PDA

View Full Version : Why is Dunn in Marty's doghouse?



Pages : 1 [2] 3

Cyclone792
04-18-2006, 10:15 AM
With Dunn, I have seen a pattern develop where pitchers give him a lot of good pitches very early. He has a great knowledge of the strike zone, and I see no reason why he shouldn't cash in on that pattern until it changes. If he blasts a few of those early strikes, the pattern will change.

Randy, the problem is the data just doesn't support this claim. I just posted this in another thread, but it also fits here (totals do not include Monday night's game against Florida).



Player HCPA SLG OPS Total PA HCPA % HCPA+

Adam Dunn 24 1.333 2.000 60 40.000% 115

Player PCPA SLG OPS Total PA PCPA % PCPA+

Adam Dunn 16 .333 .458 16 26.667% 116

HCPA is hitters count PAs and PCPA is pitchers count PAs. League average for HCPA is 35 percent, with 31 percent being league average for PCPA.

Prior to Monday, Dunn was ending 40 percent of his total PAs this season in a hitter's count, while only ending 27 percent of his total PAs this season in a pitcher's count. Both figures are well above the league average, and knowing what counts Dunn worked himself in to last night, he's back to being close to his career norms of 45 percent hitters counts and 24 percent pitchers counts.

If Dunn was letting any substantial number of hittable pitches sail by, then he'd be getting stuck in more pitchers counts and less hitters counts. Sure, he does let some good, hittable pitches sail by, but all hitters do that. The only hitter I've ever seen who seemingly crushed the vast majority of good, hittable pitches was Barry Bonds in his peak.

As it is right now, Dunn is one of the best hitters in all of baseball at working the count, waiting for a good, hittable pitch and then crushing it once he gets that pitch. Relative to every other hitter the last few seasons, sans Bonds in his peak, the claim that Dunn allows good, hittable pitches to sail into the catcher's mitt is simply unfounded.

flyer85
04-18-2006, 10:35 AM
Did anyone hear Marty's HR call of the Dunn HR last night? I heard it this morning and had a good laugh. Marty had a decided lack of enthusiasm for the call. Marty puts more enthusiasm and energy into calling an opposition HR than he did the one Dunn hit ast night.

BRM
04-18-2006, 11:02 AM
Did anyone hear Marty's HR call of the Dunn HR last night? I heard it this morning and had a good laugh. Marty had a decided lack of enthusiasm for the call. Marty puts more enthusiasm and energy into calling an opposition HR than he did the one Dunn hit ast night.

I've heard folks here say that quite a bit this year. It seems to be a common theme on HR calls for Adam Dunn. I live in Colorado so I never hear Marty but the posters here make it sound like it just kills him to call a nice play or a good at-bat for Dunn.

SteelSD
04-18-2006, 11:06 AM
That didn't take long. Actually, it is my TiVo that is telling me what I'm seeing. Maybe the TiVo fairy is coming in and recreating Adam's at bats and is merely trying to trick me.;) I'll tell you dude. A lot of those pitches that Adam Dunn takes early are very hittable. We're not talking about "pitchers' pitches" that he shouldn't swing at. I'm sure he would like to get a few of those offerings late in the count, but that's not gonna' happen very often. When it does, he obviously punishes those pitches.(What was Brian Moeller thinking?) The "brain wiring" that you are so familiar with, needs to be able to allow for some adjustment in the way he is being pitched from time to time. My book tells me that he takes a lot of good pitches early. If I'm a savvy kind of pitcher, I'm going to jump on that until it changes. The window for pitching Dunn is very small. Don't make mistakes after strike one. You have to make quality pitches, and the zones to get him out are very obvious right now.

And yet, Adam Dunn isn't "looking" himself into pitchers counts- he's swinging himself into them. The "fix" isn't to swing at more pitches early in counts and he's not taking a huge number of pitches in early-count situations anyway. And yes, we're talking about "meatball" pitches- not just "hittable" pitches. There are a lot of pitches Dunn could hit. But not as many that he should hit.

I think this is the third consecutive season in which you've brought up the same topic and each time the data shows us that Adam Dunn isn't constantly "looking" himself into trouble nearly as often as you claim. Yet, you keep bringing it up and now when Dunn hasn't shown a deficiency thusfar this season working in "pitchers" counts in the first place.

At this point, all I can say is that I'm super duper glad Bobby Abreu isn't a member of the Reds because THAT GUY would frustrate you to no end.


And I'm not surprised at your misrepresentation of what I said. Go back to my post and find that statement. Very predictable, you are. I believe it was your buddy who brought up the "meatball" phrase.

The point about the "meatball" is that you're only going to have a case that a hitter should swing at obviously crushable offerings from the pitcher (i.e. "meatballs") early-count (Dunn does this pretty often, BTW). Otherwise, you're positioning the concept that a hitter should swing at "hittable" pitches just because they can- which is no better than taking "meatballs" just because they can.

And, as we all know, just because you can doesn't mean you should.


With Dunn, I have seen a pattern develop where pitchers give him a lot of good pitches very early. He has a great knowledge of the strike zone, and I see no reason why he shouldn't cash in on that pattern until it changes. If he blasts a few of those early strikes, the pattern will change. Adjustments are a huge part of the professional game, for both hitters and pitchers. The ability to adjust is something that I think a great hitter like Dunn, can do.

He already "blasts" early strikes. From 2002-2005, 53 of Adam Dunn's Home Runs were acquired during one of the first three pitches he saw from opposing hurlers. That's 47% of his HR total during that span. This season the count is three of eight. Where's the issue?

He jumps on what he likes early. Takes what he doesn't. So it goes.

flyer85
04-18-2006, 11:07 AM
I've heard folks here say that quite a bit this year. It seems to be a common theme on HR calls for Adam Dunn. I live in Colorado so I never hear Marty but the posters here make it sound like it just kills him to call a nice play or a good at-bat for Dunn.I don't listen to the Reds on Radio so I haven't heard any of Marty's calls of a Dunn HR prior to this one this season. It was on a sports talk show of Reds highlight and Marty sounded bored by the event.

Chip R
04-18-2006, 11:17 AM
To be fair, a lot of Dunn's HRs are no doubters - like the one that went between the smokestacks. Not much drama to them.

BRM
04-18-2006, 11:20 AM
To be fair, a lot of Dunn's HRs are no doubters - like the one that went between the smokestacks. Not much drama to them.

Shouldn't a bomb like that generate a little bit of excitement from the home team's booth though?

flyer85
04-18-2006, 11:21 AM
To be fair, a lot of Dunn's HRs are no doubters - like the one that went between the smokestacks. Not much drama to them.This one was not a "no doubter", the call started with "that's a high drive". It sounded like the call for a rountine fly.

Go to reds.mlb.com they problem have an audio of it.

Maybe Marty calls all HRs with little enthusiasm these days but it is decidely different from the 25+ years that I remember listening to.

G-squared certainly put at lot more emotion in to his call than Marty did.

Chip R
04-18-2006, 11:26 AM
Shouldn't a bomb like that generate a little bit of excitement from the home team's booth though?

I think that has been the only one I've heard him call so far and he was excited but it seemed like they were in awe of how far it went.

2001MUgrad
04-18-2006, 11:29 AM
This one was not a "no doubter", the call started with "that's a high drive". It sounded like the call for a rountine fly.

Go to reds.mlb.com they problem have an audio of it.

Maybe Marty calls all HRs with little enthusiasm these days but it is decidely different from the 25+ years that I remember listening to.

G-squared certainly put at lot more emotion in to his call than Marty did.

I wasn't enthused about it either at first. It seemed to be a high fly ball, sometimes with Dunn you just can't tell, but it ended up being out by a good bit. It wasn't like a solid line drive, it initially looked like a fly ball to me.

westofyou
04-18-2006, 11:33 AM
It wasn't like a solid line drive, it initially looked like a fly ball to me.That just went over 400 feet.

flyer85
04-18-2006, 11:34 AM
That just went over 400 feet.G-squared got excited right away ... and it wasn't even a Cardinal that hit it.

membengal
04-18-2006, 11:38 AM
G-squared got excited right away ... and it wasn't even a Cardinal that hit it.

That's because he closed his eyes and imagined it was Edmonds who had hit it...

Chip R
04-18-2006, 11:40 AM
G-squared got excited right away ... and it wasn't even a Cardinal that hit it.

He might have been thinking of Edmonds at the time. Did he blurt out Jim's name at an inappropriate time? :evil:

registerthis
04-18-2006, 11:50 AM
I heard the call, and it sounded like a typical Marty HR call to me...he sounded neither under nor over-enthused about it.

Guess people hear what they want to hear, though.

CySeymour
04-18-2006, 11:56 AM
Marty may not understand a line of .468obp and .574 slg , which is what Dunn had last year with RISP, according to Yahoo. But he had a BA of .248 with RISP...not bad considering his overall BA was .247. So really, he actually had a higher average with RISP than other times. If a guy hits .248, you can't expect him to all of the sudden turn into a .350 hitter.

Caveat Emperor
04-18-2006, 12:02 PM
I heard the call, and it sounded like a typical Marty HR call to me...he sounded neither under nor over-enthused about it.

Guess people hear what they want to hear, though.

I forget when it was, but Marty did offer up one of the greatest Adam Dunn home run call in history a season or two back...

*CRACK*
Marty: "Wow...."

big boy
04-18-2006, 12:12 PM
Did anyone hear Marty's HR call of the Dunn HR last night? I heard it this morning and had a good laugh. Marty had a decided lack of enthusiasm for the call. Marty puts more enthusiasm and energy into calling an opposition HR than he did the one Dunn hit ast night.

Marty gets excited about big home runs. Dunner hitting one out of his 50+ against an awful pitcher on an awful team doesn't qualify. When he hits a walk-off against the Astros or the Cards, it might pick up.

RANDY IN INDY
04-18-2006, 01:06 PM
Originally posted by SteelSD:

And, as we all know, just because you can doesn't mean you should.

Or shouldn't.

BoydsOfSummer
04-18-2006, 01:38 PM
I forget when it was, but Marty did offer up one of the greatest Adam Dunn home run call in history a season or two back...

*CRACK*
Marty: "Wow...."


Also, the other night (might have been the same dong) Marty's description of it was "Good Lord!" :laugh:

TRF
04-18-2006, 03:31 PM
I'd like to clear up a couple of things, as this thread has gotten OT a few times.


Marty bashes Dunn soley because he doesn't understand or like his game.
If Pujols is elite (and he is) then Dunn is very close to being elite himself.
Sean Casey does not lack power. Sean Casey lacks health.
Any announcer that thinks Aurilia should be a vital part of the offense needs to retire immediately.


If defense is the concern, the solution is simple:

Dunn at 1B
Phillips at 2B
Freel in LF
Denorfia in CF until Jr. returns

If/When Jr. returns, Freel plays everyday: rotating at all thee OF positions plus 2B and he's the first choice to spell EE at third.

Marty is a sucking black hole of bad PR for a team that desperately needs a "Tell it like it is" announcer that understands what "it" is.

Handofdeath
04-18-2006, 03:40 PM
Dunn close to being an elite player? He is nowhere close to being Pujols. He either strikes out or hits a solo homer. And he reeks at two positions defensively. Dunn needs to be more like...Jim Thome;)

BRM
04-18-2006, 03:50 PM
He either strikes out or hits a solo homer.

Really? I guess those 35 doubles and 114 walks were just a mirage last year.

membengal
04-18-2006, 03:54 PM
Really? I guess those 35 doubles and 114 walks were just a mirage last year.


It's true. They never happened. That they allegedly happened is VERY inconvenient for those who like to make blanket statements about Dunn's ability.

Handofdeath
04-18-2006, 03:56 PM
Relax I'm just yanking TRF's chain. But Dunn is overrated by some. He's a liabilty defensively and I'm sorry but when I'm discussing a player's offensive ability walks don't mean much. The Reds aren't paying millions to watch him jog to first base.

traderumor
04-18-2006, 03:58 PM
So....who's in charge of developing the excite-o-meter for home run calls? This has got to be one of the freakiest Marty rants I've seen in awhile.

big boy
04-18-2006, 04:11 PM
when I'm discussing a player's offensive ability walks don't mean much. The Reds aren't paying millions to watch him jog to first base.

This is the kind of quote that could extend this thread another 20 pages.

BuckeyeRedleg
04-18-2006, 04:12 PM
Dunn close to being an elite player? He is nowhere close to being Pujols. He either strikes out or hits a solo homer. And he reeks at two positions defensively. Dunn needs to be more like...Jim Thome;)

Dunn is an elite slugger.

Period.

And I'll take him on my team any day of the week. I hope he retires a Red with 800 dingers.

westofyou
04-18-2006, 04:12 PM
Relax I'm just yanking TRF's chain. But Dunn is overrated by some. He's a liabilty defensively and I'm sorry but when I'm discussing a player's offensive ability walks don't mean much. The Reds aren't paying millions to watch him jog to first base.

"These are thin mints. I put them in the freezer. My favorites. So good."
--Reds outfielder Adam Dunn, on the girl scout cookies he keeps in his locker (Dayton Daily News)

BRM
04-18-2006, 04:22 PM
mmm...thin mints...:)

westofyou
04-18-2006, 04:27 PM
"Cullenbine wouldn't swing the bat, laziest ballplayer I've ever seen"

Bill Dewitt

So he traded him


YEAR TEAM AGE G AB R H 2B 3B HR HR% RBI BB SO SB CS AVG SLG OBA OPS
1940 Browns 26 86 257 41 59 11 2 7 2.72 31 50 34 0 1 .230 .370 .359 .729
1941 Browns 27 149 501 82 159 29 9 9 1.80 98 121 43 6 4 .317 .465 .452 .917
1942 Browns 28 38 109 15 21 7 1 2 1.83 14 30 20 0 1 .193 .330 .367 .697
TOTALS 273 867 138 239 47 12 18 2.08 143 201 97 6 6 .276 .420 .414 .834
LG AVERAGE 851 122 234 43 10 16 1.89 112 95 77 10 7 .275 .407 .350 .757
POS AVERAGE 875 136 256 46 13 19 2.17 126 114 77 14 9 .293 .440 .376 .816


Batters don't follow out their natural instinct to wallop the ball, but stall around the plate in the hope of drawing a base instead of hitting the ball hard.

Bill Lange 3-14-1909

Caveat Emperor
04-18-2006, 04:28 PM
I'm sorry but when I'm discussing a player's offensive ability walks don't mean much. The Reds aren't paying millions to watch him jog to first base.

I'm the same way. I don't count points baskeball players score at the free throw line. I don't pay millions of dollars to watch some guy stand at the charity stripe and take uncontested shots.

BRM
04-18-2006, 04:30 PM
I think Marty has joined RedsZone.

M2
04-18-2006, 04:44 PM
Relax I'm just yanking TRF's chain. But Dunn is overrated by some. He's a liabilty defensively and I'm sorry but when I'm discussing a player's offensive ability walks don't mean much. The Reds aren't paying millions to watch him jog to first base.

Hopefully they're paying him millions to boost the offense. He leads the team in runs scored every season and in RBIs. He does the first thanks to his high OB (hello walks) and the latter thanks to his high SLG (hello doubles and homers).

Paying him millions to make outs, now that would be stupid.

TRF
04-18-2006, 04:57 PM
Paying him millions to make outs, now that would be stupid.

Hello stupid, thy name is Alfonso Soriano.

Now there is an out machine, and since he is now a LF an apt comparison. But he'll hit above .270 so that makes him a good hitter? blech.

DeadRedinCT
04-18-2006, 05:00 PM
Hello stupid, thy name is Alfonso Soriano.

Now there is an out machine, and since he is now a LF an apt comparison. But he'll hit above .270 so that makes him a good hitter? blech.

Somebody ought to email Marty tonight and ask him if he would rather have Dunn or Soriano on the Reds.

Not me. I'm too chicken.

TRF
04-18-2006, 05:03 PM
Actually I guess "Stupid" would be JimBo.

pedro
04-18-2006, 05:05 PM
Somebody ought to email Marty tonight and ask him if he would rather have Dunn or Soriano on the Reds.

Not me. I'm too chicken.


oh, he'd totally rather have Soriano. Until he was here. Then the complaining would start.

2001MUgrad
04-18-2006, 05:07 PM
That just went over 400 feet.

No doubt that it went at least that far. In first glance it appeared as though it would be a long high fly ball. Sometime the ball carries, sometimes it doesn't. Yesterday it certainly did, tonight the wind could be blowing in and it might become a warning track fly.

Highlifeman21
04-18-2006, 05:36 PM
I'd like to clear up a couple of things, as this thread has gotten OT a few times.


