Dunn to the Dbacks

[Tracer Bullet]

There's no guarantee that if Dunn takes a whack at a pitch early in the count he's a) going to make contact or b) it's going to not result in a putout. I'm sure there are times where Dunn would have hit a HR or a base hit had he made contact earlier in the count but it stands to reason that the times he would have made an out would vastly outnumber the times he wouldn't have. In other words, If he makes contact on pitches earlier in the count his BA in those situations would surely go down. The reason it is so high is likely because he's getting pitches he can mash.

 

What I'd like to see is some analysis of his swings in those counts (swings = times he makes contact + times he does not). If he's not swinging early I think your point has some merit, but if his swing % is not significantly less....

 

My opinion is that Dunn knows his limitations, like any great hitter. He's a low contact masher with a very good eye for pitches that he can drive.

 

I know that I'm in the minority on all of this admiration about Dunn, but I would never call Dunn a "great hitter". A "great hitter" would be able to make contact with the ball more often than Dunn does.

 

Juan Pierre makes lots of contact.

[Magnetic Curses]

There's no guarantee that if Dunn takes a whack at a pitch early in the count he's a) going to make contact or b) it's going to not result in a putout. I'm sure there are times where Dunn would have hit a HR or a base hit had he made contact earlier in the count but it stands to reason that the times he would have made an out would vastly outnumber the times he wouldn't have. In other words, If he makes contact on pitches earlier in the count his BA in those situations would surely go down. The reason it is so high is likely because he's getting pitches he can mash.

 

What I'd like to see is some analysis of his swings in those counts (swings = times he makes contact + times he does not). If he's not swinging early I think your point has some merit, but if his swing % is not significantly less....

 

My opinion is that Dunn knows his limitations, like any great hitter. He's a low contact masher with a very good eye for pitches that he can drive.

 

I know that I'm in the minority on all of this admiration about Dunn, but I would never call Dunn a "great hitter". A "great hitter" would be able to make contact with the ball more often than Dunn does.

 

Juan Pierre makes lots of contact.

 

yeah, contact is overrated. it really depends on what kind of contact one makes.

[Guest]

There's no guarantee that if Dunn takes a whack at a pitch early in the count he's a) going to make contact or b) it's going to not result in a putout. I'm sure there are times where Dunn would have hit a HR or a base hit had he made contact earlier in the count but it stands to reason that the times he would have made an out would vastly outnumber the times he wouldn't have. In other words, If he makes contact on pitches earlier in the count his BA in those situations would surely go down. The reason it is so high is likely because he's getting pitches he can mash.

 

What I'd like to see is some analysis of his swings in those counts (swings = times he makes contact + times he does not). If he's not swinging early I think your point has some merit, but if his swing % is not significantly less....

 

My opinion is that Dunn knows his limitations, like any great hitter. He's a low contact masher with a very good eye for pitches that he can drive.

 

I know that I'm in the minority on all of this admiration about Dunn, but I would never call Dunn a "great hitter". A "great hitter" would be able to make contact with the ball more often than Dunn does.

 

Juan Pierre makes lots of contact.

 

yeah, contact is overrated. it really depends on what kind of contact one makes.

To reiterate an earlier point - it's both the amount of contact and what kind of contact. They each matter quite a bit. If Dunn could maintain the kind of contact he makes and yet make more of it, he'd be "Bondsian". But he has a lousy contact rate, which makes him something less. The strikeouts matter. He just does enough when he does make contact to still be a very productive hitter.

[Tracer Bullet]

There's no guarantee that if Dunn takes a whack at a pitch early in the count he's a) going to make contact or b) it's going to not result in a putout. I'm sure there are times where Dunn would have hit a HR or a base hit had he made contact earlier in the count but it stands to reason that the times he would have made an out would vastly outnumber the times he wouldn't have. In other words, If he makes contact on pitches earlier in the count his BA in those situations would surely go down. The reason it is so high is likely because he's getting pitches he can mash.

 

What I'd like to see is some analysis of his swings in those counts (swings = times he makes contact + times he does not). If he's not swinging early I think your point has some merit, but if his swing % is not significantly less....

 

My opinion is that Dunn knows his limitations, like any great hitter. He's a low contact masher with a very good eye for pitches that he can drive.

 

I know that I'm in the minority on all of this admiration about Dunn, but I would never call Dunn a "great hitter". A "great hitter" would be able to make contact with the ball more often than Dunn does.

