PDA

View Full Version : Don't look now: Adam Dunn on pace for 60 HR



jmcclain19
05-02-2006, 06:43 PM
Time for some fun with numbers.

With 27 games played, Adam Dunn has 10 home runs, which would put him on pace to hit 59.88 home runs for the season.

This is including a streak of nearly 40 ABs without a homer this past week.

Odds on Adam being the first Red ever to reach 60?

deltachi8
05-02-2006, 07:03 PM
ya but too many are solo ones, i mean cant he hit the ones that really count?:evil:

wheels
05-02-2006, 07:08 PM
Both Dunn and E2 hit soft homers today.

Ship 'em out.:laugh:

Heath
05-02-2006, 07:35 PM
Dunn would be the first player in MLB history to hit more than 60 home runs and have less than 100 rbi.

(you can turn off the sarcasm now)

red-in-la
05-02-2006, 07:38 PM
EdwinE is the star right now......if the Reds had been in more blow-outs, Adam's occassional solo homeruns would have been a lot more meaningless.

Give me RBI's game in and game out...homeruns are WAY-WAY overrated.....lots of fun to watch, but one 3 run double does a lot more damage than a solo HR....no kidding:rolleyes:

MaineRed
05-02-2006, 07:52 PM
I think the Reds have A LOT of stars right now, including Adam Dunn. AD has been big in this run, if for nothing else, the way he works pitchers. The Reds are wearing guys down and knocking them out early. Dunn and his 8+ pitch at bats help that cause.

There is no denying that Edwin is himself turning into a star. He is another guy that seems to wait for his pitch. And he looks so confident. I'm impressed.

As for Dunn reaching 60 bombs, I don't want to make any predictions. I'll take 35 HR if the Reds finish September with today's winning percentage. Anyone else want to sign up for 114 wins?

KronoRed
05-02-2006, 07:57 PM
I say 50

Good start :D

oneupper
05-02-2006, 07:57 PM
EdwinE is the star right now......if the Reds had been in more blow-outs, Adam's occassional solo homeruns would have been a lot more meaningless.

Give me RBI's game in and game out...homeruns are WAY-WAY overrated.....lots of fun to watch, but one 3 run double does a lot more damage than a solo HR....no kidding:rolleyes:

Perhaps lost in all this is the fact that Dunn leads the NL in runs scored with 27. Gotta get on in order to get in.

BRM
05-02-2006, 08:36 PM
How many strikeouts is he on pace for?

OnBaseMachine
05-02-2006, 08:51 PM
How many strikeouts is he on pace for?

On pace for 150 walks and 198 strikeouts. Jonny Gomes and Brad Wilkerson are on pace to strikeout 200 times at last check.

Another interesting fact: In 2001, Jim Thome finished with 185 strikeouts in 526 atbats(644 PA). That's a rate of a K/3.48 PA. In Dunn's 2004 record K season, he struckout 195 times in 568 atbats and 681 PA, for a rate of 3.49. Thome would have struckout nearly 200 times had he went to the plate as much as Dunn did in 2004.

red-in-la
05-02-2006, 09:33 PM
Stats do tell us a lot.....

M2
05-02-2006, 09:40 PM
Perhaps lost in all this is the fact that Dunn leads the NL in runs scored with 27. Gotta get on in order to get in.

Hard to hit a three-run double if no one's on base.

red-in-la
05-02-2006, 09:43 PM
Hard to hit a three-run double if no one's on base.

I believe the Reds lead the NL in OBP also.

westofyou
05-02-2006, 09:51 PM
Give me RBI's game in and game out...homeruns are WAY-WAY overrated.....lots of fun to watch, but one 3 run double does a lot more damage than a solo HR....no kidding
You mean one is more than three?

RBI's

The Deron Johnson's of the world call out to you.

Caveat Emperor
05-02-2006, 09:52 PM
Hard to hit a three-run double if no one's on base.

Jim Edmonds could do it.

He'd hit the three run double with nobody on and still have time to make a diving catch on his own hit.

Cyclone792
05-02-2006, 09:59 PM
On pace for 150 walks and 198 strikeouts. Jonny Gomes and Brad Wilkerson are on pace to strikeout 200 times at last check.

Another interesting fact: In 2001, Jim Thome finished with 185 strikeouts in 526 atbats(644 PA). That's a rate of a K/3.48 PA. In Dunn's 2004 record K season, he struckout 195 times in 568 atbats and 681 PA, for a rate of 3.49. Thome would have struckout nearly 200 times had he went to the plate as much as Dunn did in 2004.

I've gotta say, 150 walks is just absolutely sick. In fact, it's only happened 11 times in the history of the game by only five players ever: Barry Bonds (4), Babe Ruth (2), Mark McGwire (1), Ted Williams (3) and Eddie Yost (1).

red-in-la
05-02-2006, 10:02 PM
You mean one is more than three?

RBI's

The Deron Johnson's of the world call out to you.

My post included the words, "no kidding" and a rolleyes emoticon.......geez WOY, do you ever let up? Maybe I should bring up the Reitsma trade again.....

Benny-Distefano
05-02-2006, 10:08 PM
How many HRs is Bronson A. on pace to hit over the 162 game season? :)

http://daily.greencine.com/archives/charles-bronson.jpg

Heath
05-02-2006, 10:15 PM
On pace for 150 walks and 198 strikeouts. Jonny Gomes and Brad Wilkerson are on pace to strikeout 200 times at last check.

Another interesting fact: In 2001, Jim Thome finished with 185 strikeouts in 526 atbats(644 PA). That's a rate of a K/3.48 PA. In Dunn's 2004 record K season, he struckout 195 times in 568 atbats and 681 PA, for a rate of 3.49. Thome would have struckout nearly 200 times had he went to the plate as much as Dunn did in 2004.

That's almost Mickey Tettleton-like.

Sorry - He was on my first fantasy team ever. He was such a Tiger.

westofyou
05-02-2006, 10:18 PM
On pace for 150 walks and 198 strikeouts. Jonny Gomes and Brad Wilkerson are on pace to strikeout 200 times at last check.

Another interesting fact: In 2001, Jim Thome finished with 185 strikeouts in 526 atbats(644 PA). That's a rate of a K/3.48 PA. In Dunn's 2004 record K season, he struckout 195 times in 568 atbats and 681 PA, for a rate of 3.49. Thome would have struckout nearly 200 times had he went to the plate as much as Dunn did in 2004.
Dave Nicholson 449 ab's 175 K's 1 every 2.56 ab - 1963

alexad
05-02-2006, 10:19 PM
Jim Edmonds could do it.

