My thoughts on Dunn's recent comment

[JEA]

There's a current thread on the Old Reds Guard (http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=51099) that really got me thinking. If you haven't read the discussion, go do it. There are some very persuasive arguments, and it was refreshing to see so many people realizing they shouldn't read into things too much.

Here's a part of the story that sparked the discussion:

The other day Hatteberg questioned if the Reds — who haven't had to play for anything in recent Septembers — still have guys who think they don't have to show up every day.

Is resolve giving way to resignation?

Dunn shrugged at the questions: "I have no idea. We're just playing bad at the wrong time. There's nothing we can do. I guess we could take extra batting practice, but that's not really going to do anything..."

He then grabbed clubs and was apparently off to play golf.

Here's what bugs me. Dunn said something stupid. But I doubt he meant anything by it. I doubt he was literally advocating skipping practices and drills because they're "not really going to do anything." But when I read that quote, I winced and knew it was going to create problems.

Personally, to me it just sounded like a guy frustrated by the team's misfortunes. When he said that he doubted even extra batting practice could help, I could imagine the sarcasm in his voice. A kinda "nothing could help us poor bastards right now" mentality.

However, I'm guessing other people read it differently. If they're already questionning Dunn's work ethic and feel he's a "loafer," I knew they would have taken the comments more literally. And I knew it would have supplied ammo for their arguments.

And, in fact, some of those critical comments appear in the original thread. Luckily, there's enough people on the board who understood the toungue-in-cheek nature of the comment and defended it as non-news.

But here's what bugs me. Most people reacted (in what my opinion was) reasonably. The knew not to take anything anything too literally and to give the guy the benefit of the doubt.

But why can't people be equally reasonable when the topic doesn't involve a favorite player or manager?

Imagine if it were one of the crappy relievers, Jerry Narron, Juan Castro, John Allen, Royce Clayton or other targets of frequent criticism who said something similar to Dunn's comment. Many of those otherwise-reasonable people would be up in arms. They'd paste the quote into their signatures, use it constantly to defend their arguments that so-and-so doesn't care about winning, and accept it as fact about a player's character. That one quote would follow the player for years.

Remember when Rich Aurilia said he didn't come to Cincinnati to be on the bench? Tons of people labeled him a selfish player with a huge ego. That perception dogged him for months, and people still rag on him for thinking he's a superstar. Krivsky mentions something about "things have a way of working themselves out," and people quote it to prove he's a guy who doesn't plan for the future. Remember when John Allen said ownership doubted they could raise payroll one year if they didn't get attendance up? People now claim he told the media it's the fans' fault they were going to shrink the payroll.

Just in the day since that whole Dunn thread was started, I've read tons of other posts and was left scratching my head and thinking, "How can people take these quotes so literally? Why can't they brush it aside like so many people (appropriately) did with that Dunn quote?"

I took a couple journalism classes at college and I had a teaching assistant who did a really cool exercise. We paired up, and she told each of us to tell our partner about our weekends. We then took those exact quotes and were told to try to paint an entirely different picture without changing the quotes - just pick and choose what you need to accomplish it. I was paired up with this faily annoying girl who talked about her "awesome boyfriend" and how great he was and how much fun they had over the weekend.

The TA's lesson was to show us how easy it was for us -- intentionally and unintentionally -- to change the meaning of someone's words without actually changing those words. And quite easily, I quoted my partner and painted this convincing story of how her boyfriend was a complete jerk. It's amazing how that little exercise still sticks with me to this day. It was so powerful yet so easy.

Some days (especially after tough losses and lots of second guessing), I really wish we could all pair up here and do the exercise. I think we'd learn not to read too far into anything -- with Dunn's or anyone else's comments.

[HumnHilghtFreel]

Very nice post.

[Razor Shines]

Imagine if it were one of the crappy relievers, Jerry Narron, Juan Castro, John Allen, Royce Clayton or other targets of frequent criticism who said something similar to Dunn's comment. Many of those otherwise-reasonable people would be up in arms. They'd paste the quote into their signatures, use it constantly to defend their arguments that so-and-so doesn't care about winning, and accept it as fact about a player's character. That one quote would follow the player for years.

Except for this part I agree with your post. It's kind of a blanket statement and I don't think you know what people would do in another situation. You may or may not be right, but it seems like you're already criticizing people for a made up scenario. But like I said overall I agree.

[JEA]

Except for this part I agree with your post. It's kind of a blanket statement and I don't think you know what people would do in another situation. You may or may not be right, but it seems like you're already criticizing people for a made up scenario. But like I said overall I agree.

