What is the new .300?/Here Lies A Man Who Went 4.6/.876/2.61

The reason fewer are hitting 300 is strikeouts. As the strikeouts went up over the years players hit the ball harder and better causing BABIP going up and also runs. Not striking out is not productive if you do not hit the ball well.

However in the mid 90s power and babip stopped going up an strikeouts continued to rise which caused obp and runs to go down again. Players were offsetting less contact with better contact but at some point a limit was reached but not so for strikeouts.

But BA is still an important thing. Power probably is more important but if you look at the ops leaders more than half of the top20 are above 300 and many others are between 280 abd 300.  The adam dunn kind of productive 230 hitter actually is quite rare, most 240 hitters have low on base percentages.

Now adam dunn might be more productive than a no power no walks 300 hitter but those are actually quite rare in these days were you have to strike the ball hard to get hits, the empty  .300 guy is a thing of the past with only 20% of the 300 hitters last year hitting single digit homers.

Ba itself is not important but it affects both obp and slg a lot, basically average is the difference between prime pujols and dunn.

Dominik85 posted:

The reason fewer are hitting 300 is strikeouts. As the strikeouts went up over the years players hit the ball harder and better causing BABIP going up and also runs. Not striking out is not productive if you do not hit the ball well.

However in the mid 90s power and babip stopped going up an strikeouts continued to rise which caused obp and runs to go down again. Players were offsetting less contact with better contact but at some point a limit was reached but not so for strikeouts.

But BA is still an important thing. Power probably is more important but if you look at the ops leaders more than half of the top20 are above 300 and many others are between 280 abd 300.  The adam dunn kind of productive 230 hitter actually is quite rare, most 240 hitters have low on base percentages.

Now adam dunn might be more productive than a no power no walks 300 hitter but those are actually quite rare in these days were you have to strike the ball hard to get hits, the empty  .300 guy is a thing of the past with only 20% of the 300 hitters last year hitting single digit homers.

Ba itself is not important but it affects both obp and slg a lot, basically average is the difference between prime pujols and dunn.

As a White Sox fan I take issue with the Adam Dunn was a productive hitter statement.

No matter how much I learn or believe/disbelieve of advanced baseball statistics, I always compare hitters to the .300/.400/.500 slash line.

As a kid, the big question no one could comfortably answer was "When you grow up, do you want to be a .300 hitter or a twenty game winner?"

Go44dad posted:

No matter how much I learn or believe/disbelieve of advanced baseball statistics, I always compare hitters to the .300/.400/.500 slash line.

As a kid, the big question no one could comfortably answer was "When you grow up, do you want to be a .300 hitter or a twenty game winner?"

The newspapers still list AVG, HR, RBI, W-L, ERA, K  leaders. It's what resonates with the average fan. The average fan goes into a coma if you try to discuss analytics with them.

Ja'Crispy posted:
Dominik85 posted:

The reason fewer are hitting 300 is strikeouts. As the strikeouts went up over the years players hit the ball harder and better causing BABIP going up and also runs. Not striking out is not productive if you do not hit the ball well.

However in the mid 90s power and babip stopped going up an strikeouts continued to rise which caused obp and runs to go down again. Players were offsetting less contact with better contact but at some point a limit was reached but not so for strikeouts.

But BA is still an important thing. Power probably is more important but if you look at the ops leaders more than half of the top20 are above 300 and many others are between 280 abd 300.  The adam dunn kind of productive 230 hitter actually is quite rare, most 240 hitters have low on base percentages.

Now adam dunn might be more productive than a no power no walks 300 hitter but those are actually quite rare in these days were you have to strike the ball hard to get hits, the empty  .300 guy is a thing of the past with only 20% of the 300 hitters last year hitting single digit homers.

Ba itself is not important but it affects both obp and slg a lot, basically average is the difference between prime pujols and dunn.

As a White Sox fan I take issue with the Adam Dunn was a productive hitter statement.

When he was young he was productive he just lost it earlier like many high strikeout hitters. He had 4 seasons with an ops of 900 or higher.

Dominik85 posted:
Ja'Crispy posted:
Dominik85 posted:

The reason fewer are hitting 300 is strikeouts. As the strikeouts went up over the years players hit the ball harder and better causing BABIP going up and also runs. Not striking out is not productive if you do not hit the ball well.

However in the mid 90s power and babip stopped going up an strikeouts continued to rise which caused obp and runs to go down again. Players were offsetting less contact with better contact but at some point a limit was reached but not so for strikeouts.

