PDA

View Full Version : Getting into Dunn's Head? (And not the opposition).



billy117
06-05-2006, 02:41 PM
I am just wondering if all the talk, especially from within the Reds organization, of wanting Adam Dunn to expand his strike zone is getting into his head? Most notably Marty B. Now I really enjoy listening to Marty but he seems to be the most outspoken in wanting AD to swing at more pitches.

In one of Adam's abs on Sunday he did something that amazed me. There were 2 outs a runner on second and he had a 3-0 count. On the next he swung and hit a fairly deep (and fairly weak) fly ball to left field, the pitch was probably a strike but it was knee high and on the outside corner. Now if there were less than 2 outs and a man on third I'd love to see him hit that fly ball. Now I am not an Adam Dunn hater, and I'm not Adam Dunn's biggest fan, and I don't think that OPS is the most important hitting stat, if that were the case then Adam Dunn would be considered a better hitter than Tony Gwynn and Pete Rose. I don't think Adam is one of the best hitters in baseball but I think he's a very good hitter. I think Adam has a GREAT attitude and seems to have a positive influence in the clubhouse. And I've come to accept Adam for what he is, bringing me back to my point which is:
I hope, I HOPE that AD doesn't change his hitting approach and start doing what some people want him to do. I would rather see him get on base with a lot of walks than swing at bad balls and add a few hits to his total.

I know it was only one situation in one game, but I was just so shocked by that at bat, because he of anybody never does that, that I just felt I had to bring it up.

savafan
06-05-2006, 02:44 PM
What Adam Dunn is thinking right now:

:censored: Redszone

dabvu2498
06-05-2006, 02:46 PM
If Dunn is worried about what Marty thinks, he really does have issues.

KronoRed
06-05-2006, 02:46 PM
Thankfully I doubt he knows or even cares about msg board people ;)

billy117
06-05-2006, 02:46 PM
What Adam Dunn is thinking right now:

:censored: Redszone

how was that negetive?

reds44
06-05-2006, 02:47 PM
Adam Dunn is thinking about sweeping the Cards and taking over 1st place.

dabvu2498
06-05-2006, 02:48 PM
Thankfully I doubt he knows or even cares about msg board people ;)
Msg board people will be a classification sociologists use to describe us in the future.

KronoRed
06-05-2006, 02:48 PM
Please, Dunn is always thinking about creek :evil:

savafan
06-05-2006, 02:49 PM
how was that negetive?

I didn't say it was negative, but if Dunn does know about this site, then I'm sure he'd be thrilled to see another thread about himself.

billy117
06-05-2006, 02:53 PM
Ok I guess I was the only one who thought anything after that at-bat. My bad. I just hope that none of the front office or anybody is trying to get him to change.

Patrick Bateman
06-05-2006, 02:59 PM
Dunn is a better hitter than Pete Rose IMO. Rose had longevity and was rarely injured, but if it were game 7 of the world series, I take Dunn every day of the week, and twice on Sudays.

billy117
06-05-2006, 03:07 PM
Dunn is a better hitter than Pete Rose IMO. Rose had longevity and was rarely injured, but if it were game 7 of the world series, I take Dunn every day of the week, and twice on Sudays.

If we're talking at their current ages (65, 26) then I agree with you. But otherwise I wouldn't, but I'm obviously wrong.

osuceltic
06-05-2006, 03:12 PM
Dunn is a better hitter than Pete Rose IMO. Rose had longevity and was rarely injured, but if it were game 7 of the world series, I take Dunn every day of the week, and twice on Sudays.
I can't believe anyone who watched both players play for any significant amount of time would say that.

NJReds
06-05-2006, 03:18 PM
What Adam Dunn is thinking right now:

:censored: Redszone

Actually, he'd probably like Redszone. Especially compared to the mlb.com messageboard - where in the last 3 days the big arguement is whether he's more like Rob Deer or Dave Kingman. :help:

dabvu2498
06-05-2006, 03:32 PM
I can't believe anyone who watched both players play for any significant amount of time would say that.
I'm hoping it's sarcasm. Otherwise, it's sacreligious. And someone must be burned at the stake.

RANDY IN INDY
06-05-2006, 03:34 PM
:beerme:
I can't believe anyone who watched both players play for any significant amount of time would say that.

Redhook
06-05-2006, 03:51 PM
Dunn is a better hitter than Pete Rose IMO. Rose had longevity and was rarely injured, but if it were game 7 of the world series, I take Dunn every day of the week, and twice on Sudays.

The more I read this comment, the more I can't believe it. Rose has been there, done that in the World Series. Dunn is hoping to just get there. Dunn has more power than Rose, but comparing them as hitters isn't fair....to Dunn. Rose is the ALL-TIME hits leader. ALL-TIME! The only thing Dunn will lead all-time is strikeouts.

deltachi8
06-05-2006, 03:57 PM
I dont know if Dunn is better, but they both get (got) on base at very good clips and score (d) runs.

They do it differently.

Patrick Bateman
06-05-2006, 04:59 PM
The more I read this comment, the more I can't believe it. Rose has been there, done that in the World Series. Dunn is hoping to just get there. Dunn has more power than Rose, but comparing them as hitters isn't fair....to Dunn. Rose is the ALL-TIME hits leader. ALL-TIME! The only thing Dunn will lead all-time is strikeouts.

Hits does not neccessarily make a great hitter.

Rose's career OPS is .784. Obviously, we are talking about different time periods, but Dunn is the better hitter. They both got on base a lot, but Dunn has way more power than Rose ever did.

Rose may have gotten lots of hits, but thats more or less due to his style and longevity and how durable he was. Comparing Dunn and Rose using hits is misleading. On a one game basis Dunn is the better hitter IMO.

If you are talking about careers, Rose is the better player because of how long he played, while Dunn is still a young man. Based on career averages, Dunn was the better hitter which is what we are talking about.

redsfanmia
06-05-2006, 05:09 PM
Hits does not neccessarily make a great hitter.

Rose's career OPS is .784. Obviously, we are talking about different time periods, but Dunn is the better hitter. They both got on base a lot, but Dunn has way more power than Rose ever did.

Rose may have gotten lots of hits, but thats more or less due to his style and longevity and how durable he was. Comparing Dunn and Rose using hits is misleading. On a one game basis Dunn is the better hitter IMO.

If you are talking about careers, Rose is the better player because of how long he played, while Dunn is still a young man. Based on career averages, Dunn was the better hitter which is what we are talking about.

You cant even compare Dunn to Rose, the only thing they have in commone is that they both played/play for the Reds and each have played first base and leftfield thats it. Unless Dunn has also had a Moe haircut.

klw
06-05-2006, 05:15 PM
Without comment


Career stats


0bp lg oBP dif OPS League OPS dif OPS+
Rose .375 .331 +44 .784 .721 +63 118

Dunn .383 .342 +39 .901 .774 +127 132



Rose's Hair
http://www.strangesports.com/images/content/16643.JPG


Dunn's Hair circa 99

http://www.rookiesquantities.com/Images/J99_174.jpg


Pete Rose pictures I wish Google did not show me:

http://www.pike27.net/rfn/images/peterose.jpg


Comparing the eras is very difficult as Dunn has never had to force his way past the Phanatic to get to hit.
http://www.stripes.com/photoday/102004.jpg

Ah to have had caption of the day contests back in 1979.

