PDA

View Full Version : Is Dunn Better Than Gwynn?



Oxilon
03-12-2008, 03:07 PM
I'm not sure if this was ever posted here or not. The article came out in January, so it's been about a month and a half. Anyways, I found it to be interesting and thought it was worth the thread.

---------------------------------------------------------------
Is Dunn Better Than Gwynn?
Adam's Slugging is More Valuable Than Tony's Singles
© Harold Friend

Jan 26, 2008

Adam Dunn is one of baseball's most underrated players, especially by those who refuse to acknowledge modern statistical measurements.
Adam Dunn is one of baseball’s most underrated players, especially by those who refuse to acknowledge modern statistical advancements that have uncovered information not available in the past. Dunn has a .900 OPS compared the league’s .779 OPS. His OPS+ is 130. OPS is defined as on base percentage + slugging, while the league’s OPS is on base + slugging with the pitcher removed and in the same home field as the player. It is a rough guide to a player’s ability to get on base and drive in runs. OPS+ is OPS measured against the league average, and adjusted for ballpark factors. An OPS+ over 100 is better than average while less than 100 is below average.

A Strikeout Is Just An Out
Adam Dunn has been criticized by some for striking out too much. He has averaged 182 strikeouts a season with a career high of 195 in 2004, but when a hitter leads off an inning, a strikeout is just another out. When a hitter makes the third out of an inning, a strikeout is just another out. In almost every instance with a runner or runners on base and less than two outs, a strikeout is preferable to a ground ball because the strikeout will usually avoid the double play. Forget that some ground balls may get through for hits or be hit slowly enough for the batter to beat it out for a hit.

Dunn's Better Numbers
Comparing Adam Dunn to Hall of Fame outfielder Tony Gwynn illustrates Dunn’s greatness. Tony has 3,141 hits and a .338 lifetime average, compared to Dunn’s .248 average, but Tony has an .847 OPS compared to Adam’s .900. Tony has a 132 OPS+ compared to Adam’s 130 – virtually identical and not statistically significant. Tony’s 90 point edge in batting average is more than made up by Adam’s advantage in OPS because runs win games. Batting average is a highly overrated statistic because it merely indicates the chances of a hit when the batter swings. It does not measure avoiding the chances of making an out during an entire at bat (take a walk, hit by pitch)

More Power Than Gwynn
Dunn averages 95 RBIs a season compared to Gwynn’s 76. Dunn’s career high in home runs is 46, he has hit at least 40 home runs the last four seasons, and averages 40 home runs over a 162 game season. Seventeen is Gwynn’s career high in home runs, and he averaged a mere 9 home runs over a 162 game season.

When it comes to slugging, there is no comparison. Dunn’s slugging average is .519 while the league has a .436 slugging average. Gywnn’s slugging average of .459 is 50 points LOWER than Dunn’s, and is only somewhat greater than the league’s .399. It is recognized that OPS takes slugging into account, but raw data can be revealing, and that is the case in with Dunn and Gwynn.

More Valuable Than Tony
Those who claim Gwynn is vastly more valuable than Dunn point out that Tony averaged only 29 strikeouts a season, but that merely brings us back to the fact that a strikeout is just another out. Tony walked about 52 times a season while Dunn averaged 112 walks. Pitchers don’t like to give up hits, but they do not fear singles. They fear what Dunn hit – home runs, and they are very careful when facing Adam Dunn. The fact that Gwynn stole 21 bases a season compared to Dunn’s 9 is a negative for Gwynn because it is counterproductive to risk giving up outs by trying to steal bases.

Hall of Fame?
Tony Gwynn was a fine player, but the day when his type of player was considered among the most valuable in baseball have passed. Not striking out, stealing bases, hitting singles, and having a high batting average are overrated. The greatness and value of the Adam Dunn type of player is finally being recognized, thanks to the statistical evaluation of baseball players. Five years after he retires, the Hall of Fame will call Adam Dunn.

http://major-league-baseball.suite101.com/article.cfm/is_dunn_better_than_gwynn

mlbfan30
03-12-2008, 03:36 PM
Through age 27..