But BA is still an important thing. Power probably is more important but if you look at the ops leaders more than half of the top20 are above 300 and many others are between 280 abd 300.  The adam dunn kind of productive 230 hitter actually is quite rare, most 240 hitters have low on base percentages.

Now adam dunn might be more productive than a no power no walks 300 hitter but those are actually quite rare in these days were you have to strike the ball hard to get hits, the empty  .300 guy is a thing of the past with only 20% of the 300 hitters last year hitting single digit homers.

Ba itself is not important but it affects both obp and slg a lot, basically average is the difference between prime pujols and dunn.

As a White Sox fan I take issue with the Adam Dunn was a productive hitter statement.

When he was young he was productive he just lost it earlier like many high strikeout hitters. He had 4 seasons with an ops of 900 or higher.

A hitter can have an OPS of .900 and still leave a lot of runners stranded in scoring position. He can also fail to move runners many times. Also OPS doesn't quantify a couple of homers when the team is down six runs versus a couple of homers in a contested game.

RJM posted:
Dominik85 posted:
Ja'Crispy posted:
Dominik85 posted:

The reason fewer are hitting 300 is strikeouts. As the strikeouts went up over the years players hit the ball harder and better causing BABIP going up and also runs. Not striking out is not productive if you do not hit the ball well.

However in the mid 90s power and babip stopped going up an strikeouts continued to rise which caused obp and runs to go down again. Players were offsetting less contact with better contact but at some point a limit was reached but not so for strikeouts.

But BA is still an important thing. Power probably is more important but if you look at the ops leaders more than half of the top20 are above 300 and many others are between 280 abd 300.  The adam dunn kind of productive 230 hitter actually is quite rare, most 240 hitters have low on base percentages.

Now adam dunn might be more productive than a no power no walks 300 hitter but those are actually quite rare in these days were you have to strike the ball hard to get hits, the empty  .300 guy is a thing of the past with only 20% of the 300 hitters last year hitting single digit homers.

Ba itself is not important but it affects both obp and slg a lot, basically average is the difference between prime pujols and dunn.

As a White Sox fan I take issue with the Adam Dunn was a productive hitter statement.

When he was young he was productive he just lost it earlier like many high strikeout hitters. He had 4 seasons with an ops of 900 or higher.

A hitter can have an OPS of .900 and still leave a lot of runners stranded in scoring position. He can also fail to move runners many times. Also OPS doesn't quantify a couple of homers when the team is down six runs versus a couple of homers in a contested game.

As a general rule, with reasonable sample sizes, guys hit what they hit for the expected competition, without regard to "clutch". Adam Dunn wasn't any less likely to hit his HR when way behind than any other hitter.  Every hitter, of course, is more likely to hit HR way ahead or way behind, because the pitcher on the other end of that equation will be different than if it's a one-run game.  In Dunn's case (and for similar one-dimensional players), that's probably magnified because his only real offensive skill, especially closer to the end of his career, was HR, so he wasn't likely to do anything else useful in a close game if a HR wasn't in the offing.  

Never mind that he was basically giving back on defense any value he had has a hitter from relatively early on in his career.  The 5 OF years (give or take) were historically awful.

jacjacatk posted:
RJM posted:
Dominik85 posted:
Ja'Crispy posted:
Dominik85 posted:

The reason fewer are hitting 300 is strikeouts. As the strikeouts went up over the years players hit the ball harder and better causing BABIP going up and also runs. Not striking out is not productive if you do not hit the ball well.

However in the mid 90s power and babip stopped going up an strikeouts continued to rise which caused obp and runs to go down again. Players were offsetting less contact with better contact but at some point a limit was reached but not so for strikeouts.

But BA is still an important thing. Power probably is more important but if you look at the ops leaders more than half of the top20 are above 300 and many others are between 280 abd 300.  The adam dunn kind of productive 230 hitter actually is quite rare, most 240 hitters have low on base percentages.

Now adam dunn might be more productive than a no power no walks 300 hitter but those are actually quite rare in these days were you have to strike the ball hard to get hits, the empty  .300 guy is a thing of the past with only 20% of the 300 hitters last year hitting single digit homers.

Ba itself is not important but it affects both obp and slg a lot, basically average is the difference between prime pujols and dunn.

As a White Sox fan I take issue with the Adam Dunn was a productive hitter statement.

