Adam Dunn is Better Than Tony Gwynn

[LouGehrig]

Adam's Slugging is More Valuable Than Tony's Singles.

Is Dunn Better Than Gwynn? Adam's Slugging is More Valuable Than Tony's Singles

[bedir than average]

First false premise is that a strike out is just an out. A strike out can never advance a runner, nor can it score a runner. That is untrue of any other out.

Second false premise is that Dunn's OPS is more valuable than Gwynn's BA, considering that Gwynn had the slightly better OPS+ which takes into account league numbers. Gwynn's OPS lead to a OWP of 668 to Dunn's 669.

The third and last false premise is the willingness to ignore defense and baserunning. With offensive numbers so very close this is a situation where defense and then baserunning would make up the difference. Gwynn was far and away the better defender, the same hold's true for baserunning skills.

Dunn is only better with power, power that is so much better than Gwynn that it takes them to a tie concerning their ability to produce runs. Of course defense and running matter.

Gwynn is/was the better player and by far. Dunn will be a DH as soon as he has the opportunity and might even move to first soon.

[WilsonC]

I think that Dunn is a very good hitter, and underappreciated by some who place too much emphasis on the K, but Gwynn was still a fair bit better. On a rate level, their offense really isn't that far off, but when we consider that Dunn has yet to reach his decline phase, it's likely that his rates will dip. And yes, defensive value is heavilly in Gwynn's favor.

That being said, Dunn's still only 27 or so, and could very well have his best seasons ahead of him. If that happens, it's concievable that he could end up with the better career, but I'd speculate against it.

[Simp]

First false premise is that a strike out is just an out. A strike out can never advance a runner, nor can it score a runner. That is untrue of any other out.


I'm surprised to see you post this. Has there been a study done that has disproved the probably hundreds that have shown that a K is only slightly worse than a non-K out? Your premise is false as well since a runner can advance and score on a K via a wild pitch or passed ball.

[nanwynnfan]

Lots of stuff here in just a few posts, so I'll try to address them in some semblance of order.

1. Regarding the K as compared to other outs, the mathematical argument is made, and supported by regressions, that a K is only something over 1.2% worse than any other out. However, this conclusion is reached by factoring out situations where an out is simply an out, like 2 outs already such that whether the bases are loaded, empty, or anything in between, your shot is ended and the opponent comes to the plate.

2. The K, then, is magnified in those situations where contact might have advanced a runner[s] or scored a run. Mathematically and statistically this loses conviction because the situations are relatively few; but tell it to the manager or pitcher in a close game where a runner at third is stranded when a ground out or lazy fly to deep right-center would have brought him in.

3. Under no circumstances will a K advance runners, except for perhaps a steal situation where the runner advances DESPITE the whiffing hitter. [Then too there is the possibility of a strike out- throw out DP].

4. The GIDP stat is a rally killer and I count it as "1" in negative outs, since it adds 1 extra out to the batter's normal allotment.

5. I argue here that GIDP + K = negative outs, with nobody going anywhere as a result. From that statndpoint we can look at Dunn and Gwynn and the nature of their outs:

-relative to total plate appearances Dunn = 27.87% negative outs;
-relative to charged at-bats, a fairer comp = 34.05% negative outs;

I say AB is a fairer comp because the use of the bat comes into play.

Now we take the same look at Tony Gwynn for negative outs:

-relative to total plate appearances, Gwynn = 6.78%;
-relative to charged at-bats, Gwynn = 7.5%

So, Dunn, in one-third of official AB may be expected to whiff or HIDP. For Gwynn that's one in every 14 AB. For me, this is significant.

Now, for all his power [and Gwynn's relative lack thereof] Dunn to date has one season with > 300 total bases. Gwynn had three such seasons. If we blame that on Dunn's higher BB, then I can argue that the bat was taken out of his hands for much of that. Dunn may match or exceed 3 such seasons, but he's on track only possibly to tie Gwynn's 3. Finally, for all his BB, Dunn @ .381 OB% lags Gwynn @ .388.