Patrick Bateman
06-05-2006, 05:32 PM
Dunn is a better hitter on a year-to-year basis.

If Dunn keeps it up 15 years you can put him in the same class when talking about careers. The reason why Rose is HOFer and Dunn isn't, is simply longevity. Extrapolate Dunn's numbers on a career level and he too is a HOFer. You simply can't do that, but Dunn's seasonal averages beat Roses's statistically.

klw showed that Dunn was more above the league average in their careers. SO when talking about who is the better hitter on a yearly basis, I stand by saying Dunn beats Rose.

klw
06-05-2006, 05:38 PM
[


ba lg BA dif
Rose .303 .265 +.038

Dunn .248 .269 -.021

registerthis
06-05-2006, 05:39 PM
[


ba lg BA dif
Rose .303 .265 +.038

Dunn .248 .269 -.021

...and?

klw
06-05-2006, 05:40 PM
And the truest measure:

Sacrifice Flies per 162 games played


Rose 4
Dunn 2

klw
06-05-2006, 06:04 PM
...and?

It is just a response to the post above where it said I had proven that Dunn was a better hitter. This is just to show that in making these comparisons that the "proof" is just because OBP and OPS are seen as the current measure for the best hitter while in the past BA and other stats were the measure. I actually was doing my best not to make any comment on the debate but to throw out a couple of numbers and bad pictures.

Patrick Bateman
06-05-2006, 06:15 PM
I'm just saying based on those numbers, Dunn is the better hitter, and that is true (if you are using OPS and OBP as your metric of choice).

I am a firm believer of OBP and OPS as a quick hand stat. Over the length of their careers OPS wont really lie.

osuceltic
06-05-2006, 06:16 PM
Dunn is a better hitter on a year-to-year basis.

If Dunn keeps it up 15 years you can put him in the same class when talking about careers. The reason why Rose is HOFer and Dunn isn't, is simply longevity. Extrapolate Dunn's numbers on a career level and he too is a HOFer. You simply can't do that, but Dunn's seasonal averages beat Roses's statistically.

klw showed that Dunn was more above the league average in their careers. SO when talking about who is the better hitter on a yearly basis, I stand by saying Dunn beats Rose.
This is killing me. Honestly, this is why we see so many stats/non-stats arguments. I'm telling you, anyone who watched both of these players and would legitimately argue that Dunn is the better hitter/player/whatever just loses all credibility in my eyes. I'm sorry. It's not even worth discussing.

pedro
06-05-2006, 06:18 PM
I'm just saying based on those numbers, Dunn is the better player, and that is true (if you are using OPS and OBP as your metric of choice).

I am a firm believer of OBP and OPS as a quick hand stat. Over the length of their careers OPS wont really lie.

Player? Pete Rose played over 500 games at 5 different positions. Yes, Adam Dunn is a better power hitter than Pete Rose, but better baseball player? I think not.

Patrick Bateman
06-05-2006, 06:21 PM
Player? Pete Rose played over 500 games at 5 different positions. Yes, Adam Dunn is a better power hitter than Pete Rose, but better baseball player? I think not.

Sorry, I meant to write hitter. I was just typing fast. As a player, Rose had better speed, was a great baserunner, and was very versatile. Dunn isn't a very good fileder, a poor baserunner, and only fields a couple of positions. I agree with that.

As a hitter only, I think Dunn is better than Rose.

Redhook
06-05-2006, 06:23 PM
This is killing me. Honestly, this is why we see so many stats/non-stats arguments. I'm telling you, anyone who watched both of these players and would legitimately argue that Dunn is the better hitter/player/whatever just loses all credibility in my eyes. I'm sorry. It's not even worth discussing.

Exactly! :thumbup:

Patrick Bateman
06-05-2006, 06:23 PM
This is killing me. Honestly, this is why we see so many stats/non-stats arguments. I'm telling you, anyone who watched both of these players and would legitimately argue that Dunn is the better hitter/player/whatever just loses all credibility in my eyes. I'm sorry. It's not even worth discussing.

I see nothing that tells me why Dunn is a worse hitter. I mean they get on base about the same amount for their era's while Dunn has way more power. You can talk about other things like basrunning, speed and whatnot, but just when considering hitting ability, Dunn is better than Rose IMO.

klw
06-05-2006, 06:32 PM
I see nothing that tells me why Dunn is a worse hitter. I mean they get on base about the same amount for their era's while Dunn has way more power. You can talk about other things like basrunning, speed and whatnot, but just when considering hitting ability, Dunn is better than Rose IMO.

Dunn's best OPS .956
Rose's best OPS .940

Dunn's best OPS+ 152
Rose's two best OPS+ 152, 158

Redhook
06-05-2006, 06:32 PM
I see nothing that tells me why Dunn is a worse hitter. I mean they get on base about the same amount for their era's while Dunn has way more power. You can talk about other things like basrunning, speed and whatnot, but just when considering hitting ability, Dunn is better than Rose IMO.

Dunn is a better power hitter than Rose. That's obvious. He walks more too which makes his OPS much higher. I won't argue that. But as a pure hitter, Rose is way better. Dunn doesn't make enough contact to be considered a great hitter. When I think of good hitters, I think of Gwynn, Boggs, Rose, Ichiro, etc. Those guys are amazing with a bat in their hands. Little power, but great hitters. Dunn is not a great hitter. He is a great slugger with high walking potential. I'm glad he's a Red, and hope he is for awhile, but I'd take Pete any day over him. Rose = baseball. Dunn = football player playing baseball.

Patrick Bateman
06-05-2006, 06:37 PM
Dunn is a better power hitter than Rose. That's obvious. He walks more too which makes his OPS much higher. I won't argue that. But as a pure hitter, Rose is way better. Dunn doesn't make enough contact to be considered a great hitter. When I think of good hitters, I think of Gwynn, Boggs, Rose, Ichiro, etc. Those guys are amazing with a bat in their hands. Little power, but great hitters. Dunn is not a great hitter. He is a great slugger with high walking potential. I'm glad he's a Red, and hope he is for awhile, but I'd take Pete any day over him. Rose = baseball. Dunn = football player playing baseball.

I guess we have different definitions of a great hitter.

I define how good a hitter is by how many runs they create for the offense. I really couldn't care less how a batter does it. If one guy creates more runs with a batting average of .200 than a hitter with a .300 average I consider the first guy the better hitter because their method will result in more runs.

Redhook
06-05-2006, 06:53 PM
I guess we have different definitions of a great hitter.

I define how good a hitter is by how many runs they create for the offense. I really couldn't care less how a batter does it. If one guy creates more runs with a batting average of .200 than a hitter with a .300 average I consider the first guy the better hitter because their method will result in more runs.

