Adam Dunn
in [Cincinnati Reds]
|
Next: Matt Maloney
From: RJA on 10 Jun 2007 12:28 "RJA" <rja(a)nospam.cinci.rr.com> wrote in message news:466c217d$0$4644$4c368faf(a)roadrunner.com... > "Kevin McClave" <kmcclaveSPAM(a)SUCKStwcny.rr.com> wrote in message > news:ck5o635hu0l6qcfjioqh9v1mipjishi73f(a)4ax.com... >> On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 22:47:20 +0800, "C'Pi" <nospam(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >>>John Kasupski wrote: >>>> On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 18:07:12 +0800, "C'Pi" <nospam(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Of course in any single at bat it would be nice if Dunn didn't >>>>> strike out. But you have to take all of his at bats as a whole. >>>> >>>> Why's that? At any given time that Dunn (or anybody else for that >>>> matter) steps to the plate, the results of past plate appearances have >>>> absolutely no effect on what's going to happen during his current >>>> plate appearances. Doesn't matter if he's just struck out ten times in >>>> a row, he has the same opportunity on his next plate appearance that >>>> he has on any other. >>> >>>That's irrelevant to what I said. Over a season you take the good, you >>>take >>>the bad. Over the last few seasons no one on the Reds has produced as >>>much >>>as Dunn. That's a lot of good that I wouldn't want to screw with in the >>>hopes of changing his bad. >> >> And because of his bad (the perceived negative of his Ks), people >> routinely underrate the good (he'll hit a HR here and there, etc.), and >> even tend to leave out half of his value (the BBs). > > I account for both of those. They're just not worth 13 million bucks next > year when you look at all his other deficiencies. If the rest of his game > was decent, I'd be willing to put up with it. > > And I don't care what anyone says, it is NOT ok to strike out 39% of your > at bats. That is well above his career mark and he's supposed to be > improving. I'd question if anyone else has struck out at that rate. > Reducing those Ks would result in better numbers and I don't think it > comes at a cost. Be your normal slugging self until you're down 2 > strikes. When you reach that point, make the adjustment and just put the > bat on the ball instead of going down swinging or looking. Something good > could happen. Plenty of smart players do this, yet I watch Dunn swing for > the fences on 0-2. That is not the proper approach. To further illustrate Dunn after 2 strikes. Count : avg/obp/slg/%k per ab After 0-2 : .204/.246/.426/.592 After 1-2 : .125/.195/.250/.675 After 2-2 : .129/.250/.194/.742 After 3-2 : .172/.500/.345/.620 Now of course a lot of hitters' numbers drop when they're down 2 strikes, but I wouldn't expect it to be this drastic. The bottom line, when you're down 2 strikes, you need to be more of a defensive hitter, shorten up, make contact, hope something good happens as a result. If you watch Dunn on a daily basis, you know that is not his philosophy. Same swing for the fences approach in any count. Prior to 2 strikes, I'm fine with his typical approach and the not trying to change him philosophy.
