Login

Fella · 12-16-2008, 08:43 PM

QUOTE (Butcher @ Dec 16 2008, 05:22 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Lee strikes out a lot, too, btw. 164 (Dunn). 119 (Lee). Of course, Dunn hit twice as many homers as Lee, also.

Well I wouldn't argue against Dunn being better than Lee offensively, especially this past year, Lee was really only the 6th or 7th best hitter on our team and in the 2nd half his OPS was only .733

I also wouldn't argue against Dunn being a solid above average offensive player.

However he is not the Bronze God of baseball he gets made out to be a lot of people and he would be a bad fit for the Cubs.

Clapp · 12-16-2008, 08:48 PM

QUOTE (Brock @ Dec 16 2008, 06:35 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Scarey @ Dec 16 2008, 05:21 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>If we were to somehow sign Adam Dunn, he's most likely going to split up Lee and Ramirez and I would assume that Lee moves to the 2 hole while Dunn occupies the 3.

As the number 3 hitter last year, Lee had 180 plate appearances with RISP. I'm going to assume that Dunn would get about the same amount of opportunities in that same situation. WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT AN INSIGNIFICANT STAT HERE! That's a hell of a lot of opportunities to drive in runs.

To have a guy that doesn't historically hit well in that situation, I'm not too thrilled. Yes, he will get on base, but why not put Theriot at the three spot if all you want from your three hitter is to walk? I mean, Theriot had a higher OBP last year then Dunn's career average, if we just want to make sure to get our 3 hitter on, I don't see any reason Theriot can't bat there and save the 10s of millions of dollars that Dunn will cost per season.

I'm not sure where you are getting the idea that Dunn doesn't do well with RISP.

Dunn with RISP:

2005: .248/.468/.574
2006: .221/.394/.529
2007: .241/.403/.411
2008: .241/.418/.511

With those SLG numbers (other than 2007) he isn't just walking in those situations.
</div>
When there's a runner in scoring position, you don't need to be swinging for the fence, that's the point. Slugging percentage should be irrelevant with RISP. Sure it's nicer to get a double, triple or homer, but a simple single does the job. A lot of those times you just need a groundball to second base or a lazy flyball to centerfield. Aramis was coming out of his shoes in the previous 2 playoffs. Look at this October. How many times was Lee standing at 2nd base and we didn't get him in because Aramis was swinging for the fence, instead of shortening his swing and just taking the pitch to right field for a single?

savant · 12-16-2008, 08:54 PM

Fella's post earlier about there just being so many things that Dunn does poorly does it for me. If we had not signed Soriano to the ridiculous contract I would be all for signing Dunn, but with Soriano on this team there is no where for Dunn to play. Baseball is a game where when you hit a three hopper to the shortstop you should be thrown out at first by a step, and when you hit a flyball that stays in the park an outfielder is supposed to catch it. When you have players on your team that can not perform at a major league level at their defensive position friction and when you have more than one even more friction is going to occur, there is no way a team managed by Lou will ever have two thirds of its outfield manned by Dunn and Soriano.

***jeffy*** · 12-16-2008, 08:57 PM

QUOTE (BT @ Dec 16 2008, 05:02 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Dunn is a valuable player who has distinct weaknesses. I'm not sure I could handle him and Soriano in the same outfield and the same lineup, but for God's sake, while he is not a super star, that certainly doesn't mean he "sucks". He's beat up on the Cubs enough for me to know he can't completely suck.

I think that's a good summary paragraph. As with most things in life, the the truth is usually found in between, and in this case the truth is that Dunn is not a superstar, but he's not terrible either. He has his pros and cons, but I think it's safe to say that he's not really what the Cubs need right now.

Clapp · 12-16-2008, 09:11 PM

QUOTE (jeffy777 @ Dec 16 2008, 07:57 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BT @ Dec 16 2008, 05:02 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Dunn is a valuable player who has distinct weaknesses. I'm not sure I could handle him and Soriano in the same outfield and the same lineup, but for God's sake, while he is not a super star, that certainly doesn't mean he "sucks". He's beat up on the Cubs enough for me to know he can't completely suck.