I fully understand where you're coming from. I really don't disagree. I just think the wording should be changed. Rose was a great hitter. Dunn is great slugger, he's not a great hitter. He doesn't get enough hits to be considered a great hitter. Dunn's high amount of walks is what makes him great. I don't know what we could classify Dunn as. Maybe, great OPSer, I don't know. He is a great player though. I guess comparing Dunn to Rose is like comparing apples to oranges. Rose was great though, wish I could've seen him play in his prime instead of just his last years.

redsfanmia
06-05-2006, 06:58 PM
I wouldnt say hitter if you want to say run producer or has a better eye yes but not even close as hitters, walking alot does not make you a good hitter, having great knowledge of the strike zone yes, having a good eye yes, but great hitter no. Do not confuse stats with actually playing the game when comparing Rose to Dunn, not even close.

registerthis
06-05-2006, 07:02 PM
This is killing me. Honestly, this is why we see so many stats/non-stats arguments. I'm telling you, anyone who watched both of these players and would legitimately argue that Dunn is the better hitter/player/whatever just loses all credibility in my eyes. I'm sorry. It's not even worth discussing.

Well, I think they're hardly comparable--almost apples and oranges. Dunn is a sheer out-and-out power hitter, Rose was a singles and doubles machine. There's no question that Rose was vastly superior to Dunn at putting the bat on the ball. No question at all. But there's more to being a "hitter" than simply putting bat on ball.

IMO, you can't really compare two substantially different players like Rose and Dunn and name the "best" hitter of the two.

gm
06-05-2006, 07:05 PM
but if it were game 7 of the world series, I take Dunn every day of the week, and twice on Sudays.

Bases empty? Dunn

Ducks on the pond? Pete

registerthis
06-05-2006, 07:06 PM
It is just a response to the post above where it said I had proven that Dunn was a better hitter. This is just to show that in making these comparisons that the "proof" is just because OBP and OPS are seen as the current measure for the best hitter while in the past BA and other stats were the measure. I actually was doing my best not to make any comment on the debate but to throw out a couple of numbers and bad pictures.

BA is a good gauge of the number of times a hitter makes contact with a ball and doesn't make an out. Beyond that, I don't think it's a very useful metric in comparing hitters. We use it because it's been an established metric for so long, and for the longest time no one bothered to ask why we were valuing a bunt single the same as a home run. I far prefer SLG% myself--not only how many times do you hit the ball, but what do you do with it?

Far more advanced stats--like RC and whatnot--typically require such a great deal of calculation to determine that I find them to be too labor-intensive to be useful on a day-to-day basis. And BA doesn't tell you enough.

billy117
06-05-2006, 07:13 PM
Well, I think they're hardly comparable--almost apples and oranges. Dunn is a sheer out-and-out power hitter, Rose was a singles and doubles machine. There's no question that Rose was vastly superior to Dunn at putting the bat on the ball. No question at all. But there's more to being a "hitter" than simply putting bat on ball.

IMO, you can't really compare two substantially different players like Rose and Dunn and name the "best" hitter of the two.

I don't know, is there more to being a hitter than putting the bat on the ball? The word hitter means just that hitting the ball with the bat. If you want to say there's more to offense than putting the bat on the ball then that's another thing.

As far as not comparing the two, the original statement by "Austin Kearns" was "in a seven game series I would take Dunn every day of the week and twice on Sunday." (over Rose) I disagree with that, well not that I disagree that he would take Dunn, but I wouldn't. That's where all this business of comparing them started, basically deciding if you had to pick one, who would it be? I would pick Pete Rose.

registerthis
06-05-2006, 07:14 PM
Bases empty? Dunn

Ducks on the pond? Pete

Yeah, who'd want a guy with a .507 SLG% the last three years at the plate with RISP?

Rose's lifetime SLG%/RISP, BTW, was .421.

redsfanmia
06-05-2006, 07:16 PM
I know this 9 Pete Rose's beats 9 Adam Dunn's every day of the week and twice on sundays.

Patrick Bateman
06-05-2006, 07:17 PM
I know this 9 Pete Rose's beats 9 Adam Dunn's every day of the week and twice on sundays.

Based on what?

redsfanmia
06-05-2006, 07:21 PM
Based on what?

Look I like Dunn he drives me nuts, but I like him as a player, but as an overall ballplayer he is no Pete Rose. I have no stats to back up this claim just from wathing Pete for many years and watching Dunn since he has came up.

registerthis
06-05-2006, 07:22 PM
I don't know, is there more to being a hitter than putting the bat on the ball? The word hitter means just that hitting the ball with the bat. If you want to say there's more to offense than putting the bat on the ball then that's another thing.

As has been postulated many times before on this board, a hitter's first and foremost goal is to not make an out when they're batting. Beyond that, their goal is to be as productive as possible while not making that out. A home run is always better than a double, which is always better than a single, etc. So there's certainly more to offense than simply not making an out--a large component of offense is how productive you are not making that out.

My point was that Dunn and Rose are both very good hitters, but they have completely different skill sets.


As far as not comparing the two, the original statement by "Austin Kearns" was "in a seven game series I would take Dunn every day of the week and twice on Sunday." (over Rose) I disagree with that, well not that I disagree that he would take Dunn, but I wouldn't. That's where all this business of comparing them started, basically deciding if you had to pick one, who would it be? I would pick Pete Rose.

Dunn hits the ball out of the yard and gets a ton of walks (which are essentially singles), which is a critical component to run scoring. Rose hit primarily singles and doubles--thus also getting on base a lot. Any comparison between them must be situational--i.e., in this situation I'd prefer Dunn, in this situation I'd prefer Rose--because their methods and skill sets are so completely different.

pedro
06-05-2006, 07:23 PM
Based on what?

based on the fact that someone has to play the field.

redsfanmia
06-05-2006, 07:25 PM
based on the fact that someone has to play the field.
RIGHT ON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

billy117
06-05-2006, 07:25 PM
Under which stat will I find that diving catch by Jr. yesterday and that game saving catch by Freel the other night. What stat will tell me how important those catches were.

registerthis
06-05-2006, 07:25 PM
I know this 9 Pete Rose's beats 9 Adam Dunn's every day of the week and twice on sundays.

And how do you know this? Dunn's lifetime OBP is .383, and Rose's was .375. Dunn has a better slugging percentage with RISP than Rose does, but Rose has a higher BA. Rose generated an RBI every 2.59 ABs w/RISP--Dunn generates 1 RBI every 2.62 ABs.

Where is this seemingly overwhelming statistic that tells you a team of Rose's would run roughshod over Dunn?

westofyou
06-05-2006, 07:26 PM
Pete Rose at 26 or Adam Dunn at 26 is probably a better way to base the question, otherwise well..... you're comparing a legend to a guy with 2000 PA's and a huge monkey called perception on his shoulder.

Ltlabner
06-05-2006, 07:27 PM
A imaginary battle of 9 Dunns vs 9 Rose's? Good lord. Have you guys run out of stuff (that somehow ties in Dunn) to argue about? :bash:

redsfanmia
06-05-2006, 07:28 PM
And how do you know this? Dunn's lifetime OBP is .383, and Rose's was .375. Dunn has a better slugging percentage with RISP than Rose does, but Rose has a higher BA. Rose generated an RBI every 2.59 ABs w/RISP--Dunn generates 1 RBI every 2.62 ABs.

