Dunn article in Enquirer today

[TOBTTReds]

Paul Daugherty did an article on Dunn being Dunn on the baseball field. Think it goes with about every thread on here about him. There is actually almost zero info here we didn't know, but worth the read anyway.

http://news.cincinnati.com/apps/pbcs...605260403/1071

[osuceltic]

Daugherty asks the questions all of us who get labeled Dunn bashers are asking. Is that all? Is it enough? Some say yes, some say no. There is a sense that he could do more with his talent if he wanted. But is that realistic? Is it fair? How you come down on those questions probably determines how you come down on Dunn.

I thought this column was well done, as I do most of Daugherty's stuff.

[kyred14]

He was doing OK, until he got to that Kingman crap at the end.

[Benny-Distefano]

"But when he has fallen behind no balls and two strikes this season, Dunn is 0-for-10 with nine strikeouts."



Yikes!!

[GoReds]

Daugherty asks the questions all of us who get labeled Dunn bashers are asking. Is that all? Is it enough? Some say yes, some say no. There is a sense that he could do more with his talent if he wanted. But is that realistic? Is it fair? How you come down on those questions probably determines how you come down on Dunn.

I thought this column was well done, as I do most of Daugherty's stuff.

Gotta give props here. Probably sums up the chasm between most on this board very succinctly.

[TeamBoone]

Here's the article; I know some don't like to have to go get it.

Friday, May 26, 2006

Leaving them wanting more
Adam Dunn puts on a show with the longball, but does he aspire to be more than a slugger?
BY PAUL DAUGHERTY | ENQUIRER STAFF WRITER

What do you want from Adam Dunn?

There is a problem with being 6 feet 6, weighing 275 pounds and being a good enough athlete that the University of Texas signed you to play quarterback. It is this:

People are always going to want more.

You hit 40 homers? Great. How many were solo?

You drove in 100 runs? What was your batting average with runners in scoring position?

And by the way: Could you mix in some defense?

Is it fair? Beats me.

If history holds, Dunn will hit at least 40 home runs, drive in 100 runs and score 100 more this season, for the third year in a row. He'll walk at least 100 times. His on-base percentage will be near the 10 best in the National League. He's all of 26 years old.

If that's all there is, OK. As Reds manager Jerry Narron said Wednesday, "That ain't bad."

No, it ain't.

What do you want from Adam Dunn?

It's the $23.5 million question. That's what the Reds would owe Dunn for next season and 2008. That is a lot of money for a pitching-needy, small-revenue club to pay a power hitter.

We've had these discussions for four years, or about as long as Dunn has been a Red. Maybe we should stop. Because for everyone who thinks Dunn has the skills to be a great player, there are as many who think being great isn't what drives him. Often, it's the same people offering both arguments.

Unless you are blessed with supernatural skills, greatness is a mindset. You respect your talent by using all of it. What you lack in skill, you make up for with effort. If being the best drives you, nothing is as important.

Until Narron rested him Wednesday, Dunn was the only Red to play in every game this season. The last several days, he took early batting practice. You never hear a peep from him about switching positions. He doesn't say much when allegedly ill-informed media people crack on his game.

Yet he affects an air of indifference. Dunn has said the worst advice he ever got came from former Reds general manager Jim Bowden, who told him he should pull the ball more. Yet some opponents are shifting all four infielders between first base and second base when the left-handed-hitting Dunn appears at the plate.

He has worked with Reds hitting coach Chris Chambliss, who has urged Dunn to use more of the field and to adjust his plate approach depending on the count he's facing. But when he has fallen behind no balls and two strikes this season, Dunn is 0-for-10 with nine strikeouts.

Yeah, but ...

Dunn leads the Reds in homers. He's tied for the team lead in RBI and second in runs. What more do you want?

If he took pitches to left field ... if he were more aggressive at the plate ... if he put in more time working on his defense ...

I wanted to ask Dunn about all that. He didn't want to talk, at least not to me. Maybe especially not to me. Fair enough. I'm not exactly the president of the Dunner Fan Club. Regardless, the temptation is to suggest Dunn is OK with who he is, and we should be, too.

Dunn is, to most, a genial good ol' boy from a small town 40 miles north of Houston, where everybody knows everybody and where generations of his family have lived. He has that laconic, laid back air familiar to Texans. If the burden of talent and potential bugs him, you'd never know. If ever anyone was born to fish for bass in a pond, it's Adam Dunn.

If Dunn were older, it would be easier to say he was following the career path blazed by Dave Kingman. If he were 36 instead of 26, we all would be urging him to write "designated hitter" on his tax returns. We'd be looking at that size and athleticism and wondering, "Is that all there is?" even as he approaches 500 homers.

But he's only arriving at his best. What he chooses to do with it is anyone's guess.

[deltachi8]

Anyone who compares Adam Dunn to Dave Kingman does not have a fundamental understanding of offensive baseball.

[KittyDuran]

Anyone who compares Adam Dunn to Dave Kingman does not have a fundamental understanding of offensive baseball.

PD is only comparing Dunn to Kingman if he was older and how easy it would be for him and others to try to figure Dunn out...

If Dunn were older, it would be easier to say he was following the career path blazed by Dave Kingman.

I don't have a problem with that sentence... good article and pretty much sums up the Dunn "problem" on this forum...

