Dunn to the Dbacks

[RedFlash]

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

 

All I know was the fact that Owings future would not be on the mound. I was never impressed with Owings as a pitcher, even at GT and Tulane. I felt Owings future was likely at 1st base or LF.

 

You really think that Micha could be a position player?

 

He did a pretty good job of it in college.

 

True, but he's been pitching for 2 years. Yeah obviously he still can hit, but athletically I don't think hes in the shape to play a corner outfield position.

 

Yeah, but you think it would take very long for Owings to get in shape to play LF? I don't think so.

[Cynosure]

A few posts back someone asked if it was my declaration for 09 that the Reds will be contenders. Nope, no way before 2010.

 

Owings is only 24. He is having a terrible year this year but they can get him straight or Ankiel him.

 

The average age of that team without Griffey/Dunn/Harang is about 26.

[Jehrico]

when Howard doesn't K he's making much better contact

Sounds like something Mr. Obvious would say. ;)

[sneakypower]

the question called for an obvious answer

 

that's why Dunn gets bashed more than Howard about his Ks

[Guest]

Let's put it this way. Would you rather have Dunn who swings and misses a lot or Manny who doesn't?

 

Manny's obviously a better offensive player than Dunn, but is it really fair to compare the two? Manny's career OPS is .101 higher than Dunn's, and his 2008 OPS is .071 higher. On top of that, do you really want to label Manny as a contact hitter? He's been over 100 strikeouts 10 times in his career. While he may not strikeout as often as Dunn, it's not like Pujols who only Ks about 60 times a season.

 

But it's ok to compare the Neifi guys with Dunn who hit "weakly" to the pitcher? Manny swings hard and hits the ball hard and that is what has been said about Dunn. I'd rather have Manny then Dunn.

 

Because his production is higher. Manny has been better than Dunn, no question. But it is not becuase he strikes out less. Dunn is better than most everybody, with the exception of players like Manny.

 

But this is pointless in the discussion about strikeouts.

I'd argue that one of the primary reasons Manny's a better hitter than Dunn is because he strikes out less. He has the ability to make more contact while still swinging quite hard, which leads to more balls in play, more hits, etc. If Dunn could increase his contact rate and strike out less while keeping his production when he does make contact, he'd obviously be a better hitter. Pujols is the hitter he is because he can generate that kind of power while also being an exceptional contact hitter.

 

There are two sides of things: how much contact you make and then what you do with the ball when you do make contact. Strikeouts matter a lot because good things only happen when you avoid the k. But you also have to be able to do something good with the ball when you put it in play. Dunn is exceptional at the latter, but mediocre at the former. Because he gets exceptional results when he makes contact (plus the walks), he becomes a very productive player despite the low contact rate.

 

But saying that strikeouts don't matter just isn't true.

[Tracer Bullet]

Let's put it this way. Would you rather have Dunn who swings and misses a lot or Manny who doesn't?

 

Manny's obviously a better offensive player than Dunn, but is it really fair to compare the two? Manny's career OPS is .101 higher than Dunn's, and his 2008 OPS is .071 higher. On top of that, do you really want to label Manny as a contact hitter? He's been over 100 strikeouts 10 times in his career. While he may not strikeout as often as Dunn, it's not like Pujols who only Ks about 60 times a season.

 

But it's ok to compare the Neifi guys with Dunn who hit "weakly" to the pitcher? Manny swings hard and hits the ball hard and that is what has been said about Dunn. I'd rather have Manny then Dunn.

 

Because his production is higher. Manny has been better than Dunn, no question. But it is not becuase he strikes out less. Dunn is better than most everybody, with the exception of players like Manny.

 

But this is pointless in the discussion about strikeouts.

I'd argue that one of the primary reasons Manny's a better hitter than Dunn is because he strikes out less. He has the ability to make more contact while still swinging quite hard, which leads to more balls in play, more hits, etc. If Dunn could increase his contact rate and strike out less while keeping his production when he does make contact, he'd obviously be a better hitter. Pujols is the hitter he is because he can generate that kind of power while also being an exceptional contact hitter.