If we look at total bases per charged at bat [which should really favor the power guy, we get Dunn at .519 to Gwynn's .459. Apply that to 600 AB, and we would EXPECT Dunn to generate 311 TB to 275 for Gwynn.

If we look at RC/PA, Dunn is at .1733, or 103.98 in 600 PA. Gwynn, at .1599 would have 95.94 RC, or 8 RC fewer than Dunn

Factor in net stolen bases, sac hits and sac flies and that gap narrows.

Add in the defensive component and Gwynn passes Dunn with some margin of comfort. [And, since my numbers are career, they favor Dunn since they contain Gwynn's aging seasons].

As one final observation, I'd add that 40 HR or more in a season is impressive; but they do not always occur when you'd most like them to; and their relative rarity inclines them often to happen at inoppotune moments. Yet they accrue to a degree beyond their isolated value to the power hitter over the guy who makes contact. The guy who makes contact and puts the ball in play has one final edge: the possibility of defensive error.

[kflo]

i don't understand adding strikeouts and double plays together. strikeouts are marginally less valuable than other non-double-play outs, whereas double play outs are by far and away the least valuable type of out. gwynn's higher double play outs could be argued to have similar negative value as dunn's excess strikeouts. i wouldn't just add the 2 together. the negative of the dp far outweighs the negative of the k.

gwynn has a lifetime (and peak) adj eqa advantage, and as mentioned, has the advantage everywhere else. gwynn didn't really have a decline phase. dunn likely will, but he also might not have entered his prime yet.

[kflo]

i don't understand adding strikeouts and double plays together. strikeouts are marginally less valuable than other non-double-play outs, whereas double play outs are by far and away the least valuable type of out. gwynn's higher double play outs could be argued to have similar negative value as dunn's excess strikeouts. i wouldn't just add the 2 together. the negative of the dp far outweighs the negative of the k.

gwynn has a lifetime (and peak) adj eqa advantage, and as mentioned, has the advantage everywhere else. gwynn didn't really have a decline phase. dunn likely will, but he also might not have entered his prime yet.

[nanwynnfan]

Originally Posted by kflo

i don't understand adding strikeouts and double plays together. strikeouts are marginally less valuable than other non-double-play outs, whereas double play outs are by far and away the least valuable type of out. gwynn's higher double play outs could be argued to have similar negative value as dunn's excess strikeouts. i wouldn't just add the 2 together. the negative of the dp far outweighs the negative of the k.

Then I guess it's more a matter of point of view, not something very deep that requires much exploration to demystify. I see the K as a vacuum, rendered statistically harmless by the volume of outs overall, as opposed to the much lesser number of outs where the non-productivity of the K is laid bare. Since I've already explained this twice [and added the added edge of batted balls in play going for errors], there's no neded to explain it further. It's opinion + viewpoint.

Originally Posted by kflo

gwynn has a lifetime (and peak) adj eqa advantage, and as mentioned, has the advantage everywhere else. gwynn didn't really have a decline phase. dunn likely will, but he also might not have entered his prime yet.

This is precisely why I selected career numbers, so that stats for Gwynn through age 41 were aligned against a younger player [27?] entering his prime & peak years. Even so, Gwynn meaures up well; and I'm guessing, after Dunn's career is over, will be far more strategically productive.

Put most directly, I simply am a firm believer that guys who fan < 60 or so times a year, hit for high average and generally are heads-up on the basepaths will be more valuable over a season/career than guys who blast > 40 HRs but fan consistently >120 times per season.

By shher numbers, the K for them is expected every game; but the HR occurrences will be more random as to on-base situation, timeliness and consistency of event [every fourth game, streaks, etc.].

Now, guys like Pujols, Williams, Gehrig and Vlad ... 'nuther story altogether: they do/did it all.

[kflo]

Originally Posted by nanwynnfan

Then I guess it's more a matter of point of view, not something very deep that requires much exploration to demystify. I see the K as a vacuum, rendered statistically harmless by the volume of outs overall, as opposed to the much lesser number of outs where the non-productivity of the K is laid bare. Since I've already explained this twice [and added the added edge of batted balls in play going for errors], there's no neded to explain it further. It's opinion + viewpoint.

but it gives no distinction between the 2. and 1 is unquestionably far worse. it's like grouping hr's and singles together into a single number.

