PDA

View Full Version : reasoning behind dunn maybe not signing lt - reds pov



NewEraReds
01-24-2006, 12:06 AM
i think they look at what having a big deal with griffey has done for us. i read in one of the papers that the white sox median salary was around 2m, where i believe ours was under 1m. we have a few high priced guys and a lot of low ones. its much better to have a lot in between that, imo

what do you think


p.s. this doesnt mean i dont want him signed, just not at a price that will hurt us

Redsland
01-24-2006, 12:21 AM
The decision whether to sign will be Dunn's, not the other way around.

MartyFan
01-24-2006, 01:43 AM
The decision whether to sign will be Dunn's, not the other way around.

I think if there is a deal in the works for Dunn it will be a 3 year type deal which will be easy too move if according to the teams projections, Dunn prices himself out of Cincinnati down the road.

NewEraReds
01-24-2006, 02:08 AM
The decision whether to sign will be Dunn's, not the other way around.
no, im talking about all the guys, kullman et all, saying they want to sign dunn as long as it fits into the budget and what they are looking at in the future. he specifically mentioned not paying 1 player a lot in the future today

KronoRed
01-24-2006, 02:32 AM
Sign Dunn long term, back load it and he replaces JR on the payroll in 3 years, so it's not a huge drain.

iaredsfan
01-24-2006, 10:10 AM
I don't believe that the Reds can afford to let Dunn get away. I agree with KronoRed -- back load the contract, and get it done soon. If Dunn isn't the face of the franchise now, he will be very soon.

REDJAKE
01-24-2006, 10:37 AM
If guys like Dunn are the face of this franchise then we're in trouble.You build your team and future on all around types like Lopez,Kearns and Griffey.I'm not looking at age or anything but those types for ability players that can do it all.Dunn is a very good support player basicly one dimensional.The problem with this team for years has been the lack of players with overall talent other than the obvious pitching failures.I would love to see Dunn or Pena go for a top of the order guy who plays everyday.GO CINCY!!!!

westofyou
01-24-2006, 11:23 AM
Dunn is a very good support player basicly one dimensional.
Other one dimensional players in Reds history.

Ted Kluszewski
Gus Bell
George Foster
Tony Perez

dougdirt
01-24-2006, 03:12 PM
except Kluszewski, Bell, Foster and Perez hit over .250

westofyou
01-24-2006, 03:20 PM
except Kluszewski, Bell, Foster and Perez hit over .250
32,216 trips to the plate between the above and not one 100 walk season.

43 seasons between them with 400 plus at bats and only 7 years of scoring 100 runs.

RedsBaron
01-24-2006, 03:30 PM
except Kluszewski, Bell, Foster and Perez hit over .250
In Klu's peak seasons of 1952-55, his OBP was .383, .380, .407 and .382.
In Bell's peak seasons of 1953-56, his OBP was .361, .349, .347 and .354.
Perez's peak OBP seasons between 1967 and 1976 were .401, .393, .357 and .350.
In Foster's peak seasons of 1976-79, his OBP was .364, .382, .360 and .386.
In 2002-05, Dunn's OBP was .400, .354, .388 and .387. In other words, Dunn has a superior on base percentage in those four seasons than Perez, Bell and Foster did in their peak years, and Dunn may not yet be at his peak. Only Klu had a consistently similar OBP.

RedsBaron
01-24-2006, 03:31 PM
32,216 trips to the plate between the above and not one 100 walk season.

43 seasons between them with 400 plus at bats and only 7 years of scoring 100 runs.
Whatta ya want, runs or a batting average? Yeah, they keep score by runs scored, but a big batting average looks so nice.;)

dougdirt
01-24-2006, 03:59 PM
Baron, I understand OBP and runs scored, but runs scored are up across baseball from the era's of the other guys. Of course how many runs is Adam Dunn killing by not being able to hit his body weight? I like Adam Dunn, I really do. I think he needs to be able to hit .265 though to be asking for the type of money he wants though.

westofyou
01-24-2006, 04:03 PM
I think he needs to be able to hit .265 though to be asking for the type of money he wants though. He creates runs, that's all that matters. It's not unprecedanted


AVERAGE <= .270
RUNS CREATED/GAME >= 1.75 vs. the league average
OBA >= .380
WALKS >= 100
AGE displayed only--not a sorting criteria

EXTRA BASE HITS YEAR EBH AVG RC/G OBA BB AGE
T1 Adam Dunn 2004 80 .266 2.92 .388 108 24
T1 Jim Thome 2003 80 .266 3.00 .385 111 32
T3 Frank Thomas 2003 77 .267 3.05 .390 100 35
T3 Adam Dunn 2005 77 .247 2.66 .387 114 25
5 Mike Schmidt 1979 74 .253 2.96 .386 120 29
6 Jim Thome 2000 71 .269 2.46 .398 118 29
T7 Harmon Killebrew 1967 69 .269 4.31 .408 131 31
T7 Greg Luzinski 1978 69 .265 2.80 .388 100 27
T9 Jason Giambi 2003 66 .250 3.10 .412 129 32
T9 Fred McGriff 1989 66 .269 3.22 .399 119 25
11 Ralph Kiner 1948 64 .265 2.71 .391 112 25
12 Darren Daulton 1993 63 .257 2.55 .392 117 31
T13 Mike Schmidt 1983 60 .255 2.92 .399 128 33
T13 Eddie Mathews 1962 60 .265 2.06 .381 101 30
T13 Dolph Camilli 1938 60 .251 2.74 .393 119 31
T13 Gil Hodges 1952 60 .254 2.54 .386 107 28

dougdirt
01-24-2006, 04:14 PM
Westofyou, I agree that he has a great OBP and creates a lot of runs. My standing is not that he isnt a good player or cant produce runs, I just cant see signing him to a LTC(5 years or more) when he has not shown the ability to have a batting average near .260. It is simply my opinion that paying a guy 9-10 million a year doesnt work if he doesnt hit .260+. Especially with the market that the Reds are dealing with in the 65 million dollar market.

pedro
01-24-2006, 04:19 PM
Westofyou, I agree that he has a great OBP and creates a lot of runs. My standing is not that he isnt a good player or cant produce runs, I just cant see signing him to a LTC(5 years or more) when he has not shown the ability to have a batting average near .260. It is simply my opinion that paying a guy 9-10 million a year doesnt work if he doesnt hit .260+. Especially with the market that the Reds are dealing with in the 65 million dollar market.

Honestly, do you know what the difference between hitting .250 and hitting .265 is over the course of 550 ab's? It's around 15 hits. Given the fact that he does get on base so much, I don't think it makes that much difference.

gonelong
01-24-2006, 05:23 PM
Westofyou, I agree that he has a great OBP and creates a lot of runs. My standing is not that he isnt a good player or cant produce runs,

Good.


I just cant see signing him to a LTC(5 years or more) when he has not shown the ability to have a batting average near .260.

If he can repeatedly produce runs, why does it matter if he hits .250 or .270?

Why is .260 the magic number? Why not .200 or .280?


It is simply my opinion that paying a guy 9-10 million a year doesnt work if he doesnt hit .260+. Especially with the market that the Reds are dealing with in the 65 million dollar market.

Again, where does the .260 come from? It seems very arbitrary. If he can hit .270 yet it drops his OBP by .040 is that a good tradeoff? Does he get the Ok for the 9-10 million then?

GL

TheGARB
01-24-2006, 06:35 PM
Honestly, do you know what the difference between hitting .250 and hitting .265 is over the course of 550 ab's? It's around 15 hits. Given the fact that he does get on base so much, I don't think it makes that much difference.

Adam Dunn's avg:
2001 - .262 (needed 1 more hit to bat .265)
2002 - .249 (needed 9 more hits to bat .265)
2003 - .215 (needed 19 more hits to bat .265)
2004 - .266
2005 - .247 (needed 10 more hits to bat .265)

So, besides 2003, when he was hurt and Boone was messing with him all year, we're talking about a handful of hits each season. Seems like a minor point for a guy that slugs over .500 and gets on base 38% of the time. Not to mention the fact that he's led the Reds in Runs and RBI each of the last 2 seasons. I'm not sure what else he has to do to prove he is a run producer.

pedro
01-24-2006, 06:46 PM
Adam Dunn's avg:
2001 - .262 (needed 1 more hit to bat .265)
2002 - .249 (needed 9 more hits to bat .265)
2003 - .215 (needed 19 more hits to bat .265)
2004 - .266
2005 - .247 (needed 10 more hits to bat .265)

So, besides 2003, when he was hurt and Boone was messing with him all year, we're talking about a handful of hits each season. Seems like a minor point for a guy that slugs over .500 and gets on base 38% of the time. Not to mention the fact that he's led the Reds in Runs and RBI each of the last 2 seasons. I'm not sure what else he has to do to prove he is a run producer.

Thanks Garb!

