PDA

View Full Version : More stats on Dunn



OnBaseMachine
04-17-2006, 01:49 AM
2006 Season

Dunn is hitting .389/.478/1.056-1.534 in 22 plate appearances against left handed pitchers this season.

2005 comparison: .197/.321/.463-.784

Four of Dunn's seven homeruns have been against lefties.

2005 comparison: 13 homeruns in roughly 225 plate appearances vs lefties

Homerun breakdown

-Three of his homeruns have been to the opposite field(LF or LCF)
-Two have been to centerfield
-Two have been to rightfield

2005 comparison:

-Only six of his homeruns landed to the left of the 404 sign in centerfield
-34 of his homeruns were to center or rightfield

Homerun by ballpark

Five of Adam Dunn's seven homeruns have been away from the Great American Ballpark.

-Three in Wrigley Field
-Two in Busch Stadium
-Two in Great American Ballpark

2005 comparison: 26 of his 40 homeruns were at the Great American Ballpark. This was obviously a fluke though, as Dunn has the power to hit the ball out of any ballpark.

It's very encouraging to note that Adam Dunn is hitting more to the opposite field this year, hitting better against lefties and all the while still maintaining his prestigious power. Adam has looked bad at times this week on breaking pitches in the dirt, but I have no doubt in my mind that Adam will adjust to that. This man is a truly elite hitter, and he has yet to even reach his prime years.

George Foster's franchise single season homerun record could be in jeopardy this season. Dunn is currently on pace for 91 homeruns. :D

Johnny Footstool
04-17-2006, 02:21 AM
Who cares about his HRs? How's he doing with RISP?

biggestREDSfan
04-17-2006, 02:31 AM
Thanks for the statistics on Adam Dunn! They were interesting. I think this is going to be a great year for Dunn. :D

kyred14
04-17-2006, 02:34 AM
Geez, I wish he would make friggin agjustments. He hasn't improved a bit in five years. ;)

Mario-Rijo
04-17-2006, 01:18 PM
Who cares about his HRs? How's he doing with RISP?

Not that this counts. But isn't HE in scoring position when he's at the plate? How about putting Griffey behind him in the order, I bet his his avg. WRISP goes up and jr.s goes down. Quite frankly why would you give Dunn anything to hit when Kearns, Pena, Aurilia and the like are batting behind him. He's one of the most dangerous hitters in the game and the only way to protect him in those situations is to put an equally dangerous or moreso hitter behind him.

BRM
04-17-2006, 01:21 PM
He's one of the most dangerous hitters in the game and the only way to protect him in those situations is to put an equally dangerous or moreso hitter behind him.

Lots of 'zoners have advocated hitting Dunn 3rd and Junior 4th for quite some time.

flyer85
04-17-2006, 01:30 PM
Who cares about his HRs? How's he doing with RISP?Really, and how many strikeouts does he have?

flyer85
04-17-2006, 01:32 PM
Not that this counts. But isn't HE in scoring position when he's at the plate? How about putting Griffey behind him in the order.The logic I saw in an article on the batting order said the high OBP guy should go in the 4 spot instead of the 3 because he is more likely to lead off an inning(the 2nd in most cases I would assume).

Johnny Footstool
04-17-2006, 01:36 PM
Really, and how many strikeouts does he have?

One is too many. C'mon, the guy earns millions of dollars per season. You'd think he'd be able to avoid strikeouts.

And those walks are BORING! Swing the bat, already!

kaldaniels
04-17-2006, 01:41 PM
2006 Season

Dunn is hitting .389/.478/1.056-1.534 in 22 plate appearances against left handed pitchers this season.

2005 comparison: .197/.321/.463-.784

Four of Dunn's seven homeruns have been against lefties.

2005 comparison: 13 homeruns in roughly 225 plate appearances vs lefties

Homerun breakdown

-Three of his homeruns have been to the opposite field(LF or LCF)
-Two have been to centerfield
-Two have been to rightfield

2005 comparison:

-Only six of his homeruns landed to the left of the 404 sign in centerfield
-34 of his homeruns were to center or rightfield

Homerun by ballpark

Five of Adam Dunn's seven homeruns have been away from the Great American Ballpark.

-Three in Wrigley Field
-Two in Busch Stadium
-Two in Great American Ballpark

2005 comparison: 26 of his 40 homeruns were at the Great American Ballpark. This was obviously a fluke though, as Dunn has the power to hit the ball out of any ballpark.

It's very encouraging to note that Adam Dunn is hitting more to the opposite field this year, hitting better against lefties and all the while still maintaining his prestigious power. Adam has looked bad at times this week on breaking pitches in the dirt, but I have no doubt in my mind that Adam will adjust to that. This man is a truly elite hitter, and he has yet to even reach his prime years.

George Foster's franchise single season homerun record could be in jeopardy this season. Dunn is currently on pace for 91 homeruns. :D

A possible quote to be read on here in the future "I don't care if
Adam Dunn hits 91 home runs, he strikeouts out too much...lets trade him":D

flyer85
04-17-2006, 01:47 PM
A possible quote to be read on here in the future "I don't care if
Adam Dunn hits 91 home runs, he strikeouts out too much...lets trade him":D"He will still be letting in more runs than he drives in".

membengal
04-17-2006, 02:13 PM
What really bothers me is that the constant water-churning by Marty and other ill-informed fans means that it is diffcult to simply enjoy a stupendous player who is plying his trade for my favorite team.

That doesn't happen very often, and should be celebrated. Instead, this fanbase has wasted years breaking Dunn down to the minutest of detail, losing sight of how good he is in the process. Which is too bad.

Johnny Footstool
04-17-2006, 02:15 PM
What really bothers me is that the constant water-churning by Marty and other ill-informed fans means that it is diffcult to simply enjoy a stupendous player who is plying his trade for my favorite team.

That doesn't happen very often, and should be celebrated. Instead, this fanbase has wasted years breaking Dunn down to the minutest of detail, losing sight of how good he is in the process. Which is too bad.

Sarcasm from my previous posts aside, I agree.

BlfdVaFan
04-17-2006, 02:35 PM
Just think......If he hits 91 home runs then he would have 133 rbi's.

RedsMan3203
04-17-2006, 02:42 PM
Is Dunn good enough for me? Yes.. Does he do stupid things in the field? Yes. Does he strike out alot? Yes.

Who Cares - There are only 2 people in this line-up that can change a game around in a matter of seconds. 1 being Dunn the other one being JR.

Adam Dunn isn't a Pujlos.... Adam Dunn is a PURE Power hitter.... Get used to it... He is going to be doing it for awhile and will come up to be one of the best we ever see.

Get off the guys back.. Cheer him like you love him.... Lets get some Wins...

Adam Dunn is going to be a big part of our winning furture and hopefully these so called "fans" don't run him out of town.

Sabo Fan
04-17-2006, 02:42 PM
Just think......If he hits 91 home runs then he would have 133 rbi's.

Yeah, it's his fault guys don't get on base in front of him.

dougdirt
04-17-2006, 03:51 PM
Yeah, it's his fault guys don't get on base in front of him.

Oh and being 2-22 with runners on base isnt? The guy has never hit with runner in scoring position. He may walk a ton, but he has never HIT with runners on base. He has struck out 13 times with runners on base this year with just 25 plate appearances, he just isnt getting it done for the time being.

KronoRed
04-17-2006, 04:05 PM
Leave Dunn be, he'll be fine.

Lets talk about the other problems (pitching) :evil:

SteelSD
04-17-2006, 04:05 PM
The guy has never hit with runner in scoring position. He may walk a ton, but he has never HIT with runners on base.

Myth. RBI acquisition is driven by Base rate acquisition (SLG) rather than Hit volume (BA).

Dunn last season with Runners On:

2nd Base Only (36 AB): .639 SLG
3rd Base Only (9 AB): .667 SLG
1st and 2nd (44 AB): .591 SLG
1st and 3rd (14 AB): .500 SLG
2nd and 3rd (13 AB): .154 SLG
Bases Loaded (13 AB): .769 SLG

Runners On Overall: .560 SLG
with RISP: .574 SLG

And as not making Outs is the primary function of a Hitter, I fail to see how one can draw a distinction that excludes Base on Balls acquisition. Last season, Dunn drew Walks in the following situations without a base open:

1st and 2nd: 6 BB
1st and 3rd: 7 BB
Bases Loaded: 6 BB

That equals 37 Runners advanced and six RBI without putting bat on ball in 2005. Yet none of that qualifies as good "hitting" but would had those Walks been Infield Singles instead? C'mon.

FoReel
04-17-2006, 04:09 PM
The only improvement i see from him is that, he has hit some sac flies other than that hes a strike-out or a homerun.

OnBaseMachine
04-17-2006, 04:10 PM
Oh and being 2-22 with runners on base isnt? The guy has never hit with runner in scoring position. He may walk a ton, but he has never HIT with runners on base. He has struck out 13 times with runners on base this year with just 25 plate appearances, he just isnt getting it done for the time being.

False.

I hate the average with RISP stat. Any stat that ignores a homerun or run-scoring double with a runner on first base, is a worthless stat, IMO. But since you want to talk RISP, here are Dunn's numbers:

2005-Adam Dunn w/RISP

.248/.468/.574-1.072 OPS

To steal a line from Raiser...Dunn was six hits away from having a .300 batting average with RISP last year. That's one dang hit a month. Why are you complaining about one hit a month?

BRM
04-17-2006, 04:12 PM
The only improvement i see from him is that, he has hit some sac flies other than that hes a strike-out or a homerun.

Or a walk...or a double.

flyer85
04-17-2006, 04:12 PM
Why are you complaining about one hit a month?because Dunn doesn't fit a preconceived notion of what some want him to be.

BRM
04-17-2006, 04:19 PM
False.

I hate the average with RISP stat. Any stat that ignores a homerun or run-scoring double with a runner on first base, is a worthless stat, IMO. But since you want to talk RISP, here are Dunn's numbers:

2005-Adam Dunn w/RISP

.248/.468/.574-1.072 OPS

To steal a line from Raiser...Dunn was six hits away from having a .300 batting average with RISP last year. That's one dang hit a month. Why are you complaining about one hit a month?

OTOH, Casey hit .286 w/RISP in 2005. Casey had 126 at-bats w/RISP, Adam had 129. However, Dunn had 62 RBI's to Sean's 44. Sean had more hits w/RISP than Dunn in about the same number of at-bats but drove in fewer runs.

flyer85
04-17-2006, 04:21 PM
OTOH, Casey hit .286 w/RISP in 2005. Casey had 126 at-bats w/RISP, Adam had 129. However, Dunn had 62 RBI's to Sean's 44. Sean had more hits w/RISP than Dunn in about the same number of at-bats but drove in fewer runs.but Sean is still a much better "clutch" hitter.:doh:

Sabo Fan
04-17-2006, 04:23 PM
Oh and being 2-22 with runners on base isnt? The guy has never hit with runner in scoring position. He may walk a ton, but he has never HIT with runners on base. He has struck out 13 times with runners on base this year with just 25 plate appearances, he just isnt getting it done for the time being.

Steel's post pretty much blew that entire contention right out of the water, so there's really no point in continuing that discussion further.

However, I would love to know why people are so hard on Dunn. It seems to completely defy all logic. The guy is an offensive monster and yet it seems like he can't do anything right. I honestly believe that most of these people see him at the plate once a week and if he K's or fails to get a hit in that at-bat then they just assume that's what he did in the rest of his plate appearances. Is he not scrappy enough for some of you? Does he not do the little things right? Sure he K's a a lot, but who cares? He flat-out produces and that is all that should matter.

I love the points about how his RBI totals are too low because he "only hits solo homers." Yeah, because we all know that solo homers are a waste. Over the course of a season the percentages say that those solo homers will turn into two and three-run shots and you RBI-lovers can have your fill. Maybe he'll even get a few sacrifice flies just to mix things up a bit. As long as his HR-per-plate-appearances number stays where it is, he'll drive in a large number of runs. The numbers show that he is one of the premier offensive players in all of baseball, and the second best in the under-26 group behind only Pujols in terms of HR's. Enjoy the fact that your favorite team has a player that is held in such high esteem.

Raisor
04-17-2006, 04:28 PM
To steal a line from Raiser...Dunn was six hits away from having a .300 batting average with RISP last year. That's one dang hit a month. Why are you complaining about one hit a month?


To be fair, I stole that line from Steel, who then turned around and stole it back from me. At this point, I think you're stealing from Krono.

flyer85
04-17-2006, 04:28 PM
However, I would love to know why people are so hard on Dunn. It seems to completely defy all logic. People want to Dunn to be something he is not(a high BA, low K, scrappy kind of hitter with RISP) instead of appreciating him for what he is(a very productive hitter who is a RISP when he steps to the plate). So instead of focusing on his strengths they focus on his perceived "weaknesses".

KronoRed
04-17-2006, 04:29 PM
To be fair, I stole that line from Steel, who then turned around and stole it back from me. At this point, I think you're stealing from Krono.
No way man, my line on Dunn is "If you turned his bases empty walks into singles he hit .299 last year"

:D

registerthis
04-17-2006, 04:31 PM
To steal a line from Raiser...Dunn was six hits away from having a .300 batting average with RISP last year. That's one dang hit a month. Why are you complaining about one hit a month?

I don't disagree with what's being said in support of Dunn, but i really don't like this kind of logic.

