Okay, let's take a look at the polarizing Adam Dunn's 2004 season in comparison so the 2004 season of Bobby Abreu, whose numbers please both the SABR and traditional crowds.

Dunn: .266/.388/.569 OPS: .956 OPS+ 152*

Abreu: .301/.428/.544 OPS: .971 OPS+ 149**

*Great American PF: 92

**Citizen's Bank PF: 101

Abreu had 713 PA and Dunn had 681

In 32 more PA, Abreu had 22 more hits and actually had 19 more walks.

I understand that Dunn coming out above Abreu in the OPS+ is because of the Park Factor (which I don't really agree with because G.A.BP is good place to hit, especially for Dunn- the PF one year later was 106, Citizen's Bank jumps 7 points too, which really shows how the teams who play at the park determine the park factor, but that's another debate.)

Here's my question though, why is it even close?

Abreu beats him in just about every raw stat, including OBP, BA, RC...everything except for SLG (-25) and HR (-16), though he was +13 in doubles and all that should be taken into account in the SLG anyway.

Abreu also stole 40 bases at an 88% success rate and is a better defender, this is just about the stats.

I thought about this because of the debate that arose in the Gehrig/Thomas thread about whether you could be a better hitter with lower numbers. Now Abreu was certainly better and the numbers back that up. But I don't understand why it is even close here, could this be a case of the numbers not bearing out how much better one guy was than another?

Dunn: .266/.388/.569 OPS: .956 OPS+ 152*

Abreu: .301/.428/.544 OPS: .971 OPS+ 149**

*Great American PF: 92

**Citizen's Bank PF: 101

Abreu had 713 PA and Dunn had 681

In 32 more PA, Abreu had 22 more hits and actually had 19 more walks.

I understand that Dunn coming out above Abreu in the OPS+ is because of the Park Factor (which I don't really agree with because G.A.BP is good place to hit, especially for Dunn- the PF one year later was 106, Citizen's Bank jumps 7 points too, which really shows how the teams who play at the park determine the park factor, but that's another debate.)

Here's my question though, why is it even close?

Abreu beats him in just about every raw stat, including OBP, BA, RC...everything except for SLG (-25) and HR (-16), though he was +13 in doubles and all that should be taken into account in the SLG anyway.

Abreu also stole 40 bases at an 88% success rate and is a better defender, this is just about the stats.

I thought about this because of the debate that arose in the Gehrig/Thomas thread about whether you could be a better hitter with lower numbers. Now Abreu was certainly better and the numbers back that up. But I don't understand why it is even close here, could this be a case of the numbers not bearing out how much better one guy was than another?

## Comment