Dunn to the Dbacks

[chopsx9]

Actually, K's are terrible. Everyone who argues that nothing good happens on k's (with extreme exceptions) is dead on. They are absolutely correct.

 

 

 

But they're also missing the forest for the trees.

 

 

I've never heard someone argue ks are a fantastic result. But on the scale of terrible things, ks aren't worse than other outs, at least not significantly so.

 

Of course they are. Except in situations where the cathcher misses the ball you can't advance a runner with a SO, you can't score a runner from third with a SO. They are not as bad as hitting into a DP in most cases. Again SO's aren't the be all and end all but they are not the same as other outs.

[jersey cubs fan]

Actually, K's are terrible. Everyone who argues that nothing good happens on k's (with extreme exceptions) is dead on. They are absolutely correct.

 

 

 

But they're also missing the forest for the trees.

 

 

Only if they say that Dunn is a bad player because of it; which I don't think anybody has said.

I don't think anyone has suggested Dunn should change his approach - at this point his game is what it is. He hits a ton of home runs and walks a lot which are fantastic. He strikes out a lot and is a terrible defender which is bad. The good outweighs the bad at this point and he is a very productive player - but that doesn't change the fact that SO's are bad and should not simply be dismissed, especially in the quantities in which Dunn accumulates them.

 

wrong

dead wrong

absolutely positively wrong

no where near correct, rather, you are wrong

[erik316wttn]

Actually, K's are terrible. Everyone who argues that nothing good happens on k's (with extreme exceptions) is dead on. They are absolutely correct.

 

 

 

But they're also missing the forest for the trees.

 

Sure, unless you're striking out on a pitch headed for the backstop, not much good comes from a K, since the pitcher isn't depending on anyone else to get you out.

 

But it is still just one out.

 

Yes, but if you put the ball in play, you have a chance of the defense messing up, and therefore something good happening out of it. The chances are slim, yes, but they're a hell of a lot better than if you strike out.

[jersey cubs fan]

Actually, K's are terrible. Everyone who argues that nothing good happens on k's (with extreme exceptions) is dead on. They are absolutely correct.

 

 

 

But they're also missing the forest for the trees.

 

Sure, unless you're striking out on a pitch headed for the backstop, not much good comes from a K, since the pitcher isn't depending on anyone else to get you out.

 

But it is still just one out.

 

Yes, but if you put the ball in play, you have a chance of the defense messing up, and therefore something good happening out of it. The chances are slim, yes, but they're a hell of a lot better than if you strike out.

 

so what?

 

The rates that he produces at tells us what he produces, which is good, much better than the vast majority. It does not matter what could happen if he didn't strike out, what matters is what does happen. And what happens when Adam Dunn comes to the plate is a more than acceptable rate of success.

 

 

 

 

The fascination with the strike out is so obnoxious.

[erik316wttn]

Actually, K's are terrible. Everyone who argues that nothing good happens on k's (with extreme exceptions) is dead on. They are absolutely correct.

 

 

 

But they're also missing the forest for the trees.

 

Sure, unless you're striking out on a pitch headed for the backstop, not much good comes from a K, since the pitcher isn't depending on anyone else to get you out.

 

But it is still just one out.

 

Yes, but if you put the ball in play, you have a chance of the defense messing up, and therefore something good happening out of it. The chances are slim, yes, but they're a hell of a lot better than if you strike out.

 

so what?

 

The rates that he produces at tells us what he produces, which is good, much better than the vast majority. It does not matter what could happen if he didn't strike out, what matters is what does happen. And what happens when Adam Dunn comes to the plate is a more than acceptable rate of success.

 

 

 

 

The fascination with the strike out is so obnoxious.

 

I'd still rather have a guy who makes the same number of outs, who is able to at least have productive outs.... move the runners over and such. A K isn't the end of the world, and given the choice I'd take a K over a DP, but excessive amounts of strikeouts hurt the team. Yes, he produces well, but he could produce much better if he didn't strike out so damn much.

