MLB Home Run Leaders, 2004-2008
- Alex Rodriguez - 208
- Adam Dunn - 206
- Albert Pujols - 205
- David Ortiz - 200
- Manny Ramirez - 180
about 3 years ago
Jay
209 comments
3 recs |
Email
PrintComments
Drag a net out there and haul him in.
Dunn da Dunn Dunn.
Dunn da Dunn Dunn DUNN!
by Logodaedalus on Dec 11, 2008 4:45 PM EST up reply actions
Seriously, are there really people out there who don’t want Dunn? I don’t think we’ll get him, but why wouldn’t we want him? Do we already have enough high-OBP home run hitters in our lineup?
The best thing probably is to hit [Grady] 2nd -- Jay
I’ll bite. I’m not a big Dunn enthusiast, not because I think he’s bad, but because I don’t think he’s likely to be worth the amount of money we’d have to spend to get him. If he could be had inexpensively on a short term contract, I could be persuaded, although I’d still worry about his playing the OF (if Hafner is truly done, and Dunn replaced him, then that’s another story). But, I worry that Dunn’s skills (basically hitting home runs and walking) are narrow and that he’s a risk to deteriorate quickly, as has been pointed out by others. http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2008/9/25/621647/are-pat-burrell-and-adam-d
Seriously, someone needs to repost that projected lineup if Dunn is signed to play in the outfield. I mean, just thinking about that offense with our apparently new closer from the Cubs… It gives me…….
wait for it……
wait. for. it….
a boner.
You know Selig? Ombudsman.
by rolub on Dec 11, 2008 4:56 PM EST up reply actions 5 recs
totally inappropriate…
One of these days... bang, zoom, straight to the moon...
by mixmasterasia on Dec 12, 2008 9:37 AM EST up reply actions
Aw come on now. I hope you’re just joking around. Your signature refers to spousal abuse.
Steel Nick
by nickjs21 on Dec 12, 2008 10:44 AM EST up reply actions 4 recs
Well, you know, I’m trying to make use of all the rarely-used FanShot formats. Nobody ever posts a List FanShot.
I’ll get on that. I find that arranging things in a list without having to do any work of my own is one of my greatest skills.
Burn on, big river, burn on...
by Turkmenbashi on Dec 11, 2008 4:57 PM EST up reply actions
I really think you should be able to FanShot a poll. I’d say it’s more critical than FanPosting one.
by fleerdon on Dec 11, 2008 6:04 PM EST up reply actions
OK, two-year minimum.
Burn on, big river, burn on...
by Turkmenbashi on Dec 11, 2008 4:58 PM EST up reply actions
I’d love to sign Dunn. Still not going to happen.
But yeah, you can never have too many high OBP- high HR guys.
The strikeout argument is kind of silly to me inlight of hos obp anyways. I mean, you can either get on base or you can’t.
I think he believes that Shap reads the forums and he’s doing the reverse psychology/dare thing. Otherwise, he’d back it up with something eventually instead of blanket statements.
Still the local "Barfield Bounces Back Believer" and confident that Gutz will succeed in Seattle.
I already laid out my arguments in two different threads besides this one.
by world dictator on Dec 12, 2008 12:07 AM EST up reply actions
1. At this point, the premise for signing Dunn is based on the assumption that Dunn could be signed cheaply. I have yet to see evidence that Dunn’s market value has fallen so low we’d be able to afford him with the estimated $7 to $10 million we have left in this year’s budget. Bad economy or not, guys who hit 40 home runs don’t sign for that cheap.
2. I’m also skeptical of how long this depressed market for Dunn would last if it does in fact exist. I interpret GM’s saying they won’t sign Dunn for more than $10 mil the same way I interpret Scott Boras saying he wants 5 years $70 million for Oliver Perez. Its all posturing. And at the end of the day, it only takes one desperate GM.
3. But let’s say Dunn’s price tag has fallen somewhere near our price range. I doubt the Indians could afford to offer a more lucrative contract than other teams who have already inquired about Dunn.
4. After Tex signs, I expect the teams that missed out on him to make a run for Dunn. The Nationals because they’ve consistently expressed an intrest in Dunn and the Angels because they more or less have publically stated their need for a high OBP player. Not to mention, the pressure to sign a big name free agent after missing out on Tex and CC. Of course, these are just two examples.
5. Worse case scenario for Dunn, he decides to sign a one year deal and wait for better economic times. I think its unlikely he decides to switch to the harder league where he would have to face unfamilar pitchers. Seems like a big risk to me.
6. Even if Dunn does sign a one year deal, I think the chances we get outbid dramtically increase because of the decrease risk involved.
7. As far as the Indians are concerned, Shapiro said he’s still looking to upgrade the major league team with a middle infielder, so I doubt Dunn is even on their radar.
8. The idea that we might stretch our payroll to sign a player is not a persuasive argument that we can afford Dunn. That’s just my personal opinion though.
9. If we did decide to stretch our remaining budget a few million to give us $13 to $ 14 million, I get the feeling that Shapiro would look at signing a starter.
10. I hope that if I keep saying we have no chance of signing Dunn, Shapiro will sign him just to spite me. :-)
by world dictator on Dec 12, 2008 12:00 AM EST up reply actions
The market for starters may be exploding though. There’s just nothing of any value that’s remotely affordable.
I think $13 or $14 million per year gets you Sheets on a three year deal. I don’t know how Shapiro feels about his injury history though.
by world dictator on Dec 12, 2008 12:40 AM EST up reply actions
can you imagine the threads for games started by Randy Johnson and finished by Wood?
by Logodaedalus on Dec 12, 2008 12:52 AM EST up reply actions
Best sign I ever saw:
“It’ll take more than 9 Yanks to beat our Johnson!”