Marty bashes Dunn soley because he doesn't understand or like his game.
If Pujols is elite (and he is) then Dunn is very close to being elite himself.
Sean Casey does not lack power. Sean Casey lacks health.
Any announcer that thinks Aurilia should be a vital part of the offense needs to retire immediately.


If defense is the concern, the solution is simple:

Dunn at 1B
Phillips at 2B
Freel in LF
Denorfia in CF until Jr. returns

If/When Jr. returns, Freel plays everyday: rotating at all thee OF positions plus 2B and he's the first choice to spell EE at third.

Marty is a sucking black hole of bad PR for a team that desperately needs a "Tell it like it is" announcer that understands what "it" is.


I beg to differ the bolded part of your statement. 120 career HR? .463 career SLG? Seems to be a power outage if I've ever seen one.

RedsFanInMD
04-18-2006, 05:44 PM
My take on Dunn is that he came into the league with an exceptional eye and a highly disiplined plate approach -- maybe too disciplined. In remaining stubborn about the strike zone, he was often placing himself in the hands of an ump, who had a varying view of the zone, and the young Dunn didn't receive the benefit of the doubt that a proven player (with a good eye) like Bonds. As a result, Dunn would get "caught looking" on bordeline pitches that umpires rang up as strike 3. Conversely, he often found himself trying to protect the plate in various 2 strike situations that were brought about by borderline pitches that he took for strikes earlier in the count. With such a big swing, it is probably too much to ask for Dunn to shorten his swing on those 2 strike counts also. That, I think, helps explain the high strikeout numbers that we've seen earlier in his career.

I think we're seeing a different Dunn this year. He doesn't appear to be as selective with his pitches now, probably as a result of someone emphasizing that a hitter of his magnitude shouldn't go to the plate in RISP situations looking for a walk.

The solo HR phenomena is a result of pitchers being more willing to pitch to him with no one on base. When there are runners on, they do to him like we wish our pitching staff had done to Pujols in St. Louis. Only, Adam has chased many a ball 4 to make things easy on the opposing pitcher. I think Dunn will get better as he sees these situations more and more. Also, if Kearns continues to come around, Dunn may finally get the protection he needs to prevent pitchers from "pitching around him".

TRF
04-18-2006, 05:44 PM
I beg to differ the bolded part of your statement. 120 career HR? .463 career SLG? Seems to be a power outage if I've ever seen one.

No. It's a health issue. When Healthy Sean Casey is a 25-30 HR guy. He'll OBP around .390, and SLG over .500

But he can never seem to stay healthy. He was health in 1999, and the first half of 2000. He was healthy in 2004. Those are the numbers a healthy Sean Casey can give you. But the man cannot seem to keep his shoulder/back/eye socket/pelvis/whatever healthy.

sometimes you have to look at the why of the numbers. That said his health is a legitimate concern.

registerthis
04-18-2006, 05:46 PM
So....who's in charge of developing the excite-o-meter for home run calls? This has got to be one of the freakiest Marty rants I've seen in awhile.

LOL, no kidding.

Also, i've heard a few less-than-dramatic calls by Steve Stewart. I'd have him tarred and feathered, if it were up to me.

registerthis
04-18-2006, 05:47 PM
oh, he'd totally rather have Soriano. Until he was here. Then the complaining would start.

No, he wouldn't. Soriano has proven himself to be very much the anti-team player.

registerthis
04-18-2006, 05:49 PM
No. It's a health issue. When Healthy Sean Casey is a 25-30 HR guy. He'll OBP around .390, and SLG over .500

He's only hit 20+ twice in his career, and never over 25. He's not a "25 - 30" HR guy, he's a 15-20 HR guy when he's healthy. Which hasn't been often recently.

uks2h
04-18-2006, 06:48 PM
Haha only on a message board will you find people talking bad about Marty.

TRF
04-18-2006, 07:37 PM
He's only hit 20+ twice in his career, and never over 25. He's not a "25 - 30" HR guy, he's a 15-20 HR guy when he's healthy. Which hasn't been often recently.

No He isn't a 15-20 HR guy. At worst he's a 20-25 HR guy when healthy. He's just never healthy.

He's an .850+ OPS guy when healthy. He's a doubles machine. He gets on base. Quite frankly, Sean Casey is a damn fine hitter.

He just can't stay healthy.

TeamBoone
04-18-2006, 07:40 PM
I'm the same way. I don't count points baskeball players score at the free throw line. I don't pay millions of dollars to watch some guy stand at the charity stripe and take uncontested shots.

:laugh:

TeamBoone
04-18-2006, 07:44 PM
Haha only on a message board will you find people talking bad about Marty.

We talk about him in the bars all the time.

Highlifeman21
04-18-2006, 08:03 PM
No. It's a health issue. When Healthy Sean Casey is a 25-30 HR guy. He'll OBP around .390, and SLG over .500

But he can never seem to stay healthy. He was health in 1999, and the first half of 2000. He was healthy in 2004. Those are the numbers a healthy Sean Casey can give you. But the man cannot seem to keep his shoulder/back/eye socket/pelvis/whatever healthy.

sometimes you have to look at the why of the numbers. That said his health is a legitimate concern.


I just want to understand what you're saying. You're saying Casey DOES have power, but has just been injured too often and that's the reason for his career of lack of power? The 4 years (99,01,03,04) he played in 145+ games, he only had a SLG over .500 in two of those years (99, 04). In 2000, in only 133 games, he did SLG over .500. I guess I've just never viewed Sean Casey as a power threat during his entire career. Interesting take to say that injuries limited his power numbers.

MWM
04-18-2006, 08:24 PM
Casey doesn't have a power swing at all. He's got a slap hitters swing. Even when healthy, he just doesn't have power in him, even though he's not small.

westofyou
04-18-2006, 08:26 PM
Haha only on a message board will you find people talking bad about Marty.
Or a gas station in Kentucky.. but I'm certain you'd get to that eventually.

big boy
04-18-2006, 09:10 PM
Can we all at least agree that if Dunner got more hits with risp, he would have more rbi? It really is that simple.

membengal
04-18-2006, 09:16 PM
I gotta say...Brennamen has been rather human with Dunn tonight, even calling him "one of the premiere power hitters in the game". A nice change of pace from him.

Cedric
04-18-2006, 09:37 PM
I gotta say...Brennamen has been rather human with Dunn tonight, even calling him "one of the premiere power hitters in the game". A nice change of pace from him.

Marty is too hard on Dunn, but many people are overly sensitive about Dunn. In my opinion.

Saying Marty is basically mad when Dunn hits a homer is over the top in my opinion. He praised Adam for his play on that shallow pop earlier and he talks about his power game a lot.

Highlifeman21
04-18-2006, 09:38 PM
I gotta say...Brennamen has been rather human with Dunn tonight, even calling him "one of the premiere power hitters in the game". A nice change of pace from him.


Marty must have been having an out of Marty experience. Next thing you know, George Grande will say something bad about Jim Edmonds.

big boy
04-18-2006, 09:52 PM
Marty is too hard on Dunn, but many people are overly sensitive about Dunn. In my opinion.

Saying Marty is basically mad when Dunn hits a homer is over the top in my opinion. He praised Adam for his play on that shallow pop earlier and he talks about his power game a lot.

Nicely done.

wheels
04-18-2006, 10:18 PM
Marty is too hard on Dunn, but many people are overly sensitive about Dunn. In my opinion.

Saying Marty is basically mad when Dunn hits a homer is over the top in my opinion. He praised Adam for his play on that shallow pop earlier and he talks about his power game a lot.

I think that's a fair statement.

I think my frustration stems from the fact that Marty should be going out of his way to PROMOTE Adam Dunn.

I know it's not his style, but it could help put fannies in the seats.

And yes, I'll agree that I'm a tad sensitive about Adam Dunn.

Just like I was with Eric Davis in the late eighties.

MWM
04-18-2006, 10:23 PM
People are sensitive about Adam Dunn because the same misplaced criticisms are heaped on him ALL THE TIME. Because of that, it makes it seem like people are too sensitive about him. I don't think it's really the case. It just seems that way because they're constantly having to come to his defense over the same tired criticisms.

RANDY IN INDY
04-18-2006, 10:25 PM
Marty is too hard on Dunn, but many people are overly sensitive about Dunn. In my opinion.

Saying Marty is basically mad when Dunn hits a homer is over the top in my opinion. He praised Adam for his play on that shallow pop earlier and he talks about his power game a lot.

Well said, and right on the money.:beerme:

Cedric
04-18-2006, 10:26 PM
People are sensitive about Adam Dunn because the same misplaced criticisms are heaped on him ALL THE TIME. Because of that, it makes it seem like people are too sensitive about him. I don't think it's really the case. It just seems that way because they're constantly having to come to his defense over the same tired criticisms.

The Dunn bashing get's real old, I understand that. I just think most people on Redszone respect Dunn's game and realize how great he is. In my opinion we don't need constant smart mouthed responses everytime Dunn walks in the game thread.

Just my two cents. And I'm not saying you do that.

Cedric
04-18-2006, 10:27 PM
I think that's a fair statement.

I think my frustration stems from the fact that Marty should be going out of his way to PROMOTE Adam Dunn.

I know it's not his style, but it could help put fannies in the seats.

And yes, I'll agree that I'm a tad sensitive about Adam Dunn.

Just like I was with Eric Davis in the late eighties.

Oh man was I sensitive about ED. EVERY old timer gave me a raft of crap for defending Eric at all times.

M2
04-18-2006, 11:32 PM
Can we all at least agree that if Dunner got more hits with risp, he would have more rbi? It really is that simple.

You can say that about every player that doesn't hit 1.000 with runners in scoring position.

Where people don't agree with you is this notion that Adam Dunn needs to try to be Tony Gwynn with runners in scoring position. It's not his game and it's not that effective.

Raisor
04-18-2006, 11:38 PM
You can say that about every player that doesn't hit 1.000 with runners in scoring position.

Where people don't agree with you is this notion that Adam Dunn needs to try to be Tony Gwynn with runners in scoring position. It's not his game and it's not that effective.


Dunn's career OPS w/RISP of 880 says "hello"

2001MUgrad
04-18-2006, 11:39 PM
Can we all at least agree that if Dunner got more hits with risp, he would have more rbi? It really is that simple.

Yes and it would also mean more RBI's if he were able to make contact and lift the ball into the air with at runner on 3rd and less than 2 outs. Yet to many here a single is as good as a walk and a walk is better than a sac fly every single time and that a groundout to the second baseman that scores that guy on third is the same as a strikeout and not as good as a walk.

All outs are not equal. Everytime you reach base is not equal. Thats the basic flaw I find in the argument. Lots of valid points, but it has no way to equate for an out being worth more than another out and it equates a single virtually the same as it does a walk.

SteelSD
04-18-2006, 11:43 PM
Can we all at least agree that if Dunner got more hits with risp, he would have more rbi? It really is that simple.

No, but you're probably going to believe what you typed all the same.

And even if you were correct, a single player recording more RBI doesn't equate to more Runs Scored at a team level.

I'm consistently awed by how misunderstood Run production is.

SteelSD
04-18-2006, 11:46 PM
Yes and it would also mean more RBI's if he were able to make contact and lift the ball into the air with at runner on 3rd and less than 2 outs. Yet to many here a single is as good as a walk and a walk is better than a sac fly every single time and that a groundout to the second baseman that scores that guy on third is the same as a strikeout and not as good as a walk.

That's a strawman. No one here has ever positioned the concepts you claim.


All outs are not equal. Everytime you reach base is not equal. Thats the basic flaw I find in the argument. Lots of valid points, but it has no way to equate for an out being worth more than another out and it equates a single virtually the same as it does a walk.

It appears you dramatically misunderstand the opposing position. And I sure hope you're not talking about OPS.

Raisor
04-18-2006, 11:46 PM
No, but you're probably going to believe what you typed all the same.

And even if you were correct, a single player recording more RBI doesn't equate to more Runs Scored at a team level.

I'm consistently awed by how misunderstood Run production is.


It's how guys like Juan Gonzalez get big ass contracts.

Raisor
04-18-2006, 11:48 PM
when I have a son. I'll be teaching him baseball the right way. He'll have to do 40 laps if he ever mentions batting average (except in a sarcastic way).

In fact, I'm thinking of naming the first born "OPS RAISOR"

SteelSD
04-18-2006, 11:53 PM
It's how guys like Juan Gonzalez get big ass contracts.

It's how Tony Batista gets back from Japan instead of being stranded like Richard Chamberlain at the end of "Shogun".

Send 'em all over there and burn their boats I say.

2001MUgrad
04-18-2006, 11:54 PM
That's a strawman. No one here has ever positioned the concepts you claim.



It appears you dramatically misunderstand the opposing position. And I sure hope you're not talking about OPS.

Don't mess with OPS.

Every thing cannot be made into a single stat and tell the whole story. While they are a good guide that are not the tell all. Sometimes you have to trust what you see with your eyes. All stats do have their merit and their place, but they should just be used as guides. The can tell what happens after it happens, but not a predictor of what is going to happen.

M2
04-18-2006, 11:57 PM
Yes and it would also mean more RBI's if he were able to make contact and lift the ball into the air with at runner on 3rd and less than 2 outs. Yet to many here a single is as good as a walk and a walk is better than a sac fly every single time and that a groundout to the second baseman that scores that guy on third is the same as a strikeout and not as good as a walk.

All outs are not equal. Everytime you reach base is not equal. Thats the basic flaw I find in the argument. Lots of valid points, but it has no way to equate for an out being worth more than another out and it equates a single virtually the same as it does a walk.

Name a good sac fly artist, a master of the art form. Who should we be looking to as an example of what Dunn should be doing in order to hit more sac flies?

While you're at it, please explain why the BRM never traded George Foster for Ralph Garr? Garr hit 32 points higher for his career and played better defense.

Also, why do the hitters who lead the league in productive out percentage generally suck? I mean how can a collection of some of the worst hitters in the game be good at this while better hitters don't show any particular skill in this area?

You can add this to answering why recent NL RBI champs haven't hit for a high batting average, why Adam Dunn has led the Reds in RBIs two years in a row and just how in the hell the Reds managed to lead the league in scoring last season despite not doing all these things you claim are so important?

johngalt
04-18-2006, 11:57 PM
Every thing cannot be made into a single stat and tell the whole story. While they are a good guide that are not the tell all. Sometimes you have to trust what you see with your eyes. All stats do have their merit and their place, but they should just be used as guides. The can tell what happens after it happens, but not a predictor of what is going to happen.

What is a predictor? Telepathy?

If a guy has a .300 career average with RISP, then you would classify him as a good hitter with RISP. You would classify that way because of his average, not because of some vague observation.

2001MUgrad
04-18-2006, 11:58 PM
The Reds are an offensive force. They have been for a while thats not going to change. They could be a lot better if they didn't strand so many runners or if they hit with RISP or picked up the guy on 3rd with a Sac Fly instead of striking out.

Caveat Emperor
04-19-2006, 12:00 AM
Sometimes you have to trust what you see with your eyes. All stats do have their merit and their place, but they should just be used as guides. The can tell what happens after it happens, but not a predictor of what is going to happen.

Potter Stewart would be proud.

In another thread, Cyclone posted a correlational chart between performance metrics and actual production. Nothing can tell you what's going to happen 100% of the time, but I guarantee you someone looking at OPS, VORP and RC is going to get a lot closer to the truth than someone going on their gut.

And I say this as a guy who actually got a "gut" call right with D'Angelo Jimenez last year.

SteelSD
04-19-2006, 12:00 AM
Don't mess with OPS.

Are you talking about OPS "counting a single the same as a Walk"?


Every thing cannot be made into a single stat and tell the whole story. While they are a good guide that are not the tell all. Sometimes you have to trust what you see with your eyes. All stats do have their merit and their place, but they should just be used as guides. The can tell what happens after it happens, but not a predictor of what is going to happen.

Accomplished analysts can do a better job of predicting what is most likely to happen in the future using valid statistical analysis than you can with your eyes.

And the next time I hear a variant of "it's not all about stats", I'm going to flip out because it's ANOTHER thing no sabermetrician has ever said.

I'm not sure why your position has degraded to the point of constant strawmen, but we're way past the point of that working.

johngalt
04-19-2006, 12:00 AM
The Reds are an offensive force. They have been for a while thats not going to change. They could be a lot better if they didn't strand so many runners or if they hit with RISP or picked up the guy on 3rd with a Sac Fly instead of striking out.

The Reds are an offensive force because of their makeup as a team. Change that makeup and their approach, and you change the offensive output. Most likely for the worse.