I think that's a good summary paragraph. As with most things in life, the the truth is usually found in between, and in this case the truth is that Dunn is not a superstar, but he's not terrible either. He has his pros and cons, but I think it's safe to say that he's not really what the Cubs need right now.
</div>
I think everybody feels this way. It's just the constant Dunn worshipping that drives everybody to hate him. If people would shut up about him, I'd be like, "Yeah, unbelievable power and gets on base a ton. Nice combo. He strikes out way too much, doesn't really enjoy playing the game, will struggle against good pitching, and is a train wreck in the outfield, but he'd be a very good addition to most lineups, especially for those looking for power." But yeah, he's an awful, awful fit for <b>our</b> team.

kbwsb · 12-16-2008, 11:19 PM

QUOTE If people would shut up about him, I'd be like, "Yeah, unbelievable power and gets on base a ton. Nice combo. He strikes out way too much, doesn't really enjoy playing the game, will struggle against good pitching, and is a train wreck in the outfield, but he'd be a very good addition to most lineups, especially for those looking for power." But yeah, he's an awful, awful fit for our team.

Not to pick on my good buddy Clappie, but let's go over his points about Dunn, one-by-one:

1. Unbelievable power and gets on base a ton. Nice combo. (it's a spectacular combo, perhaps the absolute best combo a baseball player can have)

2. He strikes out way too much. (95% irrelevant, because strikeouts have EXACTLY the same effect on scoring as a regular out does most of the time. Occasionally it's worse (like with a fast runner on 3rd and less than 2 outs) occasionally it's <i>better</i> (as Butch pointed out, double-play balls are game-killers), but usually, an out is an out.

3. doesn't really enjoy playing the game (totally and completely irrelevant.)

4. will struggle against good pitching (so has every hitter in baseball history. Hank Aaron played in about 24 All-Star games and hit about .180 in them. Ted Williams hit .200 in the World Series. And those guys were magnificent hitters, much better than Dunn. But I haven't seen anyone present a stat that says Dunn performs any better or worse against anyone...it's all been complete conjecture.)

5. and is a train wreck in the outfield (well, I can't argue with that. Although in 2008, he had his best year fielding of the past 4 years, significantly better than in previous years. Was it a real change, or was he just ratcheting things up in a contract year? I can't say, but his trajectory is at least going in the right direction.)

6. but he'd be a very good addition to most lineups, especially for those looking for power. (Uh...what team, including the 1927 Yankees, wouldn't benefit from a guy who's a lock for 40 homers and a .385 OBP? Maybe the Red Sox, who are set at DH, 1B and both corner OF spots wouldn't need him, but he'd be a blessing to most any other team.)

7. But yeah, he's an awful, awful fit for <b>our</b> team. (he'd be a splendid fit for the Cubs. Not perfect, I admit. But our lineup would definitely score more runs, <i>many</i> more than his mediocre defense would give up).

There...now it reads much better. [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif[/img]

savant · 12-16-2008, 11:22 PM

KB, did you see that uzr had Dunn as a -64 runs in right field last year?

HTC · 12-16-2008, 11:22 PM

Adam Dunn needs to retire.

Scarey · 12-16-2008, 11:36 PM

QUOTE (BT @ Dec 16 2008, 07:02 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE As the number 3 hitter last year, Lee had 180 plate appearances with RISP. I'm going to assume that Dunn would get about the same amount of opportunities in that same situation. WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT AN INSIGNIFICANT STAT HERE! That's a hell of a lot of opportunities to drive in runs.

Those are a LOT of assumptions. Without going through them one by one, I'll simply say that even assuming he is our #3 hitter, having a guy who both walks and slugs to the tune of a .518 slg percentage is NOT a bad thing.