 

Juan Pierre makes lots of contact.

 

yeah, contact is overrated. it really depends on what kind of contact one makes.

To reiterate an earlier point - it's both the amount of contact and what kind of contact. They each matter quite a bit. If Dunn could maintain the kind of contact he makes and yet make more of it, he'd be "Bondsian". But he has a lousy contact rate, which makes him something less. The strikeouts matter. He just does enough when he does make contact to still be a very productive hitter.

 

Well, I've dropped that particular dispute with you (and others). We'll just have to agree to disagree as to whether increasing the number of pitches at which he swings will have an overall negative or positive effect on Dunn's production (unless Dunn takes Ping's advice and gets more aggressive early in counts and swings at strikes that he would normally take - then maybe we'll find out for sure).

 

My comment here was directed solely at the poster who said Dunn could never be a great hitter b/c he doesn't make enough contact. Maybe you also don't think he's a great hitter for this reason, but that didn't seem to be the point you were making. I think he's a great hitter b/c he has great production, even though his AVG is bad.

[Guest]

yeah, contact is overrated. it really depends on what kind of contact one makes.

To reiterate an earlier point - it's both the amount of contact and what kind of contact. They each matter quite a bit. If Dunn could maintain the kind of contact he makes and yet make more of it, he'd be "Bondsian". But he has a lousy contact rate, which makes him something less. The strikeouts matter. He just does enough when he does make contact to still be a very productive hitter.

 

Well, I've dropped that particular dispute with you (and others). We'll just have to agree to disagree as to whether increasing the number of pitches at which he swings will have an overall negative or positive effect on Dunn's production (unless Dunn takes Ping's advice and gets more aggressive early in counts and swings at strikes that he would normally take - then maybe we'll find out for sure).

 

My comment here was directed solely at the poster who said Dunn could never be a great hitter b/c he doesn't make enough contact. Maybe you also don't think he's a great hitter for this reason, but that didn't seem to be the point you were making. I think he's a great hitter b/c he has great production, even though his AVG is bad.

Ping is arguing the actual case of Dunn. I'm arguing the theoretical point where people are saying that contact rate and strikeouts don't matter. I don't know if real-life Dunn could change his approach and be more productive or not.

[bukie]

Ping is arguing that Dunn is taking hittable strikes early in the count in the name of patience, and that is detrimental to his productivity as a hitter. I'm not sure the point of arguing otherwise. Of course it's detrimental.

 

Now as to the question of whether or not Dunn would actually change his approach and maintain solid contact were he to swing earlier in the count, that's largely conjecture.

[Tracer Bullet]

yeah, contact is overrated. it really depends on what kind of contact one makes.

To reiterate an earlier point - it's both the amount of contact and what kind of contact. They each matter quite a bit. If Dunn could maintain the kind of contact he makes and yet make more of it, he'd be "Bondsian". But he has a lousy contact rate, which makes him something less. The strikeouts matter. He just does enough when he does make contact to still be a very productive hitter.

 

Well, I've dropped that particular dispute with you (and others). We'll just have to agree to disagree as to whether increasing the number of pitches at which he swings will have an overall negative or positive effect on Dunn's production (unless Dunn takes Ping's advice and gets more aggressive early in counts and swings at strikes that he would normally take - then maybe we'll find out for sure).

 

My comment here was directed solely at the poster who said Dunn could never be a great hitter b/c he doesn't make enough contact. Maybe you also don't think he's a great hitter for this reason, but that didn't seem to be the point you were making. I think he's a great hitter b/c he has great production, even though his AVG is bad.

Ping is arguing the actual case of Dunn. I'm arguing the theoretical point where people are saying that contact rate and strikeouts don't matter. I don't know if real-life Dunn could change his approach and be more productive or not.

 

At least in my case, Dunn was but an example of the overall point - strikeouts "matter" to some extent, I just don't see them as particularly significant when the overall production of the hitter is as great as Dunn's (or Howard, pick the player). But again - my point above was simply to say that contact alone doesn't prohibit Dunn from being a great hitter (and vice versa - making a lot of contact doesn't make a bad hitter good). Again, maybe you disagree on that point.

