Dunn to the Dbacks

[UK1679666180]

Man I can't wait for the day until Adam Dunn retired from baseball. This back and forth on Dunn is at a stalemate that won't be resolved anytime soon.

 

Actually, there is no stalemate. It's been resolved. Some people just refuse to believe the truth.

 

I guess I missed it, what was the resolution?

 

I am right. :)

[shnsajax]

Man I can't wait for the day until Adam Dunn retired from baseball. This back and forth on Dunn is at a stalemate that won't be resolved anytime soon.

 

Actually, there is no stalemate. It's been resolved. Some people just refuse to believe the truth.

 

I guess I missed it, what was the resolution?

 

I am right. :)

 

Well I knew that from the beginning :-). Still confused from the other 20 posts that had nothing useful what so ever.

[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.

 

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.

I must not be making myself clear. I was originally responding to someone (sulley?) who flatly said that strikeouts don't matter. Which I don't agree with at all. Strikeouts matter a lot. So does what you do with the contact. If you're great at the latter, you can get away with being bad at the former (dunn + howard). But that doesn't mean that strikeouts don't matter. They mean the difference between Dunn being, well, Dunn and Dunn being Bonds. They also mean the difference between Ryan Harvey being a washout and a productive major league hitter.

 

I also agree that it should not be assumed you could change a hitter like Dunn for the better by changing his approach or swing. Hitting is about finding the optimal balance between contact and what you do with the contact. But I believe that to say that one doesn't matter is flat out wrong.

[Tracer Bullet]

I must not be making myself clear. I was originally responding to someone (sulley?) who flatly said that strikeouts don't matter. Which I don't agree with at all. Strikeouts matter a lot. So does what you do with the contact. If you're great at the latter, you can get away with being bad at the former (dunn + howard). But that doesn't mean that strikeouts don't matter. They mean the difference between Dunn being, well, Dunn and Dunn being Bonds. They also mean the difference between Ryan Harvey being a washout and a productive major league hitter.

 

I also agree that it should not be assumed you could change a hitter like Dunn for the better by changing his approach or swing. Hitting is about finding the optimal balance between contact and what you do with the contact. But I believe that to say that one doesn't matter is flat out wrong.

 

Then I guess we agree, mostly. Though I don't think it's the strike outs that separate Dunn and guys like Bonds. imo, Dunn Ks b/c he knows there are certain pitches that he can absolutely crush so he waits for those pitches. If he gets 2 strikes before he gets one, then he probably broadens his zone a bit. But he's not going to swing at the first strike he sees if he doesn't think he can drive it. Bonds generally approached his ABs the same way, he just seemed to have a much bigger range of pitches that he could destroy. I think that (ability to hit more pitches harder) is what separates guys like Pujols and Bonds from Dunn.

 

It's different from guys like Vlad who will swing at everything. If he makes contact, he's going to hit it hard. But b/c his zone is so big, he swings and misses a lot. In that case, I think Ks are more important b/c they're an indication of his bad pitch recognition. But his ability to hit good pitches hard overcomes some of that. Dunn's high K rate is less important to me b/c it doesn't say to me that he can't recognize strikes. He just knows he's rather wait for a pitch he can mash than make weak contact on a pitch he can't mash - even if that means more Ks. He's so good at mashing those pitches that it overcomes his inability to hit other pitches.

[Backtobanks]

I must not be making myself clear. I was originally responding to someone (sulley?) who flatly said that strikeouts don't matter. Which I don't agree with at all. Strikeouts matter a lot. So does what you do with the contact. If you're great at the latter, you can get away with being bad at the former (dunn + howard). But that doesn't mean that strikeouts don't matter. They mean the difference between Dunn being, well, Dunn and Dunn being Bonds. They also mean the difference between Ryan Harvey being a washout and a productive major league hitter.

 

I also agree that it should not be assumed you could change a hitter like Dunn for the better by changing his approach or swing. Hitting is about finding the optimal balance between contact and what you do with the contact. But I believe that to say that one doesn't matter is flat out wrong.

 

Then I guess we agree, mostly. Though I don't think it's the strike outs that separate Dunn and guys like Bonds. imo, Dunn Ks b/c he knows there are certain pitches that he can absolutely crush so he waits for those pitches. If he gets 2 strikes before he gets one, then he probably broadens his zone a bit. But he's not going to swing at the first strike he sees if he doesn't think he can drive it. Bonds generally approached his ABs the same way, he just seemed to have a much bigger range of pitches that he could destroy. I think that (ability to hit more pitches harder) is what separates guys like Pujols and Bonds from Dunn.