TeamBoone
01-24-2006, 08:40 PM
BA doesn't mean a whole lot when he excels at everything else. Many who sport a much higher average (e.g., Casey) don't even come close to matching his performance. And his numbers might have been even more impressive had he batted higher in the order. This is a prime example of why BA should not be the know all/end all stat used in accessing a batter's abilities, though a whole lot of people do, including baseball people (Marty).

dougflynn23
01-24-2006, 10:07 PM
BA doesn't mean a whole lot when he excels at everything else. Many who sport a much higher average (e.g., Casey) don't even come close to matching his performance. And his numbers might have been even more impressive had he batted higher in the order. This is a prime example of why BA should not be the know all/end all stat used in accessing a batter's abilities, though a whole lot of people do, including baseball people (Marty). :confused: Excels at everything else? Interesting observation. Adam Dunn is one step above hopeless against left handed pitching. I don't remember Gus Bell or Ted Kluszewski as players, but George Foster and Tony Perez hit well against everyone. Regarding the runs scored and OBP numbers, they're very good. That's what makes Dunn very good, but until he becomes at least mediocre against LHP he will not be a great player.

SteelSD
01-24-2006, 10:53 PM
:confused: Excels at everything else? Interesting observation. Adam Dunn is one step above hopeless against left handed pitching. I don't remember Gus Bell or Ted Kluszewski as players, but George Foster and Tony Perez hit well against everyone. Regarding the runs scored and OBP numbers, they're very good. That's what makes Dunn very good, but until he becomes at least mediocre against LHP he will not be a great player.

From 2002 to present, Dunn's OPS is pretty near .800 versus LHP. That's an above-average OPS for anyone regardless of matchup. It's nowhere near his .950+ OPS against RHP, but that's nowhere near Trot Nixon-bad.

oregonred
01-24-2006, 10:57 PM
How much would you go for a Dunn LTC if you were the Reds? 5/55 or 6/70?? Looks like 10M+ per from '07 forward.

dougdirt
01-24-2006, 11:44 PM
Dunn doesnt excel at everything else minus hiting for average. I guess if you want to say he excels at striking out, then yeah I guess you can count that. He doesnt excel at driving in runs. He drove in 62 guys that werent himself this year. He doesnt excel at hitting with runners on base, he only hits .243 with a runner on base. He excels at drawing walks and he excels at hitting home runs. He isnt the best defensive guy ever, but he is switching to first base so I wont hold that against him.

As for the guy who asked why .260, instead of .280, well Dunn has hit .260 once in his career, he has never sniffed .280 so, so I didnt even think it was out there.

westofyou
01-25-2006, 12:22 AM
Dunn doesnt excel at everything else minus hiting for average. What the hell does that mean?

KronoRed
01-25-2006, 12:28 AM
I feel like I've read this thread before ;)

jnwohio
01-25-2006, 12:32 AM
If Dunn had the same stats he has produced and the Reds had even average pitching, ain't no one who would be complaining about his offense. Too many folks want to make it the fault of the offense for not scoring just one more run here and there when the real problem is the pitching consistently gives up 1.5 to 2 runs a game too much.

dougdirt
01-25-2006, 12:38 AM
After seeing what the Orioles just signed Jay Gibbons for, maybe Dunn is worth that 8.9 million he wants....or maybe the Orioles are just inflating the market.

dougdirt
01-25-2006, 12:39 AM
What the hell does that mean?

Someone said that Dunn excels at everything else(everything but his average), I worded it a little funny.

Hondo
01-25-2006, 01:29 AM
Dunn will be resigned now that the New Regime is in Place...

A 1B that Boasts a .400 OBP% is hard to come by...

If AD just cuts 15-25% of his StrikeOuts down, he will be a MONSTER!!!! He is still a young Hitter.....I mean, in 2-3 years, were talking a .330 guy, with way more connections for 50+ Dingers and a whole lot of Runs, RBI, and Doubles....

JaredRoberts.com

dougdirt
01-25-2006, 01:38 AM
Adam Dunn, a .330 guy? In his dreams. He hasnt sniffed .270, in 2-3 years he is supposed to be hitting 60 points higher than he has ever hit in his career?
I do think he will improve, hopefully, but adding that much to your average is just not something that is going to happen. He may be 25, but he has played 4 full seasons, and almost a 3rd of another. That is a lot of pitches he has seen and a lot of pitchers to be hovering around the .250 mark to all of a sudden expect him to raise that average that much.

SteelSD
01-25-2006, 01:38 AM
Dunn doesnt excel at everything else minus hiting for average. I guess if you want to say he excels at striking out, then yeah I guess you can count that. He doesnt excel at driving in runs. He drove in 62 guys that werent himself this year. He doesnt excel at hitting with runners on base, he only hits .243 with a runner on base. He excels at drawing walks and he excels at hitting home runs. He isnt the best defensive guy ever, but he is switching to first base so I wont hold that against him.

If you're a guy who only uses fantasy baseball stats, I guess I can see why you wouldn't like a productive player like Dunn. But then, actual production isn't driven by things like Batting Average and RBI. In 2005, Dunn finished 7th in the NL in Runs Created- a more effective measure of his actual production. Secondly, his ability to avoid Outs meant that his teammates received additional opportunities behind him they wouldn't have normally.

And I find it quite comical that you'd attempt to downgrade a guy who plated himself 40 times in 2005. If the goal is Runs, why would you possibly not give credit to a player who actually places himself in scoring position every time he steps to the plate?


As for the guy who asked why .260, instead of .280, well Dunn has hit .260 once in his career, he has never sniffed .280 so, so I didnt even think it was out there.

Again, Batting Average blinders. You've been asked- quite directly- as to why Batting Aveage matters. Yet you've avoided answering the question. The game of baseball isn't about what you see on the back of a baseball card. It's about producing Runs- regardless of how that occurs. Unfortunately, you've tied yourself to a minor statistic you can't demonstrate has any effect on Run production. The Reds tied for 8th in the NL in team Batting Average. They led the NL in team Strikeouts (141 ahead of the next closest club).

The 2005 Cincinnati Reds scored more Runs than any other team in the National League.

Adam Dunn is a superstar player. You can't seem to figure that out. But you not being able to figure something out isn't a new thing.

KronoRed
01-25-2006, 01:42 AM
Dunn cut his K's last year and lost bat avg, rbi's and HR's.

Just sayin ;)

Hondo
01-25-2006, 01:44 AM
Adam Dunn, a .330 guy? In his dreams. He hasnt sniffed .270, in 2-3 years he is supposed to be hitting 60 points higher than he has ever hit in his career?
I do think he will improve, hopefully, but adding that much to your average is just not something that is going to happen. He may be 25, but he has played 4 full seasons, and almost a 3rd of another. That is a lot of pitches he has seen and a lot of pitchers to be hovering around the .250 mark to all of a sudden expect him to raise that average that much.

Hey, het hit like .315 in AA one year...

Barry Bonds batted .300+ for quite a few years now and when he came up he was a .265-.275 scrappy hitter who stole bases and connected for 15-25 homers his first few years...Just look at Dunn, and lets say he Knocks off 50 K's and gets a hit 30% of the time of those 50 AB's he K'd off the year before...His average rises dramaticly...

I am not saying he will be Tony Gwynn, but I believe he starts cutting down K's, he hits .300+ all the time...

JaredRoberts.com

dougdirt
01-25-2006, 01:50 AM
If you're a guy who only uses fantasy baseball stats, I guess I can see why you wouldn't like a productive player like Dunn.
who said I didnt like Adam Dunn? I like Adam Dunn, I just think he should be more productive at the plate.



But then, actual production isn't driven by things like Batting Average and RBI. In 2005, Dunn finished 7th in the NL in Runs Created- a more effective measure of his actual production. Secondly, his ability to avoid Outs meant that his teammates received additional opportunities behind him they wouldn't have normally.

I am not argueing that he doesnt produce runs, I am argueing that he shouuld produce more. Secondly, his ability to avoid outs, by walking may help guys behind him, but what about his ability to strike out 168 times last year not helping move a runner over for the guy behind him, just by puting the ball in play?



And I find it quite comical that you'd attempt to downgrade a guy who plated himself 40 times in 2005. If the goal is Runs, why would you possibly not give credit to a player who actually places himself in scoring position every time he steps to the plate?
I am not downgrading him hitting 40 home runs. That is wonderful. I think I even said he excels at hitting home runs, which he does.



Again, Batting Average blinders. You've been asked- quite directly- as to why Batting Aveage matters. Yet you've avoided answering the question. The game of baseball isn't about what you see on the back of a baseball card. It's about producing Runs- regardless of how that occurs. Unfortunately, you've tied yourself to a minor statistic you can't demonstrate has any effect on Run production.
I think I did that above. If he raises his average 15 points, that is 15 hits, 15 more chances to move a runner over a base for a guy behind him. 15 more RBI chances for the team. 15 more chances that he drives in a run or scores a run.



Adam Dunn is a superstar player. You can't seem to figure that out. But you not being able to figure something out isn't a new thing.

As for your statement of me not being able to figure things out, sorry that I have a different opinion than you do, that doesnt mean I cant figure something out. It means I disagree with you.

Adam Dunn is not a superstar player. Adam Dunn is a star player. Superstar players make All Star teams. Superstar players hit for average(name one other superstar player who conistantly hits under .270). Adam Dunn is a very good player. He has a good on base percentage, he hits home runs and he scores runs. He also hits under .250, strikes out 150+ times a year and cant hit with runners on base, not that he can hit when they are empty either, so I guess that point is moot.

dougdirt
01-25-2006, 01:54 AM
Hey, het hit like .315 in AA one year...