Originally Posted by nanwynnfan

This is precisely why I selected career numbers, so that stats for Gwynn through age 41 were aligned against a younger player [27?] entering his prime & peak years. Even so, Gwynn meaures up well; and I'm guessing, after Dunn's career is over, will be far more strategically productive.

Put most directly, I simply am a firm believer that guys who fan < 60 or so times a year, hit for high average and generally are heads-up on the basepaths will be more valuable over a season/career than guys who blast > 40 HRs but fan consistently >120 times per season.

By shher numbers, the K for them is expected every game; but the HR occurrences will be more random as to on-base situation, timeliness and consistency of event [every fourth game, streaks, etc.].

Now, guys like Pujols, Williams, Gehrig and Vlad ... 'nuther story altogether: they do/did it all.

but this should be able to prove out statistically, should it not?

[nanwynnfan]

Originally Posted by kflo

but it gives no distinction between the 2. and 1 is unquestionably far worse. it's like grouping hr's and singles together into a single number.

This is totally inaccurate.

If I had stated a premise or defined a mathematical proposition that purported to affix a certain value to different kinds of outs, and suggesting that my number crunching outcomes would define, with certainty, a means of out evaluation that applied both in isolation and in game context, then you would have a point.

I did no such thing. Here's what I did do:

1. I stated that a K is a non-productive out, in that it does not hold any promise of improving the offensive status before the K was recorded. Simple enough and a fact. [Note: I did not relate the K to any kind of in-game situation or context. I stated a fact].

2. I stated that a DP is a rally killer; and I will add right here and now that even the DP may have the anemic saving grace of possibly scoring a run under certain circumstances. I also stated that, since a batter is normally allotted 1 out for a failed AB, a DP adds 1 extra out as a negative, which is how I count it. [A DP is not "2" unproductive outs in this view; it is "1."].

3. I stated, and very clearly [and repeatedly] that I was interested in taking these two types of unproductive outs and finding what percentage they comprised from three viewpoints:

a. as % of total plate appearances;
b. as % of total charged at-bats;
c. as % of outs made.

4. As a simple arithmetic procedure, I presented the relative % spelled out if #3 above; and I further stated that the % of AB rather than PA or Outs was a fairer representation because AB = offensive opportunity in which the use of the bat comes into play [BB excluded].

5. I alleged that a batter whose previously defined "negative outs" constituted 7% was a more valuable offensive asset that one whose negative out volume was nearer 34%.

In a 162 game schedule, if I have two players, with the single caveat that they are WORTHY of comparison [both offensively competent, if in different ways], I can determine, by MY values, which I would rate > the other:

.................TPA.........AB.......BA........K. ...BB.......HR.........HIDP

Player A: .....600........550.... .335..... 55....50.......12.........14

Player B........600........500... .255....140...105......40...........9

I will take Player A every time, given a one or the other must select one choice, because he will get on base more often, will put the ball into play much more consistently; and, while he may produce fewer TB per season due to the HR shortfall, I can live with a 30-40 TB sacrifice simply because the batted ball will tend to make things happen.

Player A will be a two way catalyst, setting up to be driven in, or driving in, both ends of the offensive spectrum.

Player B, earning big bucks for those extra 28 HRs, can also score by virtue of his higher BB; but the critical elemnt is the long ball; and 28 over a 162 game schedule are more random and unselect in occurrence than Player A's high batted-ball-successfully-in-play production.

That's it. No regressions & no postulate. Just observation, addition and division/

[kflo]

and if the 7% were all double plays, whereas the 34% were all k's, i don't know why you'd choose the 7%.

and does it matter that slg% and obp correlate higher with runs scored than avg, and rc/9 and eqa higher still? i mean, you can have values and observations, but shouldn't they be reflected in actuals? if you have a theory, you should have sufficient data to test that theory. i'm not saying you're wrong, just that i'm a skeptic, and that other studies i've seen suggest your values aren't supported by the evidence.

