My comments were really an aside; I didn't mean to distract from the conversation that was going on. Regardless of whether Dunn and Kingman are comparable (imo they are but Dunn is better), I feel that with OPS the sum is lesser than its parts, and mainly because of this, to requote: Well said.
All right, let's set this straight: I am not against stats, as some are. Some stats I find nearly useless, but I am not against stats. I am against the *abuse* of stats. They have their purpose, but all stats, not just some, can be manipulated to "prove" one point or another. I use OBP, SLG, and other measures to compare performances, too. I even use AVG--because out of two guys with .380 OBP, I'll take the one hitting .320 over the one hitting .295. (It's a rare thing to drive a run in with a walk). Anytime I hear OPS, I immediately wonder what the guy's slugging and on-base numbers are, because those are the ones that count.
Adam Dunn is a good fit on any club who can put guys on ahead of him so he can hit bombs. He's a legitimate power hitter at a young age, an early-years Mark McGwire. The guys at the top of the all-time strikeout list are GOOD PLAYERS. Reggie Jackson holds the record, I believe, and he would have benefitted any lineup in his prime. Strikeouts are not the same as regular outs, they're worse, but not by an insurmountable margin. The good things Dunn does are things that the Astros lack, and he'd be a hell of an addition to this current slap-hitting squad.
Right. And Dunn's on base numbers are MUCH better (80 points!) and his slugging vs. Kingman's is too. The whole point of it was merely to negate those comparing him to Dave Kingman, because Dunn is significantly better in all facets. Someone mentions OPS (legitimate and significant evidence showing Dunn is pretty clearly better than Kingman) and the responses degenerate from the reality (Dunn better than Kingman) to an OPS this, OPS that debate. Considering Morgan Ensberg is leading our team in homers, I don't see how adding a bona fide home run threat doesn't help us. You can call him a rich man's Dave Kingman, whatever. Kingman doesn't show up on Dunn's similar batters page at baseballreference.com. Comparisons to Reggie, Strawberry, and Canseco do come up.
Isn't that what casual conversations do? They wander. If it matters, I agree that Dunn would be a tremendous shot in the arm for the Astros offense.
Let's get Hunter Pence to AA ball ASAP! http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/sports/3214108 Pence going the distance Lexington outfielder Hunter Pence, the Astros' top selection in last year's draft, hit his 21st home run of the season in Sunday's 7-5 loss to Hagerstown. He leads all minor leaguers in home runs. Pence (.343 average, 46 RBIs) homered for the third consecutive game with a shot that went an estimated 447 feet, the third longest in the history of Lexington's Applebee's Park. The longest in park history? Pence's 467-foot shot last Wednesday.
i apologize then. but i'm not sure why you were responding to my post then. i was talking specifically about OPS...you highlighted that portion of my post and responded. i assumed you were talking OPS as well.
you're taking this too far. players are rarely EXACTLY alike. there are certain "types" of players we all know based on broad criteria. everyone is aware of the lumbering power hitter who strikes out a ton. dave kingman is one of those. so is adam dunn. there's your comparison. they're not the SAME. but they fall under the same generalization.
i'm guessing that if you subscribe to this opinion above, msn's problem is not with you. it's with those who will tell you that you can disregard batting average because it's no longer relevant...or that you can disregard other stats...because OPS is IT. the end all, be all. frame your entire team on that one stat. in short...moneyball.
Dunn is also playing in hitter friendly parks in an era where stats are "juiced." Adjust for era, and those differences diminish pretty quickly, I'm guessing.
Good point Max. The gap is decreased somewhat when correcting for park and era, but not tremendously. BA+ (BA divided by era-adjusted, park-adjusted league BA) Dunn - 93 Kingman - 90 OBP+ (BA divided by era-adjusted, park-adjusted league OBP) Dunn - 112 Kingman - 92 SLG+ (BA divided by era-adjusted, park-adjusted league SLG) Dunn - 119 Kingman - 123
I forgot to change the text in a couple of spots. Here's how it should read: BA+ = BA / park-adjusted BA OBP+ = OPB / park-adjusted OBP SLG+ = SLG / park-adjusted SLG
It's comparing a player's stats to the league average. Through 2004, Dunn's OBP was 0.382. The park-adjusted OBP of the NL over that same period was 0.340. Thus, his league-adjusted, park-adjusted OBP+ is .382/.340, or 112. Doing likewise for Kingman, his career OBP was 0.302. The park-adjusted OBP of the league he played in over that same period was 0.329. Thus, his league-adjusted, park-adjusted OBP+ is .302/.329, or 92. For a calculation like this, 100 would equate to league average. All of my data comes from Baseball Reference - Dunn / Kingman.
got it..thanks. i didn't know what the 112 or 92 number signified. so essentially, dunn is above average at getting on base for his era...and kingman is below average. but the league average for OBP is higher during Dunn's era than during Kingman's. am i reading that right?
agreed...but in many circles it's been the effect of Moneyball. and an over-reliance on statistics, in general.
I agree. I'm not one of the people who suggest that you can throw away a scouting department and replace them with computers. The optimum solution is to blend the two methods (scouting & statistical analysis) and take the best aspects of each one.