Barry Bonds batted .300+ for quite a few years now and when he came up he was a .265-.275 scrappy hitter who stole bases and connected for 15-25 homers his first few years...Just look at Dunn, and lets say he Knocks off 50 K's and gets a hit 30% of the time of those 50 AB's he K'd off the year before...His average rises dramaticly...

I am not saying he will be Tony Gwynn, but I believe he starts cutting down K's, he hits .300+ all the time...

JaredRoberts.com

I agree with you that if Dunn cuts down the strikeout numbers, his average, home runs, rbi and runs all will go up. But he hasnt shown anything that suggests he will do that.

Barry Bonds hit under .260 twice in his career though, his first season and his fourth season. Bonds also didnt strike out 100 times in a season ever, except his first season. That is the big difference with the two players. Bonds didnt have a problem making contact, Adam Dunn does.

SteelSD
01-25-2006, 02:02 AM
I agree with you that if Dunn cuts down the strikeout numbers, his average, home runs, rbi and runs all will go up. But he hasnt shown anything that suggests he will do that.

Adam Dunn cut down his Strikeout numbers in 2005 versus 2004. His Batting Average went down, his Home Run totals went down, and his RS and RBI numbers stayed about exactly the same.

In short, you don't have a clue as to how Dunn's K rate affects actual performance. But then, Batting Average, Runs Scored, and Runs Batted In aren't actual performance numbers.

The guy is a star player but somehow you can't figure that out.

dougdirt
01-25-2006, 02:12 AM
Adam Dunn cut down his Strikeout numbers in 2005 versus 2004. His Batting Average went down, his Home Run totals went down, and his RS and RBI numbers stayed about exactly the same.

In short, you don't have a clue as to how Dunn's K rate affects actual performance. But then, Batting Average, Runs Scored, and Runs Batted In aren't actual performance numbers.

The guy is a star player but somehow you can't figure that out.

Maybe your problem is that you just cant read. I am positive that I said Adam Dunn is a star player, but that he is not a SUPERSTAR player.

In short Dunn struck out once every 2.91 at bats in 2004 and once ever 3.23 at bats in 2005. Hardly a noticable difference. He did however score a run per 5.07 at bats in 2005, compared to scoring a run every 5.4 at bats in 2004. Again, hardly a noticable difference. He also drove in more runs per at bat in 2005 over 2004, with fewer strikeouts. The thing is, his strikeouts dropped off just 3.4 %. Lets say Adam Dunn strikes out just 120 times in a season, a noticable difference and his numbers go up. The more you put the ball in play, the more chances you have to get on base.

SteelSD
01-25-2006, 02:20 AM
Maybe your problem is that you just cant read. I am positive that I said Adam Dunn is a star player, but that he is not a SUPERSTAR player.

In short Dunn struck out once every 2.91 at bats in 2004 and once ever 3.23 at bats in 2005. Hardly a noticable difference. He did however score a run per 5.07 at bats in 2005, compared to scoring a run every 5.4 at bats in 2004. Again, hardly a noticable difference. He also drove in more runs per at bat in 2005 over 2004, with fewer strikeouts. The thing is, his strikeouts dropped off just 3.4 %. Lets say Adam Dunn strikes out just 120 times in a season, a noticable difference and his numbers go up. The more you put the ball in play, the more chances you have to get on base.

Faulty logic. You don't have a clue as to what actually affects performance. You use bad data and end up with bad conclusions.

I mean, I think it's neato that you have an amateur website devoted to the Reds minor leagues, but it's obvious that you don't have a single clue as to what actually drives performance. Offensively, it ain't Batting Average and it ain't Strikeouts. In short, your logic is flawed (as usual).

I have no doubt that what you type is intuitive to you. But it's completely incorrect. Completely. Totally. Wrong.

Caveat Emperor
01-25-2006, 02:26 AM
The more you put the ball in play, the more chances you have to get on base.

Adam Dunn walked 114 times last season. By doing absolutely nothing but standing there with the bat on his shoulder and taking bad pitches, he made it to first base just as surely as he would on a line drive single back up the middle.

In fact, Dunn had an OBP of .387 last year (which is, incidentally, down a thousandth of a point from last year, despite the fact he struck out nearly 30 more times. So much for strikeouts correlating with getting on base), which is higher than Sean Casey (.371) despite batting a full 60 points lower than him.

Sean Casey put the ball in play a lot more than Adam Dunn, had a higher batting average than Adam Dunn -- Adam Dunn still got on base more.

dougdirt
01-25-2006, 02:27 AM
Faulty logic. You don't have a clue as to what actually affects performance. You use bad data and end up with bad conclusions.
Faulty logic or just that it disagrees with what you posted? How do I use bad data? Strikeout ratios compared to runs scored and driven in is bad how? Because it shows that he struck out less, yet scored slightly more and drove in slightly more runs?


I mean, I think it's neato that you have an amateur website devoted to the Reds minor leagues,
Glad you enjoy it.


but it's obvious that you don't have a single clue as to what actually drives performance. Offensively, it ain't Batting Average and it ain't Strikeouts. In short, your logic is flawed (as usual).
Driving performance? Striking out definately kills your performance to you and to your team. You dont put the ball in play, correct? If the ball isnt in play, guys dont advance on base paths, correct? If guys arent advancing on base paths, they arent getting any closer to scoring, correct? Strikeouts dont slow performance, please. You have to be kidding me.



I have no doubt that what you type is intuitive to you. But it's completely incorrect. Completely. Totally. Wrong.

I think you just disagree with what I say, so you claim it as completely incorrect and wrong.

dougdirt
01-25-2006, 02:41 AM
Adam Dunn walked 114 times last season. By doing absolutely nothing but standing there with the bat on his shoulder and taking bad pitches, he made it to first base just as surely as he would on a line drive single back up the middle.

Yes, I agree. But your comment was made in the wrong context. Striking out as related to puting the ball in play gives you a better chance of getting on base. Adam Dunn walking gets him on base. Standing there swinging and missing isnt going to get you anywhere though.


In fact, Dunn had an OBP of .387 last year (which is, incidentally, down a thousandth of a point from last year, despite the fact he struck out nearly 30 more times. So much for strikeouts correlating with getting on base), which is higher than Sean Casey (.371) despite batting a full 60 points lower than him.

Dunn's average was also 19 points higher in 2004 than in 2005. Dunn struck out less and walked more in 2005. His on base percentage stayed the same through both years. The problem is, when you strike out, you arent advancing any runners, if they happen to be on base. You leave no chance for an error to happen and to reach base(granted it doesnt happen often, but it does happen).



Sean Casey put the ball in play a lot more than Adam Dunn, had a higher batting average than Adam Dunn -- Adam Dunn still got on base more.
Adam Dunn walked 66 more times than Sean Casey did. He got on base more than Casey did. I am not sure what you are trying to point out here?

kyred14
01-25-2006, 03:13 AM
Driving performance? Striking out definately kills your performance to you and to your team. You dont put the ball in play, correct? If the ball isnt in play, guys dont advance on base paths, correct? If guys arent advancing on base paths, they arent getting any closer to scoring, correct? Strikeouts dont slow performance, please. You have to be kidding me.

I trying to understand your logic, but I took a peak at some stats from last season, where I found that the Reds led the NL in runs. I also found that they led the league in strikeouts. Now, how the hell did that happen? It's easy, a strikeout is the exact same thing as groundout, popout, or a flyout. They're all OUTS. The key to being a productive team/player is not making outs. This where we come to Adam Dunn. He's one of the best at not making outs. That combined with his prodigious power makes him a superstar.

dougdirt
01-25-2006, 03:34 AM
I trying to understand your logic, but I took a peak at some stats from last season, where I found that the Reds led the NL in runs. I also found that they led the league in strikeouts. Now, how the hell did that happen? It's easy, a strikeout is the exact same thing as groundout, popout, or a flyout. They're all OUTS. The key to being a productive team/player is not making outs. This where we come to Adam Dunn. He's one of the best at not making outs. That combined with his prodigious power makes him a superstar.
Albert Pujols, Alex Rodriguez, Barry Bonds....those guys are superstars. Adam Dunn isnt that. Adam Dunn is a star in this game. He is not a superstar.

A strikeout also is not the same as a pop out, flyout or anyother type of ball put into play out. Pop outs and ground balls can advance a runner for the next guy. Striking out just creates an out.

I am not saying Dunn doesnt get on base alot, I am saying if he would hit .260 the rest of his numbers would improve. His on base percentage would go up, being on base more may lead to scoring more runs, getting more hits to raise an average might come with runners on base, leading to more rbi's.

Adam Dunn walks more than anyone in the league. He produces a lot less than that of Superstars.

Caveat Emperor
01-25-2006, 03:36 AM
A strikeout also is not the same as a pop out, flyout or anyother type of ball put into play out. Pop outs and ground balls can advance a runner for the next guy. Striking out just creates an out.

Man on 1st and 2nd with 1 out.

Sean Casey grounds into a double play. Inning over.
-or-
Adam Dunn strikes out. 2 out, inning continues.

