SUGGESTION TO JOHN

I'm no John

but high strikeout totals effect nothing. An out is an out. If your projecting a player fine, but if your at the MLB level an out is an out. Sure it can be frustrating. Yadier Molina rarely strikes out, that doesn’t mean he’s better than Soto who strikes out about 5 times as much.

As far as with RISP, here are two career lines:
Totals: .247/.381/.521
RISP: .223/.412/.473

When factoring in OBP more like you should, he is actually very slightly more productive with RISP in his career.

Now what doesn’t make Dunn a “premium player” is his defense.

by bigboy1234 on Jul 13, 2008 2:01 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

+1

by demondeaconsbaseball on Jul 13, 2008 2:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

agreed kind of

The only thing strikeout totals effect is batting average so I can’t stand it when people count a low batting average and high strikeout total as two negatives against a player. With Dunn though, it all depends on whether or not the individual thinks that a three true outcomes player helps or hurts a team.

by was385 on Jul 13, 2008 2:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Disagree on both points...

An out is not just an out. If there is a runner on second and no outs, a strikeout is devastating. The stats are not talked about, but moving runners over is a very important part of baseball. So a ground ball to the right side of the infield or a deep fly ball is a much better out than a strike out.

As for factoring in OBP with runners in scoring position. Some of the same things apply. With a man on third and one out, a ground ball can be a much more productive PA than a walk. I would much rather have a guy putting the ball in play with RISP than taking the number of walks Dunn is.

by tt68 on Jul 13, 2008 2:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Just so I understand, you would prefer Dunn to swing at more balls?

Neglectful father of David Quinowski

by marcello on Jul 13, 2008 2:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Just so I understand...

Dunn never takes a called strike?

by tt68 on Jul 13, 2008 2:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ok, so if it’s a strike he should be swinging?

Start here, and report back in a few weeks.

Neglectful father of David Quinowski

by marcello on Jul 13, 2008 3:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I will try to help you understand the point of this thread...

We are not discussing if Dunn should change his approach. We are discussing if Dunn’s horrible strike out rates are a problem or not.

The point you are referring to is when the poster tried to imply that Dunn’s performance with RISP was justified by his high OBP. That OBP is high solely because of his walk rate. My point is that a walk (which is partially due to his inability to make contact) is not a good metric to look at with RISP. Yeah, he is good at getting a walk with RISP, but he is really bad at putting the ball in play with RISP. I don’t think the first can negate the second.

His swing and miss rate is the real problem. He makes up for it a little by having very good strike zone judgement, but that doesn’t excuse his average with RISP.

by tt68 on Jul 13, 2008 3:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

His high OBP is likely due to pitchers pitching around him when there are runners on. You know, because they’re afraid of what a good hitter he is.

I don’t see why you expect someone to have a higher average with runners in scoring position. I have yet to see proof that “hitting with runners in scoring position” is a skill.

Neglectful father of David Quinowski

by marcello on Jul 13, 2008 3:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Joe Carter

by GuyinNY on Jul 13, 2008 4:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Elaboration

I think I should elaborate on this. Mostly because that was an accidental post and I needed to fill out the body, anyway.

I believe that there is an absolute skill to hitting with RISP. Players like Paul LoDuca, Carter, and whomever else who’s names are escaping me are very capable of shortening their swings or expanding the strike zone. More to the point, BA, OBP, or SLG won’t always be an effective measure. OBI, otoh, can sometimes answer this. Whether we like it or not, players will try and advance/score runners. You expect a player to advance the runner by any means necessary, and that oftentimes manifests itself as a productive out. This is why people get down on Dunn for his high K rate. He’s a very productive bat, but his seeming inability to adjust to the game situation is maddening.

P.S. If it’s not already glaringly apparent, I believe that clutch exists.

by GuyinNY on Jul 13, 2008 4:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Exactly!

Couldn’t have said it better myself…. that’s why I quit trying a couple weeks ago. It’s not like we are going to convince someone to “see the light”, nor are they going to get us to believe that Dunn is borderline HOF material. It’s a useless argument now.

That’s why they make both chocolate and vanilla ice cream. Because I like vanilla and other people have crappy taste. LOL j/k (sorta)

"My mom always taught me it's better to laugh at yourself than to laugh at others. She was so wrong. ;)" -Pedrophile

by Boxkutter on Jul 13, 2008 5:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

What retard said Dunn is borderline HOF? I like Dunn, but anyone who said that is downright stupid. I guess if he put up a year like last year for the next 10, but it’s pretty obvious his skills won’t age well.

Anyways, the point is that if clutch does exist, it’s still a skill that is dwarfed by actual talent. If you had a choice between Adam Dunn’s “anti-clutch” and Paul LoDuca’s “super-clutch” you should take Adam Dunn, because even after you adjust for their clutchiness quotients, Dunn is still the better hitter.