Steel Nick
by nickjs21 on Dec 12, 2008 10:12 AM EST up reply actions 3 recs
Speaking of pitching. Does this rapidly collapsing market for Jake Peavy bother anyone else? The Cubs practically had Peavy handed to them and they still couldn’t get it done.
That’s who I’d like to stretch the budget for!
by world dictator on Dec 12, 2008 1:02 AM EST up reply actions
Perhaps the one available pitcher that makes me say “Greinke who?”
by Logodaedalus on Dec 12, 2008 1:25 AM EST up reply actions
We have all heard the $9 million a year for Dunn. How does that not fit between 7 and 10? Sure, if he hits $14 million, we can’t sign him. But, if he stays at that $9 million level, we would be unwise to not at least consider him. The whole argument here is that if Dunn stays in our range, he would be a great signing. Until he signs for far more than is apparently being offered him, don’t you think it is hasty to proclaim we will not get him?
Did you not read #3?
3. But let’s say Dunn’s price tag has fallen somewhere near our price range. I doubt the Indians could afford to offer a more lucrative contract than other teams who have already inquired about Dunn.
It’s obvious. If the market price for Dunn falls to $9 M, someone will sign him for $11. Therefore, we can not sign him $9M, even if we could.
That’s nothing but raving pessimism. “We won’t get player x because someone will spend more.” That’s not a reason.
Oh stop it. I swear you guys are acting like I broke your backstreet boys CD.
You asked me for the reasons I don’t think we’ll sign Dunn and I gave you several detailed reasons. If you disagree with me then provide a counterargument, don’t just sit there and whine.
by world dictator on Dec 12, 2008 3:55 PM EST up reply actions
But the majority of your reasons are just restatements of fwembt’s phrase above.
Anyway, you’re probably right, of course, that someone may want to spend more than we will, especially with the Nationals interest.
You’re just overstating your position. We’re not the only people saying that the market is flush with bad-D sluggers (Adam Dunn, Bobby Abreu, Milton Bradley, Garret Anderson, Juan Rivera, Pat Burrell, Ken Griffey, Jason Giambi, Jeff Kent, Ibanez (no more) and um, Manny) and that the market for these guys will be soft. That’s been the “counterargument” all along. And like we keep telling you, we don’t really know what the Indians would be willing to spend.
As has just been noted elsewhere, Ibanez signed with the Phillies for 3 years at somewhat under $10 million per year. Dunn will get more (or should, anyway). Some of the others you list (Anderson, Griffey, Giambi, etc) may get less (or fewer years anyway). My guess is the Indians wait, work on a starter or infielder, and if someone’s left hanging closer to Spring training, they might take a chance on a short-term, incentive-laden deal for one of these guys. But, they don’t HAVE to for the team to be competitive, in my opinion.
So your evidence that we can sign Dunn is “the market is soft” and “we don’t know how much money we’re willing to spend”? Yeah, that’s not an argument, that’s you two doing a rain dance because “we’ll you never know!”
You’ve already conceded that teams will outspend us for Dunn. Last time I checked that’s game over right there.
Oh wait, I forgot! The historically frugal Mark Shapiro might do a rain dance and convince Larry Dolan to increase his budget so he can sign a player who plays a position that every indication leads us to believe Shapiro isn’t even looking to fill.
Gotcha.
Though who knows, maybe Dunn will sign a contract for the same amount of money as Raul Ibanez and Shapiro won’t have to do a rain dance to convince Larry Dolan to increase his budget so he can sign a player at a position he isn’t even looking to fill.
Though I suppose we can’t know for certain if Shapiro is looking to sign a DH/OF. But my guess is he’s probably too busy finalizing a deal to trade Grady for the A’s entire farm system.
by world dictator on Dec 12, 2008 5:46 PM EST up reply actions
Here’s the thing, you have no real idea how much we have to spend, where the market will be, or what other teams are willing to spend on him. You base your entire argument on the supposition that if we are will to spend $9 million, someone else will pay $11 million. If we are going to spend $13 million someone else will pay $15 million.
All that is just pessimism. That’s the thing. You don’t have any real evidence beyond your anecdotal “I get the feeling” or “I doubt.” The simple fact is that you have no idea more than any of the rest of us do, and probably less of an idea than some of us. You don’t think we will sign him, I get that. But your basic premise is just a distillation of the cleveland.com “we’re too cheap.” That’s not a reason, that is whining. Tell me, did you think we would be outbid on Kerry Wood, too?
Excuse me buddy? Did I ever call the Indians cheap? No. I just accept the fact that Shapiro has to work within a fairly modest budget. Hell, I’d like to sign Tex or CC but I know we can’t afford them. That doesn’t make the front office cheap, imo. But since you apparently failed first grade math, let me break re-explain the underlying thoughts behind our inability to sign Dunn for you. :
Shapiro says we have $20 million to spend this offseason. Then we sign Wood for $10 million, how much do we have left to spend?
Hint: $10 million.
This is about as close to 2+2= 4 as you can get.
So if the market for Dunn stays stagnant at $10 million per year, assuming his value is that low right now, then maybe we have a chance to sign him. Of course that would require the normal market forces of competitive bidding to mysteriously disappear but hey this is the “what if” game right?
So if you’re seriously suggesting that Raul Ibanez and Adam Dunn are going to make the same amount of money next year then yes we might be able to sign him.
