Dunn is awesome...No he's not...Yes he is!!!

[jersey cubs fan]

Don't want him to shorten his swing. I want him to swing the hell out of the bat, even on two strikes, at balls he thinks are balls but might be strikes in THOSE particular situations.

 

Sounds good in theory but absolutely terrible in practice. Trying to get a hitter to think in certain situations that even though this pitch is typically a pitch you don't swing at for whatever reason because of the situation you are in perhaps you should consider swinging. If you are a productive hitter, just be who you are as a hitter. Don't overcomplicate things.

[scarey]

 

What you missed in this equation is that walks are still valuable here.

 

I never said they weren't valuable at all, they're just not the ideal result. If you're paying a guy like Dunn 10s of millions of dollars to be a middle of the order hitter, I think he should be a guy that can drive in runs, not just leave it up to the other guy in most cases.

 

If you "shorten your swing" to make a little more contact, but you begin to make more outs, you've lowered your team's run scoring.

 

I don't understand how he's making more outs by shortening his swing. I'm not saying he should be swinging for contact on every pitch he sees. But instead of swinging for a homer run on a two strike count, maybe if he tried just getting contact he could make less outs with lazy flyballs and strikeouts. The guy strikes out 40% more then he actually gets a hit.

 

So why use BA instead of OBP? Why intentionally ignore a large percentage of the plate appearances?

 

I never intended to ignore OBP in any manner. If the pitcher doesn't give you something to hit, then you have to take a walk. My whole point this whole time is a hit would be better then a walk in this situation and Dunn just doesn't seem to be able to put the ball in play much. I'd rather get someone who is willing and able to adjust to the situation and try to get the runner in (IE: swing for contact when needed and take advantage of pitches he can hit).

 

For the guy that tried to act like "shortening his swing" is some kind of made up fairy tale term.. grow up. You know exactly what it means, it's a well used cliche in baseball. Everyone knows what it means.

Edited December 19, 2008 by scarey

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Shortening your swing doesn't necessarily lead to better production. You sacrifice walks, strikeouts, and extra base hits for singles and groundouts and popouts.

[haubrich91]

http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q121/mjhteen07/prod.jpg

 

Sorry, I had to.

[BCVM22]

Sorry, I had to.

 

Had you been serious about it, you would have had the custom jersey engine spit out a jersey with DUNN on the back and a separate one with no. 44 and then spliced them together to produce the real deal.

 

...

 

Just saying. :-#

[Hairyducked Idiot]

For the guy that tried to act like "shortening his swing" is some kind of made up fairy tale term.. grow up. You know exactly what it means, it's a well used cliche in baseball. Everyone knows what it means.

 

"Myth" might be a better term than "fairy tale," but the implication is the same.

 

Shortening up your swing might work in high school, but at the major-league level I have trouble believing many hitters are talented enough to have multiple productive swings.

[bcl412]

I never realized that doubting the term "shortening your swing" was a sign of immaturity. Learn something new every day.

[bcl412]

I question the term "shorten your swing" because it really isn't a term that is defined or has a single definition. One person could use it and mean one thing and someone else could use it and mean another thing.

 

Yes, major league players can have more than one productive swing. I just question (notice the word question and how that is not an assertion) how taking a less than full swing can equate to any success that isn't luck. If the most productive thing one can do is hit a home run, how one be attempting to attain full productivity when you intentionally take away that the option of hitting a home run? If one is intentionally making it so they can't attain full productivity how can they be an asset to a team?

[17 Seconds]

i jst like how scarey is ignoring amost everything everyone is saying but then cherrypicks one post out of 10 that he feels like he might actually be able to argue.

[Derwood]

clearly Dusty Baker had it right when he told Dunn to lay down a sac bunt last year.

[wade]

clearly Dusty Baker had it right when he told Dunn to lay down a sac bunt last year.

 

Reds hitters were awesome last year after failing to execute a Baker-ordered bunt! He has them do that just to loosen them up and let them hit a game winner down in the count.

[scarey]

i jst like how scarey is ignoring amost everything everyone is saying but then cherrypicks one post out of 10 that he feels like he might actually be able to argue.

 

Quote something that I'm "ignoring" and I'll gladly address it. Please.

[DiamondMind]

Dexter, why are you so annoying?

 

And I'm sorry, but I totally agree with scarey's simple point that I prefer a middle of the order bat to drive in runs, and not leave it up to the guy behind him. I realize the point of any AB is to not record an out, I really do. But there's also a difference between a .230/.330 hitter and a .280/.330 hitter. There just is.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Dexter, why are you so annoying?

 

And I'm sorry, but I totally agree with scarey's simple point that I prefer a middle of the order bat to drive in runs, and not leave it up to the guy behind him. I realize the point of any AB is to not record an out, I really do. But there's also a difference between a .230/.330 hitter and a .280/.330 hitter. There just is.

 

That difference would presumably be in their SLG.

[Guest]

Dexter, why are you so annoying?

 

And I'm sorry, but I totally agree with scarey's simple point that I prefer a middle of the order bat to drive in runs, and not leave it up to the guy behind him. I realize the point of any AB is to not record an out, I really do. But there's also a difference between a .230/.330 hitter and a .280/.330 hitter. There just is.

 

 

Adam Dunn has hit roughly one-third of his career homeruns with two strikes. I don't think you want him shortening up. Last time I checked, homeruns drive in more runs than singles. Players similar to Dunn seem to drop off a cliff at about 34 years old so I wouldn't go longer than 3 or 4 years with him.

[UK1679666180]

Dexter, why are you so annoying?

 

And I'm sorry, but I totally agree with scarey's simple point that I prefer a middle of the order bat to drive in runs, and not leave it up to the guy behind him. I realize the point of any AB is to not record an out, I really do. But there's also a difference between a .230/.330 hitter and a .280/.330 hitter. There just is.

 

 

Adam Dunn has hit roughly one-third of his career homeruns with two strikes. I don't think you want him shortening up. Last time I checked, homeruns drive in more runs than singles. Players similar to Dunn seem to drop off a cliff at about 34 years old so I wouldn't go longer than 3 or 4 years with him.

 

You don't him to shorten his swing b/c his long swing doesn't impact his bat control as much as is bat angle dictates how many swing and misses he has with two strikes. But, him having 89 HRs in 2214 ABs with two strikes doesn't look as good when he has had 189 HRs in 1657 ABs in non-two strike ABs. I definitely don't want him to shorten his swing as will very little regardless if it's with two strike and do more harm than good, but I do want him to be more aggressive earlier in the count with pitches in the zone.

[Backtobanks]

Shortening your swing doesn't necessarily lead to better production. You sacrifice walks, strikeouts, and extra base hits for singles and groundouts and popouts.

 

How do you sacrifice walks by shortening your swing? :-k :-k

[UK1679666180]

Shortening your swing doesn't necessarily lead to better production. You sacrifice walks, strikeouts, and extra base hits for singles and groundouts and popouts.

 

How do you sacrifice walks by shortening your swing? :-k :-k

 

Although I disagree that it does in Dunn's case, if you make weaker contact and put the ball in play more you reducing the opportunities to work into a deeper count. Let's say it's 0-1 and Dunn doesn't want to fall behind 0-2 and he decides it would be more important to make contact than working to get a pitch he can drive. The numerous slap hitters the Cubs have had over the last 5-10 years were notorious for doing this.

[scarey]

Shortening your swing doesn't necessarily lead to better production. You sacrifice walks, strikeouts, and extra base hits for singles and groundouts and popouts.

 

How do you sacrifice walks by shortening your swing? :-k :-k

 

Although I disagree that it does in Dunn's case, if you make weaker contact and put the ball in play more you reducing the opportunities to work into a deeper count. Let's say it's 0-1 and Dunn doesn't want to fall behind 0-2 and he decides it would be more important to make contact than working to get a pitch he can drive. The numerous slap hitters the Cubs have had over the last 5-10 years were notorious for doing this.

 

I never said I wanted him to shorten his swing completely. I think it would just be beneficial in a two strike count.

 

So, let's move on here. I'm sick of arguing about Dunn's ability on this Cubs team. In the case of the extremely long shot they do sign him, where does that leave our batting order? Does Dunn bat 3 with Lee moving up to 2?

 

Also, as limited as Soriano in the outfield, they would have to consider moving him to right and Dunn to left, right?

[UK1679666180]

Shortening your swing doesn't necessarily lead to better production. You sacrifice walks, strikeouts, and extra base hits for singles and groundouts and popouts.

 

How do you sacrifice walks by shortening your swing? :-k :-k

 

Although I disagree that it does in Dunn's case, if you make weaker contact and put the ball in play more you reducing the opportunities to work into a deeper count. Let's say it's 0-1 and Dunn doesn't want to fall behind 0-2 and he decides it would be more important to make contact than working to get a pitch he can drive. The numerous slap hitters the Cubs have had over the last 5-10 years were notorious for doing this.

 

I never said I wanted him to shorten his swing completely. I think it would just be beneficial in a two strike count.

 

So, let's move on here. I'm sick of arguing about Dunn's ability on this Cubs team. In the case of the extremely long shot they do sign him, where does that leave our batting order? Does Dunn bat 3 with Lee moving up to 2?

 

Also, as limited as Soriano in the outfield, they would have to consider moving him to right and Dunn to left, right?

 

It's not his low swing that is the problem, it is his uppercut swing that leads to his high strikeouts and lower batting avg., the less time your bat is is in the hitting zone, the less likely you are going to make contact, Dunn has an extreme bat angle that leads to high HRs, high fly balls, and high Ks and shortening his swing will not keep the bat in the hitting zone longer.

 

Soriano would prob. have to play right.

 

If Dunn was in the line-up I would guess that you see.

 

Soriano

Theriot

Lee

Dunn

Ramirez

Soto

Derosa

Fukudome

 

or

 

Soriano

Theriot

Lee

Ramirez

Dunn

Soto

Fukudome

Derosa

 

if Lou wants to play L/R with the btm of the order.

 

 

How I would do it...

 

Soriano

Derosa

Ramirez

Dunn

Lee

Soto

Fukudome

Pitcher

Theriot.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Dunn at No. 2 would be lovely.

[slieb85]

 

 

 

Disagree. In Dunn's case, I can only assume it's a matter of baseball smarts. The guy fails to score runners in scoring position and strikes out in that situation A LOT. If he were to try to make contact first, who knows? Maybe he hits a bloop that scores a guy from second more often. Maybe he gets a sac fly now and then. Maybe he fouls off pitches until he gets a good one to hit. His strikeouts have nothing to do with plate discipline and I know it.

 

 

 

I just wanted to jump in here and point out one thing. One thing Adam Dunn does really really well is hit homeruns. If I were his manager I would never ask him to cut down on his swing so he can bloop single. That is for people like Theriot, who had like 1 homerun all year last year. I mean someone pointed out earlier the situation that maybe Dunn could swing at a few more 3-0. 3-1 pitches that are borderline that he currently now takes for a walk. He said he swings at 12 and puts 10 into play, which would be really nice because maybe 1-4 more runs score, but he makes 2 more outs. He effectively raises his avg, but lowers his OBP and it makes him LOOK better because his RBI's are up and his avg is up, but it makes him a worse hitter. Also what is the trade off or asking him to shorten his swing? How many homeruns would he miss out on? I mean if Dusty had been successful making him do that sac bunt last year, he would have only had 39 homeruns and 3 less RBI's.

 

The point of this entire argument has to be that Dunn isn't the type of hitter you like, contrary to the fact that he is a highly productive hitter, and that you are a Dusty Baker type baseball fan and simply want to see guys do things the "right way" and don't care as much about wins and losses. Because the stats are basically proving you wrong over and over and over again, no matter how you keep spinning it.

 

Oh, and this is what I was talking about earlier with the failed sac bunt/launching a 3 run homer.

 

With the Reds trailing by one run in the ninth inning Saturday, Adam Dunn's initial intention with runners on first and second and one out was to bunt his teammates into scoring position. After two unsuccessful sacrifice attempts, a frustrated Dunn chose to swing away. Dunn's backup plan sailed 449 feet into the right-field Sun Deck for a three-run walk-off home run...

 

Adam Dunn, batting seventh, with (I believe) 2 sac bunts in his career, asked to bunt in the bottom of the ninth with Paul Bako and the pitcher's spot behind him. (courtesy of FJM)

[Moises a loo]

Here is a good explanation of Dunn's value that I am stealing from a Reds board:

 

Dunn is a substance versus style argument in many respects. Dunn's game is not aesthetically pleasing to many (most?) people. That doesn't mean he doesn't have value and lots of it. The reason for looking at stats is that not everything is as simple as it appears. Some guys look good, but aren't; and some guys don't look good, but are.

 

Dunn has something in common with the under-appreciated grinders we knew in school or at work: He looks bad, almost no one looks at Dunn and thinks he looks like a great player. He looks bad due to his lack of quickness, soft-looking body, lots of K's, low BA, lumbering in the outfield, and most importantly because he doesn't visibly burn with Pete Rose's intensity. But, despite all outward appearances, the statistics tell us that Dunn creates a lot of runs by avoiding outs and hitting home runs. This doesn't mean he's the greatest player in the game or anything like that, but it does mean that he is very likely to be undervalued if we grade him on style points.

 

The Reds misused him for some of the same reasons fans were so frequently frustrated by him. People see 6'6" and 250+ pounds hitting 40 HRs and figure he's a classic power hitter. He's not, he's a good (not great) OBP guy with freakish, almost historic power. The framing for Dunn confuses people. He ranked higher last year by OBP (17th in majors) than by SLG (31st). I think this is true most years of his career. If you think of him as a guy who gets on base and scores runs, the HRs are a huge bonus. If you think of him as a guy who drives in runs, the Ks and the low RBI totals are huge minuses. What is odd about Dunn is that we think of guys who derive a good portion of their value by not making outs as quick, good defenders. Of course, if Dunn was quick and a good defender with his other skills he'd be one of the very best players in the game. He's not, but that is hardly a crime no matter what Marty and the Cowboy told us every night.

 

The Reds can do a lot worse than a guy who OPS'd around .900 like clockwork. His defense means his value isn't as high as his run creating stats indicate but the Reds will have to do a lot better than somebody like Taveras to replace Dunn's value in LF.

[17 Seconds]

i jst like how scarey is ignoring amost everything everyone is saying but then cherrypicks one post out of 10 that he feels like he might actually be able to argue.

 

Quote something that I'm "ignoring" and I'll gladly address it. Please.

 

I;m not going to go through 11 pages and qutoe evrtyhing you've ignored. There are a ton of things that people have brought up that you haven't replied to. There will be like 10 posts in between yours and then you'll make one small post cherry picking a statement you want to reply too.

[17 Seconds]

Dexter, why are you so annoying?

 

And I'm sorry, but I totally agree with scarey's simple point that I prefer a middle of the order bat to drive in runs, and not leave it up to the guy behind him.

 

ADAM DUNN DRIVES IN RUNS

 

Oh, and stop following me around with your garbage. I don't need your "why are you so annoying trash". I don't care about you.