[Backtobanks]

There's no guarantee that if Dunn takes a whack at a pitch early in the count he's a) going to make contact or b) it's going to not result in a putout. I'm sure there are times where Dunn would have hit a HR or a base hit had he made contact earlier in the count but it stands to reason that the times he would have made an out would vastly outnumber the times he wouldn't have. In other words, If he makes contact on pitches earlier in the count his BA in those situations would surely go down. The reason it is so high is likely because he's getting pitches he can mash.

 

What I'd like to see is some analysis of his swings in those counts (swings = times he makes contact + times he does not). If he's not swinging early I think your point has some merit, but if his swing % is not significantly less....

 

My opinion is that Dunn knows his limitations, like any great hitter. He's a low contact masher with a very good eye for pitches that he can drive.

 

I know that I'm in the minority on all of this admiration about Dunn, but I would never call Dunn a "great hitter". A "great hitter" would be able to make contact with the ball more often than Dunn does.

He has a .904 OPS and a .305 EQA. I would say that's a great hitter.

 

I consider players like Bonds, Pujols, Manny Ramirez, ARod, Gwynn, etc. great hitters. Dunn is a great slugger, but not a great hitter in my book. As I stated earlier, the new emphasis on stats rewards sluggers and devalues non-sluggers. It is important to have some sluggers on a team, but it is great to have some players like Theriot, BRob, Ichiro, etc. on the team too.

[Tracer Bullet]

There's no guarantee that if Dunn takes a whack at a pitch early in the count he's a) going to make contact or b) it's going to not result in a putout. I'm sure there are times where Dunn would have hit a HR or a base hit had he made contact earlier in the count but it stands to reason that the times he would have made an out would vastly outnumber the times he wouldn't have. In other words, If he makes contact on pitches earlier in the count his BA in those situations would surely go down. The reason it is so high is likely because he's getting pitches he can mash.

 

What I'd like to see is some analysis of his swings in those counts (swings = times he makes contact + times he does not). If he's not swinging early I think your point has some merit, but if his swing % is not significantly less....

 

My opinion is that Dunn knows his limitations, like any great hitter. He's a low contact masher with a very good eye for pitches that he can drive.

 

I know that I'm in the minority on all of this admiration about Dunn, but I would never call Dunn a "great hitter". A "great hitter" would be able to make contact with the ball more often than Dunn does.

He has a .904 OPS and a .305 EQA. I would say that's a great hitter.

 

I consider players like Bonds, Pujols, Manny Ramirez, ARod, Gwynn, etc. great hitters. Dunn is a great slugger, but not a great hitter in my book. As I stated earlier, the new emphasis on stats rewards sluggers and devalues non-sluggers. It is important to have some sluggers on a team, but it is great to have some players like Theriot, BRob, Ichiro, etc. on the team too.

 

I was reading your post and thinking "Bonds, sure. Pujols, right. Manny, fine. ARod, obviously. Gwynn, um...whaaa?!?!" Gwynn was a great hitter many years b/c he was able to sustain his high batting average. Though, his career stats are a good example of why OBPs supported by high AVG and few BBs are risky - he ranged from pretty good, to very good, to great, as his AVG ranged from .300-.315; .320s-.330s, to .350+ (including the near-.400 in '94). But his career doesn't follow the normal bell curve at all (with an increase in the mid-20s to a peak in the late-20s/30s and then steady or sharp decline). His numbers are like a roller coaster, tied almost solely to batting average. If I had the time to really look, I'd guess it depended a lot on BABIP (and luck, good or bad). My recollection of Gwynn was that he hit a lot of liners, especially the opposite way, but I'll readily admit that I didn't watch many of his games and my recollection could be way off.

 

Back to your point, apparently as long as the guy has a high batting average, even if they're a singles hitter with some doubles mixed in, they're a great hitter, but if you have great production (high OBP, lots of XBH), but not a high AVG, you're not a great hitter? You define "great hitter" solely as "high batting average" without regard to how frequently they make outs or how many of their hits go for extra bases?

 

Oh, one last thing, stats emphasize slugging because XBHs are better than singles. If you already had a handful of sluggers, you seem to say that you'd take Theriot over ARod at SS, BRob over Utley at 2B, etc. I'll take ARod and Utley and my team will beat the crap out of yours year after year.

[Derwood]

There's no guarantee that if Dunn takes a whack at a pitch early in the count he's a) going to make contact or b) it's going to not result in a putout. I'm sure there are times where Dunn would have hit a HR or a base hit had he made contact earlier in the count but it stands to reason that the times he would have made an out would vastly outnumber the times he wouldn't have. In other words, If he makes contact on pitches earlier in the count his BA in those situations would surely go down. The reason it is so high is likely because he's getting pitches he can mash.

