PDA

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



Pages : 1 2 [3]

paintmered
04-20-2006, 07:14 PM
It's not the exact one he posts, but the info on it is the same.

http://www.magnetic-north.net/files/ted_williams_strike_zone.gif

Buckaholic
04-20-2006, 07:15 PM
Not even Ted Williams could effectively hit balls at the fringe of the strike zone with authority much less balls outside the strike zone.

Vladimir Guerrero is notorious for doing it.

westofyou
04-20-2006, 07:23 PM
Vladimir Guerrero is notorious for doing it.
So was Yogi Berra, but you can't apply a talent set like that to the norm. Omar Moreno tried the same thing and it didn't work too well.

Buckaholic
04-20-2006, 07:30 PM
So was Yogi Berra, but you can't apply a talent set like that to the norm. Omar Moreno tried the same thing and it didn't work too well.

Agreed, and wasn't suggesting otherwise. Just pointing out that some hitters hit balls better high or low out of the strike zone (or inside or outside). Not all hitters are best hitting in the same spots.

MUgrad said "some of the better balls I ever hit were out of the strike zone." I was a low ball hitter myself, so I would agree with him completely. It depends on the hitter.

There's no question the averages say that more balls will be hit in the midlde of the strike zone, but there are hitters that are big exceptions to that rule.

After all, the implication that because Ted Williams couldn't do it, no one could. By way of averages, it doesn't happen with near as much regularity. But there are certainly players who can do it more effectively than many.

paintmered
04-20-2006, 07:37 PM
After all, the implication that because Ted Williams couldn't do it, no one could. By way of averages, it doesn't happen with near as much regularity. But there are certainly players who can do it more effectively than many.

I think the implication is as great as Williams was, there were things he knew that he couldn't do.

Buckaholic
04-20-2006, 07:39 PM
I think the implication is as great as Williams was, there were things he knew that he couldn't do.

That could be. But it goes back to the hitter, which is why in a way, MUgrad is correct. :)

Everyone's strengths and weaknesses are different. That's why there are elaborate scouting reports for each player on where to pitch guys.

buckshotrod
04-20-2006, 08:06 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



77 extra base hits and only 101 rbis with a team that led the league in runs scored. Lots of Ks with men on base.

Yachtzee
04-20-2006, 08:08 PM
77 extra base hits and only 101 rbis with a team that led the league in runs scored. Lots of Ks with men on base.

Or lots of extra base hits when those in front of him failed to get on. You can look at it both ways.

Cyclone792
04-20-2006, 08:33 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 can partially give you what you're looking for based on his PA per count data, provided I actually figured this up correctly:

Coming into this season, Dunn had seen 11,837 total pitches.
Dunn had taken 5,190 of those pitches for balls (43.85 percent).
Dunn had 4,478 pitches for strikes (37.83 percent). Those are all of the following: foul balls occurring on 0 and 1 strike counts, swinging and non-swinging strikes together as I do not have the data that splits up strike data (I'm pretty sure it does exist, however, because I've seen entire season splits pitch by pitch for Bonds before).
Dunn had 1,587 ball in play pitches, including home runs (13.41 percent).
If my above figures are correct, that leaves precisely 582 pitches that were two-strike fouls for Dunn, i.e. fouled off pitches after the count was already two strikes on him (4.92 percent).

How's that compare to other hitters? Well, I'm not going to look up every other hitter, but I'll look up one random guy. How about Albert Pujols since everyone pretty much agrees he's the best hitter in baseball right now ...

Coming into this season, Pujols had seen 12,972 total pitches
Pujols had taken 5,494 of those pitches for balls (42.35 percent).
Pujols had 4,295 pitches for strikes (33.11 percent).
Pujols had 2,682 ball in play pitches, including home runs (20.68 percent).
If my above figure are correct, that leaves precisely 501 pitches that were two-strike fouls for Pujols (3.86 percent).

The key stat to look at is the percentage of pitches taken for balls. The higher that percentage, the greater the player's abilities to lay off pitches out of the strike zone. If a player swings and puts a ball in play that would not have been a strike, he likely accomplishing nothing more than making an out.

Now I know the first thing you'll look at and say is "Dunn took way more strikes than Pujols, and he needs to be swinging the bat on those strikes."

Several things on that:

1) Pujols' contact rate when he does swing is probably better than Dunn's contact rate, though it is possible for that to not be the case.

2) Swinging at a "strike" that's not in your individual hitting zone is not a good pitch to swing at when there is a 0-strike count, and in some instances also when there's a 1-strike count. The key is to take pitches you cannot hit, even if they are strikes, and wait for the pitch that you can crush.

3) Given the strikeout rates of the two players, this is not at all surprising. What then happens is we go back to the always fun argument of whether strikeouts are any worse than regular outs, and the answer to that is "no, they are not," unless you consider a difference of about 0.03 percent to be significant at all (and the answer to that is, again, "no, it is not.").

4) Dunn gets into a hitters count in 44.72 percent of his plate appearances whereas Pujols getting into a hitters count in 40.97 percent of his plate appearances.

5) Dunn gets caught in a pitchers count in 23.76 percent of his plate appearances whereas Pujols gets caught in a pitchers count in 26.29 percent of his plate appearances.

So in summary, despite the fact that Dunn takes more strikes than Pujols, he also sees more balls than Pujols and puts himself in better batting counts than Pujols does. If Pujols had the plate discipline that Dunn does in laying off more balls and getting himself into better batting counts, he'd be an even better hitter than he already is. Likewise, if Dunn was even more selective and had more plate discipline than he already does, he'd be an even better hitter than he already is.

I will also add this: Albert Pujols is a freak of nature, and already a better hitter than even Jimmie Foxx ever was. One advantage Pujols has over just about every hitter I've ever seen, including Barry Bonds, is that he's the best two-strike hitter in a non-full count situation (i.e. 0-2, 1-2 and 2-2). His advantage in those batting counts attributes quite a bit to his hitting supremacy over most everyone in the league, excluding Bonds 2001-2004.

TheGARB
04-20-2006, 08:57 PM
Where could I find out how many 3rd strikes someone takes or how many strikes someone takes compared to the rest of the league??

From 2005:


Player Called K Other K BB
Pat Burrell 67 93 99
Adam Dunn 54 114 114
Morgan Ensberg 51 68 85
Richie Sexson 51 116 89
Bobby Abreu 46 88 117
Alex Rodriguez 44 95 91
Jim Edmonds 44 95 91
Mark Bellhorn 43 69 52
Manny Ramirez 42 77 80
Preston Wilson 41 107 45

The most important thing to note is that most of the guys on this list also walk a lot. It's a trade off that I think Nate Silver of BP (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=4085) can explain better than I can:


A player with the Pujols typology…

* High batting average
* Moderate walk rate

…will develop better with a lower strikeout rate, but a player with the Dunn typology …

* Low batting average
* High walk rate

…would prefer a higher strikeout rate.

What in the hell is going on here?

What I think is going on--bear with me here--is that all great hitters can be categorized more or less into one of two typologies:

Early-Count Hitters: These hitters have extremely quick bats, excellent plate coverage, and will not take many pitches, especially for strikes. They tend to have very high batting averages, moderate-to-strong isolated power, moderate walk rates and low strikeout rates. They also tend to be reasonably good athletes, often playing premium defensive positions. Examples include Vladimir Guerrero, Joe DiMaggio, Derek Jeter and George Brett.

Late-Count Hitters: These hitters have outstanding-pitch recognition skills. Rather than force the issue, they wait for the pitcher to make a mistake with the pitch type or location they find most favorable. These hitters hit for moderate batting averages, strong or very strong isolated power, high walk rates and high strikeout rates. They tend to be big and bulky and slow. Examples include Jim Thome, Mark McGwire and Reggie Jackson.

To summarize:



Typology BA ISO BB Rate K Rate Speed
Early-Count Hitters Very High Moderate-High Moderate Low Moderate-High
Late-Count Hitters Moderate Very High High High Low-Moderate

What I think is going on is that the closer a hitter is to one of these idealized typologies, the better he is likely to do. Vladimir Guerrero, for example, doesn't make any "sense" with a high strikeout rate, since his hitting approach involves swinging at pitches that lesser hitters wouldn't dare dream of attacking. If Guerrero wasn't phenomenally good at actually making contact with these pitches, his approach would not work nearly as well. Conversely, a hitter like Jim Thome wouldn't make any sense with a lower strikeout rate. Because Thome does have some holes in his swing, he needs to work the pitcher and the count, until he gets a pitch to his liking, which he will then hit very, very far. High strikeout rates and high walk rates are a necessary consequence of this approach, since he will go deep into so many counts. (I think it's important to note that under this theory, a hitter like Thome isn't "choosing" to take a lot of walks. The walks, rather, are a beneficial side effect of the way in which he finds it most natural to go about getting base hits and home runs).

RFS62
04-20-2006, 09:47 PM
Accept no substitutes

RFS62
04-20-2006, 09:54 PM
BTW, this isn't just a visual aid. It's a representation of the hitting philosophy of the greatest hitter who ever lived. The ultimate combination of physical skill, mental toughness, eyesight, coordination, and tactical discipline ever to pick up a baseball bat.

No other hitter in history studied the game, the pitchers, the mechanics of the stroke, the tactics, the zen, the inner game of hitting a baseball better than the Splendid Splinter.

And having said that, I would wager that he would have made adjustments to the current state of the game were he playing today. "The Science of Hitting" is the best named book ever written on sports.

He pursued the truth with relentless, ruthless precision. It didn't matter what the truth turned out to be. He hunted it down and learned everything there was to know about it, and made it his own. One of the greatest egos in the history of sport had no ego when it came to finding the truth, the essence of hitting.

RFS62
04-20-2006, 10:00 PM
I think the implication is as great as Williams was, there were things he knew that he couldn't do.



Exactly.

Awareness of "what is" is the key. Non-judgmental awareness. The zen of hitting.

Everyone's hitting chart is different. Williams wasn't trying to say his zone was the same as anyone elses. He was saying that you have to become aware of what your own zone is and chose accordingly.

Cyclone792
04-20-2006, 10:29 PM
All excerpts from Ed Linn's biography of Williams, Hitter: The Life and Turmoils of Ted Williams ...


In the springtime of 1938 Rogers Hornsby had imparted the words of advice that Ted would repeat for the rest of his career: "Get a good ball to hit."

Why, one cannot help but wonder, did that advice leave such a lasting impression? There was hardly anything revolutionary about it. Hornsby was really only confirming what Ted had been doing all his life.

When Ted was visualizing pitches for himself in his backyard, was he not, almost by definition, swinging at nothing but strikes? Yes, he would sometimes burst into tears when he was walked in high school, but did that not reveal better than anything that he was refusing to swing at a bad pitch? Even his mother, who never did learn anything about baseball, would ask spectators while she was touring the park with her tambourine, "Why do they keep walking Teddy? He wants to hit the ball."

The contradiction here is mind-boggling. Who would have dreamed that the kid who cried when eh was walked would be able to discipline himself so completely that his base-on-balls percentage would be the highest of anybody who has ever played the game? Let alone that he would be criticized through the greater part of his career for being "willing to take a walk in the clutch instead of swinging at a ball just a little off the plate."

Ted himself can't explain why Hornsby's words hit him so forcefully. "It wasn't anything I hadn't thought of before," he concedes. "It wasn't anything new. I'd walked an awful lot in high school and in San Diego. Hornsby just put it in a way that clicked for me."

Do you know what it was? Do you know what the answer has to be? Hornsby had put it to him in such a way as to turn a negative into a positive. They weren't doing it to him by not giving him a pitch he could swing at. He was doing it to them by refusing to swing at a bad pitch.

-------------------------

An even finer element of timing comes into play to constitute the difference between a towering home run and a sinking line drive. "Home runs come from striking the ball in the right place with a slight uppercut, if you can call a four-to-five degree upswing an uppercut. The sinking liner comes when you were just about the center of that slight uppercut on the ball, which is enough to get the ball in the air but still get top spin to it. But occasionally you'll get under it and get under the spin with all the power you needed, and it just keeps going, and then if you get a little wind behind it, it goes a ton."

That's what it was about as far as Ted Williams is concerned. To get the ball up in the air, with power. "To hit a bullet line drive is one thing; to hit it hard in the air is another thing. I've criticized some hitters who had extreme power and they'd hit line drives and blue darters through the infield - as hard as anybody could hit - and they're singles or potential double-play balls. That never meant much to me, a hard-hit ball through the infield. Nice. Felt great off the ball. But I'd go to first base and say, 'Boy, I wish 'd have got that in the air.'"

-------------------------

It was not until the Red Sox lost some key games at the end of the 1948 and 1949 that the Boston press - and not the Boston press alone - began to taunt Ted for his refusal to go after a pitch a little out of the strike zone when the game was on the line.

"Suppose I started swinging at off-center pitching," Ted would say. "Say an inch or two off the plate, either side. Right away I'm working for the pitcher instead of myself. I'm making the plate twenty-one inches wide instead of the regulation seventeen. So then I'm going to be swinging at pitches below my knees and above my armpits. Don't think the pitchers aren't quick to notice. So they feed me more teasers, a bit farther away - sucker stuff which I foul off, dribble in the dirt, or pop up."

Once you had established yourself as a good hitter, as Ted discovered in his second season, the pitchers were going to pitch you tougher and tougher, and that made it more essential than ever to understand what you were doing. "A good hitter has one instinctive thing about him, that he knows a ball that's tough and he doesn't go after it. Otherwise, he's going to have a thirty percent bigger strike zone, and he's never really going to get a helluva lot better. The good pitchers make him hit bad balls, he can't lay off of them, and that's where the pitchers make a heyday out of it."

-------------------------

To Bobby Doerr, he was the most disciplined hitter he ever saw. "I look back now," Doerr says, "and it seems that seventy-five to eighty percent of hitters in the major leagues give about seventy-five times at bat away in 500 times at bat. One way or another. Either not being ready for the pitch or going out of the strike zone. With Ted, if he gave ten times at bat away in the season it was a rarity. That's where he was so great."

buckshotrod
04-20-2006, 10:30 PM
6th inning runners on 1st and 3rd Dunn up.....strike 3! Now 3 for 19 with RISP.

