Let's talk about Adam Dunn destinations

[kitekrazy]

Any stat that says Adam Dunn is a good hitter has to be questioned. If he's a good hitter, why aren't teams lining up to acquire him? I'd be shocked if he doesn't just retire after the current contract expires or play for pennies. I want people on the record on this topic. Does anybody else think Adam Dunn is a "good hitter?"

I say NO.

 

That would depend on how you define a good hitter. He had a nice career in the NL. I think it's tougher for some guys to switch from the NL to AL. Pujols isn't putting up those MVP numbers like he did in the NL. Next year he will be in $20M+ salary. What kind of numbers should justify that amount? I for one think it's a greater risk throwing huge money at a NL player to play in the AL.

 

[kitekrazy]

Greg, he isn't a superstar nor is he a lineup wrecker. He is a player very good at some things, very bad at others, and it all adds up to 10% above league average offensively, with no defensive value. He is a roughly average DH. That is his value. Overpaid or underpaid, he is not anything extreme.

 

I wonder how well he would do if he was sandwiched between Fielder and Cabrera? Sometimes other guys in a lineup around you can make a difference.

 

[witesoxfan]

I wonder how well he would do if he was sandwiched between Fielder and Cabrera? Sometimes other guys in a lineup around you can make a difference.

 

Having paid no attention to the Tigers, I'm guessing they've played Martinez at catcher a little bit, but he's their primary DH. There's no room for Dunn in MoTown.

[GGajewski18]

So is Dunn a realistic target for the Orioles?

[Paulstar]

Most General Managers do not agree with you though. I could care less who disagrees violently. I understand Dunn's flaws. But what you are failing to grasp is the positives that he provides. Guys that take walks and hit a s***load of homers don't grown on trees. If Dunn were not on this baseball team this season they would be a lot closer to the worst record in baseball. What Dunn provides is important. The team is just so bad that what he provides doesn't really make much of a difference. There are many players on the White Sox that are a lot worse than Dunn but you insist on beating this dead horse and I don't really understand why.

I'm glad to see you know what most GM's think. Since you somehow have a source to all these GM's, any news on when the next trade is going to take place?

[Paulstar]

I don't know how to answer this. You have an agenda. You always have. Someone a long time ago poisoned you that strikeouts are bad. Dunn has value. Even when Adam Dunn was a monster there were many people who didn't like the way he played baseball. Dunn was always paid to hit 40 bombs, walk 100 times, score a bunch of runs, and have an .ops near .900. He did that job consistently for many many years. Teams were willing to live with the batting average under .230 and 120+ strikeouts a season. Dunn's .obp with the Sox has not been good enough. However, I believe he does have the 2nd highest .obp on the team and made like the 3rd fewest outs on the team last season. Every season there is a chance that Dunn will lead the league in homers, walks, and strikeouts. I would take that every time from him. If Dunn finishes his deal with the Sox the overall 4 year product will still be characterized as a disappointment. Even after probably 125+ homers in a Sox uniform all because of that 1st season. Is he overpaid? Yes. As a free agent though I still think Dunn gets a 2 year deal at $10 per season. What he offers a team is very valuable. He just should not be expected to be a team's best player.

Maybe someone poisoned you into thinking that strikeouts are no different than any other out.

 

I'm not here to defend Greg but the arrogance you have for traditional stats is mind boggling. If you think strikeouts are no big deal, thats fine. But people who think they are bad aren't idiots either. Its a different school of thought, and there are arguments on both sides.

 

But I guess only the almighty saber gods like you know how to correctly evaluate the production of players.

[Y2Jimmy0]

Maybe someone poisoned you into thinking that strikeouts are no different than any other out.

 

I'm not here to defend Greg but the arrogance you have for traditional stats is mind boggling. If you think strikeouts are no big deal, thats fine. But people who think they are bad aren't idiots either. Its a different school of thought, and there are arguments on both sides.

 

But I guess only the almighty saber gods like you know how to correctly evaluate the production of players.

 

 

I never said anyone was an idiot. Strikeout with a runner on 3rd and less than 2 outs is really bad. Most other situations it does not hurt you anymore than a different kind of out would. There are many people on this board who know a hell of a lot more about advanced metrics than I do by the way but I'll be the saber god if you want me to be.