Of course this ignores all of my other points like:
- there’s no chance Dunn signs a multi year deal for only $10 mil per
- If Dunn signs a one year deal it’d probably be out of our price range
- if Dunn signs a one year deal it’d probably be in the NL
- There’s no indication we’re in the market for a DH/OF/1B
- Every indication thus far is that we want to sign a middle infielder or SP
etc, etc
But hey what if right?
by world dictator on Dec 12, 2008 8:00 PM EST up reply actions
- there’s no chance Dunn signs a multi year deal for only $10 mil per
No documentation.
- If Dunn signs a one year deal it’d probably be out of our price range
No documentation.
- if Dunn signs a one year deal it’d probably be in the NL
No documentation.
- There’s no indication we’re in the market for a DH/OF/1B
Other than our need at two of those positions.
- Every indication thus far is that we want to sign a middle infielder or SP
Agreed, but it’s possible Valbuena fills one of those. Tomo Ohka fills the other (kidding, relax).
We don’t know what we have spent on Wood yet. My entire point is that there is no reason to rule us out of signing Dunn because there is, as yet, no market on him. Ibanez does seem to set it high, but we will see. That’s my entire point. You are making a 100% proclamation based only on your observations of tangentially related points.
This is exactly what I refered to in my post below. Just because I don’t have 100% bullet proof evidence doesn’t mean that I can’t make predictions/draw conclusins from the information that we do know.
Like I said, if you think the conclusions I’m drawing are false then tell me why and provide a counterargument that proves your conclusion to be true.
Saying “no documentation” isn’t a counterwarrant.
by world dictator on Dec 12, 2008 9:21 PM EST up reply actions
Also, I noticed that despite me calling you out multiple times, you still have yet to give me ONE REASON why we’re able to sign Dunn. Instead you keep clinging to “what if’s” and “you don’t know that for sure”.
Here’s a newsflash buddy. No one on here knows to a degree of absolute certainty what the front office’s plans are. Hell, I don’t know for certain if I’m going to wake up tomorrow. Unfortunately for you, skepticism does not equal proof.
Everyone here makes predictions or provides arguments based on the facts we see on the table. Do I know how much Shapiro has to spend down to the last cent? Of course not. Do I have a reasonable idea based on several comments he’s made throughout the offseason and the signings we’ve made. Yes. If you think my number is crap then tell me why and provide me with a more accurate number. I’m willing to listen. Hell, I hope I’m wrong and we really have another $20 million to spend.
Samething goes for Dunn’s market value. Do I know where it is exactly or where it’ll be tomorrow? No. But do I have an idea based on the salary of similiar players at his position. Yes. Once again, if my number is crap, tell me why and provide a better one.
This argument has gotten pretty silly if you ask me. I’ve laid out a very detailed case why I think Dunn is out of our reach. If you think my points are crap then give me specific reasons why and tell me why you think the opposite is true. Simply saying “you don’t know for sure” isn’t a counterargument, its what someone says when they have no response to the arguments laid out before them.
by world dictator on Dec 12, 2008 8:22 PM EST up reply actions
You’re right, this has gotten absurd. Can we just agree that, if Dunn is available for $10 million, he would be a great signing for us?
I’ve said several several times that I’d love to sign Dunn for $10 million per year. Hell, I keep refreshing MLBTR every 5 mintues praying to God that Shapiro will sign him just to spite me.
by world dictator on Dec 12, 2008 9:16 PM EST up reply actions
For the record, just because you number your thoughts doesn’t mean that you’ve laid out a detailed case. It all comes down to which team makes the most attractive offer, and our points about the market being flooded are just as “detailed” as you saying things like “40 HRs don’t come cheap” and “it’s all posturing.”
We’ve already admitted that we’re more likely than not to be outbid. Afterall, we’re only one among a handful of teams. The other teams have money too, but they also have other options. (How many times do we have to say that?) So we would need things to break a certain way, and probably for Dunn to take a liking to our situation.
But evidently it’s not enough for us to say we’re not likely to get him, we have to agree with your 0.0% odds. (It’s not happening! Game over man!)
You haven’t given any more reasons than we have. In your first 4 points above, you just keep repeating the same thing with different words: someone may offer him more money. I agree, but you’ve haven’t met your burden of backing up a 0% chance, and we’ve keep telling you about the market (which again, is a fairly widely held consensus).
On switching to the AL, you say he is afraid of the pitchers, I say he may know that he should be a DH. Are you laying out detailed reasons, while I’m doing a “rain dance?”
Nothing new in point 6. If it’s a one year deal, everyone, including us, will be offering more.
Point 7, Valbuena? He could still add another, but c’mon! Here you’re just being stubborn. Look at our roster and look at the player available on the market. Both point to a 1B/DH/corner bat. Our first baseman is Ryan Garko. Our DH looks is Tiny F’n Travis Hafner.
Point 8 is just a guess about someone else’s guess.
Point 9 is a fair point. That might be my preference too, but we’ll have to see how that market shakes out as well.
I’d let it go, but you keep sticking to this claim that you’ve made some complex complete argument. You’re offering the same level of analysis as everyone else: guessing at what the Tribe might spend and considering what other teams might offer.
by dgcambridge on Dec 13, 2008 12:49 AM EST up reply actions
At this point you’re just typing letters with no real meaning. This debate started with the two of you asking why I thought we had no chance to sign Dunn. I supplied my reasons why in every scenario I saw Dunn signing elsewhere. You agree with my original point that we’re not likely to sign Dunn. Everything else is just background noise. If it makes you feel better I’ll clairfy my original point from we have no chance to its highly highly unlikely. Feel better?