KronoRed
04-20-2006, 10:36 PM
He also expanded his zone to try and do something, see what happens when he tries to do that?

buckshotrod
04-20-2006, 11:04 PM
7th inning...he continues to prove my point......3 for 20.....dunn with this thread

westofyou
04-20-2006, 11:59 PM
7th inning...he continues to prove my point......3 for 20.....dunn with this thread
Tonight 8:04pm a poster continues to belabor a point on small sample size and the belief that all the Reds offense must revolve around Adam Dunn.

Cyclone792
04-21-2006, 12:15 AM
6th inning runners on 1st and 3rd Dunn up.....strike 3! Now 3 for 19 with RISP.


7th inning...he continues to prove my point......3 for 20.....dunn with this thread

Entering tonight, the Reds were averaging 6.33 runs per game, good for 2nd in all of MLB. How are they doing it?

Reds OBP: .372,, 3rd in MLB
Reds SLG: .529, 1st in MLB
Reds OPS: .901, 1st in MLB

Reds BA w/RISP: .260, 19th in MLB

Which of the above factors does not correlate whatsoever to our actual runs per game average?

M2
04-21-2006, 12:25 AM
Reds OBP: .372,, 3rd in MLB
Reds SLG: .529, 1st in MLB
Reds OPS: .901, 1st in MLB

Reds BA w/RISP: .260, 19th in MLB

Which of the above factors does not correlate whatsoever to our actual runs per game average?

Stop making sense.

SteelSD
04-21-2006, 12:45 AM
Exactly.

Awareness of "what is" is the key. Non-judgmental awareness. The zen of hitting.

Everyone's hitting chart is different. Williams wasn't trying to say his zone was the same as anyone elses. He was saying that you have to become aware of what your own zone is and chose accordingly.

"The way those clubs shift against Ted Williams, I can't understand how he can be so stupid not to accept the challenge to him and hit to left field." - Ty Cobb

"The most important thing about hitting I learned from Rogers Hornsby,'' Williams said. "And that was to wait for a good ball to hit. It sounds simple, but many players today simply can not or do not wait for a good pitch."

"If you get fooled by a pitch with less than two strikes, take it." -Ted Williams

[I]"The inside half of the plate. That's where history's made." -Ted Williams

Think. Don't just swing. Think about the pitcher, what he threw you last time up, his best pitch, who's up next. Think. - Ted Williams

Buckaholic
04-21-2006, 01:02 AM
Tonight 8:04pm a poster continues to belabor a point on small sample size and the belief that all the Reds offense must revolve around Adam Dunn.

I decided to do something productive this evening during the Reds game and I did a sample of stats from 2002-current for RISP situations for Dunn, Bonds, Pujols and Alex Rodgriguez.

Since 2002 here are the numbers:

BA w/RISP

Pujols (.349) - 202 for 578
Bonds (.356) - 89 for 250
A-Rod (.294) - 194 for 660
Dunn (.217) - 112 for 515

You saw that correctly. In 4 plus years now, Dunn has a .217 batting average with RISP. That's 515 at-bats and over 700 plate appearances.

Here are the rest of the numbers...

Pujols .349 BA/48 HR, 322 RBI/1.170 OPS/RBI every 2.3 PA/152 BB, 56 SO
Bonds .356 BA/28 HR, 166 RBI/1.659 OPS/RBI every 3.1 PA/270 BB, 32 SO
A-Rod .294 BA/44 HR, 301 RBI/0.950 OPS/RBI every 2.6 PA/120 BB, 150 SO
Dunn .217 BA/43 HR, 200 RBI/0.893 OPS/RBI every 3.5 PA/182 BB, 180 SO

Anyone still not recognize the importance of getting basehits with RISP and batting average? Albert Pujols has an almost identical walk rate as Dunn, yet in basically four seasons, he has over 100 RBI's more than Dunn. That's 25 more runs driven in per season.

Barry Bonds has half the at-bats in four seasons as Dunn and only 34 less RBI's.

I think sample size isn't really an issue now. It's productivity. Dunn is a terrific power hitter, but if people take off their Red-colored glasses, they will see that he has an obvious weakness still. To be an elite hitter, he still has to get better in these situations.

Sure, he's still better than most of the other hitters, but I would think everyone wants Dunn to continue to improve. He's leaving a lot of runs out there on the basepaths when he goes to bat.

GullyFoyle
04-21-2006, 01:08 AM
Pujols (.349) - 202 for 578
Bonds (.356) - 89 for 250
A-Rod (.294) - 194 for 660
Dunn (.217) - 112 for 515


Did anyone say Dunn was the equal to any of these guys? Hmmm.. Three Hall of Famers....

I think Dunn can be a great ball player and not necesarily be these three... which he is...

BTW, what was Bonds numbers at the age of Dunn... betting not as good as the current numbers...

Buckaholic
04-21-2006, 01:21 AM
Did anyone say Dunn was the equal to any of these guys? Hmmm.. Three Hall of Famers....

I think Dunn can be a great Ball player and not necesarily be these three... which he is...

BTW, what was Bonds numbers at the age of Dunn... betting not as good as the current numbers...

I don't know that anyone has compared Dunn to those players, but I think people needed to recognize how far he has to go. After all, people here question why some criticize Dunn's ability to drive in runs with RISP...these stats show exactly why. Dunn is an enormous power hitter, but he leaves alot to be desire with runners at second and/or third.

Here's another interesting statistical comparison:

Last year, Garrett Atkins hit 13 homers and 89 RBI's. He had a .793 OPS.
Also last year, Adam Dunn hit 40 homers and 101 RBI's. He had a .927 OPS.

However, here are their RISP breakdowns:

A. Dunn (32 for 129 .248 BA/ 11 HR, 62 RBI's/ 51 BB's, 40 SO's/ 1.042 OPS
G Atkins (51 for 165 .309 BA/ 5 HR, 74 RBI's/ 9 BB's, 21 SO's/ .833 OPS

I picked this comparison because of what I was trying to say in another thread. Garrett Atkins is more of a singles hitter. He doesn't have half the power that Dunn has. In fact, they had almost identical numbers of plate appearances. Yes, it's true that Dunn had a better OPS but yet Atkins had an RBI every 2.4 plate appearances and Dunn had one every 2.9 plate appearances. Another example that sometimes OPS isn't the end all of a discussion for this situation and also that Dunn could really put up some scary numbers if he hits more often.

M2
04-21-2006, 01:21 AM
Wow, Adam Dunn pales in comparison to three of the best four-year runs ever. Whodathunkit?

westofyou
04-21-2006, 01:23 AM
I think sample size isn't really an issue now. It's productivity.

That's rich, why not just compare him too Ruth, Wagner and Foxx?

IF you want to be productive, try looking at Reggie Jackson and Mike Schmidt's RISP at the same age...(which BTW represents 25% of all his at bats and we're still debating about it)

westofyou
04-21-2006, 01:24 AM
OPS isn't the end all of a discussion for this situation Yet RISP and RBI's are?

SteelSD
04-21-2006, 01:29 AM
Did anyone say Dunn was the equal to any of these guys? Hmmm.. Three Hall of Famers....

I think Dunn can be a great ball player and not necesarily be these three... which he is...

BTW, what was Bonds numbers at the age of Dunn... betting not as good as the current numbers...

No reason to worry. Buck still thinks that four balls versus three strikes equals RBI "opportunity".

Anyone actually arguing that Hit rate matters can't use total Plate Appearances. I've seen it before and crushed that methodology before because it makes no sense whatsoever- particularly when the guy making the argument refuses to post the SLG w/RISP rates.

Bad analysis is never to be believed.

Buckaholic
04-21-2006, 01:30 AM
Yet RISP and RBI's are?


Nope. But no one claimed they were. However, someone did in fact claim that BA w/RISP was useless.

Check out the Atkins/Dunn comparison. Garrett freakin Atkins is not a hall of famer. Yet he outproduced Dunn last year.

The point is, there is a mentality in this thread that Adam Dunn's criticism w/RISP isn't validated. Considering the numbers show he has much room for improvement, I would say it is validated.

Buckaholic
04-21-2006, 01:31 AM
No reason to worry. Buck still thinks that four balls versus three strikes equals RBI "opportunity".

Anyone actually arguing that Hit rate matters can't use total Plate Appearances. I've seen it before and crushed that methodology before because it makes no sense whatsoever- particularly when the guy making the argument refuses to post the SLG w/RISP rates.

Bad analysis is never to be believed.

Just because you say it's bad doesn't make it so. You're selecting which numbers you want to use and throwing out the rest. It doesn't work like that. You gotta look at the entire picture.

Here is a fact: Adam Dunn had more plate appearances last year but Garrett Atkins drove in more runs when given RBI opportunities with runners at second or third or both.

GullyFoyle
04-21-2006, 01:31 AM
Here's another interesting statistical comparison:


How about this comparison since AVG. is a bad stat:

2003-2005 w/ RISP

A-Rod OBP .381
Dunn OBP .431
Pujols OBP .478
Bonds OBP.694

And if you think AVG is more important than OBP with RISP then you should see this thread: http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=45188

edit:spelling

Patrick Bateman
04-21-2006, 01:34 AM
he outproduced Dunn last year.


:bash:

SteelSD
04-21-2006, 01:39 AM
Just because you say it's bad doesn't make it so. You're selecting which numbers you want to use and throwing out the rest. It doesn't work like that. You gotta look at the entire picture.

The next time you look at the "total picture", it'll be the first.

I gave you multiple examples of accurate analysis and you either ignored them or don't know how to process them. Folks have demonstrated- beyond a shadow of a doubt- what actually correlates with Run Scoring and you've ignored that as well. You've ignored every piece of data given to you and now you expect folks to take bad analysis seriously. Now, regardless of your behavior earlier in the thread, I appreciate your attempt to actually use data but you'd be better off asking questions rather than positioning bias-led analysis as being significant.

Nothing personal, but you've brought a knife to a gunfight. That doesn't exactly work out pretty much ever.

Buckaholic
04-21-2006, 01:46 AM
The next time you look at the "total picture", it'll be the first.

I gave you multiple examples of accurate analysis and you either ignored them or don't know how to process them. Folks have demonstrated- beyond a shadow of a doubt- what actually correlates with Run Scoring and you've ignored that as well. You've ignored every piece of data given to you and now you expect folks to take bad analysis seriously. Now, regardless of your behavior earlier in the thread, I appreciate your attempt to actually use data but you'd be better off asking questions rather than positioning bias-led analysis as being significant.

Nothing personal, but you've brought a knife to a gunfight. That doesn't exactly work out pretty much ever.

Steel, you just don't get it. There is no such thing as "beyond a shadow of a doubt." The statistical world, specifically, sports world doesn't work like that.

You cannot positively sit there and tell me any data is 'matter of fact, case closed.' There's just no such thing - that simply does not exist in baseball. Period.

It's not that I'm ignoring your data, I'm simply telling you, there is no such thing as one stat positively being better than another stat, no questions asked.

You can personally go from point A to point B. I can go from the same point A to point B. But we can take different routes and there is no such thing as one being positively better than another.

In my eyes and in many other peoples' eyes, it's your analysis that's bad. You have a narrow minded approach to statistics. You see things only one way. And the truth is, you have no proof. Thousands of stat geeks have crunched the numbers and many people see things differently than you do.

You can quote every baseball stat geek known to man, it doesn't make your analysis correct. In fact, the very fact you're willing to claim there is no other way than your way makes your entire arguments moot because the world doesnt work but one way.

Statistical correlation relies on so many factors there is no proof one stat is more correct than another. A lot of things go into scoring runs. You can throw your correlations out the window. Even if more times than not one statistic correlates to runs scored more than another, that doesn't mean it always works like that. But go ahead, see the world through your selective tunnel vision if you must.

kyred14
04-21-2006, 01:53 AM
Steel, you just don't get it. There is no such thing as "beyond a shadow of a doubt." The statistical world, specifically, sports world doesn't work like that.

You cannot positively sit there and tell me any data is 'matter of fact, case closed.' There's just no such thing - that simply does not exist in baseball. Period.

It's not that I'm ignoring your data, I'm simply telling you, there is no such thing as one stat positively being better than another stat, no questions asked.

You can personally go from point A to point B. I can go from the same point A to point B. But we can take different routes and there is no such thing as one being positively better than another.

In my eyes and in many other peoples' eyes, it's your analysis that's bad. You have a narrow minded approach to statistics. You see things only one way. And the truth is, you have no proof. Thousands of stat geeks have crunched the numbers and many people see things differently than you do.

You can quote every baseball stat geek known to man, it doesn't make your analysis correct. In fact, the very fact you're willing to claim there is no other way than your way makes your entire arguments moot because the world doesnt work but one way.

Statistical correlation relies on so many factors there is no proof one stat is more correct than another. A lot of things go into scoring runs. You can throw your correlations out the window. Even if more times than not one statistic correlates to runs scored more than another, that doesn't mean it always works like that. But go ahead, see the world through your selective tunnel vision if you must.

Pot meet kettle.

westofyou
04-21-2006, 01:53 AM
Check out the Atkins/Dunn comparison. Garrett freakin Atkins is not a hall of famer. Yet he outproduced Dunn last year.

Not on any planet I've visited.


ADAM DUNN Vs League Average

YEAR TEAM AGE G AB R H 2B 3B HR HR% RBI BB SO SB CS AVG SLG OBA OPS
2005 Reds 25 4 34 -11 5 -1 23 4.28 31 61 70 -5 2 -.022 .112 .049 .161

YEAR TEAM RC RCAA RCAP OWP RC/G TB EBH ISO SEC BPA IBB HBP SAC SF GIDP OUTS PA POS
2005 Reds 41 2.66 62 27 .134 .236 .150 9 6 -4 -2 7 0 64 LF

GARRETT ATKINS Vs League Average

YEAR TEAM AGE G AB R H 2B 3B HR HR% RBI BB SO SB CS AVG SLG OBA OPS
2005 Rockies 25 12 -7 13 3 -2 -3 -0.58 24 -5 -20 -8 1 .019 -.002 .008 .007

YEAR TEAM RC RCAA RCAP OWP RC/G TB EBH ISO SEC BPA IBB HBP SAC SF GIDP OUTS PA POS
2005 Rockies -1 -0.07 4 -2 -.021 -.049 -.030 -4 -1 -4 0 -6 0 2 3B

Cyclone792
04-21-2006, 01:56 AM
Buck, not to be harsh, but all your analysis proved was that you don't understand how actual offensive run production occurs. Nobody here is "picking which numbers to choose," but what they are doing is using the best short-hand metrics that correlate to actual run scoring.

