Chris Davis is on pace to crush Mark Reynold's single season strikeout record (105 already and there is still over a week till the halfway mark on the season). Although with a .270 OBP it's going to be tough for him to maintain his playing time.

...Adam Dunn is a perfect example of today’s hitter.

you don't say?

...Adam Dunn is a perfect example of today’s hitter.

yeah this is bogus

More like J.D. Drew if he was healthy.

So "Today's hitter" strikes out more than two inner-circle hall of famers. Wow, great point Tim!

So "Today's hitter" strikes out more than two inner-circle hall of famers. Wow, great point Tim!
we could compare inner circle guy like Pujols vs the others and it's a closer race.

"If I'd just tried for them dinky singles, I could've batted around six hundred."

- Babe Ruth

The true counterpart to Dunn in the Williams/DiMaggio era wasn't one of them, of course, but instead someone like Rudy York or Chet Laabs or Pat Seerey. They didn't strike out as frequently as Dunn, but they struck out vastly more frequently than Williams or DiMaggio, both of whom were unusual even within their era for their combination of power and contact.

...Adam Dunn is a perfect example of today’s hitter. He is in his ninth season, and he has, by a healthy margin, more strikeouts than Williams and DiMaggio combined.

So the typical hitter in today's era leads the league in strikeouts multiple times? Wow. That is a lot of typical hitters.

It's the 'roids!

Apparently today's typical Primate parses one line into complete meaninglessness.

Apparently today's typical Primate parses one line into complete meaninglessness.

Indeed. Back in my day, we didn't need more than two or three words to be able to parse into meaninglessness. These posters today are coddled, and it starts in Little League English.

Apparently today's typical Primate parses one line into complete meaninglessness.

I'd love to hear your explanation for what is typical about Adam Dunn's hitting.

Here's Dunn per 162 games:

.247 AVE
.382 OBP
.518 SLG
40 HR
115 BB
180 K

What about Dunn is a "perfect example of today's hitter"? His strikeouts? His walks? His home runs? His average, OBP, or SLG? No, no, no, no, no, and no.

Dunn is NOT a "perfect example" of "today's swing-as-hard-as-you-can-in-case-you-hit-it mentality." Dunn is NOT a "perfect example" of "today's emphasis on on-base percentage, working deep counts and taking walks." Dunn is an EXTREME example of those things. Dunn is not typical at all, is not an example of today's hitter, let alone a "perfect" example of such.

If you can't explain why Dunn is a perfect example of today's hitter, I'll assume you had nothing useful to say and were just driving by.

the little man is obsessed with K's--I refuse to RTFA--did he use the word "embarrassed" this time (as in "players aren't embarrassed to strike out any more")

we once had a psychological discussion about why Kurkjian is so obsessed

The true counterpart to Dunn in the Williams/DiMaggio era wasn't one of them, of course, but instead someone like Rudy York or Chet Laabs or Pat Seerey. They didn't strike out as frequently as Dunn, but they struck out vastly more frequently than Williams or DiMaggio, both of whom were unusual even within their era for their combination of power and contact.

Bill Nicholson.

Bill Nicholson.

AKA Bill "Swish" Nicholson. Not that there was anything wrong with him.

Bill Nicholson.

Excellent call. He even bats lefty, like Dunn.

Diperna, everyone knows exactly what Kurkjian meant, regardless whether he worded it precisely. How about, "Dunn represents a type of hitter which has become more prevalent and driven the change I'm discussing in my ####### article." Dikkhead.

Jeff K., I somehow read your name -- twice! -- as Joey B. Please don't be offended. I'm very sorry.

Williams or DiMaggio, both of whom were unusual even within their era for their combination of power and contact.

So unusual that they were noted for it. Notable, in fact, or famous for it. Power+contact being a good thing, being famous for it should be remembered. Perhaps if there were a room somewhere where we could just write stuff on the walls about these guys, so that we don't forget. We'll call it the Foyer of Notability.

how about the parlor of pre-eminence? the attic of acclaim?

The nice thing is that, even just in the excerpt, you have two baseball people giving the counter-argument to Kurkjian. Dunn basically says "dude, I get on base 40% of the time and hit 40 HR, I think that's pretty good" and Francona says "the game has changed for a lot of reasons and the old approach is no longer optimal."

As Steve points out, guys like DiMaggio and Williams have always been rare ... and are extreme examples in their own right. But Pujols doesn't K much, Bonds didn't K much, Sheffield didn't K much, Palmeiro didn't K much, Frank Thomas didn't K much (esp in his prime).