BA OBP SLG OPS+
.335 .392 .444 133
.248 .381 .519 130

WARP3
G-44.9
D-35.9

EQR - Equivalent Runs
G - 535
D - 625

Basically, Gwynn is better mainly because of defense. The hitting is pretty close and it can go either way depending on perspective. But Defense is not even close at this point in their careers.

tommycash
03-12-2008, 04:13 PM
I took a look at some different things on Baseball-Reference.com and came out with this information. Here is Tony Gwynn's Career Averages:
617 AB; 92 R; 209 H; 36 2B; 6 3B; 9 HR; 76 RBI; 21 SB; 52 BB; 29 SO; .338 AVG; .389 OBP;
.459 SLG; 132 OPS; 283 TB

Adam Dunn's Career Avg:
558 AB; 103 R; 139 H; 30 2B; 1 3B; 40 HR; 95 RBI; 9 SB; 112 BB; 182 SO; .248 AVG; .381 OBP; .519 SLG; 130 OPS; 290 TB

Tony Gwynn's Career Highs:
642 AB; 119 R; 220 H; 49 2B; 13 3B; 17 HR; 119 RBI; 56 SB; 82 BB; 40 SO; .394 AVG; .454 OBP; ..568 SLG; 169 OPS; 324 TB

Adam Dunn's Career Highs:
568 AB; 107 R; 151 H; 35 2B; 2 3B; 46 HR; 106 RBI; 19 SB; 128 BB; 195 SO; .266 AVG; .400 OBP; .578 SLG; 146 OPS; 323 TB

Maybe Dunn is more valuable in fantasy baseball, and I am a Dunn fan. The argument that an out is an out is totally wrong. A strikeout gives your team no chance to advance runners or cause the other team to make an error. Ask any manager or coach who they would want up with 2 outs and they would all say Gwynn. Plus you can't always compare runs. Gwynn played in an era where the home run was a non-factor. He only played with 3 guys that hit 40 or more home runs in a season (Greg Vaughn 1 year, Ken Caminiti 1 year, and Fred McGriff 1 year). He did what you are supposed to do. Get on, move over and get hit in. It is not his fault if he did not get hit in. Plus he was a #2 hitter, not a power hitting middle of the lineup guy like Dunn. I will agree that Dunn has been run down a lot for striking out too much, but to say he is better than Gwynn is going to far. And now that Dunn makes over $10 million, can we stop saying he is underrated?

GoReds33
03-12-2008, 04:17 PM
IMO, no. Dunn has not accomplished what Gwynn has, and to this point hasn't put up HOF numbers like Gwynn has. I think that Dunn could end up in the HOF though, and also could be as good, if not better than Gwynn.

redsfanmia
03-12-2008, 06:48 PM
Comparing apples to oranges these two are completely different players.

TN Red Fan
03-12-2008, 07:04 PM
Well, my guess is Dunn will draw more walks as the #5 hitter, than Gwynn would as the #2 hitter.

You don't put somebody on base when the heart of the order is coming up, but you'll gladly walk a power hitter knowing you facing 6, 7, and 8.

So my point is, if Gwynn batted 5th like Dunn does, his OBP would be higher.

EddieMilner
03-12-2008, 07:58 PM
To me, this is a flawed argument for a couple of reasons:
1. It introduces RBIs as an argument, and as any saber guy knows, RBIs are based on how people in front of you hit. Seems that the author is picking and choosing which argument on RBIs to use based on which best suits his point.
2. They completely ignore that OBP for the argument as well. And this is a flaw because Tony's job (as a top of the order hitter) was to get on base so he could give his team a better chance of scoring runs. Adam Dunn's job as a power hitter, is to drive in the top of the order hitters (I am assuming that Dunn is not batting 2nd).

