Originally Posted by BadFundamentals
Wouldn't you agree he'd have had even a more productive year last year but (keep OBP, SLG etc.. the same) if instead of 195 strikeouts he only struck out 100 times?
BR, I can't agree entirely with statement because it's based on a false premise. You're assuming that he would be replacing those strikeouts without making other outs and without changing the type of hitter he is. If he were to cut down on his strikeouts, he would have to change his approach to an AB, which would probably result in a lot less power and a less agressive approach to batting. So he wouldn't be sacrificing strikeouts solely with positive results, he would be sacrificing strikeouts at the expense of power and potentially walks. It's not worth it.
But it seems like you're changing your argument from strikeouts are detrimental to run creation to Adam Dunn would be a better player if he struck out less without changing anything else. No one has ever suggested Adam Dunn is without flaw. What we've argued is that his strikeouts don't detract from the amount of runs he creates in a baseball season. Even WITH the strikeouts, he's still a GREAT offensive player. Would he be even better if he were able to replace some strikeouts with OBP? Of course. But any player would be better if they replaced outs with non-outs. It's not the stikeouts that's the problems. It's the outs.
You'd be just as wise to say: wouldn't a player be more productive if he were to only ground out 100 times instead of 200. It's all about not being on base.