Why complain about one hit a month? Because that "one hit" could mean the difference in a win or a loss, particularly becuase it's typically one pitch a game that ends up losing a game for the Reds. I can't tell you how many times, when discussing a pitcher's outing, I've heard the line "except for that one pitch..."

The fact is, Dunn didn't get that extra hit a month. He shouldn't be maligned for it, or drug through the streets...but it shouldn't be swept away, either. He is what he is--an outstanding power hitter who gets on base a ton. But those six hits--they should neither be magnified nor ignored.

Raisor
04-17-2006, 04:42 PM
I don't disagree with what's being said in support of Dunn, but i really don't like this kind of logic.

Why complain about one hit a month? Because that "one hit" could mean the difference in a win or a loss, particularly becuase it's typically one pitch a game that ends up losing a game for the Reds. I can't tell you how many times, when discussing a pitcher's outing, I've heard the line "except for that one pitch..."

The fact is, Dunn didn't get that extra hit a month. He shouldn't be maligned for it, or drug through the streets...but it shouldn't be swept away, either. He is what he is--an outstanding power hitter who gets on base a ton. But those six hits--they should neither be magnified nor ignored.



What people ARE doing, however, are ignoring what Dunn actually did and going nearly out of their minds over six at outs spread over a full season.

His 1.041 OPS last year with RISP was nearly 100 points higher then his overall OPS, yet because of those "six" ab's it's said he can't produce with RISP.

It's nonsense.

We KNOW (and we can PROVE) that OPS gives a more accurate offensive picture then batting average. It's not really up to debate anymore.

Raisor
04-17-2006, 04:45 PM
Another thing. Wins and losses are not caused by one game event. Adam Dunn (or any other player) does not win/lose a game by himself. If Dunn fails in a RISP situation in the bottom of the 9th, that's not why the team lost. It takes every single event in a game.

SteelSD
04-17-2006, 04:51 PM
I don't disagree with what's being said in support of Dunn, but i really don't like this kind of logic.

Why complain about one hit a month? Because that "one hit" could mean the difference in a win or a loss, particularly becuase it's typically one pitch a game that ends up losing a game for the Reds. I can't tell you how many times, when discussing a pitcher's outing, I've heard the line "except for that one pitch..."

The fact is, Dunn didn't get that extra hit a month. He shouldn't be maligned for it, or drug through the streets...but it shouldn't be swept away, either. He is what he is--an outstanding power hitter who gets on base a ton. But those six hits--they should neither be magnified nor ignored.

When six Walks produced six RBI and six solo Home Runs were as good as a Single with a Runner in Scoring position, or when one of his Doubles scored two instead of one, and when one of his Home Runs with a runner at 1st scores two rather than none yet doesn't count as a "RISP" hit because the runner ahead of him had the audacity to hit a Single instead of a Double, then yes...those six Hits can be completely ignored- particularly when Hit rate with RISP has little to do with Runs Scored volume.

And in case no one has figured this out, Adam Dunn is being raked through the mud because the Reds pitching sucks. If the pitching didn't suck, the misinformed wouldn't be railing on the best offensive player on the club for not being better than the best offensive player on the club. Instead, they'd take a look at a guy who's worth about 120 Runs per year offensively and would maybe be somewhat appreciative of that contribution.

Instead, the pitching sucks and the offense needs to outscore it so let's rail on something we think a hitter has control over (BA w/RISP) because we know we can't do anything about the pitching. The pitching has stunk for so long that railing on offensive players for perceived failure is like a learned helplessness reflex action. The pitching sucks. Reds fans know it sucks. But HEY! There's a hit per month we think is missing so let's talk about that because it ain't going to do any good to talk about how bad the pitching is.

Johnny Footstool
04-17-2006, 05:21 PM
There's a certain sect of Phillies fans who are down on Bobby Abreu for similar reasons. They say he walks too much, strikes out too much, and doesn't come through in the clutch. They also claim he "pads his doubles" -- apparently by not legging out triples.

SteelSD
04-17-2006, 05:23 PM
There's a certain sect of Phillies fans who are down on Bobby Abreu for similar reasons. They say he walks too much, strikes out too much, and doesn't come through in the clutch. They also claim he "pads his doubles" -- apparently by not legging out triples.

I hate "soft" Doubles. They're nowhere near as good as "hard" Singles.

KRISPY

KronoRed
04-17-2006, 05:23 PM
They also claim he "pads his doubles" -- apparently by not legging out triples.
:confused:
Phillie fans are on another planet when it comes to player criticism.

Raisor
04-17-2006, 05:26 PM
I hate "soft" Doubles. They're nowhere near as good as "hard" Singles.

KRISPY


I don't know why, but I'm back over THERE doing all this with you know who.

"Everytime I think I'm out. They PULL me back in".

Raisor
04-17-2006, 05:27 PM
:confused:
Phillie fans are on another planet when it comes to player criticism.


The only reason to keep Phillie in the United States is the cheese steak.

registerthis
04-17-2006, 06:00 PM
Another thing. Wins and losses are not caused by one game event. Adam Dunn (or any other player) does not win/lose a game by himself. If Dunn fails in a RISP situation in the bottom of the 9th, that's not why the team lost. It takes every single event in a game.

Of course, but let me phrase it another way:

Those 6 hits Dunn didn't get could have given the Reds a chance to win games they did not otherwise have. And, listen, I'm not bashing Dunn, I'm on your guys' side in this argument.

I just don't like the "it's only 6 hits" line of logic being used here. There's other ways to defend the numbers Dunn puts up; I am not a fan of this particular one.

Raisor
04-17-2006, 06:06 PM
Of course, but let me phrase it another way:

Those 6 hits Dunn didn't get could have given the Reds a chance to win games they did not otherwise have. And, listen, I'm not bashing Dunn, I'm on your guys' side in this argument.

I just don't like the "it's only 6 hits" line of logic being used here. There's other ways to defend the numbers Dunn puts up; I am not a fan of this particular one.


Since it's six hit, who's to say they wouldn't have been in games where the Reds won anyway?

It's six hits. It's such a small sample size to litterally be meaningless.

registerthis
04-17-2006, 06:10 PM
When six Walks produced six RBI and six solo Home Runs were as good as a Single with a Runner in Scoring position, or when one of his Doubles scored two instead of one, and when one of his Home Runs with a runner at 1st scores two rather than none yet doesn't count as a "RISP" hit because the runner ahead of him had the audacity to hit a Single instead of a Double, then yes...those six Hits can be completely ignored- particularly when Hit rate with RISP has little to do with Runs Scored volume.

You're making this exceedingly more complex than I was ever intending it to be. You can't ignore 6 times Dunn made an out instead of NOT making an out any more than you can ignore 6 times when a particular pitcher didn't get someone out when instead of getting that player out. It leads too far into the land of suppositions, and feeds those who think guys like Womack and Paul Wilson are legitimately good baseball players--"if they'd only done X a few more times" or "if they'd only done Y a few less times" they'd be good...is typically how the argument goes. We don't know what the results would have been or what the outcome of games would have ended up as had Dunn not made an out those other six times--perhaps identical, perhaps not. And that's why I don't like that line of reasoning.

The fact is, Dunn DID make an out those six times that are in question, and he's still an unbelieveably talented ballplayer. His stature and his numbers can be defended without trying to envision scenarios where we can ignore certain times he made an out.


And in case no one has figured this out, Adam Dunn is being raked through the mud because the Reds pitching sucks. If the pitching didn't suck, the misinformed wouldn't be railing on the best offensive player on the club for not being better than the best offensive player on the club. Instead, they'd take a look at a guy who's worth about 120 Runs per year offensively and would maybe be somewhat appreciative of that contribution.

Instead, the pitching sucks and the offense needs to outscore it so let's rail on something we think a hitter has control over (BA w/RISP) because we know we can't do anything about the pitching. The pitching has stunk for so long that railing on offensive players for perceived failure is like a learned helplessness reflex action. The pitching sucks. Reds fans know it sucks. But HEY! There's a hit per month we think is missing so let's talk about that because it ain't going to do any good to talk about how bad the pitching is.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that the rest of this response was not directed specifically at me, because what you're supposing above couldn't be farther from my contention.

registerthis
04-17-2006, 06:13 PM
Since it's six hit, who's to say they wouldn't have been in games where the Reds won anyway?

It's six hits. It's such a small sample size to litterally be meaningless.

Sure, and if I had a dime for everytime I read a post that said "Except for that pitch in the 4th inning, milton pitched a decent game" I could retire early.

Roy Tucker
04-17-2006, 06:15 PM
To be fair, I stole that line from Steel, who then turned around and stole it back from me. At this point, I think you're stealing from Krono.
To be fair, I think it all comes from this:

"Know what the difference between hitting .250 and .300 is? It's 25 hits. 25 hits in 500 at bats is 50 points, okay? There's 6 months in a season, that's about 25 weeks. That means if you get just one extra flare a week - just one - a gorp... you get a groundball, you get a groundball with eyes... you get a dying quail, just one more dying quail a week... and you're in Yankee Stadium."
-- Crash Davis

Cyclone792
04-17-2006, 06:17 PM
To be fair, I think it all comes from this:

"Know what the difference between hitting .250 and .300 is? It's 25 hits. 25 hits in 500 at bats is 50 points, okay? There's 6 months in a season, that's about 25 weeks. That means if you get just one extra flare a week - just one - a gorp... you get a groundball, you get a groundball with eyes... you get a dying quail, just one more dying quail a week... and you're in Yankee Stadium."
-- Crash Davis

I'll trump all!

"One absolutely cannot tell, by watching, the difference between a .300 hitter and a .275 hitter. The difference is one hit every two weeks. It might be that a reporter, seeing every game the team plays, could sense the difference over the course of the year if no records were kept, but I doubt it . . . the difference between a good hitter and an average hitter is simply not visible." -- Bill James, 1977 Baseball Abstract

Raisor
04-17-2006, 06:17 PM
To be fair, I think it all comes from this:

"Know what the difference between hitting .250 and .300 is? It's 25 hits. 25 hits in 500 at bats is 50 points, okay? There's 6 months in a season, that's about 25 weeks. That means if you get just one extra flare a week - just one - a gorp... you get a groundball, you get a groundball with eyes... you get a dying quail, just one more dying quail a week... and you're in Yankee Stadium."
-- Crash Davis



Crash was scrappy, and he believed in slump busters.

dougdirt
04-17-2006, 06:19 PM
Myth. RBI acquisition is driven by Base rate acquisition (SLG) rather than Hit volume (BA).

Dunn last season with Runners On:

2nd Base Only (36 AB): .639 SLG
3rd Base Only (9 AB): .667 SLG
1st and 2nd (44 AB): .591 SLG
1st and 3rd (14 AB): .500 SLG
2nd and 3rd (13 AB): .154 SLG
Bases Loaded (13 AB): .769 SLG

Runners On Overall: .560 SLG
with RISP: .574 SLG

And as not making Outs is the primary function of a Hitter, I fail to see how one can draw a distinction that excludes Base on Balls acquisition. Last season, Dunn drew Walks in the following situations without a base open:

1st and 2nd: 6 BB
1st and 3rd: 7 BB
Bases Loaded: 6 BB

That equals 37 Runners advanced and six RBI without putting bat on ball in 2005. Yet none of that qualifies as good "hitting" but would had those Walks been Infield Singles instead? C'mon.

Great, for Dunn. The guy hit 40 home runs last year. He still only drove in 100 runs for the team who scores the most runs in the NL. If you want to talk on base percentage with runners on base, Dunn is still at a .250 on base clip so far this year. Slugging percentage is good to use to an extent, but when a walk drives in no one (in 90% of the cases) and is worth 1.00 in the slugging format, it does no good to me. Yes he avoided the out, but he still did not drive in a run and he left that up to someone else in the line up. Dunn should be the premiere RBI guy on the team. He leads the team in home runs, he hits 4th or 5th, yet hit 40 home runs and barely drives in 100 for the team who led the National League in runs scored? I know some of you have a man crush on Dunn, but he needs to be driving in runs with men on base, not taking walks on 9 pitches becuase the good ones they threw him he couldnt hit forward. Adam is not young anymore, he is making big boy money and hitting in the big boy spots in the line up and needs to put up big boy numbers in that RBI category.

RedsManRick
04-17-2006, 06:26 PM
You're making this exceedingly more complex than I was ever intending it to be. You can't ignore 6 times Dunn made an out instead of NOT making an out any more than you can ignore 6 times when a particular pitcher didn't get someone out when instead of getting that player out. It leads too far into the land of suppositions, and feeds those who think guys like Womack and Paul Wilson are legitimately good baseball players--"if they'd only done X a few more times" or "if they'd only done Y a few less times" they'd be good...is typically how the argument goes. We don't know what the results would have been or what the outcome of games would have ended up as had Dunn not made an out those other six times--perhaps identical, perhaps not. And that's why I don't like that line of reasoning.

The fact is, Dunn DID make an out those six times that are in question, and he's still an unbelieveably talented ballplayer. His stature and his numbers can be defended without trying to envision scenarios where we can ignore certain times he made an out.



I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that the rest of this response was not directed specifically at me, because what you're supposing above couldn't be farther from my contention.