Neglectful father of David Quinowski

by marcello on Jul 13, 2008 5:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Not that stupid

He’s got a shot at 500 bombs, which would make him HOF material. That was my line of thinking, anyways.

by demondeaconsbaseball on Jul 13, 2008 5:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Sorry for the personal attack, I assumed he was using hyperbole as I hadn’t seen that other thread. Anyways, I just don’t see Dunn’s career lasting long enough to get him there. His skill set just doesn’t age well and I would imagine his eventual decline to be more of a complete collapse.

Neglectful father of David Quinowski

by marcello on Jul 13, 2008 5:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

It's no problem

I was assuming the 500 homer threshold, and I know there’s a small chance he reaches it…

by demondeaconsbaseball on Jul 13, 2008 10:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

demondeaconbaseball said it

hence why hes now defending his remark

by rangersfan24 on Jul 13, 2008 5:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Did you not see my reply to him?

Neglectful father of David Quinowski

by marcello on Jul 13, 2008 6:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hrmm..

I agree with you to a certain extent. Obviously, Dunn is a better hitter than LoDuca or Carter. However, we’re discussing who’s better at advancing runners. This is basically a rehash of the essential argument surrounding Jim Rice’s HOF credibility. His supporters argue that Rice was among the very best of his era and had an incredible ability to advance runners. His detractors say that this simply wasn’t the case.

Of course Dunn is a better hitter than LoDuca, overall. That doesn’t change the fact that Dunn is less likely to advance any given runner with RISP. LoDuca is a lifetime 308/374/424 hitter with runners in scoring position, while Dunn is at 223/412/473. Granted, Dunn’s getting on more often and hitting the ball with more authority, but he’s getting far fewer hits and he’s making much less contact. Ergo, he’s advancing fewer runners. And, since facts can prove anything that’s even remotely true, Adam Dunn is a career 238 hitter with runners on 3rd while LoDuca is a lifetime 413 hitter in that situation. That’s ALOT of extra hits and, theoretically, RBI.

There is a distinct trend in situations involving runners on base : LoDuca raises his ability to get hits while Dunn stagnates.  It's not so much that Dunn's getting worse, but that LoDuca's getting better.  And given the choice between Dunn's high-OPS, low contact approach and LoDuca's high contact approach, I'd probably take Paulie.

by GuyinNY on Jul 13, 2008 6:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Last Line

That last line should read :

There is a distinct trend in situations involving runners on base : LoDuca raises his ability to get hits while Dunn stagnates. It’s not so much that Dunn’s getting worse, but that LoDuca’s getting better. And given the choice between Dunn’s high-OPS, low contact approach and LoDuca’s high contact approach, I’d probably take Paulie.

Why does that happen?

by GuyinNY on Jul 13, 2008 6:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Not a good idea

Me, I know that a neither a lineup of 9 Adam Dunn’s or 9 Paul LoDuca’s is ideal, but if someone would prefer LoDuca they just prefer to score less i would think.

Hasn’t anybody just considered the idea that Adam Dunn id just better as a table setter than driving in runs? Whats wrong with that. If you guys just get your mind out of the 1950’s and except that todays game involves a lot of swinging and missing and just except Dunn for what he brings to the table. He’s a good player. He can hit 5th for me any day.

by casejud on Jul 13, 2008 8:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I actually think Dunn leading off would be great

He wouldn’t have to move as many runners over, and his OBP plays great in the leadoff role.

Plus, he may get a few better pitches to knock out if pitchers are afraid to put the leadoff man on base.

by demondeaconsbaseball on Jul 13, 2008 10:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Interesting that...

Looking at his numbers the last three years he has put up this line leading off a inning from 2005-2007

.230/ .313/ .450

That is actually kinda what I would think. That a LOT of his patience comes from his eye and pitchers being more careful when there is guys on-base.

While I kinda like the IDEA of him as a leadoff man because it is outside the box, as they say I envision him being really devastating as a player with a high average guy who you CAN”T avoid pitching to batting behind ( A Vladamir type player. I know there ARE no ther players like Vladimir but you know what I meen) him. This would allow him to keep his same approach but force pitchers to pitch to him more. Getting MORE guys on-base in front of him wouldn’t hurt either.

Regardless of his flaws Dunn should always be a part of a good offense. He’ still a plus out there with the bat in his hand.

by casejud on Jul 14, 2008 2:24 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Soriano

Dunn reminds me of Soriano, in that he’s very hard to place in an order. Intuitively, I agree with you that he belongs as a place setter, due to his strong OBP skills. However, this would be largely wasting his power. Granted, the extra PA’s could help Dunn to hit more homers, but he’d generally have fewer batters in front of him at the top of an NL order.