You know, you're probably right. I should have probably said "some of those people" or something to that affect. I didn't mean that everyone who defended Dunn would criticize everything those other players would say in a made-up scenario. You do see a lot of that with certain situations, but it's not fair to clump everyone together into one group.

Really, thanks for the feedback. It's good to know the meaning of the message came through.

[TeamBoone]

I liked your post too, JEA. I won't comment on this thread regarding the article... I'm sure I commented more than others thought was necessary on the original thread.

What I don't understand is why you think most of the comments on the original thread are pro Dunn. Though some of us definately are, I feel that a lot of people took it to heart and jumped all over Dunn, chomping at the bit to beat him with his own golf clubs.

[Team Clark]

I liked your post too, JEA. I won't comment on this thread regarding the article... I'm sure I commented more than others thought was necessary on the original thread.

What I don't understand is why you think most of the comments on the original thread are pro Dunn. Though some of us definately are, I feel that a lot of people took it to heart and jumped all over Dunn, chomping at the bit to beat him with his own golf clubs.

How did the writer know if those clubs were Dunn's? Maybe he was carrying Griff's clubs since his foot was banged up.

[wally post]

yeah. Much to do over NOTHING. Too many folks look out the window through a microscope and think they see something. I'm entirely over reading about Dunn and how ....whatever.... ! He's a great benefit to any ballclub. Next topic!!!

[JEA]

I liked your post too, JEA. I won't comment on this thread regarding the article... I'm sure I commented more than others thought was necessary on the original thread.

What I don't understand is why you think most of the comments on the original thread are pro Dunn. Though some of us definately are, I feel that a lot of people took it to heart and jumped all over Dunn, chomping at the bit to beat him with his own golf clubs.

I'm glad you asked this, because I just found something interesting.

I think our minds sometimes play tricks on us. I read that thread, and it seemed to me that just a couple people were trashing Dunn. But when you read it, you felt like tons of people were.

Well, I decided to do a very (un)scientific study. I read the first four pages of that thread and marked each post and reply as either:

1) Critical of Dunn or openly questions his commitment to the team because of the comments
2) Supportive of Dunn and generally scoffs at the story as pointless or flawed
3) Neutral - usually a smarty-pants reply or off-topic remark

So, were there only a few critical comments like I thought? Or were tons of people trashing Dunn like you thought? Oddly, neither one of us was really right:

18 replies were critical of Dunn or at least questioned his commitment
36 replies defended Dunn or downplayed the importance of the story
27 replies simply tried to lighten the mood or were neutral

Again, it was unscientific but I think it shows that people are much more likely to defend Dunn than bash him.

A few posters had a lot of the replies in the thread (so their opinions counted more than once) - but this is true of both sides. Generally, I think (and the numbers seems to support me) that twice as many people were there to defend Dunn than to call him out.

(I'd encourage a few more people to do the same thing and see if your numbers match mine. I honestly tried to evaluate the replies as impartially as possible.)

[Team Clark]

I'm glad you asked this, because I just found something interesting.

I think our minds sometimes play tricks on us. I read that thread, and it seemed to me that just a couple people were trashing Dunn. But when you read it, you felt like tons of people were.

Well, I decided to do a very (un)scientific study. I read the first four pages of that thread and marked each post and reply as either:

1) Critical of Dunn or openly questions his commitment to the team because of the comments
2) Supportive of Dunn and generally scoffs at the story as pointless or flawed
3) Neutral - usually a smarty-pants reply or off-topic remark

So, were there only a few critical comments like I thought? Or were tons of people trashing Dunn like you thought? Oddly, neither one of us was really right:

18 replies were critical of Dunn or at least questioned his commitment
36 replies defended Dunn or downplayed the importance of the story
27 replies simply tried to lighten the mood or were neutral

Again, it was unscientific but I think it shows that people are much more likely to defend Dunn than bash him.

A few posters had a lot of the replies in the thread (so their opinions counted more than once) - but this is true of both sides. Generally, I think (and the numbers seems to support me) that twice as many people were there to defend Dunn than to call him out.

(I'd encourage a few more people to do the same thing and see if your numbers match mine. I honestly tried to evaluate the replies as impartially as possible.)