I believe Steel's entire point was that we shouldn't highlight those 6 ABs where he "failed", but ignore numerous other points where he succeeded -- but were omitted because they weren't technically a "hit with runners in scoring position." It's not that you should ignore the 6 times he failed, just that if you want to start picking apart small numbers of at bats, there are other situations we should include which paint a different picture.

wheels
04-17-2006, 06:29 PM
Great, for Dunn. The guy hit 40 home runs last year. He still only drove in 100 runs for the team who scores the most runs in the NL. If you want to talk on base percentage with runners on base, Dunn is still at a .250 on base clip so far this year. Slugging percentage is good to use to an extent, but when a walk drives in no one (in 90% of the cases) and is worth 1.00 in the slugging format, it does no good to me. Yes he avoided the out, but he still did not drive in a run and he left that up to someone else in the line up. Dunn should be the premiere RBI guy on the team. He leads the team in home runs, he hits 4th or 5th, yet hit 40 home runs and barely drives in 100 for the team who led the National League in runs scored? I know some of you have a man crush on Dunn, but he needs to be driving in runs with men on base, not taking walks on 9 pitches becuase the good ones they threw him he couldnt hit forward. Adam is not young anymore, he is making big boy money and hitting in the big boy spots in the line up and needs to put up big boy numbers in that RBI category.

:laugh:

Raisor
04-17-2006, 06:31 PM
Adam is not young anymore, he is making big boy money and hitting in the big boy spots in the line up and needs to put up big boy numbers in that RBI category.


I'm going to guess that if I tried to explain "runs created" that you're not going to listen, right?

BRM
04-17-2006, 06:31 PM
Derrek Lee really sucked last year. 46 HRs and only 107 RBI.

RedsManRick
04-17-2006, 06:31 PM
Great, for Dunn. The guy hit 40 home runs last year. He still only drove in 100 runs for the team who scores the most runs in the NL. If you want to talk on base percentage with runners on base, Dunn is still at a .250 on base clip so far this year. Slugging percentage is good to use to an extent, but when a walk drives in no one (in 90% of the cases) and is worth 1.00 in the slugging format, it does no good to me. Yes he avoided the out, but he still did not drive in a run and he left that up to someone else in the line up. Dunn should be the premiere RBI guy on the team. He leads the team in home runs, he hits 4th or 5th, yet hit 40 home runs and barely drives in 100 for the team who led the National League in runs scored? I know some of you have a man crush on Dunn, but he needs to be driving in runs with men on base, not taking walks on 9 pitches becuase the good ones they threw him he couldnt hit forward. Adam is not young anymore, he is making big boy money and hitting in the big boy spots in the line up and needs to put up big boy numbers in that RBI category.

I don't have the stat, but I'm pretty sure there is one which summarizes the total percentage of RBI opportunties converted. That is, total at bats plus total number of base runners during those at bats. RISP ignores runners on first and the batter, who is an RBI opportunity himself.

In 2004 Barry Bonds hit .362/.609/.812 and hit 45 homers, but had just 101 RBI. I guess Bonds should've hit better with runners in scoring position too...

Raisor
04-17-2006, 06:34 PM
Batting Average
RBI
RISP

We've hit the "over rated" triple crown early this year.

BRM
04-17-2006, 06:36 PM
Batting Average
RBI
RISP

We've hit the "over rated" triple crown early this year.

But the debates are so much fun...

westofyou
04-17-2006, 06:40 PM
Great, for Dunn. The guy hit 40 home runs last year. He still only drove in 100 runs for the team who scores the most runs in the NL.

So did Mickey Mantle in 1958, 1960, and Killebrew in 1963 and Davey Johnson in 1973.

What's the point?

Ravenlord
04-17-2006, 06:41 PM
if memory serves, didn't Dunn lead the majors in leading off an inning last year? something like 26% of the time?

westofyou
04-17-2006, 06:43 PM
I know some of you have a man crush on Dunn,

So you think that by "degrading" our opinions it lifts yours?

Funny... I see it it the other way.


Dunn should be the premiere RBI guy on the team.

Who led the Reds in RBI's the last 2 years?

BRM
04-17-2006, 06:47 PM
if memory serves, didn't Dunn lead the majors in leading off an inning last year? something like 26% of the time?

That would be correct. 141 of his 543 at-bats were leading off an inning.

Buckaholic
04-17-2006, 07:14 PM
We KNOW (and we can PROVE) that OPS gives a more accurate offensive picture then batting average. It's not really up to debate anymore.

Clearly, I agree with the premise that we shouldn't totally ignore Dunn's walk rate and more generally, his OPS with RISP. Becuase obviously these numbers indicate Dunn is of more value in these situations than just the RISP batting average indicates.

But please, humor me with the proof that OPS is a more accurate offensive picture. I don't disagree that it's a little more of a broader spectrum than batting average, but how can anyone take the attitude you can prove such a thing?

This entire sabermatics thinking has become a little more widely accepted into baseball culture, but how can anyone lay claim to such a subjective issue being proven? The statement that OPS can be proven as a more accurate offensive picture is still an opinion. It's an opinion I agree with, but I think the statement and mentality presents a narrow-minded approach that isolates traditional baseball thinking and labels those traditionalists as the new-age heretics for being non-sabermatic believers when just five years ago, it was the other way around.

At the end of the day, statistics are just numbers. They give us measurements of a player's ability and quantify a player's performance. However, for a statistical reference to be proven, the end has to justify the means. When it comes right down to it, most of baseball is full of players that 50% of people would take one player while 50% would take another. Any given statistic might support the argument for player A while another statistic may be used to support player B. But I don't think you can come up with any sure proof that one statistic is more accurate than another.

Think outside the box.

With regards to the OPS versus batting average argument... specifically speaking, slugging percentage alone is based on total bases per at bat. If Adam Dunn hits a home run, walks and strikes out three times in five at-bats with a runner at second base in the bottom of the 8th to potentially score the go-ahead run in a tie game, he has a batting average of .250 and slugging percentage of 1.000. However, if Austin Kearns hits three singles in five at-bats scoring that same runner, he has a batting average of .600 and a slugging percentage of .600.

In this specific argument of Adam Dunn and his production with RISP, you can clearly see that Kearns would clearly be more reliable in this situation, but your OPS numbers (based on the slugging portion) would say Dunn is the more valuable player. Dunn's OPS would be 1.400 and Kearns would have a 1.200 OPS. Three times in five at-bats Kearns drove home that very important run whereas Dunn did it once. But because that one time his hit was a home run, the stat you say is proven to be more important rewards the guy who had fewer bigger hits with the game on the line.

This is a limited sample size, but surely you can recognize there are probably a lot of expanded examples that probably illustrate this point further. Again, more times than not I'm going to agree OPS is a better indicator because taking a walk should not be penalized for how you fare in a clutch situation, but neither should constantly getting hits (even if they are singles) as opposed to hitting less, but getting the 4-bagger.

The point remains though - in this small example, OPS was not the indicator of the more productive player. I think it's dangerous to begin making statements that one line of thinking is better than another line of thinking, especially when you claim to be able to prove something that really cannot be proven. When it comes right down to it, stats may measure performance but it's still an opinion as to which ones are more effective. There are so many and so many types that it's not physically possible to label one stat better, no questions asked.

registerthis
04-17-2006, 07:15 PM
I believe Steel's entire point was that we shouldn't highlight those 6 ABs where he "failed", but ignore numerous other points where he succeeded -- but were omitted because they weren't technically a "hit with runners in scoring position." It's not that you should ignore the 6 times he failed, just that if you want to start picking apart small numbers of at bats, there are other situations we should include which paint a different picture.

I don't disagree...in fact, I'm not sure what I know anymore.

A long day in the office...

SteelSD
04-17-2006, 07:20 PM
You're making this exceedingly more complex than I was ever intending it to be. You can't ignore 6 times Dunn made an out instead of NOT making an out any more than you can ignore 6 times when a particular pitcher didn't get someone out when instead of getting that player out. It leads too far into the land of suppositions, and feeds those who think guys like Womack and Paul Wilson are legitimately good baseball players--"if they'd only done X a few more times" or "if they'd only done Y a few less times" they'd be good...is typically how the argument goes. We don't know what the results would have been or what the outcome of games would have ended up as had Dunn not made an out those other six times--perhaps identical, perhaps not. And that's why I don't like that line of reasoning.

The fact is, Dunn DID make an out those six times that are in question, and he's still an unbelieveably talented ballplayer. His stature and his numbers can be defended without trying to envision scenarios where we can ignore certain times he made an out.

My point was, and will continue to be, that not only does Adam Dunn himself represent a RISP every time he walks to the plate, but that the strength of his offensive output last year was with ducks on the pond in front of him.

Knowing both those items to be true, it makes little sense to harp on six hits that don't exist.


I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that the rest of this response was not directed specifically at me, because what you're supposing above couldn't be farther from my contention.

You would be correct.

flyer85
04-17-2006, 07:25 PM
Adam is not young anymoreDunn, an old man at 26 :help:

flyer85
04-17-2006, 07:26 PM
I'm going to guess that if I tried to explain "runs created" that you're not going to listen, right?la, la, la, la, la

flyer85
04-17-2006, 07:26 PM
In 2004 Barry Bonds hit .362/.609/.812 and hit 45 homers, but had just 101 RBI. I guess Bonds should've hit better with runners in scoring position too...took way too many unscrappy walks

IslandRed
04-17-2006, 07:26 PM
Slugging percentage is good to use to an extent, but when a walk drives in no one (in 90% of the cases) and is worth 1.00 in the slugging format, it does no good to me. Yes he avoided the out, but he still did not drive in a run and he left that up to someone else in the line up.

It's a team game. If Dunn started hacking with runners in scoring position, it might help his personal RBI total, but does it help the team? Not necessarily. It's nice to say "I want to drive in that runner," but a hitter has to be smart about it. Dunn swinging at crap off the plate does the team less good than Dunn walking to first base and the next guy taking his chances. Acting as if the guy in the on-deck circle doesn't exist or can't do the job is, dare I say it, a little selfish.

flyer85
04-17-2006, 07:27 PM
Who led the Reds in RBI's the last 2 years?
Had to be Sean Casey or Rich Aurilia, didn't it?

westofyou
04-17-2006, 07:29 PM
It's a team game.

Evidently not, once again the Reds are scoring a huge amount of runs, but giving up more.

Only one man's back is broad enough to shoulder the blame and it looks like it's Dunn.

SteelSD
04-17-2006, 07:33 PM
Great, for Dunn. The guy hit 40 home runs last year. He still only drove in 100 runs for the team who scores the most runs in the NL. If you want to talk on base percentage with runners on base, Dunn is still at a .250 on base clip so far this year. Slugging percentage is good to use to an extent, but when a walk drives in no one (in 90% of the cases) and is worth 1.00 in the slugging format, it does no good to me. Yes he avoided the out, but he still did not drive in a run and he left that up to someone else in the line up. Dunn should be the premiere RBI guy on the team. He leads the team in home runs, he hits 4th or 5th, yet hit 40 home runs and barely drives in 100 for the team who led the National League in runs scored? I know some of you have a man crush on Dunn, but he needs to be driving in runs with men on base, not taking walks on 9 pitches becuase the good ones they threw him he couldnt hit forward. Adam is not young anymore, he is making big boy money and hitting in the big boy spots in the line up and needs to put up big boy numbers in that RBI category.

And I've got big boy data showing that Adam Dunn is worth big boy Runs; which is why he's being paid big boy dollars to play a big boy game.

Adam Dunn 2006- 13.9 Runs Created (NL Rank- 5th)
Adam Dunn 2005- 116.9 Runs Created (NL Rank- 7th)
Adam Dunn 2004- 124.9 Runs Created (NL Rank- 9th)

If you'd pull your head out from behind the RBI curtain, you'd figure that out.

Oh, and BTW- Walks do not factor into the calculation of Slugging Percentage. Never have. Never will. Adam Dunn's SLG is not affected by Walks. Only Base Hit acquisition events count. Adam Dunn is a big boy who gets big boy Bases the old fashioned way- he earns them fair and square with big boy Hits.

And there is no rational "Yes, he avoided the out, but..." argument that exists. Adam Dunn does not trade Hits for Walks. He trades Outs for Walks.

Ravenlord
04-17-2006, 07:36 PM
Great, for Dunn. The guy hit 40 home runs last year. He still only drove in 100 runs for the team who scores the most runs in the NL. If you want to talk on base percentage with runners on base, Dunn is still at a .250 on base clip so far this year. Slugging percentage is good to use to an extent, but when a walk drives in no one (in 90% of the cases) and is worth 1.00 in the slugging format, it does no good to me. Yes he avoided the out, but he still did not drive in a run and he left that up to someone else in the line up. Dunn should be the premiere RBI guy on the team. He leads the team in home runs, he hits 4th or 5th, yet hit 40 home runs and barely drives in 100 for the team who led the National League in runs scored? I know some of you have a man crush on Dunn, but he needs to be driving in runs with men on base, not taking walks on 9 pitches becuase the good ones they threw him he couldnt hit forward. Adam is not young anymore, he is making big boy money and hitting in the big boy spots in the line up and needs to put up big boy numbers in that RBI category.

so you want Dunn to be Tony Batista?

flyer85
04-17-2006, 07:39 PM
so you want Dunn to be Tony Batista?I thought he was Dave Kingman? :confused:

Raisor
04-17-2006, 07:40 PM
so you want Dunn to be Tony Batista?



aaahhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!

SteelSD
04-17-2006, 07:44 PM
Clearly, I agree with the premise that we shouldn't totally ignore Dunn's walk rate and more generally, his OPS with RISP. Becuase obviously these numbers indicate Dunn is of more value in these situations than just the RISP batting average indicates.