Let’s say Dunn bats 2nd.* He’s likely to only have 1-2 baserunners at most in front of him, and he’ll almost never get a chance with the bases loaded. Over the course of the season, this will amount to a considerably lower number of RBI opportunities. However, if Dunn bats 5th, he’s not very good at advancing runners who are already on. His OBP would also be a bit on the wasted side, as I’d prefer to have a bat like his in front of some serious contact/power types. Solution? Adam Dunn to the Yankees to replace Jason Giambi for next season.

*If Dunn were to bat 2nd, OH the baseclogging! :)

by GuyinNY on Jul 14, 2008 12:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

LoDuca

Over 162 games, I’d prefer Adam Dunn. What I’m arguing is that I’d prefer LoDuca with a runner on 3rd. I’d also prefer LoDuca in a clutch situation, as LoDuca is more likely to advance the players who are on in front of him. Granted, he won’t advance them as many bases as Dunn would, provided Dunn puts his bat on the ball. But, I’ll take quantity over quality in this case.

On a tangent, this touches right at the heart of the Rake & Take v. Smallball debate. In mid or high run scoring environments, of course it makes sense to wait for the three run homer. However, in lower run scoring environments or in high leverage situations, I’d be more apt to go for a player with better contact skills because it’s more important to get the run I know to be within reach than the three runs which may never come.

P.S. I happen to think this is the reason why the A’s made the playoffs, but never went very far. Ramon Hernandez’s bunt excluded, obviously.

by GuyinNY on Jul 14, 2008 12:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

P.S. I happen to think this is the reason why the A’s made the playoffs, but never went very far. Ramon Hernandez’s bunt excluded, obviously.

This has to be a joke right? If it’s what I’m thinking of, he was bunting for a hit. There were two outs. This was even mentioned in Moneyball as the point where all the ignorant analysts pointed to this one event as a change in the A’s philosophy so they could finally win, completely ignoring the fact that they weren’t sacrifice bunting.

Neglectful father of David Quinowski

by marcello on Jul 14, 2008 1:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yes, it's a joke.

by GuyinNY on Jul 14, 2008 1:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

The Hernandez part, anyway.

by GuyinNY on Jul 14, 2008 1:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ok, thank god. You almost destroyed my mind, well done.

Neglectful father of David Quinowski

by marcello on Jul 14, 2008 1:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I try. :P

I actually do believe this is true for the 02-07 Yankees, as well. The main reason they made the World Series in 2003 being their great pitching that season.

The Red Sox get it done with a good, healthy mix.

by GuyinNY on Jul 14, 2008 1:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, it's not like the '00-03 A's had great pitching or anything

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Jul 14, 2008 8:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

makes sense

there certainly are situations where id prefer LoDuca, yes. There arent that many of them though.

i dont think a player like Dunn would even EXIST in a low-run environment though. His style is completely a product of our modern babseball times, parks, baseballs, the steroid era …though not him using personally

by casejud on Jul 14, 2008 1:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Big Papi

I’d imagine that had Dunn played in another era, he’d have wound up like David Ortiz in Minnesota. Whoever had him would have tried desperately to change him. Now, granted, this might actually have worked and we’d get an Adam Dunn with the same power and better contact skills. However, I think it’s more likely Dunn would just have been labeled a hacker and likely wouldn’t have gotten too much time in the everyday lineup. Until he hit some homers, that is.

by GuyinNY on Jul 14, 2008 2:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

40 homers plays anytime

Dunn is not much different then Harmon Killebrew or Dave Kingdom, both who had lengthy careers, one of which landed in the HOF.

"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
-Jonathan Swift

by King Billy Royal on Jul 14, 2008 4:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

+1

Well said

by wolviex18 on Jul 14, 2008 2:37 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Clutch

The clutch question is interesting to me. On the one hand, I certainly believe that certain people handle high-pressure situations especially well, some handle them poorly, and some handle them about the same as they handle anything else. I’ve seen that in my own work environments, so I think they exist in pro sports as well. Therefore, when you match a hitter who handles pressure well against a pitcher who struggles under pressure, you shift the odds in the batter’s favor, even if the batter is less talented than the pitcher (I can’t figure out how to word that to make sense; how do you compare hitting talent to pitching talent? But I think you all know what I mean). However, I do not believe that anyone has a mystical, magical ability to exceed their personal limitations and perform fantastic feats in clutch situations. For example, I seem to recall Marco Scutaro hitting a game-winning homer off K-Rod once. Among A’s fans, Scutaro has a reputation for being clutch. But if Scutaro compiled a sizable number of at-bats against K-Rod, who do you really think would win the majority of the time?