I'll go with your math. I've pointed out a bad thing or two about Adam and have been HAMMERED. I've pointed out some really good things about Adam and have been applauded. I need Steel to do the reserach for me to see how I fared. :

[dougflynn23]

Wuithout getting into a debate over the merits of Adam Dunn, I think the biggest issue we as Reds fans have with him is that it seems as if we as fans want him to be great much more than he wants it for himself. He apperars to be content to be very good, but not great. A team will not win if their star offensive player has gaps in his game wider than the Grand Canyon. With Junior in obvious decline, Dunn was needed to raise his game and his game has nor risen. Perception is often reality, and the perception is that Adam Dunn does not work hard at improving his craft and that he is playing about 20-25 pounds too heavy. It is very rare that a player who has hit 40+ HR in 3 consecutive seasons was only an All Star selection in one of those years.

[TOBTTReds]

How do clubs get in the clubhouse? Someone borrowing them and they dropped em off? I could see a couple clubs bc sometimes guys will relax by hitting some golf balls, but a whole set of clubs? Weird to me.

[Blitz Dorsey]

Just win baby.

[BCubb2003]

i think a lot of times an idea gets locked into a running theme that lives on even when circumstances change.

Sometimes it's mostly tongue-in-cheek, like the Chris Denorfia as Chuck Norris theme. You don't hear that much these days. Others are more serious, like Aurilia the selfish aging vet who was blocking Encarnacion (quick-bat doubles machine or struggling infielder with an erratic arm?)

Here are a few more:

Felipe Lopez: all-star hard-hitting heir to Barry Larkin or shaky-fielding stalled talent?

Austin Kearns: Best defense in the outfield and the next Stan Musial or overweight, sent-back-down whiner?

Scott Hatteberg: Pointless acquisition that moved Dunn off first where he belongs and why did we trade Casey then or most productive, consistent, professional hitter at a great price?

Jason Larue: Great arm that can stop a team's running game and a decent 7 or 8 hitter or ice-cold bat that can't call a game and erratic backstop.

Brandon Phillips: Attitude problem with twitchy defense or Krivsky's best pickup and next season's heir to Barry Larkin.

Jerry Narron: Players' manager with a winning record since he took over or scrappy-vet loving, pulling-the-starter-too-late, calling-on Ryan-Franklin-too-often huckleberry.

Marty Brennaman: Hall of Fame announcer who tells it like is, or poufy-haired, tomato-loving egotist.

[Wheelhouse]

Look, I don't care whether Dunn plays golf or not--I think what sent up a flare about Dunn was that the writer of the article, who knows Dunn and how he communicates, clearly felt Dunn conveyed a sense of indifference to extra BP. Also, let's not rule out the possibility that Archdeacon has seen a trend in Dunn, and used this instance as the clearest means of illustrating the attitude of a player who could work harder. Who knows. The one thing I do know is that the piece was not about golf or what Dunn does in his spare time. It was about what Dunn doesn't do as a baseball player.

[Natty Redlocks]

i think a lot of times an idea gets locked into a running theme that lives on even when circumstances change.

Sometimes it's mostly tongue-in-cheek, like the Chris Denorfia as Chuck Norris theme. You don't hear that much these days. Others are more serious, like Aurilia the selfish aging vet who was blocking Encarnacion (quick-bat doubles machine or struggling infielder with an erratic arm?)

Here are a few more:

Felipe Lopez: all-star hard-hitting heir to Barry Larkin or shaky-fielding stalled talent?

Austin Kearns: Best defense in the outfield and the next Stan Musial or overweight, sent-back-down whiner?

Scott Hatteberg: Pointless acquisition that moved Dunn off first where he belongs and why did we trade Casey then or most productive, consistent, professional hitter at a great price?

Jason Larue: Great arm that can stop a team's running game and a decent 7 or 8 hitter or ice-cold bat that can't call a game and erratic backstop.

Brandon Phillips: Attitude problem with twitchy defense or Krivsky's best pickup and next season's heir to Barry Larkin.

Jerry Narron: Players' manager with a winning record since he took over or scrappy-vet loving, pulling-the-starter-too-late, calling-on Ryan-Franklin-too-often huckleberry.

Marty Brennaman: Hall of Fame announcer who tells it like is, or poufy-haired, tomato-loving egotist.

Don't forget:

Ryan Freel: The most exciting, hard-working player on the team, or glorified bench player with a degenerate toe who really can't play every day, just you watch, any day now....

Royce Clayton: Huge downgrade from Lopez offensively with defense just as shaky, or......huge downgrade from Lopez offensively with defense just as shaky?

Gary Majewski: Satan himself, or just one of Satan's minions?