He'd hit the three run double with nobody on and still have time to make a diving catch on his own hit.

I always thought George Grande posted on the site. George I am really sorry for all the bad things I have said about you. Will you forgive me since I have to listen to you scream "It's gonna be GONNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNEEEEEEEEEEEE! just about everynight for the next few months.:devil:

Jaycint
05-02-2006, 10:46 PM
I always thought George Grande posted on the site.

Of course we all know his story...:evil:

johngalt
05-02-2006, 11:27 PM
Jim Edmonds could do it.

He'd hit the three run double with nobody on and still have time to make a diving catch on his own hit.

Jack Bauer doesn't need men on base to hit a grand slam. Every home run he hits is a grand slam.

Caveat Emperor
05-02-2006, 11:32 PM
Jack Bauer doesn't need men on base to hit a grand slam. Every home run he hits is a grand slam.

Jack Bauer is cool and all, but Jim Edmonds has more grand slams than a Dennys franchise.

Plus Jim Edmonds would be a much better counter-terrorism agent than Jack Bauer. Edmonds would have the entire plot solved by 23:59:59, but he'd slow down and wait until 00:00:01 to thwart the terrorists in order to make things look more dramatic.

Reds1
05-03-2006, 12:11 AM
EdwinE is the star right now......if the Reds had been in more blow-outs, Adam's occassional solo homeruns would have been a lot more meaningless.

Give me RBI's game in and game out...homeruns are WAY-WAY overrated.....lots of fun to watch, but one 3 run double does a lot more damage than a solo HR....no kidding:rolleyes:


The great thing about this team is we are getting both.

red-in-la
05-03-2006, 12:32 AM
Peter Gammons said the same thing about EdwinE that I did. Twisted minds are twisted......what can I say?

Buckaholic
05-03-2006, 12:52 AM
So does this mean a 3-run double is also better than a walk?

I kid. I wasn't going there again ;)

vaticanplum
05-03-2006, 12:54 AM
Jack Bauer is cool and all, but Jim Edmonds has more grand slams than a Dennys franchise.

Plus Jim Edmonds would be a much better counter-terrorism agent than Jack Bauer. Edmonds would have the entire plot solved by 23:59:59, but he'd slow down and wait until 00:00:01 to thwart the terrorists in order to make things look more dramatic.

baaahhhhhhhhh

edit: that's meant to be a laugh that a smiley face cannot properly convey, not the sound of scoffing.

johngalt
05-03-2006, 02:54 AM
Jack Bauer is cool and all, but Jim Edmonds has more grand slams than a Dennys franchise.

Plus Jim Edmonds would be a much better counter-terrorism agent than Jack Bauer. Edmonds would have the entire plot solved by 23:59:59, but he'd slow down and wait until 00:00:01 to thwart the terrorists in order to make things look more dramatic.

You've been drinking too much George Grande Kool-Aid. :)

Besides, if Jack Bauer was playing center field for the Cardinals, there would be no right fielder or left fielder. No one takes the ball from Jack Bauer and lives to tell about it.

StillFunkyB
05-03-2006, 06:30 AM
You've been drinking too much George Grande Kool-Aid. :)

Besides, if Jack Bauer was playing center field for the Cardinals, there would be no right fielder or left fielder. No one takes the ball from Jack Bauer and lives to tell about it.

If Jack Bauer were a CF for the Cardinals, he would be squashed by Jim Coombs.

Just sayin...

MaineRed
05-03-2006, 06:51 AM
Does Adam Dunn have a historical double?

He isn't Frank Thomas in his prime but he also isn't Mickey Tettelton (I know you weren't saying he was Heath).

Who is Adam Dunn?

OnBaseMachine
05-03-2006, 07:00 AM
Does Adam Dunn have a historical double?

He isn't Frank Thomas in his prime but he also isn't Mickey Tettelton (I know you weren't saying he was Heath).

Who is Adam Dunn?

A young Jim Thome.

Roy Tucker
05-03-2006, 08:56 AM
You mean one is more than three?

RBI's

The Deron Johnson's of the world call out to you.
Ahhh, 1965. Roy was 13 years old and a Reds fan in all his teenage hero-worshipping glory. As the 1965 season progressed, Deron Johnson became the RBI hero of the Reds and a favorite of Roy's. I remember having his baseball card and admiring his picture. He was in a batting stance, steely blue eyes, strong jaw, resolutely staring at the pitcher, ready to knock the snot out of the ball.

Johnson knocked in runs all year long and I thought the Reds had a new star. Evidently they did too because after his 130 RBI season, the Reds traded Frank Robinson off to the O's for the infamous Milt Pappas. I assume they thought Johnson would take up the slack. However, he never recreated his big RBI season with the Reds (but did have a couple nice seasons with the Phils) and we all know what happened with Robbie and Pappas.

Knowing what I know now, I went back to baseball-reference and retrosheet just to see what happened that 1965 season. And it was all there in black and white. Johnson batted 5th pretty much the whole season behind Tommy Harper leading off, Pete Rose, Vada Pinson, and Frank Robinson batting cleanup. Johnson batted fifth, and some guy named Toney Perez started getting some AB's in the 6th slot. Pretty potent lineup that season:

- Harper's OBP was .340 in 646 ABs. He scored 126 runs.
- Rose's OBP was .382 in 670 ABs. He scored 117 runs.
- Pinson's OBP was .352 in 669 ABs. He scored 97 runs.
- Robinson's OBP was .386 in 582 ABs. He scored 109 runs.

So just about every time Johnson came to bat, the ducks were on the pond so to speak. Johnson had a nice .287/.340/.515 season, but it was all those guys on base (and speedy guys at that) that made him look so good.

In the Don Heffner-led 1966 season, Johnson's balloon got popped. He wasn't too far off his '65 season at .257/.309/.461, but guys weren't getting on base near the way they did in '65. Heffner messed around with dropping Harper (and his .348 OBP) down in the lineup and putting Tommy Helms up in the #2 slot and as Heffner's 83 game stint went on, you could see all the lineup juggling that got more and more counter-productive. '66 was pretty much of a disaster. Johnson's RBI total went down to 81, down to 53 in '67, and he was traded off to the Braves in the off-season.

