Backtobanks

I already posted the stats to refute this, but no one seemed to notice. Actually Derwood, your posting of statistics helped prove my point that Dunn isn't a great hitter (by my definition). His BBs and Ks (no contact) account for 43% of his ABs and in the 53% of ABs where he makes contact, 70% of the time he makes outs.

porn makes consistent contact with the ball and a decent amount of time the contact results in hits? that. and you know it when you see it. And I don't have to spend a lot of time researching statistics to call it porn. Just have to sit back and enjoy.

This old timer's definition of a great hitter (or pure hitter) is a hitter who makes consistent contact with the ball and a decent amount of times that contact results in hits. That may not be the criteria that you would like, but I know a great hitter when I see one. My definition of someone who's not a great hitter is somebody that people have to spend time researching statistics to find a reason to call him a great hitter. Watching Dunn, you will likely see a HR (great contact), BB (no contact), or K (no contact). I repeat he's a great slugger, but not a great hitter.

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.

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.

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.

Maddux should have hung it up a few years ago, but at least he got to 350 clean. Maybe, but he's been atleast a decent backend of the rotation guy for the last few yrs. And I wondering if Maddux is trying to go for 400 wins as a starter. Go to a team with a very good offense, and pitch at least 3 more yrs (4 tops)---Dodger stadium would be a good place for him to try and reach 400 wins---and give it a shot. Seeing a "clean" pitcher shot for 400 wins, would be better then watching a "alledgely" juiced OF go for 715. There's no way Maddux will make it to 400. He needs 47 more wins, which would mean pitching at least 4 more years and probably 5. He might get in one more year, but anything after that is just going to tarnish his HOF career.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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 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.

I don't think 8 mil is too much for that kind of production. The question is who would we have to give for him. The Orioles know our system better than anyone else, so who would tempt them at this point? I guess that means that I would see him as an upgrade over Ward that could help us in the playoffs this year, as well as be a major cog next year. Huff is having a career year. There are people wondering whether he will regress back to his norms next year. The real question is whether he can produce coming off the bench or in very limited duty. Also, the adjective "serviceable" may be exaggerating somewhat.

The only discussion about Huff should involve his contract and who the Cubs would give up. Discussing Huff's defense brings up the question: What defensive position does Daryle Ward play?

I guess I should have said good pitchers and mediocre pitchers...does that make any differnce for ya? Not trying to be a jerk, but no? Good pitchers tend to get hitters out more than mediocre and bad ones. I know what you're trying to say, but I don't think it really means anything. That said, if there's any anecdotal way to characterize Soriano, I'd say it's more like he mashes everybody when he's hot and is over-matched by just about everybody when he's cold. He's been hot a lot more than cold this year, though. Basically, good hitters hit pitchers' mistakes. The better the pitcher, the fewer mistakes. If pitchers didn't make mistakes, there wouldn't be many runs scored.

Knowing how quickly MacPhail moves, we would be lucky to get him by January.

Pitching rules in the playoffs, but a hot hitter can really help dominate a short series. We've all seen what Soriano can do in the matter of 7-10 days, but sometimes it's the least capable hitter on the team that goes 15 for 28 during a 7-game World Series. The Cubs should be in pretty good shape because of their all around depth.

I'm going to assume this is the part you wrote and mixed into the othe quote. A) Theriot is tied for 5th on the team in games played. B) Who effing cares about how his average ranks in the NL? It's meaningless. It has no baring on who should be the Cubs MVP. Theriot has been a nice role player this year. Nothing more, nothing less. Exactly my point. As others have pointed out, nobody is the standout MVP of the team because of the depth of the team. Everybody is a role player on this team, while only Soto and Dempster are doing more than expected. Picking one MVP on the team is a personal choice, but listing the next 5 or 6 is really hard because of the depth of the team.

right. and those guys aren't as valuable as players who are "sluggers." i hear this "well, that's just not the type of hitter he is" arguments about theriot quite a bit. so does that mean you just don't consider his .367 SLG or whatever? hey, jason marquis just isn't the type of pitcher that strikes guys out, limits hits, or prevents runs. when you accept that he's just not the type of pitcher, you'll like him a lot better. I'm not saying that a singles hitter is as valuable as a slugger, but I do think that Theriot plays an important role on this team and shouldn't be overlooked because his slugging percentage is low. 20 years ago an overwhelming percentage of middle infielders were singles hitters and many of them were considered valuable members of the team.

It might not be a popular choice, but I would think Theriot needs to be in the top 5. He has been consistently good all year while playing every day, unlike Soriano, Soto, and Edmunds. I could not agree more. When I saw the list of the original 5, my first thought was that Theriot was not there. He does play every day and his defense is good. He's often and unsung hero, not a lot of flash, but I don't think the Cubs are where they are without him. He doesn't play everyday, his defense isn't that good, and he's only marginally productive. He plays a premium defensive position at about an average level (check any advanced metric you like, he's not terrible defensively) and has an OBP darn near .400. I don't care about the rest, thats enough to make him more than 'marginally' productive. I agree with those of you who point out the depth of the team and emphasize there isn't just one MVP, but I do think Theriot's value is overlooked by many of you. Some of the stats that people love to quote put a premium on slugging, overlooking the fact that not everyone can be a "slugger". (These are the same stats that make Adam Dunn a "great" hitter while Ichiro "sucks") Theriot is a very valuable role player on this team.

It might not be a popular choice, but I would think Theriot needs to be in the top 5. He has been consistently good all year while playing every day, unlike Soriano, Soto, and Edmunds. I could not agree more. When I saw the list of the original 5, my first thought was that Theriot was not there. He does play every day and his defense is good. He's often and unsung hero, not a lot of flash, but I don't think the Cubs are where they are without him. He doesn't play everyday, his defense isn't that good, and he's only marginally productive. He plays more than anyone else on that list, his defense is good enough, and he's productive enough to be the starting SS on the most productive team in the majors.

It might not be a popular choice, but I would think Theriot needs to be in the top 5. He has been consistently good all year while playing every day, unlike Soriano, Soto, and Edmunds.

Johnson and Edmunds are both FA this year. If the Cubs had Winn and Johnson for next year, it gives the team a lot of versatility and depth. Assuming an OF of Soriano/ Pie/Fukudome, Johnson and Winn (and DeRosa) could get a lot of playing time platooning (Pie), with injuries (Soriano), slumps (Pie and Fukudome), and pinchhitting.