[fromthestretch]

Actually, K's are terrible. Everyone who argues that nothing good happens on k's (with extreme exceptions) is dead on. They are absolutely correct.

 

 

 

But they're also missing the forest for the trees.

 

Sure, unless you're striking out on a pitch headed for the backstop, not much good comes from a K, since the pitcher isn't depending on anyone else to get you out.

 

But it is still just one out.

 

Yes, but if you put the ball in play, you have a chance of the defense messing up, and therefore something good happening out of it. The chances are slim, yes, but they're a hell of a lot better than if you strike out.

 

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but at the major league level, the percentage of times that a batted ball put into play results in an error is less than 2%. That's less than two per 100. Over 550 at-bats, let's say the average hitter strikes out 80 times (I have no idea how accurate that is, but let's go with that). Adam Dunn averages about 180 strikeouts per 550 at-bats. If he were to cut down on the strikeouts to where he was only striking out 80 times per season, that's 100 more times he's putting the ball in play. Based on the average number of balls in play that result in an error, you're probably talking about only a couple more times per season where his at-bat would result in him getting on base via error. You also have to factor in how many of those are going to happen at a time when it actually could make a difference in the game. We're not even mentioning the effect that a more contact-minded approach could have on the rest of his game (less power, fewer walks).

[chopsx9]

Actually, K's are terrible. Everyone who argues that nothing good happens on k's (with extreme exceptions) is dead on. They are absolutely correct.

 

 

 

But they're also missing the forest for the trees.

 

 

Only if they say that Dunn is a bad player because of it; which I don't think anybody has said.

I don't think anyone has suggested Dunn should change his approach - at this point his game is what it is. He hits a ton of home runs and walks a lot which are fantastic. He strikes out a lot and is a terrible defender which is bad. The good outweighs the bad at this point and he is a very productive player - but that doesn't change the fact that SO's are bad and should not simply be dismissed, especially in the quantities in which Dunn accumulates them.

 

wrong

dead wrong

absolutely positively wrong

no where near correct, rather, you are wrong

 

If another player were to duplicate Dunn's numbers and strikeout 100 times less that player would be a more productive player (Again no one is saying Dunn is NOT very productive)

 

So in fact you are wrong...and I will leave the obnoxious arguments all to you for obvious reasons.

[ConstableRabbit]

Actually, K's are terrible. Everyone who argues that nothing good happens on k's (with extreme exceptions) is dead on. They are absolutely correct.

 

 

 

But they're also missing the forest for the trees.

 

Sure, unless you're striking out on a pitch headed for the backstop, not much good comes from a K, since the pitcher isn't depending on anyone else to get you out.

 

But it is still just one out.

 

Yes, but if you put the ball in play, you have a chance of the defense messing up, and therefore something good happening out of it. The chances are slim, yes, but they're a hell of a lot better than if you strike out.

 

so what?

 

The rates that he produces at tells us what he produces, which is good, much better than the vast majority. It does not matter what could happen if he didn't strike out, what matters is what does happen. And what happens when Adam Dunn comes to the plate is a more than acceptable rate of success.

 

 

 

 

The fascination with the strike out is so obnoxious.

 

I'd still rather have a guy who makes the same number of outs, who is able to at least have productive outs.... move the runners over and such. A K isn't the end of the world, and given the choice I'd take a K over a DP, but excessive amounts of strikeouts hurt the team. Yes, he produces well, but he could produce much better if he didn't strike out so damn much.

Exactly. It's almost like the hustle argument. All else equal, you'd rather take the guy who hustles over the guy who doesn't, right? (Unless there are nagging injury issues, obviously)

 

Are you saying that you would not prefer someone of Dunn's abilities who struck out less?

[SouthSideRyan]

Actually, K's are terrible. Everyone who argues that nothing good happens on k's (with extreme exceptions) is dead on. They are absolutely correct.

 

 

 

But they're also missing the forest for the trees.

 

 

Only if they say that Dunn is a bad player because of it; which I don't think anybody has said.

I don't think anyone has suggested Dunn should change his approach - at this point his game is what it is. He hits a ton of home runs and walks a lot which are fantastic. He strikes out a lot and is a terrible defender which is bad. The good outweighs the bad at this point and he is a very productive player - but that doesn't change the fact that SO's are bad and should not simply be dismissed, especially in the quantities in which Dunn accumulates them.

 

wrong

dead wrong

absolutely positively wrong

no where near correct, rather, you are wrong

 

If another player were to duplicate Dunn's numbers and strikeout 100 times less that player would be a more productive player (Again no one is saying Dunn is NOT very productive)

 

So in fact you are wrong...and I will leave the obnoxious arguments all to you for obvious reasons.

 

But Dunn doesn't have the option to strike out 100 times less and be as productive of a player. If Adam Dunn struck out 100 times less he would wind up being a worse player. It's a tradeoff based on a guy's talent.

[fromthestretch]

Actually, K's are terrible. Everyone who argues that nothing good happens on k's (with extreme exceptions) is dead on. They are absolutely correct.

 

 

 

But they're also missing the forest for the trees.

 

 

Only if they say that Dunn is a bad player because of it; which I don't think anybody has said.

I don't think anyone has suggested Dunn should change his approach - at this point his game is what it is. He hits a ton of home runs and walks a lot which are fantastic. He strikes out a lot and is a terrible defender which is bad. The good outweighs the bad at this point and he is a very productive player - but that doesn't change the fact that SO's are bad and should not simply be dismissed, especially in the quantities in which Dunn accumulates them.

 

wrong

dead wrong

absolutely positively wrong

no where near correct, rather, you are wrong

 

If another player were to duplicate Dunn's numbers and strikeout 100 times less that player would be a more productive player (Again no one is saying Dunn is NOT very productive)

 

So in fact you are wrong...and I will leave the obnoxious arguments all to you for obvious reasons.

 

That's just it, Dunn wouldn't duplicate his numbers if he took a more contact-minded approach. His power and walk totals would most likely suffer for it.

[chopsx9]

Actually, K's are terrible. Everyone who argues that nothing good happens on k's (with extreme exceptions) is dead on. They are absolutely correct.

 

 

 

But they're also missing the forest for the trees.

 

Sure, unless you're striking out on a pitch headed for the backstop, not much good comes from a K, since the pitcher isn't depending on anyone else to get you out.

 

But it is still just one out.

 

Yes, but if you put the ball in play, you have a chance of the defense messing up, and therefore something good happening out of it. The chances are slim, yes, but they're a hell of a lot better than if you strike out.

 

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but at the major league level, the percentage of times that a batted ball put into play results in an error is less than 2%. That's less than two per 100. Over 550 at-bats, let's say the average hitter strikes out 80 times (I have no idea how accurate that is, but let's go with that). Adam Dunn averages about 180 strikeouts per 550 at-bats. If he were to cut down on the strikeouts to where he was only striking out 80 times per season, that's 100 more times he's putting the ball in play. Based on the average number of balls in play that result in an error, you're probably talking about only a couple more times per season where his at-bat would result in him getting on base via error. You also have to factor in how many of those are going to happen at a time when it actually could make a difference in the game. We're not even mentioning the effect that a more contact-minded approach could have on the rest of his game (less power, fewer walks).

 

But nobody has said he should change. I wouldn't want him to change. He SO's a lot; it is not a positive part of his game. That's all.

[fromthestretch]

Actually, K's are terrible. Everyone who argues that nothing good happens on k's (with extreme exceptions) is dead on. They are absolutely correct.

 

 

 

But they're also missing the forest for the trees.

 

Sure, unless you're striking out on a pitch headed for the backstop, not much good comes from a K, since the pitcher isn't depending on anyone else to get you out.

 

But it is still just one out.

 

Yes, but if you put the ball in play, you have a chance of the defense messing up, and therefore something good happening out of it. The chances are slim, yes, but they're a hell of a lot better than if you strike out.

 

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but at the major league level, the percentage of times that a batted ball put into play results in an error is less than 2%. That's less than two per 100. Over 550 at-bats, let's say the average hitter strikes out 80 times (I have no idea how accurate that is, but let's go with that). Adam Dunn averages about 180 strikeouts per 550 at-bats. If he were to cut down on the strikeouts to where he was only striking out 80 times per season, that's 100 more times he's putting the ball in play. Based on the average number of balls in play that result in an error, you're probably talking about only a couple more times per season where his at-bat would result in him getting on base via error. You also have to factor in how many of those are going to happen at a time when it actually could make a difference in the game. We're not even mentioning the effect that a more contact-minded approach could have on the rest of his game (less power, fewer walks).

 

But nobody has said he should change. I wouldn't want him to change. He SO's a lot; it is not a positive part of his game. That's all.

 

I was just showing erik how slim of a chance it is that the defense is going to mess up if Dunn starts putting the ball in play more.

[chopsx9]

Actually, K's are terrible. Everyone who argues that nothing good happens on k's (with extreme exceptions) is dead on. They are absolutely correct.

 

 

 

But they're also missing the forest for the trees.

 

 

Only if they say that Dunn is a bad player because of it; which I don't think anybody has said.

I don't think anyone has suggested Dunn should change his approach - at this point his game is what it is. He hits a ton of home runs and walks a lot which are fantastic. He strikes out a lot and is a terrible defender which is bad. The good outweighs the bad at this point and he is a very productive player - but that doesn't change the fact that SO's are bad and should not simply be dismissed, especially in the quantities in which Dunn accumulates them.

 

wrong

dead wrong

absolutely positively wrong

no where near correct, rather, you are wrong

 

If another player were to duplicate Dunn's numbers and strikeout 100 times less that player would be a more productive player (Again no one is saying Dunn is NOT very productive)

 

So in fact you are wrong...and I will leave the obnoxious arguments all to you for obvious reasons.

 

That's just it, Dunn wouldn't duplicate his numbers if he took a more contact-minded approach. His power and walk totals would most likely suffer for it.

 

Absolutely! and he shouldn't try. Nobody has said he should. BUT if he were able to (and its not going to happen) it would make a good player better.

[fromthestretch]

Actually, K's are terrible. Everyone who argues that nothing good happens on k's (with extreme exceptions) is dead on. They are absolutely correct.

 

 

 

But they're also missing the forest for the trees.

 

Sure, unless you're striking out on a pitch headed for the backstop, not much good comes from a K, since the pitcher isn't depending on anyone else to get you out.

 

But it is still just one out.

 

Yes, but if you put the ball in play, you have a chance of the defense messing up, and therefore something good happening out of it. The chances are slim, yes, but they're a hell of a lot better than if you strike out.

 

so what?

 

The rates that he produces at tells us what he produces, which is good, much better than the vast majority. It does not matter what could happen if he didn't strike out, what matters is what does happen. And what happens when Adam Dunn comes to the plate is a more than acceptable rate of success.

 

 

 

 

The fascination with the strike out is so obnoxious.

 

I'd still rather have a guy who makes the same number of outs, who is able to at least have productive outs.... move the runners over and such. A K isn't the end of the world, and given the choice I'd take a K over a DP, but excessive amounts of strikeouts hurt the team. Yes, he produces well, but he could produce much better if he didn't strike out so damn much.

Exactly. It's almost like the hustle argument. All else equal, you'd rather take the guy who hustles over the guy who doesn't, right? (Unless there are nagging injury issues, obviously)

 

Are you saying that you would not prefer someone of Dunn's abilities who struck out less?

 

How many fewer strikeouts are you looking for? There really aren't that many .900 OPS players that strikeout less than 120 times per season. And of those that do, not many draw 110 walks per year.

[ConstableRabbit]

Actually, K's are terrible. Everyone who argues that nothing good happens on k's (with extreme exceptions) is dead on. They are absolutely correct.

 

 

 

But they're also missing the forest for the trees.

 

Sure, unless you're striking out on a pitch headed for the backstop, not much good comes from a K, since the pitcher isn't depending on anyone else to get you out.

 

But it is still just one out.

 

Yes, but if you put the ball in play, you have a chance of the defense messing up, and therefore something good happening out of it. The chances are slim, yes, but they're a hell of a lot better than if you strike out.

 

so what?

 

The rates that he produces at tells us what he produces, which is good, much better than the vast majority. It does not matter what could happen if he didn't strike out, what matters is what does happen. And what happens when Adam Dunn comes to the plate is a more than acceptable rate of success.

 

 

 

 

The fascination with the strike out is so obnoxious.

 

I'd still rather have a guy who makes the same number of outs, who is able to at least have productive outs.... move the runners over and such. A K isn't the end of the world, and given the choice I'd take a K over a DP, but excessive amounts of strikeouts hurt the team. Yes, he produces well, but he could produce much better if he didn't strike out so damn much.

Exactly. It's almost like the hustle argument. All else equal, you'd rather take the guy who hustles over the guy who doesn't, right? (Unless there are nagging injury issues, obviously)

 

Are you saying that you would not prefer someone of Dunn's abilities who struck out less?

 

How many fewer strikeouts are you looking for? There really aren't that many .900 OPS players that strikeout less than 120 times per season. And of those that do, not many draw 110 walks per year.

Oh of course. But ideally, wouldn't you WANT him to strikeout less if it was possible?

 

This is kind of a circular argument.

[abuck1220]

i think we can all agree that we want a guy who hits 75 hrs and strikes out zero times.

[chopsx9]

i think we can all agree that we want a guy who hits 75 hrs and strikes out zero times.

 

I want at lest one triple though. :mrgreen:

[Outshined_One]

i think we can all agree that we want a guy who hits 75 hrs and strikes out zero times.

 

There can be only one Barry Bonds

[Jehrico]

There's another angle that needs to be looked at with respect to Dunn's approach. Considering he strikes out alot AND walks alot, he's pretty much maximizing the number of pitches he can get that starter to throw during any given at bat. He may not be "putting pressure" much on the defense with his approach, but he is putting added pressure on the pitcher. Give me 3-4 guys like that in an otherwise average lineup, and I'll get to other teams bullpens more quickly. Considering bullpens normally have weaker pitching than you'd find in a starting rotation, his approach ends up helping the rest of the team later in the game as well.

[ConstableRabbit]

There's another angle that needs to be looked at with respect to Dunn's approach. Considering he strikes out alot AND walks alot, he's pretty much maximizing the number of pitches he can get that starter to throw during any given at bat. He may not be "putting pressure" much on the defense with his approach, but he is putting added pressure on the pitcher. Give me 3-4 guys like that in an otherwise average lineup, and I'll get to other teams bullpens more quickly. Considering bullpens normally have weaker pitching than you'd find in a starting rotation, his approach ends up helping the rest of the team later in the game as well.

That's a very good point. Dunn's P/PA stacks up well vs. the rest of the league. He's second in the NL. (Kosuke is 3rd, Fred Lewis is 1st)

[Little Slide Rooter]

Rotoworld reports that hard hitting but poor pitching pitcher Micah Owings will be one of the PTBNL sent to DBR.

[Post Count Padder]

The Arizona Republic reports that Micah Owings is one of the players to be named in the Adam Dunn deal.

 

Source: Arizona Republic

[Post Count Padder]

The Cincinnati Enquirer reports that Adam Dunn is looking for a "$100 to $120 million contract."

 

Bronson Arroyo says that fact was no secret in the Cincinnati clubhouse. Dunn is 28 years old with an career OPS of .900, which is almost exactly the case with free agent-to-be Mark Teixeira, with Teixeira posting a better batting average. Both should manage $100 million deals in the world of ever-expanding baseball salaries.

Source: Cincinnati Enquirer

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

The deal does look better for the Reds if Owings is in it.

 

And here is another link...

 

Link.

[nilodnayr]

The deal does look better for the Reds if Owings is in it.

 

And here is another link...

 

Link.

 

Better, but I'd still take the draft picks. Really all depends on if Owings was hurt, which is a double edged sword. It would explain him sucking, but then hes hurt.