BRM
05-03-2006, 09:28 AM
I believe the Reds lead the NL in OBP also.

The Reds lead the NL in OBP, Runs, Doubles, Walks, and RBI. They are 2nd, behind Milwaukee, in Homeruns, SLG, and OPS.

M2
05-03-2006, 09:37 AM
The Reds lead the NL in OBP, Runs, Doubles, Walks, and RBI. They are 2nd, behind Milwaukee, in Homeruns, SLG, and OPS.

And the Brewers allow a .702 OPS against, while the Reds drop in at .811. Beware that team.

Johnny Footstool
05-03-2006, 09:43 AM
Does Adam Dunn have a historical double?

He isn't Frank Thomas in his prime but he also isn't Mickey Tettelton (I know you weren't saying he was Heath).

Who is Adam Dunn?

Troy Glaus
Mike Schmidt
Reggie Jackson

All High K/High BB hitters with a ton of power and relatively low Batting Averages.

BRM
05-03-2006, 09:47 AM
And the Brewers allow a .702 OPS against, while the Reds drop in at .811. Beware that team.

Milwaukee is a top four or five pitching staff in the NL in most categories while the Reds are still lingering in the bottom five or six.

big boy
05-03-2006, 01:49 PM
he never recreated his big RBI season with the Reds

He still had to drive in all those runs somehow. I suspect he did not do it by drawing walks or striking out when those ducks were on the pond.

westofyou
05-03-2006, 02:33 PM
I suspect he did not do it by drawing walks or striking out when those ducks were on the pond.
Loving the numbers with runners on is similar to shooting ducks on the pond, easy to bring down.

Deron Johnson had a career year and some folks bought that cow instead of just enjoying the milk.

With runners on in 1964
.288 .335 .482

1965
.310 .364 .567

1966
.221 .306 .450

1967
.255 .325 .418

M2
05-03-2006, 02:44 PM
Loving the numbers with runners on is similar to shooting ducks on the pond, easy to bring down.

Deron Johnson had a career year and some folks bought that cow instead of just enjoying the milk.

With runners on in 1964
.288 .335 .482

1965
.310 .364 .567

1966
.221 .306 .450

1967
.255 .325 .418


Amazing what happens when pitchers figure out you'll swing at junk.

big boy
05-03-2006, 02:49 PM
Loving the numbers with runners on is similar to shooting ducks on the pond, easy to bring down.

Just pointing out that he wasn't going to drive in 130 by taking walks and striking out.

pedro
05-03-2006, 02:55 PM
Just pointing out that he wasn't going to drive in 130 by taking walks and striking out.

well, he's not going to have an OBP of .306 either.

Not to mention that in that "great" RBI season Johnson only scored 92 runs while Dunn has scored over 100 the last two years while batting relatively low in the order. No one ever wants to give him credit for that.

westofyou
05-03-2006, 03:00 PM
Just pointing out that he wasn't going to drive in 130 by taking walks and striking out.
And Johnson never duplicated his season again by swinging at everything that came his way.

Sometimes you pay the piper, sometimes you go all Joe Carter and have a nice RBI year, sometimes you go Norm Cash or Deron Johnson and blow the world away.

The trick is to not get caught paying for luck and a good summer.

DeWitt was a southern man, my take is he didn't like Frank Robinson too much, it might have been a generational as well as a cultural thing... he let that and his disdain for the walk and love of "clutch" numbers as an offensive weapon help shape his opinion on why to dump Robinson.

Whoops.

M2
05-03-2006, 03:02 PM
It should be noted that two years after washing out with the Reds, Johnson reinvented himself at age 30 with the Phillies. He started taking walks and whiffing more frequently, the combination of being more selective and putting his best rip on the ball made him a decent RBI man again, earned him a full-time job and extended his career six years past the point where it looked like it was over.

Roy Tucker
05-03-2006, 03:20 PM
It should be noted that two years after washing out with the Reds, Johnson reinvented himself at age 30 with the Phillies. He started taking walks and whiffing more frequently, the combination of being more selective and putting his best rip on the ball made him a decent RBI man again, earned him a full-time job and extended his career six years past the point where it looked like it was over.
I didn't know this till I went back and looked him up this AM. Johnson faded from the Reds and, soon after, the BRM emerged which consumed my interest. It's nice to know he went on to some good things (and sad to see he died in 1992).

But '65 was my second season following the Reds and Johnson had that classic squinty-eye square jaw look that teenage boys fall into hero-worship love with. I've still got his baseball card.

http://www.vintagecardtraders.org/virtual/64topps/64topps-449.jpg

westofyou
05-03-2006, 03:27 PM
But '65 was my second season following the Reds and Johnson had that classic squinty-eye square jaw look that teenage boys fall into hero-worship love with. I've still got his baseball card.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

http://members.tripod.com/bb_catchers/catchers/freehan.jpg

RichRed
05-03-2006, 03:38 PM
The Reds lead the NL in OBP, Runs, Doubles, Walks, and RBI. They are 2nd, behind Milwaukee, in Homeruns, SLG, and OPS.

But...but they're 14th in the NL in BA with RISP. How do they score all those runs? Maybe Marty knows. ;)

BRM
05-03-2006, 03:44 PM
But...but they're 14th in the NL in BA with RISP. How do they score all those runs? Maybe Marty knows. ;)

Reds are 1st in homeruns, runs scored and total bases with RISP. Hit quality vs hit quantity?

pedro
05-03-2006, 03:47 PM
But how are they doing with QUISP?

M2
05-03-2006, 03:53 PM
Reds are 1st in homeruns, runs scored and total bases with RISP. Hit quality vs hit quantity?

No way, hit quality you say? You mean that by being selective and getting big hits (the result of big swings), a team can actually score more runs?

BRM
05-03-2006, 04:10 PM
No way, hit quality you say? You mean that by being selective and getting big hits (the result of big swings), a team can actually score more runs?

Well, the numbers tell me that but my gut keeps telling me it can't be true. Singles w/RISP have GOT to be the most productive way to score runs.

Handofdeath
05-03-2006, 04:19 PM
On pace for 150 walks and 198 strikeouts. Jonny Gomes and Brad Wilkerson are on pace to strikeout 200 times at last check.