[almagest]

I never said anyone was an idiot. Strikeout with a runner on 3rd and less than 2 outs is really bad. Most other situations it does not hurt you anymore than a different kind of out would. There are many people on this board who know a hell of a lot more about advanced metrics than I do by the way but I'll be the saber god if you want me to be.

How does it hurt you more than a grounder to the pitcher? A lineout to an infielder, a pop out or short fly out, or any of the hundreds of other scenarios where the run won't score? I'm sure you've seen all the inventive ways we've failed to score that runner. How is a strikeout worse than any of those?

 

[Eminor3rd]

I never said anyone was an idiot. Strikeout with a runner on 3rd and less than 2 outs is really bad. Most other situations it does not hurt you anymore than a different kind of out would. There are many people on this board who know a hell of a lot more about advanced metrics than I do by the way but I'll be the saber god if you want me to be.

 

Also, strikeout with 1 out and a runner on first is GOOD compared to anything on the ground when you're slow AND they are shifting on you.

 

What's better and worse depends on the situation. The negative run values attached to outs are based on the average of all possible situations. Overall, on average, a strikeout is just slightly worse than a typical ball in play.

[Dick Allen]

The main thing is a strikeout is an out 99.9% of the time. If you hit the ball, what is the average BABIP? Chances are if someone cuts down their K rate significantly, their batting average and all that goes with that will go up, unless they are deemed unlucky.

 

Which is something that really surprised be about the total saber guys who said a strikeout is an out like any other out. They are aware that not striking out is either getting HBP, walked or putting the ball in play, which ultimately results in less outs, and they are aware that outs do occassional advance runners. I think the extra hits gained, plus the occassional advancement of runners, the occassional errors, far outweigh the DP.

 

You can't just compare a strikeout to a regular out, because you don't make outs everytime you don't strikeout.

Edited July 19, 2013 by Dick Allen

[Steve9347]

So is Dunn a realistic target for the Orioles?

No. No one wants that idiot.

[Paulstar]

The main thing is a strikeout is an out 99.9% of the time. If you hit the ball, what is the average BABIP? Chances are if someone cuts down their K rate significantly, their batting average and all that goes with that will go up, unless they are deemed unlucky.

 

Which is something that really surprised be about the total saber guys who said a strikeout is an out like any other out. They are aware that not striking out is either getting HBP, walked or putting the ball in play, which ultimately results in less outs, and they are aware that outs do occassional advance runners. I think the extra hits gained, plus the occassional advancement of runners, the occassional errors, far outweigh the DP.

 

You can't just compare a strikeout to a regular out, because you don't make outs everytime you don't strikeout.

Thank you, I was hoping someone else would point this out and you did a great job of doing so. A strikeout usually is never a productive out as you explained nicely, as there is no chance for a fielder to misplay a strikeout (well I guess you can but it is a far less likely scenario), or for the ball to hit a lip and take a bad bounce, or to get caught in the lights/sun and fall in front of the outfielder. And like you said, the positives outweigh the negatives of putting the ball in play.

 

I know I just repeated everything you said, and could have just as easily said I agreed with you, but this is one of those subjects that grinds my gears. I am down for some of the advanced metrics, but I just hate it when people who use the saber stats completely ridicule traditional stats because they are exactly that, a traditional stat.

 

Its a like a political debate with conservatives and liberals and completely disagreeing on everything. Life would be so much easier if people saw the value in both sides, and not just held allegiance to their side.

[Eminor3rd]

The main thing is a strikeout is an out 99.9% of the time. If you hit the ball, what is the average BABIP? Chances are if someone cuts down their K rate significantly, their batting average and all that goes with that will go up, unless they are deemed unlucky.

 

Which is something that really surprised be about the total saber guys who said a strikeout is an out like any other out. They are aware that not striking out is either getting HBP, walked or putting the ball in play, which ultimately results in less outs, and they are aware that outs do occassional advance runners. I think the extra hits gained, plus the occassional advancement of runners, the occassional errors, far outweigh the DP.

 

You can't just compare a strikeout to a regular out, because you don't make outs everytime you don't strikeout.

 

Your hypothesis makes a lot of sense, and it is one held by many. However, when they went and actually looked at the expected runs from all of the base/out states and factored in how often each occurs, the difference (again, on average) was very small. So, bringing us back to the purpose of these stats, it makes perfect sense NOT to consider context when comparing two players that did not receive the same opportunities.

