Dunn vs Morneau

by twinstalker on Apr 15, 2007 7:27 PM EDT Comment 40 comments

I was an Adam Dunn fan as soon as it was fashionable (his final minor league year) and a Justin Morneau fan from rookie ball (Twins fan here). I always believed Morneau was a .300 hitter based on his minor league numbers. Now, watching him everyday, it's very obvious that he is a .300 hitter. I can explain why I know he is now, but I choose to not bias my question.

I didn't watch Dunn from rookie ball on, but given John's recent retro, my memory is that Dunn and Morneau were very, very similar. Assuming for their primes that Morneau is a .300+ hitter and Dunn is a .255 hitter, what foretold the difference?

0 recs | Comment 40 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Lots of things

Dunn has a huge strikezone due to him being 6'7. He also has a long swing due to the same reason. His first two managers in the major leagues told him to pull everything so he could hit more HRs, which messed him up a little bit and he has been through 4 hitting coaches in 7 years....

http://www.redsminorleagues.com

by dougdirt on Apr 15, 2007 7:30 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Height difference

It's maybe two inches...hard to believe that's a big deal, but perhaps...

You can't dust for vomit

by twinstalker on Apr 15, 2007 7:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Swing

Morneau's swing is very level. It stays in the strike zone for a very long time. Dunn on the other hand has a stroke that can hit the ball a country mile. And when he makes contact thats what happens. As John said before Dunn sacrificed a lot of his contact for that power. I also think it has to do with the stance. Morneau really gets his center of gravity a lot lower for a big man. Dunn's upright stance makes his stroke naturally uppercut. Which is great for his power but not so much, hence the .250 average.

by JDSussman on Apr 15, 2007 7:35 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

This is not even an arguement in my opinion.

Morneau is the far better hitter than Adam Dunn. Dunn to me is a modern day version of Dave Kingman. Sure he gets his walks and all but he makes not adjustments with two strikes. He wants to pull everything and mean everything. For crying out loud the guy struckout nearly 200 times last year. He's the perfect all or nothing guy. As for Morneau, he makes adjustment with two strikes, he goues the other way very well, he can hit for average and he's such a better fundamental hitter than Dunn it's not even a debate. I have never been a Dunn fan period.

Can you imagine AD in Yankee stadium?
Eventhough he might hit 50 or even 60 HR's,
he would strikeout an cartoonish 250+ times.

by NYYLover1000 on Apr 15, 2007 7:49 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Dave Kingman?

Yeah...

Kingman: .302 career OBP
Dunn: .380

If Dunn stays healthy this year, he will surpass Kingman's CAREER walk total before the ASB. By the time Kingman was 27, he had never had an OPS+ above 118. Dunn has posted 152 and 135 marks, and is at 128 for his career, despite a cartoonish BA.
Yeah, they're very similar.

Who cares if he strikes out a lot? The guy gets on base 38% of the time and annually hits 40 homers before his prime years.

by Lt Melmo on Apr 15, 2007 8:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Kingman? Please.

Dave Kingman had a CAREER OBP of .302. Adam Dunn has one of .380. Kingman hit 40 HRs 1 time in his career. Dunn has done it 3 years running. The only thing comparable about the two is that they both had low batting averages and hit above average home runs. Adam Dunn gets on base so much more often than Kingman could even dream about.

Why would Dunn strike out 60 more times just because he is in NY?

If you want a comparison that holds water take a look at Harmon Killebrew.

http://www.redsminorleagues.com

by dougdirt on Apr 15, 2007 8:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

So what.

That i basically the only difference between the two. How about the fact that Dunn is a career .247 hitter. How about the fact that his highest averge was .266 while Dave Kingman highest avergae was .288.

basically once he starts declining, his #'s are gonna look similar to Dave Kingman. In other words, once he starts declining, it's not gonna be pretty. Plus Killebrew, people forget, his highest K total in a season was 142.

by NYYLover1000 on Apr 15, 2007 8:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well then...

in about 4 years when Dunn starts declining maybe your comparison will look more apt...probably not though, considering by that time Dunn will have far surpassed Kingman and alot of very good players in career numbers.

by KCSlayer on Apr 15, 2007 8:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

yeah

And the only difference between Hank Aaron and Robin Yount is a few hundred homers. Come on man.

by limozeen on Apr 15, 2007 9:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

K rates

There is a significant difference in K rates for Dunn and Morneau in the minors. Dunn struck out once out of every five plate appearances in the minors. Morneau struck out once out of every seven plate appearances on average.

