Disagree. Against today's watered-down pitching, Kingman would easily match Dunn's statistics.[/QUOTE]

 

 

Watered down? Todays pitching is way more specialized than it was when Kingman was playing. If anything his numbers would be worse today than they already are. Hence the reason we will never see anyone hit 400 again.

My post would have been more accurate with this information.

 

Runs Dunn Produced (RBI's + RS - HR)

 

2004 161 Runs Produced

2005 168 Runs Produced

2006 151 Runs Produced

2007 167 Runs Produced

 

In comparison, Albert Pujols produced 179 runs for the Cardinals last season.

 

I don't see anything close to the 200 number you mentioned eariler...:confused:

Disagree. Against today's watered-down pitching, Kingman would easily match Dunn's statistics.[/QUOTE]

 

 

Watered down? Todays pitching is way more specialized than it was when Kingman was playing. If anything his numbers would be worse today than they already are. Hence the reason we will never see anyone hit 400 again.

 

Really? Hitting for avg. is not the debate here. If it was Dunn's not in the conversation. We're talking about HRs here. You taking into account the cavernous ball parks those guys played in compared to todays bandbox's. How many guys hit over 50 HRs in a season back in the 60's and 70's? One in the 70's? How many in this decade?

 

Really? Hitting for avg. is not the debate here. If it was Dunn's not in the conversation. We're talking about HRs here. You taking into account the cavernous ball parks those guys played in compared to todays bandbox's. How many guys hit over 50 HRs in a season back in the 60's and 70's? One in the 70's? How many in this decade?

 

Are you disagreeing with me? I can't tell for sure.

 

But, if so, I'll ask: How many times has Dunn hit 50? Heck, how many times has he hit more than 40? In the 70s, Dunn's numbers drop back to more Dave Kingman levels. Against today's watered-down pitching and in today's smaller parks, Kingman would match Dunn's output.

The big difference in the hitting approaches (and performances) of Dunn and Kingman is Dunn's ability to get on base. Kingman's lifetime OBP is .302 ... Dunn's, at the moment, is at the .384 mark.

 

Dunn's career OPS+, his OPS in relation to the league, is 132 while Kingman's is 115. That isn't a huge difference, but it is a significant one.

The big difference in the hitting approaches (and performances) of Dunn and Kingman is Dunn's ability to get on base. Kingman's lifetime OBP is .302 ... Dunn's, at the moment, is at the .384 mark.

 

Dunn's career OPS+, his OPS in relation to the league, is 132 while Kingman's is 115. That isn't a huge difference, but it is a significant one.

 

I'm betting Kong's OBP would go up significantly against today's crummy pitching.

I'm betting Kong's OBP would go up significantly against today's crummy pitching.

 

I was agreeing with you. Somehow the quotes got a little messed up.

I was agreeing with you. Somehow the quotes got a little messed up.

 

Cool. :thumb:

I'm betting Kong's OBP would go up significantly against today's crummy pitching.

I suspect a hitter's overall OBP is as more reflective of his approach and talent than the quality of pitching he's facing.

I suspect a hitter's overall OBP is as more reflective of his approach and talent than the quality of pitching he's facing.

 

To a degree, sure. I still say Kong would hit for a much better average against today's weaker pitching. Which would in turn help cancel out the differences in BBs.

To a degree, sure. I still say Kong would hit for a much better average against today's weaker pitching. Which would in turn help cancel out the differences in BBs.

He would have to hit for a much, much higher average (70 or 80 points) to make up the difference. I don't think his approach would be very conducive to that.

I keep hearing it but still not buying it. What makes todays pitching so crummy/watered down?

I keep hearing it but still not buying it. What makes todays pitching so crummy/watered down?

 

More teams today means that pitchers pitching in the bigs today would not have been pitching when King Kong played.

 

The "bandbox" argument doesn't play well IMO. Dunn and King Kong aren't "barely" home run hitters. When they hit them they're out in any park.

More teams today means that pitchers pitching in the bigs today would not have been pitching when King Kong played.

 

I understand the argument, but it is still very subjective.

 

As someone mentioned, the "specialists" in baseball today make it very difficult. Add in the advanced scouting that they have today, and today's hitters are at yet another disadvantage.

 

There are arguments both ways and anybody who thinks it's clearly one way or the other is kidding themselves.

I don't see anything close to the 200 number you mentioned eariler...:confused:

 

And I admitted I should have been more accurated with the first sentence in the post. What else do you want me to do? Grovel and beg for your forgiveness?