Adam Dunn
in [Cincinnati Reds]
|
Next: Matt Maloney
From: John Kasupski on 10 Jun 2007 14:10 On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 12:09:27 -0400, "RJA" <rja(a)nospam.cinci.rr.com> wrote: >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. That's been one of my beliefs about Dunn for a couple of years now. With two strikes, just make contact. Single to right. Single up the middle. Anything but try to hit the ball into the river and end up striking out. Going back to the beginning of your paragraph, when you consider how many times he's drawing a base on balls, striking out 190+ times a season is just an astounding number of Ks. John D, Kasupski, Tonawanda, NY Reds Fan Since The 1960's http://www.kc2hmz.net
From: John Kasupski on 10 Jun 2007 14:12 On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 12:02:06 -0400, "RJA" <rja(a)nospam.cinci.rr.com> wrote: >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. You mean Rob Deer, or another kind? :-)
From: RJA on 10 Jun 2007 14:50 "C'Pi" <nospam(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:466c3368$0$97223$892e7fe2(a)authen.yellow.readfreenews.net... > 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. I don't know about that. He strands plenty of runners. >> 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. I posted the splits in a separate note. The bottom line is that with 2 strikes, he is beyond terrible. Ironically, watching the game today he appears to be more defensive with 2 strikes. >> 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. Well we can talk decline simply based on 05 and 06 following his best year, 04. So far this year, he's worse. Maybe some of the stat heads can tell us what a truly good RBI season is these days. I know 100 is a nice, big round number and this used to be somewhat of a standard back in the mid 80s, but these days I'm not sure that 100 is really a summit, especially for a guy who plays 160 games a year. Sure it's more than the other Reds but I'm not sure that's saying much. I also wouldn't expect Dunn's RBI totals to increase in a lineup with better hitters, because those better hitters would take some of his away.
From: Kevin McClave on 11 Jun 2007 21:02 On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 18:12:54 -0400, "RJA" <rja(a)nospam.cinci.rr.com> wrote: >"C'Pi" <nospam(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message >news:466d3f99$0$97252$892e7fe2(a)authen.yellow.readfreenews.net... >> RJA wrote: >>> >>> As you can see below, he's already as bad as it gets with 2 strikes. When >>> something is terrible and can't get any worse, you can either >>> continue to do what you're doing (and be a fool), or you can try to >>> make an adjustment. I'm for the latter. >>> >>> Count : avg/obp/slg/% of out as K >>> >>> 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 >> >> But he still ends up with a third of his home runs with 2 strikes on him. >> I thought that was pretty significant when I saw the stats. > >But look at those slugging averages and OBPs above. The home runs aren't >doing squat for those (ok they are, but they're still terrible). All we do >around here is negate counting stats like HR, RBI, Runs scored and defer to >OBP and SLG. So we don't get to do the opposite when we want to hang onto >home runs in the presence of abysmal percentages. > >Like I said, it can't get any worse, so let's give a different 2 strike >approach a shot and not assume that it comes at a cost of all these home >runs because assumptions aren't allowed around here. ;) I think most players are bad with two strikes. I'd be interested to know what the average output is in those situations. ****************************************************************** Kevin McClave "To justify himself, each relies on the other's crime." ~Albert Camus ******************************************************************
From: RJA on 11 Jun 2007 21:21
"Kevin McClave" <kmcclaveSPAM(a)SUCKStwcny.rr.com> wrote in message news:t2sr63h53bh3v3o7ucc7cb203qaq5gbrc3(a)4ax.com... > On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 18:12:54 -0400, "RJA" <rja(a)nospam.cinci.rr.com> wrote: > >>"C'Pi" <nospam(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message >>news:466d3f99$0$97252$892e7fe2(a)authen.yellow.readfreenews.net... >>> RJA wrote: >>>> >>>> As you can see below, he's already as bad as it gets with 2 strikes. >>>> When >>>> something is terrible and can't get any worse, you can either >>>> continue to do what you're doing (and be a fool), or you can try to >>>> make an adjustment. I'm for the latter. >>>> >>>> Count : avg/obp/slg/% of out as K >>>> >>>> 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 >>> >>> But he still ends up with a third of his home runs with 2 strikes on >>> him. >>> I thought that was pretty significant when I saw the stats. >> >>But look at those slugging averages and OBPs above. The home runs aren't >>doing squat for those (ok they are, but they're still terrible). All we >>do >>around here is negate counting stats like HR, RBI, Runs scored and defer >>to >>OBP and SLG. So we don't get to do the opposite when we want to hang onto >>home runs in the presence of abysmal percentages. >> >>Like I said, it can't get any worse, so let's give a different 2 strike >>approach a shot and not assume that it comes at a cost of all these home >>runs because assumptions aren't allowed around here. ;) > > I think most players are bad with two strikes. I'd be interested to know > what the average output is in those situations. I agree, and I pointed that out, but I don't think they're this bad. I would, however, be interested in those numbers throwing out hitters under 25 years old who have the tendency to skew those averages due to their newness in the league. Dunn is supposed to be peaking at this age. |