SteelSD
04-19-2006, 12:05 AM
The Reds are an offensive force. They have been for a while thats not going to change. They could be a lot better if they didn't strand so many runners or if they hit with RISP or picked up the guy on 3rd with a Sac Fly instead of striking out.

The Cincinnati Reds finished third in scoring in the NL with RISP in 2005 while posting only the 7th most Plate Appearances and the 11th highest Batting Average with RISP.

They led the NL in BB per PA and Bases per PA with RISP.

THAT'S how you do it. Outs and Bases. Outs and Bases. Outs and Bases.

The Reds were the best situational hitting team in the National League in 2005 and you say they can't hit situationally. Ridiculous.

Raisor
04-19-2006, 12:06 AM
And the next time I hear a variant of "it's not all about stats", I'm going to flip out because it's ANOTHER thing no sabermetrician has ever said.

.


If the Steel we've had the last few years has been the non-flipped out Steel, I'm afraid of what we're going to see when he does flip out.

RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!!!!

:devil:

M2
04-19-2006, 12:10 AM
Don't mess with OPS.

Every thing cannot be made into a single stat and tell the whole story. While they are a good guide that are not the tell all. Sometimes you have to trust what you see with your eyes. All stats do have their merit and their place, but they should just be used as guides. The can tell what happens after it happens, but not a predictor of what is going to happen.

Actually stats are an excellent predictor of what's going to happen. You're now arguing with a bunch of folks who, unlike you, figured the pitching on the 2005 Reds was toxic while the offense was going to be pretty good ... and they used stats to do it.

In fact, most anyone attempting to project performance without a statistical foundation is likely just blowing smoke up your rear.

Anyway, I trust what I see with my own eyes when it comes to Adam Dunn and the stats consistently confirm my observation. He needs to be highly selective at the plate and when he is he's devastating. Pitchers throw him slop when he's got runners on and he's not going to thrive by expanding his strikezone in that situation. It's one of the reasons why he should hit relatively high in the lineup (#2 or #3) so that you can put some big bats behind him and take advantage of all those walks.

Also, in previous years I was among those who said he needed to improve his two-strike approach and so far this season he has.

westofyou
04-19-2006, 12:11 AM
Pete Rose had exactly 4 Sac Flies from 1971-1973 in 2188 trips to the plate, he had exactly 0 in 1973.... in 1974 he had 6,) he must have tried for them that year.) Then from 75-76 he got a whole 3 of them.

flyer85
04-19-2006, 12:12 AM
Pete Rose had exactly 4 Sac Flies from 1971-1973 in 2188 trips to the plate, he had exactly 0 in 1973.... in 1974 he had 6,) he must have tried for them that year.) Then from 75-76 he got a whole 3 of them.Maybe Pete just wasn't scrappy.

Raisor
04-19-2006, 12:13 AM
Pete Rose had exactly 4 Sac Flies from 1971-1973 in 2188 trips to the plate, he had exactly 0 in 1973.... in 1974 he had 6,) he must have tried for them that year.) Then from 75-76 he got a whole 3 of them.


What were Pete's sac totals pre and post Moe cut.

I bet that had something to do with something.

johngalt
04-19-2006, 12:14 AM
2005 NL statistics from ESPN.com

Top 5 Teams in Sac Flies with Runs Rank in Parentheses
1. FLA (8)
2. PIT (14)
3. SD (13)
4. ATL (4)
5. PHI (2)

Top 5 Teams in Runs Scored with Sac Flies Rank in Parentheses
1. CIN (10)
2. PHI (5)
3. STL (14)
4. ATL (4)
5. COL (15)

Yeah, I can definitely see why more sac flies would increase our run production.

flyer85
04-19-2006, 12:16 AM
2005 NL statistics from ESPN.com

Top 5 Teams in Sac Flies with Runs Rank in Parentheses
1. FLA (8)
2. PIT (14)
3. SD (13)
4. ATL (4)
5. PHI (2)

Top 5 Teams in Runs Scored with Sac Flies Rank in Parentheses
1. CIN (10)
2. PHI (5)
3. STL (14)
4. ATL (4)
5. COL (15)

Yeah, I can definitely see why more sac flies would increase our run production.
Maybe its better to knock in runs without making an out.

Just a thought. Oh, silly me.

johngalt
04-19-2006, 12:17 AM
Maybe its better to knock in runs without making an out.

Just a thought. Oh, silly me.

You mean to tell me that you don't have to sacrifice outs for runs all the time?

M2
04-19-2006, 12:19 AM
The Reds are an offensive force. They have been for a while thats not going to change. They could be a lot better if they didn't strand so many runners or if they hit with RISP or picked up the guy on 3rd with a Sac Fly instead of striking out.

Steel covered the demonstable FACT that the Reds were an excellent situational hitting club last season. Yet you also just stumbled over the trip wire of run scoring.

LOB is not an evil thing. How do you score runs? Well, first you need to get on base. And the more you get on base, the more your team tends to score. Yet, the more you get on base the more runners you will also leave on base.

So LOB is a byproduct of the very thing a team needs to do in order to score lots of runs. They don't all score. If the Reds lacked the power to plate those baserunners or were scoring too few of their baserunners, then you'd have a point. Yet neither is happening. The Reds have gobs of power to plate those runners and they're bringing lots of them around to score.

Raisor
04-19-2006, 12:20 AM
It's been said before, but I'm saying it again. The problem is most of the people watching baseball now, and who are running clubs now, are people that grew up watching baseball in the 70s and 80's. They came up when speed/defense was the king. Now games are played like the 40's again, but people want it to be the 70's and 80's.

Or something like that.

Raisor
04-19-2006, 12:22 AM
Steel covered the demonstable FACT that the Reds were an excellent situational hitting club last season. Yet you also just stumbled over the trip wire of run scoring.

LOB is not an evil thing. How do you score runs? Well, first you need to get on base. And the more you get on base, the more your team tends to score. Yet, the more you get on base the more runners you will also leave on base.

So LOB is a byproduct of the very thing a team needs to do in order to score lots of runs. They don't all score. If the Reds lacked the power to plate those baserunners or were scoring too few of their baserunners, then you'd have a point. Yet neither is happening. The Reds have gobs of power to plate those runners and they're bringing lots of them around to score.



Great point M2. The more you get on, the more you'll leave on. It only makes sense.

A team that gets a ton of people on base doesn't have to convert as many runners as teams that don't get a ton on base.

M2
04-19-2006, 12:27 AM
It's been said before, but I'm saying it again. The problem is most of the people watching baseball now, and who are running clubs now, are people that grew up watching baseball in the 70s and 80's. They came up when speed/defense was the king. Now games are played like the 40's again, but people want it to be the 70's and 80's.

Or something like that.

I think you're right to an extent. Though I'd think Reds fans would remember how awesome the combination of speed, defense, OB and SLG is (at the team level).

WVPacman
04-19-2006, 12:28 AM
It's been said before, but I'm saying it again. The problem is most of the people watching baseball now, and who are running clubs now, are people that grew up watching baseball in the 70s and 80's. They came up when speed/defense was the king. Now games are played like the 40's again, but people want it to be the 70's and 80's.

Or something like that.


I agree we are in a generation were there isn't much base steeling and if you are going to score anyruns most likely its going to come from a hr.The gms of this day and time honestly aren't that good or smart.They go out and try to sign the most powerful guys that hits homers.Do they even look at their strikeout stats or obs I doubt it!!! Back in the 80s atleast to me the guys that was running the teams and making the trades was alot smarter and knew what they was doing.

IslandRed
04-19-2006, 01:46 AM
I agree we are in a generation were there isn't much base steeling and if you are going to score anyruns most likely its going to come from a hr.The gms of this day and time honestly aren't that good or smart.They go out and try to sign the most powerful guys that hits homers.Do they even look at their strikeout stats or obs I doubt it!!! Back in the 80s atleast to me the guys that was running the teams and making the trades was alot smarter and knew what they was doing.

GMs did what they did back then because it was the best route to success... then. The parameters of the game have changed. Teams don't play in big Astroturfed ballparks anymore and they have to score more runs to break even than they used to. Asking yourself what a GM would have done in 1985 isn't necessarily going to give you the right answer today.

Raisor
04-19-2006, 08:21 AM
I think you're right to an extent. Though I'd think Reds fans would remember how awesome the combination of speed, defense, OB and SLG is (at the team level).


You'd think so, wouldn't you?

big boy
04-19-2006, 08:53 AM
No, but you're probably going to believe what you typed all the same.

And even if you were correct, a single player recording more RBI doesn't equate to more Runs Scored at a team level.

I'm consistently awed by how misunderstood Run production is.

Are you really saying that if Dunner got more hits with risp, his RBI would stay the same? It was a very simple statement and I am shocked that you would disagree.

paintmered
04-19-2006, 08:56 AM
Are you really saying that if Dunner got more hits with risp, his RBI would stay the same? It was a very simple statement and I am shocked that you would disagree.


Our point is, it doesn't matter. Runs scored at the team level is the important goal and increasing a single player's rbi total does not help reach that goal. It's counter-intuitive, I know. But it's been proven statistically (try to take a little leap of faith there) time and time again that's the way it is.

The perfect example of Juan Gonzalez has been brought up in this thread.

BigDonkey44
04-19-2006, 09:04 AM
Give me Dunn everytime.

2005-Adam Dunn with RISP

1.042 OPS

That is "clutch".
great post.

westofyou
04-19-2006, 09:15 AM
The gms of this day and time honestly aren't that good or smart.
Yeah, because everyone knows that Dick Wagner was a genius.

TRF
04-19-2006, 09:24 AM
I just want to understand what you're saying. You're saying Casey DOES have power, but has just been injured too often and that's the reason for his career of lack of power? The 4 years (99,01,03,04) he played in 145+ games, he only had a SLG over .500 in two of those years (99, 04). In 2000, in only 133 games, he did SLG over .500. I guess I've just never viewed Sean Casey as a power threat during his entire career. Interesting take to say that injuries limited his power numbers.

It isn't a take, it's a fact. Casey played a season and a half with a torn up shoulder. in 2003, he was regaining strength. 2004 he was back to full strength. I firmly believe he was injured again in 2005. So I guess that 2005 is actually a guess, but it makes sense considering his history of playing through injuries.

registerthis
04-19-2006, 09:37 AM
No He isn't a 15-20 HR guy. At worst he's a 20-25 HR guy when healthy. He's just never healthy.

At worst? More like career highs.

The Casey I know has never hit more than 25 HRs in a season, and has played 145 games or more 4 of the last 6 years. Like M2 said, Casey doesn't have a power swing, he's a doubles hitter. Twice, in 2001 and 2003, he played in 145 and 147 games and hit 13 and 14 HRs, respectively.

Casey will hit a HR now and then, but he is not and never was a power hitter.

Yachtzee
04-19-2006, 09:40 AM
GMs did what they did back then because it was the best route to success... then. The parameters of the game have changed. Teams don't play in big Astroturfed ballparks anymore and they have to score more runs to break even than they used to. Asking yourself what a GM would have done in 1985 isn't necessarily going to give you the right answer today.

The level of pitching was better as well in the '70s and '80s, so low scoring affairs were quite common and playing for 1 run might make more sense. With better pitching across the league, runs are more precious. In such cases, you might be more willing to give up an out in exchange for a run. Today, where the quality of pitching isn't what it used to be, no lead may be safe. Playing for 1 run just isn't a wise decision. Now it's outs that are at a premium, because you only get 27 of them in a game. Each time your team gives up an out, it decreases your opportunity to score more runs.

(Not you personally Island Red. I'm using "you" generally).

Think about it this way. Say the Reds are up 4-2 in the 6th. FeLo is on third with 1 out and Adam Dunn comes to the plate, with Kearns or EdE on deck. Would you rather Dunn hit the sac fly, score FeLo, and have 2 outs with no one on? Or would you rather have Dunn take a walk, bringing Kearns or EdE up to bat with runners at the corners and 1 out, especially knowing that the Reds bullpen will be taking over soon? Which situation gives you the opportunity to score more runs?

IslandRed
04-19-2006, 09:49 AM
Are you really saying that if Dunner got more hits with risp, his RBI would stay the same? It was a very simple statement and I am shocked that you would disagree.

Well, the subtext of the thread has been that Dunn walks too much with RISP, so when someone talks about "more hits with RISP" they usually mean replacing walks with hits. Of course, it doesn't work like that; for every 10 walks he didn't have with RISP, two would be hits and eight of those would be outs. (I'm going with a .200 batting average, lower than usual, because by definition we're talking about him swinging at stuff he normally wouldn't and that reduces any hitter's success rate.) You're right, that would probably raise Dunn's personal RBI total. But it doesn't do the team any favors, because eight times out of ten the next hitter is coming up with one more out with one fewer guy on base.

It's a weird thing, because baseball people will rail at pitchers for issuing walks, particularly with runners on, and yet act as if drawing the walk is beneath the hitter. I don't get it, but there's lots of stuff in baseball like that.

Yachtzee
04-19-2006, 09:49 AM
As a side note, on Baseball This Morning on XM, they've been replaying some of Marty's calls from last night's game, featuring Eric Milton, followed by a clip of a bus driving off (implying Marty's throwing them under the bus). :)

big boy
04-19-2006, 09:52 AM
Our point is, it doesn't matter. Runs scored at the team level is the important goal and increasing a single player's rbi total does not help reach that goal. It's counter-intuitive, I know. But it's been proven statistically (try to take a little leap of faith there) time and time again that's the way it is.

First off, the statement was very simple. If Dunner had more hits with risp, he would have more rbi. Very simple and cannot be disputed.

Secondly, if Dunner takes a walk with runners on 2nd and 3rd (thus loading the bases) and the next guy grounds into an inning ending double play, the Reds score no runs. On the other hand, if Dunner gets a single and the next hitter grounds into an inning ending double play, one run is scored. Please prove statistically how the team scores more runs in my first scenario than in the second.

westofyou
04-19-2006, 09:53 AM
If Dunner had more hits with risp, he would have more rbi. Very simple and cannot be disputed. If wishes were horses then we'd all be riding.

Johnny Footstool
04-19-2006, 09:53 AM
I agree we are in a generation were there isn't much base steeling and if you are going to score anyruns most likely its going to come from a hr.The gms of this day and time honestly aren't that good or smart.They go out and try to sign the most powerful guys that hits homers.Do they even look at their strikeout stats or obs I doubt it!!! Back in the 80s atleast to me the guys that was running the teams and making the trades was alot smarter and knew what they was doing.

I don't know why people equate "busy ball" (double-switches, bullpen gamesmanship, hit-and-run, etc.) with "smart ball." Managers who overmanage aren't necessarily smarter or more savvy than guys who know how to put together an optimal lineup and let them play.

Gene Mauch was not a genius -- he just tried to put forth that appearance by constantly sticking his hand in the game.

Bob Boone was a busy-ball champ. How'd he do as a manager?

westofyou
04-19-2006, 09:54 AM
Gene Mauch was not a genius -- he just tried to put forth that appearance by constantly sticking his hand in the game.


They huddle more than a football team.

Umpire on Mauchs 1961 Phillies.

Johnny Footstool
04-19-2006, 09:58 AM
First off, the statement was very simple. If Dunner had more hits with risp, he would have more rbi. Very simple and cannot be disputed.

Secondly, if Dunner takes a walk with runners on 2nd and 3rd (thus loading the bases) and the next guy grounds into an inning ending double play, the Reds score no runs. On the other hand, if Dunner gets a single and the next hitter grounds into an inning ending double play, one run is scored. Please prove statistically how the team scores more runs in my first scenario than in the second.

We can play "What If" scenarios all day if you like.

What if Dunn, desperate to drive in the runner from third, swings at ball four in the dirt, taps it back to the pitcher, who hangs up the runner from third in a rundown. The catcher tags him out then fires to third, getting the runner trying to advance from second. Dunn, frustrated by his lack of success, attempts to reach second and gets caught in a rundown, tearing his ACL in the process. Triple play, and the Reds lose Dunn for the season. Explain how that is better than taking a walk and loading the bases.

Chip R
04-19-2006, 10:00 AM
I gotta say...Brennamen has been rather human with Dunn tonight, even calling him "one of the premiere power hitters in the game". A nice change of pace from him.

I only got to listen a little bit last night but he did not sound like his usual self. He had a chance to rip EdE last night before he hit his HR and all he said was that he was struggling. I wonder if there was any news he received during the day that put him in an exceptionally good mood. ;)

westofyou
04-19-2006, 10:02 AM
What if baseball fans looked at the whole statistical line of a player as opposed to 24% of his ab's (RISP) or 0.79% of the times a sacrifice fly occurs in MLB At bats. (that's based on the number of Sac Flies in over 166,335 MLB at bats last year)

flyer85
04-19-2006, 10:04 AM
I wonder if there was any news he received during the day that put him in an exceptionally good mood. ;)or maybe he just got ____ :D

big boy
04-19-2006, 10:18 AM
We can play "What If" scenarios all day if you like.