So to sum up, “clutch” exists, IMO, as far as handling pressure, but it does not exist as a magical way to make players better. And in most cases, more talented players will produce better results than less talented players, regardless of their “clutchiness.”

by ozzman99 on Jul 14, 2008 4:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'd think

that the amount of times you’d actually make a productive out would be almost nullified by the extra times that someone like Dunn would ground into double plays if he put the ball in play more.

by was385 on Jul 13, 2008 3:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

-1

With runners in scoring position, the relative value of a walk shoots way down.

by rwperu34 on Jul 13, 2008 3:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Dunn

While his Ks are very frustrating, they do not change the fact that he is an offensive force. Where he hurts the team is by clogging the bases and plaing LF like he’s drunk. Most SABR types tend to overrate Dunn, but he’s still an overall positive for his team.

by rwperu34 on Jul 13, 2008 3:30 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Clogging

LOL

Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that. George Carlin

by GregJP on Jul 13, 2008 3:31 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs

EqA

Dunn LEADS his team in EqA, so I highly doubt he’s a “liability” to the team despite his bad defense and high K rate.

Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that. George Carlin

by GregJP on Jul 13, 2008 3:31 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

this was not meant to be a discussion between posters

ive heard both sides of the story.like to see what john has to say, someone whose opinion simply carries more weight than ours

by rangersfan24 on Jul 13, 2008 5:57 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

bites tongue

A healthy thread on the merits of whether or not players make adjustments/clutchiness isn’t the worst thing in the world. I’m sure John sees this thread, and I doubt he minds that we’re discussing clutch (if for the 5034890th time). He may mind the minor flaming, or he might just not care about it at this point…

Is it odd that we’re discussing him in such a far away and authoritative sense?

by GuyinNY on Jul 13, 2008 6:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

It's like he is God...

I guess that would mean that players that are left out of the book are sent to Hell and players he gives a Grade C to are in purgatory since they can go either way.

"My mom always taught me it's better to laugh at yourself than to laugh at others. She was so wrong. ;)" -Pedrophile

by Boxkutter on Jul 13, 2008 6:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hm?

I thought souls in purgatory were eventually (after some amount of suffering) admitted to heaven on a permanent basis.

[/tangent into Catholic theology]

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Jul 13, 2008 10:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Span

Clearly, Denard Span has had people praying for him to ascend to a higher plane of existence (the majors.)

by GuyinNY on Jul 14, 2008 12:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

far away sense?

the topic on this thread specifically directed a question TO HIM. please explained how that is “far away.” and i never said he was god, or that he is right about everything, but he is, whether you want to admit it or not, much more knowledgeable about evaluating players and their value than you, i, or anybody else on this board. if you new more than he did, youd be the one selling books, not him

by rangersfan24 on Jul 13, 2008 7:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

and while you obviously dont care much

about the conversation about clutch, and for some reason seem to think he does not care, i would be much more interested in reading an article about that than i would an article about michael burgess or denard span. if he wants to do it, great. if he doesn’t, no problem. but i have every right in the world to ask, especially when other people get on here all the time and ask him to do these prospect retros, mostly because they own them in fantasy leagues and want to read articles about their stud or their amazing additions they made way back when before they were stars. you are out of line criticizing me just for asking john to write a meaningful article. next time you have an objection to something as harmless as that, you truly do need to bite your fuckin tongue and stay off people’s cases. somehow, i doubt john needs you to get on here and speak for him. its his site, he can do whatever he wants

by rangersfan24 on Jul 13, 2008 7:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think you're overreacting...

GuyinNY is agreeing with you. I don’t know how you read his last post, but he is saying that even though you asked for John’s opinion, he doesn’t think John would mind an intelligent conversation/argument about the idea of clutch and how it pertains to Dunn and other players.

And his comment about John was more about how we were talking about John like he wasn’t in the room. Like when two people talk about a third like the third one wasn’t present even though they are. He was not downplaying John’s knowledge or anything of the sort, just that John was being talked about like he wasn’t here.

"My mom always taught me it's better to laugh at yourself than to laugh at others. She was so wrong. ;)" -Pedrophile

by Boxkutter on Jul 13, 2008 7:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

if thats what he was saying

then i apologize, because i obviously read it wrong, and i was out of line responding in the manner that i did

by rangersfan24 on Jul 13, 2008 7:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

+1

My sentiments exactly.

by GuyinNY on Jul 14, 2008 12:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

dunn

I like Dunn and I think people pick on him too much. He’s one dimensional as a hitter, but it’s a strong dimension. The strikeouts can be annoying but do not, in my opinion, ruin his value. He’s basically a left-handed version of Harmon Killebrew, not as good once you account for the difference in leagues and context, but a similar skill set: power, walks, strikeouts. I wish the Twins had him to add more power to the lineup. You can’t rely on him to be your BEST hitter due to his limitations, but properly deployed he is of great value.