 

There are two sides of things: how much contact you make and then what you do with the ball when you do make contact. Strikeouts matter a lot because good things only happen when you avoid the k. But you also have to be able to do something good with the ball when you put it in play. Dunn is exceptional at the latter, but mediocre at the former. Because he gets exceptional results when he makes contact (plus the walks), he becomes a very productive player despite the low contact rate.

 

But saying that strikeouts don't matter just isn't true.

 

So are you saying strikeouts are significantly worse than other outs?

[Guest]

Let's put it this way. Would you rather have Dunn who swings and misses a lot or Manny who doesn't?

 

Manny's obviously a better offensive player than Dunn, but is it really fair to compare the two? Manny's career OPS is .101 higher than Dunn's, and his 2008 OPS is .071 higher. On top of that, do you really want to label Manny as a contact hitter? He's been over 100 strikeouts 10 times in his career. While he may not strikeout as often as Dunn, it's not like Pujols who only Ks about 60 times a season.

 

But it's ok to compare the Neifi guys with Dunn who hit "weakly" to the pitcher? Manny swings hard and hits the ball hard and that is what has been said about Dunn. I'd rather have Manny then Dunn.

 

Because his production is higher. Manny has been better than Dunn, no question. But it is not becuase he strikes out less. Dunn is better than most everybody, with the exception of players like Manny.

 

But this is pointless in the discussion about strikeouts.

I'd argue that one of the primary reasons Manny's a better hitter than Dunn is because he strikes out less. He has the ability to make more contact while still swinging quite hard, which leads to more balls in play, more hits, etc. If Dunn could increase his contact rate and strike out less while keeping his production when he does make contact, he'd obviously be a better hitter. Pujols is the hitter he is because he can generate that kind of power while also being an exceptional contact hitter.

 

There are two sides of things: how much contact you make and then what you do with the ball when you do make contact. Strikeouts matter a lot because good things only happen when you avoid the k. But you also have to be able to do something good with the ball when you put it in play. Dunn is exceptional at the latter, but mediocre at the former. Because he gets exceptional results when he makes contact (plus the walks), he becomes a very productive player despite the low contact rate.

 

But saying that strikeouts don't matter just isn't true.

 

So are you saying strikeouts are significantly worse than other outs?

Nope. I'm saying that striking out is significantly worse than sharply putting the ball into play.

[rchap24]

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

 

All I know was the fact that Owings future would not be on the mound. I was never impressed with Owings as a pitcher, even at GT and Tulane. I felt Owings future was likely at 1st base or LF.

 

You really think that Micha could be a position player?

 

He did a pretty good job of it in college.

 

True, but he's been pitching for 2 years. Yeah obviously he still can hit, but athletically I don't think hes in the shape to play a corner outfield position.

 

Yeah, but you think it would take very long for Owings to get in shape to play LF? I don't think so.

 

Im not saying it would take really long, but I dont think you could just throw him in an play LF after pitching for a long time. It would probably be a year or two until he was truly ready. Thats what I think could be wrong

[RedFlash]

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

 

All I know was the fact that Owings future would not be on the mound. I was never impressed with Owings as a pitcher, even at GT and Tulane. I felt Owings future was likely at 1st base or LF.

 

You really think that Micha could be a position player?

 

He did a pretty good job of it in college.

 

True, but he's been pitching for 2 years. Yeah obviously he still can hit, but athletically I don't think hes in the shape to play a corner outfield position.

 

Yeah, but you think it would take very long for Owings to get in shape to play LF? I don't think so.

 

Im not saying it would take really long, but I dont think you could just throw him in an play LF after pitching for a long time. It would probably be a year or two until he was truly ready. Thats what I think could be wrong

 

That I would agree with to a certain point. Owings is not that removed from playing a regular position, unlike Rick Ankiel. If he does indeed goes to the Reds, they should put him the AFL and then spend half of next season in AAA, learning LF. I mean really, he can't be that much worst in LF then Dunn, plus he's got the bat to play the field.

 

In other words....I didn't like Owings (or Van Benschoten for that matter) as pitchers, and I felt both had higher ceilings as hitters.

[CubinNY]

Nope. I'm saying that striking out is significantly worse than sharply putting the ball into play.

Except for when it results in an out. Then it's neither better nor worse.

 

What one thinks about the out is totally irrelevant.