What if Dunn, desperate to drive in the runner from third, swings at ball four in the dirt, taps it back to the pitcher, who hangs up the runner from third in a rundown. The catcher tags him out then fires to third, getting the runner trying to advance from second. Dunn, frustrated by his lack of success, attempts to reach second and gets caught in a rundown, tearing his ACL in the process. Triple play, and the Reds lose Dunn for the season. Explain how that is better than taking a walk and loading the bases.

Of course, but that does not answer the question. With that, I must drop off of this monthly thread. When it comes up again in May, we'll do it again.

westofyou
04-19-2006, 10:21 AM
Of course, but that does not answer the question. With that, I must drop off of this monthly thread. When it comes up again in May, we'll do it again.
Sounds like a plan... when he gets 40 HR/100Runs/100RBI for the 3rd year in a row, he'll be the 7th player ever to do that, and the only Red.

We can do it then too.


NATIONAL LEAGUE
ALL YEARS
ALL POSITIONS
RUNS >= 100
RBI >= 100
HOMERUNS >= 40


T1 Ralph Kiner 1947-51 5
T1 Sammy Sosa 1998-02 5
3 Duke Snider 1953-56 4
T4 Andres Galarraga 1996-98 3
T4 Barry Bonds 2000-02 3
T4 Albert Pujols 2003-05 3
T7 Chuck Klein 1929-30 2
T7 Johnny Mize 1947-48 2
T7 Willie Mays 1954-55 2
T7 Ted Kluszewski 1954-55 2
T7 Ernie Banks 1957-58 2
T7 Willie Mays 1961-62 2
T7 Hank Aaron 1962-63 2
T7 Willie Mays 1964-65 2
T7 Mike Schmidt 1979-80 2
T7 Barry Bonds 1996-97 2
T7 Greg Vaughn 1998-99 2
T7 Mark McGwire 1998-99 2
T7 Jeff Bagwell 1999-00 2
T7 Vladimir Guerrero 1999-00 2
T7 Todd Helton 2000-01 2
T7 Shawn Green 2001-02 2
T7 Adam Dunn 2004-05 2

OnBaseMachine
04-19-2006, 10:27 AM
Sounds like a plan... when he gets 40 HR/100Runs/100RBI for the 3rd year in a row, he'll be the 7th player ever to do that, and the only Red.

Wow. I didn't realize only seven players had ever accomplished that. Quite a feat. How many players have had 100 walks, 100 runs, and 100 RBI in three consecutive seasons? I'd imagine more than seven.

SteelSD
04-19-2006, 10:31 AM
First off, the statement was very simple. If Dunner had more hits with risp, he would have more rbi. Very simple and cannot be disputed.

Absolutely it can be disputed because RBI acquisition is not driven by simple Base Hit volume.

First, not all Hits with Runners in Scoring Position result in Runs. That's very simple and cannot be disputed. If Rich Aurilia had one fewer Base Hit this season, he would have exactly the same RBI total.

Secondly, RBI acquisition is driven by opportunity and distance (SLG) rather than Base Hit volume or Base Hit rate. It appears that your position is based on the faulty assumption that Base Hit rate would rise while everything else would remain constant- including distance. Alas, that's an assumption based in fallacy.


Secondly, if Dunner takes a walk with runners on 2nd and 3rd (thus loading the bases) and the next guy grounds into an inning ending double play, the Reds score no runs. On the other hand, if Dunner gets a single and the next hitter grounds into an inning ending double play, one run is scored. Please prove statistically how the team scores more runs in my first scenario than in the second.

That has nothing to do with Adam Dunn and everything to do with the next hitter. Players can't magically turn balls into strikes. Either you think they can or you think that Adam Dunn should be swinging at balls in your "scenario" in an effort to acquire a Base Hit rather than rightly taking what he's being given (the BB). Unfortunately, the former behavior results in Outs rather than Hits; rendering your point entirely moot.

Roy Tucker
04-19-2006, 10:31 AM
This thread is like my Swiss Army knife.

Marty, Dunn, and Casey, all in one.

M2
04-19-2006, 10:36 AM
First off, the statement was very simple. If Dunner had more hits with risp, he would have more rbi. Very simple and cannot be disputed.

Secondly, if Dunner takes a walk with runners on 2nd and 3rd (thus loading the bases) and the next guy grounds into an inning ending double play, the Reds score no runs. On the other hand, if Dunner gets a single and the next hitter grounds into an inning ending double play, one run is scored. Please prove statistically how the team scores more runs in my first scenario than in the second.

There's nothing to prove, teams with higher OBs score more than teams with higher BAs. If you don't understand that then you're hopelessly lost. For instance, the 2005 Cubs hit .270 while the 2005 Reds hit .261. Yet the Reds outscored them by 117 runs. The Reds had a .446-.440 SLG advantage (making the Reds the more dangerous team), but the real differentiator was a .339-.324 OB advantage.

So you can have your BA. I'll take the OB and 117 extra runs thank you.

gonelong
04-19-2006, 10:57 AM
I am trying to test my theory that all the answers to life are in 80's movies:

Dear Mr. Vernon, we accept the fact that we had to sacrifice a whole saturday in detention for whatever it is we did wrong, but we think you're crazy for making us write an essay telling you who we think we are. You see us as you want to see us, in the simplest terms, in the most convenient definitions. But what we found out, is that each one of us is a brain, and an athlete, and a basketcase, a princess, and a criminal. Does that answer your question? Sincerely yours, The Breakfast Club.

GL

TRF
04-19-2006, 11:15 AM
At worst? More like career highs.

The Casey I know has never hit more than 25 HRs in a season, and has played 145 games or more 4 of the last 6 years. Like M2 said, Casey doesn't have a power swing, he's a doubles hitter. Twice, in 2001 and 2003, he played in 145 and 147 games and hit 13 and 14 HRs, respectively.

Casey will hit a HR now and then, but he is not and never was a power hitter.

Which goes more to his health than his power or lack of. Had he been healthy in 2001, 2002, and 2003, He'd have likley had 3 more 20+ HR seasons. And yes, 20+ is power for a guy that when healthy also supplies 30+ doubles.

It has always been about Casey's health. He can't stay healthy. In fact, his style of play is similar to Ryan Freel's in that he a maximum effort guy. Casey's body cannot take that kind of effort.

TeamBoone
04-19-2006, 01:40 PM
I gotta say...Brennamen has been rather human with Dunn tonight, even calling him "one of the premiere power hitters in the game". A nice change of pace from him.

Perhaps that email did the trick... I forgot who sent it.

Handofdeath
04-19-2006, 02:00 PM
Which goes more to his health than his power or lack of. Had he been healthy in 2001, 2002, and 2003, He'd have likley had 3 more 20+ HR seasons. And yes, 20+ is power for a guy that when healthy also supplies 30+ doubles.

It has always been about Casey's health. He can't stay healthy. In fact, his style of play is similar to Ryan Freel's in that he a maximum effort guy. Casey's body cannot take that kind of effort.


If's and's and but's do not equal results. You either do it or you don't.

TRF
04-19-2006, 02:09 PM
If's and's and but's do not equal results. You either do it or you don't.

"If" has to do with his "health" and lack thereof.

"If" Jr. had been healthy the last 5 year he would have 620+ hR's, "but" he wasn't.


Health was all Casey has ever needed. He's rarely had it.

2001MUgrad
04-19-2006, 02:17 PM
While you're at it, please explain why the BRM never traded George Foster for Ralph Garr? Garr hit 32 points higher for his career and played better defense.



Maybe it wasn't offered. Maybe its a bad opinion that his defense was better, I have no clue. I'm not going to pretend to have seen players play that were retired when I was born. I will say that a team is a team. There are 9 individuals as well as a bench full of players that are working together to attempt to score more RUNS than the other team. Each member has their role. Ryan Freels roll is not to hit HR's and drive in runs, his roll is to get on base, steal bases, and score runs quite similar to Pete Rose on the BRM. Adam Dunn's job is to knock in runs plain and simple knock them in doesn't matter how this is accomplished. Not work hard and get a walk with runners in scoring position.

Handofdeath
04-19-2006, 02:17 PM
"If" has to do with his "health" and lack thereof.

"If" Jr. had been healthy the last 5 year he would have 620+ hR's, "but" he wasn't.


Health was all Casey has ever needed. He's rarely had it.

Very true but having the ability to do it and actually doing it are two different things. Waiting for it to happen is one of the reasons the Reds are in the shape they are in. Maybe he could do it he was healthy for a full season but he hasn't yet and waiting too long for players to develop and do what they are capable of doing is one of the reasons the Reds haven't done well in a long time.

TRF
04-19-2006, 02:23 PM
Very true but having the ability to do it and actually doing it are two different things. Waiting for it to happen is one of the reasons the Reds are in the shape they are in. Maybe he could do it he was healthy for a full season but he hasn't yet and waiting too long for players to develop and do what they are capable of doing is one of the reasons the Reds haven't done well in a long time.

But that wasn't the arguement. It was whether or not Casey has power. He does when he's healthy. Now Tony Womack can be healthy and never have power. Freel too.

The Reds never had to wait for Casey to develop. '99 was his first full season and he hit the ground running.

He just couldn't stay healthy.

I'm becoming a stats guy, but when people look at the stats alone and make proclamations about a player without looking at why the numbers are the way they are it irks me. Kinda like "Dunn hit's too many solo HR's. He doesn't hit the when runners are on base. he sux." Never mind asking how many were leadoff HR's, or that he's pitched around with runners on, or that for much of his career he's been buried in the lineup.

westofyou
04-19-2006, 02:23 PM
his roll is to get on base, steal bases, and score runs quite similar to Pete Rose on the BRM. Pete had 0 steals in 1975 and 9 in 1976.

The "little guy" whose job was to steal bases had more HR's, RBI and scored as many Runs as Pete.

Because he avoided outs.

pedro
04-19-2006, 02:24 PM
Maybe it wasn't offered. Maybe its a bad opinion that his defense was better, I have no clue. I'm not going to pretend to have seen players play that were retired when I was born. I will say that a team is a team. There are 9 individuals as well as a bench full of players that are working together to attempt to score more RUNS than the other team. Each member has their role. Ryan Freels roll is not to hit HR's and drive in runs, his roll is to get on base, steal bases, and score runs quite similar to Pete Rose on the BRM. Adam Dunn's job is to knock in runs plain and simple knock them in doesn't matter how this is accomplished. Not work hard and get a walk with runners in scoring position.

If you say so.

johngalt
04-19-2006, 02:26 PM
Maybe it wasn't offered. Maybe its a bad opinion that his defense was better, I have no clue. I'm not going to pretend to have seen players play that were retired when I was born. I will say that a team is a team. There are 9 individuals as well as a bench full of players that are working together to attempt to score more RUNS than the other team. Each member has their role. Ryan Freels roll is not to hit HR's and drive in runs, his roll is to get on base, steal bases, and score runs quite similar to Pete Rose on the BRM. Adam Dunn's job is to knock in runs plain and simple knock them in doesn't matter how this is accomplished. Not work hard and get a walk with runners in scoring position.

So is it okay then if Freel and Lopez hit .200 with RISP? After all, their job is just to get on base and score right?

Handofdeath
04-19-2006, 02:37 PM
[QUOTE=TRF]But that wasn't the arguement. It was whether or not Casey has power. He does when he's healthy.

But he's never healthy. He has shown flashes of power but that's it. Fans like yourself who are knowledgable about the stats are great. But too much time is being spent on " If Casey could just stay healthy" or " If they would just give WMP a full season of at bat's " Ted Williams could have had over 700 homers if not for two wars but he wound up with 521. There is no statistic called "could of" or "if only".

TRF
04-19-2006, 02:44 PM
I think you have misunderstood the discussion, and I'll leave it at that.

westofyou
04-19-2006, 02:49 PM
2 of Caseys biggest HR years occured in the years 99-00, which just happen to be the biggest hitting years in 70 odd years, 61 guys had 25 HR's in 99, 42 last year.

TRF
04-19-2006, 02:52 PM
2 of Caseys biggest HR years occured in the years 99-00, which just happen to be the biggest hitting years in 70 odd years, 61 guys had 25 HR's in 99, 42 last year.

How many in 2004?

I'm just saying Casey has power. Not Adam Dunn power, but in 2004, in different ways they ended up with a pretty similar OPS. Casey has EBH power. When healthy, he's good for 35+ doubles and 20+ HR's.

He's just never healthy.

Johnny Footstool
04-19-2006, 02:54 PM
Adam Dunn's job is to knock in runs plain and simple knock them in doesn't matter how this is accomplished. Not work hard and get a walk with runners in scoring position.

He does knock runs in. He does it better than about 95% of the league. So why are you down on him for not hacking at bad pitches?

KronoRed
04-19-2006, 02:55 PM
Perhaps that email did the trick... I forgot who sent it.
Pedro?

Anyway, I think Marty was too busy mocking Jimbo to engage in the useal Dunn attacks.

Handofdeath
04-19-2006, 03:02 PM
I think you have misunderstood the discussion, and I'll leave it at that.

What part am I missing? I thought we were talking about Sean Casey and power?

TRF
04-19-2006, 03:04 PM
What part am I missing? I thought we were talking about Sean Casey and power?

Casey has power. He just needs a healthier body.

Johnny Footstool
04-19-2006, 03:15 PM
Casey has power. He just needs a healthier body.

He has speed, too. He just needs a thinner body.

TRF
04-19-2006, 03:17 PM
He has speed, too. He just needs a thinner body.

He could be Callista Flockhart skinny and I could out run him while changing a bay's diaper.

GullyFoyle
04-19-2006, 04:04 PM
Maybe it wasn't offered. Maybe its a bad opinion that his defense was better, I have no clue. I'm not going to pretend to have seen players play that were retired when I was born. I will say that a team is a team. There are 9 individuals as well as a bench full of players that are working together to attempt to score more RUNS than the other team. Each member has their role. Ryan Freels roll is not to hit HR's and drive in runs, his roll is to get on base, steal bases, and score runs quite similar to Pete Rose on the BRM. Adam Dunn's job is to knock in runs plain and simple knock them in doesn't matter how this is accomplished. Not work hard and get a walk with runners in scoring position.

Each players role is to not make an out the best possible way they can, and help others not make an out if they can...

(e.g. by driving up pitch counts, threatening to take bases, etc.)

That will differ from Freel to Dunn to whoever..

edit: added examples

Highlifeman21
04-19-2006, 06:41 PM
Casey has power. He just needs a healthier body.


He has gap power, that's about it. He doesn't have a HR stroke, he has a "hit it the other way" kinda slap stroke. Sean Casey reminds me exactly of Hal Morris, and Hal wasn't known for power either.

I know you won't believe it, but a 100% healthy Sean Casey would probably top out at 30 HR, and even that's probably generous. Pretty sure 25 is his limit.

reds44
04-19-2006, 06:43 PM
I don't get Marty's doughouse. Both Dunn and EE are in it.

creek14
04-19-2006, 06:53 PM
This thread makes me giggle like a school girl.

2001MUgrad
04-19-2006, 08:21 PM
Pete had 0 steals in 1975 and 9 in 1976.

The "little guy" whose job was to steal bases had more HR's, RBI and scored as many Runs as Pete.

Because he avoided outs.

No, but he had over 100 Runs scored 7 times in the 70's. He was only under 90 once in that decade and he still had 86. Prez and Bench weren't in the lineup to score 100 runs, but they were in it to knock in 100 runs. Shot, in 1975 Prez only had 20 HR, but 109 RBI's. If Dunn only hit 20 HR in a season he'd have 35 RBI's.

Its a team game pick your teammates up when they are on base.

Caveat Emperor
04-19-2006, 08:27 PM
Its a team game pick your teammates up when they are on base.

It's a team game -- give your team more chances to bat by avoiding outs. Don't make outs on bad pitches out of the zone when taking a walk gives your teammates more chances to collect runs.

Make the pitcher throw more pitches, fatigue him, and capitalize on mistakes. Get into the underbelly of teams (the bullpen) and do damage there. Can't do that if you're making lots of outs.

Look at the Reds today -- they came back and beat one of the best starting pitchers in the game because they pushed him out of the contest in the 6th inning. How do you do that? Taking pitches, avoiding outs, and exercising plate discipline.