Bottomline-
1. Do you think we have more than $10 million dollars left in our budget? – I don’t. I base this on a diverse number of sources which estimated our budget at $15-$20 mil this offseason. And Wood’s reported $10 mil per year deal.
2. Do you think Dunn will sign for $10 million dollars per season?- I don’t especially in light of the Ibanez 3yr $30 million contract.
So yes, I peg our chances as extremely low. I’m sorry if my math is too pessimistic for you or if it shattered the illusion that Santa Claus exists. Deal with it.
Conversation over.
by world dictator on Dec 13, 2008 1:35 AM EST up reply actions
See, that wasn’t so hard was it? You don’t need to stretch a simple proposition into redundant meaningless “facts.”
by dgcambridge on Dec 13, 2008 10:29 AM EST up reply actions
I’ve never said I wouldn’t like to sign Dunn. I just think you guys are being entirely unrealistic about it happening.
I only read one person repeat something they heard on espn regarding Dunn’s contract. That’s hardly enough proof to make me think the market for Dunn has fallen that low. And like I said above, if Dunn’s value were really that low I’m pretty sure he’d sign an expensive one year NL deal.
Think about it this way. Do you really think Dunn is going to sign for the same amount as Raul Ibanez? I highly highly highly doubt it.
.
by world dictator on Dec 12, 2008 9:50 AM EST up reply actions
The main road block in my mind is a team like the Nationals. I think time is of the essence here. Get in there first and hope he doesn’t wait out the offer (which he would be stupid not to).
Steel Nick
I think the Angels might be a real possibility. They’re likely to lose out on Tex and Arte Moreno hasn’t been the type of owner to have a quiet offseason.
by world dictator on Dec 12, 2008 3:59 PM EST up reply actions
To summarize this argument:
SIDE A SAYS: We’re not going to be able to sign Dunn, unless somehow his price falls, and then we can.
SIDE B SAYS: We should do our best to sign Dunn, unless his price ends up too high, and then we can’t.
I don’t see how you guys are ever going to settle this, you’re just so far apart!
In my eyes this as an argument over probability and the process which is used to draw conclusions:
SIDE A looks at the facts and says our chances of signing Dunn are very small
SIDE B looks at the facts and says we don’t know for sure what the odds are and Side A has no basis for drawing such pessimistic conclusions.
Maybe its just my Philosophy degree talking, but I think skepticism is a completely bankrupt approach to argumentation and observation. But that’s just me.
by world dictator on Dec 13, 2008 1:50 AM EST up reply actions
You never did read our points, I guess. That’s fine.
by dgcambridge on Dec 13, 2008 10:30 AM EST up reply actions
Dave Denham saying stupid stuff on ESPN right now. Didn’t know where else to put it. Said the Tribe is allergic to spending money.
To be fair, it was in response to the stupid host asking if the Indians would sign Manny.
That would certainly be odd to be interviewing Dan Denham about the Tribe’s cheap ways. It would be like the Trent Dilfer grudge, divided by a million.
From what I’ve been hearing, Dunn is #2 on the Nationals’ wish list. If they miss out on Texiera, which I assume they will, they will probably offer Dunn more money than we’re willing to spend.
Agreed – and not just because they’re the Nats. It really is equivalent to signing with the O’s. You know that the team isn’t going anywhere for multiple years. Plus the division is uber-competitive. If you’re at the peak of your career, I’d have to (like to?) think that you’d take a half mill less (or whatever) to possibly go to the playoffs, etc. I just have to think that all things equal, these guys still want a chance to win.
Still the local "Barfield Bounces Back Believer" and confident that Gutz will succeed in Seattle.
I think Dunn’s negatives are hurting him here. Obviously, he has two great skills, and if you are only going to have 2 skills, those are probably the ones to have. But if you’re in the late innings and need to get that one run in from third with less than two outs, he’s probably the last guy you’d want at the plate. And his outfield defense is just atrocious. I probably wouldn’t be interested in him with a long-term deal, but he’d be attractive on a 1-year deal.
Also, remember Ricciardi’s comments about him this year? Maybe he’s not the only GM who feels that way…
I don’t know – I could see giving him 2 years with a vesting 3rd. You know that would be exactly 120 HRs.
Still the local "Barfield Bounces Back Believer" and confident that Gutz will succeed in Seattle.
by mjmarble on Dec 11, 2008 10:55 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
No, the guy you don’t want at the plate is the guy with the lowest OBP. That’s not Dunn.
Why is OBP so hard? How long is it going to take until everyone’s on board with “This is how often a player gets to first base.”
very different that how long it will take every playa here to get to first base.
by Brick. on Dec 11, 2008 11:26 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
It’s even easier when you say, “This is how often a player doesn’t make an out.”
Which is the worst result of an at bat.
Steel Nick
Triple play, and the shattered bat flies into the dugout and impales…
Ah, I’m not gonna finish that thought. Just got a little superstitious.
by ManchildinBeantown on Dec 12, 2008 4:51 PM EST up reply actions
I’m just offering up reasons why the market appears to be cool thus far towards Dunn. A lot of people in here LOVE him, and I like him as well. However, I stand by my example above. Late in the game, especially with a hard thrower on the mound, you don’t want him up at the plate in that particular situation. Now, he’s better than other extreme K guys, but when a strikeout is what you can’t afford, a lot of managers don’t want him up there. Period.
I still think he’ll get a nice, multi-year deal from someone, but he probably won’t have multiple teams bidding him up to a large deal.