You choose what the better result is.

dougdirt
01-25-2006, 03:43 AM
I would rather Adam Dunn strike out over Sean Casey hit into a double play. Adam Dunn doesnt seem to hit into double plays all that often though. So if Adam Dunn is going to put the ball in play over striking out, I would rather Adam Dunn put the ball in play.

Raisor
01-25-2006, 06:39 AM
I'm late, and the discussion has switched to K's (*sigh*), but since it was about batting average earlier I just HAVE to ask dougdirt the following?

Do you agree with the following statements?

Double > Single
Triple > Double
Home Run > Triple

I'm pretty sure we can ALL agree with that. If so, then why would you rely on a stat that threats all those situations the same and also ignores other ways of getting on base. A Single does not = a home run.

KronoRed
01-25-2006, 08:12 AM
Aww come on everybody..group hug! http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v408/Kronosb/BigHug.gif

Roy Tucker
01-25-2006, 08:31 AM
Edit - staying out of it.
Then I'll do it. Dougdirt is new to the board and wants to have a reasonable discussion about Adam Dunn. He is trying hard to be reasonable. I don't see that being reciprocated.

Play nice everyone.

SteelSD
01-25-2006, 01:34 PM
Faulty logic or just that it disagrees with what you posted? How do I use bad data? Strikeout ratios compared to runs scored and driven in is bad how? Because it shows that he struck out less, yet scored slightly more and drove in slightly more runs?

There's no correlation between Strikeout rate and offensive production. Zero.

Individual Runs Scored and RBI totals are team-based opportunity driven event assignments. In short, RS and RBI are not individual performance metrics.

Run value is driven by two things- Outs and Bases. Not Batting Average. Not Strikeouts. Outs and Bases.


Driving performance? Striking out definately kills your performance to you and to your team. You dont put the ball in play, correct? If the ball isnt in play, guys dont advance on base paths, correct? If guys arent advancing on base paths, they arent getting any closer to scoring, correct? Strikeouts dont slow performance, please. You have to be kidding me.

Every year a new poster or two pops up and tries to tell us that Strikeouts are a death sentence for a hitter and/or for a team.

Cincinnati Reds led the NL in Strikeouts. Cincinnati Reds led the NL in Runs Scored.

Every year we have to spend time telling that new poster or two that how you make Outs doesn't matter over the course of a season.

Cincinnati Reds led the NL in Strikeouts. Cincinnati Reds led the NL in Runs Scored.

Every year we have to tell said new poster(s) that OBP, SLG, and particularly OPS trump Batting Average as a performance driver.

Cincinnati Reds 2nd in the NL in OBP, 1st in SLG, 1st in OPS. Cincinnati Reds led the NL in Runs Scored.

Every year said new poster(s) act incredulous because they're absolutely certain that Batting Average, Strikeouts, and individual RS/RBI totals are solid measurements of individual performance.

And every year they're wrong.


I think you just disagree with what I say, so you claim it as completely incorrect and wrong.

I disagree with what you say because I know it to be incorrect. I once believed the same as do you. I learned myself out of that. You can too.

westofyou
01-25-2006, 01:44 PM
There's no correlation between Strikeout rate and offensive production. Zero.

Once again let's revisit the Reds from 1970-1978

The world leader in K's vs the league as a team.

In that time they K's more than any team with the Phillies and the Padres up there too. But the Reds scored over 500 runs more than the average team in that time span.

Why is that?

Seconday Average The Reds were .032 better than the league, the Padres -.032 and the Phillies -.007.

What's secondary average?

The stat measures those offensive components that are not measured in batting average. The formula is (TB-H+BB+SB)/AB

That's why the Reds scored more runs then them, by doing little things that batting average ignores, and the K's didn't hinder them at all.


NATIONAL LEAGUE
CAREER
1970-1978
RUNS vs. the league average
OBA vs. the league average
RUNS CREATED/GAME vs. the league average
WALKS vs. the league average
SECONDARY AVERAGE vs. the league average

STRIKEOUTS DIFF PLAYER LEAGUE R OBA RC/G BB SEC
1 Reds 1253 8320 7067 544 .005 0.42 475 .032
2 Padres 1185 8347 7162 -1187 -.026 -.82 -683 -.031
3 Phillies 1133 8253 7120 -262 -.011 -.20 -365 -.007
4 Giants 898 8002 7104 -171 -.006 -.15 163 .004
5 Mets 686 7868 7182 -908 -.015 -.77 -42 -.025
6 Pirates 618 7722 7104 218 -.007 0.10 -964 -.014
7 Expos/Nationals 591 7742 7151 -745 -.015 -.59 -208 -.018
8 Astros 464 7595 7131 -363 -.013 -.37 -560 -.016
9 Cubs 204 7321 7117 -208 -.005 -.23 36 -.012
10 Dodgers 160 7280 7120 -78 -.004 -.10 -196 -.007
11 Braves 86 7215 7129 -359 -.010 -.28 -216 -.013
12 Cardinals -32 7104 7136 -313 -.007 -.32 -630 -.029

dougdirt
01-25-2006, 02:06 PM
There's no correlation between Strikeout rate and offensive production. Zero.
Individual stats, no. Team stats, yes. If Adam Dunn puts the ball in play with a runner on, rather than striking out, does it not leave open the chance to move a runner over? If the runner moves over and the next guy hits a single, the runner in most cases now scores instead of ending up at third.




Individual Runs Scored and RBI totals are team-based opportunity driven event assignments. In short, RS and RBI are not individual performance metrics.
Right, they arent individual based numbers. But if that individual does better at putting the ball in play, moving over runners rather than striking out, getting on base more(if his average is higher, his on base percentage should be higher), he has a chance to score more runs. He has a chance to drive in more runs. He has a chance to give the next guy a chance to drive in more runs.



Run value is driven by two things- Outs and Bases. Not Batting Average. Not Strikeouts. Outs and Bases.

Individual runs are driven by those things. Team runs are not. You have a higher batting average, your on base goes up, your team has a chance to score more runs, the guys behind you have a chance to score more runs.



Every year a new poster or two pops up and tries to tell us that Strikeouts are a death sentence for a hitter and/or for a team.
What is your point? I am not saying they are a death sentence. I say that they hurt the team.



Cincinnati Reds led the NL in Strikeouts. Cincinnati Reds led the NL in Runs Scored.
Both true statements. It also tells me that the Reds had chances to score a lot more runs than they did. I dont want everyone pulling a Sean Casey and hittinginto a double play, but Adam Dunn has hit into 30 double plays in over 2200 career at bats. He doesnt have the double play problem. So if Adam Dunn hits a ground ball and moves a runner over rather than striking out, it helps the team potentially score more runs.



Every year we have to spend time telling that new poster or two that how you make Outs doesn't matter over the course of a season.
I disagree. How you make outs matters.



Cincinnati Reds led the NL in Strikeouts. Cincinnati Reds led the NL in Runs Scored.
Didnt you say this already?



Every year we have to tell said new poster(s) that OBP, SLG, and particularly OPS trump Batting Average as a performance driver.
I have never argued that they didnt. I am argueing that if Adam Dunn would raise his batting average, OPS would go up. His chance to produce more runs would go up. If Adam Dunn had 148 hits this past season rather than his 134, all of his numbers across the board go up. Average, slugging, on base percentage, likely that his runs and rbi would also go up.



Cincinnati Reds 2nd in the NL in OBP, 1st in SLG, 1st in OPS. Cincinnati Reds led the NL in Runs Scored.
Agreed, cant argue those numbers. I just dont know why you put them in there.



Every year said new poster(s) act incredulous because they're absolutely certain that Batting Average, Strikeouts, and individual RS/RBI totals are solid measurements of individual performance.
I never said those numbers are individual numbers. Just read everything else in this post and you will see, I am not typing it all over again down here.




And every year they're wrong.
Yeah, they are wrong. They arent argueing what I am argueing.



I disagree with what you say because I know it to be incorrect. I once believed the same as do you. I learned myself out of that. You can too.
I dont think you understood what I was argueing.

dougdirt
01-25-2006, 02:21 PM
Another question while this thread seems to be popular. Anyone care to explain to me what "reputation" is under your name. How it works? Never been able to figure that one out.

TeamCasey
01-25-2006, 02:35 PM
When you hit 200 points, you can post on both boards. I can't for the life of me find the FAQ that explains it better. I found it once before for someone. I'll keep looking and hope that some Redszone hero or heroine comes to my aid.

Caveat Emperor
01-25-2006, 02:36 PM
Individual stats, no. Team stats, yes. If Adam Dunn puts the ball in play with a runner on, rather than striking out, does it not leave open the chance to move a runner over? If the runner moves over and the next guy hits a single, the runner in most cases now scores instead of ending up at third.

That's an if. As I pointed out earlier, if Adam Dunn puts the ball in play with a runner on, there's a chance that he also grounds into a double play or lines out and gets a runner picked off base. That's 2 outs instead of 1.

Beyond any statistics, what you're asking for is Adam Dunn to alter his game in order to create more productive outs -- sacraficing quality of contact for the sake of making contact period. With a slugger as prolific as Adam Dunn, I want him looking to make the best contact he possibly can and maximize the opportunity for extra base hits (including home runs) as opposed to, say, shortening his swing and attempting to trade outs for runner advancement.