Here, do yourself a favor ...

Use that same sample size of 2002-2005 and break out Excel. In column A, list all 120 teams from all four of those seasons. In column B, list each teams' total runs scored in their respective row. Plug in team batting average in column C for each team, team on-base percentage in column D for each team, team slugging percentage in column E for each team, team OPS in column F for each team, and finally, team batting average w/RISP in column G for each team.

Run a correlation data analysis on all that data. Take a look at the correlation of all factors as it relates to runs scored. Look long and hard.

Finally, ask yourself what you're seeing. If you're unsure what you're seeing, post your exact results and I'll calmly explain to you what you're seeing. My hope is if you run the correlation yourself you may start to understand what we're talking about.

M2
04-21-2006, 01:57 AM
So Adam Dunn drove in more runs per AB w/RISP than Garrett Atkins. He also came around to score 71 times after he came up with RISP compared to 50 for Atkins. So, despite the BA differential, Dunn was more effective when he swung the bat and his OB in those situations set up more runs for his team after his ABs.

Just to be clear about this, Adam Dunn contributed to more raw runs in RISP situations than Garrett Atkins. Not only that, but if we wanted to measure the component runs value of what Dunn did in those situations, he wound up with 37.5 runs created and an RC/27 of 9.94 w/RISP. With RISP Atkins had an RC of 25.3 and RC/27 of 5.37. That would be a landslide victory for Dunn in terms of who the more productive player was with runners in scoring position.

Got any other barrels of fish that need shooting?

kyred14
04-21-2006, 01:57 AM
Not on any planet I've visited.


ADAM DUNN Vs League Average

YEAR TEAM AGE G AB R H 2B 3B HR HR% RBI BB SO SB CS AVG SLG OBA OPS
2005 Reds 25 4 34 -11 5 -1 23 4.28 31 61 70 -5 2 -.022 .112 .049 .161

YEAR TEAM RC RCAA RCAP OWP RC/G TB EBH ISO SEC BPA IBB HBP SAC SF GIDP OUTS PA POS
2005 Reds 41 2.66 62 27 .134 .236 .150 9 6 -4 -2 7 0 64 LF

GARRETT ATKINS Vs League Average

YEAR TEAM AGE G AB R H 2B 3B HR HR% RBI BB SO SB CS AVG SLG OBA OPS
2005 Rockies 25 12 -7 13 3 -2 -3 -0.58 24 -5 -20 -8 1 .019 -.002 .008 .007

YEAR TEAM RC RCAA RCAP OWP RC/G TB EBH ISO SEC BPA IBB HBP SAC SF GIDP OUTS PA POS
2005 Rockies -1 -0.07 4 -2 -.021 -.049 -.030 -4 -1 -4 0 -6 0 2 3B

See now, you see the world through your "tunnel vision." Why can't you see the whole picture. I guess that must be BA w/ RISP, b/c it's only the stat the haters come up with.

Buckaholic
04-21-2006, 01:57 AM
Not on any planet I've visited.

The argument was with runners in scoring position. Try to keep up.

kyred14
04-21-2006, 01:59 AM
The argument was with runners in scoring position. Try to keep up.

The WHOLE picture, right.

westofyou
04-21-2006, 01:59 AM
The argument was with runners in scoring position. Try to keep up.
Sorry maybe you can talk slower.... this stuff is new to me.

westofyou
04-21-2006, 02:04 AM
Reggie Jackson 1971 and Leo Cardenas

Leo outproduced HOF Reggie Jackson

Wow Reggie is the pits.



Reggie Jackson

Situation AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB IBB SO HBP SH SF XI ROE GDP SB CS AVG OBP SLG
None On 325 24 93 16 1 24 24 34 0 91 5 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 .286 .363 .563
Men On 242 63 64 13 2 8 56 29 5 70 1 0 6 0 3 7 16 10 .264 .338 .434
RISP 121 54 24 4 0 3 38 19 5 37 1 0 6 0 2 0 4 4 .198 .299 .306
Bases Loaded 7 7 1 0 0 0 4 2 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 .143 .300 .143

Leo Cardenas

Situation AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB IBB SO HBP SH SF XI ROE GDP SB CS AVG OBP SLG
None On 312 13 80 14 2 13 13 28 0 46 1 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 .256 .320 .439
Men On 242 46 66 11 2 5 62 23 5 23 0 7 11 0 2 16 3 3 .273 .322 .397
RISP 139 43 37 7 2 3 58 19 5 16 0 2 11 0 2 5 1 0 .266 .331 .410
Bases Loaded 12 9 4 1 1 0 16 2 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 1 0 0 .333 .300 .583

Buckaholic
04-21-2006, 02:05 AM
Buck, not to be harsh, but all your analysis proved was that you don't understand how actual offensive run production occurs. Nobody here is "picking which numbers to choose," but what they are doing is using the best short-hand metrics that correlate to actual run scoring.

Here, do yourself a favor ...

Use that same sample size of 2002-2005 and break out Excel. In column A, list all 120 teams from all four of those seasons. In column B, list each teams' total runs scored in their respective row. Plug in team batting average in column C for each team, team on-base percentage in column D for each team, team slugging percentage in column E for each team, team OPS in column F for each team, and finally, team batting average w/RISP in column G for each team.

Run a correlation data analysis on all that data. Take a look at the correlation of all factors as it relates to runs scored. Look long and hard.

Finally, ask yourself what you're seeing. If you're unsure what you're seeing, post your exact results and I'll calmly explain to you what you're seeing. My hope is if you run the correlation yourself you may start to understand what we're talking about.

I understand what you're saying. With all due respect, though, I'm not the one trying to say that because one statistic correlates to runs scored more than another that it's always a better statistic. There are people on this board and in this thread that believe just because statistically the evidence points to one measurement more closely relating to a team's run production, that therefore in all cases the better player is the one that compares more favorably in those instances. Not only that, they stick to these same measurements like there's no other way.

The reality is that it's not that simple. Categories like OPS might be the best correlations. But they're not the only correlations and they're certainly not so dramatic that nothing else matters.

Since the correlation does not always exist, it cannot be accepted as fact. Until it's a virtual certainty, it's only a "trend". Granted, the evidence might point to there being a lot more cases than not pointing to those statistical measurements being the best correlations, but unless they always add up that way (and we know they don't), no one can dismiss the importance of other measurements in various situations.

GullyFoyle
04-21-2006, 02:07 AM
Nevermind

Cyclone792
04-21-2006, 02:11 AM
I understand what you're saying. With all due respect, though, I'm not the one trying to say that because one statistic correlates to runs scored more than another that it's always a better statistic. There are people on this board and in this thread that believe just because statistically the evidence points to one measurement more closely relating to a team's run production, that therefore in all cases the better player is the one that compares more favorably in those instances. Not only that, they stick to these same measurements like there's no other way.

The reality is that it's not that simple. Categories like OPS might be the best correlations. But they're not the only correlations and they're certainly not so dramatic that nothing else matters.

Since the correlation does not always exist, it cannot be accepted as fact. Until it's a virtual certainty, it's only a "trend". Granted, the evidence might point to there being a lot more cases than not pointing to those statistical measurements being the best correlations, but unless they always add up that way (and we know they don't), no one can dismiss the importance of other measurements in various situations.

You still haven't run the correlation.

I'll ask you again: run the correlation, look at the results, and ask yourself what you're seeing. Compare each correlation to one another. Look at OPS, and look at BA w/RISP, and ask yourself why there is a difference in how each correlates to run scoring.

Ask yourself why you're seeing what you're seeing.

Once you actually do all that and understand how run production occurs, you'll take back nearly all of what you've posted these last few days relating to statistics.

Buckaholic
04-21-2006, 02:11 AM
Sorry maybe you can talk slower.... this stuff is new to me.

If you guys would keep your mind open to other possibilities, it wouldn't seem so foreign. I know you're set in your ways at this point, but there are many ways to get from place to place effectively. Some ways work for one person, other ways work for another.

Buckaholic
04-21-2006, 02:13 AM
You still haven't run the correlation.

I'll ask you again: run the correlation, look at the results, and ask yourself what you're seeing. Compare each correlation to one another. Look at OPS, and look at BA w/RISP, and ask yourself why there is a difference in how each correlates to run scoring.

Ask yourself why you're seeing what you're seeing.

Once you actually do all that and understand how run production occurs, you'll take back nearly all of what you've posted these last few days relating to statistics.

I fully intend to. I will do that because I do not want to be like what I've accused others for not opening up to other possibilities. I will do the correlation for myself, that's not a problem. I have no problem with that.

westofyou
04-21-2006, 02:13 AM
If you guys would keep your mind open to other possibilities, it wouldn't seem so foreign. No offense, but you don't know me from Adam. or what the hell I know about the game based on this thread, so let's not pretend you do.

My mind's been open for most of my life.

Buckaholic
04-21-2006, 02:14 AM
Cyclone, do me a favor....

Message me with some advice at how to format this spreadsheet and what exactly to include. I'm pretty good with Excel, so it will be a breeze, but I want to know exactly what to include.

Buckaholic
04-21-2006, 02:18 AM
No offense, but you don't know me from Adam. or what the hell I know about the game based on this thread, so let's not pretend you do.

You wear your emotions/beliefs about baseball statistics on your sleeve and are quick to point them out to someone you disagree with.

After 20,000 posts, people can get a pretty good idea of your baseball beliefs and how set in your ways you are. You have pretty adamant beliefs about these stats, and I'm not criticizing that, I'm just saying when you see the sunrise every morning, you begin to trust that it will.

I don't know a thing about you outside of what you post on this board, but when you're as outspoken as the group of people you usually agree with, it's not a matter of your beliefs.

SteelSD
04-21-2006, 02:19 AM
Steel, you just don't get it. There is no such thing as "beyond a shadow of a doubt." The statistical world, specifically, sports world doesn't work like that.

Yes, it does.


You cannot positively sit there and tell me any data is 'matter of fact, case close.' There's just no such thing.

Yes, I can.


It's not that I'm ignoring your data, I'm simply telling you, there is no such thing as one stat positively being better than another stat, no questions ask.

The data that has the highest correlation with producing Runs is better than the data that doesn't. That's how we know that one statistic is a more accurate measurement than another or another. So it goes.


You can personally go from point A to point B. I can go from the same point A to point B. But we can take different routes and there is no such thing as one being positively better than another.

Yes there is. You've chosen to glom on to BA w/RISP but it's a horrible indicator.


In my eyes and in many other peoples' eyes, it's your analysis that's bad. You have a narrow minded approach to statistics. You see things only one way. And the truth is, you have no proof. Thousands of stat geeks have crunched the numbers and many people see things differently than you do.

No, they don't. But I very much appreciate your usage of the phrase "stat geek". That's an exceptionally positive phrase considering your earlier attempt to attribute emotional debate escalation to me. The mods already told you and I will remind you- take it private if you have an issue because there you can either insult me at will or maybe you'll figure out that I'm the kind of guy who'll buy you a beer at the next Redzone gathering we could meet at.

You should also note that I have not negged you during this discussion and I would encourage no one to give you negative rep simply because of an emotional response that may have been somewhat out of character for you. Disagreement should never result in negative rep points unless one of the debate parties takes it beyond the realm of sniping and gets truly personal.


You can quote every baseball stat geek known to man, it doesn't make your analysis correct. In fact, the very fact you're willing to claim there is no other way than your way makes your entire arguments moot because the world doesnt work but one way.

Your arguments are moot when they don't make any sense. Teams that make fewer Outs and acquire more Bases while making fewer Outs tend to score more Runs than teams who don't. That's the reality of things and it's beyond contestation. Those are the basic rules of the game of baseball.


Statistical correlation relies on so many factors there is no proof one stat is more correct than another. A lot of things go into scoring runs. You can throw your correlations out the window. Even if more times than not one statistic correlates to runs scored more than another, that doesn't mean it always works like that. But go ahead, see the world through your selective tunnel vision if you must.

Again, "always" has never been argued. What has been argued is probability and actual production. Batting Average has little to do with either the former or the latter- even situationally. If it did, the Reds couldn't have possibly scored the third most Runs w/RISP in the NL in 2005 with the 7th most PA, the 11th highest BA w/RISP, and more K's than any other team in the NL in that situation. I've noted that numerous times and you've never given a valid response to how that happened. You appear to think that achievement is impossible.

The 2005 Reds- as a team- hit like Adam Dunn with RISP (low BA/high OBP/high SLG) and ended up scoring as many Runs per PA as any other NL team that year. Yet, I continue to hear how the Reds (and Dunn) didn't produce when they actually did. That's clearly an analysis issue. And if I have "tunnel vision" then I'm perfectly satisfied to have it considering that folks who know the Earth isn't flat have the same issue.

And that's what we're talking about- obvious indicators you don't like versus bad indicators you do like. You like that which doesn't matter and I like that which does. The crux of the disagreement is that you can't figure out that which doesn't matter because of your innate bias. Let that bias go. Unlearn what you think you know and re-learn based on the fundamental rules of the game. That's all folks are asking. I had to make the same leap. Is it that much more difficult for you?

westofyou
04-21-2006, 02:21 AM
You wear your emotions/beliefs about baseball statistics on your sleeve and are quick to point them out to someone you disagree with.
Right back at you.


I don't know a thing about you outside of what you post on this board, but when you're as outspoken as the group of people you usually agree with, it's not a matter of your beliefs.
Sorry if you think it's a "group think" that's your cross to bear. I think for myself, despite your assertions otherwise.

Cyclone792
04-21-2006, 02:25 AM
Cyclone, do me a favor....

Message me with some advice at how to format this spreadsheet and what exactly to include. I'm pretty good with Excel, so it will be a breeze, but I want to know exactly what to include.

http://www.sciencebuddies.org/mentoring/project_ideas/Sports_p003.shtml

That's a pretty good site to instruct you how to set it all up. Scroll about one-fourth of the way down until you get to baseball stats related portion of the instructions. It will instruct you to copy/paste league data from Baseball Reference (http://www.baseball-reference.com), which has all those basic stats I listed above with the lone exception being BA w/RISP.

Retrosheet (http://www.retrosheet.org) has each individual team's RISP figures, though it takes some digging around to get them all. Maybe someone else has a reference that lists BA w/RISP for all teams each season on one page as that would help save loads of time.