Another interesting fact: In 2001, Jim Thome finished with 185 strikeouts in 526 atbats(644 PA). That's a rate of a K/3.48 PA. In Dunn's 2004 record K season, he struckout 195 times in 568 atbats and 681 PA, for a rate of 3.49. Thome would have struckout nearly 200 times had he went to the plate as much as Dunn did in 2004.

Yes, but Thome's OPS was also 83 points higher than Dunn. 1.040 to .957 I think. Dunn had a very good season but Thome had a better one.

OnBaseMachine
05-03-2006, 04:34 PM
Yes, but Thome's OPS was also 83 points higher than Dunn. 1.040 to .957 I think. Dunn had a very good season but Thome had a better one.

I never said Dunn had a better year. I was just pointing out how Thome strikes out a ton, but you never hear the talking heads talking about his whiffs like they do Dunn's.

IslandRed
05-03-2006, 04:40 PM
Just pointing out that he wasn't going to drive in 130 by taking walks and striking out.

To recycle an analogy from a couple of weeks ago: "ducks on the pond" is just another name for "we've got a rally going."

There are situations where the lead duck is the only one that matters, in which case drawing a walk doesn't do much. It still beats swinging at crap, but it's not going to plate the runner. But most of the time, having runners in scoring position just means there's a rally going on, and if there's a rally going, walks are great. Anything that puts more runners on without using up an out is rally fuel.

But this presumes we're more interested in how many runs the Reds score than how many runs Adam Dunn drives in. And no, it's not a given that Dunn driving in more means the Reds score more. Not if he made a bunch of extra outs from the pitches he chased acting as if the guy in the on-deck circle didn't exist.

KronoRed
05-03-2006, 04:41 PM
I never said Dunn had a better year. I was just pointing out how Thome strikes out a ton, but you never hear the talking heads talking about his whiffs like they do Dunn's.
Because he hit .300 a few times, that gives you strike out free cards.

Handofdeath
05-03-2006, 04:44 PM
I never said Dunn had a better year. I was just pointing out how Thome strikes out a ton, but you never hear the talking heads talking about his whiffs like they do Dunn's.

I know you didn't I'm just pointing out why they don't.

M2
05-03-2006, 04:57 PM
To recycle an analogy from a couple of weeks ago: "ducks on the pond" is just another name for "we've got a rally going."

There are situations where the lead duck is the only one that matters, in which case drawing a walk doesn't do much. It still beats swinging at crap, but it's not going to plate the runner. But most of the time, having runners in scoring position just means there's a rally going on, and if there's a rally going, walks are great. Anything that puts more runners on without using up an out is rally fuel.

But this presumes we're more interested in how many runs the Reds score than how many runs Adam Dunn drives in. And no, it's not a given that Dunn driving in more means the Reds score more. Not if he made a bunch of extra outs from the pitches he chased acting as if the guy in the on-deck circle didn't exist.

Excellent post.

Johnny Footstool
05-03-2006, 05:06 PM
Because he hit .300 a few times, that gives you strike out free cards.


Yep. Thome possesses the ability to hit 10 to 20 more singles per year than Dunn. That's all it takes to hush most of the critics.

Terry
05-03-2006, 07:36 PM
A young Jim Thome.

Close. But didn't Thome hit over .300 several times earlier in his career? Thome put up bigger RBI totals too. But, of course, some folks on this board don't consider RBI's an important stat, so it's probably useless to include it when discussing Adam Dunn.

Terry
05-03-2006, 07:38 PM
I never said Dunn had a better year. I was just pointing out how Thome strikes out a ton, but you never hear the talking heads talking about his whiffs like they do Dunn's.

It'd be talked about if Thome was worshipped on this site the way a few of you guys worship Adam Dunn.

OnBaseMachine
05-03-2006, 07:45 PM
Close. But didn't Thome hit over .300 several times earlier in his career? Thome put up bigger RBI totals too. But, of course, some folks on this board don't consider RBI's an important stat, so it's probably useless to include it when discussing Adam Dunn.

You're right, RBI is not an important stat.

But since you ask, Thome never had more than 73 RBI in a season before the age of 26. Dunn had two. Dunn also had 103 more home runs than Thome by age 25.

Red Taylor
05-04-2006, 03:02 AM
You're right, RBI is not an important stat.

But since you ask, Thome never had more than 73 RBI in a season before the age of 26. Dunn had two.

I've been a longtime lurker (and bigtime Adam Dunn fan) but I finally had to register. You guys go way overboard when it comes to supporting Adam. Some of you even lie to support your "facts" (not you, OnBaseMachine, but the general crowd).

At age 25 Thome hit .311, with 38 HR's and 116 RBI. Why twist the age stats to make your point? You might also consider how many games Thome played in his first four seasons, and his total at bats, etc. There's no comparison.

Lets enjoy Adam for what he is instead of pretending he's something more. He's not a good RBI guy, but he's a bigtime HR hitter who draws alot of walks and scores runs. At this point that's what he is, and that's enough to make him a productive player on offense. Maybe not an all-star, or a great all-around player, but good enough to make him a longtime Red and fan favorite. The bashers need to understand that and chill out!

I apologize for being so harsh.

OnBaseMachine
05-04-2006, 06:39 AM
I've been a longtime lurker (and bigtime Adam Dunn fan) but I finally had to register. You guys go way overboard when it comes to supporting Adam. Some of you even lie to support your "facts" (not you, OnBaseMachine, but the general crowd).

At age 25 Thome hit .311, with 38 HR's and 116 RBI. Why twist the age stats to make your point? You might also consider how many games Thome played in his first four seasons, and his total at bats, etc. There's no comparison.


Uhhhh...the Baseball Cube shows Thome as hitting .314/.438/.558 with 25 HR and 73 RBI. That year, btw, was 1995. Thome was born on August 27, 1970. That means he didn't turn 25 until late that year, so you can't count that I twisted it in order to make Dunn look better. As it turns out, I was the right.

And not only is Adam Dunn an All-Star(who cares what the fans think, most of them don't know what anything other than batting average is), but he is a budding superstar. He is a future Hall of Famer if he continues at this pace.

http://www.thebaseballcube.com/players/T/jim-thome.shtml

TC81190
05-04-2006, 08:41 AM
I like Dunn, but I don't see the whole HOF thing id the BA doesn't come up or the RBI total.

OnBaseMachine
05-04-2006, 09:28 AM
I like Dunn, but I don't see the whole HOF thing id the BA doesn't come up or the RBI total.