[westofyou]

I don't have a problem with that sentence...

Dave was a non base obtaining, power hitter and a surly pud of a man, who played himself through 4 cities.

Other than being tall, striking out and hitting HR's the comparison is false.

How about starting with Frank Howard and going from there?

Oh.. that's right Dave Kingman was a big disappointment as a ballplayer... I see where he's taking it.

[KittyDuran]

Dave was a non base obtaining, power hitter and a surly pud of a man, who played himself through 4 cities.

Other than being tall, striking out and hitting HR's the comparison is false.

How about starting with Frank Howard and going from there?

Oh.. that's right Dave Kingman was a big disappointment as a ballplayer... I see where he's taking it.

Oh, I agree with you on Kingman (and so does PD, no doubt). But the difference that PD points that it would be easier for him to compare Dunn to Kingman if only Dunn was older - BUT HE IS NOT, so the comparsions are not there. I do get the sense from the article that PD is a little dissappointed that he can't use that comparsion because it would make figuring Dunn out so much easier - but then he wouldn't have an article to write, would he?

So what you are saying is that you would feel better about the article if Frank Howard's name was in the sentence instead of Kingman? Or should the sentence be completely taken out?

Are we reading the same article here?

[westofyou]

Oh, I agree with you on Kingman (and so does PD, no doubt). But the difference that PD points that it would be easier for him to compare Dunn to Kingman if only Dunn was older - BUT HE IS NOT, so the comparsions are not there. I do get the sense from the article that PD is a little dissappointed that he can't use that comparsion because it would make figuring Dunn out so much easier - but then he wouldn't have an article to write, would he?

So what you are saying is that you would feel better about the article if Frank Howard's name was in the sentence instead of Kingman? Or should the sentence be completely taken out?

Are we reading the same article here?

I'm saying that even at the same age the comparison is ridiculous.

And yes I'd feel better if Howard was mentioned, Dave Kingman is the metaphor for failed power hitter, his longevity was attributed to nothing but power.

It's a bogus comparison, period.

DAVE KINGMAN

AGE <= 25

YEAR TEAM         AGE G    AB    R    H    2B  3B  HR   HR%   RBI  BB   SO   SB   CS  AVG   SLG  OBA   OPS
1971 Giants       22   41   115   17   32  10   2   6   5.22   24    9   35    5   0  .278  .557  .328  .885 
1972 Giants       23  135   472   65  106  17   4  29   6.14   83   51  140   16   6  .225  .462  .303  .765 
1973 Giants       24  112   305   54   62  10   1  24   7.87   55   41  122    8   5  .203  .479  .300  .779 
1974 Giants       25  121   350   41   78  18   2  18   5.14   55   37  125    8   8  .223  .440  .302  .742 
     TOTALS           409  1242  177  278  55   9  77   6.20  217  138  422   37  19  .224  .469  .304  .773 
     LG AVERAGE            1296  160  337  52   9  29   2.26  148  132  187   22  12  .260  .382  .329  .711 
     POS AVERAGE           1292  160  329  55   6  43   3.35  178  152  221   11   8  .255  .408  .334  .742 

YEAR TEAM          RC   RCAA  RCAP OWP   RC/G   TB   EBH  ISO   SEC  BPA  IBB HBP SAC  SF GIDP OUTS  PA   POS
1971 Giants         22    8    5  .695   6.75   64   18  .278  .400  .602   0   1   0   3   2    88   128  1B
1972 Giants         66    5    3  .529   4.63  218   50  .237  .379  .516   2   4   0   4   9   385   531  3B
1973 Giants         42   -3   -5  .458   4.38  146   35  .275  .436  .526   3   2   1   2   8   259   351  3B
1974 Giants         43   -9  -15  .406   3.99  154   38  .217  .346  .476   2   3   2   1   8   291   393  1B
     TOTALS        173    1  -12  .495   4.57  582  141  .245  .386  .515   7  10   3  10  27  1023  1403 
     LG AVERAGE    165    0    0  .500   4.36  495   91  .122  .241  .425  17   8  11  11  30  1023  1457 
     POS AVERAGE   177   11    0  .522   4.67  527  105  .153  .279  .449  17   9   7  13  32  1023  1473 





ADAM DUNN

AGE <= 25

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

[KittyDuran]

I'm saying that even at the same age the comparison is ridiculous.

But PD is not saying the same age, only if Dunn were older. So the comparsion is not even there.

BTW, how do you feel about the rest of the article?

[westofyou]

But PD is not saying the same age, only if Dunn were older. So the comparsion is not even there.

BTW, how do you feel about the rest of the article?

It's snipey IMO, he pretty much implies that despite the talent he's yet to reach a level that pleases Mr Daughtery, who says "I'm not exactly the president of the Dunner Fan Club."

No duh...

Sportswriters generally begin their analysis with a position on an issue, I too have many issues that I advocate from time to time, but I'll do them by climbing through the numbers and coming out through that door.

PD looks to me like he knew his position before he wrote a word, and no amount of numbers or distancing himself from the visage he knows as Adam Dunn will change that.

[dabvu2498]

"But when he has fallen behind no balls and two strikes this season, Dunn is 0-for-10 with nine strikeouts."



Yikes!!

That is pretty amazing.

[TeamBoone]

I'm wondering how many times he's worked the 0-2 count to 3-2... I don't know how to find it.