BTW, if you have to use Retrosheet for the BA w/RISP figures, use the sample size of 2001-2004 and exclude 2005. The reasoning is because Retrosheet has yet to upload their 2005 numbers.

M2
04-21-2006, 02:26 AM
If you guys would keep your mind open to other possibilities, it wouldn't seem so foreign. I know you're set in your ways at this point, but there are many ways to get from place to place effectively. Some ways work for one person, other ways work for another.

Thank you Torquemada, I'll make sure to keep my mind open from here on in.

Seriously, you compare Dunn to a guy who was LESS PRODUCTIVE IN RISP SITUATIONS and then you write this? My mind's open to all sorts of stuff. Bad ideas and ham-handed, shoot-yourself-in-the-foot research just don't happen to be two of those things.

Do I think there's a way to deploy BA-heavy players to take advantage of their skills? You bet I do. It's a case I made for Sean Casey from time to time. I'm totally open-minded to that. But don't try to sell me on hogwash like Adam Dunn needs to rip apart his already highly productive game to chase a meaningless stat like BA w/RISP or that productive outs mean squat. Yeah, there's grey area in baseball, it just so happens though that those are two fairly black-and-white areas of the game.

It's no secret that OB and SLG are the two drivers for how a team scores runs and that players who deliver in both areas are, over time, the ones who wind up with the highest runs scored and RBI totals. It's also no secret that productive outs don't help a team score or win over the long haul and that players who hit into lots of productive are more often than not bad hitters. After roughly 140 years of professional baseball there are some things that have been learned about the game and no amount of you kicking and screaming about them will shove those genies back in the bottle.

SteelSD
04-21-2006, 02:30 AM
You wear your emotions/beliefs about baseball statistics on your sleeve and are quick to point them out to someone you disagree with.

After 20,000 posts, people can get a pretty good idea of your baseball beliefs and how set in your ways you are. You have pretty adamant beliefs about these stats, and I'm not criticizing that, I'm just saying when you see the sunrise every morning, you begin to trust that it will.

I don't know a thing about you outside of what you post on this board, but when you're as outspoken as the group of people you usually agree with, it's not a matter of your beliefs.

woy and I agree when we agree and disagree when we do not. Same with M2, MWM, FCB, flyer, cooper, etc. Every single one of the "stat heads" on this board has disagreed with every other "stat head" at some point in time.

There is no "clique" on this board that drives sabermetricans to agree with each other due to simplicity sake or because of some "follow the leader" concept. There is no leader. There is no predominant concept execept that which has been demonstrated to be true.

Knowing that, when the best minds on this board all agree on something while you disagree, it means you should probably take another look at your position. That is the constant. It matters not that you dislike that constant. What matters is whether or not you can learn from it.

Caveat Emperor
04-21-2006, 02:34 AM
If you guys would keep your mind open to other possibilities, it wouldn't seem so foreign. I know you're set in your ways at this point, but there are many ways to get from place to place effectively. Some ways work for one person, other ways work for another.

Alright, my mind is always open to learning the game better.

Here are the facts:

Fact: The Reds were one of the top scoring teams in baseball last year.
Fact: The Reds were not one of the better teams with either BA or BA w/ RISP last year
Fact: The Reds were among the league leaders in OBP and SLG last year.

Steel, M2, Woy and many other maintain this is because BA and BA w/ RISP are not good statistical indicators to look at when determining the productivity of a player and the productivity of a lineup. I've read their arguments and I agree with them, based on the data that I've looked at.

Propose, for me, an alternative hypothesis of why the Reds were able to be such a proficient offensive ballclub while being deficient in areas that you have highlighted as being concerning. If you find something lacking in their analysis, tell me why I should be looking at that instead of what they say is important.

I'm all Kearns.

Buckaholic
04-21-2006, 02:35 AM
Originally Posted by Buckaholic
Steel, you just don't get it. There is no such thing as "beyond a shadow of a doubt." The statistical world, specifically, sports world doesn't work like that.

Yes, it does.

Statisticians that do statistics for a living would look at probablities with regard to the correlations you're speaking of and say that it does not work like that.


Yes, I can.

Sure, you can, but you're wrong.



Quote:
In my eyes and in many other peoples' eyes, it's your analysis that's bad. You have a narrow minded approach to statistics. You see things only one way. And the truth is, you have no proof. Thousands of stat geeks have crunched the numbers and many people see things differently than you do.


No, they don't. But I very much appreciate your usage of the phrase "stat geek". That's an exceptionally positive phrase considering your earlier attempt to attribute emotional debate escalation to me. The mods already told you and I will remind you- take it private if you have an issue because there you can either insult me at will or maybe you'll figure out that I'm the kind of guy who'll buy you a beer at the next Redzone gathering we could meet at.

You should also note that I have not negged you during this discussion and I would encourage no one to give you negative rep simply because of an emotional response that may have been somewhat out of character for you. Disagreement should never result in negative rep points unless one of the debate parties takes it beyond the realm of sniping and gets truly personal.

I did not call you a stat geek. That was a broad term and wasn't meant as a negative connotation anyhow. As far as the negative rep points, you're right that it probably shouldn't. I'm not concerned about rep points. If I were worried about post counts and reputation, I would probably do a lot differently. The reason I have only 400 posts in over 4 years is simply because I have watched people get into the exact same predicament as I did this afternoon with you and others usually about this same sort of topic. So therefore, since this is still an active board and one that I enjoy visiting, I don't like to get involved because I don't think people should be chastised for believing differently.

Still even so, I'm doing nothing differently than you're doing with regards to responding. You know full well you've responded with subtle intent to take jabs, and I've only taken the boundaries to that same extent. What you're like outside of this message board probably is much different. I can only speak for what you're like on the board. I frankly don't appreciate your conduct in full, but in spirit of fair play, I'm sure you don't like mine. So we'll agree to adhere to the moderator's warnings for both of us and leave it at that. Even if I wanted to go an eye for an eye, you have 16,000 posts and knowing how this board operates, I'd lose with that philosophy.





Your arguments are moot when they don't make any sense. Teams that make fewer Outs and acquire more Bases while making fewer Outs tend to score more Runs than teams who don't. That's the reality of things and it's beyond contestation. Those are the basic rules of the game of baseball.

There are a lot of other strategies by managers and general managers that I've mentioned and you've thrown out the window. So I guess in a way, you could argue since you have downplayed real baseball strategy by professionall baseball personnel, I've interjected my fair share of logic.


Again, "always" has never been argued. What has been argued is probability and actual production. Batting Average has little to do with either the former or the latter- even situationally. If it did, the Reds couldn't have possibly scored the third most Runs w/RISP in the NL in 2005 with the 7th most PA, the 11th highest BA w/RISP, and more K's than any other team in the NL in that situation. I've noted that numerous times and you've never given a valid response to how that happened. You appear to think that achievement is impossible.

That's really strange, because I just said a few moments ago that there was no such thing as "beyond a shadow of a doubt" and then you said there is. But yet, in this statement, you claim "always" has never been argued. Those two terms are pretty close to meaning the same thing, but I'm confused which you really mean now. Is there such thing as beyond a shadow of a doubt? Or are you not arguing "always" but merely statistical probability. I'm sure you understand probability is not exact.


And that's what we're talking about- obvious indicators you don't like versus bad indicators you do like. You like that which doesn't matter and I like that which does. The crux of the disagreement is that you can't figure out that which doesn't matter because of your innate bias. Let that bias go. Unlearn what you think you know and re-learn based on the fundamental rules of the game. That's all folks are asking. I had to. Is it that much more difficult for you?

The real crux and the only source of bias is that you cling to one set way. I see things in many possibilities. There are so many factors and so many statistics with regards to production of baseball players. To single out one or two stats as the way to measure situations would be ignorant.

I suppose that's enough haggling for now. I'm going to continue to be civil because I owe it to you not to take it to a personal level, the board not to have to endure it and the moderators not to deal with it.

But have a good night.

Buckaholic
04-21-2006, 02:39 AM
Just one more point...

If there's not a clique, I laugh because I know there are a few people that have talked to me who have been in this position before. They named off the same people that stuck together when they tried to argue against anything SABR related.

If it's not interesting that most of the same people these persons said ganged up on them for disagreeing are the same people that have contributed against me in the past two threads. Yes, everyone disagrees sometimes, but you can't claim you guys don't stick together.

I've been here for four years guys, I've seen it for myself. So have others.

And Cyclone, thanks for the instructions. I'll be sure to give it a shot.

M2
04-21-2006, 02:51 AM
Just one more point...

If there's not a clique, I laugh because I know there are a few people that have talked to me who have been in this position before. They named off the same people that stuck together when they tried to argue against anything SABR related.

If it's not interesting that most of the same people these persons said ganged up on them for disagreeing are the same people that have contributed against me in the past two threads. Yes, everyone disagrees sometimes, but you can't claim you guys don't stick together.

I've been here for four years guys, I've seen it for myself. So have others.

I hear there's about 10 of them/us.

Though I'll grant you this. There's a collection of posters on this board (I'd list them in them in the triple digits) who don't sit on pat answers and who do a great job of blending stats with seamhead analysis. It's why I come to this board, because it's a place where I can run into fresh and good ideas, where I can discuss baseball with folks who can figure out that moves like trading for Ramon Ortiz are bound to blow up in your face while pure cheerleader fans are slapping high fives over getting a "proven" major league pitcher.

BTW, none of what anyone has written is "against you" per se, but you've tried to make the case for the baseball equivalents of the Tooth Fairy and Easter Bunny today. Sorry, but I'm not going to pretend those are viable theories for where your teeth go after they fall out and how the eggs get hidden on Easter morning.

Highlifeman21
04-21-2006, 03:19 AM
Listening to the big one, and I heard these words escape from Marty's mouth...

"I don't know that Adam Dunn will ever be any good with runners in scoring position."

Why is Marty against our best player? Thoughts anyone?

Since apparently I started this madness with a simple question, I'm amused by the fact that the bolded Marty statement above has essentially turned into a Sharks vs. Jets, Sabermetrics vs. Non-saber. argument. The statement via 700 WLW was simple: "I don't know that Adam Dunn will ever be any good with runners in scoring position."

I'm assuming Marty looked at Dunn being IIRC 2 for 15 at the time w/ RISP as AVG alone, when the majority of this board/thread have painstakenly pointed out that if you step outside of the default Yahoo! Fantasy Baseball scoring categories (R/HR/RBI/SB/AVG), you might realize that Adam Dunn is a young, emerging baseball player who has a career OBP 136 points higher than his career AVG, all the while having a career SLG over .500.

I doubt Marty's a sabermetric guy, due to the fact that he grew up on AVG/HR/RBI, but that doesn't mean he's completely out of touch with reality.

The fact of the matter is that Adam Dunn DOES have a low BA w/RISP, but that 1 stat does not determine his entire worth/value.

Phenomenally interesting and insightful input from all involved with this thread, should prove interesting to see where it goes from here!

Raisor
04-21-2006, 09:30 AM
woy and I agree when we agree and disagree when we do not. Same with M2, MWM, FCB, flyer, cooper, etc. Every single one of the "stat heads" on this board has disagreed with every other "stat head" at some point in time.




You didn't mention Raisor!!!

You know how much I hate not being mentioned! I am NOT an "etc".

GRRRRR.

:mooner:

Johnny Footstool
04-21-2006, 09:49 AM
If there's not a clique, I laugh because I know there are a few people that have talked to me who have been in this position before. They named off the same people that stuck together when they tried to argue against anything SABR related.

Kind of like that whold "the Earth is round" clique. I've tried to argue on many occasions that the Earth is rectangular, but as soon as I start, they all gang up on me. ;)

TRF
04-21-2006, 10:00 AM
I hear there's about 10 of them/us.

Though I'll grant you this. There's a collection of posters on this board (I'd list them in them in the triple digits) who don't sit on pat answers and who do a great job of blending stats with seamhead analysis. It's why I come to this board, because it's a place where I can run into fresh and good ideas, where I can discuss baseball with folks who can figure out that moves like trading for Ramon Ortiz are bound to blow up in your face while pure cheerleader fans are slapping high fives over getting a "proven" major league pitcher.

BTW, none of what anyone has written is "against you" per se, but you've tried to make the case for the baseball equivalents of the Tooth Fairy and Easter Bunny today. Sorry, but I'm not going to pretend those are viable theories for where your teeth go after they fall out and how the eggs get hidden on Easter morning.

I count myself as one of those guys. While I agree that a K is just a K, I've argued that at the Team level it makes the team easy prey for high K pitchers. It's why the reds punish pitchers like Rusch, and are dominated by guys like Oswalt.

But that is another thread. Discussion is always ok. Always. It's how your knowledge of the game grows beyond the stats found on the backs of baseball cards we got as kids. Right now, my recently aquired knowledge is allowing me to enjoy the game at new levels. And I am fascinated by what I see in guys like EE, FeLo and Phillips. Plus when you add knowledge to what you know about the physical side of the game, it makes watching each AB that much more fun.

I never assume I know more than i don't about any subject. Baseball is no exception.

Chip R
04-21-2006, 10:10 AM
Since apparently I started this madness with a simple question, I'm amused by the fact that the bolded Marty statement above has essentially turned into a Sharks vs. Jets, Sabermetrics vs. Non-saber. argument.

Rookies. :laugh:

Blimpie
04-21-2006, 10:28 AM
It's kind of redundant to drag a guy who has been shot, stabbed and poisoned behind a car. ;)Rasputin agrees with you.

Highlifeman21
04-21-2006, 10:29 AM
Rookies. :laugh:


I know, I know, a lot to learn, but at least I'm on the path...

M2
04-21-2006, 10:58 AM
Kind of like that whold "the Earth is round" clique. I've tried to argue on many occasions that the Earth is rectangular, but as soon as I start, they all gang up on me. ;)

And for the record, the "clique" that has argued points contrary to Buck's in just this thread alone includes you, me, Highlifeman21, Raisor, SteelSD, Caveat Emporer, Cyclone792, WOY, kyred14, GullyFoyle, Austin Kearns, paintmered, Yachtzee, The GARB, RFS62, TRF, Puffy, pedro, registerthis, IslandRed, membengal, Chip R, Blimpie, rdiersin, Ron Madden, KronoRed, gonelong, FCB, creek14, OnBaseMachine, Roy Tucker, BigDonkey44, flyer85, johngalt, MWM, wheels, BRM, RedsFanInMD, BigKlu, Buckeye Redleg, Heath, traderumor and Cooper. That's a 43-person clique in a single thread. I just love it when someone plays the martyr card that a small group is out to get him/her after a huge chunk of the board has taken an opposing position.