On pace for over 600 career home runs, 900+ OPS(probably will be closer to .950 when his career is over), and anywhere from 1500 to 2000 career walks. I think he will be a lock for the HOF when that time comes.

BTW...

Career Batting Average

Mike Schmidt-.267
Johnny Bench-.267
Reggie Jackson-.262
Ozzie Smith-.262
Gary Carter-.262
Harmon Killebrew-.256

Harmon Killebrew may be the best comparison to Dunn. He only hit over .280 twice in his career, and never hit over .288. His career batting is only .256 while Dunn's is .249, and you have to think Dunn's will go up once he continues to mature as a hitter.

Check out his bio. Similar to Dunn. Great OBP and SLG, plenty of strikeouts and walks, homeruns, and not so great batting averages. It appears Dunn hits more doubles than Harmon did, though as Dunn will be halfway to HK's career double total by the end of this year most likely.

http://www.thebaseballcube.com/players/K/harmon-killebrew.shtml

big boy
05-04-2006, 09:45 AM
RBI is not an important stat.

If Joe Carter somehow managed to get 450 homers and 2000 RBI with his low BA, OBP, and SLG %s, would you support his HOF candidacy?

M2
05-04-2006, 10:19 AM
If Joe Carter somehow managed to get 450 homers and 2000 RBI with his low BA, OBP, and SLG %s, would you support his HOF candidacy?

Gee, he only fell 54 HR and 555 RBIs short. How about you take a look at the 450-HR club and note the BB rates therein? There's only one guy there (Ernie Banks) who didn't average at least 1 BB per every 10 ABs. Most guys on that list can also be found near the top of the career BB list.

Or how about you check into the BB rates of the 1,700+ RBI club? It's pretty much the same group of guys on the 450 HR list.

Man, if I didn't know any better I'd think that maybe there's something to be selective at the plate.

westofyou
05-04-2006, 10:25 AM
What I *love* is the accusation that people "lie" and *worship* Dunn to a fault, it's hardly lost on many that the 26 year old Dunn has some warts with his game.

What's even more amusing is that all these barbs come from other Reds fans.

Having to defend Dunn to other Reds fans is one of the most absurd parts of being a Reds fan in the 21st century.

M2
05-04-2006, 10:29 AM
Having to defend Dunn to other Reds fans is one of the most absurd parts of being a Reds fan in the 21st century.

It's surreal to be sure. Meanwhile affection has been showered on a conga line of awful pitchers.

BRM
05-04-2006, 10:35 AM
It's surreal to be sure. Meanwhile affection has been showered on a conga line of awful pitchers.

And mediocre veteran infielders.

big boy
05-04-2006, 11:16 AM
Gee, he only fell 54 HR and 555 RBIs short.

Yeah...I am just wondering, since RBI are unimportant, if he would be a Hall of Fame player.

M2
05-04-2006, 11:23 AM
Yeah...I am just wondering, since RBI are unimportant, if he would be a Hall of Fame player.

Hasn't occurred to you that his limitations as a player ultimately led to the limitation in his career totals, has it?

It's a ridiculous hypothetical. Joe Carter took what he had as far as it can go, farther than anyone with that little ever took it.

westofyou
05-04-2006, 11:24 AM
CAREER
HOMERUNS >= 375
RBI >= 1400
AVERAGE < .275
WALKS vs. the league average displayed only--not a sorting criteria
RUNS CREATED/GAME vs. the league average displayed only--not a sorting criteria

AT BATS AB HR RBI AVG BB RC/G
1 Reggie Jackson 9864 563 1702 .262 432 1.81
2 Ernie Banks 9421 512 1636 .274 -118 0.96
3 Eddie Mathews 8537 512 1453 .271 647 2.45
4 Joe Carter 8422 396 1445 .259 -312 0.17
5 Sammy Sosa 8401 588 1575 .274 51 1.38
6 Mike Schmidt 8352 548 1595 .267 683 2.73
7 Willie McCovey 8197 521 1555 .270 586 2.53
8 Harmon Killebrew 8147 573 1584 .256 732 2.33
9 Jose Canseco 7057 462 1407 .266 192 1.34
10 Mark McGwire 6187 583 1414 .263 693 3.57


Joe Carters lifetime OPS was .771 his position average was .773, the league .743.

Are those HOF metrics?

big boy
05-04-2006, 11:43 AM
Joe Carters lifetime OPS was .771 his position average was .773, the league .743.

Are those HOF metrics?

I say no but if he had gotten another 555 RBI I say yes. I also don't see how it is ridiculous either. If he had gotten an earlier start and hung on a couple more years, it was doable.

If you really thought RBI were so unimportant, wouldn't the answer have just been "no"?

westofyou
05-04-2006, 11:49 AM
If you really thought RBI were so unimportant, wouldn't the answer have just been "no"?

If I had ever said RBI's were "unimportant" then that would be news to me.

I just don't lean on counting stats that are dependant on other team members, some do I don't. I also don't discount them either.


If he had gotten an earlier start and hung on a couple more years, it was doable. If if's and buts were candy and nuts....

M2
05-04-2006, 11:52 AM
I say no but if he had gotten another 555 RBI I say yes. I also don't see how it is ridiculous either. If he had gotten an earlier start and hung on a couple more years, it was doable.

If you really thought RBI were so unimportant, wouldn't the answer have just been "no"?

Carter first reached the majors at age 23. How much earlier do you think he could have started? Beyond that, only three players in baseball history have 2,000 RBIs - Hank Aaron, Babe Ruth and Cap Anson. That JOE CARTER was ever capable of joining them is easily going to be the silliest thing I hear all month.

Meanwhile, you still can't connect the dots. You, big boy, seem to love RBIs and yet it apparently doesn't register with you that the BEST RBI MEN IN BASEBALL HISTORY OVERWHELMINGLY ARE GUYS WHO TOOK A GOOD NUMBER OF WALKS.

big boy
05-04-2006, 01:08 PM
You, big boy, seem to love RBIs

Woy and M2, someone else said that RBI were unimportant. I did not read where either of you said that. Also, I do not love RBI. I was simply posing a question for those that think RBI are unimportant.

Handofdeath
05-04-2006, 01:18 PM
Uhhhh...the Baseball Cube shows Thome as hitting .314/.438/.558 with 25 HR and 73 RBI. That year, btw, was 1995. Thome was born on August 27, 1970. That means he didn't turn 25 until late that year, so you can't count that I twisted it in order to make Dunn look better. As it turns out, I was the right.