Where is this seemingly overwhelming statistic that tells you a team of Rose's would run roughshod over Dunn?

This is one where stats wouldnt matter IMO.

billy117
06-05-2006, 07:28 PM
As has been postulated many times before on this board, a hitter's first and foremost goal is to not make an out when they're batting. Beyond that, their goal is to be as productive as possible while not making that out. A home run is always better than a double, which is always better than a single, etc. So there's certainly more to offense than simply not making an out--a large component of offense is how productive you are not making that out.

My point was that Dunn and Rose are both very good hitters, but they have completely different skill sets.



Dunn hits the ball out of the yard and gets a ton of walks (which are essentially singles), which is a critical component to run scoring. Rose hit primarily singles and doubles--thus also getting on base a lot. Any comparison between them must be situational--i.e., in this situation I'd prefer Dunn, in this situation I'd prefer Rose--because their methods and skill sets are so completely different.

So you're not going to pick one?

registerthis
06-05-2006, 07:29 PM
Under which stat will I find that diving catch by Jr. yesterday and that game saving catch by Freel the other night. What stat will tell me how important those catches were.

Cyclone had a good thread a week or so ago addressing various defensive metrics that one can use. I might suggest a quick perusal of this thread for some potential answers to your question:

http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=45669

redsfanmia
06-05-2006, 07:30 PM
A imaginary battle of 9 Dunns vs 9 Rose's? Good lord. Have you guys run out of stuff (that somehow ties in Dunn) to argue about? :bash:

I agree but its fun to imagine. I think the 9 Pete's would out hustle and out smart the 9 Dunn's.

registerthis
06-05-2006, 07:30 PM
So you're not going to pick one?

If you can provide me a reason why I should, I'd be happy to listen.

registerthis
06-05-2006, 07:31 PM
I agree but its fun to imagine. I think the 9 Pete's would out hustle and out smart the 9 Dunn's.

Yeah, I do agree that the fielding would likely be the difference in that game. Rose could competently play 5 positions, Dunn struggles with one.

I don't think either of them could pitch, though. :)

Patrick Bateman
06-05-2006, 07:32 PM
Using the stat RC/27 (runs created per 27 outs which measures an offense fielded by 9 of the same player) shows this:

Pete Rose's career RC/27 was 5.65.
Adam Dunn's career RC/27 is 6.78.

Now you have to consider the eras that they played in. The adjustment is about 6.8% higher for Dunn than Rose.
So putting Dunn in with Rose'e his RC/27 is 6.32.

So if you put 9 Dunns on a filed against 9 Rose's, as far as hitting goes, the Dunn team would score nearly a run more per game. I'm not sure about defense, but I'm willing to bet that Rose's defense does not make up for nearly a run per game of offense.

westofyou
06-05-2006, 07:33 PM
Under which stat will I find that diving catch by Jr. yesterday and that game saving catch by Freel the other night. What stat will tell me how important those catches were.
Yeah, because there's no stat for that it automatically devalues all other stats.

Want some tarter sauce with that Red Herring?

registerthis
06-05-2006, 07:34 PM
I'm not sure about defense, but I'm willing to bet that Rose's defense does not make up for nearly a run per game of offense.

I dunno AK, I'm only willing to take this argument so far. Offensively, I think you could make the argument for either player. Defensively, well it's not even close. Rose might very well make that run up and quite a bit more.

redsfanmia
06-05-2006, 07:34 PM
Yeah, I do agree that the fielding would likely be the difference in that game. Rose could competently play 5 positions, Dunn struggles with one.

I don't think either of them could pitch, though. :)

Dunn played quarterback so I think he would be able to throw smoke but I think that Pete would be a crafty junkballer. Advantage Pete.

Raisor
06-05-2006, 07:35 PM
I agree but its fun to imagine. I think the 9 Pete's would out hustle and out smart the 9 Dunn's.


Pete would probably also out coke and out gamble him too.

Dunn, on the other hand, would out fish and out X-Box Pete.

I think they're about even on the slump busting.

registerthis
06-05-2006, 07:35 PM
Dunn played quarterback so I think he would be able to throw smoke but I think that Pete would be a crafty junkballer. Advantage Pete.

Plus, Pete would be a headhunter, and get into Dunn's head...

Patrick Bateman
06-05-2006, 07:37 PM
I dunno AK, I'm only willing to take this argument so far. Offensively, I think you could make the argument for either player. Defensively, well it's not even close. Rose might very well make that run up and quite a bit more.

My point is, that based on average seasonal numbers, it's probably a heck of a lot closer than most people think. (Remember, I'm not trying to compare their careers, because Rose played and proved himself on a much larger period of time.)

redsfanmia
06-05-2006, 07:37 PM
Plus Pete would just want it more he hated to lose sometimes I dont think Dunn really cares.

billy117
06-05-2006, 07:41 PM
If you can provide me a reason why I should, I'd be happy to listen.

No there isn't but there isn't really a reason why we should talk about a lot of things we talk about on this board. There really isn't a reason why we should even be a member or post on this board at all, other than the exchange of ideas opinions. So no if you really don't want to you don't have to. But I put myself out there saying definetly who I would take, I thought you might want to pick one also. But yes it is laughable to think that which one we pick or if we pick one at all will matter one iota to anyone. But again you could say that about anything you or especially me post on any topic.

Raisor
06-05-2006, 07:41 PM
I dont think Dunn really cares.


I don't think you have a clue one way or the other how much Dunn "cares".

Raisor
06-05-2006, 07:43 PM
Two different eras and everything, but through age 25:

Rose 77 Runs Created per 600 PA's
Dunn 96 Runs Created per 600 PA's.

Up to you to decide how important those 20 runs are.

redsfanmia
06-05-2006, 07:43 PM
I don't think you have a clue one way or the other how much Dunn "cares".

True enough just a perception and probably due to the fact that he is so laid back.

pedro
06-05-2006, 07:45 PM
You know who cares?

The Care Bears. They care so much it hurts their little stuffed heads.

Cyclone792
06-05-2006, 07:52 PM
Contrary to the belief of some, this is actually an interesting topic of comparing Dunn vs. Rose, and it's interesting to me because of a variety of aspects.

Before I dive into this, let me make a few things clear:

First, Pete Rose accumulated an enormous amount of career value. Everybody already knows about his traditional counting stats, but Rose also put up a career with 547 win shares, and there's only roughly 25-30 players in the history of the game who have eclipsed 500 win shares. He hung around a long, long time to achieve the amazing counting stats he achieved, but he did achieve them, and credit has to be given to him for that.

Second, there are actually a pair of enigmas that surround Pete Rose.

One enigma - and this will likely irritate a host of people reading this - is that fans who saw Rose play and fell in love with his game tend to vastly overrate him. I know baseball fans who swear that Pete Rose is the centerpiece of baseball history, and that's that. They'll swear that he's the greatest hitter who ever lived, and that he's the greatest player that ever lived.