From: C'Pi on 10 Jun 2007 12:53 RJA wrote: > "Kevin McClave" <kmcclaveSPAM(a)SUCKStwcny.rr.com> wrote in message > news:ck5o635hu0l6qcfjioqh9v1mipjishi73f(a)4ax.com... >> On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 22:47:20 +0800, "C'Pi" <nospam(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >>> John Kasupski wrote: >>>> On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 18:07:12 +0800, "C'Pi" <nospam(a)yahoo.com> >>>> wrote: >>>>> Of course in any single at bat it would be nice if Dunn didn't >>>>> strike out. But you have to take all of his at bats as a whole. >>>> >>>> Why's that? At any given time that Dunn (or anybody else for that >>>> matter) steps to the plate, the results of past plate appearances >>>> have absolutely no effect on what's going to happen during his >>>> current plate appearances. Doesn't matter if he's just struck out >>>> ten times in a row, he has the same opportunity on his next plate >>>> appearance that he has on any other. >>> >>> That's irrelevant to what I said. Over a season you take the good, >>> you take >>> the bad. Over the last few seasons no one on the Reds has produced >>> as much >>> as Dunn. That's a lot of good that I wouldn't want to screw with >>> in the hopes of changing his bad. >> >> And because of his bad (the perceived negative of his Ks), people >> routinely underrate the good (he'll hit a HR here and there, etc.), >> and even tend to leave out half of his value (the BBs). > > I account for both of those. They're just not worth 13 million bucks > next year when you look at all his other deficiencies. If the rest > of his game was decent, I'd be willing to put up with it. > > And I don't care what anyone says, it is NOT ok to strike out 39% of > your at bats. That is well above his career mark and he's supposed > to be improving. I'd question if anyone else has struck out at that > rate. Reducing those Ks would result in better numbers and I don't > think it comes at a cost. Be your normal slugging self until you're > down 2 strikes. When you reach that point, make the adjustment and > just put the bat on the ball instead of going down swinging or > looking. Something good could happen. Plenty of smart players do > this, yet I watch Dunn swing for the fences on 0-2. That is not the > proper approach. If I've done this right then this is Dunn's homers on differnet counts. 0-0 39 3-2 27 2-2 25 1-1 24 1-0 22 2-1 17 3-1 15 0-1 12 2-0 12 1-2 11 0-2 7 3-0 2 So about 1 in every three homers that Dunn hits, 33%, he hits with two strikes on him. Personally, I'd rather not see Dunn give up all those home runs in order to strike out less. And then there would be the statistics of how many times he walks after getting two strikes on him. Somebody else will have to find that information.
From: RJA on 10 Jun 2007 13:15 "C'Pi" <nospam(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:466c2c6e$0$97255$892e7fe2(a)authen.yellow.readfreenews.net... > RJA wrote: >> "Kevin McClave" <kmcclaveSPAM(a)SUCKStwcny.rr.com> wrote in message >> news:ck5o635hu0l6qcfjioqh9v1mipjishi73f(a)4ax.com... >>> On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 22:47:20 +0800, "C'Pi" <nospam(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>> >>>> John Kasupski wrote: >>>>> On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 18:07:12 +0800, "C'Pi" <nospam(a)yahoo.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> Of course in any single at bat it would be nice if Dunn didn't >>>>>> strike out. But you have to take all of his at bats as a whole. >>>>> >>>>> Why's that? At any given time that Dunn (or anybody else for that >>>>> matter) steps to the plate, the results of past plate appearances >>>>> have absolutely no effect on what's going to happen during his >>>>> current plate appearances. Doesn't matter if he's just struck out >>>>> ten times in a row, he has the same opportunity on his next plate >>>>> appearance that he has on any other. >>>> >>>> That's irrelevant to what I said. Over a season you take the good, >>>> you take >>>> the bad. Over the last few seasons no one on the Reds has produced >>>> as much >>>> as Dunn. That's a lot of good that I wouldn't want to screw with >>>> in the hopes of changing his bad. >>> >>> And because of his bad (the perceived negative of his Ks), people >>> routinely underrate the good (he'll hit a HR here and there, etc.), >>> and even tend to leave out half of his value (the BBs). >> >> I account for both of those. They're just not worth 13 million bucks >> next year when you look at all his other deficiencies. If the rest >> of his game was decent, I'd be willing to put up with it. >> >> And I don't care what anyone says, it is NOT ok to strike out 39% of >> your at bats. That is well above his career mark and he's supposed >> to be improving. I'd question if anyone else has struck out at that >> rate. Reducing those Ks would result in better numbers and I don't >> think it comes at a cost. Be your normal slugging self until you're >> down 2 strikes. When you reach that point, make the adjustment and >> just put the bat on the ball instead of going down swinging or >> looking. Something good could happen. Plenty of smart players do >> this, yet I watch Dunn swing for the fences on 0-2. That is not the >> proper approach. > > If I've done this right then this is Dunn's homers on differnet counts. > > 0-0 39 > 3-2 27 > 2-2 25 > 1-1 24 > 1-0 22 > 2-1 17 > 3-1 15 > 0-1 12 > 2-0 12 > 1-2 11 > 0-2 7 > 3-0 2 > > So about 1 in every three homers that Dunn hits, 33%, he hits with two > strikes on him. Personally, I'd rather not see Dunn give up all those > home runs in order to strike out less. And then there would be the > statistics of how many times he walks after getting two strikes on him. > Somebody else will have to find that information. He wouldn't be giving up the home runs, necessarily. You don't have to swing from the heels to homer. Good contact from a guy this strong, coupled with the velocity of the pitch puts the ball over the wall just as well.