Take pitches, avoid outs, and make the other team work hard to get outs. That's how a championship offense functions.

pedro
04-19-2006, 08:31 PM
This is getting absurd.

I want my productive ground outs! Not useless walks!

Handofdeath
04-19-2006, 08:46 PM
It's a team game -- give your team more chances to bat by avoiding outs. Don't make outs on bad pitches out of the zone when taking a walk gives your teammates more chances to collect runs.

Make the pitcher throw more pitches, fatigue him, and capitalize on mistakes. Get into the underbelly of teams (the bullpen) and do damage there. Can't do that if you're making lots of outs.

Look at the Reds today -- they came back and beat one of the best starting pitchers in the game because they pushed him out of the contest in the 6th inning. How do you do that? Taking pitches, avoiding outs, and exercising plate discipline.

Take pitches, avoid outs, and make the other team work hard to get outs. That's how a championship offense functions.

You make excellent points but the Reds came back not by taking pitches, avoiding outs, and exercising plate discipline. They came back because they hit the ball. Everything you have said is crucial to a successful team. But the point is to score runs and you do that by hitting the ball. If you are your teams best power hitter and you are up at the plate with RISP and/or the game is on the line then by God you hit that ball out or at least move the runners along. You don't let someone else do it for you. That is your job. If you're not going to swing then leave the bat at the deck circle. Dunn's OBP is outstanding but he's not there to be on base. His job is to be rounding the bases.

Falls City Beer
04-19-2006, 08:51 PM
You make excellent points but the Reds came back not by taking pitches, avoiding outs, and exercising plate discipline. They came back because they hit the ball. Everything you have said is crucial to a successful team. But the point is to score runs and you do that by hitting the ball. If you are your teams best power hitter and you are up at the plate with RISP and/or the game is on the line then by God you hit that ball out or at least move the runners along. You don't let someone else do it for you. That is your job. If you're not going to swing then leave the bat at the deck circle. Dunn's OBP is outstanding but he's not there to be on base. His job is to be rounding the bases.

A hitter's job is to hit a pitch he can hit well. It's also a hitter's job not to swing at a pitch he can't do anything with. Sometimes the result is a hit; sometimes, well, it's just a walk. Either way is a positive outcome and avoids making an out, which is all in baseball.

pedro
04-19-2006, 08:53 PM
Make Love
Not Outs.

KronoRed
04-19-2006, 08:57 PM
Hippie.

Cyclone792
04-19-2006, 09:00 PM
You make excellent points but the Reds came back not by taking pitches, avoiding outs, and exercising plate discipline. They came back because they hit the ball. Everything you have said is crucial to a successful team. But the point is to score runs and you do that by hitting the ball. If you are your teams best power hitter and you are up at the plate with RISP and/or the game is on the line then by God you hit that ball out or at least move the runners along. You don't let someone else do it for you. That is your job. If you're not going to swing then leave the bat at the deck circle. Dunn's OBP is outstanding but he's not there to be on base. His job is to be rounding the bases.

That'd be a pretty picture, if it happened how you say it did. But it didn't.

The Reds came back to win today because nine of their last 16 hitters did their job by avoiding outs. That's a .563 OBP for the last 16 guys that went to the plate. Of those nine successful plate appearances where they avoided making an out, they averaged 3.89 pitches per plate appearance.

Exercising plate discipline, taking pitches and avoiding outs is exactly why we came back to win this game. String together three innings where your offense puts together a .563 OBP and you're going to score runs.

IslandRed
04-19-2006, 09:00 PM
If you are your teams best power hitter and you are up at the plate with RISP and/or the game is on the line then by God you hit that ball out or at least move the runners along. You don't let someone else do it for you. That is your job. If you're not going to swing then leave the bat at the deck circle.

If you swing at ball four instead of taking ball four, and you're a .200 hitter when you swing at stuff out of the strike zone, you're hurting the ballclub. (Exception granted if you're hitting in front of the pitcher in a no-pinch-hit situation.) Two times out of ten you'll get a hit and maybe drive in runs, and eight times out of ten you'll either (1) be the end of the inning or (2) leave the next hitter with one more out and one less runner on.

It's a team game. It's about doing what's best for the ballclub, not what's best for your personal stats or some oversimplified notion of your "job."

pedro
04-19-2006, 09:00 PM
You make excellent points but the Reds came back not by taking pitches, avoiding outs, and exercising plate discipline. They came back because they hit the ball. Everything you have said is crucial to a successful team. But the point is to score runs and you do that by hitting the ball. If you are your teams best power hitter and you are up at the plate with RISP and/or the game is on the line then by God you hit that ball out or at least move the runners along. You don't let someone else do it for you. That is your job. If you're not going to swing then leave the bat at the deck circle. Dunn's OBP is outstanding but he's not there to be on base. His job is to be rounding the bases.

that's absurd.

paintmered
04-19-2006, 09:04 PM
that's absurd.

....and inconceivable.

http://www.parseerror.com/images/moments/inconceivable/vizzini.jpg

Handofdeath
04-19-2006, 09:19 PM
Dunn can hit the ball a mile and can do great things offensively and OBP has a rightful place in baseball but it's not the end all. If Dunn's plate selectivity at the plate is so good then why is he leading the league in strikeouts every season? Why is his lifetime average .248? It's not like Babe Ruth is hitting behind him. The White Sox had one player last year with a OBP close to Dunn and that was Konerko. The Red Sox of 2004 had two with Manny and Big Papi. World Series titles for both teams. Dunn is accomplishing good things at the plate but he could be doing a lot better. I guarantee you the Reds know that. Otherwise they would have signed him for something beyond two years. He's not swinging at bad pitches and that's great. But he's swinging at good pitches and missing and that's not good.

Handofdeath
04-19-2006, 09:23 PM
....and inconceivable.

http://www.parseerror.com/images/moments/inconceivable/vizzini.jpg

" My name is Inigo Montoya...":D

redsfan30
04-19-2006, 09:31 PM
Hand of death......from Lubbock......

Is Bobby Knight a member of Redszone?

westofyou
04-19-2006, 09:31 PM
Shot, in 1975 Prez only had 20 HR, but 109 RBI's. If Dunn only hit 20 HR in a season he'd have 35 RBI's.

So the fact that Perez had 14% of the teams RBI's over Dunn having 13% of his teams RBI's is supposed to impress us?

Well Dunn scored 13% of the Reds runs last year and Perez scored 8.8% of the 75 Reds.

Looks like Perez could have helped his team by not making more outs.

Since after all it is a "team" game.

rdiersin
04-19-2006, 09:33 PM
Dunn can hit the ball a mile and can do great things offensively and OBP has a rightful place in baseball but it's not the end all. If Dunn's plate selectivity at the plate is so good then why is he leading the league in strikeouts every season? Why is his lifetime average .248? It's not like Babe Ruth is hitting behind him.

Which is why pitchers won't give him anything to hit. So should he swing at bad pitches that he wouldn't be able to hit? Not everyone is Vlad.


The Red Sox of 2004 had two with Manny and Big Papi. World Series titles for both teams.

The Red Sox also led the league in strikeouts in 2004. But, I guess those are bad or something.

2001MUgrad
04-19-2006, 11:09 PM
So the fact that Perez had 14% of the teams RBI's over Dunn having 13% of his teams RBI's is supposed to impress us?

Well Dunn scored 13% of the Reds runs last year and Perez scored 8.8% of the 75 Reds.

Looks like Perez could have helped his team by not making more outs.

Since after all it is a "team" game.

I'm searching for the point in there??? If we are going to play if's and and's and maybes. Maybe Prez got 2 out hits and whoever was behind him didn't. Also maybe if Joe Morgan and Tony Prez didn't have 100 RBI's too that Prez would have picked up a lot of those runners and possibly had 30 percent of his teams RBI's you never know. I do know that the Dunner strikes out an awful lot with runner's on 3rd and less than 2 outs, fails to move the guy from second to third always. Just doesn't hit in the clutch.

I don't completely disagree with the points of your arguments and those that are helping on your behalf. I just disagree with the notion that all outs are equal and that a walk is as good as a single. I do agree most of the time a walk is better than an out, but not when you have a guy on 3rd with less than 2 outs. Sure in that case a walk is better than a K or a ground ball that doesn't score the run or an infield fly.

What it comes down to is that I want to get the runs scored period and could care less how its done, while you want someone on base no matter how its done. Ultimately if everyone reaches base everytime then you win every game, but you can't. You have to depend on timely hitting in a lot of cases. If Dunn hits a HR when the Reds are up 10-0 in the 9th I think its worth less than if he hits a HR with the game tied up in the 5th. It seems as though SABR's just statistically look at a base as a base no matter when, where, or how. I care more about the when, where, and how.

westofyou
04-19-2006, 11:42 PM
I do know that the Dunner strikes out an awful lot with runner's on 3rd and less than 2 outs, fails to move the guy from second to third always. Just doesn't hit in the clutch.

Blah, blah, blah... he scored 13% of his teams runs last year, drove in 13% of the teams runs and had 13.5% of the teams EBH.


It seems as though SABR's just statistically look at a base as a base no matter when, where, or how. I care more about the when, where, and how. I'm likewise searching for a point in your responses.

SteelSD
04-20-2006, 12:52 AM
I'm searching for the point in there??? If we are going to play if's and and's and maybes. Maybe Prez got 2 out hits and whoever was behind him didn't. Also maybe if Joe Morgan and Tony Prez didn't have 100 RBI's too that Prez would have picked up a lot of those runners and possibly had 30 percent of his teams RBI's you never know. I do know that the Dunner strikes out an awful lot with runner's on 3rd and less than 2 outs, fails to move the guy from second to third always. Just doesn't hit in the clutch.

We've already established that Slugging Percentage- not Batting Average- is the key driver of RBI behavior.

Adam Dunn 2005 None On: .524 SLG
Adam Dunn 2005 Runners On: .560 SLG
Adam Dunn 2005 w/RISP: .574

That's "clutch" by any definition you choose to muster. Your continued problem is that you equate Batting Average to production despite the fact that you've already been clearly told that's untrue.

You've been very careful to avoid the fact that the 2005 Reds posted the third highest Runs Scored total in the National League with RISP while posting only the 7th most PA, a Batting Average of only .256 (11th in the NL), and struck out more than any other NL team with RISP. If your contention were true, that couldn't happen. But it did. And it happened because the Reds posted the third highest RISP OBP and the highest RISP SLG in the National League in 2005.

In short, the entire 2005 Reds team played like Adam Dunn (low BA, high OBP and SLG) with Runners in Scoring position and dramatically outproduced their opportunity rate. Yet, you continue to argue that if a player doesn't post a high BA with RISP that means they don't perform well. It's garbage you're spewing.


I don't completely disagree with the points of your arguments and those that are helping on your behalf. I just disagree with the notion that all outs are equal and that a walk is as good as a single.

Those are "notions" no one opposing you has ever positioned. You made up that argument. That's called "strawman building" and you've done it multiple times. Part of your issue is that you think a BB is calculated as if it were a Single in the OPS formula. It's not, but it's a good demonstration that you don't have enough information to be in a debate involving statistical analysis.


I do agree most of the time a walk is better than an out, but not when you have a guy on 3rd with less than 2 outs. Sure in that case a walk is better than a K or a ground ball that doesn't score the run or an infield fly.

Adam Dunn versus Albert Pujols 2005- Runners on 3rd < 2 Out:

At Bats:

Pujols- 30
Dunn- 23

Batting Average:

Pujols- .367
Dunn- .217

Strikeouts:

Pujols- 4 K (13.3% of AB)
Dunn- 11 K (47.8% of AB)

Runs Batted In:

Pujols- 21
Dunn- 16

RBI- % of AB:

Pujols- 70%
Dunn- 70%

Now, if you can read, you'll figure out that Adam Dunn and Albert Pujols both produced one RBI in 70% of their Plate Appearances with Runners on 3rd and less than 2 Out in 2004. There's no difference in production rate. NONE.

Yet, Pujols posted a batting average 150 points higher than Dunn in those situations while striking out at a rate less than 1/3 of Dunn. Even funnier, Albert Pujols managed only one more Sac Fly than Dunn in 2005 while striking out at a rate less than 1/3 of Dunn.

In short, if BA and contact rate really mattered in that situation, there's simply no possible way Dunn could have matched Pujols RBI/AB rate in 2005 giving Pujols dominating BA and contact rate advantages.

And, BTW, here are the RISP RBI for Dunn and Pujols in 2005:

Pujols- 70 RBI (140 AB)
Dunn- 62 RBI (129 AB)

Pujols- 0.50 RBI per AB
Dunn- 0.48 RBI per AB

Pujols- .329 Batting Average
Dunn- .248 Batting Average

Yeah. Big difference there. Give Dunn another 129 AB with Runners in Scoring Position and the overall difference is less than 3 RBI over the course of a season versus the best hitter in the game even though said best hitter in the game would hold a 3 RBI advantage over Adam Dunn while said best hitter struck out over 100 fewer times last season than did Adam Dunn.

Those are the numbers. Your brain will tell you that what I'm telling you is impossible. But your brain has been leading you in the wrong direction this entire thread so it's time for you not to trust it.


What it comes down to is that I want to get the runs scored period and could care less how its done...

Nope. You care immensely "how it's done". If you didn't, you wouldn't still be posting.


...while you want someone on base no matter how its done.

Because that's how offensive teams score Runs.


Ultimately if everyone reaches base everytime then you win every game, but you can't. You have to depend on timely hitting in a lot of cases. If Dunn hits a HR when the Reds are up 10-0 in the 9th I think its worth less than if he hits a HR with the game tied up in the 5th.

Unfortunately, you can't go out and find what you want- a projectible "timely" situational Batting Average hitter- because they don't exist. But even if you could find one, that wouldn't guarantee that they'd be more productive offensively than any other hitter. Folks have demonstrated that quite clearly but you just ignore it.

And your insinuation that Adam Dunn only hits in "blowout" situations is ludicrous. Simply untrue.


It seems as though SABR's just statistically look at a base as a base no matter when, where, or how. I care more about the when, where, and how.

Let's get real here. You either don't care to learn about that which actually drives productive players and teams or are incapable of doing so. You've been giving inarguable data in this thread but continue to argue. Like Joe Morgan, you have a lot to learn.

Johnny Footstool
04-20-2006, 01:10 AM
If Dunn's plate selectivity at the plate is so good then why is he leading the league in strikeouts every season? Why is his lifetime average .248?

Dunn isn't good at hitting singles. That's why his batting average is low.

Big deal.

He more than makes up for it with the number of walks he draws. By a huge margin.

Ron Madden
04-20-2006, 03:05 AM
Maybe it wasn't offered. Maybe its a bad opinion that his defense was better, I have no clue. I'm not going to pretend to have seen players play that were retired when I was born. I will say that a team is a team. There are 9 individuals as well as a bench full of players that are working together to attempt to score more RUNS than the other team. Each member has their role. Ryan Freels roll is not to hit HR's and drive in runs, his roll is to get on base, steal bases, and score runs quite similar to Pete Rose on the BRM. Adam Dunn's job is to knock in runs plain and simple knock them in doesn't matter how this is accomplished. Not work hard and get a walk with runners in scoring position.

:bang: The hitters job is to reach base and avoid outs.

That goes for every hitter in the line up.

KronoRed
04-20-2006, 03:30 AM
He more than makes up for it with the number of walks he draws. By a huge margin.
Yep, turn all of Dunn's bases empty walks last year into singles and he hit .299

Ron Madden
04-20-2006, 03:55 AM
Dunn isn't good at hitting singles. That's why his batting average is low.

Big deal.

He more than makes up for it with the number of walks he draws. By a huge margin.

I could be wrong here but...

I believe Dunn is so productive because he lays off pitches he can not drive and swings at those he thinks he can drive.

Sometimes he'll swing and miss it happens. I'd rather have Adam draw a walk than to pop up or hit weak ground balls just because a pitch is around the plate.

2001MUgrad
04-20-2006, 09:23 AM
The job of a baseball team is to score runs period. That is the goal. The goal is not to just simply get on base. If you have 20 baserunners a game and another team only has 10 baserunners and you lose 4-3, whats the point of just getting on base???

Until baseball gives extra runs for having more baserunners the basic theory you have is flawed. Last time I checked the team with more runs won the game, not the team with the most base runners. Generally speaking to score more runs you usually have to have more baserunners, but that is not always the case. I'll take 10 runs and you can take 10 walks and we'll see which plates more runs.

Johnny Footstool
04-20-2006, 09:31 AM
The job of a baseball team is to score runs period. That is the goal. The goal is not to just simply get on base. If you have 20 baserunners a game and another team only has 10 baserunners and you lose 4-3, whats the point of just getting on base???