And not only is Adam Dunn an All-Star(who cares what the fans think, most of them don't know what anything other than batting average is), but he is a budding superstar. He is a future Hall of Famer if he continues at this pace.

http://www.thebaseballcube.com/players/T/jim-thome.shtml

The 1995 season didn't start until late April (the strike) so those statistics are somewhat skewed. But no matter Thome's OPS was .996 that season. Dunn hasn't had an OPS that high yet.

M2
05-04-2006, 01:24 PM
Woy and M2, someone else said that RBI were unimportant. I did not read where either of you said that. Also, I do not love RBI. I was simply posing a question for those that think RBI are unimportant.

RBIs are fine, but if what you care about is how many runs a team scores it really isn't very useful.

There's a two-part fallacy out there when it comes to run scoring. The first part is that RBI are the key to scoring instead of a byproduct of the things that actually plate runs. The second is that BA with RISP is somehow critical to scoring. It's not. The Reds have put on a clinic on how false that is over the past three seasons.

big boy
05-04-2006, 02:22 PM
The second is that BA with RISP is somehow critical to scoring. It's not. The Reds have put on a clinic on how false that is over the past three seasons.

Is it true, though, that if a player's BA with RISP goes up, his RBI total will also go up?

Chip R
05-04-2006, 02:39 PM
Is it true, though, that if a player's BA with RISP goes up, his RBI total will also go up?

Not necessarily.

gonelong
05-04-2006, 02:54 PM
Is it true, though, that if a player's BA with RISP goes up, his RBI total will also go up?

No. How many runs score in those situations is more dependent on the SLG% than the BA.

A guy that hits more doubles, triples, and HR can easily plate more runners than the slap-hitter that has a higher BA with RISP. A slap hitter doesn't even always score the guy from 2nd base, while the power hitter will more often score the man on 2nd, the man on 1st, and himself.

If a player concentrates on getting more hits at the expense of lying in wait for a ball he can drive ... for a guy like Dunn ... I'd guess that his RBI total would drop dramatically as well as his runs scored.

GL

KronoRed
05-04-2006, 03:06 PM
I'd guess that his RBI total would drop dramatically as well as his runs scored.

GL
But that BA-RISP would gp up and that's what really counts ;)

M2
05-04-2006, 03:14 PM
Is it true, though, that if a player's BA with RISP goes up, his RBI total will also go up?

No. It might help, but if what you want is RBIs then you'd better be looking at SLG and not BA.

I'm not sure where the BA = RBI myth comes from. Wade Boggs and Tony Gwynn were never good RBI men and you don't see anyone sticking Ichiro Suzuki in the middle of a lineup.

big boy
05-04-2006, 03:18 PM
If a player concentrates on getting more hits at the expense of lying in wait for a ball he can drive ... for a guy like Dunn ... I'd guess that his RBI total would drop dramatically as well as his runs scored.

GL

You're reading too much into the question. In simple terms, if a hitter got more hits with with RISP, his BA would go up and his RBI would go up also, correct? Thus, BA can be important in run production. I am describing the difference between Manny and Thome.

M2
05-04-2006, 03:21 PM
In simple terms, if a hitter got more hits with with RISP, his BA would go up and his RBI would go up also, correct?

Wrong. If he's hitting more singles, but for less power, then his RBIs would drop. You keep stepping in the same bear trap. For the 100th time SLG = RBIs.

big boy
05-04-2006, 03:27 PM
Wrong. If he's hitting more singles, but for less power, then his RBIs would drop. You keep stepping in the same bear trap. For the 100th time SLG = RBIs.

Exchanging hits for outs = less RBI? I guess I'll never catch on.

M2
05-04-2006, 03:33 PM
Exchanging hits for outs = less RBI? I guess I'll never catch on.

Surely you've noticed that homers and doubles do more damage than singles.

I mean it can't be a secret to you that power hitters, not guys like Boggs and Gwynn, are the ones who compile the most RBIs, right?

SLG = RBIs

big boy
05-04-2006, 03:41 PM
Surely you've noticed that homers and doubles do more damage than singles.

I mean it can't be a secret to you that power hitters, not guys like Boggs and Gwynn, are the ones who compile the most RBIs, right?

SLG = RBIs

I don't dispute any of that. Do you dispute that exchanging hits for outs = more RBI?

RichRed
05-04-2006, 03:44 PM
People who value BA w/RISP so highly (i.e., over SLG) are inadvertently -- at least I hope it's not intentional -- saying that a single that moves a runner from 2nd to 3rd is better than a solo HR, or even a 2-run HR with a man on 1st.

To me, that's the simplest way to understand why BA w/RISP is such a worthless stat. And my feeble mind is all about the simple. ;)

TC81190
05-04-2006, 03:48 PM
If I had ever said RBI's were "unimportant" then that would be news to me.

I just don't lean on counting stats that are dependant on other team members, some do I don't. I also don't discount them either.

If if's and buts were candy and nuts....

Precisely.

And as far as my earlier post, I was thinking like a sportswriter. But I didn't know Killebrew's career BA was that low.

TC81190
05-04-2006, 03:49 PM
SLG = RBIs

I disagree with this I. OPS = RBIs makes more sense to me.

Chip R
05-04-2006, 03:54 PM
You're reading too much into the question. In simple terms, if a hitter got more hits with with RISP, his BA would go up and his RBI would go up also, correct? Thus, BA can be important in run production.

So you are saying that every time a hitter gets a hit with a RISP, his RBIs will go increase?

westofyou
05-04-2006, 03:56 PM
Precisely.

And as far as my earlier post, I was thinking like a sportswriter. But I didn't know Killebrew's career BA was that low.

Almost nothing is new in baseball.

I struck out a lot-and would even set a record one year-but it didn't bother or embarrass me. I never changed my batting stance. I stood close to the plate and was a pull hitter, so managers would often put a shift on me. I think I could have been a .300 hitter, but I decided I helped the club a lot more by driving in runs instead of going for a high average.

Harmon Killebrew
We Played the Game

gonelong
05-04-2006, 03:57 PM
Exchanging hits for outs = less RBI? I guess I'll never catch on.

You can't get more hits by simply wishing for them.

How do you suggest a guy exchange hits for outs?