Regardless, whether or not Dunn is any good, and whether or not he would be a good fit for the Cubs are 2 entirely separate arguments. You might convince me he doens't belong on the Cubs, but you won't convince me he is worthless because his BA with RISP is low.
</div>

I had to make assumptions just so I could get a number to present to you. Regardless of where he hits, he's going to get a ton of opportunities to hit with RISP and that's my point.

Once again, nobody is saying he's worthless. Also, I believe most if not all of my comments on Dunn have been in regards of him fitting into our lineup. So, I'm not making any type of argument for if he belongs on any other team.

I don't understand BT. You keep acting like we're throwing everything Dunn does out the window when Clapp and myself, the two biggest and loudest opponents in this thread, keep talking about how we don't want him on THIS Cubs team. Many others have chimed in with comments about not wanting both Sori and Dunn on the same team.

We're not just saying Dunn sucks. He's good. No matter what KB says though, I think there's plenty of options that make us a better team then adding Dunn as our RFer.

***rok*** · 12-16-2008, 11:44 PM

There isn't a single doubt in my mind that we would be a better team during the regular and postseason with Bradley in RF rather than Dunn. I never said Dunn was worthless, but you have to judge a player on how he fits a particular team, and I'm sorry but he has no spot on ours unless either Lee or Soriano are traded. Even then, he wouldn't be my first choice as a replacement. Looks like his options are limited so far as well, as I haven't heard a lot of GMs clamoring for his services this offseason.

kbwsb · 12-17-2008, 01:29 AM

I'm going to debate myself here. [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif[/img]
(Dunn is an interesting player to discuss because he's so unique, and because both his strengths AND his weaknesses are practically off-the-chart. Thus, all of us have tended to take extreme positions).

But I'd be remiss in my duties as a Cub fan (and a sabermetric type) if I didn't throw in this: corner OFers are the most easily replaceable guys in the lineup. Especially left-fielders.

A catcher who can hit? Real rare (we don't know how lucky we got with Soto.) Middle infielders who can really hit? Again, rare.
But a LF who can hit? They all can. It's practically the job definition, because almost any guy with a modicum of athletic ability can play the position, defensively. Thus if you can't hit pretty damn well, you don't get the job.
Good hit-bad field LF guys (Pat Burrell is another good example) are not gonna be <i>that</i> much more valuable than a replacement-level player from AAA, unless they truly hit a TON, like Manny.

So even though I think Dunn would be a whole lot better for us than, say, Fuk, I still couldn't justify spending $60 million to get him.
(Now, if the rumors are true about him dying to be a Cub, and he'd take a lot less...)

AlexV · 12-17-2008, 03:05 AM

I don't see the point of all the Dunn discusion.

Adam Dunn will not be a Cub next year!

veryzer · 12-17-2008, 10:51 AM

QUOTE (BT @ Dec 16 2008, 04:02 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (veryzer @ Dec 16 2008, 12:47 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (leonardsipes @ Dec 16 2008, 11:28 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Adam Dunn is an example of a failure of stat analysis. The analysis is wrong, because stat people treat baseball events as if they are random (because of: 1) law of large numbers and 2) events do occur within the range of normal distribution). To them the math (OBP is the most important) trumps what they see when the watch the game.

When you watch the games, you see that how opposing teams pitch Dunn is not random. If the run on base is crucial, they try to pitch so he can't hit the ball (BB or KO). Having him on base does not matter, and if 1b was open might even help them (that will make your calculator explode). If the benefit of an out is greater than the cost of him getting a hit (even a HR) they pitch to contact (one of the more difficult tasks in pitching).

All the things that make baseball, baseball, don't show up in the numbers. No matter how many times a stat head sees the other team walk Dunn and still get out of the inning, they will say it will all even out in then end. All runs are the same, all OBP is the same and putting Dunn on base increases the expected runs for Dunn's team.

bingo.

babe ruth, ted williams, and post steroid barry bonds would hit .360 AND walk 140 times every year. that means that when they weren't being walked, they were still getting on base. dunn, if he isn't walking, is more than likely striking out or hitting a solo home run. thats why he sucks. he can't hit.

i'm not sure my point has anything to with sipes point, but i like sipes point nevertheless.
</div>

So we've established that Dunn isn't as good as possibly the three best hitters of all time? OK, I guess I can agree with that.