The other enigma surrounding Rose is that another group of people tend to underrate Rose, oftentimes because they'll penalize him for hanging around so long and fail to properly account for his peak, which was greater than most people believe, IMO (thanks largely to his 1969 season).

Now, what about those two enigmas? Well, suffice to say, Pete Rose is most definitely not the greatest hitter that ever lived, he is most definitely not the greatest player that ever lived and he is most definitely not the centerpiece of baseball history. In fact, he's not even close to any of the above three.

While doing the best I can do to objectively rate players, I have Rose rated as roughly the 25th greatest position player ever to play the game (behind two of his teammates, no less, Morgan and Bench). There are people who believe Rose is among the game's greatest dozen or so players, but that is clearly not the case. Likewise, there are people who believe Rose does not even belong in the top 50 or 60 position players ever, and again that is clearly not the case.

Now, onto Dunn vs. Rose, and right now there are two fair ways to analyze the two players: 1) by comparing Dunn's "peak" so far, which I would count as 2004 and 2005 to Rose's peak, and 2) by comparing the two players before their 26th birthdays. It is impossible to compare career value, because while Rose has been retired for nearly 20 years, Dunn's still nowhere near 30-years-old. Also, one metric I will throw out of the comparison is OPS+, because the biggest flaw (and generally it's small enough to ignore, but not in this case) of OPS and OPS+ is that it weighs OBP and SLG evenly. It has been proven that OBP is a bit more valuable to SLG, so a metric that weighs the two evenly will likely underrate a player such as Rose who's strength in OPS lies in his ability to reach base.

Now, the actual comparison. First let's take a look at peak seasons, and I'll compare Dunn's two best seasons (2004 and 2005) to Rose's top peak seasons (1969, 1973, 1968, 1972, 1975 and 1976):


Peak Win Shares

Dunn Rose
32 (2004 as LF) 37 (1969 as RF)
28 (2005 as LF) 34 (1973 as LF)
32 (1972 as LF)
32 (1968 as RF)
31 (1976 as 3B)
31 (1975 as 3B)
29 (1970 as RF)
28 (1971 as RF)
27 (1979 as 1B)
27 (1965 as 2B)
27 (1978 as 3B)
27 (1974 as LF)
25 (1966 as 2B)
24 (1967 as LF)
23 (1977 as 3B)



Peak RC/27 vs. League Average

Dunn Rose
1.56 (2004 as LF) 1.91 (1969 as RF)
1.52 (2005 as LF) 1.84 (1968 as RF)
1.62 (1976 as 3B)
1.52 (1975 as 3B)
1.50 (1965 as 2B)
1.50 (1973 as LF)
1.49 (1972 as LF)
1.47 (1979 as 1B)
1.44 (1967 as LF)
1.43 (1970 as RF)
1.37 (1971 as RF)
1.32 (1977 as 3B)
1.29 (1978 as 3B)
1.29 (1974 as LF)
1.28 (1966 as 2B)

So what do we have here?

Well, first off, as great as Dunn's been so far in his career, he hasn't touched Rose's 1969 season, and I'm hard pressed to accept Dunn's 2004 as being greater than Rose's 1968 season. After that, it gets interesting.

Dunn's 2004 vs. Rose's 1973? Looks close so we'll call it a wash (I'll take Rose over Dunn's 2005, however).
Dunn's 2004 vs. Rose's 1972? Looks close so we'll call it a wash (I'll take Rose over Dunn's 2005, however).
Dunn's 2004 vs. Rose's 1976? Gimme Rose due to positional advantage (3B vs. LF).
Dunn's 2004 vs. Rose's 1975? Gimme Rose due to positional advantage (3B vs. LF).
Dunn's 2004 vs. Rose's 1970? Gimme Dunn.
Dunn's 2004 vs. Rose's 1971? Gimme Dunn.
Dunn's 2004 vs. Rose's 1965? Gimme Rose due to positional advantage (2B vs. LF).
Dunn's 2004 vs. Rose's 1978? Gimme Dunn.
Dunn's 2004 vs. Rose's 1974? Gimme Dunn.
None of Rose's other seasons matches up to Dunn's 2004 and 2005 seasons.

Add up the tallies, and I'll take five Rose seasons (1969, 1968, 1976, 1975 and 1965) over Dunn's 2004 season, which is his best so far. I will also take two more Rose seasons (1972 and 1973) over Dunn's 2005 seasons, which is his second best. Dunn's trying to claw his way up to Rose's peak, but he still has a ways to go, and he would have to put up a few big seasons to reach Rose's peak, IMO.

Now, as for Dunn vs. Rose before the age of 26, this is even more interesting:


ADAM DUNN

GIVEN NAME: Adam Troy Dunn
BORN: 11/9/1979 Houston, Texas
BAT: L THROW: R HEIGHT: 6'6" WEIGHT: 240 MLB DEBUT: 7/20/2001
CAREER GAMES BY POSITION: 1B: 106 LF: 531 RF: 59 DH: 4

YEAR TEAM AGE G AB R H 2B 3B HR HR% RBI BB SO SB CS AVG SLG OBA OPS
2001 Reds 21 66 244 54 64 18 1 19 7.79 43 38 74 4 2 .262 .578 .371 .948
2002 Reds 22 158 535 84 133 28 2 26 4.86 71 128 170 19 9 .249 .454 .400 .854
2003 Reds 23 116 381 70 82 12 1 27 7.09 57 74 126 8 2 .215 .465 .354 .819
2004 Reds 24 161 568 105 151 34 0 46 8.10 102 108 195 6 1 .266 .569 .388 .956
2005 Reds 25 160 543 107 134 35 2 40 7.37 101 114 168 4 2 .247 .540 .387 .927
TOTALS 661 2271 420 564 127 6 158 6.96 374 462 733 41 16 .248 .518 .383 .901
LG AVERAGE 2267 313 608 123 13 73 3.23 298 231 418 38 17 .268 .431 .340 .771
POS AVERAGE 2295 347 627 132 13 97 4.23 351 292 465 36 16 .273 .469 .359 .828

YEAR TEAM RC RCAA RCAP OWP RC/G TB EBH ISO SEC BPA IBB HBP SAC SF GIDP OUTS PA POS
2001 Reds 53 17 9 .666 7.69 141 38 .316 .488 .633 2 4 0 0 4 186 286 RF
2002 Reds 105 20 0 .595 6.70 243 56 .206 .480 .566 13 9 1 3 8 423 676 LF
2003 Reds 68 9 6 .566 5.94 177 40 .249 .465 .561 8 10 0 4 4 309 469 LF
2004 Reds 129 52 39 .721 8.18 323 80 .303 .504 .636 11 5 0 0 8 426 681 LF
2005 Reds 120 36 25 .660 7.73 293 77 .293 .510 .618 14 12 0 2 6 419 671 LF
TOTALS 475 134 79 .647 7.27 1177 291 .270 .491 .602 48 40 1 9 30 1763 2783
LG AVERAGE 336 0 0 .500 5.14 976 209 .163 .281 .472 23 25 16 18 54 1763 2557
POS AVERAGE 396 60 0 .575 6.07 1077 242 .196 .339 .518 39 25 10 18 50 1763 2640