Blimpie
04-21-2006, 11:03 AM
And for the record, the "clique" that has argued points contrary to Buck's in just this thread alone includes you, me, Highlifeman21, Raisor, SteelSD, Caveat Emporer, Cyclone792, WOY, kyred14, GullyFoyle, Austin Kearns, paintmered, Yachtzee, The GARB, RFS62, TRF, Puffy, pedro, registerthis, IslandRed, membengal, Chip R, Blimpie, rdiersin, Ron Madden, KronoRed, gonelong, FCB, creek14, OnBaseMachine, Roy Tucker, BigDonkey44, flyer85, johngalt, MWM, wheels, BRM, RedsFanInMD, BigKlu, Buckeye Redleg, Heath, traderumor and Cooper. That's a 43-person clique in a single thread. I just love it when someone plays the martyr card that a small group is out to get him/her after a huge chunk of the board has taken an opposing position."Please accept my resignation. I don't want to belong to any club that will accept me as a member..."

--Groucho Marx

2001MUgrad
04-21-2006, 11:06 AM
You wear your emotions/beliefs about baseball statistics on your sleeve and are quick to point them out to someone you disagree with.

After 20,000 posts, people can get a pretty good idea of your baseball beliefs and how set in your ways you are.

It tells more than that.

westofyou
04-21-2006, 11:07 AM
It tells more than that.
Really? Why not let us know instead of the dig?

Eh?

registerthis
04-21-2006, 11:08 AM
And for the record, the "clique" that has argued points contrary to Buck's in just this thread alone includes you, me, Highlifeman21, Raisor, SteelSD, Caveat Emporer, Cyclone792, WOY, kyred14, GullyFoyle, Austin Kearns, paintmered, Yachtzee, The GARB, RFS62, TRF, Puffy, pedro, registerthis, IslandRed, membengal, Chip R, Blimpie, rdiersin, Ron Madden, KronoRed, gonelong, FCB, creek14, OnBaseMachine, Roy Tucker, BigDonkey44, flyer85, johngalt, MWM, wheels, BRM, RedsFanInMD, BigKlu, Buckeye Redleg, Heath, traderumor and Cooper. That's a 43-person clique in a single thread. I just love it when someone plays the martyr card that a small group is out to get him/her after a huge chunk of the board has taken an opposing position.

Wow, I'm a member of the "redsZone 43"! What does it take to get called up to the elite "RedsZone 10"?

Blimpie
04-21-2006, 11:10 AM
Wow, I'm a member of teh "redsZone 43"! What does it take to get called up to the elite "RedsZone 10"?On another thread, your dad has to be Roger Clemens...

http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=45184

pedro
04-21-2006, 11:11 AM
Wow, I'm a member of teh "redsZone 43"! What does it take to get called up to the elite "RedsZone 10"?

If we could recuit just one more member we'd have the same number as Adam Dunn (44) and then our plans for world domination by our evil cabal would surely come to hasty fruition.


soon my friends... soon.

2001MUgrad
04-21-2006, 11:14 AM
Really? Why not let us know instead of the dig?

Eh?


I like it to be left up to the imagination. Folks can Interpret how they see it and if the shoe fits, put it on. Also, a good way to stay out of trouble :cool:

BRM
04-21-2006, 11:16 AM
Wow, I'm a member of the "redsZone 43"! What does it take to get called up to the elite "RedsZone 10"?

I think we need to be more clutch. We are struggling right now in close and late situations. Being a better bunter probably helps as well.

registerthis
04-21-2006, 11:19 AM
I think we need to be more clutch. We are struggling right now in close and late situations. Being a better bunter probably helps as well.

Sorry, I only post well with the bases empty. Get myself a bad case of the nerves when I see other posters on base. Call it performance anxiety.

BRM
04-21-2006, 11:21 AM
Sorry, I only post well with the bases empty. Get myself a bad case of the nerves when I see other posters on base. Call it performance anxiety.

I know what you mean. I find myself chasing bad posts when there are other posters in scoring position. I need to be more patient.

RFS62
04-21-2006, 11:23 AM
I know what you mean. I find myself chasing bad posts when there are other posters in scoring position. I need to be more patient.



You gotta be more selective in your posting, you know, like Krono..... wait... nevermind.

flyer85
04-21-2006, 11:27 AM
Hmm, Reds first in the majors in runs scored but 22nd in batting average with RISP. Anyone care to extrapolate?

Blimpie
04-21-2006, 11:29 AM
You gotta be more selective in your posting, you know, like Krono..... wait... nevermind.Ouch. I predict 47 pointed responses from Krono any minute now.

2001MUgrad
04-21-2006, 11:35 AM
Hmm, Reds first in the majors in runs scored but 22nd in batting average with RISP. Anyone care to extrapolate?


Always room for improvement isn't there?? Lots of runs, just think how many more runs would be possible.

flyer85
04-21-2006, 11:36 AM
Always room for improvement isn't there?? Lots of runs, just think how many more runs would be possible.and guess what? The best way to do that isn't by worrying about about batting average with RISP. :mooner:

BRM
04-21-2006, 11:38 AM
Hmm, Reds first in the majors in runs scored but 22nd in batting average with RISP. Anyone care to extrapolate?

They should try harder. I see no effort w/RISP.

2001MUgrad
04-21-2006, 11:38 AM
and guess what? The best way to do that isn't by worrying about about batting average with RISP. :mooner:

Not striking out is an improvement. The best way to not strike out is not to choke in the clutch or go to the plate looking to walk.

flyer85
04-21-2006, 11:40 AM
Not striking out is an improvement. Hitting into a double play isn't.

2001MUgrad
04-21-2006, 11:42 AM
Hitting into a double play isn't.

It scored a run in the 1st inning last night. Last night 1 run didn't make a difference, but could have. Any run when the came is close is important.

Chip R
04-21-2006, 11:42 AM
Wow, I'm a member of the "redsZone 43"! What does it take to get called up to the elite "RedsZone 10"?

If you have to ask, you will never be part of the 10.

BRM
04-21-2006, 11:44 AM
You gotta be more selective in your posting, you know, like Krono..... wait... nevermind.

Wait, Krono is the posting coach? I didn't know that. I thought it was flyer.

flyer85
04-21-2006, 11:45 AM
It scored a run in the 1st inning last night. and killed a potential big inning. Trading two outs for a run is a terrible trade at the beginning of the game and almost anytime with the exception being the late innings of a tie game or behind by a run. Certainly playing for 1 run with the Reds pitching staff early in the game is a complete non-starter.

Caveat Emperor
04-21-2006, 11:49 AM
Not striking out is an improvement. The best way to not strike out is not to choke in the clutch or go to the plate looking to walk.

Seems to me a quick way to strike out is to go the plate with the intention of not walking. A player should always be observant of the strike zone and avoid swinging at pitches outside of it. At best, it induces a poor-contact event (groundout, flyout) and at worst it's a swing and a miss.

Walking is a good thing -- I don't see what you have against it.

Patrick Bateman
04-21-2006, 11:49 AM
It wasn't the DP that scored the run, it was the guys who got on base that made the run happen.

2001MUgrad
04-21-2006, 11:49 AM
and killed a potential big inning. Trading two outs for a run is a terrible trade at the beginning of the game and almost anytime with the exception being the late innings of a tie game or behind by a run. Certainly playing for 1 run with the Reds pitching staff early in the game is a complete non-starter.

Didn't say it was the best thing in the world to have happen. A hit would have certainly been better. But, a run is a run is a run is a run. You score more runs you win. Isn't that true?? Can we at least agree that the winner of a baseball game is the team that scores more Runs??

Also, Key word. Potential. Brandon Larsen had tons of potential as did Willie Greene.

registerthis
04-21-2006, 11:49 AM
Not striking out is an improvement. The best way to not strike out is not to choke in the clutch or go to the plate looking to walk.

You know, I don't know why the Reds EVER make outs. It's obvious, the easiest way to win is to simply never let the other team bat--just keep not making outs.

If only narron had the sense to see thi, the Reds would be WS contenders. Everytime I see a reds player stride to the plate and groundout or hit a routine flyball, I get nauseated. Truly good teams don't make outs--ever.

flyer85
04-21-2006, 11:50 AM
Didn't say it was the best thing in the world to have happen. A hit would have certainly been better. But, a run is a run is a run is a run. You score more runs you win. Isn't that true?? Can we at least agree that the winner of a baseball game is the team that scores more Runs??and the Reds would not have won the game by trading two out for a run when the opportunity presented itself.

2001MUgrad
04-21-2006, 11:51 AM
Think we can keep this thread going and active all season??

flyer85
04-21-2006, 11:51 AM
Think we can keep this thread going and active all season??I think you can.

2001MUgrad
04-21-2006, 11:51 AM
and the Reds would not have won the game by trading two out for a run when the opportunity presented itself.

I just said do we agree that the team that scores more runs wins. Can we not agree with that??

2001MUgrad
04-21-2006, 11:52 AM
I think you can.

It takes 2 to tango.

westofyou
04-21-2006, 11:52 AM
Think we can keep this thread going and active all season??
Folks can Interpret how they see it and if the shoe fits, post in it.

flyer85
04-21-2006, 11:52 AM
I just said do we agree that the team that scores more runs wins. Can we not agree with that??and that is known as a strawman.

registerthis
04-21-2006, 11:53 AM
I can't believe we have a 30 page thread discussing the problems with an offense that ranks as one of the best in all of baseball, while the pitching sits there like a steaming turd on a sidewalk on a hot summer day.

Really...the Reds practically led the league in a multitude of offensive categories, and people are complaining about their BA w/RISP?

Give me a break.

flyer85
04-21-2006, 11:53 AM
It takes 2 to tango.and only one to keep repositioning the premise.

BRM
04-21-2006, 11:53 AM
I can't believe we have a 30 page thread discussing the problems with an offense that ranks as one of the best in all of baseball, while the pitching sits there like a steaming turd on a sidewalk on a hot summer day.

Really...the Reds practically led the league in a multitude of offensive categories, and people are complaining about their BA w/RISP?

Give me a break.

It's part of the daily routine here at RedsZone.

Cyclone792
04-21-2006, 11:53 AM
Not striking out is an improvement. The best way to not strike out is not to choke in the clutch or go to the plate looking to walk.

MU, I'll tell you the same thing verbatim that I told Buck about 12 hours ago ... read below ...


Here, do yourself a favor ...

Use that same sample size of 2002-2005 and break out Excel. In column A, list all 120 teams from all four of those seasons. In column B, list each teams' total runs scored in their respective row. Plug in team batting average in column C for each team, team on-base percentage in column D for each team, team slugging percentage in column E for each team, team OPS in column F for each team, and finally, team batting average w/RISP in column G for each team.

Run a correlation data analysis on all that data. Take a look at the correlation of all factors as it relates to runs scored. Look long and hard.

Finally, ask yourself what you're seeing. If you're unsure what you're seeing, post your exact results and I'll calmly explain to you what you're seeing. My hope is if you run the correlation yourself you may start to understand what we're talking about.

----------

Run the correlation, look at the results, and ask yourself what you're seeing. Compare each correlation to one another. Look at OPS, and look at BA w/RISP, and ask yourself why there is a difference in how each correlates to run scoring.

Ask yourself why you're seeing what you're seeing.

Once you actually do all that and understand how run production occurs, you'll take back nearly all of what you've posted these last few days relating to statistics.

----------

http://www.sciencebuddies.org/mentor...rts_p003.shtml

That's a pretty good site to instruct you how to set it all up. Scroll about one-fourth of the way down until you get to baseball stats related portion of the instructions. It will instruct you to copy/paste league data from Baseball Reference, which has all those basic stats I listed above with the lone exception being BA w/RISP.

Retrosheet has each individual team's RISP figures, though it takes some digging around to get them all. Maybe someone else has a reference that lists BA w/RISP for all teams each season on one page as that would help save loads of time.

BTW, if you have to use Retrosheet for the BA w/RISP figures, use the sample size of 2001-2004 and exclude 2005. The reasoning is because Retrosheet has yet to upload their 2005 numbers.

And guess what? Buck ran the correlation, and he actually chose a different data sample than the one above, but that's ok because it works with any data sample you want to choose. Buck already posted his results, which I give him ample credit for. Read his results for yourself ... http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=45218

If you want to understand what everyone against your viewpoint is talking about, my suggestion is do the above yourself so you can actually see the results using whatever data you decided to input.

If you're not willing to study it yourself, well, then I don't know what to tell you.

flyer85
04-21-2006, 11:57 AM
MU, ... If you want to understand I think the answer to that is crystal clear at this point. :)

RFS62
04-21-2006, 11:58 AM
MU doesn't really believe all this stuff he's posting. He's a true evil genius. He's attempting to make this thread into the longest running scam in RedsZone history.

Look at what's already happened. The gang of 10 have exposed 43 members, 33 of which used to be deep cover operatives.

He's an evil genius, I tell ya.

registerthis
04-21-2006, 12:00 PM
Look at what's already happened. The gang of 10 have exposed 43 members, 33 of which used to be deep cover operatives.

better be nice to him, otherwise that's just the tip of the iceberg.

http://telicthoughts.com/media/Joseph-McCarthy.jpg

Johnny Footstool
04-21-2006, 12:03 PM
Wow, I'm a member of the "redsZone 43"! What does it take to get called up to the elite "RedsZone 10"?

You have to be the son of a Stonecutter, or save the life of one.


BTW - Masons have 33 Degrees. There are 43 of us. Minus the RedsZone 10, that leaves 33. Coincidence? I think not!

traderumor
04-21-2006, 12:06 PM
I can't believe we have a 30 page thread discussing the problems with an offense that ranks as one of the best in all of baseball, while the pitching sits there like a steaming turd on a sidewalk on a hot summer day.

Really...the Reds practically led the league in a multitude of offensive categories, and people are complaining about their BA w/RISP?

Give me a break.I was musing this morning that the Reds have given up 28 runs in the last 3 games and are 2-1 :laugh: Dang those outs with RISP, we could have won all 3 :help:

traderumor
04-21-2006, 12:08 PM
Another log--

The Reds are 3-1 this week, scoring 9, 9 and 12 runs in their victories.

