20 mark. IMO, he never was a Top 10 player in the league in any single season. HOF? Not a chance.

[nheath22]

Originally Posted by texasdave

I would just chip in with the fact that there were also 5 N.L. pitchers with a higher WAR value than Dunn that year. That would put him around the 20 mark. IMO, he never was a Top 10 player in the league in any single season. HOF? Not a chance.

I think 15th already included pitchers, so he would have been around 11th for batters I believe in terms of WAR that year in the NL.

[MoneyInTheBank]

Originally Posted by nheath22

Dunn being "underappreciated" is exactly the reason why he has little shot at being considered for the hall. Players getting MVP votes and players making the hall of fame are based on very similar things including the perception of that player. "underappreciated" players don't make the HOF, even if their stats might be good enough (although as I have stated in previous posts, I don't think that Dunn's stats are).

If the title of the thread was "Will Adam Dunn make it to the Hall of Fame?" then, yes, I agree, I don't think he gets in. But for a guy with 600 HR and 1500 BB not to be given at least some serious consideration is just beyond comprehension for me

[MoneyInTheBank]

Originally Posted by drowg14

I don't agree with the bolded part. All stats, traditional and saber, have biases imho. HRs can have a bias towards ballpark, RBI are bias towards opportunity, ERA is a bias towards ballpark/defense, wins is a bias towards quality of team, most saber stats have a bias of how you weigh certain factors.

I'm not saying this as an argument for or against Dunn, just as a general statement.

I don't mean bias in the sense of a "statistical bias". I'm referring to the fact that statistics count, they calculate, they quantify. People (voters) feel, judge, aim to please others.

A statistic is unable to say "Adam Dunn isn't dedicated to baseball, I'm going to give him less Home Runs this season", A voter can say "Adam Dunn isn't dedicated to baseball, I'd never vote for him for MVP". A statistic is unable to say "Adam Dunn strikes out all the time and plays bad defense, I am going to give him less walks this season", a voter can say "Adam Dunn strikes out all the time and plays bad defense, I'd never vote for a guy like that." I'm not saying these things happened but I'm just trying to point out that if a guy plays good enough for long enough to hit 600 Home Runs, IMO, you were watching greatness.

[MoneyInTheBank]

Originally Posted by New York Red

So your point is, Adam Dunn having never finished in the top 20 in MVP voting in any single season is due to some sort of bias?

I'll just say this... If you assigned his 2004, 2005, 2007, 2009 and 2010 stats to Ryan Howard, he finishes at least in the top 15 in the MVP voting. Maybe Dunn should try to get a Subway commercial?