[nanwynnfan]

Originally Posted by kflo

and if the 7% were all double plays, whereas the 34% were all k's, i don't know why you'd choose the 7%.

Let's look at that with nothing more sophisticated than 4th grade arithmetic.

Batter A goes 200 for 600 or .333 BA with 0 GIDP + 7% of all his outs devoted to HIDP. That's 400 outs * 7% = 28 DP, 56 outs, of with 28 are above his anticipated 1 unsuccessful AB allocation. That 28 approaches a MLB grounded into DP record. Since you provided the model, with all 7% going that route, his 200 for 600 = 400 outs, which really = 428.

Now, let's to the same for Player B, with 0 HIDP and 34% K's.
His BA is .255 or 139 for 545 [extra walks], so 406 is his outs total. Now, apply 34% to his AB and we get 185 whiffs, again pretty near a MLB record.
Over 162 games, that's an astounding 1.14 whiffs per game.

So I'll ask: who do you want on your roster?

Originally Posted by kflo

and does it matter that slg% and obp correlate higher with runs scored than avg, and rc/9 and eqa higher still? i mean, you can have values and observations, but shouldn't they be reflected in actuals? if you have a theory, you should have sufficient data to test that theory. i'm not saying you're wrong, just that i'm a skeptic, and that other studies i've seen suggest your values aren't supported by the evidence.

Statistics are neat, tidy and appear to present surgical clarity; but baseball is a game of nuance and strategy, with a huge human dynamic that SOME sabremetricians write off as "luck," "chance," or statistical "noise."

Non-slugger Gwynn puts up career OPS+ @ 132 to in prime Dunn @ 130. R/C per 600 AB comes down on Dunn's side by a 103 to 95 margin. I look at these figures and simply ask: Does any offensive margin by a given statistic warrant a direct comparison between these two?

I say, the warp in the fabric is the over-empasis of HR vs. the under-emphasis on effective hitting contact.

No need for me to prove it, because the two hitters are barely comparable in offensive ability. Now, you want to compare Vlad, or Albert or David to Gwynn; and we really have a basis for rigorous discussion.

[WilsonC]

One of the difficulties in using typical statistics in a case like this is that while it's easy to quantify the broad-scale value of the K, it's harder to get a read on the value patterns. For most players, it's not a very important consideration, as it's a definite minority of situations where this distinction is meaningful. When we have outliers as extreme as these two players, however, we need to at least examine the value patterns as being potentially relevant.

I don't necessarily give the advantage to the contact guy, however. It's easy to give examples of situations where a ball-in-play out is better than a K, and in that regard sometimes it's better to have the contact guy. Intuitively, this skill seems to compliment team speed rather well, as guys who run the bases well are easier to score with balls in play. On the flip side, a ball-in-play out does nothing with no runners on and can be detrimental with a runner on first. With a slower team, or a team with limitted baserunners, it makes intuitive sense to have the power bat who can create runs with less reliance on the guys in front of him.

[kflo]

Originally Posted by nanwynnfan

Let's look at that with nothing more sophisticated than 4th grade arithmetic.

Batter A goes 200 for 600 or .333 BA with 0 GIDP + 7% of all his outs devoted to HIDP. That's 400 outs * 7% = 28 DP, 56 outs, of with 28 are above his anticipated 1 unsuccessful AB allocation. That 28 approaches a MLB grounded into DP record. Since you provided the model, with all 7% going that route, his 200 for 600 = 400 outs, which really = 428.

Now, let's to the same for Player B, with 0 HIDP and 34% K's.
His BA is .255 or 139 for 545 [extra walks], so 406 is his outs total. Now, apply 34% to his AB and we get 185 whiffs, again pretty near a MLB record.
Over 162 games, that's an astounding 1.14 whiffs per game.

So I'll ask: who do you want on your roster?

are you saying it's clearly the guy who creates more outs and fewer rc/9?

btw, the 7% would have been on ab's per the example, not outs.