I just don’t see the difference. A .400 OBP is a .400 OBP. If he’s not making an out 40% of the time, it really doesn’t much matter how he makes outs the other 60% of the time.
Late in the game with two outs — what’s the difference between a strikeout, pop fly, fly out or ground out?
And with less than two outs — really, how many times over a full season will a guy who strikes out less come up with a productive out. Three, maybe four times? I mean, so you’d rather have a free-swinging guy up there who bats .300 and OBP’s .320? I don’t get that.
Not making outs is paramount. Adam Dunn does not make outs.
Burn on, big river, burn on...
by Turkmenbashi on Dec 12, 2008 1:42 PM EST up reply actions
In the interest of fairness I’ll be the first to point out that Dunn isn’t a legit .400 guy, but he’s ridiculously above average and we can count on at least a 120 OPS+ and a weighted on base average of .380.
So, yeah.
Steel Nick
Fair enough. Perhaps I worded a bit too strongly, but the point stands.
Burn on, big river, burn on...
by Turkmenbashi on Dec 12, 2008 2:10 PM EST up reply actions
OK guys. I’m fairly stunned at your inability to get my point. I’m not arguing that this situation overrides his tremendous overall value. But to suggest there is no difference in what kind of out is made in that situation is tremendously ignorant. Victor Martinez has a much better chance of getting that runner in from third with less than two out than Adam Dunn has. There are situations where a strikeout is much worse.
If I was a pitcher in that situation, I guarantee you I’d rather pitch to Dunn. The pitcher is looking for a punchout.
Again, I’m not saying that this particular situation should override Dunn’s overall high value. But to think that doesn’t influence decision-makers opinions about Dunn is ingorant.
Victor Martinez makes an out 62.9% of the time.
Adam Dunn makes an out 61.9% of the time.
Victor Martinez has a much better chance of getting that runner in from third with less than two out than Adam Dunn has.
False.
Wow. Wow.
That answer is good for the question of who is more likely to reach base. That’s not what I was talking about.
An out other than a strikeout will generally give you a better chance to get the runner in from third in that situation. Particularly a medium or deep fly ball.
by TribeJay on Dec 12, 2008 10:42 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Really? Please show us the stats to prove the Victor has a much better chance of getting the runner home from third with less than two outs than Dunn. You can’t just assume it’s so because that’s what you want to believe.
The best thing probably is to hit [Grady] 2nd -- Jay
by Buckeye Brad on Dec 12, 2008 9:05 PM EST up reply actions
I’m looking at it solely based on K rate. Here, how about an example.
Tie game, 4-4, bottom of eighth in Cleveland. One out, runner on third, and Victor is at the plate with Dunn on deck (yes, they’ve somehow signed him). I bet that at least 3/4 of the managers in the major leagues would walk Victor to face Dunn, on the basis that it would give them the best chance to get out of the inning without giving up one run. Sure, it would increase the chances that they would give up multiple runs, and maybe it would even be 7-4. :)
In these situations, managers are generally playing as if that one run will win the game…especially with our new hammer-closer!!
Here’s my question though. Let’s say that a strikeout is a little bit worse than the other types of outs.
How much worse does a strikeout have to be compared to a regular out to in order to erase the fifty point deficit between the leage average OBP of .331 and Dunn’s OBP of .386 ? At some point I’d have to imagine that Dunn’s extremely high OBP overpowers his strikeout rate and still makes him well above average even if you dock him a couple of points for striking out.
You also have to take into consideration that the comparision isn’t Dunn versus Victor Martinez or another superstar player. The comparision is Dunn versus whatever subpar player you have on your roster right. Are you really telling me with a straight face that you’d rather have Fransisco or Garko at the plate as compared to Dunn?
by world dictator on Dec 12, 2008 11:44 PM EST up reply actions
I understand that generally speaking, an out is an out. In the majority of situations, a strikeout isn’t hardly different (and maybe even preferable). But there are very specific situations where there is a big difference.
Francisco or Garko…hmmm…if it’s Garko circa 2007, IN THAT VERY SPECIFIC SITUATION (runner on third, one out, tie game or down by one), yes. But it also might depend on who is up after Dunn, since the possibility of a walk to Dunn is high. Remember, getting one run in is so much more important in that situation.
In most all other situations, of course not.
The answer could also be affected by the type of pitcher. Dunn had some platoon splits the last two years, though it didn’t exist in 2006. Didn’t bother to look farther, but if he does have a platoon differential, then that .386 OBP may not apply. That was my point in some of the other posts…you can’t always look at everything in a vacuum.
Okay but you know what?
If the team is full of only Victor Martinezs and Adam Dunns it won’t matter because THAT TEAM WOULD BE INVINCIBLE.
It’s Adam Dunn vs. average player. And it doesn’t matter if Adam Dunn’s outs are often strikeouts. Because strikeouts are just part of a larger group: Outs. And he does that less than the average player. Does this not make sense? Adam Dunn’s strikeouts+other outs < any kind of outs (including productive ones) of the average player.
We’re not supposed to be comparing him to a Victor Martinez.
Steel Nick
Your example makes zero sense. Period.
OBP is how often a player doesn’t get out. That’s it. There’s no more debate about what kind of “thrower” is involved or anything else.
but the point making sense or not making sense isn’t the point (couldn’t resist), the chance that GMs believe this about Dunn is the point (point point point!). All this adds up to is a player that is undervalued within the league.
Jay’s earlier point (from my earlier fanpost about dunn) still stands that it only takes one team to value or overvalue him to drive him out of our price range, though.