PETE ROSE

AGE <= 25

YEAR TEAM AGE G AB R H 2B 3B HR HR% RBI BB SO SB CS AVG SLG OBA OPS
1963 Reds 22 157 623 101 170 25 9 6 0.96 41 55 72 13 15 .273 .371 .334 .705
1964 Reds 23 136 516 64 139 13 2 4 0.78 34 36 51 4 10 .269 .326 .319 .645
1965 Reds 24 162 670 117 209 35 11 11 1.64 81 69 76 8 3 .312 .446 .382 .828
1966 Reds 25 156 654 97 205 38 5 16 2.45 70 37 61 4 9 .313 .460 .351 .811
TOTALS 611 2463 379 723 111 27 37 1.50 226 197 260 29 37 .294 .406 .348 .754
LG AVERAGE 2347 286 610 93 19 58 2.47 266 201 364 32 21 .260 .390 .321 .711
POS AVERAGE 2316 278 591 87 20 27 1.17 197 172 266 29 24 .255 .345 .309 .655

YEAR TEAM RC RCAA RCAP OWP RC/G TB EBH ISO SEC BPA IBB HBP SAC SF GIDP OUTS PA POS
1963 Reds 77 0 11 .494 4.26 231 40 .098 .207 .408 0 5 6 6 8 488 695 2B
1964 Reds 52 -13 3 .396 3.54 168 19 .056 .134 .350 0 2 3 1 6 397 558 2B
1965 Reds 117 35 46 .653 6.53 299 57 .134 .249 .495 2 8 8 2 10 484 757 2B
1966 Reds 100 8 22 .535 5.65 301 59 .147 .209 .465 3 1 7 1 12 478 700 2B
TOTALS 346 30 82 .537 5.06 999 175 .112 .204 .435 5 16 24 10 36 1847 2710
LG AVERAGE 294 0 0 .500 4.30 915 170 .130 .229 .423 26 16 22 16 51 1847 2602
POS AVERAGE 246 -48 0 .414 3.60 799 134 .090 .177 .375 14 16 36 14 48 1847 2554
Dunn also leads in career win shares 104-83 over Rose prior to age 26. If you break it down to Win Shares per 162 games, Dunn has 25.49 win shares per 162 games to Rose's 22.27 win shares per 162 games. Of course, Rose played 2B to Dunn's LF so far, and once factoring in positional adjustments, they're pretty close to a wash, IMO. One look at RCAP shows Dunn with 79 career RCAP vs. Rose's 82 RCAP before the age of 26, and Rose catches Dunn because he played second base.

In conclusion, Rose before the age of 26 vs. Dunn currently is too close too call for me as players, thanks to the fact that Rose was playing second base. As an offensive force, I will take Dunn before the age of 26 over Rose before the age of 26. Rose's peak seasons, however, are still out of reach of Dunn's peak seasons, but since Dunn is still only 26-years-old there's still plenty of time to see if Dunn is able to reach and/or eclipse Rose in peak value. For the Reds sake, let's hope he's able to do so.

billy117
06-05-2006, 07:55 PM
Yeah, because there's no stat for that it automatically devalues all other stats.

Want some tarter sauce with that Red Herring?

Actually the thread by cyclone, that registerthis linked me to, was as close to helpful as I thought any stat could be. But you're comment was mildly funny.

Ltlabner
06-05-2006, 08:09 PM
Now, what about those two enigmas? Well, suffice to say, Pete Rose is most definitely not the greatest hitter that ever lived,


I gotta ask. How does having the most hits of any player ever not make you the greatest? I guess you can get into a laundry list of stats that show that his hits weren't as "valuable" as other peoples hits? But at the end of the day, getting more hits than anybody else defintatley qualifies you as "the greatest". The title isn't for "the most number of valuable hits" it's for most hits total. Period.

I'm not a "Rose is the greatest ever" guy by any streach. I also am getting more and more into stats but this may be a case of numbers run amok. You can compare any player's best years and make the case they are "better" comapred to an entire carear of Rose's. If Dunn continues to do what he does for the next 15 years, then I'd say you have an argument. Until then, to take two years or a short period of time and compare them to entire carear, no matter what statiscal adjustments are made is pointless. You are making the assumption Dunn will produce at a constant level and you have no way whatsoever to make that claim.

Cyclone792
06-05-2006, 08:18 PM
I gotta ask. How does having the most hits of any player ever not make you the greatest? I guess you can get into a laundry list of stats that show that his hits weren't as "valuable" as other peoples hits? But at the end of the day, getting more hits than anybody else defintatley qualifies you as "the greatest". The title isn't for "the most number of valuable hits" it's for most hits total. Period.

I'm not a "Rose is the greatest ever" guy by any streach. I also am getting more and more into stats but this may be a case of numbers run amok. You can compare any player's best years and make the case they are "better" comapred to an entire carear of Rose's. If Dunn continues to do what he does for the next 15 years, then I'd say you have an argument. Until then, to take two years or a short period of time and compare them to entire carear, not matter what statiscal adjustments are made is silly. You are making the assumption Dunn will produce at a constant level and you have not way whatsoever to make that claim.

Well, for starters ...

Babe Ruth, Ted Williams and Ty Cobb and several other players were all worlds better than Pete Rose as a hitter. Until you get past that fact, there's no sense continuing that discussion.

Secondly, you're basically wrapping my entire post - one in which that I tried to be as objective as possible - into a fallacy of claiming it's inaccurate and silly solely because Dunn's career entering this season consisted of an entire 661 career games. Additionally, I have not compared two years to an entire career. Read that post closely, read it thoroughly, and it should make clear sense to you that I'm comparing seasons to seasons, not seasons to careers.

Lastly, scroll through my post above and search for any assumptions I've made on Dunn's career. Good luck finding any, because there are none. I'm simply comparing what Dunn has so far accomplished compared to what Rose accomplished.

And to think I thought people would actually read a post word-for-word and understand the full context of what I'm discussing. I guess that's simply not the case.

deltachi8
06-05-2006, 08:25 PM
First off, Cyclone: Great, post. Top Notch.


I gotta ask. How does having the most hits of any player ever not make you the greatest? I guess you can get into a laundry list of stats that show that his hits weren't as "valuable" as other peoples hits? But at the end of the day, getting more hits than anybody else defintatley qualifies you as "the greatest". The title isn't for "the most number of valuable hits" it's for most hits total. Period.

Carrer Hits shouldnt be dismissed and Cyclone, IMHO, did not do that. However, career hits is a counting stat while ratios, etc tend to show a better picture of relative value. That does not diminish what Rose accomplished, which is truly astounding. However, as much as I liekd Pete the player, I would be lying if I felt he was the best hitter of all time.

I'll hold to my opinion that both Rose and Dunn are very good (or were) and getting on base and creating runs for their teams, they just do it in different ways.

No knowing the future for Dunn makes it impossible for me to chose Dunn over Rose's career. Looking at what they have done at age 26, I lean towards Dunn and hope he make its a run for the carrer opinion as well. Not because I hold any ill will towards Pete, but rather becuase it means great things for the Reds.