You're trying for focus on the ends while ignoring the means. The more baserunners you have, the more runs you tend to score. That's a fact.

There will always be runners left on base. No team will drive in every runner. No team. That's another fact.


I'll take 10 runs and you can take 10 walks and we'll see which plates more runs.

What kind of trade-off is that?

How about this one: "I'll take 10 wins, and you take 10 runs."

registerthis
04-20-2006, 09:34 AM
How about this one: "I'll take 10 wins, and you take 10 runs."

I'll take 10 pennants...you can take 10 wins. :p:

gonelong
04-20-2006, 09:44 AM
The job of a baseball team is to score runs period. That is the goal. The goal is not to just simply get on base. If you have 20 baserunners a game and another team only has 10 baserunners and you lose 4-3, whats the point of just getting on base???

The goal isn't to win a specific game, its to win the World Series. The team that gets 20 runners a game will beat the team that gets 10 runners on a game on a consistent basis.


Until baseball gives extra runs for having more baserunners the basic theory you have is flawed. Last time I checked the team with more runs won the game, not the team with the most base runners.

Its not a theory. In the long run it hold true, in the short-run, it isn't always the case.


Generally speaking to score more runs you usually have to have more baserunners, but that is not always the case.

It may not be the case in one single game, but it is over the coarse of a season.


I'll take 10 runs and you can take 10 walks and we'll see which plates more runs.

Thats the thing, you don't really get the choice of 10 hits or 10 walks ... you have 10 plate appearences. If the pitcher isn't giving you much to hit, your choice is to swing at pitches that you have little success with, or take the walk.

GL

/I'll take the 10 World Series, please.

Johnny Footstool
04-20-2006, 09:45 AM
I'll take 10 pennants...you can take 10 wins. :p:

This is fun!

I'll take 10 solid decades of World Series championships, you can take 10 pennants. :p:

RFS62
04-20-2006, 09:48 AM
Reading this thread makes me want to take 10 Excedrin.

TRF
04-20-2006, 09:57 AM
Dunn can hit the ball a mile and can do great things offensively and OBP has a rightful place in baseball but it's not the end all. If Dunn's plate selectivity at the plate is so good then why is he leading the league in strikeouts every season? Why is his lifetime average .248? It's not like Babe Ruth is hitting behind him. The White Sox had one player last year with a OBP close to Dunn and that was Konerko. The Red Sox of 2004 had two with Manny and Big Papi. World Series titles for both teams. Dunn is accomplishing good things at the plate but he could be doing a lot better. I guarantee you the Reds know that. Otherwise they would have signed him for something beyond two years. He's not swinging at bad pitches and that's great. But he's swinging at good pitches and missing and that's not good.

There is no correlation between strikeouts and runs scored. BTW you might want to look up which team led the AL in K's in 2004. (hint... it was the Red Sox)

SLG is the driving force behind RBI's. well one of them. Having runners on helps too. Some stats courtesy ESPN:

Dunn leading off an inning: 8 HR's.

That means he hit 12 HR's with nobody on with 0, 1 or 2 outs while not leading off. He had 20 solo shots, and 20 HR's with runners on.

Dunn had 77 extra base hits last year, and 80 the year before. In 2005 only 7 players had more extra base hits. In 2004 only 3 guys had more, and a couple tied him.

BTW, the winning run from yesterday's game? Adam Dunn. He walked in the bottom of the 9th.

Johnny Footstool
04-20-2006, 09:58 AM
Reading this thread makes me want to take 10 Excedrin.

I'll take 10 Vicodin, you take 10 Excedrin, and we'll see who passes out first.

RFS62
04-20-2006, 09:59 AM
I'll take 10 Vicodin, you take 10 Excedrin, and we'll see who passes out first.


Sounds fair.

I'd love to have the prozac concession on this thread.

:cool:

westofyou
04-20-2006, 10:00 AM
BTW you might want to look up which team led the AL in K's in 2004. (hint... it was the Red Sox)Shoot take a look at which team struck out more vs the league average in the 70's.. (hint they had a 3rd baseman with Mo Howards haircut)

2001MUgrad
04-20-2006, 10:04 AM
You're trying for focus on the ends while ignoring the means. The more baserunners you have, the more runs you tend to score. That's a fact.

There will always be runners left on base. No team will drive in every runner. No team. That's another fact.



What kind of trade-off is that?

How about this one: "I'll take 10 wins, and you take 10 runs."

I can agree with most of that. I am focussing on the end. The goal is to score runs whatever it takes to do that is the byproduct. I'll also agree that a walk is better than a K and sometimes a pitcher won't give you anything to hit, nothing you can do about that. But, if the batter worked as hard on getting hits as he did in getting walks. He'd K less, walk less, have more hits, drive in more runs and probably score about the same number of runs. Oh, yeah if you score more runs you win more games too. Not have more baserunners. Doesn't do you any good if you strand 20 runners a game.


Bottom of the 9th in a tie game with a runner on 3rd and less than 2 outs. I'll give you your walks all day long so that increases your OBP and I'll take my Sac Fly, win the game, go out and have a beer with Marty :beerme:

pedro
04-20-2006, 10:14 AM
This reminds me of the court room scene from big daddy.

Cyclone792
04-20-2006, 10:14 AM
The job of a baseball team is to score runs period. That is the goal. The goal is not to just simply get on base. If you have 20 baserunners a game and another team only has 10 baserunners and you lose 4-3, whats the point of just getting on base???

Until baseball gives extra runs for having more baserunners the basic theory you have is flawed. Last time I checked the team with more runs won the game, not the team with the most base runners. Generally speaking to score more runs you usually have to have more baserunners, but that is not always the case. I'll take 10 runs and you can take 10 walks and we'll see which plates more runs.

MU, you've got to have an open mind and take a step back away from conventional wisdom. I'm going to try to explain this to you in the simplest form.

The job of a baseball offense is to score runs period, right. There are certain statistics that correlate much better to run scoring than other statistics. OPS has the best correlation of any short-hand, easy-to-calculate metric. OBP has the second highest correlation of any short-hand method, and SLG has the third highest. Stats such as BA or BA w/RISP have a much lower correlation to actual runs scored. This is a proven fact, and can be proven over and over again with any individual season data.

Do you want to actually test this for yourself? All you need is Microsoft Excel, a working Internet browser to get you to http://www.baseball-reference.com and about five minutes of free time. That's all. The individual statistics that do the best job isolating the two main factors in run production - avoiding outs (OBP) and acquiring bases (SLG) - are the statistics that show by far the highest correlation of actual runs scored. It's consistent, and can be tested over and over and over again. Not only that, but it's very simple.

You keep bringing up examples of how some teams get 20 baserunners, but still lose to other teams that have 10 baserunners. Right, that happens, but very rarely. It is the prime example of a small sample size problem. If you play that same game 10,000 times where one team gets 20 baserunners and the other gets 10, who scores the most runs each game? The team with 20 baserunners will score more runs in probably well over 9,500 of those games. That doesn't mean the team with only 10 baserunners will not outscore the team with 20 on some days, but those days will be very rare.

Now, you'll probably respond to this in one of out two ways (everybody does), either by making some rude comment about us not knowing what we're talking about, or by genuinely being curious and wanting to know more. There are plenty of people on this forum willing to help you learn how and why this stuff works, but you have to be willing to have an open mind in realizing that some "conventional wisdom" stuff could very well be wrong. Your forum name here on RZ, for examples, implies that you've been to college and graduated. Now there has got be some examples of things you learned in college that were completely against what you originally believed for your entire life previously. Baseball isn't any different in that regard.

Highlifeman21
04-20-2006, 10:15 AM
I can agree with most of that. I am focussing on the end. The goal is to score runs whatever it takes to do that is the byproduct. I'll also agree that a walk is better than a K and sometimes a pitcher won't give you anything to hit, nothing you can do about that. But, if the batter worked as hard on getting hits as he did in getting walks. He'd K less, walk less, have more hits, drive in more runs and probably score about the same number of runs. Oh, yeah if you score more runs you win more games too. Not have more baserunners. Doesn't do you any good if you strand 20 runners a game.


Bottom of the 9th in a tie game with a runner on 3rd and less than 2 outs. I'll give you your walks all day long so that increases your OBP and I'll take my Sac Fly, win the game, go out and have a beer with Marty :beerme:

Walk less is the only truth you remotely touched upon with that gem... while batters have some influence/impact over the direction and trajectory of contact they make with a pitch, they can't 100% determine the outcome, so while working on getting more hits is a nice utopic concept, in the real world it doesn't work. you're sacrificing plate discipline with the anti-thesis of that: free swinging. Free swinging leads to more Ks (paging Alfonso Soriano).

Plate discipline is a proven way to increase your odds of determining the outcome of a plate appearance due to the fact if you're more selective of pitches faced, then the guy on the bump is faced with the choice of A: concede the walk B: predictably leave a pitch in the hitting and or strike zone C: attempt to challenge the hitter in the hitting and or strike zone, which still favors the hitter. If you eliminate plate discipline from the batting equation, then the balance shifts horribly towards the pitcher, which wouldn't by any stretch of the imagination result in more hits for the batter.

Cyclone792
04-20-2006, 10:20 AM
Bottom of the 9th in a tie game with a runner on 3rd and less than 2 outs. I'll give you your walks all day long so that increases your OBP and I'll take my Sac Fly, win the game, go out and have a beer with Marty :beerme:

Key example to my previous post. Ask yourself this question: Out of 10,000 baseball games, how many times do you think a team was in a tie game with a runner on third in the 9th inning and less than two outs?

Answer: very few

Hence the problem with small sample size.

registerthis
04-20-2006, 10:24 AM
This is fun!

I'll take 10 solid decades of World Series championships, you can take 10 pennants. :p:

I'll take 10 Sports Illustrated swimsuit models on a remote Caribbean Island. You can have your 10 decades of championships. :D

TRF
04-20-2006, 10:25 AM
I can agree with most of that. I am focussing on the end. The goal is to score runs whatever it takes to do that is the byproduct. I'll also agree that a walk is better than a K and sometimes a pitcher won't give you anything to hit, nothing you can do about that. But, if the batter worked as hard on getting hits as he did in getting walks. He'd K less, walk less, have more hits, drive in more runs and probably score about the same number of runs. Oh, yeah if you score more runs you win more games too. Not have more baserunners. Doesn't do you any good if you strand 20 runners a game.


Bottom of the 9th in a tie game with a runner on 3rd and less than 2 outs. I'll give you your walks all day long so that increases your OBP and I'll take my Sac Fly, win the game, go out and have a beer with Marty :beerme:

Stranding runners is a by-product of having runners. Every team strands runners teams that have more base runners usually win more games if the pitching is equal. BTW I'll take those walks over your sac fly. You assume the flyball can be controlled. It can't. A player can no more hit a sac fly intentionally than he can keep a GB from being a DP if there is a runner at 1st.

But now not swinging at bad pitches, well that has loads of benefit. Walks put runners on. They increase the pitch count. They force the pitcher to pitch from the stretch.

BTW what if the situation was Reds are down by 2 with a runner on third and 2 outs. Your sac fly doesn't exist. A walk would prolong the inning. How many times does the team enter the 9th inning tied? You want to take the small sample size and apply it to the larger game.

Handofdeath
04-20-2006, 10:38 AM
Hand of death......from Lubbock......

Is Bobby Knight a member of Redszone?


I guarantee Coach Knight does not own a computer or if he does he doesn't own one for long.:) You know how about we just agree to disagree about Adam Dunn and just make fun of the Royals for a while?

Blimpie
04-20-2006, 10:58 AM
Perhaps that email did the trick... I forgot who sent it.Vote for Pedro...

GullyFoyle
04-20-2006, 11:03 AM
Now, you'll probably respond to this in one of out two ways (everybody does), either by making some rude comment about us not knowing what we're talking about, or by genuinely being curious and wanting to know more. There are plenty of people on this forum willing to help you learn how and why this stuff works, but you have to be willing to have an open mind in realizing that some "conventional wisdom" stuff could very well be wrong. Your forum name here on RZ, for examples, implies that you've been to college and graduated. Now there has got be some examples of things you learned in college that were completely against what you originally believed for your entire life previously. Baseball isn't any different in that regard.

I'm not the statistician some here are, and Cyclone is one of the best informed guys here IMO, but what made my think about this a little different, is the idea that each team is given a finite number of outs but in theory can lose regardless of the number of runs they score. 27 outs and thats it. These are very precious gems. On the other hand, runs scored are of course what determines the game, but (theoretically) you could score 20 and still lose (I don't think the Reds have done that yet, but who knows with their pitching, maybe soon :P )

Of course there are given situations when a run is more important than an out... particularly close and late... but it makes sense that the teams that can maximize what they do per out, i.e. avoid the out (OBP) and add extra bases (SLG) will do best on average.

So the idea that OPS is a great short hand for good offensive teams/players makes sense to me.

Johnny Footstool
04-20-2006, 11:07 AM
I'll take 10 Sports Illustrated swimsuit models on a remote Caribbean Island. You can have your 10 decades of championships. :D

Only if 5 of them are baseball fans.

You have to have something to talk about during your recovery time.

Blimpie
04-20-2006, 11:20 AM
MU, you've got to have an open mind and take a step back away from conventional wisdom. I'm going to try to explain this to you in the simplest form.

The job of a baseball offense is to score runs period, right. There are certain statistics that correlate much better to run scoring than other statistics. OPS has the best correlation of any short-hand, easy-to-calculate metric. OBP has the second highest correlation of any short-hand method, and SLG has the third highest. Stats such as BA or BA w/RISP have a much lower correlation to actual runs scored. This is a proven fact, and can be proven over and over again with any individual season data.

Do you want to actually test this for yourself? All you need is Microsoft Excel, a working Internet browser to get you to http://www.baseball-reference.com and about five minutes of free time. That's all. The individual statistics that do the best job isolating the two main factors in run production - avoiding outs (OBP) and acquiring bases (SLG) - are the statistics that show by far the highest correlation of actual runs scored. It's consistent, and can be tested over and over and over again. Not only that, but it's very simple.

You keep bringing up examples of how some teams get 20 baserunners, but still lose to other teams that have 10 baserunners. Right, that happens, but very rarely. It is the prime example of a small sample size problem. If you play that same game 10,000 times where one team gets 20 baserunners and the other gets 10, who scores the most runs each game? The team with 20 baserunners will score more runs in probably well over 9,500 of those games. That doesn't mean the team with only 10 baserunners will not outscore the team with 20 on some days, but those days will be very rare.

Now, you'll probably respond to this in one of out two ways (everybody does), either by making some rude comment about us not knowing what we're talking about, or by genuinely being curious and wanting to know more. There are plenty of people on this forum willing to help you learn how and why this stuff works, but you have to be willing to have an open mind in realizing that some "conventional wisdom" stuff could very well be wrong. Your forum name here on RZ, for examples, implies that you've been to college and graduated. Now there has got be some examples of things you learned in college that were completely against what you originally believed for your entire life previously. Baseball isn't any different in that regard.Excellent post....:thumbup:

M2
04-20-2006, 11:37 AM
I can agree with most of that. I am focussing on the end. The goal is to score runs whatever it takes to do that is the byproduct.

That's exactly backwards. Runs are the byproduct of the things a team does to score runs. If you can't get on base and hit with some power (or steal huge numbers of bases to make up for a lack of power) then your team won't be scoring many runs.

If you actually care about the effect that is scoring runs, then you'd better understand the cause. BA never has been and never will be the cause.


But, if the batter worked as hard on getting hits as he did in getting walks. He'd K less, walk less, have more hits, drive in more runs and probably score about the same number of runs. Oh, yeah if you score more runs you win more games too. Not have more baserunners. Doesn't do you any good if you strand 20 runners a game.

That's insanely misguided. You realize you can't walk unless a pitcher throws you four balls outside the strikezone, right? Pretty much no one outside of Vlad Guerrero should be trying to hit those pitches. Albert Pujols sure as shooting doesn't try it unless he's been fooled into swinging at a ball.

It's also been demonstrated repeatedly for you that BA does NOT equal RBIs. SLG does and apparently that's just never going to register with you.

Also, an individual player will NOT score more runs by getting on base less. That player will score less runs and the team will score less runs because it had fewer chances to score runs. Great idea for how a high scoring could shoot itself in the foot, though. You're working straight out of the Tom Robson manual on offense.

And, though this should be obvious, more baserunners means more runs and more LOB. Fewer baserunners means fewer runs and fewer LOB. Now, do you want more runs or fewer LOB? Because you can't have both. The world doesn't work that way.