Oh, those choking hitters, can't hit with RISP.

BRM
04-21-2006, 12:11 PM
I was musing this morning that the Reds have given up 28 runs in the last 3 games and are 2-1 :laugh: Dang those outs with RISP, we could have won all 3 :help:

The Reds only struck out five times in that lone loss. OTOH, they struck out 11 times in last nights victory. Strike outs are the key to offensive success I tell you!!

Johnny Footstool
04-21-2006, 12:19 PM
The Reds only struck out five times in that lone loss. OTOH, they struck out 11 times in last nights victory. Strike outs are the key to offensive success I tell you!!

Yep. They help you burn through the opposing pitching staff quicker.

pedro
04-21-2006, 12:22 PM
Here's a picture of the witches that the RZ 43 has on retainer brewing up a batch of "Runs Created". Notice how they are WALKING around the caustic brew.

http://www.geocities.com/deadlybliss/witchesbrew.gif

BRM
04-21-2006, 12:23 PM
How on earth does a team so lacking in clutch hitting score so many darn runs? It just can't be possible. ;)

flyer85
04-21-2006, 12:24 PM
How on earth does a team so lacking in clutch hitting score so many darn runs? It just can't be possible. ;)black magic, of course.

Some should be careful, they could find that they have been turned into a newt.

BCubb2003
04-21-2006, 01:09 PM
i used to be that fan. I used to see Dunn come up in Bob Boone's crazy lineups with a runner in scoring position. Dunn would get a walk, and that would be the end of the inning as the lower part of the order made their outs.

I felt that anecdotal, unscientific aggravation that says, "Get it done yourself, Dunn. Your job is not in walking and hoping to be driven in by the seventh or eighth hitter."

Walks and doubles boost the OPS with RISP, but few runners ever scored from second on a walk. A double with RISP might have a greater effect on OPS that it has on driving in runs, especially if happens less frequently than the guy who hits lots of singles.

Except, here's what changed my mind...

1. Understanding that for Dunn to be more aggressive he would have to swing at more bad pitches.

2. Understanding the value of outs and not making them.

3. The whole sac fly thing and the relatively rare and random nature of the productive out.

3. As others have said, offense is not this team's problem.

4. Looking up the stats when people talk as if Dunn is not driving in runs. This was the clincher. Dunn is the team leader in driving in runs. The Reds hadn't had a 100-RBI guy since 2000. Dunn has done it twice in a row. When it comes to getting the job done with RISP, Dunn is the man. Part of it is because there doesn't have to be a runner in scoring position for Dunn to drive in a run.

Dunn is going to rewrite the Reds record books. I was talking with a Cardinals fan at work the other day and thinking about how much fun it must be as a Cardinal fan to watch Pujols for the next several years. I want to have as much fun watching Dunn, but can't help worrying a little that he'll get the Frank Robinson treatment and all the griping will build up to something foolish like "Yeah, but it was a soft 50 homers."

rdiersin
04-21-2006, 01:13 PM
Here's a picture of the witches that the RZ 43 has on retainer brewing up a batch of "Runs Created". Notice how they are WALKING around the caustic brew.

http://www.geocities.com/deadlybliss/witchesbrew.gif

Aren't they chanting Raisor's Pythagoream Theorem?

pedro
04-21-2006, 01:15 PM
Aren't they chanting Raisor's Pythagoream Theorem?

"Singles, Doubles, Triples, Homers, extra bases you banana phoners"

2001MUgrad
04-21-2006, 01:22 PM
If Dunn wants to take walks I don't have a problem with that. Let's just bat him first so that he rarely comes up with runner's in scoring position. He'd probably get more AB's with no one on too, which is when he is at his best hitting HR's.

2001MUgrad
04-21-2006, 01:23 PM
and only one to keep repositioning the premise.

Baseball is a game thats more than just stats. Its about situations. Everyone wants to count every AB the same and every out the same and every base the same. Its not.

flyer85
04-21-2006, 01:23 PM
If Dunn wants to take walks I don't have a problem with that. Let's just bat him first so that he rarely comes up with runner's in scoring position. He'd probably get more AB's with no one on too, which is when he is at his best hitting HR's.tangent #27

registerthis
04-21-2006, 01:25 PM
If Dunn wants to take walks I don't have a problem with that. Let's just bat him first so that he rarely comes up with runner's in scoring position. He'd probably get more AB's with no one on too, which is when he is at his best hitting HR's.

Ah, yes, the key to success. Bat your best power hitter and run producer first, because you don't want him batting with men on base.

Brilliant!

http://www.guinness.com/NR/rdonlyres/71BDE1E0-9531-421C-BF58-C47F7E1B676C/0/ads_suntan_grab3.jpg

2001MUgrad
04-21-2006, 01:25 PM
tangent #27


And????


I went to bed last night and when I logged on this morning there was 3 or 4 more pages. So apparently I'm not the only 1.

registerthis
04-21-2006, 01:27 PM
Baseball is a game thats more than just stats. Its about situations. Everyone wants to count every AB the same and every out the same and every base the same. Its not.

Yes, in the same way that some runs are win efficient and some are not.

Darn you, non win-efficient run producers! A pox on all your houses.

registerthis
04-21-2006, 01:28 PM
tangent #27

Almost one for every page of this thread. I'd say that's a pretty good Posting Average with RISP, wouldn't you?

2001MUgrad
04-21-2006, 01:28 PM
Ah, yes, the key to success. Bat your best power hitter and run producer first, because you don't want him batting with men on base.

Brilliant!

http://www.guinness.com/NR/rdonlyres/71BDE1E0-9531-421C-BF58-C47F7E1B676C/0/ads_suntan_grab3.jpg


He'll still get his RBI's. He is going to hit 40-50 HR. Thats 50 right there. He will hit 10 or 15 with runners on. Let's call that another 20. He is at 70 now. He'll accidently get another 30 just like he has the last couple years.

Maybe he'll take those walks with no outs and Felipe can get on instead of taking those walks with 2 outs. 50 HR is 50 Runs. 100 Walks, he'll score 35-50 times on those if he leads off. He'll accidently score another 20 runs. So bat him lead off. He is the best OPS guy on the team. If that is the tell all, bat him first.

flyer85
04-21-2006, 01:29 PM
Almost one for every page of this thread. I'd say that's a pretty good Posting Average with RISP, wouldn't you?how well does that correlate with points scored?

ochre
04-21-2006, 01:34 PM
i used to be that fan. I used to see Dunn come up in Bob Boone's crazy lineups with a runner in scoring position. Dunn would get a walk, and that would be the end of the inning as the lower part of the order made their outs.

I felt that anecdotal, unscientific aggravation that says, "Get it done yourself, Dunn. Your job is not in walking and hoping to be driven in by the seventh or eighth hitter."

Walks and doubles boost the OPS with RISP, but few runners ever scored from second on a walk. A double with RISP might have a greater effect on OPS that it has on driving in runs, especially if happens less frequently than the guy who hits lots of singles.

Except, here's what changed my mind...

1. Understanding that for Dunn to be more aggressive he would have to swing at more bad pitches.

2. Understanding the value of outs and not making them.

3. The whole sac fly thing and the relatively rare and random nature of the productive out.

3. As others have said, offense is not this team's problem.

4. Looking up the stats when people talk as if Dunn is not driving in runs. This was the clincher. Dunn is the team leader in driving in runs. The Reds hadn't had a 100-RBI guy since 2000. Dunn has done it twice in a row. When it comes to getting the job done with RISP, Dunn is the man. Part of it is because there doesn't have to be a runner in scoring position for Dunn to drive in a run.

Dunn is going to rewrite the Reds record books. I was talking with a Cardinals fan at work the other day and thinking about how much fun it must be as a Cardinal fan to watch Pujols for the next several years. I want to have as much fun watching Dunn, but can't help worrying a little that he'll get the Frank Robinson treatment and all the griping will build up to something foolish like "Yeah, but it was a soft 50 homers."
You touched upon it here, but it really brings up the huge problem I have with wasting a player of Dunn's skill set by batting him 5th or lower. The minor problem is fewer opportunities, but the major problem, as you have laid it out, is that the prowess of the players batting behind him, when he's lower in the order, is not what it should be. In a well constructed lineup, my personal perspective being Dunn in the 2 or 3 slot, with some of the team's best hitters immediately following Dunn, opposing teams would be punished for Dunn's selectivity. As you pointed out, with Dunn lower in the order, teams were punished for walking him by getting to face guys that made tons of outs.

IslandRed
04-21-2006, 01:41 PM
You touched upon it here, but it really brings up the huge problem I have with wasting a player of Dunn's skill set by batting him 5th or lower. The minor problem is fewer opportunities, but the major problem, as you have laid it out, is that the prowess of the players batting behind him, when he's lower in the order, is not what it should be. In a well constructed lineup, my personal perspective being Dunn in the 2 or 3 slot, with some of the team's best hitters immediately following Dunn, opposing teams would be punished for Dunn's selectivity. As you pointed out, with Dunn lower in the order, teams were punished for walking him by getting to face guys that made tons of outs.

I've often thought Dunn would be great in the #2 hole for this team. Get Freel on base ahead of him, and then Dunn's ability to walk would lead to a lot of first-and-second-no-outs. Dunn's affinity for working deep counts would give Freel lots of chances to swipe a bag. He doesn't hit a lot of ground balls to turn into DPs. And there would be plenty of extra-base hits to drive in Freel, or home runs to make it 2-0 right out of the gate.

westofyou
04-21-2006, 01:51 PM
I've often thought Dunn would be great in the #2 hole for this team. Get Freel on base ahead of him, and then Dunn's ability to walk would lead to a lot of first-and-second-no-outs. Dunn's affinity for working deep counts would give Freel lots of chances to swipe a bag. He doesn't hit a lot of ground balls to turn into DPs. And there would be plenty of extra-base hits to drive in Freel, or home runs to make it 2-0 right out of the gate.

In my Strat league I have Dunn (Pujols/Edmonds and Glaus... guess what I like?)

This week I have Dunn in 7 games

#1 - 1st
#2 - 4th
#3 - 2nd
#4 - 2nd
#5 - 6th
#6 - 4th
#7 - 4th

registerthis
04-21-2006, 02:02 PM
He'll still get his RBI's. He is going to hit 40-50 HR. Thats 50 right there. He will hit 10 or 15 with runners on. Let's call that another 20. He is at 70 now. He'll accidently get another 30 just like he has the last couple years.

"Accidentally" LOL As in...I really don't have the necessary talent, but woops I just knocked in a couple more runs?

Heck, I'll take all of the "accidental" RBIs I can get.


Maybe he'll take those walks with no outs and Felipe can get on instead of taking those walks with 2 outs. 50 HR is 50 Runs. 100 Walks, he'll score 35-50 times on those if he leads off. He'll accidently score another 20 runs. So bat him lead off. He is the best OPS guy on the team. If that is the tell all, bat him first.

I find it odd--VERY odd---that you continue to malign Dunn for not producing with RISP despite repeated proof showing that he is, in fact, very productive with RISP.

I know others have put forth statistics that you've either ignored or glossed over, but just for sport here's another. Please examine this and tell me, again, that Dunn can't produce with RISP:

2005:
RISP - .468 OBP, 1.041 OPS
RISP w/ 2 outs - OBP .512, OPS .993

2004:
RISP - .438 OBP, .952 OPS
RISP w/ 2 outs - OBP .459, OPS 1.015

The notion that Dunn is ineffective as an RBI producer is complete and total bunk. The seeming lack of overwhelming RBI numbers for him, when the above numbers are taken into consideration, is the result of two factors: Dunn being misplaced in the Reds' lineup, and a failure to properly protect him in the batting order, thus leading to a higher-than-usual amount of walks.

To further hammer home the point, and also to expose the myth that Dunn is only effective with the bases empty, let's look at some of his situational numbers from 2005:

Bases Empty:
309 ABs, 77 H, 44 EBH, 20 HR, 20 RBI, 98 K, .249 BA, .867 OPS

RISP:
129 ABs, 32 H, 20 EBH, 11 HR, 62 RBI, 40 K, .248 BA, 1.041 OPS

So, with the bases empty, 57% of his hits were EBH, versus 62.5% with RISP. Additionally, his OPS is 174 points higher, and the all-important BA stat, which you continually bring up, is essentially identical. Thus, we can see that not only is Dunn productive with RISP, he is actually a better hitter in those situations than he is with the bases empty or runners on.

One final nail in your coffin: Albert Pujols and Adam Dunn each had the exact same percentage of their Abs occur with RISP: 23.7%. Pujols accumulated 60% of his yearly RBI total in those situations, whereas Dunn accumulated 62% of his RBI total.

Thus, your theory that Dunn is ineffective with RISP is completely bunk. The stats show that a) Dunn IS effective in those situations, b) he's actually a better hitter with RISP than with the bases empty, and c) He gets a higher percentage of his RBIs with RISP than the preeminent hitter in the entire league.

Now, you can either continue spewing anecdotal "evidence" that goes nowhere towards proving your point, or you can examine the evidence that I--and many others--have presented, contemplate what it means, and decide that your position in this debate is impossible to maintain. I'll happily await your response.

IslandRed
04-21-2006, 02:07 PM
Thinking about it a little more, I remember when J.D. Drew was in college, he hit #2 quite a bit. I thought that was unusual at the time and did a little checking and found out it's pretty normal for a college team to put a big bat at #2. I guess with the aluminum bats driving up run scoring, college teams were quicker to embrace the notion of using that spot to get more plate appearances for their best hitters, rather than the stereotypical "get him over" two-hole hitter better suited for 1960s baseball.

Having said that, there's nothing to argue with in regards to what Felipe Lopez is doing in that spot.

smith288
04-21-2006, 02:10 PM
The RedsZone 43? Is it REALLY the number of folks ganging up on other RedsZoners or is it actually a dark RedsZone cult that pays homage to the ghost of Jimmy Haynes?

Blimpie
04-21-2006, 02:26 PM
It scored a run in the 1st inning last night. Last night 1 run didn't make a difference, but could have. Any run when the came is close is important.Yeah, but when that happened you had no idea that would be the case. Hatteberg's DP resulted in the score being 1-0 Reds.

Raisor
04-21-2006, 02:39 PM
Baseball is a game thats more than just stats. Its about situations. Everyone wants to count every AB the same and every out the same and every base the same. Its not.