Ltlabner
06-05-2006, 08:27 PM
Babe Ruth, Ted Williams and Ty Cobb and several other players were all worlds better than Pete Rose as a hitter. Until you get past that fact, there's no sense continuing that discussion.

Geez...sorry for bothering you with a question. I was simply asking what you meant by "greatest". If it isn't volume then what is the measuring stick you are using to make your claim? I didn't realize that questions were verboten on redszone.


And to think I thought people would actually read a post word-for-word and understand the full context of what I'm discussing. I guess that's simply not the case.

And thanks for going off the deep end and firing back an uncalled for response. While I know you are used to doing battle with the Dunn sucks crowd, you may want to actually read my posts and train of thought before getting your nose all bent out of shape that I dared try to engage you in a conversation about your post.

RAS
06-05-2006, 08:37 PM
How can anyone that hits .240 be a "very good hitter"? I agree he has a good eye buy his ability to convert that into contact is lacking. A good eye, yes. A good hitter, No way!

Cyclone792
06-05-2006, 08:39 PM
And thanks for going off the deep end and firing back an uncalled for response. While I know you are used to doing battle with the Dunn sucks crowd, you may want to actually read my posts and train of thought before getting your nose all bent out of shape that I dared try to engage you in a conversation about your post.

You're the one who claimed I made assumptions and comparisons that simply do not exist in that post. This has nothing to do with doing battle with the Dunn sucks crowd; this was you up and deciding to question something I simply did not state/analyze.

1) Where did I make any assumptions at all about Dunn's future?
2) Where did I up and decide to compare Pete Rose's entire collective career vs. two seasons of Dunn?

Let me help you out:

1) Answer = "Rose's peak seasons, however, are still out of reach of Dunn's peak seasons, but since Dunn is still only 26-years-old there's still plenty of time to see if Dunn is able to reach and/or eclipse Rose in peak value. For the Reds sake, let's hope he's able to do so."
2) Answer = I compared Dunn and Rose season to season, not season to career.

If you wish to ask me a question about something that I did state and analyze, then I'm all ears, and I'd love to hear your question.

FWIW, to me what qualifies as the greatest hitter is the hitter who combined two feats: dominating at his greatest in avoiding outs and acquiring bases and also dominating over a very lengthy period of time in avoiding outs and acquiring bases.

IslandRed
06-05-2006, 08:40 PM
I gotta ask. How does having the most hits of any player ever not make you the greatest? I guess you can get into a laundry list of stats that show that his hits weren't as "valuable" as other peoples hits? But at the end of the day, getting more hits than anybody else defintatley qualifies you as "the greatest". The title isn't for "the most number of valuable hits" it's for most hits total. Period.


If that's your definition of "greatest hitter," that's cool. But most people don't share it, which is why they say "greatest hitter" instead of "the guy who had the most hits." They're looking at "hitter" as a more all-encompassing term involving his entire offensive profile. To look strictly at total hits is to state that (to use a recent example) Ichiro is a much better hitter than Pujols, and that just ain't right.

Ltlabner
06-05-2006, 08:42 PM
If that's your definition of "greatest hitter," that's cool. But most people don't share it, which is why they say "greatest hitter" instead of "the guy who had the most hits." They're looking at "hitter" as a more all-encompassing term involving his entire offensive profile. To look strictly at total hits is to state that (to use a recent example) Ichiro is a much better hitter than Pujols, and that just ain't right.

That makes total sense to me. Thanks for the civil responce and taking the time to explain your reasoning.

GAC
06-05-2006, 08:47 PM
Rose vs Dunn

There is a huge difference between getting on base and the art of hitting.

Just my subjective opinion.

And I don't think OPS is the best way to define it. Again just my opinion.

There is no denying that Dunn gets on base, and "pumps" his OB% via the BB. But that does not make him a better hitter.

Switch hitting Rose was a far superior hitter then Adam Dunn. There just is no comparison.

Defining what a hitter is, is why this is an argument that no one would win IMO.

And as already mentioned - you are also comparing players from different era's and playing conditions. There are "intangibles" also that cannot be factored.

But if I had to chose between the two (and I admit my prejudices from being raised on Rose) - I'd take Pete in a heart beat.

And so would a vast majority of people if a poll was taken.

So, was Dunn a better hitter then Cobb because Cobb didn't hit Hrs?

As Cobb once stated (paraphrase) - its not hard to hit a HR (out of the park); but the art of hitting the ball to all fields (and through players) is a different story.

GAC
06-05-2006, 08:51 PM
And how do you know this? Dunn's lifetime OBP is .383, and Rose's was .375. Dunn has a better slugging percentage with RISP than Rose does, but Rose has a higher BA. Rose generated an RBI every 2.59 ABs w/RISP--Dunn generates 1 RBI every 2.62 ABs.

Where is this seemingly overwhelming statistic that tells you a team of Rose's would run roughshod over Dunn?

But you have to figure in the errrors that the Dunns would make compared to the errors of the Roses. :lol:

registerthis
06-05-2006, 11:55 PM
But you have to figure in the errrors that the Dunns would make compared to the errors of the Roses. :lol:

Which begs the question: is a Rose storming around 3rd about to crash into catcher Dunn an example of the unstoppable force meeting the immovable object?

osuceltic
06-06-2006, 08:54 AM
I honestly can't believe this has gone on for five pages. I just can't. There is no comparison. None. Throwing stats around for either player is a waste of time. This is a common sense argument. If you can't see that Rose was vastly superior to Dunn, you either didn't see Pete Rose play or you're related to Adam Dunn. I can't see any other options.

registerthis
06-06-2006, 08:58 AM
If you can't see that Rose was vastly superior to Dunn, you either didn't see Pete Rose play or you're related to Adam Dunn. I can't see any other options.

Pardon me if the warning sirens start going off when I read "It's just common sense."

If you don't see any other options, then I suggest you spend a bit more time reading through this thread--particularly Cyclone's post on page 4. That will open up some options for you.

dabvu2498
06-06-2006, 09:19 AM
I know this 9 Pete Rose's beats 9 Adam Dunn's every day of the week and twice on sundays.
The pitcher Dunn would walk too many.

osuceltic
06-06-2006, 09:22 AM
Pardon me if the warning sirens start going off when I read "It's just common sense."

If you don't see any other options, then I suggest you spend a bit more time reading through this thread--particularly Cyclone's post on page 4. That will open up some options for you.
That's just the point. You can throw out any stats you want, but I've seen them both. A lot. And there is no comparison. None.

deltachi8
06-06-2006, 09:24 AM
I honestly can't believe this has gone on for five pages. I just can't. There is no comparison. None. Throwing stats around for either player is a waste of time. This is a common sense argument. If you can't see that Rose was vastly superior to Dunn, you either didn't see Pete Rose play or you're related to Adam Dunn. I can't see any other options.

I saw Pete play, last I checked, I'm not related to Dunn and I have enjoyed the discussion much.

Because you dont find it interesting doesnt make it so for others.

registerthis
06-06-2006, 09:27 AM
And there is no comparison. None.