 

What I'd like to see is some analysis of his swings in those counts (swings = times he makes contact + times he does not). If he's not swinging early I think your point has some merit, but if his swing % is not significantly less....

 

My opinion is that Dunn knows his limitations, like any great hitter. He's a low contact masher with a very good eye for pitches that he can drive.

 

I know that I'm in the minority on all of this admiration about Dunn, but I would never call Dunn a "great hitter". A "great hitter" would be able to make contact with the ball more often than Dunn does.

He has a .904 OPS and a .305 EQA. I would say that's a great hitter.

 

I consider players like Bonds, Pujols, Manny Ramirez, ARod, Gwynn, etc. great hitters. Dunn is a great slugger, but not a great hitter in my book. As I stated earlier, the new emphasis on stats rewards sluggers and devalues non-sluggers. It is important to have some sluggers on a team, but it is great to have some players like Theriot, BRob, Ichiro, etc. on the team too.

 

so you're saying that you'd rather have a team with a few theriots or ichiros on it rather than 8 Dunns? I bet I know which team would win

[shnsajax]

Or would you rather have Dunn over Tony Gwynn?

[SouthSideRyan]

so you're saying that you'd rather have a team with a few theriots or ichiros on it rather than 8 Dunns? I bet I know which team would win

 

Probably the team without Adam Dunn at SS.

Edited August 18, 2008 by SouthSideRyan

[Backtobanks]

[

 

Or 2B, 3B, CF, or C. I'll take my chances with a few sluggers, a few of great hitters (by my definition), and a few singles hitters over 8 Dunns, especially if they have to play the field. The 8 Dunns would score 18 runs one game and score nothing for the next two games as they strike out 20 times in each game.

[sneakypower]

There's no guarantee that if Dunn takes a whack at a pitch early in the count he's a) going to make contact or b) it's going to not result in a putout. I'm sure there are times where Dunn would have hit a HR or a base hit had he made contact earlier in the count but it stands to reason that the times he would have made an out would vastly outnumber the times he wouldn't have. In other words, If he makes contact on pitches earlier in the count his BA in those situations would surely go down. The reason it is so high is likely because he's getting pitches he can mash.

 

What I'd like to see is some analysis of his swings in those counts (swings = times he makes contact + times he does not). If he's not swinging early I think your point has some merit, but if his swing % is not significantly less....

 

My opinion is that Dunn knows his limitations, like any great hitter. He's a low contact masher with a very good eye for pitches that he can drive.

 

I know that I'm in the minority on all of this admiration about Dunn, but I would never call Dunn a "great hitter". A "great hitter" would be able to make contact with the ball more often than Dunn does.

He has a .904 OPS and a .305 EQA. I would say that's a great hitter.

 

I consider players like Bonds, Pujols, Manny Ramirez, ARod, Gwynn, etc. great hitters. Dunn is a great slugger, but not a great hitter in my book. As I stated earlier, the new emphasis on stats rewards sluggers and devalues non-sluggers. It is important to have some sluggers on a team, but it is great to have some players like Theriot, BRob, Ichiro, etc. on the team too.

 

so you're saying that you'd rather have a team with a few theriots or ichiros on it rather than 8 Dunns? I bet I know which team would win

i've gotta say i absolutely hate this argument

[rocket]

[

 

Or 2B, 3B, CF, or C. I'll take my chances with a few sluggers, a few of great hitters (by my definition), and a few singles hitters over 8 Dunns, especially if they have to play the field. The 8 Dunns would score 18 runs one game and score nothing for the next two games as they strike out 20 times in each game.

 

i agree that a team full of dunn's would be bad because the defense would be horrid. but the offense wouldn't be as hit or miss as you suggest. they'd score ~6 runs a game pretty consistently.

[abuck1220]

[

 

Or 2B, 3B, CF, or C. I'll take my chances with a few sluggers, a few of great hitters (by my definition), and a few singles hitters over 8 Dunns, especially if they have to play the field. The 8 Dunns would score 18 runs one game and score nothing for the next two games as they strike out 20 times in each game.

 

i never get this argument that a lineup full of dunns (or whatever strikeout prone slugger) would be inconsistent. is it based just on the fact that he strikes out a lot? because that would be stupid.