Actually, those "situations" tend to even themselves out over a season. Did you know that we can predict, to within a game or two usually, how many wins a team has based only on how many runs it's scored and how many runs it's allowed?

If "situational" hitting was so important, we wouldn't really be able to do that.

TheGARB
04-21-2006, 02:45 PM
Did you know that we can predict, to within a game or two usually, how many wins a team has based only on how many runs it's scored and how many runs it's allowed?

You always have to bring up your Nobel Prizes, don't you? Shameless. :lol:

Raisor
04-21-2006, 04:52 PM
You always have to bring up your Nobel Prizes, don't you? Shameless. :lol:


It ain't bragging if it's true!

2001MUgrad
04-21-2006, 05:06 PM
Actually, those "situations" tend to even themselves out over a season. Did you know that we can predict, to within a game or two usually, how many wins a team has based only on how many runs it's scored and how many runs it's allowed?

If "situational" hitting was so important, we wouldn't really be able to do that.

Okay then.

So tell me right now how many games the Reds will win?? Didn't I see in the game thread 86-76?? Yes, its a small sample size, but you said you could predict it within a game or 2. Telling me after its over doesn't do me any good. Since you can predict so well, which team are you a GM for??

2001MUgrad
04-21-2006, 05:08 PM
Yeah, but when that happened you had no idea that would be the case. Hatteberg's DP resulted in the score being 1-0 Reds.

No, but I do know if he strikes out the chances of that runner scoring are probably less than 1 percent and would only happen on that play if the ball goes to the backstop on strike 3.

So I do know if he strikes out its a pretty good chance no run scores. Especially since I know who was batting next and is horrid with RISP. And, its about a 35 percent chance or so that Austin gets a hit and knocks that guy in.

ochre
04-21-2006, 05:12 PM
Okay then.

So tell me right now how many games the Reds will win?? Didn't I see in the game thread 86-76?? Yes, its a small sample size, but you said you could predict it within a game or 2. Telling me after its over doesn't do me any good. Since you can predict so well, which team are you a GM for??
I'm sure you realize that it's not possible to predict precisely how many runs the Reds will score and allow this year. The fact that those two values are accurate indicators of what a team's results will be over time is significant none the less. The practical application of this information should lead one to attempt to score as many runs as possible, through a deft combination of avoiding outs and acquiring as many bases as possible per attempt, and to seek to prevent the opposition from scoring runs through adequate pitching and defense. It's possible to loosely project what the constituent parts of the Reds are capable of producing over this season (see: PECOTA) and from that infer what the Reds record will likely approach, but that is beyond the scope of a discussion as to why it appears Marty doesn't like one of the Reds best players.

Highlifeman21
04-21-2006, 05:12 PM
If Dunn wants to take walks I don't have a problem with that. Let's just bat him first so that he rarely comes up with runner's in scoring position. He'd probably get more AB's with no one on too, which is when he is at his best hitting HR's.

So I take it you miss the Bob Boone days of old where Dunn batted leadoff and 2nd sometimes....

Raisor
04-21-2006, 05:13 PM
Okay then.

So tell me right now how many games the Reds will win?? Didn't I see in the game thread 86-76?? Yes, its a small sample size, but you said you could predict it within a game or 2. Telling me after its over doesn't do me any good. Since you can predict so well, which team are you a GM for??


First,

I predicted, last season, within one win what the Reds were going to do last season. You can look it up in the archive.

What I'm saying is, there's a formula that when you enter a team's RS and a team's RA's will give you a winning percentage. That percentage tends to be very close to a team's actual w/l record. That's just using straight runs & runs against numbers.
If those situational numbers you're so concerned about mattered that much, then the formula wouldn't work. It's now WHEN you score, it's how much you score.

People have asked you before HOW it's possible for the Reds to be leading the world in scoring but are so low on the list with BA w/RISP. You've yet to say how this is possible.

Raisor
04-21-2006, 05:14 PM
So I take it you miss the Bob Boone days of old where Dunn batted leadoff and 2nd sometimes....


Personally, I never had much problem with Dunn hitting second. It'll get him an extra 50 PA's over the course of a season.

2001MUgrad
04-21-2006, 05:23 PM
First,

I predicted, last season, within one win what the Reds were going to do last season. You can look it up in the archive.

What I'm saying is, there's a formula that when you enter a team's RS and a team's RA's will give you a winning percentage. That percentage tends to be very close to a team's actual w/l record. That's just using straight runs & runs against numbers.
If those situational numbers you're so concerned about mattered that much, then the formula wouldn't work. It's now WHEN you score, it's how much you score.

People have asked you before HOW it's possible for the Reds to be leading the world in scoring but are so low on the list with BA w/RISP. You've yet to say how this is possible.

I have no doubt and no issues saying the reason the reds score the most runs is because they have the most base runners ie, OBP/OPS. The more runners that reach base the more of a chance you have to score more runs. I don't have any issue what so ever with that. I just look with a runner on
3rd base and less than 2 outs and I see someone strike out, that does 0 good for anyone. If you get up with a guy on second and no outs and pop out to the catch that does 0 good, which you could punch the ball to the left side and advance the guy to third and give the next guy a chance to easily knock the guy in.
I don't disagree with the notion that more base runners= more runs. I just think of what could be improved to score more runs to win even more games.

And on the notion of RS Vs Rs allowed being a good predictor. I'd say that goes without saying if you score as many runs as you give up you will probably end up 81-81, that goes without saying.

Situational hitting should not be lost. Nor should good defense and good pitching. If this team had good pitching, I venture to guess no one would harp on anything Dunn did because the Reds wouldn't need 15 runs to win and there would be no pressure for Dunn to pick up every single RISP that he gets.

If we can agree on nothing else, could we agree that this team would be greatly improved with average pitching and then all this OPS or RISP would be a non-issue.

Highlifeman21
04-21-2006, 05:33 PM
Personally, I never had much problem with Dunn hitting second. It'll get him an extra 50 PA's over the course of a season.


If he consistently slugged under .450, or even .425, then by all means, I could get used to seeing Dunn in the 2 hole, but he's an OPS machine, which last time I checked is reserved for your 3 and 4 hole guys. Unfortunately, I don't think the Reds have a clear cut #2 hole guy, and after the #5 slot in the lineup it might as well be a crapshoot since we seemingly have clones in our lineup that produce.

When I think #2 hole, I hate to say it, but I think Derek Jeter, not Adam Dunn.

ochre
04-21-2006, 05:40 PM
If he consistently slugged under .450, or even .425, then by all means, I could get used to seeing Dunn in the 2 hole, but he's an OPS machine, which last time I checked is reserved for your 3 and 4 hole guys. Unfortunately, I don't think the Reds have a clear cut #2 hole guy, and after the #5 slot in the lineup it might as well be a crapshoot since we seemingly have clones in our lineup that produce.

When I think #2 hole, I hate to say it, but I think Derek Jeter, not Adam Dunn.
You shouldn't see high SLG as a detractor from putting him in the 2 hole (I think Raisor favors batting him 3rd by the way). It's the OBP that makes him so valuable in that slot. Particularly if he's followed by guys with high SLG.

Highlifeman21
04-21-2006, 05:48 PM
You shouldn't see high SLG as a detractor from putting him in the 2 hole (I think Raisor favors batting him 3rd by the way). It's the OBP that makes him so valuable in that slot. Particularly if he's followed by guys with high SLG.


I favor Dunn in the 3 slot as well. Let Griffey hit behind him.

I think Dunn's success in the 2 hole would be too much dependent on who was in the 3 and 4 hole. Right now, I'd rather pitch to Griffey or Kearns (the most likely choices for 3 and 4 if Dunn's 2) than Dunn, so right there you're just potentially increasing Dunn's OBP. Conversely, I don't think he has the overall speed to be a 2 hole hitter.

If Dunn's SLG continues to be heavily weighted towards balls that leave the yard, then I see his value decrease as a 2 hole hitter, whereas if his SLG is high due to doubles, then I honestly would have no problem with him being in the 2 slot, if we had ample protection in the 3 and 4 behind him.

Reds Nd2
04-21-2006, 06:29 PM
If this team had good pitching, I venture to guess no one would harp on anything Dunn did because the Reds wouldn't need 15 runs to win and there would be no pressure for Dunn to pick up every single RISP that he gets.

If we can agree on nothing else, could we agree that this team would be greatly improved with average pitching and then all this OPS or RISP would be a non-issue.

That makes no sense to me at all. What do the problems on the defensive side of the equation have to do with the offensive side? This team can score runs, alot of them in fact. The offense should be a non-issue regardless of how crappy or scrappy the defense is.

Caveat Emperor
04-21-2006, 06:39 PM
3rd base and less than 2 outs and I see someone strike out, that does 0 good for anyone. If you get up with a guy on second and no outs and pop out to the catch that does 0 good, which you could punch the ball to the left side and advance the guy to third and give the next guy a chance to easily knock the guy in.

Q: So, do you believe a batter should alter his plate approach in order to improve the chances of a "value" at bat v. attempting to make the best contact possible on the most hittable pitch?

Put another way -- would you prefer Adam Dunn, in the situation you describe (man on 2nd, 0 out) go to the plate with an eye towards making directional contact or with an eye towards finding a pitch to drive and hitting out of the ballpark?

You can't have it both ways -- You can't have Adam Dunn swinging for the fences and Adam Dunn swinging for the runner advancement at the same time. The tasks require looking for different pitches and putting different swings on the ball.

2001MUgrad
04-21-2006, 07:13 PM
Q: So, do you believe a batter should alter his plate approach in order to improve the chances of a "value" at bat v. attempting to make the best contact possible on the most hittable pitch?

Put another way -- would you prefer Adam Dunn, in the situation you describe (man on 2nd, 0 out) go to the plate with an eye towards making directional contact or with an eye towards finding a pitch to drive and hitting out of the ballpark?

You can't have it both ways -- You can't have Adam Dunn swinging for the fences and Adam Dunn swinging for the runner advancement at the same time. The tasks require looking for different pitches and putting different swings on the ball.

It depends. Maybe. With the way Dunn pulls the ball and they way they play him defensively I wouldn't have a problem at all with him dropping a punt down to get the guy over to 3rd. I also wouldn't have a problem with a fly ball out that advances the runner. What I do have a problem with is the consistent striking out. That bothers me. Its like he shrinks up and crawls into a cocoon and caves in under the pressure. Its not because he isn't talented enough to do it thats for sure. A strike out in the situation that you spoke of does no one any good what so ever. You put the ball in play, maybe its a ground ball and it goes through the 1baseman's legs and that guy on second scores.

2001MUgrad
04-21-2006, 07:16 PM
That makes no sense to me at all. What do the problems on the defensive side of the equation have to do with the offensive side? This team can score runs, alot of them in fact. The offense should be a non-issue regardless of how crappy or scrappy the defense is.

What doesn't make sense about it??

I was just saying that if it didn't take the offense scoring 10 runs every game to win there wouldn't be the pressure on every AB. It would defer some of the importance of every single AB meaning something because you need to score so man runs. It would just take some of the emphais off each individual plate appearance and maybe there wouldn't be so much fanfare made of individual at bats.

Yachtzee
04-21-2006, 07:58 PM
Chewbacca is a Wookiee, from the planet Kashyyk. Yet he chooses to live on the planet Endor, with a bunch of Ewoks. That does not make sense. ;)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/08/0330chewbacca.jpg

buckshotrod
04-21-2006, 08:45 PM
"

RISP:
129 ABs, 32 H, 20 EBH, 11 HR, 62 RBI, 40 K, .248 BA, 1.041 OPS



If you are in love with that stat then take it and run. a .248 BA with RISP sucks. Also he is striking out 1/3 of the time in 2005. If you think that is good then what can I say.

Go the Retrosheet and take a peek at all thse hits and see hopw many of them happened when the game was on the line. Most were no doubt when the game meant nothing as I remember. Same this year. Ohhhhhhh BTW he is 3 for 21 this year and K'd again tonight.

And again, how many runs has he cost his team by his stupid blunders in the field? Too many to count. Same on the basepaths. The guy has in mind on his video games too much. Seen him picked off first when his run was needed.

Again, he is young, and I do hope he comes around but for now you guys are just in love with his monster home runs.

buckshotrod
04-21-2006, 09:25 PM
NEWSFLASH....5TH inn..1st and 3rd and a big K to end the inning. yep 3 for 22 that is just super!

BEETTLEBUG
04-21-2006, 09:36 PM
NEWSFLASH....5TH inn..1st and 3rd and a big K to end the inning. yep 3 for 22 that is just super!


That is why he is in Marty's DOGhouse cause his is not hitting in clutch.

Highlifeman21
04-21-2006, 09:46 PM
If you are in love with that stat then take it and run. a .248 BA with RISP sucks. Also he is striking out 1/3 of the time in 2005. If you think that is good then what can I say.

Go the Retrosheet and take a peek at all thse hits and see hopw many of them happened when the game was on the line. Most were no doubt when the game meant nothing as I remember. Same this year. Ohhhhhhh BTW he is 3 for 21 this year and K'd again tonight.

And again, how many runs has he cost his team by his stupid blunders in the field? Too many to count. Same on the basepaths. The guy has in mind on his video games too much. Seen him picked off first when his run was needed.

Again, he is young, and I do hope he comes around but for now you guys are just in love with his monster home runs.


:help: :yikes:

Was that post in english?

I guess BA is the end all be all measure of a player's worth...

Care to enlighten us how many runs he's cost the Reds in the field? Care to enlighten us how many runs he's cost the Reds on the basepaths?

buckshotrod
04-21-2006, 09:53 PM
:help: :yikes:

Was that post in english?

I guess BA is the end all be all measure of a player's worth...

Care to enlighten us how many runs he's cost the Reds in the field? Care to enlighten us how many runs he's cost the Reds on the basepaths?


Can you read english? If you watch there games you would know it is more than the average player. Better go take some english classes so you can read.:mooner:

MWM
04-21-2006, 10:01 PM
Buh-bye!

2001MUgrad
04-21-2006, 10:39 PM
How about that ground out early on that led to the advancement of a runner from 2nd to 3rd and the next guy follows with a shallow single that probably wouldn't have plated the guy from second. Yet, it would have been the same based on what you all are saying if he would have simply struck out.

