Yeah, I was surprised both at the lack of interest in Dunn and at seeing him winding up on the Nats. A lot of teams could have used him, especially in the AL. I think the bias against K's and low AVG hurt him as much as the economy did.

I would say that the Indians followed this advice to a "T" in signing Kerry Wood, but didn't get the same return on their investment that the Braves would have with Dunn.

The Braves have "owners who just don't give a damn"?!? I don't think the track record warrants that characterization. They did sign Lowe and trade for Vazquez over the winter, both which added significant payroll.

The Braves went out and spent a ton of money to sign Derek Lowe and trade for Javier Vasquez, so I don't think they were just being cheap. I think the real problem is that there is still a feeling, clearly misplaced, within front offices in baseball that Adam Dunn is not that good of a baseball player.

I'm not sure the Braves were being cheap - I think Anderson has been overvalued his entire career and Dunn undervalued. So isn't it possible that this is a player valuation problem and not a penny-pinching one?

The Mets could have used Dunn too. Though seeing him attempt to patrol the nooks and crannies of Citi Field would have been maddening.

Outstanding column, Joe! Very interesting to see the Anderson/Dunn decision quantified and explored in such terms! Sometime, if you are so inclined, I would be fascinated to read your take on the Brewers going into the 2009 season with the starting rotation that they did, while all the while acting like they intended to be playoff contenders.

It seems like there is some sort of disconnect in there somewhere. If you would consider exploring that topic, that would be outstanding. I know they had no chance at re-signing Sabathia, but was there nothing they could have done other than "defer"?

Sorry to stray so far off-topic..

Few people could have guessed Dunn would be one of the top hitters in the league this year. PECOTA expected a WARP of 1.1 for Anderson and 2.9 for Dunn in 2009. Given the difference in their salaries and the fact that the Braves added quality starting pitching over the offseason, I don't see the evidence that the Braves' owners "just don't give a damn".

As the Phillies flirt with their impersonation of the 2007 Mets, it would have been nice to have a monster like Dunn rather than Ibanez, regardless of the latter's excellent first half. Really, is Dunn anything but another Howard (well, a cheaper, more patient Howard, who is also better against lefty pitching)?

As the worlds biggest Adam Dunn fan, I was saddened to see him settle for that crummy deal with the Nats. If you wanna talk about Dunn contrasts, the Reds essentially replaced Adam Dunn with Wily Tavares and a collection of used bandages. Now we're the worst hitting team in baseball.

Very interesting article and I agree with the central premise-- the Braves should have tried to get Dunn. However, Joe assumes several things in the article, some of which may not be true. For example, Joe assumes that the Braves could have signed Dunn for the same deal that Washington signed Dunn for (2 years/$20 million total). While this may be true, its just as possible that the Braves' interest in Dunn could have led to additional bidding (a "bidding war" so to speak). At the very least, Washington may have decided to raise its offer (in terms of years or dollars per year) to get Dunn, who otherwise appeared to have relatively few suitors in the off-season. Accordingly, its likely that the Braves would have had to pay more than Washington ended up paying to lock up Dunn.

The only fair way to judge the decision itself is to go off of expected WARP, rather than what Anderson and Dunn wound up doing. That might make a decision to sign Dunn look pretty awful, financially.

Given the economy last off-season, I'm not going to haul off on a team signing/trading-and-paying-for only Lowe+Vazquez, rather than Lowe+Vazquez+Dunn.

The problem I have with these types of articles is that the Braves' personnel moves were not simply "Anderson for Dunn" in a vacuum.

First, the premise that it was "only" $5.5MM more ignores the elephant in the room - the economy. There simply is no evidence that, at the time these moves were made, the Braves COULD afford the extra payroll. Every move they've made has not increased payroll. Even trading for McLouth was offset by not activating Glavine - who would have commanded a $1.5MM bonus his first day on the roster. Church makes less than Francoeur and the difference between Kotchman and LaRoche was paid by the Red Sox. I have always had an issue with Yankees fans evaluating the payroll decisions on other teams simply because there is no context for Yankees fans - of course they can easily afford the extra $5.5MM. Their team has no budget. But reality is that most teams operate at a budget and most teams can't easily blow past that budget "just because". And, as the attendance in Atlanta showed this summer, even when the Braves were still "in" the WC race, the fans did not come out meaning any extra salary would not have assuredly been offset by added revenue.