But please, humor me with the proof that OPS is a more accurate offensive picture. I don't disagree that it's a little more of a broader spectrum than batting average, but how can anyone take the attitude you can prove such a thing?

OPS has the highest correlation with actual Runs Scored of any of the "shorthand" metrics available (BA, OBP, SLG, OPS). There are more accurate measurements (Runs Created, Linear Weights, etc.) that may be more accurate than OPS, but Batting Average is not among them.

In that context, OPS>OBP>SLG>BA (that's the exact breakdown) is as widely accepted a concept as "water is wet". If someone says that OPS is a better guage of performance than Batting Average, they're saying it because it's true. And the reason it's true is that not all non-Out events are created equal.

westofyou
04-17-2006, 07:44 PM
I thought he was Dave Kingman? :confused:
No... Dave Nicholson

SteelSD
04-17-2006, 07:45 PM
No... Dave Nicholson

He was good in The Witches of Eastwick.

Not scrappy enough though.

Raisor
04-17-2006, 07:49 PM
If someone says that OPS is a better guage of performance than Batting Average, they're saying it because it's true. And the reason it's true is that not all non-Out events are created equal.


yeah, so there!

:mooner:

:devil:

Buckaholic
04-18-2006, 01:13 AM
OPS has the highest correlation with actual Runs Scored of any of the "shorthand" metrics available (BA, OBP, SLG, OPS). There are more accurate measurements (Runs Created, Linear Weights, etc.) that may be more accurate than OPS, but Batting Average is not among them.

In that context, OPS>OBP>SLG>BA (that's the exact breakdown) is as widely accepted a concept as "water is wet". If someone says that OPS is a better guage of performance than Batting Average, they're saying it because it's true. And the reason it's true is that not all non-Out events are created equal.

Being widely accepted as true isn't proof. In the court of law, an alleged criminal must be proven guilty beyond a shadow of doubt. A jury can believe a defendant to be guilty, but if there is still lingering doubt or the prosecutor could not completely prove his case, the defendant is acquitted.

Statistics can be kind of like that. It may seem like one statistic is a better frame of reference than another, but not in all individual cases will that be the case. If there are still plenty of examples to the contrary, there is no burden of proof to where one stat is better than another even if more times than not, it appears to be so.

Unless you can statistically back up that OPS is virtually always a more effective method than batting average as Raisor said has been "proven", you cannot make such a claim. And in the statistical example I cited, albeit of 5 plate appearances, the OPS was not a better measurement of how a player produced in a RISP situation.

Even more interesting - you claim that OPS has the "highest correlation" to runs scored than any "shorthand metric". Technically, the argument was about whether or not Adam Dunn was productive at the plate with runners in scoring position. Sure, it's great that Dunn draws walks in that situation. But correct me if I'm wrong, isn't the primary job of the cleanup hitter supposed to be driving in runs?

Taking a walk is not a bad thing, but when the primary purpose of a cleanup hitter is to drive runs in, you would like for his statistical correlations to relate on run productivity, and not whether he ultimately scores runs. Ideally, everyone in the lineup will drive runs in when given the opportunity, but the chances decline further down the order to score those runs.

I am not shouldering the blame on Dunn. I think he gets a bad rap, but I do feel there is at least some room for improvement with RISP if he's to be a premier hitter and not just a slugger.

Lastly, back to the issue of OPS.

Being the highest correlation to runs scored is also a faulty logic of measuring a player. It's kind of like wins for a pitcher. A pitcher can give up 10 runs in 5 innings pitched and if his team scores 11, he still gets credit for a win. He could give up just 1 run in 8 innings, but his team would get shutout and he gets nothing.

Similarly, a hitter could get on base 3 times in 10 plate appearances on one base hit and two errors and score runs all 3 times. Or, another hitter could get on base 5 times in 10 plate appearances and score none if his teammates don't drive him in.

Like all non-outs are not created equal, not all statistics are created equal. If scoring runs is the ultimate measurement for a player, there have to be players driving in those runs. Not every player has the same role on a baseball team. Adam Dunn is a cleanup hitter (at least against righties). His job is not to score runs, his primary job is to drive them in.

I don't condone Marty Brenneman's outlandish criticism, but I understand his point. Dunn does not produce as often as he should in the situation he is supposed to. Like a leadoff hitter is supposed to bunt, take walks, get on base and sometimes steal bases... Dunn is supposed to drive in runs and put the ball in the air with runners on third and less than two outs. That's a 100 years of baseball strategy right there.

A new line of statistical measurements don't change that ultimate goal. OPS and some of the new statistics might tell a more descriptive story, but the book on baseball was written long ago and those same tales can be told in very simplistic ways. Sometimes I think people try to over complicate basic principal.

Cyclone792
04-18-2006, 01:16 AM
http://www.hardballtimes.com/images/uploads/dlf_ops1.JPG

Just a hunch, but I'm guessing there's a place for that chart in this thread.

MWM
04-18-2006, 01:24 AM
BA w/ RISP has about a 56% correlation with total runs scored (I ran thenumbers a couple of years ago).

I appreciate the arguments you're making Buck, but it's really hard to argue with the typed of correlation OPS produces. And it produces it year after year after year.

SteelSD
04-18-2006, 02:22 AM
Being widely accepted as true isn't proof. In the court of law, an alleged criminal must be proven guilty beyond a shadow of doubt. A jury can believe a defendant to be guilty, but if there is still lingering doubt or the prosecutor could not completely prove his case, the defendant is acquitted.

There's no lingering doubt here. Cyclone just provided you a chart that displays the correlations between various metrics and Runs Scored. OPS having the highest correlation versus BA, OBP, and SLG is so widely accepted that we don't need to continually run out those kind of charts in a high-level statistical discussion. It's a "water is wet" "Earth isn't flat" kind of factually-based knowledge point.


Statistics can be kind of like that. It may seem like one statistic is a better frame of reference than another, but not in all individual cases will that be the case. If there are still plenty of examples to the contrary, there is no burden of proof to where one stat is better than another even if more times than not, it appears to be so.

I'm not even sure what you're arguing here.


Unless you can statistically back up that OPS is virtually always a more effective method than batting average as Raisor said has been "proven", you cannot make such a claim. And in the statistical example I cited, albeit of 5 plate appearances, the OPS was not a better measurement of how a player produced in a RISP situation.

"Always" and "never" don't have a place in a discussion about the relevance and validity of various statistical measures.


Even more interesting - you claim that OPS has the "highest correlation" to runs scored than any "shorthand metric". Technically, the argument was about whether or not Adam Dunn was productive at the plate with runners in scoring position. Sure, it's great that Dunn draws walks in that situation. But correct me if I'm wrong, isn't the primary job of the cleanup hitter supposed to be driving in runs?

No. The primary job of any hitter is to avoid Outs and acquire as many Bases as possible when avoiding outs. Those are the two primary tenants ruling baseball. Avoid Outs and acquire Bases over the long haul and you're better at your job than a hitter who doesn't do both as well.


Taking a walk is not a bad thing, but when the primary purpose of a cleanup hitter is to drive runs in, you would like for his statistical correlations to relate on run productivity, and not whether he ultimately scores runs. Ideally, everyone in the lineup will drive runs in when given the opportunity, but the chances decline further down the order to score those runs.

The statistical correlations do relate to Run productivity. In this case, OPS correlates more highly with Run Scoring than does Batting Average. Runs Created is better of course, but also far more complex.


I am not shouldering the blame on Dunn. I think he gets a bad rap, but I do feel there is at least some room for improvement with RISP if he's to be a premier hitter and not just a slugger. \

Adam Dunn is a premier hitter right now. There's no special sub-division of "Sluggers" within the category of "Hitters" as it relates to production. Hitters worth more Runs are better hitters than those who are worth fewer Runs. Doesn't matter one iota how those Hitters go about the business of producing said Runs.


Lastly, back to the issue of OPS.

Being the highest correlation to runs scored is also a faulty logic of measuring a player. It's kind of like wins for a pitcher. A pitcher can give up 10 runs in 5 innings pitched and if his team scores 11, he still gets credit for a win. He could give up just 1 run in 8 innings, but his team would get shutout and he gets nothing.

Similarly, a hitter could get on base 3 times in 10 plate appearances on one base hit and two errors and score runs all 3 times. Or, another hitter could get on base 5 times in 10 plate appearances and score none if his teammates don't drive him in.

This isn't an issue with OPS. A player who gets on base five times in ten PA but who does not score is not a worse hitter because of his teammates' inability to plate him.


Like all non-outs are not created equal, not all statistics are created equal. If scoring runs is the ultimate measurement for a player, there have to be players driving in those runs. Not every player has the same role on a baseball team. Adam Dunn is a cleanup hitter (at least against righties). His job is not to score runs, his primary job is to drive them in.

Every player on a baseball team has an identical job that includes two primary functions:

1. Avoid Outs
2. Acquire as many bases as possible when avoiding Outs

Players who perform those functions better than others are worth more Runs to their team. Adam Dunn was worth more Runs than all but six National League players. Coming into tonight's game, Adam Dunn was worth more Runs than only four other National League players.


I don't condone Marty Brenneman's outlandish criticism, but I understand his point. Dunn does not produce as often as he should in the situation he is supposed to. Like a leadoff hitter is supposed to bunt, take walks, get on base and sometimes steal bases... Dunn is supposed to drive in runs and put the ball in the air with runners on third and less than two outs. That's a 100 years of baseball strategy right there.

So many issues and so little time...


A new line of statistical measurements don't change that ultimate goal. OPS and some of the new statistics might tell a more descriptive story, but the book on baseball was written long ago and those same tales can be told in very simplistic ways. Sometimes I think people try to over complicate basic principal.

I don't think you realize what the "basic principals" are so I'll repeat them:

1. Avoid Outs
2. Acquire as many bases as possible when avoiding Outs

That's it. That's baseball. OPS does a better job than any other shorthand metric of identifying which players do their jobs better than other players. And I've posted this before, but I'll do so again:

In 2005, the Cincinnati Reds finished 3rd in the National League in Runs Scored with Runners in Scoring Position. They did so while finishing 11th in team Batting Average with Runners in Scoring position and 7th in total Plate Appearances with RISP. The Reds finished third in team OBP w/RISP and first in team SLG w/RISP.

The Reds finished FIRST in BB rate per PA and FIRST in Bases per PA.

11th in team BA w/RISP
7th in team opportunity w/RISP
3rd in team Runs Scored w/RISP
3rd in team OPS w/RISP

Which two of those metrics match up?

Johnny Footstool
04-18-2006, 11:05 AM
This isn't an issue with OPS. A player who gets on base five times in ten PA but who does not score is not a worse hitter because of his teammates' inability to plate him.

And for the sake of the whole "baseball principles" point, a player on base scores when his teammates plate him by *avoiding making outs* and by *accumulating bases*. Full circle.

deltachi8
04-18-2006, 11:19 AM
However, I would love to know why people are so hard on Dunn. It seems to completely defy all logic. The guy is an offensive monster and yet it seems like he can't do anything right.

He's not Pete Rose. He doesnt run to first base after a wlak and slide head first. I think many Reds fans just have this vision of what a great player in Cincinnati needs to be and when they are presnted with what may be the next Harmon Killebrew, they scoff.

I dont get it either. However, I am a convert. Three years or so ago I called Dunn Dave Kingman. I was wrong.

westofyou
04-18-2006, 11:23 AM
He's not Pete Rose. He doesnt run to first base after a walk and slide head firstCincinnati has Scrappy Fever.

http://www.baseballminutia.com/images/giles.gif

Raisor
04-18-2006, 11:35 AM
I think Buck is confusing team runs scored and individual runs scored.

When we say that OPS correlates to runs scored, we're talking team runs.

flyer85
04-18-2006, 11:36 AM
I think Buck is confusing you can stop right there. :D

rdiersin
04-18-2006, 11:48 AM
I think Buck is confusing team runs scored and individual runs scored.

When we say that OPS correlates to runs scored, we're talking team runs.

But, just looking at team runs and other stats at the end of seasons, doesn't mean it actually works for individual games. ;)

Actually, it does work for that too. The correlation coefficients for OPS, RC, XR, and other run estimators, if you look at individual games in a season are very similar to those for the end of seasons.

Buckaholic
04-18-2006, 04:04 PM
I think Buck is confusing team runs scored and individual runs scored.

When we say that OPS correlates to runs scored, we're talking team runs.

Yes, I took that to mean individual runs scored.



BA w/ RISP has about a 56% correlation with total runs scored (I ran thenumbers a couple of years ago).

I appreciate the arguments you're making Buck, but it's really hard to argue with the typed of correlation OPS produces. And it produces it year after year after year.

Overall, as I did state in my first response in this thread, I really do not disagree on the whole I would prefer to look at OPS as a method of comparing baseball players. But my contention was that when looking at smaller, specific situations, a larger statistic such as OPS is not always the proper measurement.

Is it a more direct correlation to scoring runs? Perhaps so. I have not and won't attempt to dispute that information. But scoring runs is largely contigent upon having run producers. I'm sure there are also correlations to some of the best offenses in the history of baseball having also great third or fourth hitters that produce in run-scoring situations.

Steel, you commented that a baseball player's purpose was to avoid outs and get on base. Ultimately, all nine players should have the same goal.

However, do you deny that there are also individual purposes for every spot in the order? I noticed you didn't deal with that portion of my argument.