[David]

[

 

Or 2B, 3B, CF, or C. I'll take my chances with a few sluggers, a few of great hitters (by my definition), and a few singles hitters over 8 Dunns, especially if they have to play the field. The 8 Dunns would score 18 runs one game and score nothing for the next two games as they strike out 20 times in each game.

 

i never get this argument that a lineup full of dunns (or whatever strikeout prone slugger) would be inconsistent. is it based just on the fact that he strikes out a lot? because that would be stupid.

 

That's because it's wrong.

[Backtobanks]

Since so many of you want to throw statistics at everybody, look at Dunn in 2008 against lefty pitching (OPS .778) while our powerless, over-the-hill 1B that everyone wants to rest (DLee) has an OPS of .787 against righties. Bringing in a a different pitcher doesn't stop good hitters, but it does negate sluggers who aren't good hitters.

[SouthSideRyan]

Lefty hitters have worse splits against lefty pitchers than right-handed hitters do vs. righty pitchers. This is primarily because the majority of pitchers you see in your lifetime are right-handed. If a righty can't hit a righty then he never makes it to the majors. You can survive not hitting a lefty(though a 775 OPS isn't exactly "not hitting") because you don't see nearly as many.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

so you're saying that you'd rather have a team with a few theriots or ichiros on it rather than 8 Dunns? I bet I know which team would win

 

Probably the team without Adam Dunn at SS.

that would be so much fun to watch

[MasterBlaster]

[

 

Or 2B, 3B, CF, or C. I'll take my chances with a few sluggers, a few of great hitters (by my definition), and a few singles hitters over 8 Dunns, especially if they have to play the field. The 8 Dunns would score 18 runs one game and score nothing for the next two games as they strike out 20 times in each game.

 

Seriously, this discussion has become absolutely absurd. 8 Dunns might make a great fantasy team in a points league. The World of Warcraft crowd is getting a little nutty in this thread.

[jersey cubs fan]

[

 

Or 2B, 3B, CF, or C. I'll take my chances with a few sluggers, a few of great hitters (by my definition), and a few singles hitters over 8 Dunns, especially if they have to play the field. The 8 Dunns would score 18 runs one game and score nothing for the next two games as they strike out 20 times in each game.

 

i never get this argument that a lineup full of dunns (or whatever strikeout prone slugger) would be inconsistent. is it based just on the fact that he strikes out a lot? because that would be stupid.

 

We'd probably see the first 21 K game pitched in a loss though.

[abuck1220]

[

 

Or 2B, 3B, CF, or C. I'll take my chances with a few sluggers, a few of great hitters (by my definition), and a few singles hitters over 8 Dunns, especially if they have to play the field. The 8 Dunns would score 18 runs one game and score nothing for the next two games as they strike out 20 times in each game.

 

Seriously, this discussion has become absolutely absurd. 8 Dunns might make a great fantasy team in a points league. The World of Warcraft crowd is getting a little nutty in this thread.

 

SUCK ON THAT NERDS!!!!!

[Jehrico]

[

 

Or 2B, 3B, CF, or C. I'll take my chances with a few sluggers, a few of great hitters (by my definition), and a few singles hitters over 8 Dunns, especially if they have to play the field. The 8 Dunns would score 18 runs one game and score nothing for the next two games as they strike out 20 times in each game.

 

i never get this argument that a lineup full of dunns (or whatever strikeout prone slugger) would be inconsistent. is it based just on the fact that he strikes out a lot? because that would be stupid.

 

We'd probably see the first 21 K game pitched in a loss though.

Dunn's 3 typical results are: HR, BB, or K. I think you'd see 27Ks, with about 6-7 runs scored on any given game.

[UK1679666180]

[

 

Or 2B, 3B, CF, or C. I'll take my chances with a few sluggers, a few of great hitters (by my definition), and a few singles hitters over 8 Dunns, especially if they have to play the field. The 8 Dunns would score 18 runs one game and score nothing for the next two games as they strike out 20 times in each game.

 

Seriously, this discussion has become absolutely absurd. 8 Dunns might make a great fantasy team in a points league. The World of Warcraft crowd is getting a little nutty in this thread.

 

SUCK ON THAT NERDS!!!!!

 

Include this tidbit as well:

 

http://www.northsidebaseball.com/Forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=44177&p=1914842#p1914842