 

It's different from guys like Vlad who will swing at everything. If he makes contact, he's going to hit it hard. But b/c his zone is so big, he swings and misses a lot. In that case, I think Ks are more important b/c they're an indication of his bad pitch recognition. But his ability to hit good pitches hard overcomes some of that. Dunn's high K rate is less important to me b/c it doesn't say to me that he can't recognize strikes. He just knows he's rather wait for a pitch he can mash than make weak contact on a pitch he can't mash - even if that means more Ks. He's so good at mashing those pitches that it overcomes his inability to hit other pitches.

 

It's certainly not the strikeouts that seperates Dunn and Bonds, it's the fact that Dunn is a one-dimensional slugger and Bonds is a great hitter.

[abuck1220]

 

Actually, I joined the discussion when posters were calling Dunn "a great hitter". My contention is that Dunn is a great slugger, but not a great hitter and that modern stats are skewed overwhelmingly toward sluggers rather than hitters.

 

as opposed to the brief period from 1898-1904 where a single was worth four bases and a homerun worth one.

[Backtobanks]

The point is 8 Dunns offensively but others have mentioned a team of Dunns as well as Master Blaster.

Well I did initially think the argument was 8 genetically engineered copies of Adam Dunn. I think it's pretty convenient for the proponents of this argument to only include his offensive skill set as the basis of the argument. Last I checked there is defense in baseball still and Adam Dunn freaking sucks in that aspect. Take the whole skill set or not at all, which is why the point is insane.

 

I'll take the current Cubs team with 5.4 runs per game, and not a single 'Adam Dunn' in the lineup, and I'm pretty confident they'd beat a team with 8 Dunns quite handily.

 

 

 

man you're such a bad poster

 

the question is "is adam dunn a good hitter"

 

the answer is "yes, if you had an entire lineup that hit like adam dunn, that offense would be incredible. better than four adam dunn's and four ryan theriots or 4 ichiros or whatever"

 

how badly you're missing the subject is just mindblowing.

 

Actually, I joined the discussion when posters were calling Dunn "a great hitter". My contention is that Dunn is a great slugger, but not a great hitter and that modern stats are skewed overwhelmingly toward sluggers rather than hitters.

Your argument is quite silly. What should we go by to judge how great a hitter is?

 

How about a batter who hits the ball regularly and a decent percentage of those fall for hits? I'll give Dunn credit for being a great slugger and run producer, but the stats freaks can't give credit to Ichiro, Carew, and Gwynn as great hitters.

[Jehrico]

Man I can't wait for the day until Adam Dunn retired from baseball. This back and forth on Dunn is at a stalemate that won't be resolved anytime soon.

 

Actually, there is no stalemate. It's been resolved. Some people just refuse to believe the truth.

 

I guess I missed it, what was the resolution?

 

I am right. :)

 

Well I knew that from the beginning :-). Still confused from the other 20 posts that had nothing useful what so ever.

There's like 10 people arguing totally different arguments against each other here. I was arguing with Ping about the absolute cost of Dunn's propensity to K, while he was talking about how being more aggressive early in the count would benefit him. There's a few other arguments taking different angles going on simultaneously. People are arguing, not always with each other. This has morphed into a very wierd thread.

[Tracer Bullet]

I must not be making myself clear. I was originally responding to someone (sulley?) who flatly said that strikeouts don't matter. Which I don't agree with at all. Strikeouts matter a lot. So does what you do with the contact. If you're great at the latter, you can get away with being bad at the former (dunn + howard). But that doesn't mean that strikeouts don't matter. They mean the difference between Dunn being, well, Dunn and Dunn being Bonds. They also mean the difference between Ryan Harvey being a washout and a productive major league hitter.

 

I also agree that it should not be assumed you could change a hitter like Dunn for the better by changing his approach or swing. Hitting is about finding the optimal balance between contact and what you do with the contact. But I believe that to say that one doesn't matter is flat out wrong.

