Greg Hibbard

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jun 26, 2012 -> 03:06 PM) Which he's done once in his career. 8 years ago. So pretty unlikely. How many other times has Dunn hit 23 homers in his first 73 games?

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Jun 26, 2012 -> 03:05 PM) Wait a minute. You have the audacity to say that a guy that hasn't hit over 40 since like 2004 is suddenly going to hit 55 despite a 40% k-rate? YOU GOTTA BE BLEEPIN' ME!!!!! You were the one who brought up 55 homers in this thread. Straw man, much?

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Jun 26, 2012 -> 03:02 PM) Here you were rolling and then you type something like this. http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/a...od-player-ever/ It's hyperbole. I've read that article before, and I know what happened last year. I think I'll take the first 6 weeks of this season as a sign that 2011 Dunn was an outlier rather than disregard the man's entire career because of a 20 game slump after a tear to start the season.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jun 26, 2012 -> 03:02 PM) You laugh at the thread, but you should also laugh at anyone who really thinks Dunn will hit 55 homers. You want to look at his career numbers for everything else, you should probably look at them in the HR column as well. Also, 2011 did happen. I wasn't the one who originally said he was going to hit 55 homers. I think Dunn will hit about 45 homers.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Jun 26, 2012 -> 02:59 PM) I love your confidence and hope you are correct. Should I take Paul Konerko's last three weeks and hope he isn't reverting to 2003?

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Jun 26, 2012 -> 02:51 PM) Two weeks? He's .159/.293/.415/.708 since may 30. He's whiffed 41 times in his last 82 at bats (99 plate appearances). That's is Sigorney Weaver's face-like scary. We'll see what happens. But get off this as long as Dunn hit 55 HRs stuff. He's not going to do that if he doesn't somewhat cut that K rate down. If Dunn hits 55 homers, 99% of people, including baseball analysts, don't care how much he strikes out. I'm sorry that that's unacceptable to you, but most people do not share your opinion. He will not continue at his season worst 3 week clip for this season. 2011 wasn't his entire career, and these three weeks will not make for a season. This thread ought to be pretty hilarious when he hits like 5 jacks in a week soon.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Jun 26, 2012 -> 02:43 PM) Dude, I love advanced statistics as much as anyone. But stop. If you're hitting below .200, you're hurting your team more than helping. Dunn has looked like fly-covered s*** for the last month. I'm not sure what's going to happen from this point on. But there's cause for concern. I'm not really concerned if Dunn is hitting .198 or .212. .170 vs. .230 is a huge difference. .198 vs. .212 is not. His stats overall this season are still fine, and if he was hitting .198 instead of .212 with an .850 OPS they'd still be fine overall.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Jun 26, 2012 -> 02:41 PM) It's not gonna happen at this rate. Mark Reynolds holds the record (I believe) for highest K-rate in history at 35.4%. His OPS that year was .753. Dunn is on pace to shatter the K mark. Don't get fooled by the home runs. He's hurting the team right now. At what rate? At this rate his total season OPS appears to be .879. Is it better for us to look at the sample size of the last 2 weeks or the entire season?

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Jun 26, 2012 -> 02:34 PM) Not at this K rate. And all outs are not equal. A K is a K aka an automatic out unless the ball gets by the catcher (not like Dunn's slow ass could reach 1B in that situation anyway). When you put the ball in play, there's ALWAYS an opportunity that something could happened to enable you to get on base, drive in a run, etc. There's just no way to spin a 39% K rate into a positive. When you put the ball in play, you also have a way of making two outs instead of just 1. You're right - all outs are not equal. GIDPs should be evaluated twice as harshly as strikeouts.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Jun 26, 2012 -> 02:36 PM) He's at .212. You're not at all worried that two weeks from now he could be sitting at .198? Why on earth are you concerned about a 14 point movement on the least valuable offensive metric available to evaluate this type of hitter?

If his OPS finishes north of .875, I couldn't care less if his BA is .100 or .300.

This team has lost 7 of 9 - just like every team does. It's a bad streak over a relatively small portion of the season, after an insane winning streak. I wish some of the same people that screamed "sample size!!!!" about batting stats could hold perspective together when this team goes on either a good or bad stretch. This stretch doesn't mean that the sox are going to lose 90 just like the winning streak didn't mean the sox would win 100. If we continue to play well against the division we will win it. If we don't, we won't. Losing 7 of 9 doesn't mean s***. We have holes, yes. So do most other teams, including competitive ones. By the end of this month we will probably have reeled off 8 of 10 and the naysayers will once again be the converted. Christ, let's all act like we've watched a full season of baseball at some point.