From: C'Pi on 10 Jun 2007 13:23 RJA wrote: > > > To be fair, that's more a negative about the team in general than a > high five for Dunn. Over 160 games played I expect way more than 92 > RBI out of a guy with 40 HR. In 1982 I believe, Ron Oester led the > Reds with something like 58 RBI. It didn't make him a stud. Sure, but then if Ron Oester hit 92 RBI he would have been at least a little bit of a stud. Not a big one, but at least a little bit of one. And then if Dunn played on a better team there would be more men on base for him to drive in. You can't blame Dunn when the guys hitting in front of him don't get on. > Dunn pinch hit last night and looked at 2 pitches right down the > middle to fall behind 0-2. He took a questionable strike 3. Had he > swung the bat, it could have been a different outcome. My biggest > complaint is not swinging at pitches that he could put into the river. You probably saw the statistics I posted in another post. Now since Dunn has only hit 7 home runs with an 0-2 count it may be a good time to think about not trying to swing for the fences. But then how many times does an 0-2 count turn into a 1-2 count? And then a 2-2 count? My point is that I'm not sure it's really that big of a benefit to think only about making contact after a 0-2 count. The odds are in favor of the ball he hits still being an out and I'm not sure that the few additional singles he would end up with are worth sacrificing the chance of a walk or a big hit. > No, it's because he's a guess hitter and he doesn't swing unless the > pitch matches what he's looking for. Deer in headlights, that sorta > thing. So is this the kind of guy you want up there just trying to make contact? > The bottom line is that you're right, but the inability to improve > and the decline at his age since 2004 says that this is all we're > going to get out of the guy and it's simply not enough for the money, > especially when other outfielders are on the horizon. I'd like to see him finish the year before saying his in decline. And if there's some young stud that comes along that will hit 40 home runs and 100 RBIs, score 100 runs, and walk 100 times, and at the same time hit for average with less strikes outs then put him out there. But until that time comes I'd leave Dunn where he is.
From: John Kasupski on 10 Jun 2007 14:05
On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 22:47:20 +0800, "C'Pi" <nospam(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >John Kasupski wrote: >> The winning run for the Indians last night scored on a fielder's >> choice grounder off the bat of Hafner. Gee, I wonder how many runs >> they score on that play if Hafner strikes out instead? > >Or if he had hit a home run? Or gotten a hit? Or walked? Any of those >possibilities would have won the game also and I'm sure any one of those >possibilities is what Hafner was thinking rather than almost hitting into a >double play. (I'm speculating on the play since the best I could do was >follow the gamecast on ESPN) None those possibilities would have become reality if Hafner had just stood there with the bat on his shoulder hoping the pitch was a ball. >Sometimes you win games and sometimes you lose games with a swing or even a >non-swing of the bat. A couple days ago I saw the Padres beat the Dodgers >by having the batter leave the bat sitting on his shoulder. Yeah, I know, Russell Branyan's bases-loaded walk. Just for the record, that makes one RBI for Branyan this season via a walk, 13 RBIs via swinging the bat. >You don't think Adam Dunn would like to be Albert Pujols? I would. So >would probably 95% of all the other hitters in baseball. They can't because >Albert Pujols is a very rare talent and telling Adam Dunn to swing more >isn't going to turn him into Albert Pujols. I wish it would, but it won't. >Just like telling Juan Castro that all he has to do is swing harder and hit >the ball and he could be Albert Pujols won't work either. There's more to it than that. Strikeouts don't only happen because the batter stands there and watches strike three go by, they also happen because the guy swings and misses. In Dunn's case, I think cutting down on that long swing of his with two strikes, and just trying to single up the middle instead of trying to hit the ball into the Ohio River on every swing, would very likely tack some extra points onto his BA and OBP as well. John D, Kasupski, Tonawanda, NY Reds Fan Since The 1960's http://www.kc2hmz.net |