In a sense, you're right though. Dunn's K rate was much better in the minors than it has been in the majors, whereas Morneau's has held steady throughout his career. Part of that was small sample sizes for Dunn. He breezed through the minors. Morneau's ascent was slower because of the position change and the Twins high standards for defense.

cmathewson

by cmathewson on Apr 15, 2007 10:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, 80 points in on base percentage

is about the only difference in the two. Of course how huge that actually is to a team is incredible. You come off making it sound like its 5 points or something....

As for when he starts declining his number will look like Kingmans.... yeah I doubt it. He will still be able to identify balls and strikes, and therefore he will still be able to draw walks for his entire career.

As for Killebrew, I dont know what strikeouts have to do with it, but his 142 led the league in 1962. He was 13 ahead of the second place guy, and just 12 guys struck out 100 or more times in that season. Last year, Dunn led the league in strikeouts, and was just 13 ahead of Ryan Howard who was in second place. Of course, 74 players struck out 100 or more times last year.

The two both were similar players. Lower batting averages, lots of HR, high on base percentage.

http://www.redsminorleagues.com

by dougdirt on Apr 15, 2007 10:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

K

What does it even matter what the difference in their strikeouts is? Dunn and Killebrew basically make the same amount of outs per year. Killebrew had 65 outs per 100 PA. It's 63.4 for Dunn. If you were to take half of Dunn strikeouts and turn them into routine popouts, they'd still have the same amount of productivity for their teams. Strikeouts do not equal bad player.

by Lt Melmo on Apr 15, 2007 11:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

The question

was, what in their minor league numbers indicated that their careers would go this way (Dunn vs. Morneau). K rates are an indication of contact. Not to say Ks are bad or anything. It just answers the question.

But to counter your point, you cannot make a productive out on a K. You can on an infield grounder or a sacrifice fly.

cmathewson

by cmathewson on Apr 15, 2007 11:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yup...

You can also ground into a double play. All the mouth-breathing over high strikeout rates is ridiculous. Ideally do you want to strike out? Of course not. But it's no worse than any other form of an out. As much as I generally enjoy Buster Olney, "productive outs" are a ridiculous pseudo-stat created to pump up "gritty, hard-nosed" teams like the Angels. You know, teams that play the game "the right way."

"People think it must be fun to be a super genious, but they don't know how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world." - Calvin

by RVachon on Apr 16, 2007 10:18 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Maybe you misunderstood

Nowhere did I intentionally say that a strikeout was different than any other type of out with the exception of the 2 times a year a guy would reach because of an error. I completely grasp that concept and if somewhere I mixed up words and stated otherwise, it was completely accidental.

http://www.redsminorleagues.com

by dougdirt on Apr 16, 2007 12:36 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

sorry

I wasn't arguing with you, I was agreeing with you. I should've stuck a "not only that, but..." somewhere.

by Lt Melmo on Apr 16, 2007 12:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Gotcha

we just had some confusion there. That will happen on the internet.

http://www.redsminorleagues.com

by dougdirt on Apr 16, 2007 1:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Different eras

I'm often amazed at how low the strikeout rates were in Killebrew's time considering that his era was much more pitching heavy than this one. I suppose it had to do with approach. Contact was more highly valued in general back then. Fewer guys swung for the fences back then.

Last year Killer was visiting the booth during a Twins/Yankees game and Sheffield was at the plate. Sheffield swung so hard at a Santana change-up that he fell down. Killer said, "No one would ever do that in my time." To which Bert Blyleven asked why. Killer said, "Sheffield would not survive during my time. He would have been beaned on a regular basis for his antics. He wouldn't have lasted a year in the league in my time."

The rules nowadays are all to produce more home runs and more strike outs. Swing hard in case you hit it. And if the pitcher knocks you down, he gets a warning and possibly an ejection.

cmathewson

by cmathewson on Apr 15, 2007 11:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Partly

I'd agree that the approach has something to do with the increased strikeout rates these days, and an increased emphasis on hitting bombs. I think it also has a lot to do with the quality of the average pitcher these days. Oh, and your point about pitchers not being able to back sluggers off the plate is a good one as well. But can you imagine the uproar in NYC if some dumb pitcher had the gall to throw one up and in on Cap't Jetes (thank you Rob Neyer)?! And Jeter is one of the worst offenders when it comes to diving across the plate.

Not that I'm biased, or anything.

"People think it must be fun to be a super genious, but they don't know how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world." - Calvin

by RVachon on Apr 16, 2007 10:24 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

"The only difference"

Wow, you are stupid...do you really not understand how significant 80 points of OBP is? Do you really not understand how INSIGNIFICANT batting average is?

Let me put this in perspective for you (you certainly need it):

The five players above Dunn on the active OBP leaders list are Vladimir Guerrero, Carlos Delgado, Derek Jeter, Alex Rodriguez and Jim Edmonds. The five directly below Dunn are Mike Piazza, Ichiro, Jason Kendall, Jorge Posada and Ken Griffey/Scott Rolen (tie). Out of those 11, at least are future HOFers, maybe more.