Bottom of the 9th in a tie game with a runner on 3rd and less than 2 outs. I'll give you your walks all day long so that increases your OBP and I'll take my Sac Fly, win the game, go out and have a beer with Marty

Marty won't want that beer if Dunn or Encarnacion gets the sac fly. He'll be perturbed by that.

Also, I ask again, name for me one player who is particularly good at hitting sac flies. You claim to be able to spot such things with your eyes and you maintain this is some kind of differentiating talent, so who's the master of the sac fly? If what you're saying about situational hitting is true and not pure BS, you should have a name on the tip of your tongue.

P.S. The answer on why the BRM didn't trade George Foster for Ralph Garr is that Foster had the kind of power that made him an MVP-level player and Garr was a high-BA slap hitter who refused to take a walk. Bob Howsam wasn't a BA geek. It's why he traded for Joe Morgan.

RFS62
04-20-2006, 12:35 PM
You realize you can't walk unless a pitcher throw you four balls outside the strikezone, right? Pretty much no one outside of Vlad Guerrero should be trying to hit those pitches. Albert Pujols sure as shooting doesn't try it unless he's been fooled into swinging at a ball.




Brilliant.

:beerme:

2001MUgrad
04-20-2006, 01:45 PM
MU, you've got to have an open mind and take a step back away from conventional wisdom. I'm going to try to explain this to you in the simplest form.

The job of a baseball offense is to score runs period, right. There are certain statistics that correlate much better to run scoring than other statistics. OPS has the best correlation of any short-hand, easy-to-calculate metric. OBP has the second highest correlation of any short-hand method, and SLG has the third highest. Stats such as BA or BA w/RISP have a much lower correlation to actual runs scored. This is a proven fact, and can be proven over and over again with any individual season data.

Do you want to actually test this for yourself? All you need is Microsoft Excel, a working Internet browser to get you to http://www.baseball-reference.com and about five minutes of free time. That's all. The individual statistics that do the best job isolating the two main factors in run production - avoiding outs (OBP) and acquiring bases (SLG) - are the statistics that show by far the highest correlation of actual runs scored. It's consistent, and can be tested over and over and over again. Not only that, but it's very simple.

You keep bringing up examples of how some teams get 20 baserunners, but still lose to other teams that have 10 baserunners. Right, that happens, but very rarely. It is the prime example of a small sample size problem. If you play that same game 10,000 times where one team gets 20 baserunners and the other gets 10, who scores the most runs each game? The team with 20 baserunners will score more runs in probably well over 9,500 of those games. That doesn't mean the team with only 10 baserunners will not outscore the team with 20 on some days, but those days will be very rare.

Now, you'll probably respond to this in one of out two ways (everybody does), either by making some rude comment about us not knowing what we're talking about, or by genuinely being curious and wanting to know more. There are plenty of people on this forum willing to help you learn how and why this stuff works, but you have to be willing to have an open mind in realizing that some "conventional wisdom" stuff could very well be wrong. Your forum name here on RZ, for examples, implies that you've been to college and graduated. Now there has got be some examples of things you learned in college that were completely against what you originally believed for your entire life previously. Baseball isn't any different in that regard.

I'll look into that.. And, I don't disagree totally with any of the SABR type stuff. I just thing the game is bigger than that and cannot be scientifically shrunk into a single stat line or a group of stat lines. Winning the world series is a war so to speak, for lack of a better example. Each game is a little battle that makes up the war. There are different chapters in each war that make up an inning. Their are different pages in each chapter that make up the at bats.

I don't disagree with every detail. I just take exception to everything being shrunk to 1 little stat line.

TRF
04-20-2006, 02:12 PM
I'll look into that.. And, I don't disagree totally with any of the SABR type stuff. I just thing the game is bigger than that and cannot be scientifically shrunk into a single stat line or a group of stat lines. Winning the world series is a war so to speak, for lack of a better example. Each game is a little battle that makes up the war. There are different chapters in each war that make up an inning. Their are different pages in each chapter that make up the at bats.

I don't disagree with every detail. I just take exception to everything being shrunk to 1 little stat line.

Good strategies will win battles. Good strategies executed by good soldiers will win wars.

Bad strategies usually means someone elses flag gets raised. acquiring bases and not making outs is a GOOD strategy.

membengal
04-20-2006, 02:13 PM
"SABR folks" are not trying to shrink baseball into a "one little stat line", but are instead simply baseball fans who are trying to better express what they see. There is nothing to be feared about anyone's attempt to do so. With anything, assumptions get made and expressed over time, but does that make the assumptions right? Should no one ever look at the assumptions and ask hard questions?

There is nothing inherently frightening about moving beyond RBI as an indicator of an individuals talent, or looking at hits with RISP to see if it means something. It just takes a willingness to understand how each of those stats is dependent on variables not in the control of the hitter. What the hitter CAN control is what folks are proposing be valued more, and stats like OPS express that a bit better. That's all.

M2
04-20-2006, 02:18 PM
I don't disagree with every detail. I just take exception to everything being shrunk to 1 little stat line.

No one's doing that. In fact, if anyone here is fixated on a single stat, it's you being stuck on BA and its BA w/RISP subset. Anyway, spouting the truism that the game can't be reduced to a single stat line (something absolutely everyone here agrees with) seems to be your way of innoculating yourself against having to learn the things the stats can tell you.

westofyou
04-20-2006, 02:21 PM
I went to a SABR meeting once and a guy gave a talk about "How OPS isn't the end all."

He was not dragged behind Neyers car after the meeting either.

paintmered
04-20-2006, 02:22 PM
I'll look into that.. And, I don't disagree totally with any of the SABR type stuff. I just thing the game is bigger than that and cannot be scientifically shrunk into a single stat line or a group of stat lines. Winning the world series is a war so to speak, for lack of a better example. Each game is a little battle that makes up the war. There are different chapters in each war that make up an inning. Their are different pages in each chapter that make up the at bats.

I don't disagree with every detail. I just take exception to everything being shrunk to 1 little stat line.

No SABR guy will EVER tell you that stats tell the entire story. But what stats do well is objectively reinforce or dispite visual observations.

Stats provide a way to look at all the individual situations encountered as a whole picture. A year ago or so, I posted this picture to illustrate the concept.

http://www.mystudios.com/treasure/seurat/seurat-grand-jatte.jpg

Baseball is made up of individual successes and failures like the grass in this painting is made of little dots of green and brown. And yet when we take a step back from this famous Seurat painting, we see the grass is neither completely green nor brown.

I look at statistics in much the same way. Individual situations such as:

There's no outs and a runner on second. Even if the batter made an out, did he hit behind the runner and thus advance him? Paint a dot.

1 out, runner on second. Sharp ground ball up the middle and Felipe Lopez lays out and is able to field it but doesn't make the throw to first. It's scored a hit but the runner doesn't make it past third because the ball didn't reach the outfield. Paint another dot.

I'm sure you can come up with many other similar situations. If you look at enough of them, eventually you have the picture.

Now here's the rub. Once you stand back a few feet and look at the picture, it's tough to go see the individual dots. Sure, we can tell the grass is generally green and umbrella lady's butt is enormous, but we can't see the individual dots themselves anymore.

Also, we can assume that grass is green, but a few of those dots may be brown, or blue or some other color. That brown dot is still there when you take a step back, but it is drowned out when surrounded by all the green dots.

The same is true when you see situation where there's 1 out and a runner on third and the batter fails to get the RBI. The batter obviously failed in in that instance, but he's also going to succeed sometimes too. So when you were present, you saw a few brown dots. Does this make the grass brown? Of course not.

So when a stat tells us the Reds have one of the best success rates with runners in scoring position, that simply says that more of the dots are going to be green than brown. It doesn't say more than that. It doesn't say there won't be brown dots - indeed there are many of them. They can't tell us that Dunn is going to try and slap single the other way on an 1-2 outside slider. But they do tell us that in X number of similar situations, this is how he's performed. And in the future, we can expect him to continue to perform close to that rate.

Okay, enough rambling. You get the picture (pun intended).

Chip R
04-20-2006, 02:23 PM
I went to a SABR meeting once and a guy gave a talk about "How OPS isn't the end all."

He was not dragged behind Neyers car after the meeting either.

It's kind of redundant to drag a guy who has been shot, stabbed and poisoned behind a car. ;)

westofyou
04-20-2006, 02:23 PM
My kingdom for a monkey on a leash.

RFS62
04-20-2006, 02:26 PM
It's kind of redundant to drag a guy who has been shot, stabbed and poisoned behind a car. ;)



:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Handofdeath
04-20-2006, 02:28 PM
I wonder if other players are talked about like Dunn? Dunn almost seems to be a special case in MLB. Most guys with his OBP and OPS numbers have the AVg to go with it.

TRF
04-20-2006, 02:31 PM
I wonder if other players are talked about like Dunn? Dunn almost seems to be a special case in MLB. Most guys with his OBP and OPS numbers have the AVg to go with it.

Bobby Abreu springs to mind. Phillies fans harp on him all the time.

Yachtzee
04-20-2006, 02:32 PM
It's kind of redundant to drag a guy who has been shot, stabbed and poisoned behind a car. ;)

Makes a SABR meeting sound like the biker bar in "Pee Wee's Big Adventure." :)

buckshotrod
04-20-2006, 02:37 PM
Ya can't help but like a guy that can cream one out of the park. BUT, it has become a joke around here when we are listening to or watching games that when Adam strolls to the plate with nobody on.."Well, looks like Adam will hit a homer!" The kid rarely ever comes thru with guys in scoring position. He is so inconsistent in the field it is not funny. One time he may make a great play then the next time he looks like me out there and I can assure you I stink. I don't know if he presses too much with guys on base or what but until he comes around in those situations he is just another ballplayer value wise. What good is 50 homers if they are mostly with nobody on? Give me a Tony Perez type player any day.

M2
04-20-2006, 02:37 PM
I wonder if other players are talked about like Dunn? Dunn almost seems to be a special case in MLB. Most guys with his OBP and OPS numbers have the AVg to go with it.

I grew up watching Mike Schmidt, career .267 hitter and (just like Dunn) a career .248 hitter through age 25, and Phillies fans (whom we should endeavor not to be like) still grouse about him.

Caveat Emperor
04-20-2006, 02:45 PM
I don't know if he presses too much with guys on base or what but until he comes around in those situations he is just another ballplayer value wise. What good is 50 homers if they are mostly with nobody on? Give me a Tony Perez type player any day.

Show me a slugger who hits tons of home runs with runners on base, and I'll show you a guy with great protection in his lineup or (if he's not around) a lot of pitchers with no command or velocity. Adam Dunn doesn't necessarily change his approach with runners on, but pitchers sure do change their approach to dealing with him when there's runners on base.

Baseball is the only professional sport where an opposing team can choose to make you an offensive non-factor by refusing to pitch to you. Lots of teams refuse to pitch to Adam Dunn. He realizes this, but he still looks to press at the plate in certain situations. If he improved his plate discipline (which is already fantastic) further, his walk rates would truly skyrocket.

Puffy
04-20-2006, 02:47 PM
Ya can't help but like a guy that can cream one out of the park. BUT, it has become a joke around here when we are listening to or watching games that when Adam strolls to the plate with nobody on.."Well, looks like Adam will hit a homer!" The kid rarely ever comes thru with guys in scoring position. He is so inconsistent in the field it is not funny. One time he may make a great play then the next time he looks like me out there and I can assure you I stink. I don't know if he presses too much with guys on base or what but until he comes around in those situations he is just another ballplayer value wise. What good is 50 homers if they are mostly with nobody on? Give me a Tony Perez type player any day.

Red herring - Why does it matter how Dunn drives in runs? Why are Dunn's 100 rbi looked at differently than Perez's 100 rbi just because Dunn does it with solo home runs and Perez did it with singles, doubles and homeruns? Isn't 100 rbi the same no matter how you get them?

2001MUgrad
04-20-2006, 02:47 PM
You say that it isn't about a single stat line, but yet OPS seems to be the only thing that matters.
I do think BA with RISB is very important, but I don't disagree with the notion that OBP is important as well. I look at each individual and what they bring to the plate. Do I expect Ryan Freel to hit HR and drive in runs like I do Adam Dunn, of course not. But, I likewise don't expect Adam Dunn to consistantly Walk or K with RISP. Again, I know you can't help if you don't get a pitch to hit. But, when you go up there looking to walk.
I mean the last 2 seasons he has 86 HR, but only 203 RBI's. How does that work out?? I realize it shouldn't be lost that he also scored 100 Runs.
But, how does it work out that a guy has struck out 169 more times than he has gotten a hit. Impressive Power Numbers no doubt. But he has got to have the worst RBI to HR ratio ever, but I'm sure someone will prove that statment wrong, so top 5 maybe?

buckshotrod
04-20-2006, 02:53 PM
Red herring - Why does it matter how Dunn drives in runs? Why are Dunn's 100 rbi looked at differently than Perez's 100 rbi just because Dunn does it with solo home runs and Perez did it with singles, doubles and homeruns? Isn't 100 rbi the same no matter how you get them?


Perez did it when it counted and those rbis meant something. Dunn does it when they really don't mean jack. NOW, don't get me wrong, Adam is still young and hope like hell he either learns to quit striking out 175 times per year and starts making contact with runners on base. Cutting down on the OF blunders would be nice, too.

Cyclone792
04-20-2006, 02:53 PM
I grew up watching Mike Schmidt, career .267 hitter and (just like Dunn) a career .248 hitter through age 25, and Phillies fans (whom we should endeavor not to be like) still grouse about him.

Good ole Mike Schmidt. He's only largely regarded by most as being the greatest third baseman in the history of the game, a ranking I also agree with, yet Phillies fans loved to hate the guy. It just doesn't make any sense, but again with Abreu, Phillies fans love to never make sense.

I guess Phillies fans wish they had a reincarnation of Pie Traynor instead of Schmidt, but what they don't know is they'd have won far fewer games had that been the case.

westofyou
04-20-2006, 02:55 PM
Give me a Tony Perez type player any day.
The one who made over 30 errors at 3rd a couple of times? Or the one who had 102 RBI's at the age of 25 for the first time?

Because at this point comparing the HOF Tony Perez at age 33 and 34 for the Reds with Dunn is ridiculous, compare the guys at the same age for the start.

M2
04-20-2006, 02:55 PM
Red herring - Why does it matter how Dunn drives in runs? Why are Dunn's 100 rbi looked at differently than Perez's 100 rbi just because Dunn does it with solo home runs and Perez did it with singles, doubles and homeruns? Isn't 100 rbi the same no matter how you get them?

Adam Dunn is a far better doubles hitter than Perez ever was.

Raisor
04-20-2006, 02:55 PM
You say that it isn't about a single stat line, but yet OPS seems to be the only thing that matters.
I do think BA with RISB is very important, but I don't disagree with the notion that OBP is important as well. I look at each individual and what they bring to the plate. Do I expect Ryan Freel to hit HR and drive in runs like I do Adam Dunn, of course not. But, I likewise don't expect Adam Dunn to consistantly Walk or K with RISP.

Here you go again, putting players into "boxes". Both Freel and Dunn have the exact same job, creating runs.

Highlifeman21
04-20-2006, 02:56 PM
Bobby Abreu springs to mind. Phillies fans harp on him all the time.


Phillies fans will harp on anything wearing the hometown uni, just as much as guys in the away unis. For whatever reason, Abreu and Burrell seem to be the two "best" players that get beat up by fans, in the media, etc. Don't get me wrong, other players get the same treatment, but it's no secret that a guy like David Bell or Jimmy Rollins deserve to get some of the abuse. Heck, locals here are still trying to get over why the Phillies are paying J Roll 8 million a year.

westofyou
04-20-2006, 02:57 PM
ut he has got to have the worst RBI to HR ratio ever, but I'm sure someone will prove that statment wrong, so top 5 maybe?

In the last 2 seasons Dunn has a HR for every 2.35 RBI, Pujols 1 for every 2.75 RBI.

M2
04-20-2006, 03:11 PM
You say that it isn't about a single stat line, but yet OPS seems to be the only thing that matters.

You know who's talked about OPS more than everyone combined in this thread? You. Let it go. No one thinks that and you being stuck on thinking other people think that is beyond tiresome.


But, I likewise don't expect Adam Dunn to consistantly Walk or K with RISP. Again, I know you can't help if you don't get a pitch to hit. But, when you go up there looking to walk.

A) You're out of your mind if you think Dunn goes up to the plate looking to walk. He walks because pitchers throw him pitches outside the strikezone and he knows better than to swing at them.