To deny that fact would be denying years of baseball strategy. Ask any successful manager in baseball if he wants his cleanup hitter taking the same approach at the plate as a leadoff hitter. How many times do you see a cleanup guy getting placed fifth or sixth in the lineup because they were not driving in runs in RISP situations or because they were not putting the ball in play? How many times have you seen leadoff hitters pushed down in the order for not taking pitches or drawing walks?

Each spot in the order has a slightly different primary objective. As a whole, each baseball player should, as you say, attempt to avoid outs and get on base. But there are also specific things a player should do correlating to their spot in the batting order to make an ultimately functioning lineup. Teams that have this perfect blend of players working together doing individual tasks have been largely the most successful lineups.

Every hitter might have one ultimate purpose, but you cannot deny based on where you bat in the order, you do have slightly different roles and obligations.

You stated that "always" and "never" have no place in baseball or statistics. That is true, but if always and never have to place in this discussion, you leave the door open for exceptions. Any time you can definitely say it's not "always" the case, you also cannot say something is proven to the point it's always going to be the best or most effective method. Maybe more times than not it will be, but you can't say it's always the best. Therefore, people cannot close their mind to the possibility that in *some* cases, other measurements will be more accurate for that particular situation.

IslandRed
04-18-2006, 04:52 PM
However, do you deny that there are also individual purposes for every spot in the order? ... But there are also specific things a player should do correlating to their spot in the batting order

There are situations that occur more frequently at some lineup spots than others, so to the extent that a lineup can have a mix of players that best fits the situations they'll see most often, sure, it can help. But I've also seen good arguments made that getting your best hitters the most plate appearances will do just as well, situations be damned. Over the course of an entire season, the sum of the situations that a second-place hitter and a fifth-place hitter will encounter are a lot more alike than different. "Runner on second, no one out" is the same situation regardless of where they put your name on the lineup card, with the obvious exception of the pitcher's spot.

In the National League, I want my leadoff hitter to be an OBP monster. After that, I don't much care as long as my better hitters hit higher in the order.

Johnny Footstool
04-18-2006, 05:09 PM
However, do you deny that there are also individual purposes for every spot in the order? I noticed you didn't deal with that portion of my argument.

You're only guaranteed to bat in the prescribed order once per game. Your leadoff hitter can easily be called upon to bat with the bases loaded. Your cleanup hitter can end up leading off the inning every time he bats. Their roles in those situations are the same as in every other situation -- don't make an out, and accumulate bases. If they do that, the team will score runs. Simple.

It's *everyone's* job to get on base, and it's *everyone's* job to drive in runs.

The focus shouldn't be on assigning roles to hitters, but rather on putting hitters in a position to maximize their skill sets. Guys who get on base all the time should be at the top of the order so they can get more ABs. Guys with slugging abilities should bat in a spot in which runners tend to be on base ahead of them.

You don't ask them to change their game in order to fit a role -- rather, you find the role that best fits their skills.

It's a big mistake to take a guy with good OB and SLG skills and poor singles-hitting abilities and tell him "you've got to put bat on ball because it's *your job* to drive runners in." You let him do what he does best, and you let the rest of the team do what they do best.

Cyclone792
04-18-2006, 06:03 PM
Steel, you commented that a baseball player's purpose was to avoid outs and get on base. Ultimately, all nine players should have the same goal.

However, do you deny that there are also individual purposes for every spot in the order? I noticed you didn't deal with that portion of my argument.

To deny that fact would be denying years of baseball strategy. Ask any successful manager in baseball if he wants his cleanup hitter taking the same approach at the plate as a leadoff hitter. How many times do you see a cleanup guy getting placed fifth or sixth in the lineup because they were not driving in runs in RISP situations or because they were not putting the ball in play? How many times have you seen leadoff hitters pushed down in the order for not taking pitches or drawing walks?

The individual purposes for every spot in the order sways only in relation to which aspect you should slightly lean towards, either avoiding outs or acquiring bases. Both are the two absolutes every hitter should concentrate on, and the only situational change that should be made based on where a hitter is in the lineup is if avoiding outs or acquiring bases is more important than the straight-line average, with that average being that OBP is about 1.5 times more important than SLG.

The key, however, is like Johnny said above: find hitters that fit the dynamics for each lineup slot rather than instruct hitters to change their philosophy to fit the lineup slot you place them in.

Lineup dynamics change every inning, and with it the dynamic of each lineup slot changes every inning. Opting to tell the guy batting 6th to "put the ball in play" because of where he bats in the order will do nothing but increase the potential of making outs, thereby decreasing run scoring. The hitter batting 6th should be the hitter in your lineup where the highest concentration of his OPS is contained with his slugging percentage. Likewise, the guy batting 1st should be the hitter where the highest concentration of his OPS is contained with his OBP.

Still, the fundamental importance are the two absolutes: avoid outs and acquire bases. Generally - that being the vast majority of games - if you have the best eight hitters on your team in the purposes of avoiding outs and acquiring bases, the "situations" take care of themselves. This is the same reason why recent studies now show different lineup constructions as having a minimal effect on overall run scoring.

Rather than rehash what has already been published, I'll just provide the link:

http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/story/2006/2/12/133645/296

Puffy
04-18-2006, 07:06 PM
Damn you Raisor!! You mention the MLB board and the fight you are once again putting up so I meander over and I am dumber for having read that crap.

Raisor
04-18-2006, 07:09 PM
and I am dumber for having read that crap.


I don't think that's possible.

:mooner:

Heath
04-18-2006, 07:11 PM
I don't think that's possible.

:mooner:

Dude, I'd lay off Puffy, man - he's got pictures.

:D

SteelSD
04-18-2006, 08:03 PM
Steel, you commented that a baseball player's purpose was to avoid outs and get on base. Ultimately, all nine players should have the same goal.

However, do you deny that there are also individual purposes for every spot in the order? I noticed you didn't deal with that portion of my argument.

I dealt with that portion of your argument repeatedly...

An offensive baseball player has two primary functions:

1. To Avoid Outs
2. To acquire as many Bases as possible while avoiding Outs

There is no separation of lineup slot function. A lineups #1 slot "job" is the same as the #4 slot "job", which is the same as the #9 slot "job". How well a hitter performs his two primary functions determines where he may hit in the lineup but that has nothing to do with lineup slot "jobs" and everything to do with the strengths and weaknesses of the players.

The actual "jobs" (Avoiding Outs, Acquiring Bases) are the same in every slot up and down the lineup.


To deny that fact would be denying years of baseball strategy. Ask any successful manager in baseball if he wants his cleanup hitter taking the same approach at the plate as a leadoff hitter. How many times do you see a cleanup guy getting placed fifth or sixth in the lineup because they were not driving in runs in RISP situations or because they were not putting the ball in play? How many times have you seen leadoff hitters pushed down in the order for not taking pitches or drawing walks?

And I'm talking about the simple primary ideal baseball is built around. It trumps the "years" of baseball "strategy" and it trumps every manager who's ever taken a team out on the field to play a game. Your thought process on this is backwards.


Each spot in the order has a slightly different primary objective. As a whole, each baseball player should, as you say, attempt to avoid outs and get on base. But there are also specific things a player should do correlating to their spot in the batting order to make an ultimately functioning lineup. Teams that have this perfect blend of players working together doing individual tasks have been largely the most successful lineups.

Nope.


Every hitter might have one ultimate purpose, but you cannot deny based on where you bat in the order, you do have slightly different roles and obligations.

Nope.


You stated that "always" and "never" have no place in baseball or statistics. That is true, but if always and never have to place in this discussion, you leave the door open for exceptions. Any time you can definitely say it's not "always" the case, you also cannot say something is proven to the point it's always going to be the best or most effective method. Maybe more times than not it will be, but you can't say it's always the best. Therefore, people cannot close their mind to the possibility that in *some* cases, other measurements will be more accurate for that particular situation.

I think you've confused even yourself with the above passage.

Buckaholic
04-19-2006, 01:36 AM
I guess most every manager that's coached this game is wrong then for asking leadoff hitters to draw walks, or second batters to get better contact or cleanup hitters to drive in runs, etc.

Try as you may to deny it, managers ask and expect different things from different people in their lineup.

Now matter how hard you try to cling to your precious ideal that every player avoid an out and every player acquire bases, players only get on base a little over 30 percent of the time as a whole. You can hold true to your belief that every player has one objective, but the percentages obviously don't support that ever happening.

Therefore, what you do with those situations become that more important. Ask any baseball person whether there are expected defined roles for each player, and he will tell you absolutely there are. Your new found stats do not trump a hundred years of conventional logic for real baseball personnel that understand that fact.

It's practiced every day by 30 major league managers.

Johnny Footstool
04-19-2006, 01:50 AM
I guess most every manager that's coached this game is wrong then for asking leadoff hitters to draw walks, or second batters to get better contact or cleanup hitters to drive in runs, etc.

The smart managers are the ones who analyze a player's skill sets and put them in the best position to use them. They don't try to force a square peg into a round hole.


Try as you may to deny it, managers ask and expect different things from different people in their lineup.

So managers get upset when their #4 hitter draws a walk with men on base instead of hacking at a bad pitch in an attempt to drive in a run? I doubt it.

Managers care more about winning than about players sticking to their roles. At least the smart ones do.



Now matter how hard you try to cling to your precious ideal that every player avoid an out and every player acquire bases, players only get on base a little over 30 percent of the time as a whole. You can hold true to your belief that every player has one objective, but the percentages obviously don't support that ever happening.

What point are you trying to make here? That most OPBs are slightly above .300? That has nothing to do with the argument at all. The fact remains that a hitter's job is to avoid outs and accumulate bases.

SteelSD
04-19-2006, 02:26 AM
I guess most every manager that's coached this game is wrong then for asking leadoff hitters to draw walks, or second batters to get better contact or cleanup hitters to drive in runs, etc.

You've gone from the sublime to the ridiculous here.


Try as you may to deny it, managers ask and expect different things from different people in their lineup.

...which doesn't change the fact that the two primary functions of every lineup slot are to not make Outs and to acquire as many bases as possible when not making Outs.

There's a reason teams that do both better generally score more Runs than teams that don't.


Now matter how hard you try to cling to your precious ideal that every player avoid an out and every player acquire bases, players only get on base a little over 30 percent of the time as a whole. You can hold true to your belief that every player has one objective, but the percentages obviously don't support that ever happening.

It's not "my ideal" and it's not "my belief". It's the way baseball works.

Every player has two primary functions when they walk to the plate. They're the same regardless of which position they occupy in the lineup.


Therefore, what you do with those situations become that more important. Ask any baseball person whether there are expected defined roles for each player, and he will tell you absolutely there are. Your new found stats do not trump a hundred years of conventional logic for real baseball personnel that understand that fact.

Bunk. For you to argue against statistical analysis you'd first need at least the most rudimentary understanding of what statistics actually are and how they correlate with actual production.

You keep taking about "history", but fail to realize that the fundamentals I've been talking about held true the day the first baseball game was played and will hold true to the last Out ever. They are the primary RULES of baseball. Avoid Outs because you only get 27. Grab Bases because you need 4 nab a Run. Those fundamentals trump anything you think you know about the game because those fundamentals ARE THE GAME.


It's practiced every day by 30 major league managers.

And yet you don't understand how it works.

big boy
04-19-2006, 11:55 AM
Dunner is going to the hall...he is great. He is the best Red in a long time. However, asking him to do better is not the same as diminishing his skills.

gonelong
04-19-2006, 12:00 PM
Dunner is going to the hall...he is great. He is the best Red in a long time. However, asking him to do better is not the same as diminishing his skills.

Hey Adam, do better.

Love,

Redszone

M2
04-19-2006, 12:13 PM
Dunner is going to the hall...he is great. He is the best Red in a long time. However, asking him to do better is not the same as diminishing his skills.

Everyone should strive to do better. Dunn certainly has and he's a better hitter today than he was three years ago.

Yet there's a big difference between asking him to do better and understanding what it would take for him to improve.

Swinging at more pitcher's pitches in a misguided attempt to get more hits will only succeed in Dunn making more outs and hitting for less power. Neither of those things will help his team.

If what you want is for Dunn to be a more effective hitter, then it will involve him leveraging his strengths not playing into his weaknesses. Dunn can and will be a better BA man, but he'll have to be MORE selective to do it. He might need to walk 150 times in order to carry a .280+ BA.

Johnny Footstool
04-19-2006, 12:49 PM
Dunner is going to the hall...he is great. He is the best Red in a long time. However, asking him to do better is not the same as diminishing his skills.

True, but what most people are really asking him to "do better" at is hitting singles. And most people would be satisfied if his BA were around .280, which would mean roughly 15 more singles per season. That's nitpicking.

Personally, I'm happy with the 75+ extra base hits he supplies every year.

big boy
04-19-2006, 02:17 PM
True, but what most people are really asking him to "do better" at is hitting singles. And most people would be satisfied if his BA were around .280, which would mean roughly 15 more singles per season. That's nitpicking.

Personally, I'm happy with the 75+ extra base hits he supplies every year.

I would just like him to do everything he is doing but replace some of his strikeouts with contact. Every time someone suggests he do that, woy or someone shows a list of hall of famers that dunn is better than.

westofyou
04-19-2006, 02:19 PM
Every time someone suggests he do that, woy or someone shows a list of hall of famers that dunn is better than.Yeah that's exactly what is happening.

In fact I said they're all worse than Dunn...:rolleyes:

They're called "Comps" they say a hell of alot more than a bunch of what-if and how abouts.