While I appreciate the larger point about market perception of Dunn I think:
A) That your point here is not made clear at all in the original post. There’s a mention of manager’s not wanting him up there and some mention of market perception but there’s no real synthesis of the disparate concepts. The OP still seems to be of the opinion that Dunn isn’t just thought of as bad but is in fact bad.
B) I’m as big on calling other GMs morons as anyone but we’d be foolish to think the whole market is this stupid. GM’s know what OBP is. His value is being suppressed by: A) Tremendous Defensive Concerns B) Some semblance of personality problems (wanting to get his money, according to Arroyo).
Besides the overall nonsensitude of the claim, it makes even less sense when applied to Dunn. Per B-ref, from 2003-2008, Dunn’s OPS against “Power” pitchers was .875. His OPS against “Finesse” pitchers was .876.
Andrew, it isn’t always black and white. Thanks for the OBP lecture, I’d never heard of it. I was reading Bill James when you were either in diapers or not even born.
I’m aware of Dunn’s value. It’s high. I’m not arguing that he’s a poor offensive player. But that situation (doesn’t happen every game, but it actually does happen) affects his perception as a player, at least in my mind. And maybe that’s why he’s valued less than a guy like Teixeira. Much less.
Sometimes it appears that youlve spent a great deal of time reading up on what makes a player a good player, and what helps teams win games…and you have tremendous knowledge on this subject. But sometimes it appears that you don’t actually watch many games. It’s not 100% black and white. It largely is, moreso than many “baseball people” believe. But it’s not 100%.
Just thought I’d finish my thought. Obviously, my example is not the main reason for the apparent slow market with Dunn. Simple supply and demand, among other good points made here, are the main drivers. As I said in another post, I think he’ll still be able to get a nice, multi-year deal. And as said in this thread, all it takes is one or two teams to get real interested and he’ll probably get what he wants or at least close to what he wants. But in reading this thread, I just found it interesting that the point I raised hadn’t been raised yet, because when I think of Dunn’s negatives, that’s one of the first things I think of.
The fact is that you said Adam Dunn is the last person you want batting with a man on third and less than two outs late in the game.
You are wrong. I don’t care how old you are or when you starting reading Bill James. On top of being wrong you’re red-flagging yourself as an ass for the “you don’t watch many games” comment.
Steel Nick
I’ve been around the site for awhile, but haven’t posted much recently due to lack of time.
Yeah, I usually don’t take shots on here, because it’s a site with very knowledgeable people and a great information tool. But Andrew was very dismissive with his two posts and generally implied that I don’t know anything about OBP. And he (and others) have taken my comment to mean that I don’t think Dunn is good. So I fired away.
Situational hitting is generally vastly overrated by baseball people, particularly managers. But Dunn is regarded as being very poor at it, and I’m just saying that I think that is a factor in the perception of his value as a baseball player.
And Derek Jeter is regarded as being a much better postseason hitter than A-Rod, but that’s not true either.
The best thing probably is to hit [Grady] 2nd -- Jay
by Buckeye Brad on Dec 13, 2008 8:44 AM EST up reply actions
Sometimes it appears that youlve spent a great deal of time reading up on what makes a player a good player, and what helps teams win games…and you have tremendous knowledge on this subject. But sometimes it appears that you don’t actually watch many games. It’s not 100% black and white. It largely is, moreso than many "baseball people" believe. But it’s not 100%.
Gigantic eyeroll. I’ve written thousands or words on this site exclusively about how baseball makes me feel. That is about all I write about here-my emotional connection to baseball. I have not written anything substantial re: baseball statistical analysis in probably over 18 months.
You’re right that I wasn’t getting the point here. I was wrong.
The place I was coming from, and where I’m still coming from, is that I don’t have much, if any, interest in evaluating a player based on situational splits and my knee-jerk reaction is to call it stupid. When you’re making a decision about a free agent, my feeling is the decision should be based on his overall skill set (i.e. getting on base all the time) as opposed to 266 PA.
Now, I get that you weren’t evaluating him based on those 266 PAs, only pointing out the stigma that a particular situational split might complete.
But to act like I’m somebody who uses serious statistical rigor in forming my primary approach to baseball is woefully uninformed. I have, at best, a middling understanding of the cutting edges of saber. I don’t even read BPro.
I’m stupid in a lot of ways but not stupid in a “thinks he’s solved baseball with numbers” way.
by afh4 on Dec 14, 2008 5:38 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Good. I hope a bunch of GMs feel that way. I hope Dunn the Indians goes yard in their park.
Steel Nick
A year or two ago, FJM talked about an article where a writer criticized Dunn for not getting enough sac flies with a man on 3rd and less than two outs. They pointed out that something like 30% of the time (don’t remember the exact number) he didn’t get a sac fly because he HIT A HOME RUN.
Yeah, we don’t want that kind of hitter in our lineup.
The best thing probably is to hit [Grady] 2nd -- Jay
by Buckeye Brad on Dec 12, 2008 7:27 AM EST up reply actions
Dunn has 12 sacrifice flies in five full seasons; Justin Morneau had 11 last year.
This is a common criticism of Dunn, but I’m not so sure it’s that big a deal. This guy notes that in 2003 and 2004, Dunn f**ked up some sac fly opportunities because with a runner on third and less than two outs, 50% of his fly balls went for home runs. Whoops!
Steel Nick
by nickjs21 on Dec 12, 2008 10:19 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Can we please quite with the blanket statements that have no facts to back them up?
The best thing probably is to hit [Grady] 2nd -- Jay
by Buckeye Brad on Dec 12, 2008 7:24 AM EST up reply actions
I nead to quiet making speling mustackes.