When he was young he was productive he just lost it earlier like many high strikeout hitters. He had 4 seasons with an ops of 900 or higher.

A hitter can have an OPS of .900 and still leave a lot of runners stranded in scoring position. He can also fail to move runners many times. Also OPS doesn't quantify a couple of homers when the team is down six runs versus a couple of homers in a contested game.

As a general rule, with reasonable sample sizes, guys hit what they hit for the expected competition, without regard to "clutch". Adam Dunn wasn't any less likely to hit his HR when way behind than any other hitter.  Every hitter, of course, is more likely to hit HR way ahead or way behind, because the pitcher on the other end of that equation will be different than if it's a one-run game.  In Dunn's case (and for similar one-dimensional players), that's probably magnified because his only real offensive skill, especially closer to the end of his career, was HR, so he wasn't likely to do anything else useful in a close game if a HR wasn't in the offing.  

Never mind that he was basically giving back on defense any value he had has a hitter from relatively early on in his career.  The 5 OF years (give or take) were historically awful.

My original statement was mostly tongue and cheek but I agree with the above responses. Dunn was not able to evolve eventually from being a true 3 outcome guy. His 200 SOs a year started to come at the wrong time and more and more of his slugging came when opposing Ps were in game situations they were more interested in throwing more fastballs than usual. He still had a long career and put up some nice numbers. I am nothing but happy for him.

Ja'Crispy posted:
jacjacatk posted:
RJM posted:
Dominik85 posted:
Ja'Crispy posted:
Dominik85 posted:

The reason fewer are hitting 300 is strikeouts. As the strikeouts went up over the years players hit the ball harder and better causing BABIP going up and also runs. Not striking out is not productive if you do not hit the ball well.

However in the mid 90s power and babip stopped going up an strikeouts continued to rise which caused obp and runs to go down again. Players were offsetting less contact with better contact but at some point a limit was reached but not so for strikeouts.

But BA is still an important thing. Power probably is more important but if you look at the ops leaders more than half of the top20 are above 300 and many others are between 280 abd 300.  The adam dunn kind of productive 230 hitter actually is quite rare, most 240 hitters have low on base percentages.

Now adam dunn might be more productive than a no power no walks 300 hitter but those are actually quite rare in these days were you have to strike the ball hard to get hits, the empty  .300 guy is a thing of the past with only 20% of the 300 hitters last year hitting single digit homers.

Ba itself is not important but it affects both obp and slg a lot, basically average is the difference between prime pujols and dunn.

As a White Sox fan I take issue with the Adam Dunn was a productive hitter statement.

When he was young he was productive he just lost it earlier like many high strikeout hitters. He had 4 seasons with an ops of 900 or higher.

A hitter can have an OPS of .900 and still leave a lot of runners stranded in scoring position. He can also fail to move runners many times. Also OPS doesn't quantify a couple of homers when the team is down six runs versus a couple of homers in a contested game.

As a general rule, with reasonable sample sizes, guys hit what they hit for the expected competition, without regard to "clutch". Adam Dunn wasn't any less likely to hit his HR when way behind than any other hitter.  Every hitter, of course, is more likely to hit HR way ahead or way behind, because the pitcher on the other end of that equation will be different than if it's a one-run game.  In Dunn's case (and for similar one-dimensional players), that's probably magnified because his only real offensive skill, especially closer to the end of his career, was HR, so he wasn't likely to do anything else useful in a close game if a HR wasn't in the offing.  

Never mind that he was basically giving back on defense any value he had has a hitter from relatively early on in his career.  The 5 OF years (give or take) were historically awful.

My original statement was mostly tongue and cheek but I agree with the above responses. Dunn was not able to evolve eventually from being a true 3 outcome guy. His 200 SOs a year started to come at the wrong time and more and more of his slugging came when opposing Ps were in game situations they were more interested in throwing more fastballs than usual. He still had a long career and put up some nice numbers. I am nothing but happy for him.

"Here lies a man who hit 462 home runs in MLB"

"Here lies a man who trotted around the bases for 31 1/2 miles due to his home runs"

But exclusively due to his terrible defense, dunn has a career wRC+ of 123 even including his very bad final 4 years.

In his prime he was a good hitter, no mike trout or miguel Cabrera but an effective hitter that got on base a lot. Of course the strikeouts did make him a lot worse but he was historically great at taking walks and hitting bombs for almost a decade.

Add Reply

Likes (0)
×
×
×
×