Johnny Footstool
04-19-2006, 04:08 PM
I would just like him to do everything he is doing but replace some of his strikeouts with contact. Every time someone suggests he do that, woy or someone shows a list of hall of famers that dunn is better than.

We've talked about this on RedsZone quite a few times before. Replacing strikeouts with contact isn't something you can just magically do. You have to change your whole approach -- expanding the zone and shortening your swing.

He might generate a few more singles, but the cost would be a dropoff in walks and a dropoff in quality contact (doubles and HRs). And most of the strikeouts would be replaced by groundouts, so he wouldn't be avoiding any more outs overall.

I'd rather he continues doing what he's doing -- avoiding outs and acquiring bases at an elite level.

Buckaholic
04-20-2006, 01:33 AM
There's a reason teams that do both better generally score more Runs than teams that don't

Actually, teams that score a lot of runs and have moderate pitching have also been proven to be a lot less successful than teams scoring a moderate amount of runs but having great pitching.



And yet you don't understand how it works.

With all due respect, I'm not the one basing a near cult-like belief in statistics based on the book inspired by a general manager that has never had a team win a world series or do much more than win a few games here and there in the playoffs.

I understand baseball quite well, thank you.

You can sell a great instructional video with this baseball knowledge, "Avoid outs and acquire bases."

It's not quite that simple. Since nearly 70 percent of at-bats are outs in this game, there is an artform to making the most of the 6 of 10 times you DON'T get on base or get a basehit.

It's a great philosophy and it's a great thing to tell 10-year olds as a motivational speech, but that alone is over simplifying baseball.

Your simple solution is "get on base and acquire bases." But even the best players of our time only do that 40 percent of the time. So there's MUCH more to putting together a batting order than just this. I'm glad you don't manage the Cincinnati Reds. Apparently you don't understand the small things that win championships - getting runs over, stealing bases, getting the ball in the air with a runner at third and less than two outs, etc.

The percentages dont lie. No matter how true your ideal, or I'm sorry, should I say "the primary RULES of baseball" are, the percentages say that well over a majority of time, you're going to make an out. You go ahead and worry about OPS and all the other stats. I've said from the very beginning of this conversation they hold weight.

But the bottom line is that baseball teams need players that get some of these little things done when they're making an out. Adam Dunn does NOT do that very often. That's his weakness.

You take your team full of high OPS players. You'll win a lot of baseball games with them. But why do you think players like Ryan Freel are so valuable? Maybe his stats say he's a quality player, but he provides a spark that numbers don't account for because he does the little things. A team will not win without players like that. A middle of the order full of Adam Dunns would not win a championship. Everyone should have a guy like Dunn, but if you have 3-4-5 and 6 hitters that strikeout at the rate he does and come up with clutch base hits at the rate he does not, you aren't going to win baseball games in the playoffs. I seem to remember guys like Ron Gant and Reggie Sanders proving that in 1995. According to you, you'd love to have 4 Adam Dunns because they all draw walks and hit homers. Where do the clutch hits come from? When you're slumping and not occasionally slaughtering a team 11-7, how do you account for all the key basehits?

Gant and Sanders drew a reasonable amount of walks. They both had OPS' over 950. They both hit nearly 30 homers and struck out slightly over 100 times. But when the Reds had runners in scoring position against the Braves, they were worthless.

OPS with runners in scoring position is not a real good indicator. As my first example using Austin Kearns and Adam Dunn indicates, the OPS could be discrimantory against guys that hit more often in clutch situations just because they don't hit home runs when they do get a basehit. Would you rather have guys that constantly deliver with hits in the late innings w/RISP or do you want the guy that usually will strike out, once in a while draw a walk and maybe one time out of 10 at-bats will hit a home run? I take the guy that produces consistently and that is what wins championships.

That's a fact and no statistic known to man can dispute that. Period.

westofyou
04-20-2006, 01:36 AM
I'm not the one basing a near cult-like belief in statistics based on the book inspired by a general manager that has never had a team win a world series or do much more than win a few games here and there in the playoffs.

Moneyball is a book, statistical study of the game has been around since Chadwick and FC Lane, Branch Rickey who won plenty of World Series Titles as a GM is the foundation for many of the statistical studies mentioned in Moneyball.

But make no mistake, nobody here read Moneyball and thought they knew everything about the game, nor did anyone read it and think that that stuff had just occured a vacuum.

SteelSD
04-20-2006, 02:33 AM
Actually, teams that score a lot of runs and have moderate pitching have also been proven to be a lot less successful than teams scoring a moderate amount of runs but having great pitching.

Really? Now I'll hold you to the same standard you asked of me...

Prove it. I'll be waiting a long time as you're probably one of the folks who thinks the BRM built a dynasty on established high-level pitching and an average offense.


With all due respect, I'm not the one basing a near cult-like belief in statistics based on the book inspired by a general manager that has never had a team win a world series or do much more than win a few games here and there in the playoffs.

Good lord is that the pinnacle of hyperbole.


I understand baseball quite well, thank you.

You saying that is like hearing a guy pumping gas telling us he's got nothing more to learn about how cars work after never seeing an engine.


You can sell a great instructional video with this baseball knowledge, "Avoid outs and acquire bases."

Ted Williams keeps selling book copies posthumously but I'm sure you know more about hitting than he.


It's not quite that simple. Since nearly 70 percent of at-bats are outs in this game, there is an artform to making the most of the 6 of 10 times you DON'T get on base or get a basehit.

Which is akin to you doodling on a bathroom wall and then claiming it's equitable to a Renoir.


It's a great philosophy and it's a great thing to tell 10-year olds as a motivational speech, but that alone is over simplifying baseball.

Those ten year olds would then be counted on to give you instruction.


Your simple solution is "get on base and acquire bases." But even the best players of our time only do that 40 percent of the time. So there's MUCH more to putting together a batting order than just this. I'm glad you don't manage the Cincinnati Reds. Apparently you don't understand the small things that win championships - getting runs over, stealing bases, getting the ball in the air with a runner at third and less than two outs, etc.

I understand that scoring a bunch more runs than you give up gets you in the position to win championships. You haven't figured out as much of course, yet you keep on typing. Amusing.


The percentages dont lie. No matter how true your ideal, or I'm sorry, should I say "the primary RULES of baseball" are, the percentages say that well over a majority of time, you're going to make an out. You go ahead and worry about OPS and all the other stats. I've said from the very beginning of this conversation they hold weight.

No. From the beginning of this conversation you've been entirely confused.


But the bottom line is that baseball teams need players that get some of these little things done when they're making an out. Adam Dunn does NOT do that very often. That's his weakness.

No, again. Your weakness is your complete understanding of what drives Run Scoring.


You take your team full of high OPS players. You'll win a lot of baseball games with them. But why do you think players like Ryan Freel are so valuable? Maybe his stats say he's a quality player, but he provides a spark that numbers don't account for because he does the little things. A team will not win without players like that. A middle of the order full of Adam Dunns would not win a championship. Everyone should have a guy like Dunn, but if you have 3-4-5 and 6 hitters that strikeout at the rate he does and come up with clutch base hits at the rate he does not, you aren't going to win baseball games in the playoffs. I seem to remember guys like Ron Gant and Reggie Sanders proving that in 1995. According to you, you'd love to have 4 Adam Dunns because they all draw walks and hit homers. Where do the clutch hits come from? When you're slumping and not occasionally slaughtering a team 11-7, how do you account for all the key basehits?

Ryan Freel's complete and total value is derived from the Outs he avoids and the Bases he acquires. After that you posted nothing but drivel.


Gant and Sanders drew a reasonable amount of walks. They both had OPS' over 950. They both hit nearly 30 homers and struck out slightly over 100 times. But when the Reds had runners in scoring position against the Braves, they were worthless.

The Reds got the NLCS that year by doing this in the NLDS:

Reds: .279 BA/.356 OBP/.481 SLG
Dodgers: .279 BA/.316 OBP/.378 SLG

During the NLCS, this happened:

Reds: .209 BA/.282 OBP/.261 SLG
Braves: .282 BA/.352 OBP/.416 SLG

If you're going to use an example, please make sure it actually supports your position. All you're doing now is barfing up stuff that continues to put you in the hole.


OPS with runners in scoring position is not a real good indicator.

Only because you have no idea how to identify a good indicator versus a bad indicator. I've rarely seen such total incomprehension.


As my first example using Austin Kearns and Adam Dunn indicates, the OPS could be discrimantory against guys that hit more often in clutch situations just because they don't hit home runs when they do get a basehit. Would you rather have guys that constantly deliver with hits in the late innings w/RISP or do you want the guy that usually will strike out, once in a while draw a walk and maybe one time out of 10 at-bats will hit a home run? I take the guy that produces consistently and that is what wins championships.

Actually, the team you wouldn't want was the 2005 World Champion Chicago White Sox. They finished last in the AL in Runs with RISP and finished last in BA with RISP. They finished with the 4th worst BA in Close and Late situations. They finished 5th to last in Sac Flies in Close and Late situations in 2005 and Struck Out more than all but two teams (Minnesota, Cleveland).

The 2005 White Sox got their rings due to a style of offensive baseball you appear to hate. Ironic.


That's a fact and no statistic known to man can dispute that. Period.

You don't deal in facts, so the statement above can be completely disregarded by anyone with a clue.

Caveat Emperor
04-20-2006, 03:19 AM
Would you rather have guys that constantly deliver with hits in the late innings w/RISP or do you want the guy that usually will strike out, once in a while draw a walk and maybe one time out of 10 at-bats will hit a home run?

In 1999 the commonly held belief states that the Reds choked their chances at getting into the postseason away by being unable to beat Milwaukee twice in a 3 game series at the end of the season. Fact is, any 1 additional win at any point in the season would've put them in the postseason. The Reds opened the season with a loss to the San Francisco on opening day 8-11. If they win that game, they make the playoffs.

Therein lies the myth of the "clutch" situation -- you want a guy that performs to get that 1 run home in the bottom of the 9th, game tied, crowd going wild, etc. I want the guy who produces consistently over the other 8 innings and has a better shot of putting the game out of reach with an extra base hit in the 7th, or who takes a walk and gets a rally started in the 5th that chases the starting pitcher. Runs are runs, no matter when you score them. If you win/lose a 1 run ballgame, it's because you didn't get enough baserunners and avoid outs in innings 1-8 just as much as it is the fact that you didn't perform in the "clutch" in the 9th.

big boy
04-20-2006, 10:31 AM
They're called "Comps" they say a hell of alot more than a bunch of what-if and how abouts.

Ever heard of what-if analysis?

registerthis
04-20-2006, 10:32 AM
Everyone should have a guy like Dunn, but if you have 3-4-5 and 6 hitters that strikeout at the rate he does and come up with clutch base hits at the rate he does not,

I'm just wondering how this myth got started...what in Dunn's stats do you see that tells you he doesn't get 'clutch' hits? His numbers indicate otherwise, and have been posted on here numerous times. Yet people still go on and on with the argument that Dunn can't hit in the clutch. Why?

It's the same way people keep wanting to believe that Freel is "brittle" and can't play a full season. It's complete bunk, but it's become so ingrained in people's minds they can't shake it even when presented with direct evidence that contradicts it.

registerthis
04-20-2006, 10:33 AM
Ever heard of what-if analysis?

What bearing does a "what-if" analysis have on this discussion?

westofyou
04-20-2006, 10:51 AM
Ever heard of what-if analysis?
As in..... what if the comps tell you more than a bunch of what-ifs being posed by the person who refuses to recognize the comps?

big boy
04-20-2006, 11:04 AM
As in..... what if the comps tell you more than a bunch of what-ifs being posed by the person who refuses to recognize the comps?

This sounds like circular logic. Anyway, I recognize the comps and enjoy them a lot.

big boy
04-20-2006, 11:07 AM
What bearing does a "what-if" analysis have on this discussion?

It refers to another discussion. I proposed that if Dunner (or anyone) replaces walks or outs with hits with runners on, his rbi total would increase.

registerthis
04-20-2006, 11:18 AM
It refers to another discussion. I proposed that if Dunner (or anyone) replaces walks or outs with hits with runners on, his rbi total would increase.

A "what-if" study is only appropriate so far as the options being considered exist within the realm of probability. You act like Dunn could simply trade in his outs for hits like there's nothing to it--as if he's merely *deciding* to make outs now, and by golly, he should decide to have more hits. It's not nearly that simple.

Secondly, it's been shown many times that Dunn does, indeed, hit well with RISP. There's been no evidence presented that he does not.

IF Dunn were able to accumulate more hits instead of outs, without negatively affecting his current production, I'd be all for it. But what you're suggesting is that Dunn begin chasing balls that are off the plate and outside of the strike zone. It won't work. If Dunn could replace some of his outs with hits, then yes he'd be even more productive than he is now.

And if I had the strength and velocity, I could become a major league pitcher. If only it were that simple...

registerthis
04-20-2006, 11:19 AM
This sounds like circular logic. Anyway, I recognize the comps and enjoy them a lot.

This makes no sense. How is that "circular logic"?

big boy
04-20-2006, 11:50 AM
A "what-if" study is only appropriate so far as the options being considered exist within the realm of probability.

The what-if and circular logic comments were not intended to be taken seriously.

Based on the rest of your response, it sounds like you do agree that if he was able to exchange hits for walks and outs, his rbi total would increase.

registerthis
04-20-2006, 12:08 PM
Based on the rest of your response, it sounds like you do agree that if he was able to exchange hits for walks and outs, his rbi total would increase.