The best thing probably is to hit [Grady] 2nd -- Jay
by Buckeye Brad on Dec 12, 2008 11:51 AM EST up reply actions
(sorry, I couldn’t resist, and can you believe that website exists?)
by cleveland teamer on Dec 12, 2008 11:59 AM EST up reply actions
They sell T-shirts of that? Really??
The best thing probably is to hit [Grady] 2nd -- Jay
by Buckeye Brad on Dec 12, 2008 12:37 PM EST up reply actions
Yeah, don’t you know that all generalizations are false?
by Logodaedalus on Dec 12, 2008 10:38 AM EST up reply actions
I think I used that one in a thread a couple days ago…
by Logodaedalus on Dec 12, 2008 11:29 AM EST up reply actions
But have seen Ibanez’s RBI numbers!
but seriously stache,
what if Dunn accepts exactly that 3/30. for 40 HRs a year isn’t that worth it?
Would the Indians do a three-year deal with all the big hitting position players coming up?
by Logodaedalus on Dec 12, 2008 2:58 PM EST up reply actions
That’s another thing to consider in the “can we sign him” question. What if the market isn’t that bad, and he won’t settle for two years or less?
Steel Nick
Right, that’s what I mean… If he’s able to get a three-year deal, is that something our FO would consider?
by Logodaedalus on Dec 12, 2008 3:31 PM EST up reply actions
On the other hand… would he want a 3-year deal, signed in these economic conditions? I suppose the answer is likely yes, since the risk of a performance downturn or injury is probably higher than the contract upside should he stay where he is, but it might not be as clear cut as in most years…
by Logodaedalus on Dec 12, 2008 3:32 PM EST up reply actions
Yes they should, that is a nice problem to have, and also we shouldn’t “count” on these minor leaguers. If anything this allows us flexability to trade prospects. Someone like Beau Mills becomes pretty expendable if you have a guy that is already producing what we’d like Mills to turn into.
Actually, I think in the Indians case the guy producing like Beau Mills becomes expendable when Beau Mills is ready to produce like Beau Mills in the majors.
We’re being foolish anyway. If Ibanez got that, Dunn is going to get 12 a year at the least.
Yeah… I realize you can’t count on the minor leaguers, but if they do pan out, they’re obviously preferable options to a $10m a year guy.
by Logodaedalus on Dec 12, 2008 3:33 PM EST up reply actions
I don’t know that it’s necessarily the case that Dunn gets more than Ibanez. Lots of teams are prejudiced against Dunn based on the strikeouts, his perceived laziness, or his genuinely bad defense.
also look at Ibanez’s batting average and RBI totals. I’m sure there are many that think (wrongly) that Ibanez is better at hitting than Dunn.
by Ryan Kelsey on Dec 13, 2008 11:16 AM EST up reply actions
But…but…the market is soft mac; THE MARKET IS SOFT!!!!
by world dictator on Dec 12, 2008 5:53 PM EST up reply actions
One name I haven’t seen mentioned is Pat Burrell. I know he provides less power than Dunn, but over the last 3 years these have been his OPS+ numbers:
2006: 122
2007: 127
2008: 125
that’s pretty good. He’s about as worthless defensively as Dunn, but does walk alot and hits for good power. Given his age I don’t think you’d go past 2 years (he’s 32 now), and I don’t know what type of money he’s looking for, but I think he warrants atleast some consideration.
i was just thinking about Burrell
Anti-Ben Fran before it was cool.
by Gradyforpresident on Dec 12, 2008 3:47 PM EST up reply actions
neyer has him as asking for $16 mil per year
Pat Burrell is a good player. Not a great player, mostly because he’s such a lousy outfielder. The people who run the Phillies watch Burrell every day all season long, and decided, reasonably enough I suppose, that they didn’t want to spend $16 million per season on more of that.
well, that’s obviously too much. He’d half to cut his asking price in half before Shapiro will consider him, and some team will give him over 10MM.
Oh well, scratch that one off the board as well then.
if he halves his asking price, then we’re talking…
by Logodaedalus on Dec 12, 2008 3:59 PM EST up reply actions
I’m a little late to the party, and apparently lost. Is this not the “sign Abreu” thread?
by ManchildinBeantown on Dec 12, 2008 5:10 PM EST reply actions
Okay, let's try some actual data
I’m going to look at all the career PA for Dunn and Victor, with a man on third and <2 outs. Now, before we even start, I’ll tell you two assumptions that I have. One is that TribeJay generally knows what he’s talking about — he may not turn out to be right about this, but he generally has provided a lot more insight than foolishness around here. The other is that it’s not fair to compare Dunn to Victor, because Victor is an especially good person to have up in this situation — he’s in the 94th percentile of all major league hitters in terms of contact hitting (per BP). So in addition to looking at this split for the two players, career numbers, I’ll also look at all major league hitters for 2008.
Dunn: 266 PA, 50 hits, 12 HR, 54 BB, 15 IBB, 21 SF, .410 OBP, 942 OPS
Victor: 188 PA, 57 hits, 5 HR, 21 BB, 14 IBB, 35 SF, .420 OBP, 1039 OPS
MLB08: 10656 PA, 2620 hits, 215 HR, 1185 BB, 384 IBB, 1363 SF, .373 OBP, 866 OPS
Right away, we know that Dunn is significantly above average in these situations, and Victor is a total stud in them. So I was right about that part.