 

League average BABIP tends to be around .300, though power hitters tend to have lower BABIPs because they hit a lot of fly balls. Ground balls have higher BABIPs than fly balls, liners have the highest. Dunn's BABIP this year is .233.

[Dick Allen]

Your hypothesis makes a lot of sense, and it is one held by many. However, when they went and actually looked at the expected runs from all of the base/out states and factored in how often each occurs, the difference (again, on average) was very small. So, bringing us back to the purpose of these stats, it makes perfect sense NOT to consider context when comparing two players that did not receive the same opportunities.

 

League average BABIP tends to be around .300, though power hitters tend to have lower BABIPs because they hit a lot of fly balls. Ground balls have higher BABIPs than fly balls, liners have the highest. Dunn's BABIP this year is .233.

That's because HR are taken out of the equation in babip. I used the babip to mention if one makes more contact, they will get more hits. Chopping 40 or 50 ks off your total usually won't lead to the same amount of outs. Also, improving contact could lead to fouling pitches you would have missed off, making the pitcher work harder and lead to other things like walks and wild pitches or passed balls.

[iamshack]

Your hypothesis makes a lot of sense, and it is one held by many. However, when they went and actually looked at the expected runs from all of the base/out states and factored in how often each occurs, the difference (again, on average) was very small. So, bringing us back to the purpose of these stats, it makes perfect sense NOT to consider context when comparing two players that did not receive the same opportunities.

 

League average BABIP tends to be around .300, though power hitters tend to have lower BABIPs because they hit a lot of fly balls. Ground balls have higher BABIPs than fly balls, liners have the highest. Dunn's BABIP this year is .233.

I just want to commend you on your patience and respect towards everyone in this thread. If all the proponents of advanced metrics handled these discussions the way you have, the chasm between the advanced metrics crowd and the old school folks would be far less contentious.

[iamshack]

At the same time, how do you quantify the effect on the balls one does put in play if hitting style is adjusted to try and cut back on strikeouts?

 

Say Dunn did make a conscious effort to make more contact. How many home runs would it come at the expense of?

 

I understand there is a difference between trying to measure hitters that strikeout versus hitters that don't (as much), but in the end, a guy is what he is for the most part.

[Eminor3rd]

That's because HR are taken out of the equation in babip. I used the babip to mention if one makes more contact, they will get more hits. Chopping 40 or 50 ks off your total usually won't lead to the same amount of outs. Also, improving contact could lead to fouling pitches you would have missed off, making the pitcher work harder and lead to other things like walks and wild pitches or passed balls.

 

Yes, good points, and you've reminded me of something that should probably be mentioned. Part of the idea of not trying to maximize contact at all costs is that while you gian strikeouts, you ALSO gain walks. Similar to how a K is a 100% out, a walk is a 100% base (obviously), so you theoretically optimize your on base percentage by taking the 70% chance of an out on contact away. But of course this does NOT work if you aren't taking walks, too. No one, not even saber guys, like hitter who are high-K, low on base guys

 

Also, I'm not 100% sure on this, but I believe guys that take pitches rather than make contact actually make the pitcher work harder on average, though intuitively I can see it going either way (with the fouling off and such).

[Eminor3rd]

I just want to commend you on your patience and respect towards everyone in this thread. If all the proponents of advanced metrics handled these discussions the way you have, the chasm between the advanced metrics crowd and the old school folks would be far less contentious.

 

Thanks! I heard Dave Cameron say once that when we criticize stats, we aren't criticizing the thought or intent behind them, just the way they measure it. We're all asking good questions, the hard part is finding the right way to answer those questions.

 

Even RBI comes from a good idea -- who is the best run producer? It just is a very flawed way to measure run production if you want to ascertain true talent and likely performance going forward. So there's no reason to disrespect someone that wants to know about who the best run producers are -- I want to know that too!

 

We're all on the same team here, lol

[witesoxfan]

Thanks! I heard Dave Cameron say once that when we criticize stats, we aren't criticizing the thought or intent behind them, just the way they measure it. We're all asking good questions, the hard part is finding the right way to answer those questions.

 

Even RBI comes from a good idea -- who is the best run producer? It just is a very flawed way to measure run production if you want to ascertain true talent and likely performance going forward. So there's no reason to disrespect someone that wants to know about who the best run producers are -- I want to know that too!