The ten active players closest to Kingman's .302 OBP: Christian Guzman, Neifi Perez, Tony Batista, Rey Ordonez, Jack Wilson, Sandy Alomar, Jose Hernandez, Royce Clayton, Alex Gonzalez and Alex Gonzalez (both). Those are 10 of the worst players in baseball (or "were" in the cases of Ordonez and Alomar).

It's a very simple and shallow argument, but it makes the point and I assume this is as critically deep as someone who thinks that batting average is as important as OBP can think.

Some people bring the Bible to college...we bring Moneyball.

by uga007 on Apr 15, 2007 11:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

um

Who are you talking to? Apparently you're talking to yourself, because nobody's arguing with you. Dunn's a great player. Morneau is a great player. They are different players. Moreneau will hit for a higher average with a comparable OBP, fewer HRs and fewer strikeouts. Dunn will hit for a lower average with a comparable OBP, more HRs and more strikeouts.

Any comparisons between Dunn and sluggers past is tenuous at best. Different eras, different approaches. But to compare Dunn to Dave Kingman does Dunn a huge disservice. Again, I don't think anyone is arguing with that. At least four posters agree.

cmathewson

by cmathewson on Apr 15, 2007 11:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

hmm

read the thread. he's talking to nyylover1000.

by jpahk on Apr 16, 2007 1:29 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

This...

So what.

by NYYLover1000 on Sun Apr 15, 2007 at 08:36:22 PM EDT
[ Parent | Reply to This ]

Some people bring the Bible to college...we bring Moneyball.

by uga007 on Apr 16, 2007 1:32 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Morneau

Morneau developed a very good two-strike approach after struggling in 2005. He doesn't strike out like a power hitter at all.

by limozeen on Apr 15, 2007 7:58 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Missing the question

What foretold what we're now seeing?

You can't dust for vomit

by twinstalker on Apr 15, 2007 8:04 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Add-on

What foretold this from a minors perspective? Was it simply K rate? The first answers were somewhat on point. What in the minors told us that Dunn and Morneau would be different hitters for avg?

I'm not even saying one is better than the other.

You can't dust for vomit

by twinstalker on Apr 15, 2007 8:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

K rate

There's no consensus about the value of strikeouts for a hitter. Some say it really doesn't matter, an out is an out. Others say we should judge hitters as the contrary to the way we judge pitchers, in which case strikeouts are worse than outs on balls put in play. I side with the latter, especially in the minors. If a guy has a high K rate, it means he has trouble making contact. Morneau has never had trouble making contact; Dunn has.

The other thing to note is walk rate. Dunn's has always been very good. Morneau's has been marginal. The two are actually related. Contact hitters tend to not walk very much. And high strikeout guys also walk a lot typically. Some of that is approach: if you take a lot of pitches, you also take a lot of strikes. But some of that is just natural ability. Guys who have always struggled to make contact have to make the pitcher throw the ball in the middle of the zone to hit it. Guys who are natural contact guys can adjust to the pitch in different parts of the zone and hit the ball on the corners. Dunn has always been a guy who only hits balls hard if they're in the middle of the plate. Morneau has always hit balls on the outside corner hard the other way and balls on the inside corner hard down the line to right.

All things considered, I prefer guys with low K rates in the minors. Usually that means a low walk rate. But in the rare instance of a guy with a low K rate and a high walk rate, I draft him.

cmathewson

by cmathewson on Apr 15, 2007 8:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

well

Both struck out in the minors, but Dunn was worse. The major difference is that Morneau looks to have made an adjustment in the majors. That's not something you can easily predict.

by limozeen on Apr 15, 2007 9:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Does it matter?

Dunn and Morneau will both put up a similar OPS, albeit it totally different ways. Morneau hits for higher average, Dunn draws more walks. Dunn will hit more HR's, Morneau will get more doubles. In the end it all evens out and you have two hitters are a pretty comparable overall, but take different routes to getting there.

by KCSlayer on Apr 15, 2007 8:11 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

hmm

I highly doubt Morneau has peaked in the HR department.

by limozeen on Apr 15, 2007 9:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

to answer your question...

nothing in minor league stats that would foretell...

probably goes to organizational philosophy

minn - doesn't allow pull hitters..they get sent down. So their pull hitters learn to go the other way.

which is good for average..

cinn - really wants hitters to pull the ball over their short fences no matter how much they bitch and moan about strikeouts.

by dryice on Apr 15, 2007 9:22 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Is it?

Twins-Talker or Twin-Stalker?

"May all your sliders break across two planes"

by Dfarth on Apr 15, 2007 9:49 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Alittle

of both if I remember right.