Originally Posted by nanwynnfan

Statistics are neat, tidy and appear to present surgical clarity; but baseball is a game of nuance and strategy, with a huge human dynamic that SOME sabremetricians write off as "luck," "chance," or statistical "noise."

Non-slugger Gwynn puts up career OPS+ @ 132 to in prime Dunn @ 130. R/C per 600 AB comes down on Dunn's side by a 103 to 95 margin. I look at these figures and simply ask: Does any offensive margin by a given statistic warrant a direct comparison between these two?

i'm not sure what the question is. the statistics are pretty close.

Originally Posted by nanwynnfan

I say, the warp in the fabric is the over-empasis of HR vs. the under-emphasis on effective hitting contact.

No need for me to prove it, because the two hitters are barely comparable in offensive ability. Now, you want to compare Vlad, or Albert or David to Gwynn; and we really have a basis for rigorous discussion.

what does barely comparable mean? you just showed their ops and rc numbers which were very comparable, with dunn actually coming out ahead in the measure that's more highly correlated with run production.

the difference in offensive value between pujols and gwynn is far greater than the difference between gwynn and dunn.

[nanwynnfan]

Originally Posted by kflo

are you saying it's clearly the guy who creates more outs and fewer rc/9?

Hardly. It's clearly the guy who creates fewer non-productive outs. The RC/27 Outs, which I have used myself, can be seen to make a two-faced presentation in favoring the power guy, by stacking the deck with 9 of him, using stats that favor the power guy from the start. I've used it, and I plead guilty in that regard.

Originally Posted by kflo

btw, the 7% would have been on ab's per the example, not outs.

Okay. That's 42 GIDP in 600 AB for Gwynn, a record. In K's it's 185 K's for Dunn ... [I believe I mixed the two in my earlier post]. So, the corrected difference is 42 DP [not 28] for Gwynn; and the atrocious 185 K's stays the same for Dunn.

Originally Posted by kflo

i'm not sure what the question is. the statistics are pretty close.

I'm not about to convince you. I am well aware of that. However, I would urge readers of these posts to examine both Gwynn's and Dunn's career stats [I generally refer to Baseball-Reference] and just see the overall picture: a slugger who has batted as low as .215, whose TB are marginally = to his non-power opponent, his K's difference, the comparable distributions of extra base hits, and yes the almost damnable BA, the OB%, the steals and caught stealings, the sacrifice hits + sac flies per year ... tell me these guys are on the same offensive plain.

Originally Posted by kflo

what does barely comparable mean? you just showed their ops and rc numbers which were very comparable, with dunn actually coming out ahead in the measure that's more highly correlated with run production.

Major point. Dunn hits 40 Hr's in a season = 160 TB in that category vs. say 12 HR's for Gwynn = 48. That's a differential of 112 TB in one category with Dunn > Gwynn.

That basic element feeds into most RC statistical comps and gives a huge edge to the power guy. The power guy will also have pitchers playing at the edges to avoid the long ball, so their trade-off is the BB, which further props up the power guy in OB%; but here I would interject that the negative for a Dunn here is that the bat has been taken out of his hands.

So, at year end, if Gwynn bats .333 with 257 TB and Dunn hits .255 with 288 TB, the 112 TB expectation has evaporated down to 31; and Gwynn's 200 hits have the promise of greater advance for men on than the additional BB's issued to Dunn.

It's all nuance and layering; and the stats as presently emphasized have a bias for the long ball.

Wish list: Take down all OF walls for a season, allowing an OF strategy to play at whatever depth. Then shout, "Play ball!"

I wonder how many extra 3B and inside-the-park HR's a guy like Gwynn would collect and how many HRs would be long singles or doubles for a Dunn.

I'll say it just this one more time: the HR, once in every 16 PA or once in every 14 AB is along the lines of one every 4 games, is random, park dependent, and does not always come when you want it or need it most. Yet it pads the power guys stats [and paycheck - nature of the game].

Originally Posted by kflo

the difference in offensive value between pujols and gwynn is far greater than the difference between gwynn and dunn.

Either we're in harmony here, or there's an echo.