Acting Like Adam Dunn Is Ryan Howard

Got teeth? Keith doesn't.

JoeHawks is a fine gent
Joined:
May 24, 2010
Posts:
1,666
Liked Posts:
220
From the Chicago Sun-Times:
According to a major-league source, Williams spent the last few days trying desperately to pry Adam Dunn from the grasps of the Washington Nationals, offering up “anyone and anything he has in the minor leagues in a package.” And no one is untouchable, including pitcher Daniel Hudson or infielder Dayan Viciedo.” The problem Kenny is finding out is that [Nats GM Mike] Rizzo is acting like Dunn is Ryan Howard,” the source said.
I suppose that on the surface, this comparison might seem kind of ridiculous. Adam Dunn wasn’t even offered arbitration upon leaving the Diamondbacks and is in the final season of a two-year, $20 million contract. Ryan Howard, on the other hand, has an MVP award and has three more top-five MVP finishes. He has parlayed that into a five-year, 125 million dollar extension, on top of his most recent arbitration award of $19 million. One would certainly think that this kind of disparity in contracts, as well as the reputations that have led to them, would be reflected in the numbers.


On the contrary, however, the numbers support Rizzo’s comparison, particularly in terms of hitting. Given that the White Sox would play Dunn at DH, this would be the primary concern of Kenny Williams. Here’s how Adam Dunn’s career compares to Ryan Howard’s, without park adjustments.


319_2154_OF_cseason_full_8_20100719.png



Particularly notable is the stretch from 2007-2010 – the significant stretch for predicting a player’s future, as when you start getting more than four years out, those stats are hardly predictive of what a player can do now. And you’ll notice, that even without park adjustments, that Adam Dunn has been just as good or better than Ryan Howard for four years. The parks aren’t much of a factor for the years that Dunn was with the Reds (LHB HR park factor of 123) or the Diamondbacks (118), but Nationals Park (95) is much harder for lefties to homer than Citizens Bank Park (116). Dunn has a wRC+ advantage this year of 152 to 134, a pretty significant difference – although it is worth noting that it is easier to hit doubles at Nationals Park than it is at Citizens Bank Park, which mitigates much of the difference in parks.


ZiPS projects Dunn and Howard for .400 and .399 wOBAs respectively. Dunn is 10 days older than Ryan Howard. Basically, the only difference in these players is that Dunn is a worse fielder. Yes, Howard is slightly more valuable, but Rizzo isn’t too far off base in this comparison.


However, where Rizzo is completely off base is in his expectation that the return for Dunn should be that of a superstar. The simple fact is that neither Dunn nor Howard are superstars – their positions in particular and their defensive issues (an average defensive 1B has a net defensive value, including position, of -12.5 runs per 150 games, over a win) make them above-average players but well below the elite of the league. Given that Dunn will be a rental, Rizzo is going to have to severely tone down his expectations if he wants to move the slugger before the deadline. Maybe, if Rizzo values Dunn so highly, the Nationals should just give Dunn the four-year, $60 million contract he’s seeking.
---
Acting Like Adam Dunn Is Ryan Howard | FanGraphs Baseball
 

BigP50

04-21-2012
Joined:
Apr 17, 2010
Posts:
7,856
Liked Posts:
548
Location:
Lincoln, Nebraska
anyone think the Beckham for Dunn is a bit ridiculous?
 

X

When one letter is enough
Donator
CCS Hall of Fame '20
Joined:
May 12, 2010
Posts:
24,664
Liked Posts:
7,783
anyone think the Beckham for Dunn is a bit ridiculous?

Yes, I do.

But then, I think any prospect for a good, established player is a bit ridiculous. Give me the player that has proven it in the majors, and I'll win 80% of the time.
 

Lefty

New member
Joined:
Apr 19, 2010
Posts:
2,241
Liked Posts:
780
Yes, I do.

But then, I think any prospect for a good, established player is a bit ridiculous. Give me the player that has proven it in the majors, and I'll win 80% of the time.

This is ridiculous. Of course the "proven" MLB contributor is way more likely to actually produce at the MLB level than the "prospect". Duh. But trading a current value-giver for a prospect more than likely isn't some attempt to "win" the trade that season, or even a couple seasons down the road.

Teams that are out of the hunt looking to cut costs aren't looking for a "near-term value"-for-"near-term value" trade, that's ridiculous. They are knowingly sacrificing that present value for the possibility of value way farther down the road. To say "give me the MLB-ready guy over the prospect any day and I'll win" is completely missing the point.
 

Top