1941 .406

by FrozenTed9 on Apr 15, 2007 10:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

it's

twinst alker

or possibly

t winstalker

by jpahk on Apr 16, 2007 12:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

OR twinkie stalker

by pedrophile on Apr 16, 2007 5:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

What foretold what we're now seeing?

answer: contact rates

Dunn: 65%
Morneau: 75%

And if you look year by year Dunn had his ratio get worse as he moved up in the minors. Not directly linear but it did get worse.

Contact ratios = (AB - SO) / (AB + BB)

This measures how often you put the ball in play. If you rarely put the ball in play (like Dunn) then you rely so much more heavily on having much higher BABIP and other ratios.

by pedrophile on Apr 16, 2007 12:22 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

even more important

Side note: Ron Shandler calculates Contact Rate as (AB-SO) / (AB). I like that better because it doesn't punish players who take a walk.

Morneau's contact rate over time:
Rk (18): 89%
Rk (19): 91%
A (19): 74%
A (20): 84%
A+ (20): 79%
AA (20): 79%
AA (21): 82%
AA (22): 82%
AAA (22): 79%
MLB (22): 72%
AAA (23): 84%
MLB (23): 80%
MLB (24): 81%
MLB (25): 84%

Whenever Morneau has repeated a league (Rookie, A, AA, AAA, and MLB), his contact rate has improved. Morneau has consistently shown the ability to cut down on his strikeout rate the longer he sees the league.

Dunn's contact rate over time:
Rk (18): 82%
A (19): 80%
A (20): 76%
AA (21): 78%
AAA (21): 76%
MLB (21): 70%
MLB (22): 68%
MLB (23): 67%
MLB (24): 66%
MLB (25): 69%
MLB (26): 65%

Dunn's contact rate has gone down every time he has repeated a league (except between his age 24 and 25 MLB seasons). It's clear that Dunn is unwilling or unable to make an adjustment.

These career paths show that Dunn and Morneau had similar contact rates in the middle of their minor league careers. Dunn continued to swing for the fences and has never been a good hitter for average. Morneau made adjustments at every level and trusted in his natural power and was a top average hitter.

by limozeen on Apr 16, 2007 2:25 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

contact rates

<<Side note: Ron Shandler calculates Contact Rate as (AB-SO) / (AB). I like that better because it doesn't punish players who take a walk.>>

I understand the reasoning for not "punishing" walks.

"poor contact ratios inflate the walk rate, excellent contact ratios deflate the walk rate"

But there is a reason to also have them in there. How many walks does a hitter typically get where he never swings the bat once? Very few I'm guessing. So in the majority of walks a hitter has swung and missed.

Before you think that might be going too far - think about hitters like Garciaparra, Delmon, Vlad, and others. Part of the reason their walks are down is because they make exceptionally good contact.

Now look at a hitter like Branyan or Glaus or Dunn. They swing and miss a lot which gets them deeper in the count. That gives them k's. But it also, combined with a good eye, gives them more BB's.

"poor contact ratios inflate the walk rate, excellent contact ratios deflate the walk rate"

by pedrophile on Apr 16, 2007 9:21 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

yeah

That makes sense. My reason for preferring a denominator of just AB is that it does a better job of separating batter and pitcher performance in my mind. For a batter to take a walk, they probably don't have a lot of pitches to swing at (by definition, balls taken outnumber swinging strikes at a 2:1 ratio at least). I don't think it's fair to "punish" a hitter for failing to make contact in a plate appearance in which the pitcher isn't throwing strikes. It's desirable for a hitter to lay off in that situation.

by limozeen on Apr 17, 2007 3:20 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Thank you

I think my question was answered. Just a couple comments:

Limozeen, a Twins fan I probably know as something else, hit the nail by implyingthat I think we can eventually expect Morneau to rival Dunn in terms of seasonal homers, though he might not hit 50.
From a major league standpoint, the adjustment we Twins watchers saw Morneau make was astounding, so astounding that I wondered if it wasn't flukish, minor-league stats-wise.

His at bats are so good (in terms of picking the pitches to swing at) I'm amazed. Right now, early in the year, he's a LOT better than Mauer is at that (not that I'm worried about Mauer). Morneau's only problem, I think, is he's seeing the ball so well that he's a bit anxious and striding a little long. When he gets that figured out in the next couple of weeks...oh, my.

3. "Twinstalker" is purposely vague. I tried to start a web site, but it sucked because I didn't have time. And I'm more of a commenter than a blogger. It will reappear in a cheaper form (blogspot, as opposed to my own site) with less new new material and more stuff just copied from the comments I make on other sites. When I have time. Probably June.

You can't dust for vomit

by twinstalker on Apr 16, 2007 6:56 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs