Spring Training 2012: How Adam Dunn Might Build off His Fantastic Spring
Dunn has hit a few home runs, gotten on base often and only struck out a few times. What's most important is that Dunn has walked very often. White Sox manager Robin Ventura must be pleased with "The Big Donkey."
Dunn's spring numbers are unbelievable. He's put up a .438 on-base percentage and four home runs in 48 plate appearances. He has walked 12 times, once every four plate appearances. Also, he's struck out only four times, once every nine at-bats.
White Sox fans have to be happy with how the big signing of the 2010-11 offseason is turning things around. Dunn is much more patient at the plate this spring training than he was last year during the regular season.
Last year, Dunn walked only 75 times—his lowest total since 2003.
Dunn struck out 177 times (tying his fifth highest strikeout total) in 415 at-bats, striking out once every 2.34 at bats.
This spring could be a very promising indicator. His home run total doesn't mean a whole lot, but it could show that Dunn can slug more out of the park than last year when he knocked out only 11.
Dunn's walk numbers show that he could get back to his 100-walks-per-season ways. That would do wonders for a White Sox offense that didn't take enough pitches, finishing eighth in walks in 2011.
Some look too much at Dunn's .159 batting average from last season. What was more disheartening was his .292 on-base percentage. If Dunn can get 100 walks, he could easily bring that total up to .340 or .360.
Striking out less and walking more could allow Dunn to boost his on-base percentage even more. If Dunn gets on base more, he could score more runs for the White Sox.
More runs for the White Sox just might translate into more wins.
The White Sox are in a rebuilding year. Rebuilding could come along a bit easier if Dunn can get on base often.
Hopefully, Dunn can build off this spring and show the patience at the plate that was lacking in 2011.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?