 

Then I guess we agree, mostly. Though I don't think it's the strike outs that separate Dunn and guys like Bonds. imo, Dunn Ks b/c he knows there are certain pitches that he can absolutely crush so he waits for those pitches. If he gets 2 strikes before he gets one, then he probably broadens his zone a bit. But he's not going to swing at the first strike he sees if he doesn't think he can drive it. Bonds generally approached his ABs the same way, he just seemed to have a much bigger range of pitches that he could destroy. I think that (ability to hit more pitches harder) is what separates guys like Pujols and Bonds from Dunn.

 

It's different from guys like Vlad who will swing at everything. If he makes contact, he's going to hit it hard. But b/c his zone is so big, he swings and misses a lot. In that case, I think Ks are more important b/c they're an indication of his bad pitch recognition. But his ability to hit good pitches hard overcomes some of that. Dunn's high K rate is less important to me b/c it doesn't say to me that he can't recognize strikes. He just knows he's rather wait for a pitch he can mash than make weak contact on a pitch he can't mash - even if that means more Ks. He's so good at mashing those pitches that it overcomes his inability to hit other pitches.

 

It's certainly not the strikeouts that seperates Dunn and Bonds, it's the fact that Dunn is a one-dimensional slugger and Bonds is a great hitter.

 

One dimensional? Is it the high OBP or the high SLG that's his dimension?

[treebird]

"modern statistics" are slanted towards sluggers because the game of baseball is slanted towards sluggers. a good slugger is worth more than a good slapper.

[SouthSideRyan]

"modern statistics" are slanted towards sluggers because the game of baseball is slanted towards sluggers. a good slugger is worth more than a good slapper.

 

Well that's just not fair.

[Backtobanks]

"modern statistics" are slanted towards sluggers because the game of baseball is slanted towards sluggers. a good slugger is worth more than a good slapper.

 

Okay, but that doesn't mean he's a better hitter. I agree that a HR is worth more to a team than a single, but that doesn't mean that a guy who hits 2 450-foot HRs a week is a better hitter than a guy who gets 8 hits in that same week. We're not talking about value to the team or runs produced, we're talking about being a great hitter. Baseball-Reference.com list of players most similar to Dunn as: Pat Burrell, Rob Deer, Richard Hidalgo, Henry Rodriguez, Gus Zernial, Bob Horner, Glenallen Hill, Wally Post, Pete Incaviglia, and J.D. Drew. I don't see a great hitter anywhere on that list.

[Tracer Bullet]

"modern statistics" are slanted towards sluggers because the game of baseball is slanted towards sluggers. a good slugger is worth more than a good slapper.

 

Okay, but that doesn't mean he's a better hitter. I agree that a HR is worth more to a team than a single, but that doesn't mean that a guy who hits 2 450-foot HRs a week is a better hitter than a guy who gets 8 hits in that same week. We're not talking about value to the team or runs produced, we're talking about being a great hitter. Baseball-Reference.com list of players most similar to Dunn as: Pat Burrell, Rob Deer, Richard Hidalgo, Henry Rodriguez, Gus Zernial, Bob Horner, Glenallen Hill, Wally Post, Pete Incaviglia, and J.D. Drew. I don't see a great hitter anywhere on that list.

 

You mean other than Adam Dunn?

 

Look, you seem to be saying that HRs are good, but only if you have a high batting average, as if getting a walk instead of making an out isn't also good. Dunn does a few things very well, 2 of those things are not making outs and hitting for power. Just so happens that those are two very good things for a hitter to do. No, he doesn't hit for a high average, but since he's good at not making outs and hits for a lot of power, the low batting average isn't terribly relevant except for fantasy baseball and old-timey baseball writers.

[SouthSideRyan]

You're reading the similarity scores wrong. Those are his most similar throughout their entire careers vs. Dunn up to this point. The 2nd column is more relevant(though truthfully, similarity scores are kinda weak to begin with)

 

Strawberry, Canseco, Reggie Jackson, Killebrew, Colavito, Brunansky, Bonds, Glaus, Jeff Burroughs

[Guest]

I must not be making myself clear. I was originally responding to someone (sulley?) who flatly said that strikeouts don't matter. Which I don't agree with at all. Strikeouts matter a lot. So does what you do with the contact. If you're great at the latter, you can get away with being bad at the former (dunn + howard). But that doesn't mean that strikeouts don't matter. They mean the difference between Dunn being, well, Dunn and Dunn being Bonds. They also mean the difference between Ryan Harvey being a washout and a productive major league hitter.

