Originally Posted by JB98
Yet his career OBP is only 10 points higher than Konerko's. And his career slugging is only 4 points higher. So, Konerko gives you almost the same OBP and slugging without the absurd strikeout totals that bog down an offense.
When I was in Little League, they always told the worst kid on the team that a walk is as good as a hit. I've never believed that to be true. That's just what you tell a 9-year-old who can't hit worth a ****. Everyone knows it's better to get a base hit than it is to walk.
I think it's kinda silly that people would sneer at Konerko's career and declare Dunn's to be superior. It depends on what stats you value, and even then, stats don't take the eye test into account. Even to this day, I would rather have a declining Konerko at the plate with a man at third and one out than Dunn.
Hell, Konerko hit .319 with RISP last year. He could still help the Sox in 2014.
This seems obvious. Hitting, ultimately, is about hitting. Walking often comes on a pitcher's terms. Teams try to provide lineup protection for their best hitters so they will see more good pitches and walk less. If you aren't hitting when you're not walking, you're not hitting.
It is fashionable today to consider batting averages meaningless, but unless your offensive role is limited to getting on base, if you're hitting .220 (something Adam Dunn has never managed to do with the White Sox), your on-base percentage is irrelevant and your OPS doesn't reflect your hitting.
I don't see how anyone can favorably compare Dunn's career to Konerko's. I didn't understand how anyone could do that the day the White Sox signed him, and the comparison has only become more absurd over the last three seasons.