But that scenario doesn't make any sense. To accomplish what you're suggesting, Dunn either has to become a less-disciplined hitter and begin chasing balls outside of the strike zone, or he has to flip a magic switch to develop the skill of getting more hits and less outs.

of course if Dunn got more hits, it stands to reason that his production would increase. But there are very, very few players who can produce even at Dunn's current levels, much less above them. Albert pujols could become more productive if he made less outs too, but it's not something that's nearly as simple as you make it out to be.

westofyou
04-20-2006, 12:11 PM
if he was able to exchange hits for walks and outs, his rbi total would increase.Maybe, maybe not..

Here's a good example of it not working.

Deron Johnson had 135 RBI for the 1965 Reds, he never topped 95 again in his career. He also walked more that year then ever before or after and he hit for a higher average.

But the next years he took less walks and hit for a lower average and had less EB power.

Go figure... looks like he might have been "Lucky" in those RBI situations in 1965.

He fooled the Reds, they traded Frank Robinson and moved Johnson to the outfield, weakening both defense and fielding, then they tried to push Rose into 3rd where Johnson had been a butcher the year before (horrible fielder on a team with Lee May and Perez) and it didn't take.... a big fat mess all around. Because they fell in love with his RBI's


YEAR TEAM AGE G AB R H 2B 3B HR HR% RBI BB SO SB CS AVG SLG OBA OPS

1964 Reds 25 140 477 63 130 24 4 21 4.40 79 37 98 4 3 .273 .472 .326 .798
1965 Reds 26 159 616 92 177 30 7 32 5.19 130 52 97 0 4 .287 .515 .340 .854
1966 Reds 27 142 505 75 130 25 3 24 4.75 81 39 87 1 2 .257 .461 .309 .771
1967 Reds 28 108 361 39 81 18 1 13 3.60 53 22 104 0 1 .224 .388 .270 .658

Vs League

1964 Reds 25 11 6 7 5 0 10 2.06 26 -1 28 -2 1 .009 .081 .005 .086
1965 Reds 26 24 19 24 6 2 17 2.67 63 -1 3 -9 1 .029 .124 .018 .142
1966 Reds 27 -3 12 -4 5 -1 11 2.11 22 -3 10 -6 3 -.007 .062 -.014 .048
1967 Reds 28 -10 -5 -15 3 -2 5 1.46 13 -11 46 -5 2 -.034 .009 -.051 -.042

M2
04-20-2006, 01:15 PM
Since nearly 70 percent of at-bats are outs in this game, there is an artform to making the most of the 6 of 10 times you DON'T get on base or get a basehit.

That's just so wrong.

For instance, the 2004 Boston Red Sox led MLB in scoring and it finished DEAD LAST in productive out percentage. It apparently didn't prevent that club from winning a World Series. The New York Yankees finished second in overall scoring and that club finished 26th in productive out percentage. The Chicago White Sox finished third in scoring and 20th in productive out percentage.

Meanwhile, the club that finished first in productive out percentage was the last gasp of the Montreal Expos, which managed to plate a whopping 635 runs for the season.

ESPN kept track of productive outs for one season and one season only, 2004. It stopped keeping track because the numbers showed that in general hitters that get few productive outs are pretty good while hitters who gets lots of productive outs are lousy. The top five for 2004 was Miguel Cairo, Brandon Inge, Tony Womack, Mark DeRosa and Alex Cora. I defy anyone to build a success team around them.

big boy
04-20-2006, 02:22 PM
Maybe, maybe not..



His highest rbi total came in the season with the most hits, though.

big boy
04-20-2006, 02:26 PM
But that scenario doesn't make any sense. To accomplish what you're suggesting, Dunn either has to become a less-disciplined hitter and begin chasing balls outside of the strike zone, or he has to flip a magic switch to develop the skill of getting more hits and less outs.



He could become a better hitter. If you look at all the guys ahead of him in rbi last year (a short list, indeed dunn is a stud...the best red in a long time...i admire his game immensely), they all have less walks, more hits, and a higher batting average.

Ravenlord
04-20-2006, 02:28 PM
He could become a better hitter. If you look at all the guys ahead of him in rbi last year (a short list, indeed dunn is a stud...the best red in a long time...i admire his game immensely), they all have less walks, more hits, and a higher batting average.
and didn't lead MLB in leading off the inning.

westofyou
04-20-2006, 02:32 PM
His highest rbi total came in the season with the most hits, though.
Yeah and he also had his most trips to the plate and most outs that year, as long as we're talking "counting stats"

traderumor
04-20-2006, 02:44 PM
ESPN kept track of productive outs for one season and one season only, 2004. It stopped keeping track because the numbers showed that in general hitters that get few productive outs are pretty good while hitters who gets lots of productive outs are lousy. The top five for 2004 was Miguel Cairo, Brandon Inge, Tony Womack, Mark DeRosa and Alex Cora. I defy anyone to build a success team around them.
I heard it was because Joe Morgan cut off funding for the project :evil:

Caveat Emperor
04-20-2006, 02:45 PM
He could become a better hitter. If you look at all the guys ahead of him in rbi last year (a short list, indeed dunn is a stud...the best red in a long time...i admire his game immensely), they all have less walks, more hits, and a higher batting average.

Dunn has no control over what the pitchers throw to him. If they're throwing balls, it makes no sense for him to swing and miss or produce weak contact that makes an easy out.

A good number of Dunn's walks come when it's plainly obvious to everyone in the ballpark that the pitcher wants nothing to do with pitching to Dunn. In other at bats, Dunn gets maybe 1 pitch that's in his zone to hit in the AB followed by trash.

If the pitcher isn't going to pitch to you, take your walk and move on. All you do is help the pitcher when you fish at balls out of the zone in some misguided effort to increase hit totals. If you want Dunn to be better at hitting his pitch in the zone, I'm all with you -- and he'll get better at that as he develops and enters into his prime (he'll also get better at it the more walks he takes, where pitchers will be forced to pitch in the zone to avoid giving him a free pass). But, that's a different issue than trading walks for hits, which just seems to be lacking in common sense.

traderumor
04-20-2006, 02:51 PM
Just to tell you how dangerous this "productive outs" thinking is, which is based on a false premise that how one makes an out is a skill, I hear this instruction to a hitter from an ass. coach on my son's 9-10 year-old team:

"Look around at where the fielders are and try to hit it where there are holes"

I did not correct him, although I am helping, I'm just getting started in this program and am not really in a position to do so, but what horrible advice to give a hitter just learning the game. He didn't tell him to get comfortable, step toward the pitcher, shift his weight, drive the ball, pick a pitch you think you can hit hard and take a whack at it, any of the above would have been great advice. But what's he tell him? To do the impossible and try to aim a round ball with a round bat at the age of 9 or 10. And while a major league hitter may be able to control where he wants the ball to go mechanically sometimes, I personally would rather guys try to hit the ball hard somewhere by waiting for their pitch all the time, no matter what the level.

Chip R
04-20-2006, 03:02 PM
I've read this thread and it seems like a big argument is whether or not Dunn's BA is not high enough with RISP. Some say that BA is the true test of success in that situation. Others say it is SLG. Let me put forth a scenario for you folks who believe the former. Runner on 2nd, no outs. Adam Dunn at the plate. Adam strokes a single to LF right in the hole to the right of the SS. Unfortunately the runner at 2nd is Rich Aurilia who is about as slow as Sean Casey. Rich isn't running with the pitch and the ball is just out of reach of the SS. Rich has to hold up to make sure the ball goes through so he doesn't get thrown out at 3rd. He obviously can't score because Mark Berry isn't dumb enough to send someone as slow as Rich home with no outs. But he does end up on 3rd. Adam did his job. He got a hit with a RISP. But no RBI. His BA with RISP increases so that's good but the run didn't score.

Second situation: Aurilia on 2nd, no outs. Dunn up to the plate and lashes a double to right CF. My grandma could score on that and Rich does too. Now since the more bases you acquire on a hit the more your SLG goes up. BA goes up too but it would have gone up just as much as if he had hit a single and Rich could only advance to 3rd. In this scenario, Dunn gets an RBI, the Reds score a run and his BA and SLG both increase with RISP. That is one reason why people say RBIs are SLG driven and not BA driven.

registerthis
04-20-2006, 03:10 PM
I hear this instruction to a hitter from an ass. coach on my son's 9-10 year-old team:

Do I want to know what role an "ass coach" has on your son's baseball team? ;)

traderumor
04-20-2006, 03:16 PM
Do I want to know what role an "ass coach" has on your son's baseball team? ;)That instruction earned him the title. Things have not started out pretty with the coaching so far on this team, I'm hoping it improves fast.

BRM
04-20-2006, 03:22 PM
That instruction earned him the title. Things have not started out pretty with the coaching so far on this team, I'm hoping it improves fast.

You may have to do quite a bit of correcting after practices. Be careful if you decide to have a chat with the coach. Some of them can get a little cranky when it comes to constructive criticism.

M2
04-20-2006, 03:23 PM
I heard it was because Joe Morgan cut off funding for the project :evil:

I actually think it was discontinued as a mercy to Buster Olney, who may have written the single worst baseball article ever in an attempt to claim that there was something to productive outs.

big boy
04-20-2006, 03:31 PM
Yeah and he also had his most trips to the plate and most outs that year, as long as we're talking "counting stats"

But he had a higher average and more hits. Doesn't that help prove my point that more hits will lead to more production?

westofyou
04-20-2006, 03:35 PM
But he had a higher average and more hits. Doesn't that help prove my point that more hits will lead to more production?
And doesn't his other 5900 trips to the plate in MLB prove anything?

traderumor
04-20-2006, 03:38 PM
You may have to do quite a bit of correcting after practices. Be careful if you decide to have a chat with the coach. Some of them can get a little cranky when it comes to constructive criticism.Nah, I'll just yell louder and more frequently "get a good one, relax and hit it hard somewhere" and drown out the bad advice. The bigger problem now is how to tactfully approach the manager about fairly allocating playing time when you only have one player that needs to sit out at any point in time, and right now nine are playing the whole game while two boys (one my son) are rotating, when there are about 5 boys, again including my son, at about the same skill level. Yea, that's the way to help boys learn the game, one AB a game in farm league.

Sorry for the thread hijack.

M2
04-20-2006, 03:41 PM
But he had a higher average and more hits. Doesn't that help prove my point that more hits will lead to more production?

No, because he actually had a slightly better RBI per plate appearance ratio last year with a lower BA and less hits (though to be fair, his 2004 and 2005 RBI/PA stats amount to a statistical wash).

big boy
04-20-2006, 03:54 PM
No, because he actually had a slightly better RBI per plate appearance ratio last year with a lower BA and less hits (though to be fair, his 2004 and 2005 RBI/PA stats amount to a statistical wash).

My point is/was that everyone ahead of him in rbi in 2005 had more hits and less walks. I believe more hits would mean more rbi in most cases. Rbi has a luck/team element too but in most cases a hit will lead to an rbi more often than an out or a walk.

Raisor
04-20-2006, 03:59 PM
My point is/was that everyone ahead of him in rbi in 2005 had more hits and less walks. I believe more hits would mean more rbi in most cases. Rbi has a luck/team element too but in most cases a hit will lead to an rbi more often than an out or a walk.


big boy,

Go find "runs created" on google. I want a two page report on my desk in the morning.

:thumbup:

BRM
04-20-2006, 04:02 PM
My point is/was that everyone ahead of him in rbi in 2005 had more hits and less walks. I believe more hits would mean more rbi in most cases. Rbi has a luck/team element too but in most cases a hit will lead to an rbi more often than an out or a walk.

The majority of them had a higher SLG% as well.

BRM
04-20-2006, 04:12 PM
Can someone explain to me how Andruw Jones lead the NL in RBIs last year when he put up the following line w/RISP?

.207/.335/.386

KronoRed
04-20-2006, 04:13 PM
Can someone explain to me how Andruw Jones lead the NL in RBIs last year when he put up the following line w/RISP?

.207/.335/.386
Secret clutch


:lol:

traderumor
04-20-2006, 04:13 PM
big boy,

Go find "runs created" on google. I want a two page report on my desk in the morning.

:thumbup:just trying to help out. Is that single or double spaced? What font size is allowed?

traderumor
04-20-2006, 04:14 PM
Secrete clutchHe really out to see a doctor about that. It must be true about ballplayers and the road.

KronoRed
04-20-2006, 04:17 PM
DOH

Freaking spell check

traderumor
04-20-2006, 04:18 PM
DOH

Freaking spell checkOf course, Rich Aurilia just secretes clutch. I think it was a Freudian typo. :)

registerthis
04-20-2006, 04:21 PM
just trying to help out. Is that single or double spaced? What font size is allowed?

12 point double-spaced Verdana.

The procrastinator's dream.

Caveat Emperor
04-20-2006, 04:21 PM
Of course, Rich Aurilia just secretes clutch. I think it was a Freudian typo. :)

They make products that can help him out with that.

This one is strong enough for a man, but pH balanced for a scrappy vet:
http://pics.drugstore.com/prodimg/11833/200.jpg

Puffy
04-20-2006, 04:35 PM
They make products that can help him out with that.

This one is strong enough for a man, but pH balanced for a scrappy vet:
http://pics.drugstore.com/prodimg/11833/200.jpg

Thats made for women!! It causes men to do this:

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2004-9/825505/dogfood_big.jpg

traderumor
04-20-2006, 04:37 PM
12 point double-spaced Verdana.