In a pratical sense, the only way to exchange hits for outs is to alter your approach. This means swinging at more pitches (instead of waiting a particular pitch you can drive) and swinging with less power in order to attempt to make more contact.

As a by-product, the quality of the hits will suffer. Less SLG% and a higher BA does not mean more RBI ... it simply means a higher BA.

GL

IslandRed
05-04-2006, 03:59 PM
I don't dispute any of that. Do you dispute that exchanging hits for outs = more RBI?

I think here's the crux of the dispute... when you say "exchanging hits for outs = more RBI" I think you're talking about a very simple scenario where outs are replaced by hits but everything else stays the same, i.e. he's just doing more of what he always does and there won't be any sort of drop in the power component.

Whereas the people disagreeing with you are looking to the next stage of the argument and saying "it's not that simple." For a power hitter to simply strike out less and get more hits, it requires a change in approach from a slugging-centric one (wait for a good pitch, drive the ball) to a contact-centric one (just put it in play). That would result in more hits, probably, but with a corresponding drop in extra-base hits. And that may result in a net drop in RBI.

BRM
05-04-2006, 04:00 PM
Honestly, I think some folks would love it if Adam Dunn turned into a .330 hitter w/RISP even if his RBI numbers and the team's runs scored dropped in the process.

gonelong
05-04-2006, 04:00 PM
I don't dispute any of that. Do you dispute that exchanging hits for outs = more RBI?

Yes. There is certainly no guarantee that would be the case.

10 ABs with man on 1st and 2nd.
2 HRs = 6 RBI


10 ABs with man on 1st and 2nd.
3 singles = 3 RBI


GL

BRM
05-04-2006, 04:01 PM
nm...you fixed it.

registerthis
05-04-2006, 04:01 PM
Hmmm...let me see if I've got this:

A batter could get fewer hits with RISP, thus making his BA drop, yet if the hits he gets are more likely to be doubles and homers, then his RBI total would increase even as his BA goes the other direction. Whereas, a slap hitter (i.e. Ichiro) could get singles and infield hits all over the place, thus raising his BA but not doing much to pad his RBI numbers. Yes?

So raising your BA with RISP is no guarantee that RBIs will increase, but it certainly helps.

gonelong
05-04-2006, 04:02 PM
Actually, 2 HRs = 6 RBI in your first scenario.

I knew somebody would quickdraw me on getting that changed! :)

BRM
05-04-2006, 04:05 PM
I knew somebody would quickdraw me on getting that changed! :)

Sorry about that. I deleted my post.

M2
05-04-2006, 04:23 PM
I don't dispute any of that. Do you dispute that exchanging hits for outs = more RBI?

I dispute that it has any relevance to how the game of baseball actually works.

That's what's being explained to you time and again. If you what you want is RBIs then you better hit for power. Given the same opportunities, a guy who hits .270 with with a .550 SLG is going to drive in more runs than a guy who hits .300 with a .450 SLG.

SLG = RBIs

And say that .270 hitter walks a lot and boasts a .370 OB while the .300 hitter doesn't walk much and only has a .330 OB.

Then you'd have a situation where more hits result in more outs and less RBIs. How could that happen? Because you're taking an incomplete and relatively insignificant slice of the game and acting like it's the whole pie.

I'm going to bring this back to Boggs and Gwynn again. Let's add in Ichiro and Rod Carew. Those are four of the six best BA hitters of the past 50 years, yet not a one of them was a good RBI man. The fifth and sixth? Todd Helton and Albert Pujols, who are excellent RBI men. Here's a breakdown on their career numbers (Helton and Pujols' numbers will be through 2005).

BA

Gwynn - .338
Helton - .337
Pujols - .332
Ichiro - .332
Boggs - .328
Carew - .328

That's a pretty tight grouping.

Hits/162 games

Ichiro - 230
Gwynn - 209
Pujols - 201
Boggs - 200
Carew - 200
Helton - 192

It should be noted here that Pujols is a young player whose hit totals are in steep decline because he's now drawing so many walks (the result of pitchers not giving him anything to hit). He's on pace for 168 hits in 2006, which would be a new career-low for him. Yet he's also on pace for 192 RBIs. Less hits, but more power and more RBIs. The point here is that Pujols and Helton will wind up at the bottom of the H/162 list.

RBI/162 Games

Pujols - 127
Helton - 116
Gwynn - 76
Boggs - 67
Carew - 67
Ichiro - 63

Clearly hits don't track to RBIs.

SLG

Pujols - .621
Helton - .607
Gwynn - .459
Boggs - .443
Ichiro - .442
Carew - .429

Clearly SLG does track to RBIs. Just for extra kicks, Gwynn topped 100 RBIs once. He had a .547 SLG. Carew tracked 100 RBIs once. He had a .570 SLG. Boggs' top RBI season was 89 and his SLG was .588. Ichiro's never topped 70 RBI and his SLG has never topped .460.

BB/162 games

Helton - 98
Boggs - 94
Pujols - 82
Carew - 67
Gwynn - 52
Ichiro - 47

And here's where things get interesting. As mentioned above, Pujols is walking like crazy these days. His BB totals have increased every year he's been in the league and he's on a pace to walk 174 times in 2006. So he'll probably climb over Boggs one of these days. Boggs is a bit of an outlier because, despite his patience, he wasn't capable of hitting for power. Yet the link between power and patience should be clear here. The more patient hitters in this group are the ones with the most power and they are the superior RBI mean despite the fact that they don't get the most hits.

Hopefully that can cure you of your BA = RBIs fixation.

BRM
05-04-2006, 04:29 PM
M2, are we back to the basic idea of hit quality vs hit quantity? ;)

M2
05-04-2006, 04:30 PM
I disagree with this I. OPS = RBIs makes more sense to me.

I'd slice it as OPS = runs scored/created.

RBIs is a peculiarity. For instance Dave Magadan could get you an .800 OPS, but he could collect the same number of RBIs as your typical .800 OPS guy because his OB was actually higher than his SLG most seasons.

Now I understand you can't get RBIs without runners on base (hence OB) and I fully agree that patient hitters allow themselves better power opportunities (which is something I've been carping on throughout this thread). Yet when you break it down to the individual level, which is where I've been focused here, SLG is what directly nets you RBIs.

TC81190
05-04-2006, 04:34 PM
I'd slice it as OPS = runs scored/created.