Y'know, I was alive then and I only just realized that in 2004, Bonds walked 191 more times than he K'd.

Anyway, from 1996 to 2008, you get 25 batter-seasons with 100+ BB and <=80 Ks. Bonds, Thomas, Sheffield, Giles and Helton are the most common names. Six of those seasons had 60 or fewer Ks (Bonds 3, Giles 2, Pujols).

But, to be fair, the 50s were a walk-crazy era and you'll find 51 such seasons from 1948-1960 despite having only about half the teams and fewer games. Not just the obvious candidates like Williams and Musial and not just the reasonably well-known walking Eddies ... but for crying out loud, in 1949, Johnny Pesky walked 100 times against 19 Ks while putting up an ISO of 78. In 1953, Ferris Fain put up the line 256/405/345 -- and he was a 1B. His career line was 290/424/396. Pitchers were just plum crazy back then.

From 1928 to 1940, you'll also find 51 seasons. Ruth, Gehrig, Ott but also Max Bishop and Luke Appling.

One thing that has mostly disappeared from the game is the high walk/low power hitter. There was Brett Butler. Henderson of course but he had enough power that you couldn't just groove it. You get a guy like Castillo who will walk enough to put up a nice OBP but his career high walks is 78. I assume these guys have disappeared because pitchers want these guys to put it in play and the last thing you want to do is walk guys ahead of the typical Adam Dunn. :-)

Now, from 1928 to 1940, there were 64 seasons with <=80 K and >=30 HR. From 1948 to 1960, there were 74 of them. From 1996 to 2008, only 68 of them.

Now, just plain ol' 30+ HR seasons? From 1928 to 1940 there were 81; from 1948 to 1960 there were 118; from 1996 to 2008 there were 438.

'Tis a mystery why we have a "hit it as hard as you can" philosophy these days.

Diperna, everyone knows exactly what Kurkjian meant, regardless whether he worded it precisely.

I suppose this translates to "Diperna, it's your fault that Kurkjian wrote something that was retarded."

I didn't know what he meant at all. For some reason I thought he meant that Dunn is a perfect example of today's hitter. Thankfully, we have you to tell us what he meant to write.

Seriously - complaining that someone pointed out that Kurkjian wrote something that made no sense is pretty lame.

The question is: Do you think Kurkjian is actually mentally retarded or totally ignorant of baseball? Because that's what it would take to think Adam Dunn is really an average or typical hitter. Or do you think Kurkjian was intentionally exaggerating?

You may think the majority of baseball writers are mentally retarded or totally ignorant of baseball, but I think you're wrong in the case of Kurkjian.

Or do you think Kurkjian was intentionally exaggerating?

I think he made no sense. I wasn't nitpicking.

If I had wanted to nitpick, I would have laughed at him for writing that 2009 is "thirty seasons" after 1970.

By the way, Torre's story as retold by Kurkjian seems odd. Brock didn't want to play on the last day of the season because he had 99 strikeouts; his manager obliged him and didn't start him, but then made him pinch hit anyway?

Of course the pitching side of the equation needs to be addressed as well. I'd say there's far more strikeout pitches now than there were in the 40's & 50's (both in terms of types of pitches-splitters for ex.-as well number of such pitches thrown with 2 strikes). There's less emphasis on just "letting them put it in play," and more on "blow it/slip it by them and make them sit down." I'd agree that the hitters probably (as they usually do) have more control over K's-perhaps 60-40%?

By the way, Torre's story as retold by Kurkjian seems odd. Brock didn't want to play on the last day of the season because he had 99 strikeouts; his manager obliged him and didn't start him, but then made him pinch hit anyway?

One at-bat, one chance to strike out. Four at-bats, four chances to strike out.

The thing about Kurkjian is that his type of analysis is a complete anachronism. He's an "in-depth" stat analyst from the pre-sabermetric era, and so everything he writes or says just sounds retarded to people who are living here on the round earth.

Personally, I can't stand him. I can't stand his smug face and his whiny voice, and how he's supposedly a stat-head, yet makes totally asinine, out-dated, ill-informed observations and predictions.

One at-bat, one chance to strike out. Four at-bats, four chances to strike out.

One strikeout added to ninety nine strikeouts is one hundred strikeouts.

(That's just as enlightening as what you wrote.)

