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.