You guys are insane. To whatever degree that the stat guys overrate Dunn because he walks, you guys are going the exact opposite way because he strikes out too much. Look, a guy who has a .380 career OPB is FUCKING VALUABLE. A guy who has a .518 career slugging percentage IS FUCKING VALUABLE. A guy who hits 40 home runs a year IS FUCKING VALUABLE.

Yes he's not perfect, yes he can't field, yes he is not a line drive machine, but you guys continually put across the baffling argument that he can't hit AND teams pitch around him. So according to you, he gets NO credit for walking and NO credit for hitting home runs, even though he is one of the most prolific players in baseball on both counts. And those are good things to be good at when you want to score runs. The only things that suddenly matter are his average with runners in scoring position, and strikeouts.

and for fuck's sake, give up on the strikeouts. Yes, he strikes out a lot, and yes, he will strand guys at third because of that. Do you realize that Aramis has grounded into nearly 3 times as many double plays as Dunn has? That's 2 outs for the price of one. You don't think THAT costs as many runs as striking out with a man on third with less than 2 outs does? Strikeouts are a weakness, but they don't completely invalidate 40 home run power.

Dunn is a valuable player who has distinct weaknesses. I'm not sure I could handle him and Soriano in the same outfield and the same lineup, but for God's sake, while he is not a super star, that certainly doesn't mean he "sucks". He's beat up on the Cubs enough for me to know he can't completely suck.
</div>

i'm just going to address the ramirez point. how many times did ramirez hit into a double play and still score a run? how many times did he hit into a double play and still drive in a run? how many times did he ground into a double play and still advance a runner to third?

now what happens when dunn strikes out? nothing. putting a ball in play trumps a strike out every time. striking out accomplishes nothing for your team. nothing. i'm an uneducated swine, so maybe my point makes no sense?

BT · 12-17-2008, 11:11 AM

QUOTE 'm just going to address the ramirez point. how many times did ramirez hit into a double play and still score a run? how many times did he hit into a double play and still drive in a run? how many times did he ground into a double play and still advance a runner to third?

Probably not that many? Conversely, how many times did Dunn strikeout INSTEAD of hitting into a double play, keeping the inning alive for the next guy? My guess is that these things at least even out, or if not, the difference is minimal.

QUOTE now what happens when dunn strikes out? nothing. putting a ball in play trumps a strike out every time. striking out accomplishes nothing for your team. nothing. i'm an uneducated swine, so maybe my point makes no sense?

Look, I think we can all agree on the uneducated swine thing, right? But I do have one counterpoint. Part of the reason the Cubs pitchers like Zambrano have such a hard time going deep into games is because they are strikeout pitchers, and if nothing else, striking out a guy take 3 pitches at the minimum. So as far as stretching an opposing hitter, striking out is actually more valuable than grounding out on the first pitch. I'm not saying striking out is a PLUS, but if we are really going to parse Dunn's at bats to this degree, it does at least accomplish SOMETHING.

Scarey · 12-17-2008, 11:21 AM

QUOTE (BT @ Dec 17 2008, 10:11 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Look, I think we can all agree on the uneducated swine thing, right? But I do have one counterpoint. Part of the reason the Cubs pitchers like Zambrano have such a hard time going deep into games is because they are strikeout pitchers, and if nothing else, striking out a guy take 3 pitches at the minimum. So as far as stretching an opposing hitter, striking out is actually more valuable than grounding out on the first pitch. I'm not saying striking out is a PLUS, but if we are really going to parse Dunn's at bats to this degree, it does at least accomplish SOMETHING.

That's a good point. On the other hand though, Dunn doesn't swing for contact, he swings for power. Therefor, when he's in a two strike count, he's more likely to swing and miss then swing and foul off a pitch and extend the AB.

It may be a moot point because of the amount of walks he takes though.

Login
Username:
Password:	Lost Password?
	Remember me