I like Adam Dunn very much, but I understand what he is as well. He shouldn't be a savior for any team, he is a great piece (if used correctly) to building a contender. If the Reds use Dunn at the top of the order, his job should be to get on base and score runs (I am completely fine with him walking in this instance). If the Reds use Dunn as a middle of the order batter, his goal should be to knock base runners in. Hitting into an inning ending double play<Walking<Sacrifice Fly to Score a Run< getting a hit and scoring runs.

I feel there is a great middle ground of thought which understands Saber, but also understands old school baseball. I know getting on base is extremely important to a baseball teams success. However, the complete disregard for speed as an important tool for a ball player is ridiculous. Having a speedy guy on first can make a single a run. A good base stealer can remove the threat of a double play even coming into play. And that is where I feel statistical methods are failing, when they ignore speed. There is not way to figure out how an inning would have ended if a slower person was on base, but simply ignoring speed as a needed skill is making an over simplifying assumption because it is not understood how it contributes.

all of that was my opinion - If I stated anything as fact, it was not intended that way. And no i do not think a fast runner that only gets on base a sub .300 clip should be a lead off hitter, so leave that argument at home.

tommycash
03-12-2008, 08:26 PM
To me, this is a flawed argument for a couple of reasons:
1. It introduces RBIs as an argument, and as any saber guy knows, RBIs are based on how people in front of you hit. Seems that the author is picking and choosing which argument on RBIs to use based on which best suits his point.
2. They completely ignore that OBP for the argument as well. And this is a flaw because Tony's job (as a top of the order hitter) was to get on base so he could give his team a better chance of scoring runs. Adam Dunn's job as a power hitter, is to drive in the top of the order hitters (I am assuming that Dunn is not batting 2nd).

I like Adam Dunn very much, but I understand what he is as well. He shouldn't be a savior for any team, he is a great piece (if used correctly) to building a contender. If the Reds use Dunn at the top of the order, his job should be to get on base and score runs (I am completely fine with him walking in this instance). If the Reds use Dunn as a middle of the order batter, his goal should be to knock base runners in. Hitting into an inning ending double play<Walking<Sacrifice Fly to Score a Run< getting a hit and scoring runs.

I feel there is a great middle ground of thought which understands Saber, but also understands old school baseball. I know getting on base is extremely important to a baseball teams success. However, the complete disregard for speed as an important tool for a ball player is ridiculous. Having a speedy guy on first can make a single a run. A good base stealer can remove the threat of a double play even coming into play. And that is where I feel statistical methods are failing, when they ignore speed. There is not way to figure out how an inning would have ended if a slower person was on base, but simply ignoring speed as a needed skill is making an over simplifying assumption because it is not understood how it contributes.

all of that was my opinion - If I stated anything as fact, it was not intended that way. And no i do not think a fast runner that only gets on base a sub .300 clip should be a lead off hitter, so leave that argument at home.


I couldn't agree more. Also, I think that using OPS as a stat is also not very accurate. If OPS were a measurement of the best, then Dunn is better than Rose, Perez, Morgan, and Bench. And I hope no one is making these arguments yet.

UGADaddy
03-12-2008, 09:05 PM
Comparing apples to oranges these two are completely different players.

Agreed. Two different batting order positions, two different eras, two different players.

Also, good points above:
- the article did not take into account OBP
- an strikeout is not just another out

Is there a stat out there to compare OBPs with two outs or with RISP or in the final three innings with game within 3 runs?? I'd like to see how AD stacks up in those categories--to Jeff Conine, much less Tony Gwynn...

mlbfan30
03-12-2008, 09:31 PM
People who don't understand SABR assume we don't value speed or a bunch of other things. But to pick on speed, that's simply not true. Baserunning is something you pointed out, but baserunning just isn't a huge aspect of a hitters value. The difference between the very best and the very worst baserunner (not SB) is about 10 runs a year, which translates to a win. Things that constitute baserunning are things like 1st to 3rd, scoring on a single from 2nd, scoring on sac fly, etc. Usually, the majority of players are bunch in a very small range, something like 5 runs difference. It wouldn't be worth it to pick bruce over patterson for baserunning purposes when the difference in offense is much greater than the difference in baserunning. Stealing is an entirely different aspect, and for an out to be worth it, SB rates need to be around 73&#37;. Anything less and the hitter is hurting it's team by trying to steal. An out is a lot worse than an extra base gained. When people have very nice SB rates, like Raines, and also steal a lot, like Raines, that's when basestealing helps.