Right, they arent individual based numbers. But if that individual does better at putting the ball in play, moving over runners rather than striking out, getting on base more(if his average is higher, his on base percentage should be higher), he has a chance to score more runs. He has a chance to drive in more runs. He has a chance to give the next guy a chance to drive in more runs.

Individual runs are driven by those things. Team runs are not. You have a higher batting average, your on base goes up, your team has a chance to score more runs, the guys behind you have a chance to score more runs.


Average ignores the 110 free passes that Adam Dunn showed by exercising plate discpline and taking a walk, as opposed to hacking and "putting the ball in play." Nobody was better at getting on base and avoiding Outs on the Reds than Adam Dunn, not even the guys who were batting with higher averages than him.


Both true statements. It also tells me that the Reds had chances to score a lot more runs than they did. I dont want everyone pulling a Sean Casey and hittinginto a double play, but Adam Dunn has hit into 30 double plays in over 2200 career at bats. He doesnt have the double play problem. So if Adam Dunn hits a ground ball and moves a runner over rather than striking out, it helps the team potentially score more runs.

This argument is illogical. You chide Dunn for not "putting the ball in play" to move runners over, and then praise him for only hitting into 30 double plays. The reason why he isn't hitting into as many double plays as Sean Casey has to do, partly, with the fact that his plate approach differs. He's not looking to make contact -- he's looking for his pitch to drive and make good contact with.

If he altered his plate approach to mirror Sean Casey and other contact hitters, he'd see his double-plays rise significantly.



I disagree. How you make outs matters.

The statistics I've read show that they don't. Other than speculating that Reds "could've scored more runs" if they'd made better outs, can you offer me any proof that how outs are made matters?

I'm always willing to listen to a well-reasoned argument.


I have never argued that they didnt. I am argueing that if Adam Dunn would raise his batting average, OPS would go up. His chance to produce more runs would go up. If Adam Dunn had 148 hits this past season rather than his 134, all of his numbers across the board go up. Average, slugging, on base percentage, likely that his runs and rbi would also go up.

Any player would be better if they had more hits, more home runs, higher OBP, higher SLG. I don't see the relevance of the argument. It doesn't make Adam Dunn any less of a player if you can say he "Could've done more." Albert Pujols would've been a better player last year if he had a higher OPS or higher SLG...but there's no player that couldn't have been better. The issue is how they performed -- and in the case of Adam Dunn, his performance was stellar.

TeamCasey
01-25-2006, 02:39 PM
Ha! Found it!Reputation system explained. (http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=35437)

Reds1
01-25-2006, 02:42 PM
Adam Dunn's avg:
2001 - .262 (needed 1 more hit to bat .265)
2002 - .249 (needed 9 more hits to bat .265)
2003 - .215 (needed 19 more hits to bat .265)
2004 - .266
2005 - .247 (needed 10 more hits to bat .265)

I'm not sure what else he has to do to prove he is a run producer.

Hit sac flies :D

KronoRed
01-25-2006, 02:49 PM
Sac flys should be banned ;)

dougdirt
01-25-2006, 02:54 PM
That's an if. As I pointed out earlier, if Adam Dunn puts the ball in play with a runner on, there's a chance that he also grounds into a double play or lines out and gets a runner picked off base. That's 2 outs instead of 1. Yeah, but its also an if, that he hits into that double play and creates 2 outs compared to 1. I do see your point though, I think it could go both ways.



Beyond any statistics, what you're asking for is Adam Dunn to alter his game in order to create more productive outs -- sacraficing quality of contact for the sake of making contact period. With a slugger as prolific as Adam Dunn, I want him looking to make the best contact he possibly can and maximize the opportunity for extra base hits (including home runs) as opposed to, say, shortening his swing and attempting to trade outs for runner advancement.
No, I am asking him, that instead of swinging and missing at a pitch that is good, that he swing at a pitch that he thinks is good and hitting it a little more often. If he doesnt think its a good pitch and looks at it, fine. I think Adam has pretty good plate disciplan. I just wish the good pitches he swings at and missed, that instead he would put some more of those into play.




Average ignores the 110 free passes that Adam Dunn showed by exercising plate discpline and taking a walk, as opposed to hacking and "putting the ball in play." Nobody was better at getting on base and avoiding Outs on the Reds than Adam Dunn, not even the guys who were batting with higher averages than him.
I agree that Dunn was better at avoiding outs than anyone on the Reds. Again though, when he swings and misses a good pitch, I wish he would just put some of those into play.



This argument is illogical. You chide Dunn for not "putting the ball in play" to move runners over, and then praise him for only hitting into 30 double plays. The reason why he isn't hitting into as many double plays as Sean Casey has to do, partly, with the fact that his plate approach differs. He's not looking to make contact -- he's looking for his pitch to drive and make good contact with. I agree that he doesnt hit into double plays because he looks to drive a ball rather than slap at it like Casey. Like stated before though, I wish ones he would swing at and miss that he drive a few more of those.



If he altered his plate approach to mirror Sean Casey and other contact hitters, he'd see his double-plays rise significantly.
Just want him to swing at the same pitches, just hit a few more of the ones he misses.



The statistics I've read show that they don't. Other than speculating that Reds "could've scored more runs" if they'd made better outs, can you offer me any proof that how outs are made matters?
No, becuase you cant speculate what would have happened with the next batter(s). But in my defense, can you show any proof that shows that the Reds wouldnt have scored more runs had their hitters made better outs? Of course not. You cant assume that other batters would have done something to help that guy out. I could show you where Adam Dunn, or someone else struck out with a guy on first, then the next guy hits a single and the guy moves from first to third. You could assume that the guy would have moved two bases had Dunn moved him over to second, but he also may have been thrown out at home.



Any player would be better if they had more hits, more home runs, higher OBP, higher SLG. I don't see the relevance of the argument. It doesn't make Adam Dunn any less of a player if you can say he "Could've done more." Albert Pujols would've been a better player last year if he had a higher OPS or higher SLG...but there's no player that couldn't have been better. The issue is how they performed -- and in the case of Adam Dunn, his performance was stellar.
That was more of a point to SteelsD who says BA doesnt have as much an affect on performance as other numbers. I was simply saying that it does becuase it affects the rest of the numbers he said were more important to a persons actual production.
I hope no one is getting me wrong. I think Adam Dunn is a very good player. Probably the second best player on the Reds in my opinion(behind a healthy Griffey).

dougdirt
01-25-2006, 02:56 PM
Teamcasey, thanks I appreciate it! I had searched for it before, but couldnt find anything.

pedro
01-25-2006, 03:00 PM
.


I disagree. How you make outs matters.



Not over the course of an entire season.

If you look at the highest scoring teams over the past 20 years there is no correlation between the number of K's and the number of runs a team scores. If your hypothesis were true, wouldn't it stand to reason that the teams that struck out the least would always score the most runs?

dougdirt
01-25-2006, 03:07 PM
Pedro, I see the point you are making. If someone could show a stat that tells how many baserunners those teams left on base throughout a season would help. I honestly dont have a clue as to those numbers put up against other teams who have led the league in scoring.

As for how making an out is the same over the course of a season, I will put this situation up just for arguements sake. You have 1 out and a runner on third. Number 7 guy up. Batter hits a deep fly ball to centerfield. Runner on third scores. Take a different approach. Number 7 guy up, same situation. Batter strikes out this time. Number 8 guy hits a fly ball out to centerfield. Inning over. No run scores.

How you make an out does matter, albeit over a season we may be talking 10-15 runs. Do those runs come in close games? Do not know, but they could.

Cyclone792
01-25-2006, 03:29 PM
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=2617

There's not much more for me to add beyond that.

SteelSD
01-25-2006, 03:36 PM
Individual stats, no. Team stats, yes. If Adam Dunn puts the ball in play with a runner on, rather than striking out, does it not leave open the chance to move a runner over? If the runner moves over and the next guy hits a single, the runner in most cases now scores instead of ending up at third.

That's not the way it works at the team level. There's no positive correlation between team strikeouts and Runs Scored. Take a look:

http://www.thediamondangle.com/marasco/opan/kfile.html


Right, they arent individual based numbers. But if that individual does better at putting the ball in play, moving over runners rather than striking out, getting on base more(if his average is higher, his on base percentage should be higher), he has a chance to score more runs. He has a chance to drive in more runs. He has a chance to give the next guy a chance to drive in more runs.

Again, that's not the way it works. Dunn's BA was higher in 2004 than it was in 2005 and his OBP was nearly identical. Last season and the season before that there were a number of arguments from folks who felt that a reduction in K rate would automatically increase a player's Batting Average. Not so. In short, you're trying infer behavioral relationships that don't necessarily exist.

Furthermore, as Caveat aptly noted, attempting to get a player to cut down on his K's requires a behavioral adjustment from that player that can easily result in lower-quality contact events. There's simply no point in asking a weapon of Dunn's stature to simply try to put lower quality balls in play for the sake of doing so.


Individual runs are driven by those things. Team runs are not. You have a higher batting average, your on base goes up, your team has a chance to score more runs, the guys behind you have a chance to score more runs.