Well, that's just it. There *is* a comparison. Simply because you don't want to see it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

westofyou
06-06-2006, 09:49 AM
That's just the point. You can throw out any stats you want, but I've seen them both. A lot. And there is no comparison. None.
Did you see Rose prior to 1970?

Because essentially that's where the argument dies with me, because if you are talking Pete Rose career wise it is unfair.

Kinda like you coming into the thread and telling everyone how stupid they are.

dabvu2498
06-06-2006, 09:56 AM
Did you see Rose prior to 1970?

Check out Cyclone's post #72 on this thread. I think it's as fair an analysis as one could make.

westofyou
06-06-2006, 09:59 AM
Check out Cyclone's post #72 on this thread. I think it's as fair an analysis as one could make.
I did, and it was.

That said Pete Rose to everyone is not 26 year old Pete Rose in 1967.

If you want to compare guys who just turned 26 then that's as far as you can go IMO, otherwise you're comparing a legend to a 26 year old slugger with 2000 PA's and that's totally askew.

dabvu2498
06-06-2006, 10:02 AM
I did, and it was.

That said Pete Rose to everyone is not 26 year old Pete Rose in 1967.

If you want to compare guys who just turned 26 then that's as far as you can go IMO, otherwise you're comparing a legend to a 26 year old slugger with 2000 PA's and that's totally askew.
I'm not trying to be snippy...

But a minute ago it was 1970... now it's 1967. I'm confused.

westofyou
06-06-2006, 10:04 AM
I'm not trying to be snippy...

But a minute ago it was 1970... now it's 1967. I'm confused.
Because I thought he was 26 in 1970

Which he wasn't

Patrick Bateman
06-06-2006, 10:09 AM
I honestly can't believe this has gone on for five pages. I just can't. There is no comparison. None. Throwing stats around for either player is a waste of time. This is a common sense argument. If you can't see that Rose was vastly superior to Dunn, you either didn't see Pete Rose play or you're related to Adam Dunn. I can't see any other options.

The point I got from Cyclone's post is that they are more comparable than people think. Dunn is that good. If he manages to keep up what he has done so far in his career over 15 years he could be in the same league as Rose. Obviously that's a big if, but DUnn has shown that he has the skill to do so.

dabvu2498
06-06-2006, 10:09 AM
OK... I follow now.

I still follow the argument that 9 Peter Edwards would beat 9 Adam Troys. And there ain't no stats gonna back me up. Sorry for that.

westofyou
06-06-2006, 10:13 AM
OK... I follow now.

I still follow the argument that 9 Peter Edwards would beat 9 Adam Troys. And there ain't no stats gonna back me up. Sorry for that.

OWP

Offensive Winning Percentage. A Bill James(satan) stat, usually derived from runs created. In EqA terms, it could be calculated as (EQA/refEQA)^5, where refEQA is some reference EQA, such as league average (always .260) or the position-averaged EQA.

Under the age of 26

Dunn = .647

Rose = .554

dabvu2498
06-06-2006, 10:17 AM
Under the age of 26

Dunn = .647

Rose = .554
Yes, but Dunn would not cut his opponent's guts out and use them to resin his bats like Pete would. Like I said, no stats will support my argument. Except maybe Pete's 3 rings.

TeamBoone
06-06-2006, 10:45 AM
Like I said, no stats will support my argument. Except maybe Pete's 3 rings.

Rings are team dependent... one player can't win a WS all by himself.

osuceltic
06-06-2006, 11:06 AM
Kinda like you coming into the thread and telling everyone how stupid they are.
I'm not saying anyone is stupid. I know you saw Pete play, but I'd be curious how many of the posters arguing for Dunn in this thread actually did. Because I honestly can't understand how anyone who saw them both would make that argument. I just can't. This is a classic case where certain statistics are misleading, because the two aren't in the same league. The only situation I may choose Dunn over Rose for is if I really, really need a home run... And even then, if I really, really need it ... I'm not so sure.

We're talking about a top-25 player all-time. One of the true giants of the game. A guy who won more games than any player in history. I'm honestly not sure Dunn is even in the top-25 of current players.

This isn't a knock on Dunn. It's just terribly unfair to compare him to Rose. George Foster maybe. But not Pete.

westofyou
06-06-2006, 11:14 AM
I'm not saying anyone is stupid. I know you saw Pete play, but I'd be curious how many of the posters arguing for Dunn in this thread actually did. Because I honestly can't understand how anyone who saw them both would make that argument. I just can't. This is a classic case where certain statistics are misleading, because the two aren't in the same league. The only situation I may choose Dunn over Rose for is if I really, really need a home run... And even then, if I really, really need it ... I'm not so sure.

We're talking about a top-25 player all-time. One of the true giants of the game. A guy who won more games than any player in history. I'm honestly not sure Dunn is even in the top-25 of current players.

This isn't a knock on Dunn. It's just terribly unfair to compare him to Rose. George Foster maybe. But not Pete.I'd say not many.

But Pete wasn't the Pete we know from the 70's when he was as old as Dunn.

I loved Pete as a player a doubles machine, tenacious, smart a damn fine baseball player, a machine...not many players play past age 45 and you can mark down right now that Dunn will be lucky to play past 37. When he's 37 then I'll look at their accomplishments as a whole. But if they were both playing now at age 26 I'd ponder who would have better career batting numbers at the end of their tenure, but I doubt I'd ponder who was a better "baseball player"


AGE >= 45

AT BATS AB
1 Julio Franco 553
2 Cap Anson 424
3 Pete Rose 237
4 Jack Quinn 130
5 Charlie Hough 96
6 Satchel Paige 69
7 Carlton Fisk 53
8 Sam Thompson 31
9 Hoyt Wilhelm 27
10 Hod Lisenbee 19

osuceltic
06-06-2006, 11:21 AM
I'd say not many.

But Pete wasn't the Pete we know from the 70's when he was as old as Dunn.

I loved Pete as a player a doubles machine, tenacious, smart a damn fine baseball player, a machine...not many players play past age 45 and you can mark down right now that Dunn will be lucky to play past 37. When he's 37 then I'll look at their accomplishments as a whole. But if they were both playing now at age 26 I'd ponder who would have better career batting numbers at the end of their tenure, but I doubt I'd ponder who was a better "baseball player"

Fair enough, but we knew who Pete was by the time he reached his sixth season in the majors (hard to believe, but this is Dunn's sixth). And I still say if you judge each at the same point in their careers -- their sixth season -- it's no comparison.

If you want to argue that Dunn will have better a better OPS when he's finished, fine. But that's a different argument.

Roy Tucker
06-06-2006, 11:23 AM
I think the cause for dispute in comparison is because Rose and Dunn are two different kinds of players.

Dunn is a BB-HR-driven OPS guy while Rose hit for a high average (and admittedly walked a fair amount too) and his slugging was driven by doubles and hustle triples. Not to mention Roses apparent intensity level vs. Dunn's phlegmatic approach. So, from an intuitive level, doing a comparison doesn't seem to make sense.

But comparing them from a RC/27 perspective is pretty creative and merits intelligent discussion.