Basically, base stealing is good as long as it's above 0 value. If you have a guy like Freel who gets picked off and had a 65% SB% last year, he hurts you. If you have a guy like Crawford who has a career 82 SB%, that's good and helps. Overall though, speed has a limit as to how much it helps the team. It's worth maybe 10 runs or so above average at the top limit. But playing a hitter that produces 0 value hitting, and all its value from speed, over a very strong hitter but average runner isn't usually worth it. From a franchise point of view... a leg injury or even aging for that speed guy is going to totally eliminate any value he has, but a hitter is still going to hit.

One thing I hate is that people just dismiss SABR, telling the audience what SABR think. These people don't understand SABR thinking and are biased against it, so obviously they are going to say bad (and untruthful) things.


There is not way to figure out how an inning would have ended if a slower person was on base, but simply ignoring speed as a needed skill is making an over simplifying assumption because it is not understood how it contributes.

Something like that... that stuff is taken into account. Many methods look at how actual games were played. It takes every single game of every single year and determines the value of each single occurence. A number might a SB with 0 out and man on 1st is worth .27 Runs, but with 2 out worth .11 runs. The final number say a SB is worth .195 Runs. That .195 is the average among all occurrences but each individual occurrence is taken into account.

Take a look at this chat....

http://www.tangotiger.net/RE9902event.html

And see how intuitive it is. People say SABR people don't like bunts, and for the most part they are negative value. But in some cases they are good. The value of outs change depending on the situation. Everything changes. This IS the "intangibles" aspect of SABR.

Boston Red
03-12-2008, 09:32 PM
The fact that Gwynn stole 21 bases a season compared to Dunnís 9 is a negative for Gwynn because it is counterproductive to risk giving up outs by trying to steal bases.

I guess Rickey Henderson is one of the worst players of all time.

mlbfan30
03-12-2008, 09:47 PM
I guess Rickey Henderson is one of the worst players of all time.

See... this is another aspect where people assume SABR people think stealing is just bad. Stealing is GOOD IF he attains a certain percentage...

Gywnn has a career SB % of 71%
Rickey has a career SB % of 80%
Dunn has a career SB % of 76

Thats a HUGE difference. And this doesn't include baserunning which is totally separate.

According to the chart, Gwynn has gained 5.2 Runs over his career by stealing.
According to the chart, Rickey has gained 121.4 Runs over his career by stealing.
According to the chart, Dunn has gained 8.2 Runs over his career by stealing.

Basically this tells us Gwynn was a horrible basestealer.

Rickey was worth an extra 12 Wins over his career from just simply stealing bases. That's amazing. SABR guys love him BECAUSE of his amazing SB rates and his ability to still steal so many bases.

tommycash
03-12-2008, 10:01 PM
Actually Dunn 75 attempts at stealing according to Baseball-reference.com. Gwynn has a 71&#37; with 444 attempts. Lets not compare these numbers as Gwynn has way more attempts. And for a #2 batter with a high .avg like Gwynn, I will take his 71%. The whole argument is that Dunn is equal to or better than Gwynn, and I just don't think he is close yet. Can he get there? No. I don't think they should be compared. I would rather compare George Foster and Dave Parker with Dunn at this moment. Lets compare middle of the lineup guys with other middle of the lineup guys. I will say this, with the game on the line, who would you want to hit? Dunn OR Gwynn?

Boston Red
03-12-2008, 10:09 PM
See... this is another aspect where people assume SABR people think stealing is just bad. Stealing is GOOD IF he attains a certain percentage...