 

I also agree that it should not be assumed you could change a hitter like Dunn for the better by changing his approach or swing. Hitting is about finding the optimal balance between contact and what you do with the contact. But I believe that to say that one doesn't matter is flat out wrong.

 

Then I guess we agree, mostly. Though I don't think it's the strike outs that separate Dunn and guys like Bonds. imo, Dunn Ks b/c he knows there are certain pitches that he can absolutely crush so he waits for those pitches. If he gets 2 strikes before he gets one, then he probably broadens his zone a bit. But he's not going to swing at the first strike he sees if he doesn't think he can drive it. Bonds generally approached his ABs the same way, he just seemed to have a much bigger range of pitches that he could destroy. I think that (ability to hit more pitches harder) is what separates guys like Pujols and Bonds from Dunn.

 

It's different from guys like Vlad who will swing at everything. If he makes contact, he's going to hit it hard. But b/c his zone is so big, he swings and misses a lot. In that case, I think Ks are more important b/c they're an indication of his bad pitch recognition. But his ability to hit good pitches hard overcomes some of that. Dunn's high K rate is less important to me b/c it doesn't say to me that he can't recognize strikes. He just knows he's rather wait for a pitch he can mash than make weak contact on a pitch he can't mash - even if that means more Ks. He's so good at mashing those pitches that it overcomes his inability to hit other pitches.

That's a very interesting distinction in your first paragraph and one that I like. I think a fair portion of the difference between our positions is semantics, but that is definitely an additional nuance to the argument that I agree with.

[Guest]

I must not be making myself clear. I was originally responding to someone (sulley?) who flatly said that strikeouts don't matter. Which I don't agree with at all. Strikeouts matter a lot. So does what you do with the contact. If you're great at the latter, you can get away with being bad at the former (dunn + howard). But that doesn't mean that strikeouts don't matter. They mean the difference between Dunn being, well, Dunn and Dunn being Bonds. They also mean the difference between Ryan Harvey being a washout and a productive major league hitter.

 

I also agree that it should not be assumed you could change a hitter like Dunn for the better by changing his approach or swing. Hitting is about finding the optimal balance between contact and what you do with the contact. But I believe that to say that one doesn't matter is flat out wrong.

 

Then I guess we agree, mostly. Though I don't think it's the strike outs that separate Dunn and guys like Bonds. imo, Dunn Ks b/c he knows there are certain pitches that he can absolutely crush so he waits for those pitches. If he gets 2 strikes before he gets one, then he probably broadens his zone a bit. But he's not going to swing at the first strike he sees if he doesn't think he can drive it. Bonds generally approached his ABs the same way, he just seemed to have a much bigger range of pitches that he could destroy. I think that (ability to hit more pitches harder) is what separates guys like Pujols and Bonds from Dunn.

 

It's different from guys like Vlad who will swing at everything. If he makes contact, he's going to hit it hard. But b/c his zone is so big, he swings and misses a lot. In that case, I think Ks are more important b/c they're an indication of his bad pitch recognition. But his ability to hit good pitches hard overcomes some of that. Dunn's high K rate is less important to me b/c it doesn't say to me that he can't recognize strikes. He just knows he's rather wait for a pitch he can mash than make weak contact on a pitch he can't mash - even if that means more Ks. He's so good at mashing those pitches that it overcomes his inability to hit other pitches.

 

It's certainly not the strikeouts that seperates Dunn and Bonds, it's the fact that Dunn is a one-dimensional slugger and Bonds is a great hitter.

You understand that the big difference between their batting averages is that Bonds puts more balls in play, right? I assume you further understand that strikeouts are the sole determining factor in the number of balls in play, right?

[David]

"modern statistics" are slanted towards sluggers because the game of baseball is slanted towards sluggers. a good slugger is worth more than a good slapper.

 

Okay, but that doesn't mean he's a better hitter. I agree that a HR is worth more to a team than a single, but that doesn't mean that a guy who hits 2 450-foot HRs a week is a better hitter than a guy who gets 8 hits in that same week. We're not talking about value to the team or runs produced, we're talking about being a great hitter. Baseball-Reference.com list of players most similar to Dunn as: Pat Burrell, Rob Deer, Richard Hidalgo, Henry Rodriguez, Gus Zernial, Bob Horner, Glenallen Hill, Wally Post, Pete Incaviglia, and J.D. Drew. I don't see a great hitter anywhere on that list.

 

You mean other than Adam Dunn?

 

Look, you seem to be saying that HRs are good, but only if you have a high batting average, as if getting a walk instead of making an out isn't also good. Dunn does a few things very well, 2 of those things are not making outs and hitting for power. Just so happens that those are two very good things for a hitter to do. No, he doesn't hit for a high average, but since he's good at not making outs and hits for a lot of power, the low batting average isn't terribly relevant except for fantasy baseball and old-timey baseball writers.

 

I'm not sure, but I don't think that's really what he's saying. He seems to be saying that "hitting" does not necessarily equate to "run producing" and that, a good "hitter," by definition, is one that can get a lot of hits, while not necessarily having to be a good run producer or slugger or walker or anything else.

 

I don't really agree with that, though. To me hitting = run production and I'll consider the hitters most adept at producing runs to be the best hitters.

[Backtobanks]

"modern statistics" are slanted towards sluggers because the game of baseball is slanted towards sluggers. a good slugger is worth more than a good slapper.

 

Okay, but that doesn't mean he's a better hitter. I agree that a HR is worth more to a team than a single, but that doesn't mean that a guy who hits 2 450-foot HRs a week is a better hitter than a guy who gets 8 hits in that same week. We're not talking about value to the team or runs produced, we're talking about being a great hitter. Baseball-Reference.com list of players most similar to Dunn as: Pat Burrell, Rob Deer, Richard Hidalgo, Henry Rodriguez, Gus Zernial, Bob Horner, Glenallen Hill, Wally Post, Pete Incaviglia, and J.D. Drew. I don't see a great hitter anywhere on that list.

 

You mean other than Adam Dunn?

 

Look, you seem to be saying that HRs are good, but only if you have a high batting average, as if getting a walk instead of making an out isn't also good. Dunn does a few things very well, 2 of those things are not making outs and hitting for power. Just so happens that those are two very good things for a hitter to do. No, he doesn't hit for a high average, but since he's good at not making outs and hits for a lot of power, the low batting average isn't terribly relevant except for fantasy baseball and old-timey baseball writers.

 

I'm not sure, but I don't think that's really what he's saying. He seems to be saying that "hitting" does not necessarily equate to "run producing" and that, a good "hitter," by definition, is one that can get a lot of hits, while not necessarily having to be a good run producer or slugger or walker or anything else.I don't really agree with that, though. To me hitting = run production and I'll consider the hitters most adept at producing runs to be the best hitters.

 

Thank you for understanding what I was saying. I'm talking about the act of pure hitting and not all of the other stuff. Another point that was made in this thread and another thread (about the Cubs' MVP) is that a good team has to have players filling certain roles. While most teams would benefit from having 1-3 Adam Dunns on their team, you do need the other kinds of hitters to balance the lineup. Adam Dunn's run production is partially based on other hitters getting on base ahead of him. According to you, if he hits 45 solo HRs next year he automatically become a much worse hitter because of decreased run production. My other point is that statistics can be used to prove any point you want to make.

[SouthSideRyan]

But Adam Dunn does get on for other people. Just because he does it via the walk doesn't make it any different than getting on via a single(with regards to getting on base for other players)

[Derwood]

Since someone (Jehrico I think) threw the common "3 true outcome" label on Dunn, I decided to see the actual breakdown:

 

4590 PA's
2918 Outs
--1700 Put Outs       37.0%
--1218 K's            26.5%
762 BB                16.6%
454 1B                 9.8%
270 HR                 5.8%
194 2B                 4.2%
8 3B                   0.01%

[Tracer Bullet]

"modern statistics" are slanted towards sluggers because the game of baseball is slanted towards sluggers. a good slugger is worth more than a good slapper.

 

Okay, but that doesn't mean he's a better hitter. I agree that a HR is worth more to a team than a single, but that doesn't mean that a guy who hits 2 450-foot HRs a week is a better hitter than a guy who gets 8 hits in that same week. We're not talking about value to the team or runs produced, we're talking about being a great hitter. Baseball-Reference.com list of players most similar to Dunn as: Pat Burrell, Rob Deer, Richard Hidalgo, Henry Rodriguez, Gus Zernial, Bob Horner, Glenallen Hill, Wally Post, Pete Incaviglia, and J.D. Drew. I don't see a great hitter anywhere on that list.

 

You mean other than Adam Dunn?

 

Look, you seem to be saying that HRs are good, but only if you have a high batting average, as if getting a walk instead of making an out isn't also good. Dunn does a few things very well, 2 of those things are not making outs and hitting for power. Just so happens that those are two very good things for a hitter to do. No, he doesn't hit for a high average, but since he's good at not making outs and hits for a lot of power, the low batting average isn't terribly relevant except for fantasy baseball and old-timey baseball writers.

 

I'm not sure, but I don't think that's really what he's saying. He seems to be saying that "hitting" does not necessarily equate to "run producing" and that, a good "hitter," by definition, is one that can get a lot of hits, while not necessarily having to be a good run producer or slugger or walker or anything else.I don't really agree with that, though. To me hitting = run production and I'll consider the hitters most adept at producing runs to be the best hitters.

 

Thank you for understanding what I was saying. I'm talking about the act of pure hitting and not all of the other stuff. Another point that was made in this thread and another thread (about the Cubs' MVP) is that a good team has to have players filling certain roles. While most teams would benefit from having 1-3 Adam Dunns on their team, you do need the other kinds of hitters to balance the lineup. Adam Dunn's run production is partially based on other hitters getting on base ahead of him. According to you, if he hits 45 solo HRs next year he automatically become a much worse hitter because of decreased run production. My other point is that statistics can be used to prove any point you want to make.

 

"pure hitting" and not the other stuff? like HRs and doubles?

 

ugh. it's not worth it.

[David]

 

Thank you for understanding what I was saying. I'm talking about the act of pure hitting and not all of the other stuff. Another point that was made in this thread and another thread (about the Cubs' MVP) is that a good team has to have players filling certain roles. While most teams would benefit from having 1-3 Adam Dunns on their team, you do need the other kinds of hitters to balance the lineup. Adam Dunn's run production is partially based on other hitters getting on base ahead of him. According to you, if he hits 45 solo HRs next year he automatically become a much worse hitter because of decreased run production. My other point is that statistics can be used to prove any point you want to make.

 

The reason team's don't have productive hitters up and down the lineup is that such hitters are scarce and teams can't afford to do that, not because there's a need for certain "roles" to be filled.

 

An All-Star lineup, like, say... C-Soto, 1B-Pujols, 2B-Utley, SS-Ramirez, 3B-ARod, LF-Braun, CF-Hamilton, RF-Dunn... would easily score the most runs in the league and, given non-terrible pitching, would win a ton of games.

 

There's no need for role-players. They're just there because a) great players are rare and b) teams can't afford to have great players at every position (the two go hand in hand, obviously).

Edited August 20, 2008 by David

[Burtonbell]

I think to find out Dunn's real value we have to see what the teams W/L record is with him in the lineup and without him in the lineup. Plus we need to find out what Piniella and DeRo think about him.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

If you want a game that rewards pure hitting prowess, take up cricket fandom (which I recommend anyway, great sport).

 

Baseball rewards take-and-rake far more than pure hitting skill.

[Backtobanks]

 

Thank you for understanding what I was saying. I'm talking about the act of pure hitting and not all of the other stuff. Another point that was made in this thread and another thread (about the Cubs' MVP) is that a good team has to have players filling certain roles. While most teams would benefit from having 1-3 Adam Dunns on their team, you do need the other kinds of hitters to balance the lineup. Adam Dunn's run production is partially based on other hitters getting on base ahead of him. According to you, if he hits 45 solo HRs next year he automatically become a much worse hitter because of decreased run production. My other point is that statistics can be used to prove any point you want to make.

 

The reason team's don't have productive hitters up and down the lineup is that such hitters are scarce and teams can't afford to do that, not because there's a need for certain "roles" to be filled.

 

An All-Star lineup, like, say... C-Soto, 1B-Pujols, 2B-Utley, SS-Ramirez, 3B-ARod, LF-Braun, CF-Hamilton, RF-Dunn... would easily score the most runs in the league and, given non-terrible pitching, would win a ton of games.

 

There's no need for role-players. They're just there because a) great players are rare and b) teams can't afford to have great players at every position (the two go hand in hand, obviously).

 

That lineup with me (61 years old with bad knees) in RF would score the most runs in the league and win a ton of games. Your lineup has 7 very good-to-great "pure" hitters and one pure slugger. See if you can figure out who the one pure slugger is. By the way, all of the "pure" hitters (except Soto) are outslugging Dunn.