[Guest]

Nope. I'm saying that striking out is significantly worse than sharply putting the ball into play.

Except for when it results in an out. Then it's neither better nor worse.

What one thinks about the out is totally irrelevant.

 

Depends on the situation.

[chopsx9]

Nope. I'm saying that striking out is significantly worse than sharply putting the ball into play.

Except for when it results in an out. Then it's neither better nor worse.

 

What one thinks about the out is totally irrelevant.

 

 

Tying run on third, less than 2 outs; a strikeout is not worse??

[rchap24]

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

 

All I know was the fact that Owings future would not be on the mound. I was never impressed with Owings as a pitcher, even at GT and Tulane. I felt Owings future was likely at 1st base or LF.

 

You really think that Micha could be a position player?

 

He did a pretty good job of it in college.

 

True, but he's been pitching for 2 years. Yeah obviously he still can hit, but athletically I don't think hes in the shape to play a corner outfield position.

 

Yeah, but you think it would take very long for Owings to get in shape to play LF? I don't think so.

 

Im not saying it would take really long, but I dont think you could just throw him in an play LF after pitching for a long time. It would probably be a year or two until he was truly ready. Thats what I think could be wrong

 

That I would agree with to a certain point. Owings is not that removed from playing a regular position, unlike Rick Ankiel. If he does indeed goes to the Reds, they should put him the AFL and then spend half of next season in AAA, learning LF. I mean really, he can't be that much worst in LF then Dunn, plus he's got the bat to play the field.

 

In other words....I didn't like Owings (or Van Benschoten for that matter) as pitchers, and I felt both had higher ceilings as hitters.

 

No I agree with you about that. That sounds about right

[CubinNY]

Nope. I'm saying that striking out is significantly worse than sharply putting the ball into play.

Except for when it results in an out. Then it's neither better nor worse.

 

What one thinks about the out is totally irrelevant.

 

 

Tying run on third, less than 2 outs; a strikeout is not worse??

 

This is ridiculous. If the runner doesn't score, not worse. If the runner scores better.

 

What anyone thinks about the out doesn't matter. If it makes people feel better that a player hit the ball sharply or the fielder made a great play, fine, feel better about the out. The result is the same as a strikeout.

 

As I've said before context is everything. If the out results in a run that's a "better" out. It doesn't matter how the out was made.

Edited August 14, 2008 by CubinNY

[rchap24]

Nope. I'm saying that striking out is significantly worse than sharply putting the ball into play.

Except for when it results in an out. Then it's neither better nor worse.

 

What one thinks about the out is totally irrelevant.

 

 

Tying run on third, less than 2 outs; a strikeout is not worse??

 

This is ridiculous. If the runner doesn't score, not worse. If the runner scores worse.

 

What anyone thinks about the out doesn't matter. If it makes people feel better that a player hit the ball sharply or the fielder made a great play, fine, feel better about the out. The result is the same as a strikeout.

 

As I've said before context is everything. If the out results in a run that's a "better" out. It doesn't matter how the out was made.

 

Yeah why are you guys still talking about which type of out is worse. An out is an out it doesn't really matter.

[Mizzou]

I know a lot of people want to pretend that emotions don't exist in the game of baseball, but striking out with the bases loaded and no one out can be pretty demoralizing. It's a lot easier to walk back into the dugout if you line out sharply than if you strike out.

[jersey cubs fan]

I know a lot of people want to pretend that emotions don't exist in the game of baseball, but striking out with the bases loaded and no one out can be pretty demoralizing. It's a lot easier to walk back into the dugout if you line out sharply than if you strike out.

 

 

and....?

[Mizzou]

I know a lot of people want to pretend that emotions don't exist in the game of baseball, but striking out with the bases loaded and no one out can be pretty demoralizing. It's a lot easier to walk back into the dugout if you line out sharply than if you strike out.

 

 

and....?

...and that can have an effect on your next at bat. If you're thinking about how you failed in your previous at bat, that can have an effect on your next one. I guess what I'm getting at is that this is another way (granted, a slight one) where a strikeout is worse than another type of out.

[imb]

I know a lot of people want to pretend that emotions don't exist in the game of baseball, but striking out with the bases loaded and no one out can be pretty demoralizing. It's a lot easier to walk back into the dugout if you line out sharply than if you strike out.