Second, because of the budget, what cost the team Dunn (whom many Braves' fans did want) was acquiring all 3 of Lowe ($15MM), Vazquez ($11.5MM) and Kawakami ($7.7MM). All winter talk was made of 2 SP and a power-hitting LF. Offense was the major weak issue for this team all winter but they wanted to focus on SP, which was also a weakness. Had they just gotten 2 of the 3, then the money would have been there for Dunn. But, for whatever reason, they signed all 3. And that left them budget shopping for a LF. That is why there was no talk of even Abreu - just Griffey and then Anderson. Again, moves like Anderson for Dunn do not happen in a vacuum. The 3rd SP "cost" them Dunn - not being "cheap".

Third, let's presume they only sign 2 of the 3 SP so that they can afford Dunn (and stay on budget) - where is the analysis that shows where the team would be in the WC race if they take away the worst of the SP and replace with someone like Glavine, Jo-Jo Reyes or even Medlen (at least until Hudson was ready to return)?

Whether it was the right way to spend the $40-45MM they spent this winner, the 3 SP were a reason this team stayed in the race, a feat not many fans expected to even be possible as the off-season began. Replacing one of them to enable them to sign Dunn does not result in a situation in which they would be in any better shape. But, of course, that type of analysis isn't as fun to write.

However, if one wished to focus on a team being cheap, here's one analysis to consider - how much did the Braves lose keeping Hanson at AAA to avoid Super 2 while running a mish-mash of garbage out there from mid-April (when a 5th SP was needed) to June 7?

Finally, as to the other OF moves, they likely would have occurred with Dunn in lieu of Anderson. McLouth was obtained since Schafer a) stunk up the joint because b) he hurt his wrist. Dunn can't play LF - he clearly could not play CF. Francoeur and Church both needed new teams. The one move that may not have happened was LaRoche.

Other than the last paragraph ("just don't give a damn"), I pretty much agree, and it's nice to see this pointed out. I do think you underestimate the resilience of the "Pitching is 107% of baseball" crowd, though -- they can point to that Braves/Astros series as an indication of how the Astros won precisely because their pitching stepped up.

As an aside, can we please get some copy-editing, at least for the first few paragraphs? I can understand mangled sentences in paragraph 19 slipping through, but not the lead sentence.

Nice article, as usual, Joe.

I realize it's out of the realm of this exercise, and I don't think many people expected their 1B situation to have been quite this bad... but it is also of some interest to note the circumstances at Texas. Had they signed Dunn to play 1B, or even DH, this move would have had similarly changed the wildcard race in the AL. A quick glance shows approximately 60 VORP improvement for Dunn over the Texan 1Bs (though Dunn's value would change at 1B, as you note).

You say the result was predictable in February, but there was no way to know at that time that Dunn would perform around his 90th percentile.

ScottyB - Fair points about Howard's and Dunn's career OPS+, but Howard's best season was in 2006, he's not drawing walks like he used to, and he can't hit lefties any more at all. Until recently, Howard has been slightly more valuable, but I have a bad feeling about Howard's play going into his 30's.

I still don't understand why the focus of this article isn't the Giants, who have worse LF's than Anderson and therefore for whom Dunn represents a difference of more than 5 wins, and for whom those 5-6 wins would likely have them in the wild-card lead (at least until Colorado keeps its September 07 impersonation going another few weeks). I also assume they could afford Dunn's contract at least as easily as Atlanta, if that indeed was a deciding factor for the Braves.

I agree with Joe. The Braves were definitely missing a big bat this year. They gambled on Francouer and he failed them again. One other point I wanted to throw out there, is the batting caoch. I loved Pendleton as a Brave, and maybe this has nothing to do with him, but the Braves bats have been well below mediocre the past few years, maybe they should have dumped him and brought in a better batting coach? He obviously isn't getting through to the majority of these hitters. Anyway, just my two cents. Good piece Joe !!!