 

We're all on the same team here, lol

 

This is all good and dandy, but the pressing question: is there any correlation between facial hair and effectiveness as a middle reliever?

[Paulstar]

At the same time, how do you quantify the effect on the balls one does put in play if hitting style is adjusted to try and cut back on strikeouts?

Say Dunn did make a conscious effort to make more contact. How many home runs would it come at the expense of?

 

I understand there is a difference between trying to measure hitters that strikeout versus hitters that don't (as much), but in the end, a guy is what he is for the most part.

I get what you are trying to say, but I don't think Dunn is a good example. Adam Dunn is someone who is big enough and strong enough to still hit home runs when he isn't trying to hit homeruns. That is why the HR, BB, or K approach doesn't make sense to me. I truly believe if Dunn stopped trying to hit home runs, you would see his K's go down, his average go up, and home runs remain around 40, maybe a slight decrease. Maybe also the avg. distance on his homers would go down, but who cares about that as long as they are going over the fence.

[Jake]

The likely result of a much lower K rate by Dunn would be that the Ks would be replaced by ground balls and his success rate on grounders is horrible.

[witesoxfan]

I get what you are trying to say, but I don't think Dunn is a good example. Adam Dunn is someone who is big enough and strong enough to still hit home runs when he isn't trying to hit homeruns. That is why the HR, BB, or K approach doesn't make sense to me. I truly believe if Dunn stopped trying to hit home runs, you would see his K's go down, his average go up, and home runs remain around 40, maybe a slight decrease. Maybe also the avg. distance on his homers would go down, but who cares about that as long as they are going over the fence.

 

I don't believe this to be true at all. If Adam Dunn started swinging for more contact, he'd still end up striking out at about a 28-30% clip and he would only hit 20 to 30 homers.

 

If it were as simple as him trying to hit for average to cut back on his strikeouts, he would have done it a long time ago because it would make him a better player.

 

He doesn't have good enough bat control nor speed to be able to fight pitches off like many guys do. He does have enough bat speed and strength to hit the ball 500 feet.

Edited July 19, 2013 by witesoxfan

[Dick Allen]

I don't believe this to be true at all. If Adam Dunn started swinging for more contact, he'd still end up striking out at about a 28-30% clip and he would only hit 20 to 30 homers.

 

If it were as simple as him trying to hit for average to cut back on his strikeouts, he would have done it a long time ago because it would make him a better player.

 

He doesn't have good enough bat control nor speed to be able to fight pitches off like many guys do. He does have enough bat speed and strength to hit the ball 500 feet.

I disagree. He has made more contact the last month and a half and everything is better across the board.

April/May 195 PA 69 K 19 BB 11 IB 4 2B 12 HR

June/July 165 PA 39 K 27 BB 22 1B 5 2B 12 HR

 

The more contact Dunn makes, the more balls he will hit over the wall.

[witesoxfan]

I disagree. He has made more contact the last month and a half and everything is better across the board.

April/May 195 PA 69 K 19 BB 11 IB 4 2B 12 HR

June/July 165 PA 39 K 27 BB 22 1B 5 2B 12 HR

 

The more contact Dunn makes, the more balls he will hit over the wall.

 

Making more contact =! trying to hit for contact

 

I think he's seeing the ball better and he's hitting the ball better, but I don't think he's trying to hit for a higher average by any stretch of the imagination.

[Paulstar]

I don't believe this to be true at all. If Adam Dunn started swinging for more contact, he'd still end up striking out at about a 28-30% clip and he would only hit 20 to 30 homers.

 

If it were as simple as him trying to hit for average to cut back on his strikeouts, he would have done it a long time ago because it would make him a better player.

 

He doesn't have good enough bat control nor speed to be able to fight pitches off like many guys do. He does have enough bat speed and strength to hit the ball 500 feet.

Its all debatable. Maybe all Dunn is good at is hitting bombs. But maybe, just maybe, if he brainwashed himself into not wanting to swing for the fences, maybe used a lighter bat, and went with a more all around approach where he is willing to make adjustments during at bats and sacrifice power here and there, I think he would benefit greatly. But maybe like you said it is something he just can't do.

 

Also, I shouldn't say contact approach as that implies you just trying to make contact. A better way of phrasing it would be a hit the ball hard where it is pitched, and protect with two strikes (not try and still drop bombs) approach.