B) He constantly walks and Ks because that's the kind of player he. He walks a lot. He Ks a lot. He hits a lot of homers and good amount of doubles too, which means he constantly posts a high SLG. He's never going to be a low walk, low K player because that's not who he is. What you're asking for is Adam Dunn to try to be like Tony Gwynn with runners in scoring position. Not only is that impossible, but it's an awful idea because Adam Dunn is already far more productive with runners in scoring position than Gwynn ever was.


I mean the last 2 seasons he has 86 HR, but only 203 RBI's. How does that work out?? I realize it shouldn't be lost that he also scored 100 Runs.
But, how does it work out that a guy has struck out 169 more times than he has gotten a hit. Impressive Power Numbers no doubt. But he has got to have the worst RBI to HR ratio ever, but I'm sure someone will prove that statment wrong, so top 5 maybe?

Once again, you realize you're carping about the best Reds RBI man of your lifetime, right? You're actually grousing about the RBI totals of the most consistent RBI man you've ever watched in a Reds jersey. That's how that works out.

As for strikeouts, I'll go back to Mike Schmidt and you being way too much like a Phillies fan. Go look at the all-time strikeout list and soak in the names you see there. Those guys are freakin' awesome. BTW, for those playing along at home, a guy named Tony Perez ranks 8th on that list. If you're still hung up on whiffs after the last 50 years of baseball history then you need to sit down and seriously ask yourself how much attention you've been paying to the game.

BTW, I'm still waiting for you to name one good sac fly hitter. If I didn't know better I'd say you haven't done it because you can't think of a single guy who actually has that talent.

Johnny Footstool
04-20-2006, 03:12 PM
But, how does it work out that a guy has struck out 169 more times than he has gotten a hit.

Add up his hits plus his walks. The number is astounding.

I do understand what you're saying, and I agree to an extent. If there was some way Dunn could manage to retain his Walk rate, slugging percentage, AND hit .300, he would be unbelievable. A feat like that would boost his OPB by 50 points. He'd be otherworldly. He would never make an out.

The thing is, he's already an elite offensive force *without* hitting for high average. You've got to appreciate that.

Getting down on him for hitting .248 is like getting a free ribeye steak and complaining that it's not prime rib.

Raisor
04-20-2006, 03:17 PM
I'm still hoping the Reds K more this year then last. Unfortunatly, they're on pace to K about 200 times less then last year.

GullyFoyle
04-20-2006, 03:25 PM
Adam strolls to the plate with nobody on.."Well, looks like Adam will hit a homer!" The kid rarely ever comes thru with guys in scoring position.

....

I don't know if he presses too much with guys on base or what but until he comes around in those situations he is just another ballplayer value wise. What good is 50 homers if they are mostly with nobody on? Give me a Tony Perez type player any day.

This is just your subjective impression...

Dunn's stats for 2005 show that in EVERY category he is better with RISP

BRM
04-20-2006, 03:27 PM
I'm still hoping the Reds K more this year then last. Unfortunatly, they're on pace to K about 200 times less then last year.

While also being on pace to score more, right?

registerthis
04-20-2006, 03:27 PM
Perez did it when it counted and those rbis meant something. Dunn does it when they really don't mean jack.

So Dunn's RBIs aren't "win-efficient". Gotcha.

Raisor
04-20-2006, 03:28 PM
While also being on pace to score more, right?


Yes, I want the team to score more AND K more just because it'll drive some people nutty.

BRM
04-20-2006, 03:30 PM
Yes, I want the team to score more AND K more just because it'll drive some people nutty.

The mlb.com boards would crash.

IslandRed
04-20-2006, 03:31 PM
I look at each individual and what they bring to the plate. Do I expect Ryan Freel to hit HR and drive in runs like I do Adam Dunn, of course not. But, I likewise don't expect Adam Dunn to consistantly Walk or K with RISP.

What you mean is, you look at Ryan Freel and are OK with who he is, and you look at Adam Dunn and wish he was someone else.

It's easy to devalue any player if you focus on his flaws and ignore the things he does well. Let's take an example from the Reds' past. The Big Red Machine teams were built on a historically-absurdly-good mix of power hitting and base stealing and great defense. You look at those three coveted ballplayer attributes -- home-run hitter, base stealer, terrific defender -- and Pete Rose was none of those things. OK, he was a decent defender but nothing remarkable, and Joe Morgan smoked him as an all-around ballplayer. But he was a singles- and doubles-hitting machine, and he was so good at what he did it would be laughable to argue that he was anything other than an incredible asset to the Reds.

Adam Dunn is a machine for drawing walks and generating extra-base hits. He is not a contact hitter, which means there are times he'll strike out when we wish he wouldn't. But the net gain of having him on the team is enormous. At some point, we need to just recognize that instead of griping that he doesn't do it the way Perez did or Rose did or Pujols does.

Puffy
04-20-2006, 03:33 PM
So Dunn's RBIs aren't "win-efficient". Gotcha.

Yes, Perez's 102 RBI at age 25 were more better than Dunn's 102 RBI at age 24. Get with the program - all RBI are not equal!!

westofyou
04-20-2006, 03:39 PM
Perez did it when it counted and those rbis meant something.

Ok, so the 403 RBI's he had before 1970 were not much help then were they?

Let's also strike the 193 he had in 1971 and 1974 (they didn't help win anything after all)

Gee Tony Perez sucked after all.

Knock me down with a feather.

Yachtzee
04-20-2006, 03:47 PM
So Dunn's RBIs aren't "win-efficient". Gotcha.

Maybe it would help if Reds' pitching wasn't so "loss-efficient."

paintmered
04-20-2006, 04:02 PM
Okay, have we beaten this subject to death enough to fill our month quota?

Caveat Emperor
04-20-2006, 04:11 PM
Okay, have we beaten this subject to death enough to fill our month quota?

It reminds me of the SNL "Point-Counterpoint":

GUY: Derek Jeter Sucks.
DEREK JETER: No, I don't.

registerthis
04-20-2006, 04:18 PM
Getting down on him for hitting .248 is like getting a free ribeye steak and complaining that it's not prime rib.

I'm reminded of Greg Vaughn's 1999 season with the Reds, one of the better offensive years by a Reds player in recent memory. And with a .245 average, no less:



G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI SB CS BB SO BA OBP SLG
153 550 104 135 20 2 45 118 15 2 85 137 .245 .347 .535

M2
04-20-2006, 04:20 PM
Okay, have we beaten this subject to death enough to fill our month quota?

Either the train runs out of steam of its own accord or it just finds another track.

paintmered
04-20-2006, 04:22 PM
Either the train runs out of steam of its own accord or it just finds another track.

It's running multiple tracks right now. Can I hope they collide head on killing both at the same time?

Yachtzee
04-20-2006, 04:28 PM
It's running multiple tracks right now. Can I hope they collide head on killing both at the same time?

I'm actually really enjoying this thread. 2001MUgrad and Handofdeath may never come around to seeing things the other way, but everybody seems to be getting their work in on this thread. Gets the analytical juices flowing. :)

M2
04-20-2006, 04:33 PM
It's running multiple tracks right now. Can I hope they collide head on killing both at the same time?

Perhaps. I'd be glad it's only running on two tracks at the moment.

Let's face it, Adam Dunn and strikeouts have become the replacements for the matter of whether the Reds had a good team/business plan heading into 2003 that dominated the early days of Redszone.

Handofdeath
04-20-2006, 04:35 PM
I'm actually really enjoying this thread. 2001MUgrad and Handofdeath may never come around to seeing things the other way, but everybody seems to be getting their work in on this thread. Gets the analytical juices flowing. :)
Yes, but my head is really starting to hurt.:bang:

M2
04-20-2006, 04:45 PM
Yes, but my head is really starting to hurt.:bang:

That's the first step. Sooner or later you'll bang batting average, hitter's strikeouts and pitcher's wins right out of there.

TRF
04-20-2006, 05:12 PM
That's the first step. Sooner or later you'll bang batting average, hitter's strikeouts and pitcher's wins right out of there.

If I can learn anyone can. The first step is recognizing that what I know about baseball isn't as much as what I don't know.

The next step is learning Raisor's Mantra.

Step three is learning that despite the mantra, Raisor is still kinda nerdy. but with hot chicks. Or so he says.

Puffy
04-20-2006, 06:05 PM
If I can learn anyone can. The first step is recognizing that what I know about baseball isn't as much as what I don't know.

The next step is learning Raisor's Mantra.

Step three is learning that despite the mantra, Raisor is still kinda nerdy. but with hot chicks. Or so he says.

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2004-12/916060/raisor.jpg

2001MUgrad
04-20-2006, 06:27 PM
No one thinks that and you being stuck on thinking other people think that is beyond tiresome.



A) You're out of your mind if you think Dunn goes up to the plate looking to walk. He walks because pitchers throw him pitches outside the strikezone and he knows better than to swing at them.




Once again, you realize you're carping about the best Reds RBI man of your lifetime, right? You're actually grousing about the RBI totals of the most consistent RBI man you've ever watched in a Reds jersey. That's how that works out.


BTW, I'm still waiting for you to name one good sac fly hitter. If I didn't know better I'd say you haven't done it because you can't think of a single guy who actually has that talent.

Let's see I'll respond to 4 Parts.

1)If thats the case the feel free not to respond.

2) If he knows the strikezone so well why will he probably end his career being the person that has struck out more than any other player in MLB history.

3) I'd hope so, at least up to this point. Its not as if there aren't runners on when he comes up to bat.

4) Hell, I don't know, but I do know one that tends to strike out an awful lot at least at this point in his career. Maybe with age the choke factor will go down. I like Dunn and Hope he has a very long and great career in Cincy and ends up in Cooperstown, its not that I don't like him. There are things he does that are bad habits such as taking close pitches for strike 3, or such as not swinging at pitches he can drive. It takes 0 talent to take walks. Dunn has lots of talent, he should use it.

GullyFoyle
04-20-2006, 06:35 PM
It takes 0 talent to take walks. Dunn has lots of talent, he should use it.

I'm sorry was going to ignore this thread for a bit, but can't believe I actually read this...

You don't really mean it... right?

I would look at the players who lead the league in walks and see how much talent they have...

RFS62
04-20-2006, 06:37 PM
It takes 0 talent to take walks. Dunn has lots of talent, he should use it.



Geez, I've tried and tried to ignore this thread, but this makes me laugh out loud.

If Dunn wasn't a devestating hitter, do you think he'd ever get four balls in an at bat?

Plate discipline is one of the most important skills a hitter can have. Laying off bad pitches. Four of them get you a walk.

If he wasn't a killer, they'd go right after him, wouldn't they?

He'd never ever see four balls, eh?

2001MUgrad
04-20-2006, 06:38 PM
I'm sorry was going to ignore this thread for a bit, but can't believe I actually read this...

You don't really mean it... right?

I would look at the players who lead the league in walks and see how much talent they have...

All you have to do is be able to walk or crawl and I'd guess holding the bat is optional.

RFS62
04-20-2006, 06:39 PM
All you have to do is be able to walk or crawl and I'd guess holding the bat is optional.


Oy vey!!!

Sweet sassy molassy!!!!

Great googly mooglie!!!!!!!!!!


:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

pedro
04-20-2006, 06:39 PM
Here are the top ten players with the most walks from last year. looks like a pretty talented group to me.




RK PLAYER TEAM AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI SB CS BB BA OBP SLG OPS
1 Brian Giles SD 545 92 164 38 8 15 83 13 5 119 .301 .423 .483 .905
2 Bobby Abreu Phi 588 104 168 37 1 24 102 31 9 117 .286 .405 .474 .879
3 Adam Dunn Cin 543 107 134 35 2 40 101 4 2 114 .247 .387 .540 .927
4 Jason Giambi NYY 417 74 113 14 0 32 87 0 0 108 .271 .440 .535 .975
5 Todd Helton Col 509 92 163 45 2 20 79 3 0 106 .320 .445 .534 .979
6 David Ortiz Bos 601 119 180 40 1 47 148 1 0 102 .300 .397 .604 1.001
7 Pat Burrell Phi 562 78 158 27 1 32 117 0 0 99 .281 .389 .504 .892
8 Albert Pujols StL 591 129 195 38 2 41 117 16 2 97 .330 .430 .609 1.039
9 Jason Bay Pit 599 110 183 44 6 32 101 21 1 95 .306 .402 .559 .961
10 Jim Edmonds StL 467 88 123 37 1 29 89 5 5 91 .263 .385 .533 .918

2001MUgrad
04-20-2006, 06:40 PM
Geez, I've tried and tried to ignore this thread, but this makes me laugh out loud.

If Dunn wasn't a devestating hitter, do you think he'd ever get four balls in an at bat?

Plate discipline is one of the most important skills a hitter can have. Laying off bad pitches. Four of them get you a walk.

If he wasn't a killer, they'd go right after him, wouldn't they?

He'd never ever see four balls, eh?

I don't disagree with that. There is a reason Bonds walks a lot.

But everyone talks about plate discipline. Why in the sam Heck does the boy strike out more than anyone else in baseball. Why does he strike out more times than he actually makes contact. Its not about plate discipline. Its about not swinging the bat.

Caveat Emperor
04-20-2006, 06:50 PM
But everyone talks about plate discipline. Why in the sam Heck does the boy strike out more than anyone else in baseball. Why does he strike out more times than he actually makes contact. Its not about plate discipline. Its about not swinging the bat.

Swing at the strikes you can hit, lay off the balls out of the zone that you can't. Work the count into your favor and force the pitcher to come to you instead of putting yourself in a hole.

Cyclone did a fantastic post on the importance of avoiding pitcher's counts and getting into hitter's counts, it's fascintating reading and would really help you better understand the importance of taking pitches and working the count into your favor: http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=42961

It's all about Plate Discpline. The reason why Dunn walks so much is because he understands it. The reason he strikes out so much is because he's a power hitter, and part of the trade-off for a power-stroke is (usually) a propensity towards striking out.

Yachtzee
04-20-2006, 06:50 PM
I don't disagree with that. There is a reason Bonds walks a lot.

But everyone talks about plate discipline. Why in the sam Heck does the boy strike out more than anyone else in baseball. Why does he strike out more times than he actually makes contact. Its not about plate discipline. Its about not swinging the bat.

Part of it may have to do with the fact that Dunn is very big and has a large strike zone to cover. If he didn't have good plate discipline, he'd strike out at an even greater rate. Personally I think he gets a lot of low strikes called against him that should be balls. I have a hare-brained theory that if he wore high socks, he might shrink his strike zone a little.

Striking out isn't all bad though. It's just one out. Better than hitting into a double play. That's two outs for the price of one.

2001MUgrad
04-20-2006, 06:51 PM
It's all about Plate Discpline. The reason why Dunn walks so much is because he understands it. The reason he strikes out so much is because he's a power hitter, and part of the trade-off for a power-stroke is (usually) a propensity towards striking out.

Maybe.

Where could I find out how many 3rd strikes someone takes or how many strikes someone takes compared to the rest of the league??

pedro
04-20-2006, 06:55 PM
Maybe.


Where could I find out how many 3rd strikes someone takes or how many strikes someone takes compared to the rest of the league??

I don't think that type of information is publicly available.

Dunn was 5th most in pitchers per plate appearance last year (4.24) so it does stand to reason that he probably did take a lot of strikes. Regardless, just because it is a strike doesn't mean that it is a good pitch to hit.

2001MUgrad
04-20-2006, 06:57 PM
I don't think that type of information is publicly available.

Dunn was 5th most in pitchers per plate appearance last year (4.24) so it does stand to reason that he probably did take a lot of strikes. Regardless, just because it is a strike doesn't mean that it is a good pitch to hit.

I agree.. The same could be said for taking a ball. Some balls are the best pitches to flat out drive. Some of the better hit balls I've ever seen where not strikes.

pedro
04-20-2006, 07:01 PM
I agree.. The same could be said for taking a ball. Some balls are the best pitches to flat out drive. Some of the better hit balls I've ever seen where not strikes.


Yeah, but most hitters can't consistently hit non strikes well. Vlad Guerrerro can, but he's a freak.

Buckaholic
04-20-2006, 07:12 PM
I would imagine that information is out there somewhere if someone really wants to know the results.

There are stats for all kinds of situations. Stats, Inc. does that kind of thing I know, and I'm sure other sites do too.

SteelSD
04-20-2006, 07:12 PM
I agree.. The same could be said for taking a ball. Some balls are the best pitches to flat out drive. Some of the better hit balls I've ever seen where not strikes.

Not even Ted Williams could effectively hit balls at the fringe of the strike zone with authority much less balls outside the strike zone.

Probably time for RFS to post the Teddy Ballgame hitting chart.