The interesting thing is that it was the first time in Brock's career in which he played a full season and didn't strike out 100 times. The season is a marker for his strikeout rate decreasing. Brock was always rather notorious for striking out a lot, especially for someone who wasn't a power hitter.

If you go to his Hall of Merit thread and look at the first few posts, you'll find me making a distinction between two main phases of his career, with 1970 being approximately the beginning of the second phase. The main differences: his strikeouts went down, and his HR went down. With his BABIP staying the same, [edit - his BA when not striking out stayed the same, but his BABIP had to go up slightly to compensate for the missing HR] his BA went up, making him a consistent .300 hitter, which he hadn't previously been. His walks also went up a little - so the result was a better BA and better OBP, but at the cost of half of his HR.

"we once had a psychological discussion about why Kurkjian is so obsessed"


"I think Kurkjian was once molestered by Dave Kingman"
"Show us on the doll, where the the left fielder touched you."


This was classic.

That's good stuff, Frenchy.

I didn't know what he meant at all.

That's not surprising. Explaining to people that players are striking out a lot more, and yet can still be productive, is a very complicated subject, and one I wouldn't expect you to comprehend.


(That's just as enlightening as what you wrote.)

Not really.

Chris Davis is on pace to crush Mark Reynold's single season strikeout record (105 already and there is still over a week till the halfway mark on the season). Although with a .270 OBP it's going to be tough for him to maintain his playing time.

Mark Reynolds is on pace to shatter his own strikeout record, and he'll play enough to do it given he is also on pace to hit 50 HR.

I find it amusing that Kurkjian is a "professional writer" who can't write a clear sentence, let alone a paragraph. And even funnier that some self appointed nit doesn't think he should be criticized for failing to meet the most basic requirements of his job.

And Obama, you sir are the dumbest socialist to sit in oval office, at least since GW Bush.

I also find it funny that he should be given credit for "intentionally exaggerating." That is exactly the kind fo intellectually dishonest BS rhetoric that I can't stand; in my opinion, that is worse than being ignorant.

One strikeout added to ninety nine strikeouts is one hundred strikeouts.

(That's just as enlightening as what you wrote.)

I suppose so, in a world where everything is binary yes/no, black/white, good/bad, and everyone uses pure logic to guide their actions. But in the real world, it's quite reasonable for a manager to reduce the chance of his player getting a single strike-out in consideration for his player's desires, but in the interest of winning a game not eliminate the chance altogether.

As for Dunn and Kurkjian, Kurkjian never said Dunn was a typical hitter. "Typical" was a word brought up by you. Kurkjian said he was the "perfect example" of today's hitters. And why is he the perfect example? Because his tendencies are so extreme. Kurkjian is making a point about today's hitters being more concerned with home runs, walking more and getting on base, and thus striking out more than their contact-hitting, BA-valuing counterparts of yesteryear. Dunn does all those things to an extreme degree, making him a "perfect example". Not a typical player. Not a typical example. This was not particularly hard to understand for anyone who didn't just assume that Kurkjian is an idiot and started for looking for things to bag on.

CFiJ, I reckon you are splitting hairs. "Typical hitter" and "perfect example of today's hitter" can be interpreted as pretty much the same thing. Ray is right. I don't reckon Kurkjian put too much thought into the wording and the article has come out sloppy. Pretty much comparing any hitter to Williams and Dimaggio is going to favour whatever negative aspect you choose to focus on. A bit like, hey today's hitters don't really hit for average like Williams or Rogers Hornsby.

It's a poorly constructed piece and I for one actually still don't mind some of Kurkjian's stuff, not this piece however.

As for Dunn and Kurkjian, Kurkjian never said Dunn was a typical hitter. "Typical" was a word brought up by you. Kurkjian said he was the "perfect example" of today's hitters.

This is absurd. "Perfect example" = "typical."

This is absurd. "Perfect example" = "typical."

Is a perfect example of a baseball player a typical baseball player?

Hmmmm.... hard to say.

Is a perfect example of a baseball player a typical baseball player?

I don't think that's right, Ray.

"Adam Dunn is a perfect example of today’s hitter." Since Adam Dunn isn't anything like today's hitter, the statement makes no sense.

Kurkjian's word choice may not have been ideal, but it's clear what he meant:

today's hitters [are] more concerned with home runs, walking more and getting on base, and thus striking out more than their contact-hitting, BA-valuing counterparts of yesteryear. Dunn does all those things to an extreme degree

Also, ValueArb, did you just call George W. Bush a socialist? ...