I think some people pick on his on-field stuff because they don’t like him OFF the field, but that’s a seperate issue.

by John Sickels on Jul 13, 2008 6:56 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

i can agree with this

nobody argues his power. what prompted me to start this was because of another thread i started wonderign where mie moustakas was. i made the comment id hate for him to turn into adam dunn, and some retorted with the statement that dunn is going to be a hall of famer- a comment i found to be laughable. i tried saying i would not want dunn because he is more of an all or nothing type player, something i would not want on my team over the course of a 162 game season. thats my personal preference tho. i will always take that i have confidence in putting the ball in play safely, over a guy that youre praying for a walk so he doesnt kill a rally. although 40 hr power is impressive, it is still an extremeley low percentage play

by rangersfan24 on Jul 13, 2008 7:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Just to clarify...

I don’t think Adam Dunn’s bound for the HOF unless he hits 500, which would make him a lock considering the voting body. I still stand by the fact that he’s a pretty good player, albeit a little overrated (that defense is horrible, LF or not).

The argument was still fun though. :D

by demondeaconsbaseball on Jul 13, 2008 10:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

if you're saying you dont want Dunn...thats just plain stupid...no way around it. thats it

TPJ...you're dead to me

by billybeingbilly on Jul 13, 2008 11:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Good points

The best one I think is that he gets more flack when his team is struggling and they want him to be something he isnt. people want him to cut the K’s, hit .275, play better defense and keep the walks and the batting eye. Shoot, everybody in the league would like to do something similar to that with thier skills but because Dunn has such a unique profile as a hitter people find it hard to except. I say, get over it! Take the player for what he does as a whole and if you are building a team…i think like a GM… just put players with diverse skilla around him and dont sweat it.

As far as his personality, I think that he is a fun loving, kind of laid back player much in the mold of many players who have been loved in the game. the are only loved when they WIN though. If the Reds win or whatever team he goes to, his flaws will fade to the background.

basically the entire Dunn conversation is kinda dumn IMO. He is a pretty consistent and quality ballplayer if you ask me. He also has probably no chance to make the Hall of Fame.

by casejud on Jul 13, 2008 8:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Mostly agree....

One thing I take issue with:

You can’t rely on him to be your BEST hitter due to his limitations

Dunn was the best hitter on the 2005 Reds, who were #1 in the NL in both Runs Scored and OPS+. He most certainly can be the best hitter on a good offense, as long as you’re not hitting Corey Patterson leadoff and the rotting husk of Ken Griffey, Jr. third.

"Karma - there it was. The meaning of life, straight from Carson Daly's lips to my morphine-laced ears." -Earl Hickey

by BLee2525 on Jul 13, 2008 9:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Dunn with RISP

There’s nothing wrong with Dunn’s approach with Runners in Scoring Position. His low splits in those situations are the result of an obvious managerial failure that could easily be fixed.

Dunn has one huge limitation in his offensive game; he can’t hit borderline pitches. He’s a zone hitter, and needs to see a lot of pitches in order to get one he can drive. When pitchers are forced to challenge him, he’s extremely dangerous. When they’re able to throw a bunch of borderline crap, not worrying about walking him, and hope they get a call, he’s essentially neutralized. The Reds do him no favors by batting him 5th. Dunn has actually seen the lowest percentage of pitches in the strike zone of any hitter in baseball this year.

With RISP and 1st base occupied, Dunn has a career line of .258/.388/.529, and hits a HR every 13.7 AB’s. All better than his career averages. When first base is occupied, pitchers are forced to challenge him, and Dunn is fine.

With RISP and 1st base open, Dunn has a career line of .204/.449/.454, and hits a HR every 15.07 AB’s. Obviously, when 1st base is open, pitchers are staying away from him. His walk rate doubles in those situations, and his inability to hit borderline pitches kills his BA.

Dunn’s the same hitter in every situation, only the pitcher’s approach changes. When Dunn is hitting 5th, at the end of the Reds’ run-producers, the “unintentional-intentional” walk becomes an even more attractive option for the opposing pitcher. If the Reds would simply bat Dunn 2nd or 3rd with a credible threat behind him, his RISP splits would look essentially the same as his overall numbers.

"Karma - there it was. The meaning of life, straight from Carson Daly's lips to my morphine-laced ears." -Earl Hickey

by BLee2525 on Jul 13, 2008 10:00 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Or leadoff...

I still think he’s a credible leadoff guy.

by demondeaconsbaseball on Jul 13, 2008 10:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

based on his OBP

dunn would be a top leadoff hitter. but in reality, that move would get dusty baker fired, and then committed to the local loony bin. dunn is slower than molasses on the bases, and has sub par on base running skills. plus itd pretty much waste his hr potential

by rangersfan24 on Jul 13, 2008 10:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

on second thought

i hope dusty does do it. i hate dusty. he has absolutely no clue how to manage young pitchers. but thats for a different thread

by rangersfan24 on Jul 13, 2008 10:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

eh

Getting a homer in your first AB of a few games would be pretty good…

At least we agree on Dusty. :D

by demondeaconsbaseball on Jul 14, 2008 12:26 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

The numbers...

completely back up what BLee2525 is aying though. Just looking at numbers it makes sense…Dunn has high OBP…but look at what Lee said and he is right on. Dunn the last three years has an OBP of .313 when he leads off an inning.