 

 

and....?

...and that can have an effect on your next at bat. If you're thinking about how you failed in your previous at bat, that can have an effect on your next one. I guess what I'm getting at is that this is another way (granted, a slight one) where a strikeout is worse than another type of out.

 

the five times a year this happens to a single I'm sure has a big effect on the season

[UK1679666180]

Nope. I'm saying that striking out is significantly worse than sharply putting the ball into play.

Except for when it results in an out. Then it's neither better nor worse.

 

What one thinks about the out is totally irrelevant.

 

Tim is exacly right on this one, if Dunn put the ball in play at a similar ratio as Ramirez, he'd be a much better hitter.

 

People give Dunn all this credit for working the count and it has hurt him more than helped him. He is a poor two strike hitter and more than almost anyone in the game is hitting with two strikes. Unless he's amazing at fouling pitches off, he's been too selective, IMO.

[CubinNY]

Nope. I'm saying that striking out is significantly worse than sharply putting the ball into play.

Except for when it results in an out. Then it's neither better nor worse.

 

What one thinks about the out is totally irrelevant.

 

Tim is exacly right on this one, if Dunn put the ball in play at a similar ratio as Ramirez, he'd be a much better hitter.

 

People give Dunn all this credit for working the count and it has hurt him more than helped him. He is a poor two strike hitter and more than almost anyone in the game is hitting with two strikes. Unless he's amazing at fouling pitches off, he's been too selective, IMO.

I have no idea what point you are trying to make here.

 

Tim is exactly right on what? making an out on a ball in play is better than striking out? Or Dunn would be better if he put the ball in play more?

 

I don't know how you can say "working the count" has hurt Dunn. Among power hitters, he's got one of the best OBP in all of baseball. I have to believe that putting the ball in play would negatively affect his OBP and his power numbers. It might help his BA though, but at what cost?

 

As far as one out being better than another, well, we'll have to agree to disagree.

[TruffleShuffle]

As far as one out being better than another, well, we'll have to agree to disagree.

 

i'm not sure how you can agree to disagree on something when you're wrong about it. the expected value of putting the ball in play is greater than the expected value of striking out. i'm not taking into account whether dunn would be a better or worse hitter if he played more to contact, but if you have two guys that are exactly equal except one makes 100 "expected outs" (including errors) by putting the ball in play, and the other makes 100 outs by striking out, i'd obviously take the guy who makes the outs by putting the ball in play.

[imb]

there are outs that are better than others, but the times in which they occur are relatively rare, and the times that they occur and make an overall difference to a single game are rarer and the times that they occur and make a difference to a game that makes a difference to a season is rarer-er.

[CubinNY]

As far as one out being better than another, well, we'll have to agree to disagree.

 

i'm not sure how you can agree to disagree on something when you're wrong about it. the expected value of putting the ball in play is greater than the expected value of striking out. i'm not taking into account whether dunn would be a better or worse hitter if he played more to contact, but if you have two guys that are exactly equal except one makes 100 "expected outs" (including errors) by putting the ball in play, and the other makes 100 outs by striking out, i'd obviously take the guy who makes the outs by putting the ball in play.

 

Your assumption is wrong. An out is an out. In real world there is "no expected" there is only what happens and what doesn't happen. The way the out happens matters not.

[TruffleShuffle]

As far as one out being better than another, well, we'll have to agree to disagree.

 

i'm not sure how you can agree to disagree on something when you're wrong about it. the expected value of putting the ball in play is greater than the expected value of striking out. i'm not taking into account whether dunn would be a better or worse hitter if he played more to contact, but if you have two guys that are exactly equal except one makes 100 "expected outs" (including errors) by putting the ball in play, and the other makes 100 outs by striking out, i'd obviously take the guy who makes the outs by putting the ball in play.

 

Your assumption is wrong. An out is an out. In real world there is "no expected" there is only what happens and what doesn't happen. The way the out happens matters not.

 

yeah, and in the real world the guy who makes 100 outs by putting the ball in play hits sac flies, grounds home a runner from third, gets on base via errors and moves runners up. that outweighs the negative of the 2 times he rolls into a double play, and is more valuable than the 100 strikeouts from the other guy.