RBIs is a peculiarity. For instance Dave Magadan could get you an .800 OPS, but he could collect the same number of RBIs as your typical .800 OPS guy because his OB was actually higher than his SLG most seasons.

Now I understand you can't get RBIs without runners on base (hence OB) and I fully agree that patient hitters allow themselves better power opportunities (which is something I've been carping on throughout this thread). Yet when you break it down to the individual level, which is where I've been focused here, SLG is what directly nets you RBIs.

You'd have to imagine that a hitter with a higher OBP with a higher SLG aswell would be consistent in collecting RBIs?

OnBaseMachine
05-04-2006, 04:41 PM
If Joe Carter somehow managed to get 450 homers and 2000 RBI with his low BA, OBP, and SLG %s, would you support his HOF candidacy?

He didn't, so why act like he did.

M2
05-04-2006, 04:42 PM
You'd have to imagine that a hitter with a higher OBP with a higher SLG aswell would be consistent in collecting RBIs?

Yeah, but it's tied to the SLG, not the OB. If the OB is carrying a higher portion of that OPS equation (for instance, Boggs and Carew had OB count for 48% of their OPSes), that guy might not a very good RBI man.

TC81190
05-04-2006, 05:49 PM
Yeah, but it's tied to the SLG, not the OB. If the OB is carrying a higher portion of that OPS equation (for instance, Boggs and Carew had OB count for 48% of their OPSes), that guy might not a very good RBI man.

Right, so a a guy with a high OPS with RISP would with a higher SLG than OBP, but an OBP around 390-400, would have to be a consistent one, wouldn't he?

M2
05-04-2006, 06:25 PM
Right, so a a guy with a high OPS with RISP would with a higher SLG than OBP, but an OBP around 390-400, would have to be a consistent one, wouldn't he?

If what you're saying is that guys at the top of the OPS food chain post both good OB and SLG numbers, you'll get no argument from me. Though it's still the SLG that would be netting them the RBIs and that's a fairly select group of players. It is possible to drive in lots of runs while having a poor OB (Joe Carter has been mentioned in this thread), but that's because he still boasted a good SLG.* That's why I don't recommend tying OPS to RBIs.

* Carter did manage to drive in 115 runs with a .391 SLG in 1990 and, IMO, that qualifies as one of the great mysteries of the universe. I know it mostly had to do with Bip Roberts, Robbie Alomar, Tony Gwynn and Jack Clark hitting in front of him, but that's still a dozen kinds of crazy.

westofyou
05-04-2006, 06:29 PM
* Carter did manage to drive in 115 runs with a .391 SLG in 1990 and, IMO, that qualifies as one of the great mysteries of the universe. I know it mostly had to do with Bip Roberts, Robbie Alomar, Tony Gwynn and Jack Clark hitting in front of him, but that's still a dozen kinds of crazy.

SEASON
MODERN (1900-)
SLG < .400
OUTS displayed only--not a sorting criteria
RUNS CREATED/GAME vs. the league average displayed only--not a sorting criteria

RBI YEAR RBI SLG OUTS RC/G
1 Joe Carter 1990 115 .391 513 -.86
2 Wally Pipp 1923 108 .397 431 -.53
T3 Marv Owen 1936 105 .389 429 -1.11
T3 Glenn Wright 1927 105 .388 426 -.61
5 Del Pratt 1916 103 .391 470 0.47
T6 Joe Carter 1997 102 .399 492 -1.34
T6 Bill Brubaker 1936 102 .384 423 -.40
T6 Heinie Zimmerman 1917 102 .391 429 0.61
T9 Roy Pepper 1934 101 .399 404 -.86
T9 Ruben Sierra 1993 101 .390 515 -1.12
11 Billy Rogell 1934 100 .392 433 -.04
12 Tony Batista 2003 99 .393 512 -1.80
T13 Sam Mertes 1901 98 .396 414 0.53
T13 Ossie Bluege 1931 98 .382 434 -.89
15 Ron Cey 1974 97 .397 457 0.36
T16 Jake Jones 1947 96 .386 457 -.59
T16 Willie Montanez 1978 96 .392 479 -.15
T16 Larry Hisle 1976 96 .394 472 0.45
T16 Walt Dropo 1953 96 .371 482 -1.53
T16 Milt Stock 1923 96 .363 458 -.92
T21 Jimmy Collins 1900 95 .394 417 0.16
T21 Stuffy McInnis 1923 95 .392 461 -.60
T21 Stuffy McInnis 1914 95 .368 443 0.43
T21 John Mayberry 1976 95 .342 482 -.14

TC81190
05-04-2006, 06:33 PM
If what you're saying is that guys at the top of the OPS food chain post both good OB and SLG numbers, you'll get no argument from me.

Yep.

OnBaseMachine
05-04-2006, 06:34 PM
On pace for over 600 career home runs, 900+ OPS(probably will be closer to .950 when his career is over), and anywhere from 1500 to 2000 career walks. I think he will be a lock for the HOF when that time comes.

BTW...

Career Batting Average

Mike Schmidt-.267
Johnny Bench-.267
Reggie Jackson-.262
Ozzie Smith-.262
Gary Carter-.262
Harmon Killebrew-.256

Harmon Killebrew may be the best comparison to Dunn. He only hit over .280 twice in his career, and never hit over .288. His career batting is only .256 while Dunn's is .249, and you have to think Dunn's will go up once he continues to mature as a hitter.

Check out his bio. Similar to Dunn. Great OBP and SLG, plenty of strikeouts and walks, homeruns, and not so great batting averages. It appears Dunn hits more doubles than Harmon did, though as Dunn will be halfway to HK's career double total by the end of this year most likely.

http://www.thebaseballcube.com/players/K/harmon-killebrew.shtml

http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=45752

big boy
05-04-2006, 09:54 PM
He didn't, so why act like he did.

Answer: One would act like he did If one wanted to challenge your assertion that RBI were unimportant. Since you are not answering that question, I'll assume you believe those numbers to be Hall worthy and, thus, RBI are important.

MaineRed
05-04-2006, 10:37 PM
Pokey Reese would be a Hall of Famer if he drove in 2000 runs.

OnBaseMachine
05-05-2006, 06:55 AM
Answer: One would act like he did If one wanted to challenge your assertion that RBI were unimportant. Since you are not answering that question, I'll assume you believe those numbers to be Hall worthy and, thus, RBI are important.

Well, you would be wrong.