1-0 astros on first ball fastball to martinez

Hawk just saying "for some reason we play well against the east..." Um... Sox with losing record against AL east in 2012, 2011, 2010....

QUOTE (bighurt4life @ Jun 5, 2012 -> 06:59 PM) Finishing with 400 home runs and playing for 15 years isn't the stuff of legend and it doesn't result in becoming the namesake of many awards, but it's a better career than the vast majority of players have in them. Actually, I agree exactly with every word he wrote here. Paulie has not had a legendary, accolade-laden career, but he has played better than the vast majority of players. I couldn't have said it better. If Paul finishes with 475-499 HR and .280 avg, which is the likeliest scenario, he'll get compared to Fred McGriff a lot, another almost Hall of Famer. Really the thing killing him is his career OPS being too low - it's even below Dunn's for his career, and some other names that are merely above average. He just flat out does not walk enough. If Paul had an OPS around .900 he'd have a much easier time being in the conversation - 500 HR or not.

Funny how 3 weeks ago people wanted to get rid of Beckham as quickly as possible, and now we're seeing threads wanting to lock him up long term.... Does anyone think we'd actually get robbed in arbitration based on his performance if he puts up his career line for the rest of the year?

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Jun 4, 2012 -> 11:03 AM) That 1978 team finished their 17-2 run under .500 overall, which said more about the quality of the team. This year's team is 8 games over .500 I agree with your point. I still thought it was worth pointing out that a stretch like that did not guarantee a winning season.

Five most recent 14-2 stretches during a season: 2010 June 9th- June 27th (season result: 88-74) 2003 July 13th-August 1st (season result: 86-76) 2000 June 4th-June 20th (season result: 95-67) 1996 May 16th-June 2nd (season result: 85-77) 1983 August 27th-Sept 11th (season result 99-63) Does this bode well for our Sox to win 85 or more THIS season? or, could the team still be in danger of a 1978, where the team went 17-2 from May 28th through June 15th but still finished 19 games under .500?

I would say Beckham is probably a C+ at this point as well. If he hits 20 homers this season, I'll be ecstatic, and he's on pace for 24. Still the BA is not where you want it.

Great idea for a thread - this should be fun. Most of your grades I'd agree with. However, Adam Dunn is at least a B with an OPS of .921. Batting average is not a good metric to evaluate him on, based on his composition as a batter, nor are strikeouts in a vacuum. His walks and homers needs to essentially more than make up for his strikeouts and batting average, and thus far they absolutley have.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jun 1, 2012 -> 12:46 PM) As to what the media is focusing on, Harrelson freaking out is obviously a bigger story than an umpire missing a call, whether that be to a local audience or a national audience. That's a good point, but inconsistency in umpiring on this particular point has been a major issue for years.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jun 1, 2012 -> 12:46 PM) I think the reason it is being discussed more for the rant and not the quality of the umpire's call is because this is the Hawk Harrelson thread and not a thread about that game or that particular call. I'm not trying to be a dick, just trying to answer your question... I get why it's being discussed in terms of Hawk here, in this thread. (I don't think you're being a dick, btw). The umpire's call isn't seemingly being discussed enough at a level where that discussion will have any meaning, and that really bothers me, and I feel MLB is treating it as a corollary to a typical Hawk sideshow because of Hawk's personality and track-record.

QUOTE (ScottyDo @ Jun 1, 2012 -> 12:27 PM) I mean, it's not going to be a national discussion, but in terms of local media, everyone agrees that it was a bad decision by the umpire, too. At least on The Score. Even B&B, notorious mockers of Hawk's, think the ump should have issued warnings after the AJ plunking. And whether or not Hawk went off, it would have been a discussion in local media. It was a terrible, terrible call that had a major impact on a game. I'm still failing to understand how Hawk's rant brought attention to this call. This call was horrible, with or without Hawk's rant, and would have been talked about locally with or without Hawk's rant, because it could have cost us that win (and maybe even should have). Hawk's rant brought attention to Hawk's rant, and seemingly gave MLB a way to talk around this issue.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 1, 2012 -> 12:18 PM) Come back to reality. No one (outside of the CSN's of the world) would have talked about it if it wasn't for Hawks rant. I feel like we are talking in circles. Am I missing an article where MLB actually commented on the umpire and the situation, or ANYONE talked about the actual call, or is it just about Hawk?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 1, 2012 -> 12:08 PM) Doesn't matter. It is the difference between most people having no idea this happened, or a decent amount of people knowing. Yes, a lot of people know Harrelson went off. They probably have no idea about what. I wish that the media would talk more about why the umpiring sucked and not about Selig and Reinsdorf needing to rein in Harrelson. Our team has had several incidents over the last 5 years where we've gotten plunked twice and then we're ejected when we try to retaliate.