I was just responding to the author's contention that stealing extra bases was a negative. If he'd have added the explanation you did, his words wouldn't have looked so idiotic.

mlbfan30
03-12-2008, 10:14 PM
Actually Dunn has a stolen base &#37; of 67 according to Baseball-reference.com with only 28 steal attempts. Gwynn has a 71% with 444 attempts. Lets not compare these numbers as Gwynn has way more attempts. And for a #2 batter with a high .avg like Gwynn, I will take his 71%. The whole argument is that Dunn is equal to or better than Gwynn, and I just don't think he is close yet. Can he get there? No. I don't think they should be compared. I would rather compare George Foster and Dave Parker with Dunn at this moment. Lets compare middle of the lineup guys with other middle of the lineup guys. I will say this, with the game on the line, who would you want to hit? Dunn OR Gwynn?

It's 76% with 75 SB attempts. Check again. Did you know Dunn has 57 SB in his career? That's the same as scrappy #2 hitter Polanco who has a 67SB%. Gwynn is an average basestealer. 71% is not good for anyone. Him being mostly a singles hitter makes it worse since him trying to steal basically had 0 value over his career. Does it kill you to realize that Dunn, that slow middle of the order hitter, is a better basestealer than that 2nd scrappy hitter, Gwynn? The numbers prove it.

One of the main goals of SABR is to compare hitters, whether leadoff or 4th. They deduce a value for everything that happens in baseball and assign a neutral unit like Runs. These 2 players can be compared. As I said before, at THIS POINT, age 27 season, both of these players are about the same in hitting. The difference is in fielding.

With the game on the line... as in what? A man on 2nd? Gywnn. Down by 1 with a man on second? Dunn.
Going by SABR, we'd look at each outcome by each player in each situation. It needs to be a lot more specific than... on the line. Say a runner on 1st... Gywnn mostly hits singles so he wouldnt score the run. Dunn might BB or get an XBH. In that case that XBH wins the game and SLG is more important.

tommycash
03-12-2008, 10:30 PM
Yeah I edited my post if you didn't look before you posted again. How does Dunn only attempting 75 bases and nabbing 76&#37; make him better at baserunning. Dunn is 27, and when Gwynn was 27 he had a % of 73 according to baseball-reference.com and had 212 attempts. So are we gonna say that if Dunn had a .350 AVG but had only 75 AB, and Gwynn had a .320 AVG, with 212 AB that Dunn is a better hitter. Any math man would say that Dunn would need to have more attempts to make this a better study. We will never know, since Dunn is getting older and will attempt less and less over time.

As far as when the game is on the line, lets go over a few scenarios. Your team is down 1 with 2 outs, and no one on. Dunn, who bats 5th usually, will be walked since they would rather face #6 in the order. Gwynn would be pitched to, and have a chance to hit anything (including doubles which he did very well). Then you would have them face #3 in your lineup (much better than #6). Ok, now with 2 outs you are down 1 or 2 with anyone on ( a situation where they would have to pitch to Dunn). The stats (batting average, HR/Doubles vs. Strikeouts) show that Dunn would fail more often than not. Gwynn with a lifetime average above .335 would have a much better chance of keeping the game alive. Lets not even find time to discuss that if the game were on the line with 1 out in the ninth and a man on 2nd, Dunn wouldn't even be able to move the runner over to third. Do we not know how many games it usually takes him before he hits a sac fly. A couple of years ago he had 1 or 2.

tommycash
03-12-2008, 10:50 PM
I do like Dunn in that his Runs Created per Game is higher than Gwynn and he has more power. The problems I have always had with Dunn is that his K's are too high and his RBI's are too low. Especially since GABP is ripe for runs. I also think if they play at the exact same time, Gwynn's numbers go up because of the change in eras.

Oxilon
03-12-2008, 11:07 PM
I do like Dunn in that his Runs Created per Game is higher than Gwynn and he has more power. The problems I have always had with Dunn is that his K's are too high and his RBI's are too low. Especially since GABP is ripe for runs. I also think if they play at the exact same time, Gwynn's numbers go up because of the change in eras.