He should bat third behind 2 guys who REALLY get on base and behind a guy who makes a LOT of powerful contact.

by casejud on Jul 14, 2008 1:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Dunn/RISP

How can Dunn’s approach be fine with RISP if he’s unable to hit borderline pitches? I’m sorry to sound like a codger (I assure you that I’m not), but it’s Dunn’s damn job as a run producer to expand the zone, make some contact, and drive in those runners. A sac fly or a grounder to the right side with 1 out and a runner on third might not help his OPS, but it damn sure helps his team score runs. You admit that this is a limitation on Dunn’s game. It’s not hard to say “Adam Dunn’s a very good slugger, but a crappy RBI guy”. I agree that Dunn is very dangerous when a strike is thrown to him, but so are most sluggers. The issue is that because Dunn can’t “expand the zone”, he’ll never be as great a slugger as somebody like Pujols, Sheff, Vlad, or Papi.

To bat Dunn 2nd would be something of a waste of his power.  I do think he's desperately in need of a major bat behind him.  He likely needs to bat 3rd in an AL lineup to be maximized, where his OBP and SLG would both be on full display and pitchers would be forced to throw him fastballs.

Sorry if I’ve seemed harsh. It’s just that Dunn isn’t as great as his OPS advertises him to be, and the whole package taken together (crappy defense, lousy baserunning, poor RBI guy, and questionable locker room presence) really amounts to much less than you might think.

by GuyinNY on Jul 14, 2008 1:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

...

It happened again.

“To bat Dunn 2nd would be something of a waste of his power. I do think he’s desperately in need of a major bat behind him. He likely needs to bat 3rd in an AL lineup to be maximized, where his OBP and SLG would both be on full display and pitchers would be forced to throw him fastballs.”

And please add : “Then we’d likely be much more tolerant of his issues with his approach. Except with two out. :)”

by GuyinNY on Jul 14, 2008 1:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Dunn Vs. Howard

There isn’t too much of a difference between what Dunn does, and what Howard does. Howard just benefits because he has Rollins and Utley in front of him while Dunn is forced to be constantly moved around the lineup. I would love to see what Dunn could do batting cleanup in Philly for a season.

"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
-Jonathan Swift

by King Billy Royal on Jul 13, 2008 10:36 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

No, there's another difference

Howard is black. Dunn is white. Dunn fits the traditional stereotype of the unathletic, fat white slugger who likes walking and doesn’t care about striking out. Howard doesn’t.

Anytime a player fits a traditional whipping boy stereotype (and this is regardless of race—you could say the same to explain the general dislike of Lastings Milledge [undisciplined black gangsta] or Pedro Feliz [“brain dead Caribbean hitter”]), he’s going to be disliked more than if he was a similar player who didn’t fit into people’s easy racial/visual classification schemes.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Jul 13, 2008 10:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

hehe good ol Larry Krueger

at least it got Damon Bruce hired, one of the best new wave sports radio guys in the biz.

Accidentally not thedude925 anymore. I do hate this new name.

by wildthang on Jul 14, 2008 2:48 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

happy pete...

by tmt85 on Jul 14, 2008 6:05 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

True

Pat Burrell is kind of like Howard, but kinda Howard-Lite, and gets demonized here in Philly regularly despite being a top 10 productive LF since he was put into the majors. Except this year, when it’s oddly been the reverse.

by Alon on Jul 16, 2008 5:57 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Dunn is striking out a lot less than Howard

so there is a pretty big difference.

I can’t believe this thread. Does Jon Heyman have an account here? Adam Dunn is one of the best players in baseball, how can anyone possibly deny that.

by number_twentyone on Jul 13, 2008 11:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

not even that...one person wouldnt even want him on his team...

even though every one of the 30 MLB managers/gms would find a spot to start him night in and night out

TPJ...you're dead to me

by billybeingbilly on Jul 13, 2008 11:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

there isn't a difference between dunn and howard?

