tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5985668569918053928.post8177015079164005541..comments2024-01-24T05:19:09.805-06:00Comments on This Game Of Games: The Standard To Which All Others Were HeldJeffrey Kittelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02367989375750209078noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5985668569918053928.post-4119706622446580072009-09-10T16:12:16.202-05:002009-09-10T16:12:16.202-05:00I feel bad sometimes about hammering away at James...I feel bad sometimes about hammering away at James on this one point. I have a great deal of respect for him, enjoy reading his work and have learned from him. He was simply wrong about Dunlap's historical legacy. In the end, I think I'm just using James as a strawman and as a device to frame the argument.Jeffrey Kittelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02367989375750209078noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5985668569918053928.post-37260550035911945612009-09-10T10:20:24.776-05:002009-09-10T10:20:24.776-05:00Impressive that Dunlap is singled out this way so ...Impressive that Dunlap is singled out this way so early. I'm always puzzled by James' description of Dunlap as "later [after 1884] a minor star." The fact is that from 1887 on, Dunlap's career was blighted by a succession of severe injuries and conflicts with his team managements. But in his first four seasons, prior to 1884, he hit around .325 twice, this in a pitcher's era, put up very respectable averages the other two seasons, and led the league in doubles as a rookie. And I don't know that hitting was really even considered his strong suit. <br /><br />If he wasn't even a minor star before 1884, then why should he be considered one later, considering that his offensive numbers were rarely as good after 1884? And if he was a minor star in his later years, then why wasn't he a major one earlier?David Ballnoreply@blogger.com