Highlifeman21
04-21-2006, 10:40 PM
Can you read english? If you watch there games you would know it is more than the average player. Better go take some english classes so you can read.:mooner:


What does that even mean? And last time I checked, and I don't mean to be rude or overly corrective, but pretty sure you meant "their" instead of "there".

So if I do understand you correctly, from what I could decipher, you're gonna take 1 stat, a .248 BA w/ RISP and immediately you can pass judgment on the player without taking into account other factors/stats?

Dunn could hit 20 HR a year and I'd be more in love with his OBP than anything else.

Reds Nd2
04-21-2006, 11:14 PM
What doesn't make sense about it??

I was just saying that if it didn't take the offense scoring 10 runs every game to win there wouldn't be the pressure on every AB. It would defer some of the importance of every single AB meaning something because you need to score so man runs. It would just take some of the emphais off each individual plate appearance and maybe there wouldn't be so much fanfare made of individual at bats.

I understand what your saying. What doesn't make sense to me, is why would anyone complain about individual at bats when the offense isn't the problem in the first place.


...if it didn't take the offense scoring 10 runs every game to win there wouldn't be the pressure on every AB.

It takes the offense scoring 10 runs a game because the pitching, to put it nicely, isn't very good. This offense, which includes Adam Dunn, has scored more runs than any team in the Major Leagues this season. That's averaging almost a full run per game over the closest teams in the N.L., the Atlanta Braves and Houston Astros. There's absolutely no reason for anyone to place so much fanfare on individual at bat's for this team. BTW, anyone who is interested in individual performances should be looking at total plate appearances instead of AB's.

Reds Nd2
04-21-2006, 11:20 PM
And again, how many runs has he cost his team by his stupid blunders in the field? Too many to count. Same on the basepaths.

Just how many runs has he cost this team on defense and the basepaths?

TeamBoone
04-21-2006, 11:29 PM
That is why he is in Marty's DOGhouse cause his is not hitting in clutch.

So he's in a slump right now... every hitter goes through it, even the good ones.

2001MUgrad
04-22-2006, 12:00 AM
Maybe he'll get better. One can only hope. A few timely hits here and there and he could be the greatest player ever at least from the offensive standpoint. He's still young..

Its not like Reds fans don't want him to do well. Its also not like Marty pulls for him to strikeout with guys on 3rd base.

SteelSD
04-22-2006, 12:01 AM
How about that ground out early on that led to the advancement of a runner from 2nd to 3rd and the next guy follows with a shallow single that probably wouldn't have plated the guy from second.

Hmn...that's interesting. A shallow Single wouldn't have plated a Run with a Runner already in scoring position.

You don't realize it but you just said that Hit quality is more important with RISP than simply achieving a Base Hit with RISP.

So not all Hits with RISP plate runners and yet you've been hung up on RISP Batting Average this whole time.


Yet, it would have been the same based on what you all are saying if he would have simply struck out.

You've just summarized an "opposing" position that doesn't exist. The only person to ever type that or so much as think that is you. Keep building strawmen and we'll keep knocking them down I guess, but maybe it would be better for you to stop continually positioning opinions no one holds as being real counterpoints to your own?

I mean, I'd much rather enter into a debate with someone who actually understands what's being debated. This ain't one of those times. At this point you're simply running in circles posting "You guys think this!" while we have to respond with, "No. That's not true." Tedious that is.

TeamBoone
04-22-2006, 12:05 AM
Tonight... Marty: Aurilia can get it done; Dunn can't.

KronoRed
04-22-2006, 12:06 AM
Tonight... Marty: Aurilia can get it done; Dunn can't.
Did he say what IT was? :D

I actually hope Dunn stays just how he is, instead of getting worse by trying to become a player he isn't.

TeamBoone
04-22-2006, 12:10 AM
I agree, Krono. I think he's in a slump... but then, I'd reather believe that than think someone is messing with his plate approach.

M2
04-22-2006, 12:18 AM
How about that ground out early on that led to the advancement of a runner from 2nd to 3rd and the next guy follows with a shallow single that probably wouldn't have plated the guy from second. Yet, it would have been the same based on what you all are saying if he would have simply struck out.

That's what Miguel Cairo or Tony Womack would do, get the productive out, and if there's any two players in baseball I'd want to be like, it's Miguel Cairo and Tony Womack.

indyred
04-22-2006, 12:20 AM
Tonight... Marty: Aurilia can get it done; Dunn can't.
i heard that tonight.........has marty done any interviews with dunn of late..............does marty hang out around the player's before the games in bp or clubhouse ? curious if they have much interaction.......

M2
04-22-2006, 12:36 AM
i heard that tonight.........has marty done any interviews with dunn of late..............does marty hang out around the player's before the games in bp or clubhouse ? curious if they have much interaction.......

If I was Dunn I'd blow snot rockets on Marty whenever he got near me in the locker room.

registerthis
04-22-2006, 12:47 AM
If you are in love with that stat then take it and run. a .248 BA with RISP sucks. Also he is striking out 1/3 of the time in 2005. If you think that is good then what can I say.

See my post earlier in this thread. You don't need to say anything else--the stats speak for themselves. If you're hung up on a .248 BA with RISP (vs. a .249 AVG with no runners on base), you're focusing on completely the wrong things.


Go the Retrosheet and take a peek at all thse hits and see hopw many of them happened when the game was on the line. Most were no doubt when the game meant nothing as I remember. Same this year. Ohhhhhhh BTW he is 3 for 21 this year and K'd again tonight.

So we're supposed to accept these things based solely on your memory? Give me a break. I can tell you that Dunn had a higher % of his RBI with RISP than Albert Pujols did, and that Dunn OPS'd 1.041 with RISP. That's all i need to see to show me that Dunn is fine "in the clutch." Regardless of whatever your foggy memory may tell you.


And again, how many runs has he cost his team by his stupid blunders in the field? Too many to count.

Oh, humor me. Take a wild guess at how many runs Dunn has cost us while dreaming about video games. It's easy to throw around phrases like "too many to count" when you don't feel like you have to support it. How many people have I read make senseless criticisms of Dunn's game? Too many to count.

BCubb2003
04-22-2006, 02:07 AM
Just trying to see all sides here and think things through, for as long as anyone wants to continue...

We can imagine a scenario where a team often gets a runner to second, then the next batter up is either a high-average singles hitter or a power hitter that walks a lot and strikes out a lot.

We have to assume that the singles hitter gets the right kind of singles to drive in the runner from second.

What the critics see is that the power hitter's walks in this kind of situation add to his OPS with RISP but don't score the run. The walk doesn't even move the runner over, in many cases. His strikeouts are just outs, except they don't have the chance to move the runner over. The power hitter might hit a double, which is even better for his OPS, but it only drives in one run just like the singles hitter did. And the double is not going to be as frequent as the singles hitter's singles. A home run drives in more runs than the single would, but it looks even better in the OPS. And it comes less frequently. So, a guy could have a great-looking OPS with RISP, and not drive in very many runs. Of course, a singles hitter could be hitting the wrong kind of singles, too. He could have a great BA with RISP, and not drive in many runs.

Here's what I keep thinking about: 101. That's the number of runs Dunn drove in last year, the most on the team. The year before, 102, the most since Griffey in 2000.

So Dunn clearly drives in runs. Whether it's early, late, with runners on or not, historically he's the best on the team at it. We should be able to agree on that.

The claim that Dunn drives in his runs during blowouts when they're not needed can be proven or disproven, and I think the actual numbers are elsewhere on this thread. We ought to be able to agree on that, if that's what the box scores say.

The only thing left is to be able to say, Dunn could drive in even more runs, 120 runs, if he had come through with a single instead of a walk or a strikeout in the following situations, then list them. This season is only 17 games old, so it would be possible to count them for anyone who wants to make the claim.

OUReds
04-22-2006, 02:20 AM
Stephen Colbert would agree with Marty that Adam Dunn it not only terrible, but is likely pushing a radical pro-bear agenda in his post game interviews.

Colbert would care not for the "statinesta's" fact based arguements, he would feel and understand Dunn's lack of productivity in his gut.

Just Sayin'

Rex Argos
04-22-2006, 04:34 AM
Just out of curiousity, what is the league average OPS with runners in scoring position?

GAC
04-22-2006, 05:21 AM
I'm still waiting for someone to define for me what a "complete" player is? Which some contend Dunn isn't.

And is there such a thing as a "complete" fan? Does such an animal exist? ;)

I'll be glad to see this thread brought back up at season's end. Will make for good discussion.

2001MUgrad
04-22-2006, 05:21 AM
You might not see me on the all star team
Or Posing for the cover of a magazine
I might not win the Cy Young award

You might not see me in the Hall of Fame
I might not have a cool nickname
I might not ever go 4 for 4

But when the game is on the Line
2 outs 2 on in the 9th.
you can count on a base hit from guys like me
I may not be the brightest star shinning on the team
But when you need that 2 run lead then I'm your man
Cause its guys like me that you will
Need when our biggest star's gone 0 for 3
But there I'll be with all my team doing the victory dance

I might ever win the batting crown
Or ever get recognized in town
Or may not ever be a street named for me

I'm probably batting 7th, 8th, or 9th
Batting average barely .255
But with runners on base its .403

So, when the game is on the line
Thats when its my time to shine

And you can count on a clutch hit from guys like me
I may not be the brightest star shinning on the team
But when you need that 2 run lead then I'm your man
Cause its guys like me that you will need to hold 'em to a 1 run lead
To give our team a chance to beat them tonight

I know this means that sometimes that I
Will have to sacrifice some pride
Cause when its all said and done
Everybody just can't be number one

Guys like me who may not be the brightest star shinning on the team
But when you need that 2 run lead then I'm your man
Cause its guys like me that you will
Need when our biggest star's gone 0 for 3
But there I'll be with all my team doing the victory dance

KronoRed
04-22-2006, 05:25 AM
I'm still waiting for someone to define for me what a "complete" player is? Which some contend Dunn isn't.

Bats 1.000 never walks, never k's, never makes ANY outs, all hits are the exact hits needed ;)

2001MUgrad
04-22-2006, 05:51 AM
I'm still waiting for someone to define for me what a "complete" player is?
And is there such a thing as a "complete" fan? Does such an animal exist? ;)



I can say that a complete player is not someone who strikes out 200 times a season.

As far as who is a better fan. I've seen that discussion on other fan forums for college, etc. Thats not somewhere one wants to go.

membengal
04-22-2006, 08:59 AM
I think it's fair to say, MU grad, that Rob Neyer is most correct, and Ks hurt your feelings...

Highlifeman21
04-22-2006, 09:04 AM
I can say that a complete player is not someone who strikes out 200 times a season.

As far as who is a better fan. I've seen that discussion on other fan forums for college, etc. Thats not somewhere one wants to go.


These guys had a penchant for striking out a bit in their respective careers, and they are all HOF caliber.


Career Totals

Player Ks Rank All-time
R. Jackson 2597 1st
W. Stargell 1936 5th
M. Schmidt 1883 6th
J. Thome 1770 10th
M. Mantle 1710 14th
R. Henderson 1694 18th
J. Bagwell 1558 24th
D. Allen 1556 25th
W. McCovey 1550 26th
F. Robinson 1532 29th
W. Mays 1526 32nd

Striking out is just an unfortunate by-product along the way to greatness. Gotta break a few eggs if....

Cigar2
04-22-2006, 09:36 AM
Stephen Colbert would agree with Marty that Adam Dunn it not only terrible, but is likely pushing a radical pro-bear agenda in his post game interviews.

Colbert would care not for the "statinesta's" fact based arguements, he would feel and understand Dunn's lack of productivity in his gut.

Just Sayin'

Yeah, What IS Dunn Stance on Bears? And the are putting OUT the Pro Bear Agenda?

GAC
04-22-2006, 09:41 AM
I can say that a complete player is not someone who strikes out 200 times a season.

But if attempting to cut down on the Ks (which IMO, aren't that critical) causes him to suffer in other areas of his game.... which is worse?

We've already shown that Adam Dunn, as far as his role on this team and what he is expected to do, statistically meets/exceeds in that area


As far as who is a better fan. I've seen that discussion on other fan forums for college, etc. Thats not somewhere one wants to go.

Wasn't implying who is/is not the better fan. I just question some's "motivation"... as they do Adam's. ;)

Raisor
04-22-2006, 10:17 AM
So he's in a slump right now... every hitter goes through it, even the good ones.


What I love about Dunn is that even when he's "slumping" he still produces.

Last seven days:
.182 batting average

.438 OBP
.591 SLG
1.029 OPS

westofyou
04-22-2006, 10:19 AM
11 of Pujol's 19 hits are HR's 8 of Dunns 15 hits are HR's

Yachtzee
04-22-2006, 10:30 AM
If Dunn's role is to slap singles into the hole with RISP, then you have Dunn in the wrong role. Square peg in a round hole. That kind of bat control is rare. Rarer still for a masher like Dunn.

creek14
04-22-2006, 11:02 AM
When a lot of people are calling you a duck, you need to start checking for tail feathers.

Just sayin.

M2
04-22-2006, 11:02 AM
If you're not striking out, you're not trying.

And who wants a lazy sod who can't even bring himself to swing hard?

ochre
04-22-2006, 11:09 AM
hmm. You may be on to something with that Colbert stuff. Have you noticed a significant portion of those defending Dunn hail from California's Canada?

TeamBoone
04-22-2006, 11:52 AM
Originally Posted by OUReds
Stephen Colbert would agree with Marty that Adam Dunn it not only terrible, but is likely pushing a radical pro-bear agenda in his post game interviews.

Colbert would care not for the "statinesta's" fact based arguements, he would feel and understand Dunn's lack of productivity in his gut.

Just Sayin'

Someone, please enlighten me because I don't even know what this means.

ochre
04-22-2006, 12:07 PM
Someone, please enlighten me because I don't even know what this means.
The Colbert report from comedy central. You'd really have to see it a few times to get the full impact of that post :).

RFS62
04-22-2006, 02:29 PM
The Colbert report from comedy central. You'd really have to see it a few times to get the full impact of that post :).


It's a great show.

KronoRed
04-22-2006, 02:55 PM
It's a show for mocking ;)

Highlifeman21
04-22-2006, 10:43 PM
If we're still continuing with the notion that Adam Dunn is horrendous defensively in LF, maybe his math skills, or lack thereof are to blame?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/20060421/sc_space/bustingbaseballmythsscientistthrowsbigcurveballs

Quick, someone get the grades for every geometry class Dunn's taken in his life!