Ok, how about that Ryan Howard has a career batting average of .280, and that includes his terrible .233 that he’s put up this year. also, while I’ll grant you that he has a better lineup around him, he easily surpasses dunn on RBI’s. why? because he also bats .280 with RISP and even better with 2 outs and RISP (.296).
also, I’d like to point out that Dunn typically bats five or six (although he has been yanked around the order throughout his career including 17 games as a leadoff hitter, LOL) and has guys like Ken Griffey Jr. and Brandon Phillips batting ahead of him. So it’s not like he has Larry, Moe and Curly batting in front of him and leaving the bases empty when he comes up, yet he has never had more than 106 RBI in a season despite playing almost every game for five of the last six years.
Bottom line is Adam Dun is very good at what he does (hit homers and walk) but pretty bad at everything else.

by joltinjoe on Jul 14, 2008 1:00 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Dunn vs. Howard

Adam Dunn 2008 isn’t all that different from Ryan Howard 2008 thus far, but Ryan Howard is a much, much better slugger over the course of his career. This is a direct result of Howard’s power, which is far greater than Dunn’s. Howard’s freakish, once in a generation power allows him to have a VERY high BABIP, which allows Howard to sustain his extreme TTO approach. Put simply, Howard hits for a much better average, and those hits tend to be worth more bases, too. That means that Howard is advancing more runners, which makes him more valuable. It’s also worth noting that due to Howard’s similar patience at the plate (in addition to pitchers’ aversion to facing him), Howard posted a better OBP than Dunn over the last two seasons. With Howard’s bat really coming alive as of late, I’d even wager that he’s likely to finish up with stats that aren’t much more than a stone’s throw from Dunn by the end of the season.

This is why Ryan Howard is a superstar and Dunn is “merely” a very good slugger.

by GuyinNY on Jul 14, 2008 1:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/8342254?MSNHPHMA

Power hitters are increasingly difficult to find, yet the Reds are generating little trade interest in Dunn, who is on pace for his fifth straight 40-homer season.

Dunn offers both on-base percentage and power, but rival clubs are discouraged by his high strikeout rate and sub-par defense in left field. An official from a club that has had past interest in Dunn offers yet another criticism — Dunn’s performance with runners in scoring position.

by joltinjoe on Jul 14, 2008 2:00 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

thats pretty picky and choosy....

“Statistically, that criticism does not appear to be valid. This season, Dunn’s batting average/on-base/slugging line is nearly identical to his line with RISP. For his career, Dunn is batting .247-.381-.521 overall, .223-.412-.473 with RISP. “

TPJ...you're dead to me

by billybeingbilly on Jul 14, 2008 2:29 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

There's something about Dunn

It really says something that Ricciardi went psycho about Dunn the way he did, and now there’s such a small market for a rental 40HR guy who can post a 400+OBP. Those are rare skills and I would think that at minimum, the AL would be all over a guy like that.

I also disagree with ROBO on the lines being similar. 20 fewer points of AVG and 50 fewer of SLG means many baserunners were not advanced.

by GuyinNY on Jul 14, 2008 1:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ricciardi is, at this point, clearly an insane douche. The lack of interest is probably due to the fact that he would be a rental. He’s not in the CC class of players, so teams won’t want to give up one of their top prospects to get him.

Neglectful father of David Quinowski

by marcello on Jul 14, 2008 1:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

JP

I don’t doubt the quality or quantity of Ricciardi’s insanity or douchiness for a moment. However, it is a bit telling that as far as I could tell, there wasn’t a massive outpouring for support from inside the game for Dunn. Yes, a trainer stepped forward to say Dunn’s a gamer, but wouldn’t you have expected the entire Reds clubhouse and maybe even other players (presumably his friends) from around the game to have backed up Dunn? I’d imagine there’d be plenty of support of someone said the same thing about a Julio Franco or a Cliff Floyd.

I also doubt the Reds would require much more than a couple of grade B prospects. Maybe a B+, and a pair of C+’s?

by GuyinNY on Jul 14, 2008 1:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

What Ricciardi did was terrible, to call out a player like he did. Likewise, it’s probably not a good idea for players to call out Ricciardi for his comments. It’s still a business and he is one of the 30 most powerful people in that business. There also might have been some idea of, “Just ignore the crazy man.”

Neglectful father of David Quinowski

by marcello on Jul 14, 2008 1:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I suppose

This is probably the case, but I’m still surprised that at the lack of support Dunn received. A simple “Adam Dunn’s a really good guy, and I know he puts his insert cliche body part here into the game” would have sufficed.

by GuyinNY on Jul 14, 2008 1:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Dunn is averaging

1 rbi per 4.9 at bats. 1hr per 11.1 at bats. On pace for 40 homers for the 5 straight season. Of course we would all prefer Pujols high average but you can’t always get everything.

by kershaw_equals_stud on Jul 14, 2008 9:54 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

+1

Sure, it would be nice if he k’d less and put the ball in play more. But if you added that to his stellar power numbers, you’d have one of the greatest hitters of all time. Who wouldn’t want that? But it’s not realistic. No player is perfect at every aspect of the game. You take the good with the bad, and in Dunn’s case, I think the good more than outweighs the bad.

by ozzman99 on Jul 14, 2008 12:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

yes...everyone's got their weaknesses...

except for maybe arod and pujols….

ichiro doesnt hit for power. Hanley Ramirez is dreadful on defense. Ryan Howard cant defend or run, etc. However, it doesnt stop them from being great players….it stops them from being ‘5 tool players’ which are few and far between anyways

TPJ...you're dead to me

by billybeingbilly on Jul 14, 2008 2:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hell, for the sake of this argument, you could even say:

A-Rod strikes out too much.