While I agree in hindsight that the decision to go Anderson over Dunn cost the Braves, I'm not sure if that could have been said prior to the season. Obviously, Dunn was the more talented player, and hopefully Braves management realized that. However, they were given a number and told "Keep payroll below $X." Based on the events of the previous years, it was completely understandable why they chose to spend the lion's share of that money on completely rebuilding the starting rotation. And if they had spent some of the money on Dunn instead of pitching? Well, it's hard to say what would have happened, because we don't know which pitcher they would have been without. Dunn over Kawakami? Probably in the postseason. Dunn over Lowe? Unsure, although Dunn certainly seems to be the better bet. Dunn over Vazquez? Braves are in 4th place instead of 3rd in the East. In retrospect it's very easy to say, "The Braves would have EASILY made back Dunn's salary in postseason ticket sales!" And I don't disagree with that at all. However, when evaluating the team at the beginning of the season, I don't think it was a given that the extra $8 million spent on Dunn would have guaranteed a postseason berth, or that not spending it would have taken away that opportunity.

However, I would say the Braves offseason plans should be:

A) Resign Adam LaRoche
B) Turn one of Vazquez, Kawakami, or Lowe into a left fielder (through trade, not practice). Lowe is the one I'd most like to move, and also the least likely to actually be moved. In concert with this move, try and sign Tim Hudson to a 2-year contract at a lower annual salary than his 2010 option.
C) Find 4 bullpen arms (free agents, trades, or minors), and convince Cox that he is allowed to use more than just the closer and 2 set-up men in games. One of the biggest reasons the Braves have fallen apart lately has been Cox's overuse of Soriano, Gonzalez, Moylan, and O'Flaherty over the first half of the season. While the Braves rotation has provided innings, the back-end of the Braves bullpen has been extremely overworked because Cox hasn't trusted the front-end of the bullpen in games where the Braves had a lead of 4+ runs.

Something not really being discussed is the lingering effect of the smear by TOR gm. Even though Dunn played well in AZ, there was the enough amplification that even Buster Olney threw his name behind it. That no one would offer Dunn 10m per is a bit odd, but markets work that way. An insulting offer can be worse than none. I've been concerned about this since the spring, being a Cubs fan. Offering all the loot to Bradley instead of Dunn was a bonehead move. Bradley is appreciably better defensively(?), if not, why do it.

Regardless, it seemed pretty clear all winter that ATL wasn't about to buy a hitter and Anderson was a bone to the crowd. They were crossing their fingers PHI would implode and they could take their chances with the Mets.

The same thing can be said bout the Giants. Had they spent 15 million for a right side of the infield of Dunn and Hudson they would likely have a slim lead in the wildcard right now.

I think Ricciardi's comments had a huge effect. Hilarious when you consider J.P. was a lousy player and an even bigger joke as a GM.

Keep in mind that the Braves could've gone for Abreu as well, who would've been less expensive than Dunn and still projected to perform better than Anderson.

I see a major problem with this analysis. Joe states, "This is the best offensive year of Dunn's career to date, thanks to slight improvements in strikeout rate and batting average on balls in play . . .".

First, Dunn's strikeout rate is right about his career average - slightly higher, in fact, and a little higher than what it was last year (using data from FanGraphs).

Second and more importantly, I think Baseball Prospectus needs to put all their best statistical minds together and study the significance of BA/BiP - then educate all of us - including all their writers. My understanding is that when a nine year vet suddenly improves from a carerr BABIP under .290 to .344 (FanGraphs), he is having one heck of a lucky year. He hasn't really improved and is likely to go back to hitting his norms next year - or the rest of that season.

BABIP is too important to ignore, but let's understand it. Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought studies have shown a player is more apt to hit his career BABIP - especially if it is near .300 depending on his speed and line drive rates, then to continue hitting a BABIP far from that norm. In other words, BABIP is not a skill like a walk rate or home run rate which a player can develop.

"While Anderson was hitting, professionally, for a 237 OPS"

:-) Don't ever change, Joe.