Team Runs are absolutely driven by Outs (OBP) and Bases (SLG)- regardless of how they are acquired. If you take a look at BA, OBP, SLG, and OPS, you'll find that the highest correlation to team Runs Scored is that between OPS and RS. The second highest is OBP, followed by SLG. Batting Average isn't even in the same ballpark as those three statistics.

And your claim that OBP and SLG automatically go up when BA goes up is an illogical assumption. It just doesn't work that way.


I dont think you understood what I was argueing.

Sure I do. It's not the first time we've seen your argument and it won't be the last time time we're going to thoroughly debunk it.

Oh, and I need to address this comment you made in response to Caveat:


But in my defense, can you show any proof that shows that the Reds wouldnt have scored more runs had their hitters made better outs?

Haven't we already discussed that asking others to prove a negative isn't a valid debate tactic?

You're the one claiming that Bigfoot exists. Caveat doesn't have to go "prove" he doesn't. You have to find evidence that he's out there. And no, your belief system does not qualify as "evidence".

pedro
01-25-2006, 03:50 PM
Dougdirt, I understand what you are saying and in that exact situation I agree that the way you make an out does matter, I just think that you are overestimating the value of productive outs vs. the value of OBP and SLG in regards to scoring runs.

Over the period 2000-2004 here are the leaders in various team offensive categories. (american league only - I left out the national league because pitchers AB's skew the results when comparing between leagues)

Runs Scored

Yankees
Red Sox
White Sox
Rangers
A's

Strike Outs

Yankees
Tigers
Devil Rays
Reds Sox
Rangers

The conslusion I draw from this is strike outs don't effect a teams ability to score runs unless the team has an already awful offense such as the Tigers or the Devil Rays.

dougdirt
01-25-2006, 04:14 PM
That's not the way it works at the team level. There's no positive correlation between team strikeouts and Runs Scored. Take a look:

http://www.thediamondangle.com/marasco/opan/kfile.html

OK, good numbers there. I dont have graphs or really the numbers to argue against it.



Again, that's not the way it works. Dunn's BA was higher in 2004 than it was in 2005 and his OBP was nearly identical. Last season and the season before that there were a number of arguments from folks who felt that a reduction in K rate would automatically increase a player's Batting Average. Not so. In short, you're trying infer behavioral relationships that don't necessarily exist.
I am not talking about 2004 in any ways shape or form. If Adam Dunn had 15 more hits this season, rather than 15 more outs, would his average, slugging and on base percentage all have gone up? The answer is yes. The odds of at least some of those 15 hits producing an RBI or more, or even him scoring a few runs is also very likely of happening.



Furthermore, as Caveat aptly noted, attempting to get a player to cut down on his K's requires a behavioral adjustment from that player that can easily result in lower-quality contact events. There's simply no point in asking a weapon of Dunn's stature to simply try to put lower quality balls in play for the sake of doing so.
I never said anything about him changing a thing other than instead of swinging and missing, to swinging and hitting. If he swings at a pitch and misses it, it was a good pitch in his opinion. I dont want him swinging at garbage trying to put it in play. I want him to simply hit a few more that he swings at and misses. He doesnt have to change anything in his swing to do that. If he did, he would never make contact.




Team Runs are absolutely driven by Outs (OBP) and Bases (SLG)- regardless of how they are acquired. If you take a look at BA, OBP, SLG, and OPS, you'll find that the highest correlation to team Runs Scored is that between OPS and RS. The second highest is OBP, followed by SLG. Batting Average isn't even in the same ballpark as those three statistics.

Where are you getting that I said batting average had anything to do with scoring more runs than OBP or Slugging? I have said numerous times that if a player gets more hits, rather than outs, resulting in a higher batting average, it will also result in his OBP and slugging to go up. Also it would likely result in more run chances. Dont go off and compare 2004 and 2005. In 2004 if Dunn had 5 more hits, all his numbers would have gone up. In 2005 if Dunn had 5 more hits all his numbers would have gone up. Your batting average affects your slugging percentage and on base percentage per season. A single is equal to a walk in slugging. Any hit is equal to all other hits in on base percentage. A double is worth twice as much as a walk in SLG, a home run 4 times as much. If he had 10 more hits, going by the numbers, he would probably have had at least a double and a home run in there. Thats an improved slugging percentage.



And your claim that OBP and SLG automatically go up when BA goes up is an illogical assumption. It just doesn't work that way.
How on Gods green Earth does it not work that way. Adam Dunn had 134 hits this season in 543 at bats. That resulted in him with a OBP of .387 and a slugging percentage of .540. Now lets say Adam Dunn had 10 more hits on the season. 2 more doubles, 1 more home run and 7 more singles, in the same number of at bats. Lets look at his numbers now. Dunn now hits .265, his OBP is .403, his slugging is now .567. So tell me how his OBP and SLG dont automatically go up if his average goes up?




Sure I do. It's not the first time we've seen your argument and it won't be the last time time we're going to thoroughly debunk it.

See previous statement.



Haven't we already discussed that asking others to prove a negative isn't a valid debate tactic?
Explain then how one side is supposed to prove one thing, while yet the other is free not to? I cant prove that something would have happened, but you cant prove that something wouldnt have.



You're the one claiming that Bigfoot exists. Caveat doesn't have to go "prove" he doesn't. You have to find evidence that he's out there. And no, your belief system does not qualify as "evidence".

Again, its a big double standard. If my word is no good without proof, then neither is anyone elses. I am not going to say Caveat is wrong, he very well could be right. Why dont you just read the example I showed with that comment I made. It is quite simple to understand. Tell me how it doesnt work.

dougdirt
01-25-2006, 04:19 PM
Dougdirt, I understand what you are saying and in that exact situation I agree that the way you make an out does matter, I just think that you are overestimating the value of productive outs vs. the value of OBP and SLG in regards to scoring runs.

Over the period 2000-2004 here are the leaders in various team offensive categories. (american league only - I left out the national league because pitchers AB's skew the results when comparing between leagues)

Runs Scored

Yankees
Red Sox
White Sox
Rangers
A's

Strike Outs

Yankees
Tigers
Devil Rays
Reds Sox
Rangers

The conslusion I draw from this is strike outs don't effect a teams ability to score runs unless the team has an already awful offense such as the Tigers or the Devil Rays.

Pedro, I see the point you are making. I am glad someone actually acknowledges that something I said makes sense rather than ignoring it, or twisting what I said into something that I didnt say. On base percentage and slugging are easily the best tools that produce runs. I will never argue that because it makes no sense whatsoever to do so. I just wanted to make the point that there are more productive outs than a strikout with someone on base. *edit out*

TheGARB
01-25-2006, 04:37 PM
I just wanted to make the point that there are more productive outs than a strikout with someone on base. Which Adam Dunn does more often with a guy on base (34.5% of the time per PA) than he does when no one is on (28% per PA).

Not sure where you got your numbers, but his rate was 22% with runners on in 2005 and approximately 26% for his career with runners on, which is right in line with his career k-rate overall. And all of those numbers are better than with the bases empty when his K-rate is around 29%.

dougdirt
01-25-2006, 04:58 PM
TheGARB, I just ran the numbers again and got the same thing you did. I dont know what happened the first time around, probably hit a wrong key somewhere along the lines.

SteelSD
01-25-2006, 05:33 PM
OK, good numbers there. I dont have graphs or really the numbers to argue against it.

That's because they don't exist.


I am not talking about 2004 in any ways shape or form. If Adam Dunn had 15 more hits this season, rather than 15 more outs, would his average, slugging and on base percentage all have gone up? The answer is yes.

No. The answer is "maybe, maybe not". What you're attempting to do is simply add Base Hit volume to an already completed season.

I don't think you understand the incongruity of your thought process. What you've been saying is the K's are bad and getting more Hits results in a higher OBP and SLG. But that's not necessarily the case because we cannot simply assume that dropping K rate in the future WILL result in additional Hits much less that those additional hits WILL result in additional OBP and SLG points.

In short, you're attempting to create ties between event outcomes that don't always exist. Dunn posting the same OBP while producing a lower BA and fewer Strikeouts in 2005 versus 2004 is a perfect example of that.


The odds of at least some of those 15 hits producing an RBI or more, or even him scoring a few runs is also very likely of happening.

And yet, Dunn has already debunked your theory that fewer K's will lead to more Base Hits.


I never said anything about him changing a thing other than instead of swinging and missing, to swinging and hitting. If he swings at a pitch and misses it, it was a good pitch in his opinion. I dont want him swinging at garbage trying to put it in play. I want him to simply hit a few more that he swings at and misses. He doesnt have to change anything in his swing to do that. If he did, he would never make contact.

Exactly what do you think Dunn is trying to do when he swings? Yeah, he's trying to put the ball in play. The only way he can not swing through pitches is to...

1. Swing at fewer pitches out of his "zone"
2. Aim better

Both require behavioral changes. The first will most likely result in more Walks instead of more Hits. The second requires him to adjust his swing and/or slow his bat down through the hitting zone.


Where are you getting that I said batting average had anything to do with scoring more runs than OBP or Slugging? I have said numerous times that if a player gets more hits, rather than outs, resulting in a higher batting average, it will also result in his OBP and slugging to go up.

Again, you are working under erroneous assumptions- particularly in reference to Slugging Percentage. SLG is about Hit quality rather than Hit volume.