Who cares about strikeouts? An out is an out regardless of the nature it incurs in. Infact, I'd be inclined to say a strikeout would be a better out than a groundball in certain instances (GIDP for example). And is it Dunn's fault he has a "low amount" of RBIs? I mean, for the past three years, the dude has had an OPS of ~.930 with RISP (same with 2 outs and RISP in case you're wondering about his "clutchness" too). Pretty impressive considering that he usually doesn't have players on base when he comes up, due to the weak talent around him and the musical chairs he's involved in with the lineup on a daily basis.

tommycash
03-12-2008, 11:14 PM
Who cares about strikeouts? I and a majority of baseball fans do. How can a strikeout be better than any out. If you strikout, the players on base have almost no chance of moving over, and with no one on gives you no chance to reach on error. And yes for any power hitter to not have more RBIs is a shame, and you can go ahead and bring any other stat you want but you can't convince me otherwise that Dunn is a great clutch hitter. He is a good power hitter and a #5 man in most lineups. To dismiss strikeouts is something that should never be said. If you have 2 outs those strikeouts mean an awful lot compared to a guy that averaged 29 K a year. Odds are that Gwynn would give you a better chance of extending the game with 2 outs in the ninth because he would not strikeout. Dunn usually does.

Oxilon
03-12-2008, 11:36 PM
Who cares about strikeouts? I and a majority of baseball fans do. How can a strikeout be better than any out. If you strikout, the players on base have almost no chance of moving over

It's been statistical proven that a strikeout is just as bad as a non-strikeout out. And it's also not true that players have no chance of moving with a strikout as the out -- wild pitches and past balls do occur.


no one on gives you no chance to reach on error.

The odds that a batter reaches on an error are equivalent to the odds that a batter reaches and/or advances runners via a wild pitch or past ball.


And yes for any power hitter to not have more RBIs is a shame, and you can go ahead and bring any other stat you want but you can't convince me otherwise that Dunn is a great clutch hitter. He is a good power hitter and a #5 man in most lineups.

You're too fixated on the thought that Dunn needs to be this Renaissance hitter that's supposed to do everything. But you're overlooking the main goal of a hitter -- to NOT get out. So while you're upset while Dunn is taking his free walk to 1B instead of hitting that double, you're completely dismissing the main priority, which is to make the inning continue and NOT get out. And here are his stats that prove that Dunn is a good "clutch" hitter:

The Past 3 Previous Seasons:
Bases Loaded: .396/.719/1.115
Scoring Position: .422/.502/.924
Scoring Position (2 out): .465/.472/.937
Close and Late: .362/.470/.832

There it is. Stats don't lie, and if you still think Dunn isn't clutch, I don't know what to tell you. His OBP/SLG%/OPS figures in those certain situations. I don't know about you, but I'm willing to bet those numbers are better than the majority of players in the league.



To dismiss strikeouts is something that should never be said. If you have 2 outs those strikeouts mean an awful lot compared to a guy that averaged 29 K a year. Odds are that Gwynn would give you a better chance of extending the game with 2 outs in the ninth because he would not strikeout. Dunn usually does.

No, Gwynn would not give a better chance. Just because he'd be more likely to put the ball in play doesn't mean he's more likely to extend the game. K is the same thing as FO or GO. Would it make you feel better if Dunn would FO more than SO? I mean, it's essentially the exact same result (an out!) so it really doesn't make a difference either way.

tommycash
03-12-2008, 11:46 PM
I guess we don't need to worry about strikeouts, batting averages, and runs batted in anymore, according to your theories. I am saying that Dunn is not yet better than Gwynn based on certain facts and you throw out these stats that say it is ok for a 5 hitter to strikeout and walk instead of get hits and drive runners in. I will take a guy that can hit at the 2 spot. I do not want my 5 guy to walk in the clutch. I want him to bring that 2 guy in with doubles and HR. If Gwynn were a 5 guy then Dunn is better, sure. But I don't think they should even be compared because they are too different kinds of hitters from 2 different eras. And as far as RISP goes, dont many baseball statisticians say that those numbers are not as accurate as many believe them to be. I think this may be one of those "agree to disagree situations".