The procrastinator's dream.And type out "Runs Created" each time it appears rather than using the convention of "Runs Created (RC)" the first time he types it.

traderumor
04-20-2006, 04:40 PM
Thats made for women!! It causes men to do this:

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2004-9/825505/dogfood_big.jpg
and the crumbs get stuck in a guy's armpit hairs....or so I've heard.

Caveat Emperor
04-20-2006, 04:43 PM
And type out "Runs Created" each time it appears rather than using the convention of "Runs Created (RC)" the first time he types it.

Also might try taking the margins in a couple tenths of an inch, increasing the "double space" from 1 space between lines to 1.1-1.2 spaces per line, always extending the last line of a paragraph to make sure it drops down to the next line, and adding an introductory paragraph and a concluding paragraph that state and re-state the topic of your paper.

Not that I've ever been in a crunch to fill space on a paper before, or anything. :evil:

Buckaholic
04-20-2006, 04:50 PM
Steel, you're amusing.

Continue with your half-witted cheap shots. You remind me of someone that doesn't have the feintest clue about something, so you either counter with some lame, juvenile shot or try to pull some statistic out to make yourself sound smarter.

It's like the old "I know you are but what am I" grade school tactic. You can quote every stat reference in the book, but apparently it doesn't make up for you severe lack of knowledge in the game of baseball.

It has been the same story on this website for years and there are a lot of people that always say the same thing. If someone doesn't subscribe completely into the new statistical line of thinking, people like you get on your high horse, quote all these stats and claim you're the all-knowing baseball God and someone is wrong for disagreeing.

I've got news for you, most of life is a gray area. This is no different. No matter how much you believe in these stats, there's no proof one line of thinking is more correct than another. Statistics can be manipulated to prove most anything. The fact that "always" and "never" can't be proven should tell you something.

You're narrow-minded and what's worse, you apparently don't know anything about baseball other than what "stats" tell you.

M2
04-20-2006, 04:51 PM
My point is/was that everyone ahead of him in rbi in 2005 had more hits and less walks.

So did the next 20 guys behind him (outside of league MVP Barry Bonds, who had less hits, more walks and one less RBI).


I believe more hits would mean more rbi in most cases.

If only you understood how a player like Dunn gets hits. He won't get an effective increase in hits by wanting it more or by swinging at more (invariably bad) pitches. He needs to make pitchers come into his zone and put a good rip on it. Understandly, given that he has awesome power and has yet to enter his prime, pitchers are reluctant to do that. So they throw him slop, preferring to take their chances with the next hitter if Dunn won't swing at bad pitches. That will always be the case. Dunn's never going to have a 200-hit season. The league won't allow him to that. Pitchers aren't that stupid.

What he can do is take his walks and continue to refine what he does when he swings at the right pitches.

Johnny Footstool
04-20-2006, 04:53 PM
Steel, you're amusing.

Continue with your half-witted cheap shots. You remind me of someone that doesn't have the feintest clue about something, so you either counter with some lame, juvenile shot or try to pull some statistic out to make yourself sound smarter.

It's like the old "I know you are but what am I" grade school tactic. You can quote every stat reference in the book, but apparently it doesn't make up for you severe lack of knowledge in the game of baseball.

Classless.

M2
04-20-2006, 04:55 PM
Classless.

As Russell Cosby would say: NCAA ... no class at all

Chip R
04-20-2006, 04:59 PM
You're narrow-minded and what's worse, you apparently don't know anything about baseball other than what "stats" tell you.

Keep it up and you won't have to come back here any more.

big boy
04-20-2006, 05:00 PM
If only you understood how a player like Dunn gets hits.

He strikes out a lot. Maybe I don't understand how he gets hits (not sure how). However, the way to get hits is not by striking out 180+ times per year. Can none of these at-bats be used more productively? Serious question: What would happen if he only whiffed 120 times per year?

Buckaholic
04-20-2006, 05:01 PM
Classless.

Apparently you conveniently skipped over Steel's nice little remarks that prompted my response. Typical of people to turn a blind eye to those they agree with.

Allow me to assist you in some of his remarks...




Good lord is that the pinnacle of hyperbole.

You saying that is like hearing a guy pumping gas telling us he's got nothing more to learn about how cars work after never seeing an engine.

Ted Williams keeps selling book copies posthumously but I'm sure you know more about hitting than he.

Those ten year olds would then be counted on to give you instruction.

I understand that scoring a bunch more runs than you give up gets you in the position to win championships. You haven't figured out as much of course, yet you keep on typing. Amusing.

No. From the beginning of this conversation you've been entirely confused.

No, again. Your weakness is your complete understanding of what drives Run Scoring.

Ryan Freel's complete and total value is derived from the Outs he avoids and the Bases he acquires. After that you posted nothing but drivel.

Only because you have no idea how to identify a good indicator versus a bad indicator. I've rarely seen such total incomprehension.

You don't deal in facts, so the statement above can be completely disregarded by anyone with a clue.


Now that's classless.

M2
04-20-2006, 05:03 PM
You just might be living in an alternate and preposterous universe when you type:


it doesn't make up for you severe lack of knowledge in the game of baseball.

after you posted this in the same day:


Since nearly 70 percent of at-bats are outs in this game, there is an artform to making the most of the 6 of 10 times you DON'T get on base or get a basehit.

Caveat Emperor
04-20-2006, 05:04 PM
Steel, you're amusing.

Continue with your half-witted cheap shots. You remind me of someone that doesn't have the feintest clue about something, so you either counter with some lame, juvenile shot or try to pull some statistic out to make yourself sound smarter.

It's like the old "I know you are but what am I" grade school tactic. You can quote every stat reference in the book, but apparently it doesn't make up for you severe lack of knowledge in the game of baseball.

It has been the same story on this website for years and there are a lot of people that always say the same thing. If someone doesn't subscribe completely into the new statistical line of thinking, people like you get on your high horse, quote all these stats and claim you're the all-knowing baseball God and someone is wrong for disagreeing.

I've got news for you, most of life is a gray area. This is no different. No matter how much you believe in these stats, there's no proof one line of thinking is more correct than another. Statistics can be manipulated to prove most anything. The fact that "always" and "never" can't be proven should tell you something.

You're narrow-minded and what's worse, you apparently don't know anything about baseball other than what "stats" tell you.

Hey, I'm not going to "neg" you or anything like that -- but it's an internet message board. If you're sick of arguing, nobody is forcing you to keep replying. Nobody is going to declare themselves the victor of an argument.

Just move on -- leave the personal stuff out of it.

While you might not agree with him, SteelSD is extremely knowledgeable about the game of baseball. Reading his posts underscores that fact. I've learned more about the game of baseball in just over a year posting here and reading things he and others (many of whom have tried to explain things to you and have a discourse with you on this thread) have written than I had in almost 15 years of watching (and playing, when younger) the game.

Listen, see what he has to say, and if you don't like what he's saying then just drop the subject. He enjoys baseball one way, you're free to enjoy baseball another way. There's room in this world for everyone.

paintmered
04-20-2006, 05:05 PM
Apparently you conveniently skipped over Steel's nice little remarks that prompted my response. Typical of people to turn a blind eye to those they agree with.

Allow me to assist you in some of his remarks...



Now that's classless.

I think both of you need to knock it off with the personal stuff.

Buckaholic
04-20-2006, 05:07 PM
Caveat, the problem is not that. From day one Steel gets on a high horse and anyone that disagrees with them they're "clueless" or post nothing but "drivel".

He has earned no respect in my book not because of what he knows or doesn't know but because of how he acts when someone disagrees with him.

paintmered
04-20-2006, 05:09 PM
Caveat, the problem is not that. From day one Steel gets on a high horse and anyone that disagrees with them they're "clueless" or post nothing but "drivel".

He has earned no respect in my book not because of what he knows or doesn't know but because of how he acts when someone disagrees with him.

Your opinion of steel is fine. Hijacking a thread to express your opinion of him is not. Get back on topic or you are gone for a day.

That goes for steel too.

M2
04-20-2006, 05:14 PM
Can none of these at-bats be used more productively? Serious question: What would happen if he only whiffed 120 times per year?

Baseball's a process. Adam Dunn was better in 2004-5 than he was in 2002-3 and he'll be better in 2006-7.

So the answer is, unless you're a 1.000 hitter with a 4.000 SLG you could always be more productive. Dunn will whiff less as he matures because that's the way the game works. Yet the way to more productive ABs for him is through being patient, not in trying to become a free swinger. Aside from the fact that almost no one benefits from being a free swinger the real goal should be for Adam Dunn to be the best Adam Dunn he can be. He'll still whiff a lot even when he hits his peak (and it might fall in the 140-150 K range), but judging a guy with Dunn's formidable assets based on his K totals would be like turning away Salma Hayek because you don't like her nail polish.

Puffy
04-20-2006, 05:17 PM
but judging a guy with Dunn's formidable assets based on his K totals would be like turning away Salma Hayek because you don't like her nail polish.

I'd turn her away cause I still can't get that unibrow from the movie Freda outta my head

M2
04-20-2006, 05:19 PM
I'd turn her away cause I still can't get that unibrow from the movie Freda outta my head

I'm thinking you'd be able to overcome it if push came to shove.

big boy
04-20-2006, 05:32 PM
but judging a guy with Dunn's formidable assets based on his K totals would be like turning away Salma Hayek because you don't like her nail polish.

I am on record saying that he is a great player and future hall of famer. I am not judging him on K totals but would like him to get more hits (and walks) by cutting down on the strikeouts. When he gets into his prime, I hope you are correct that he will get even better.

Johnny Footstool
04-20-2006, 05:33 PM
Apparently you conveniently skipped over Steel's nice little remarks that prompted my response. Typical of people to turn a blind eye to those they agree with.

Allow me to assist you in some of his remarks...



Now that's classless.

I read Steel's original remarks and didn't find them nearly as insulting or full of vitriol as your reply to him.

Regardless, if you have a problem with someone, send them a PM or inform a moderator.

I apologize for calling your response classless. That was unnecessary. I should have simply informed a moderator.

westofyou
04-20-2006, 05:34 PM
I'd turn her away cause I still can't get that unibrow from the movie Freda outta my head
That was political statement in response to the colonization of the Indians by spain and was a reaction to the imposed beauty standards of Anglo Europe on said people.

Hey, but everyone knows that.

M2
04-20-2006, 05:41 PM
I am on record saying that he is a great player and future hall of famer. I am not judging him on K totals but would like him to get more hits (and walks) by cutting down on the strikeouts. When he gets into his prime, I hope you are correct that he will get even better.

I find that one thing that's kind of invaded Reds nation is that folks don't let young players be young players. It takes years to hone your skills and address your flaws and even with the great ones it's often mitigation rather than cure.

Clearly you see Dunn's present day talent. My suggestion is to enjoy it and hope for him to work within his own parameters. Adam Dunn may strike out more than anyone in history before he hangs them up, but I guarantee you that he'll be a first ballot HOFer if he does.

Buckaholic
04-20-2006, 06:01 PM
I read Steel's original remarks and didn't find them nearly as insulting or full of vitriol as your reply to him.

Regardless, if you have a problem with someone, send them a PM or inform a moderator.

I apologize for calling your response classless. That was unnecessary. I should have simply informed a moderator.

"I read Steel's original remarks and didn't find them nearly as insulting or full of vitriol as your reply to him."

They were thinly veiled, but with clear intent. I'm sure someone with 16,000 posts and a backing on a board knows how to take a jab at someone without being as blatantly forthcoming as I was.

"Regardless, if you have a problem with someone, send them a PM or inform a moderator."

Never the less, that's been done and I'll take my issues offline.

"I apologize for calling your response classless. That was unnecessary. I should have simply informed a moderator."

Thanks for the apology and I won't condone my response either, but that's the basic problem I have right now. People that agree with him on the greater debate and respect the fact he posts so much will see past his remarks but be quick to report mine. In a series of 15 or more points in that last post, probably 12 of them contained very little in the way of actual baseball related content, but instead, were merely ways to cast a subtle (or not so subtle jab) in my direction, and that's why I responded the way I did, right or wrong.

I've been a member here as long as many people here. I've been here 4 years with this name and another year or two under a previous name. It's this sort of phenomenon on this board that has kept me to posting only 400 posts, but truth is it's a shame because I enjoy 90 percent of the discussion and content on this board, but I despise the hive mentality that exists with one way of thinking against others. It's kept myself and many other of my knowledgeable baseball friends from posting. The clear point made in this thread by some people was that if you don't subscribe to a certain way of thinking, your baseball knowledge is lacking.

I wont' do it because this is a dead issue now, but I can pinpoint four different posts by four different people in the last week that someone felt they were criticized because they disagreed with a certain way of thinking. In each of the four cases, the same people were the ones responsible for said posters feeling that way. And in every case, I saw at least one response to their complaint mocking them and trying to spin the issue back on them as if it's their fault.

I'll now bow out of this issue on this thread, but if someone asks me something, I'll keep my response brief, to the point and without any vitriol. If someone would rather discuss the issue in a civil manner off the board, I'm OK with that too. Feel free to drop me a line.

Beyond that, I apologize to everyone for the things I personally said in response to the remarks I took great offense to, and I'll attempt to bite my fingers in the future when someone baits me. Whether they were justified or not, my comments were clearly out of line. I just hope in return, people will step back and realize the group mentality that exists and not be so quick to penalize the people that are on another side of an argument for doing the same things that exist on the side of their own beliefs.