Also it would likely result in more run chances. Dont go off and compare 2004 and 2005. In 2004 if Dunn had 5 more hits, all his numbers would have gone up. In 2005 if Dunn had 5 more hits all his numbers would have gone up. Your batting average affects your slugging percentage and on base percentage per season. A single is equal to a walk in slugging. Any hit is equal to all other hits in on base percentage. A double is worth twice as much as a walk in SLG, a home run 4 times as much. If he had 10 more hits, going by the numbers, he would probably have had at least a double and a home run in there. Thats an improved slugging percentage.

How on Gods green Earth does it not work that way. Adam Dunn had 134 hits this season in 543 at bats. That resulted in him with a OBP of .387 and a slugging percentage of .540. Now lets say Adam Dunn had 10 more hits on the season. 2 more doubles, 1 more home run and 7 more singles, in the same number of at bats. Lets look at his numbers now. Dunn now hits .265, his OBP is .403, his slugging is now .567. So tell me how his OBP and SLG dont automatically go up if his average goes up?

Sigh. Again, you can't just take what already happened and just add numbers to it and then assume it'll work that way in the future.

Adam Dunn can decrease his Strikeout rate and increase his Batting Average while actually putting up a lower OBP, SLG, and OPS.


Explain then how one side is supposed to prove one thing, while yet the other is free not to? I cant prove that something would have happened, but you cant prove that something wouldnt have.

Again, its a big double standard. If my word is no good without proof, then neither is anyone elses. I am not going to say Caveat is wrong, he very well could be right. Why dont you just read the example I showed with that comment I made. It is quite simple to understand. Tell me how it doesnt work.

Because asking someone to prove a NEGATIVE is unreasonable particularly when you've been consistently backing concepts you don't have any objective support for.

You're claiming that the Reds would have scored more Runs had they not struck out as often, yet have no evidence to back that up. But rather than supply the evidence to back up your claim, your sole defense was to ask Caveat to prove that your Bigfoot doesn't exist. Uh-uh.

The only "double-standard" here is that it appears you don't think you need real evidence before claiming something to be fact but that you expect others to "disprove" your contentions factually by proving a negative.

You said that Strikeouts hurt team Run Scoring. Where is your evidence to that effect? Heck, I even handed you a link that demonstrates a big fat pile no correlation between K's and Runs Scored. That's about as "disproved" as you can get.

There simply is no objective evidence that the 2005 Reds were hurt offensively by the number of Strikeouts they amassed. On an intuitive level, you think that's wrong. But that which is intuitive is far too often incorrect- thus the need for objective data to support your assertion. But you don't have said objective data. So you continue to argue on an intuitive level while then asking folks to prove negatives.

Again, if you're arguing for the existence of Bigfoot, I don't need to take a 10-year walk in the woods to prove he doesn't exist by NOT finding him. You have to demonstrate that he's out there.

dougdirt
01-25-2006, 05:54 PM
I quit with you SteelsD, you cant admit you are wrong ever. I show you that Adam Dunn getting more hits increases his numbers across the board, and you go an entirely different direction to argue against it. You make no sense. I give you something, that proves my point, and you ramble on about something else. You say a higher average doesnt do this or that, so i show you that it would, and then I cant change his batting average? Well of course not, becuase it proves you wrong. I am done argueing with you here.

919191
01-25-2006, 06:08 PM
Hit sac flies :D


He hit a few sac flies that happened to go too far and unfortunately went for home runs.:)

creek14
01-25-2006, 06:12 PM
Double > Single
Triple > Double
Home Run > Triple

rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr, I love it when you talk like that.

Now back to the tinkling match.

creek14
01-25-2006, 06:55 PM
I am positive that I said Adam Dunn is a star player, but that he is not a SUPERSTAR player.


At least SI thinks he's *Elite*.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/fantasy/01/25/boys.winter/

Heath
01-25-2006, 06:56 PM
I still think if creek got in on the negotiations for Dunner's LTC - he'd be in Cincinnati for the next 10 years....

dougdirt
01-25-2006, 06:59 PM
At least SI thinks he's *Elite*.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/fantasy/01/25/boys.winter/
Elite Firstbaseman.

creek14
01-25-2006, 07:02 PM
I still think if creek got in on the negotiations for Dunner's LTC - he'd be in Cincinnati for the next 10 years....
Dang straight. ;)

Maldonado
01-25-2006, 07:06 PM
Dunn statistically looks good in a "Moneyball" type of way in that he has high OBP and walks a lot.

dougdirt
01-25-2006, 07:08 PM
Can we get creek in on the negotiations?

MikeS21
01-25-2006, 07:09 PM
Dang straight. ;)
Of course, think of the pitching Dunn would land in a trade. :evil:

SteelSD
01-26-2006, 12:58 AM
I quit with you SteelsD, you cant admit you are wrong ever. I show you that Adam Dunn getting more hits increases his numbers across the board, and you go an entirely different direction to argue against it. You make no sense. I give you something, that proves my point, and you ramble on about something else. You say a higher average doesnt do this or that, so i show you that it would, and then I cant change his batting average? Well of course not, becuase it proves you wrong. I am done argueing with you here.

Dude, look at what you're trying to do for a moment.

All you're doing is taking away Outs and, in their place, adding hits to a season that's already happened. Will swapping Outs for hits in that manner raise any player's Batting Average, OBP, and SLG? Certainly. But you don't understand the problems associated with arbitrarily adjusting that variable while leaving everything else constant even if the practice of doing so was relevant to the discussion (I can assure you that it's not).

First, acquiring more Hits has to happen as a result of something. Players can't just "will" them to happen. It appears you think that the catalyst would be more balls hit into play. The problem is that more balls hit into play doesn't guarantee a higher rate of Base Hit acquisition. Secondly, to hit more balls into play, a behavioral change must occur. I've already outlined those behavioral changes. The primary issue with your concept of simply removing Outs and inserting Hits is that (and Caveat hit on this) those behavioral changes would apply to every Plate Appearance rather than the 15 Outs you're replacing.

Adam Dunn could have recorded 15 additional Base Hits in 2005 one of two ways:

1. A behavioral change that would have impacted EVERY Plate Appearance.
2. Randomness.

The reason your example is irrelevant is that it can only be applied in an arbitrary fashion to performance that has already occurred in 15 isolated Plate Appearances while everything else remains the same. But everything else staying the same is a complete impossibility. Can't happen that way if it has anything to do with Adam Dunn's ability. Can only happen that way if it's a completely random phenomenon and that random phenomenon can only be applicable to balls Dunn already hit into play.

In short, if Adam Dunn changes his behavior, your example doesn't work. That's a Big Deal because the only way Dunn could actually be the least bit personally responsible for a higher Hit rate is if he changed his behavior. The second option (randomness) had nothing to do with either Adam Dunn or Strikeouts as it only applies to balls that were hit into play in the first place.

If 15 more balls in play had fallen as Hits for Adam Dunn in 2005 would his BA, OBP, and SLG have improved? Certainly. But 15 more Balls in Play didn't randomly fall for Hits. And even if you were going to use the logic that fewer Strikeouts equal more Balls in Play, you should note that the average BABIP for MLB is around .305. That means Dunn would have needed to cut his Strikeouts in 2005 to 118 to even have a shot at the 50 additional BIP events he'd have needed.

But even then Dunn most likely wouldn't have registered 15 more Hits because a decrease in Strikeouts isn't directly associated with Balls in Play. I told folks this last year and it actually happened- The result of cutting down on Strikeouts would most likely produce an increase in BB rate rather than an increase in Hit rate (see: Batting Average). Some of those folks argued vigorously that a lower K rate would indeed produce the same increased BA, OBP, and SLG. It's the same argument you're making. But they were wrong, as are you.

Adam Dunn 2004-2005:

2004 K Rate: 1 K per 3.49 PA
2005 K Rate: 1 K per 3.99 PA

2004 BB Rate: 1 BB per 6.31 PA
2005 BB Rate: 1 BB per 5.89 PA

Dunn's K rate decreased by 1K every 0.50 PA in 2005 versus 2004. Dunn's BB rate increased by nearly the same amount versus 2004 (0.42). I don't imagine that you read the post by woy, but he's exactly on the money- the quality of Dunn's non-Out events supercedes how he makes Outs. In fact, his Secondary Average (i.e. non-Out event quality) at such a young age has only been outdone by a guy named Ted Williams.

There's just no cause-and-effect relationship between striking out less and making fewer Outs or acquiring more Bases. There's no relationship between simple Ball-in-Play rate and event quality. Nor is there a direct relationship between Hit rate and non-Out event quality. How a player (or team) makes Outs simply does not affect performance in the way you think it does, nor does a player's (or team's) Hit rate.

Again, you're looking at something that appears completely intuitive to you, but as so many intuitive things are it's also completely wrong.

M2
01-26-2006, 02:11 AM
I'd like it if contact hitters who made outs all the time would kindly aim better when they hit the ball, that would raise their OBs and SLGs too.