Oxilon
03-13-2008, 02:48 PM
I guess we don't need to worry about strikeouts, batting averages, and runs batted in anymore, according to your theories.

Yes. Yes. No. I've never said RBIs aren't important. I said getting on base and not making an out is the most important part of hitting (Think about it, if every hitter does his job and doesn't get out, the inning will continue and RBIs will eventually transpire).


I am saying that Dunn is not yet better than Gwynn based on certain facts and you throw out these stats that say it is ok for a 5 hitter to strikeout and walk instead of get hits and drive runners in. I will take a guy that can hit at the 2 spot. I do not want my 5 guy to walk in the clutch. I want him to bring that 2 guy in with doubles and HR. If Gwynn were a 5 guy then Dunn is better, sure.

I never said Dunn was better than Gwynn, atleast not yet (Dunn's only 27 and is just entering his prime. Who knows what's ahead of him in the next decade). But why is Dunn have to be a #5 hitter? Because he's put in that position in the lineup so he must act accordingly? Honestly, with Dunn's high OBP, he would be a great #2 hitter since he could get on base for the batters behind him. You're looking at lineups in an antediluvian perspective. You think the #5 hitter's responsibility is different from the #2's. The #3's is different from the #8's, and so on. It doesn't matter since the main goal of batting is to NOT make an out. It just so happens that #3's and cleanup hitters don't make an out at nearly the rate of the #8's or #9's.



But I don't think they should even be compared because they are too different kinds of hitters from 2 different eras.

I can agree with you on that. Sure this is a hitters' era compared to when Gwynn played when it was more of a pitching era. And yes, they different types of hitters, sure. But nevertheless, the article brings up an interesting comparison and is worth looking into.


And as far as RISP goes, dont many baseball statisticians say that those numbers are not as accurate as many believe them to be. I think this may be one of those "agree to disagree situations".

I'm not really sure what you have in mind here. When a runner is on 2nd base, he's in scoring position. There's not much debate over that.

tommycash
03-13-2008, 03:27 PM
I just don't think a 4-5 hitter should be walking and striking out instead of hitting runners in. That is why Dunn loses points with me. This guy is an enigma. He hits home runs, strikes out, walks to partly make up for strikeouts, but can't hit for average. I think it is great he has a high OBP. I love that. But I don't want him walking with runners in scoring position. I want him to hit the ball and try to win us the game. He does not get the RBIs a man in his position should get. As a baseball coach, I would want him to be less patient and more aggressive to help the team more. That is what my point will always be. He can't help it if he is intentionally walked, but come on produce more RBIs. And as far as RISP goes, again I want someone with a better average up with more RBIs with RISP. Dunn gets walked or he strikes out. His job is to not only get on base but knock runners in. I want DUNN to hit, not walk with 2 outs in the 9th. Why? Because he has a better chance of winning us the game instead of Edwin, Ross, Keppinger, Gonzalez, or any pinch hitter. If Gwynn were up (at the 2 spot) and got a base hit, the next 2 guys up would be your 3 and 4 man. Do you understand what I am saying. Gwynn getting a single and not getting an RBI in this situation is better than Dunn walking because of what follows in the order. That is my argument. Sure he gets on base, so instead of hitting him 5, lets put him at leadoff and see how that works.

tommycash
03-13-2008, 03:40 PM
And I do have to look at what spot they are hitting in to make my argument. And so does Dusty. That is how baseball is played. Situations are everything. He is a power hitter that usually hits 4 or 5. It would be unfair to Gwynn if we did not look at where Dunn hits. Gwynn can't switch his spot in the lineup. Could Dunn be a good 2 hitter, maybe. Why Maybe? As a 2 hitter you see different pitches that a 4 or 5 hitter does. Are these factors in SABR methods. Could Gwynn's numbers have been better if he hit 3,4, or 5. Or hit behind Ken Griffey, JR? Who knows? I know where you are coming from. You are saying that Dunn's stats are misleading and that if you look harder you will see that he actually produces more than people give him credit for, and that is fine. But the original argument and name of the thread asks the question, is Dunn better than Gwynn? And I have to say, first off, they should not be compared. Secondly, Dunn is not quite there yet. He is not a HOFmer yet. When he gets there, though, I don't think we will be arguing about Dunn vs. Gwynn. It will be Dunn vs. Tony Perez, Dunn vs. McGwire, Dunn vs. Canseco, etc.

BigJohn
03-14-2008, 12:50 PM
Dunn vs Jim Rice?

http://www.baseball-reference.com/r/riceji01.shtml

tommycash
03-14-2008, 01:16 PM
Wow, great comparison. Rice has a better average, but Dunn has a better OBP. A lot of their other numbers are very similar. Up to the age of 27, I give the nod to Rice for his ability to produce more RBIs. His numbers (power) drop off after that. So if Dunn stays consistent and brings his RBIs up (which we all hope he does) he will have the better career.

BigJohn
03-14-2008, 01:37 PM
So if Dunn stays consistent and brings his RBIs up (which we all hope he does) he will have the better career.

and Rice still isn't in the HOF! and he only made 10M his entire career, not sure of the 70-80s dollars compared to 2000s

tommycash
03-14-2008, 01:45 PM
Who cares about strikeouts? An out is an out regardless of the nature it incurs in. Infact, I'd be inclined to say a strikeout would be a better out than a groundball in certain instances (GIDP for example). And is it Dunn's fault he has a "low amount" of RBIs? I mean, for the past three years, the dude has had an OPS of ~.930 with RISP (same with 2 outs and RISP in case you're wondering about his "clutchness" too). Pretty impressive considering that he usually doesn't have players on base when he comes up, due to the weak talent around him and the musical chairs he's involved in with the lineup on a daily basis.

I want to comment on the weak talent around him remark. Lets look at a really good team and take them on hitting alone vs. the Reds of last year. Since Jim Rice was brought up, lets look at his best season and the team he played for. Rice in 1978 put up these numbers:
121 R, 213 H, 25 2B, 15 3B, 46 HR, 139 RBI, 58 BB, 129 SO, .315 BA, 370 obp, 600 SLG, +157 OPS
Boston's Team Numbers:
796 R, 1493 H, 270 2B, 46 3B, 172 HR, 738 RBI, 582 BB, 835 K, .267 BA, .336 OBP, .424 SLG, +103 OPS

Dunns numbers from last year with "weak talent around him"
101 R, 138 H, 27 2B, 2 3B, 40 HR, 106 RBI, 101 BB, 165 SO, .264 BA, 386 Obp, 554 SLG, +136 OPS
Reds 2007 Numbers: with pitchers hitting as well
783 R, 1496 H, 293 2B, 23 3B, 204 HR, 747 RBI, 536 BB, 1113 SO, .267 BA, .336OBP, .436 SLG, OPS +101

Thats some very similar team numbers and that is comparing one team that had a DH vs. a team with no DH. Rice puts up a MVP year, while Dunn does ok. I like the 40 HR but not much else. Boston won 96 games with its team, and the Reds won 72. Lets not say the Reds have weak talent around Dunn, unless you are talking about the pitching on the team.

Ahhhorsepoo
03-14-2008, 01:53 PM
HAHAHAHAHA right...

Biggin1985
03-14-2008, 08:25 PM
Myself I think it is a hard comparison. The two are totally different types of players. Adam Dunn is a slugger and Tony Gwynn was a hitter. I like Adam Dunn better because he is a Red but, Tony Gwynn sure knowed how to hit the ball. Hopefully Dunn can have a career like Tony.