Let’s look further. We can find out how often the hitter delivered the run from 3B like this:
(H + SF) / (PA – IBB)
And we can find out how often the hitter made an out without delivering the run like this:
[PA * (1 – OBP) – SF] / (PA – IBB)
Finally, here’s how often the hitter delivered two or more runs:
HR / (PA – IBB)
Dunn: 28.3% delivered run, 54.1% made unproductive out, 4.8% delivered multiple runs
Victor: 52.9% delivered run, 42.6% made unproductive out, 2.9% delivered multiple runs
MLB08: 38.8% delivered run, 51.8% made unproductive out, 2.1% delivered multiple runs
So that’s the reality. Now, if Dunn is better at this over the last couple years than over his whole career, someone else can try to figure that out.
by Jay on Dec 13, 2008 1:21 AM EST reply actions 1 recs
Wow, Jay pulls out the subject line. Now we’re getting serious!
The best thing probably is to hit [Grady] 2nd -- Jay
by Buckeye Brad on Dec 13, 2008 8:47 AM EST up reply actions
So the real question is what does this say about the relative value of Dunn over the course of a season?
I did some very rough math based on Victor and Dunn’s career totals and estimated that this situation might occur about 35 times in a full season. According to Jay’s percentages, Victor would deliver the run 18 times, Dunn 10 times, the average player 13 times.
Very few of these at-bats would take place in a close late inning situation, so those numbers cannot be equated with games won. Maybe the average player wins 0-1 more games a year than Dunn with a productive out, and Victor maybe 1-2.
But is this disadvantage is cancelled out by the multiple runs that Dunn delivers more often? My inner Earl Weaver says it is. In any case, it doesn’t look like a major point for valuation.
Not only do these runs not necessarily translate to a game win, but the outcome of that one PA doesn’t by itself determine whether the run gets in. When you’re up with a runner at 3rd and less than 2 outs, it’s not the last PA of the inning (except inning-ending double plays). So if you get the run in, great, but if not, someone else has a chance. Some of the time you get the run in, it would have come in anyway.
by Logodaedalus on Dec 13, 2008 12:36 PM EST up reply actions
Again, for those who haven’t read all my posts, this is not an argument about Dunn’s value as an offensive player. I’m well aware of his value and agree with everyone else here. He’s got two GREAT skills, and I agree that outweighs his negatives.
In general, in situations where one run REALLY matters, contact guys like Victor are better to have at the plate than extreme-K guys like Dunn…or like Shoppach, and even Peralta and Sizemore. Getting that run in can mean the difference in having to face Rivera/Papelbon/Nathan the next inning or getting to face someone else.
And I would argue that it’s much more critical with one out and a man on third than with nobody out. With nobody out, Dunn can still K and you still have a chance to score the man with a fly ball. And with nobody out, Dunn’s OBP skills can set up a multi-run innning. So my situation was very specific and unique.
World Dictator made a good point that at some point, Dunn’s overwhelming on-base/power skills will override the contact skill in that situation. LIke Jamey Carroll, for instance….though I wouldn’t put it past Wedge to consider that move.
Lastly, for my overall point that is apparently getting lost in every single post…it’s probably fair to say that situational skills like the one described above are considered to have more value by baseball people than by people on this site. And therefore it’s logical to assume that his K rate and reduced ability to make contact is a factor (minor) in his perceived value in the marketplace. That, and as Jay mentioned, his perceived laziness and whatever else that Ricciardi was spewing about earlier this year. That’s all I’m saying, folks.
by TribeJay on Dec 13, 2008 10:14 AM EST reply actions 1 recs
It is interesting that the general consensus is that leverage matters a lot for relievers, but somehow not for a situation like this.
Now, it must be said, the issue with most “clutch splits” is that they fail to identify truly high-leverage situations. RISP or the 3B<2out split, they don’t account for whether the game situation is significant, and you yourself noted that what you really are interested in is just the one-out situation. If you look at only one-out situations, and only with the man on 3B, and only games that are within three runs … well, just how many PA are we really talking about here? Maybe someone will try to figure that out.
For what it’s worth, in “high leverage” situations, Dunn’s batting and slugging averages are almost identical to his overall numbers, but his walk rate is somewhat higher, which moves him from a .380 OBP overall to .400 on that split. In 2007, he was a notch or so worse in those situations, with just an 860 OPS compared with 940 overall, mostly due to a relative dearth of high-leverage doubles. In 2008, however, his average was 40 points higher for high leverage — .269 over .236 — and his OPS was a stunning 1044. Overall, he was 38% better than league average, but in high-leverage situations, he was 76% better than the high-leverage league average.
Of course, the sample sizes on all these things are just stupidly tiny.
I wonder if the marketplace continues to be slow, that teams may offer Dunn (or others) a one-year deal for big money and allow them to become free agents after 2009 when the supply may be less or the economy may be improved. If it were to get to that point, I’d hope that Shapiro would at least get involved in the discussion.
I for one don’t care about his K-Rate, his defense, his looks, or that MLBTR said he eats babies.
I just want this guy on my team. Make it happen Mark.
Again, MLBTR is just a link dump. If you’re going to post about Dunn eating babies, please cite the original source.
by Jay on Dec 13, 2008 2:35 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
Featured Stories
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recent FanShots
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- MLB Fan Cave candidate explains the stories behind his 30 MLB mascot tattoos
- Kate Upton’s new MLB 2K12 ad is really something
- Five tips for Showtime’s second season of ‘The Franchise,’ featuring the Miami Marlins
- The 10 best things about being a Detroit Tigers fan
- Surprise! A’s finally end the Yoenis Cespedes derby with $36 million deal for Cuban star
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