Real simple, Adam Dunn swings big and has a good eye. The less garbage he swings at, the better. That translates to BBs, which translates to OB, which translates to runs scored for the team. And when he makes contact he does a ton of damage. I'm routinely baffled when people want to talk hits and RBIs and they skip right past SLG. Who gives a flip about BA? Was Tony Gwynn a great RBI man? How about Wade Boggs? Let's get closer to home, how about Sean Casey? If you wanted RBIs would you rather have Sean Casey's .312 BA from last season or Adam Dunn's .540 SLG?

That's a rhetorical question because we know the best way to find an RBI man is to find a guy with a high SLG. Some guys have high BAs and high SLGs at the same time (Pujols). Others do it without the BA. Mike Schmidt hit .267 for his career and he's, what, the best 3B ever?

Asking everyone to be a cookie-cutter player is foolish. Life, and the game of baseball, doesn't work that way. Adam Dunn's an awesome offensive player and he does it without a high BA. That's who he is and it's a byproduct of what he needs to do to be successful. Focus on the success instead of meaningless truisms (BA good, strikeouts bad) and you'll be fine.

And for anyone who might still believe in value of the "productive out," here's the ESPN list of productive out % from 2004.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/stats/productive

They ran it because one of their columnists, the nearly retarded Buste Olney, claimed productive outs were a big part of offensive performance. Once the numbers came to light that notion was obliterated. Anyone who wouldn't take the bottom 20 players over the top 20 players would be off their nut. The guys who finished lower than 200th overall (there were 259 qualifiers) is like a who's who list of the 2004 season. BTW, for anyone not inclined to open the link, Ken Griffey Jr. (not one commonly faulted for his plate approach) finished next to last in productive out % that year, just ahead of Wily Mo Pena.

And the top five leading hitters in this category? Miguel Cairo, Brandon Inge, Tony Womack, Mark DeRosa and Alex Cora. Yeah, hitters should aspire to be more like those guys.

KronoRed
01-26-2006, 02:13 AM
I still think if creek got in on the negotiations for Dunner's LTC - he'd be in Cincinnati for the next 10 years....
Try 20...Creek only asking for font row seats behind 1st ;)

ochre
01-26-2006, 11:37 AM
Sounds like those that make a lot of outs tend to make a lot of productive outs as well... :)

deltachi8
01-26-2006, 12:08 PM
Sounds like those that make a lot of outs tend to make a lot of productive outs as well... :)

that may be the best statement made in this thread.

Chip R
01-26-2006, 12:12 PM
Dunn statistically looks good in a "Moneyball" type of way in that he has high OBP and walks a lot.
Nothing wrong with either walking or having a high OBP - of course one usually goes hand in hand with the other. I don't know if you've noticed but he's got a bit of power too. Other than that he's awful. :rolleyes:

George Foster
01-26-2006, 12:22 PM
Honestly, do you know what the difference between hitting .250 and hitting .265 is over the course of 550 ab's? It's around 15 hits. Given the fact that he does get on base so much, I don't think it makes that much difference.

I totally agree! Hitting for average is the most over-rated stat in baseball. OBP, and "rib-eye stakes" and the most critical stats.

Cyclone792
01-26-2006, 01:13 PM
Just some more numbers that helps to clarify Steel's post. Adam Dunn's fluctuation in batting average each season in his career is a factor of randomness, known as BABIP in this case, and that's one of the two points Steel mentioned.

FWIW, I love Fan Graphs (http://www.fangraphs.com)



Year BA BABIP BB% K%

2001 .262 .298 13.5% 30.3%
2002 .249 .316 19.3% 31.8%
2003 .215 .241 16.3% 33.1%
2004 .266 .321 16.0% 34.3%
2005 .247 .281 17.4% 30.9%

Total .248 .294 16.9% 32.3%

Since Dunn was a rookie in 2001, it's rather easy to understand his BB% being out of line with his other years, but notice the trend from 2002-2005. When Dunn's K percentage goes up, his BB percentage goes down. When Dunn's K percentage goes down, his BB percentage goes up.

And, perhaps even more importantly, look at the BABIP column. That's Dunn's Batting Average on Balls In Play. Remember Dunn's relatively lousy 2003 season (relatively lousy for him) where his BA was a puny .215 and fans began really jumping all over him? It's easy to pinpoint his low .215 BA that season on his exceptionally unlucky .241 BABIP. The very next season Dunn's BABIP spikes all the way up to .321, which is a bit higher than league average, and suddenly his BA spikes up to a much more respectable .266. All the while his K percentage had a neglible increase, which if it did anything it resulted in his BB percentage having a neglible decrease.

gonelong
01-26-2006, 01:26 PM
Year BA BABIP BB% K% SLG% AB

2001 .262 .298 13.5% 30.3% .578 244
2002 .249 .316 19.3% 31.8% .454 535
2003 .215 .241 16.3% 33.1% .465 381
2004 .266 .321 16.0% 34.3% .569 568
2005 .247 .281 17.4% 30.9% .530 543

Total .248 .294 16.9% 32.3% .518 2271


I wanted to see how SLG% - hitting the ball hard? ... might have played into his BABIP.

It doesn't seem to have the relationship I thought it might. I guess because SLG% on measures your successful attempts. The real measure of how BABIP lucky/unlucky a person was would have to also somehow rate the unsuccessful attempts.

The A's, from what I can recall, do something like this already. They take every batted ball and attempt to assign a probability of it being a hit, etc. based on speed, trajectory, and location. They then use this figure to help evaluate players.

GL

TheGARB
01-26-2006, 01:34 PM
The A's, from what I can recall, do something like this already. They take every batted ball and attempt to assign a probability of it being a hit, etc. based on speed, trajectory, and location. They then use this figure to help evaluate players.


Actually, Studes does something like that in the Hardball Times Annual where he assigns run values to batted ball types to try to estimate how many runs a particular hitter could have generated based on how he hit the ball. I don't have the numbers in front of me, so I guess this is more of a sales pitch for you to go out and buy the Hardball Times Annual. :D

gonelong
01-26-2006, 01:38 PM
Actually, Studes does something like that in the Hardball Times Annual where he assigns run values to batted ball types to try to estimate how many runs a particular hitter could have generated based on how he hit the ball. I don't have the numbers in front of me, so I guess this is more of a sales pitch for you to go out and buy the Hardball Times Annual. :D

Studes posted some stuff about WPA here, but I think you are talking about something different. Might be intesting to check out sometime.

Here is one thread about it: http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=33613&highlight=Studes

GL

Cyclone792
01-26-2006, 01:44 PM
http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/stats2005/nlprops/

PrOPS at Hardball Times includes batted ball types, if that's what you were referring to.

TheGARB
01-26-2006, 01:46 PM
Studes posted that here for a bit, it was WPA if I remember correctly. WPA is interesting, but not very informative or useful for predictiveness IMO. WPA doesn't give you a way to compare as one player might have many more opportunites than another.

Here is one thread about it: http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=33613&highlight=Studes

What the A's are doing is quite a bit different IMO.

GL

No this is different than WPA. WPA is about weighting events within a specific game based on the probability of a team winning a game at that point in time.

In this case he is taking batted ball types (Line drives, ground balls, fly balls) and determining their estimated run value much the same way that the Runs Created formulas do with doubles, triples, home runs, walks, etc. So, theoretically you can get an estimate of how many runs a player created based on how he hit the ball.

gonelong
01-26-2006, 06:00 PM
No this is different than WPA. WPA is about weighting events within a specific game based on the probability of a team winning a game at that point in time.

In this case he is taking batted ball types (Line drives, ground balls, fly balls) and determining their estimated run value much the same way that the Runs Created formulas do with doubles, triples, home runs, walks, etc. So, theoretically you can get an estimate of how many runs a player created based on how he hit the ball.

Yeah, I figured that out after the fact and changed my post, but not before you could reply. Thanks.

GL

Maldonado
01-26-2006, 09:40 PM
"BA doesn't mean a whole lot when he excels at everything else."

Batting average is a very misleading stat for a guy like Dunn. He walks a lot and therefore has a high OBP, which very much offsets is BA.

KronoRed
01-27-2006, 03:11 AM
Turn Dunn's 40 walks with the bases empty into 40 singles you have a .300 (well .298) hitter.

Would that make everyone happy? :D

buckeyenut
01-27-2006, 08:05 AM
Real simple, Adam Dunn swings big and has a good eye. The less garbage he swings at, the better. That translates to BBs, which translates to OB, which translates to runs scored for the team. And when he makes contact he does a ton of damage. I'm routinely baffled when people want to talk hits and RBIs and they skip right past SLG. Who gives a flip about BA? Was Tony Gwynn a great RBI man? How about Wade Boggs? Let's get closer to home, how about Sean Casey? If you wanted RBIs would you rather have Sean Casey's .312 BA from last season or Adam Dunn's .540 SLG?


It is OK to bring Sean Casey and Tony Gwynn into this discussion, but I'd stay away from Boggs.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/b/boggswa01.shtml

His four year stretch from 85-88 was probably among the best in the history of the game. His lowest OBP during that time was .450 and lowest OPS was .928 He brought big game outside of BA. Just wasnt anything as flashy as BA, because his SLG came from 2B, not HR.

Compare that to Gwynn, who had one year in his career with more than 60 walks. His OBP and SLG were entirely BA driven.

And to answer your question, Dunn over Casey, even in Casey's prime is an easy answer of Dunn.