Pujols is always dinged up.

Neglectful father of David Quinowski

by marcello on Jul 14, 2008 3:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Dunn's good outweighs his bad

I don’t think anyone here would argue that Dunn is a negative to a team. Obviously he has a positive worth. Any guy who’s been in the majors as long as he has and is getting paid what he is (about 10 mil this year) obviously has positive value.
I think what most of the Dunn detractors, and definitely I, am saying is that Dunn’s value as a homer and OBP guy is in contrast to the many things he does BADLY, namely make contact and play defense. While I’m as big a sabermetric fan as most of you, I think that sometimes forget that the game of baseball is played on a field, not on a piece of paper, and percentages don’t always govern what will happen.
I’ve pointed out several times that Dunn has very low RBI totals relative to his HR totals, which is a large function of his inability to shorten his swing when the situation dictates.
Baseball is a game of adjustments and Dunn fails miserably in that area.

by joltinjoe on Jul 14, 2008 3:04 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

true

I think that sometimes forget that the game of baseball is played on a field, not on a piece of paper, and percentages don’t always govern what will happen.

But you can’t build a team around one specific game situation, unless you only want to win a small percentage of your games. Over the course of a season, you win more games with Dunn than with a player who is league average at everything. Every once in a while, he strikes out with a runner on 3rd and one out, and you live with that.

by ozzman99 on Jul 14, 2008 4:18 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Looked it up real quick...

According to ESPN, since 2005, this is what Dunn has done with a runner on 3rd with less than 2 outs (didn’t see a category for runner on third with one out, just

90 at bats
23 BB
33 K
4 HR

So more than one out of every three times a runner is on third base, Dunn has been unable to advance them home.

"My mom always taught me it's better to laugh at yourself than to laugh at others. She was so wrong. ;)" -Pedrophile

by Boxkutter on Jul 14, 2008 5:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

As opposed to how many total AB's?

I count 1,961 AB’s in that same time span. That means the situation you’re pointing out has occured in about 4.6% of his total AB’s. Also, in those 90 AB’s you point to, Dunn has 61 RBI’s. Four of those RBI’s are himself, and some percentage of them must be other runners on base at the time, but I’d have to guess that a pretty good portion of them are the runner on 3rd. Now with a runner at 3rd and less than 2 outs, how many RBI/AB is the league average? I’m guessing that Dunn’s .67 RBI/AB probably isn’t bad. And certainly his performance in the other 95.4% of his AB’s is pretty good.

by ozzman99 on Jul 14, 2008 7:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

That's extremely typical

On average, a runner from third scores about half the time as a result of the next at bat.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Jul 14, 2008 8:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

To be fair to the Dunnster

When he’s at the plate, anyone on base is in scoring position

by joltinjoe on Jul 14, 2008 6:15 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Something I noticed

People seem to dislike Dunn getting a walk with a RISP. That doesn’t hurt his team at all. If placed correctly in the lineup, it should be a huge help. (And can we all stop using the clogging the bases phrase? Except for the Ernie Lombardi slow or the Herb Washington fast, the vast majority of runners will take the same amount of bases on each batted ball. Dunn is nowhere near either of those extremes.) A baseball game is made up of 27 outs per team. To shrink a game down to just one of those outs is always the wrong way to approach the issue. Which is the main flaw with any “clutch” argument… score 1 more run in the first and there is no clutch situation in the 9th. Always take the better hitter over the “clutch” guy, regardless of whether or not clutch exists.

by yellomellojello on Jul 15, 2008 4:19 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

so, what you're telling me is that with a runner on third in the 9th inning down by 1....

dunn isnt hurting his team by taking a walk?

thats crazy talk

TPJ...you're dead to me

by billybeingbilly on Jul 15, 2008 5:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

just hold on a minute

I’ve been on the anti-dunn side for most of this debate, but I have to take issue with the idea that Dunn “hurts” his team by taking a walk when his team is down by one with a runner on third.
If you meant that he isn’t really helping his team in that scenerio, I can agree with that. But to argue that a player getting on base when his team is trailing is hurting his team is just ludicris.
And if his team is down by one with just a runner on third, his being on first base means the WINNING run is now on base, which is definitely a BENEFIT to his team.

by joltinjoe on Jul 15, 2008 7:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

heavy on the sarcasm...

i was one of the main guys arguing AGAINST the point that i just made with rangersfan or whatever. he holds it against dunn that he walks alot with RISP

TPJ...you're dead to me

by billybeingbilly on Jul 15, 2008 8:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs