Tracer Bullet

I would hope that nobody is rooting against these kids. From the guy who can't wait to run over to NSBB and update everyone on Murton's, Patterson's, and Gallagher's struggles, that's rich. well, I would be more than happy to report on their successes when they occur. Why the personal shot, Brusstar? Who pee'd in your proverbial Cherios? Really? Why is this thread missing posts from you regarding Gallagher's first four starts? This has been going on for months. He's always ready to root for certain guys, like Murton, if they would only ever give him something to be positive about. And though he wishes them nothing but the best, he's been here, for more than a month, to tell us all how bad these guys are doing with a team in a different league (or AAA). B/c none of us have access to game logs on the many sites that report on this information if we care to follow these guys.

apparently great hitters are like porn

well, the adjective has changed from great hitter to pure hitter, but I still don't think we've established anything you could consider criteria. A list of names that don't include Adam Dunn and the fact that "modern" stats are irrelevant to the discussion is all I can come up with so far.

He should have stayed but the temptation of a night show was too great. If you're thinking of what was best for Kilborn, yes. If you're thinking of what is best for mankind, no.

"I am the king of Little League! There shall be a great feast, with all the finest meats and cheeses of the land! And a keg of root beer!!" I submit for consideration that Mayne was funny but once everyone else at ESPN tried to copy him or come up their own schtick it got old fast. Copy him? He's the one that made it obnoxious by using catch phrases that were a paragraph long. Keith and Dan were the ones that made it fun to watch SC. Craig Kilborn was also good on SC. Too bad, Kilborn sucked at everything else he's done since leaving ESPN. Kilborn was also pretty good. I was just pointing out that saying others were copying Mayne is a little odd. Dan and Keith started the whole thing. It was good then. But I guess they share the blame for what it's become.

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.

The thread may be ridiculous. The attitude is ridiculouser.

"I am the king of Little League! There shall be a great feast, with all the finest meats and cheeses of the land! And a keg of root beer!!" I submit for consideration that Mayne was funny but once everyone else at ESPN tried to copy him or come up their own schtick it got old fast. Copy him? He's the one that made it obnoxious by using catch phrases that were a paragraph long. Keith and Dan were the ones that made it fun to watch SC.

huh Search function is awesome. I just went to his profile b/c I hadn't recalled seeing him before, but he had 4 posts. Struck me as odd that his 3rd post was telling the Cubs to ditch Howry while his 4th was lambasting the entire Board for saying we know how to manage the Cubs.

huh

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.

Stupid names for home runs: Dinger, Tater, etc Steve Berthiaume saying "Fill thine horn with oil, and go" But then again, we could go another 30 pages on ESPN things that tick us off. I actually liked "say hello to my little friend" the first time I heard it as a HR call. The only time Kenny Mayne has even slightly amused me is when he shouted "I am the finest player in ALL the land!" when someone hit a homer. Baseball pet peeve and overall life pet peeve: Kenny Mayne. That wasn't Kenny Mayne (at least not originally). The first was Steve Berthiaume. Nah it was Mayne. No, it was Berthiaume. Unless the preface to bring me your finest meats and cheeses was slightly different, it was Mayne. Steve Berhiaume needs to get polio and the vaccine needs to be destroyed. I think there's confusion. The Scarface line was from Berthiaume. Maybe erik didn't mean to quote me when he started talking Mayne, but I thought he was saying that the Scarface quote was from Mayne, too. If he didn't meant to imply that Mayne said the scarface line, I don't know why he quoted me.

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?

Stupid names for home runs: Dinger, Tater, etc Steve Berthiaume saying "Fill thine horn with oil, and go" But then again, we could go another 30 pages on ESPN things that tick us off. I actually liked "say hello to my little friend" the first time I heard it as a HR call. The only time Kenny Mayne has even slightly amused me is when he shouted "I am the finest player in ALL the land!" when someone hit a homer. Baseball pet peeve and overall life pet peeve: Kenny Mayne. That wasn't Kenny Mayne (at least not originally). The first was Steve Berthiaume. Nah it was Mayne. No, it was Berthiaume.

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.

Stupid names for home runs: Dinger, Tater, etc Steve Berthiaume saying "Fill thine horn with oil, and go" But then again, we could go another 30 pages on ESPN things that tick us off. I actually liked "say hello to my little friend" the first time I heard it as a HR call. The only time Kenny Mayne has even slightly amused me is when he shouted "I am the finest player in ALL the land!" when someone hit a homer. Baseball pet peeve and overall life pet peeve: Kenny Mayne. That wasn't Kenny Mayne (at least not originally). The first was Steve Berthiaume.

A Championship should be the goal. Thanks captain obvious.

Stupid names for home runs: Dinger, Tater, etc Steve Berthiaume saying "Fill thine horn with oil, and go" But then again, we could go another 30 pages on ESPN things that tick us off. I actually liked "say hello to my little friend" the first time I heard it as a HR call.

So are ancient stats and medieval stats because a double is always better than a single, a triple is always better than a double, and the HR is Caesar, King, or President b/c it always results in a run. except when the HR kills a rally. man it sucks to take the pressure off a pitcher with a grand slam rather than just 1-2 runs with a single, leaving 2 guys on. [/anticipating next argument]

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. You're telling me every hitter having an OPS over .900 is a good thing? I don't think anyone said it was a bad thing. Something keeps getting interpreted as that it seems. you're all over the place in here

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. "modern stats"? So if we just went back to relying solely on AVG, the true great hitters of the game would get their due.

that might be there worst song. clearly you didn't catch anything they did in the 80's (shudder) As far as I'm concerned, CSNY released Deja Vu and Ohio. Nothing else.

that might be there worst song.

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.

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.