PDA

View Full Version : What happens to Dunn with men in scoring position



Wheelhouse
05-14-2006, 01:18 AM
To satisfy all I won't talk about Avg. RISP, though it is the stat I look at. Let's look at his OBP this year with runners in scoring position Bases empty: .422 and with RISP:.333 -- that's almost a ninety point difference, about twice the difference between his batting avg. and avg. with RISP! This a guy who has a problem when men are on base.

JohhnyBench1001
05-14-2006, 02:14 AM
Yeah it is a problem. I look at OBP as well, but like you said that drops dramatically with RISP. A 90 point difference is huge, and does mean he is making outs and not producing runs when they count.

toledodan
05-14-2006, 02:22 AM
13 HOMERUNS 26 RBI'S!!!!!!!!!!! that is a bad rbi ratio anyway you take it. he has driven in 13 team mates all season.

pedro
05-14-2006, 02:27 AM
He's in a horrible slump and seldom sees any good pitches to hit when there are runners on base. He goes through this every year. He'll come out of it.

He's also played every game this season. I think it might be a good idea to give him a day off. Everyone else seems to get them.

pedro
05-14-2006, 02:29 AM
13 HOMERUNS 26 RBI'S!!!!!!!!!!! that is a bad rbi ratio anyway you take it. he has driven in 13 team mates all season.

and conversely I could say what a bunch of lousy teammates he has. they can't even drive themselves in.

Caveat Emperor
05-14-2006, 03:43 AM
He's slumping. It happens.

Last I checked, there were 8 other guys making Leiber look like Cy Young out on the mound today, not just Adam Dunn.

Johnny Footstool
05-14-2006, 04:25 AM
A "let's pick on Adam Dunn" thread? The Reds must have lost today.

Wheelhouse
05-14-2006, 04:33 AM
Nay, not "picking on" Dunn, and it's not about tonight. The thread is about an extraordinary statistic. I'm also looking at stats that span the full six weeks of the season. I don't think that's a slump, that's an out-and-out problem. Now you may disagree and say it's not a problem because Adam is producing by way of x way of looking at it. Go ahead. But please be mature and don't mis-characterize the thread in an effort to start up some gorilla dust.

SteelSD
05-14-2006, 04:52 AM
What's happening to Adam Dunn with Runners in Scoring Position?

From an OBP perspective, he's getting crap to hit and he swings at it too much. Thanks for channelling Bob Boone, Mr. Narron.

For the RBI and Runs Scored initiates...

Adam Dunn is tied for 13th in the NL in RBI w/RISP with 18 despite a Batting Average of .184 w/RISP in 38 AB. The two guys he's tied with (Khalil Greene, Jeff Francoeur) have 37 and 41 AB respectively and are putting up RISP Batting Averages of .270 and .341 respectively. Dunn has acquired one less RBI in three more AB than has Austin Kearns (35 AB) despite Kearns' 159 point RISP Batting Average adavantage. Dunn's 119 point SLG w/RISP advantage will do that.

What's "happening" to adam Dunn is that folks tend to not have a clue about what actually drives RBI acquisition and Run production. And yes, that includes Jerry Narron.

Dunn is also tied for 8th in the NL in RBI w/RISP and 2 Out with 8 (16 AB). His RBI/AB conversion percentage (50%) is excellent. A .688 SLG will do that for you.

Dunn is tied for fourth in the NL in Runs w/RISP with 22; four behind the NL leader- Felipe Lopez. Lopez' numbers with RISP are .303 BA/.425 OBP/.394 SLG. Yet Lopez has acquired only 11 RBI w/RISP in 33 AB despite that .303 BA. How? A sub-.400 SLG from Lopez.

And all that being said, I do need to give props to Wheelhouse for producing a post centered on OBP rather than BA.

GAC
05-14-2006, 07:44 AM
What's happening to Adam Dunn with Runners in Scoring Position?

From an OBP perspective, he's getting crap to hit and he swings at it too much.

That's all that needs to be said.

I think he is pressing and swinging for the fences in those situations, and throws plate discipline out the window because everyone is telling him "you're here to drive in runs, not take a walk!"

One also has to realize that with Jr out, he really had no "protection" in this batting order.

I'm glad to see Kearns moved up in that order.

Cooper
05-14-2006, 07:56 AM
Management could also help out by:

1. Telling folks "we really want AD to focus on obp and scoring runs"....

2. Maybe batting him 2nd or 6th until he gets things going. Most fans can't handle his so-called lack of success. Steel that's a great stat re: 4th in the league w/risp (rbi's), but i really believe 80-85% of fans out there have not a clue where he stands relative to his peers.

Raisor
05-14-2006, 09:05 AM
At his current PAs w/RISP Dunn is 4 walks/hits away from having and OBP of .400 w/RISP.

Wheelhouse
05-14-2006, 10:20 AM
His OBP is always pretty good. My point is that Dunn's approach with RISP causes his performance to tail off dramatically. And if you put a premium on OBP over BA, it tails off twice as much. This has become a growing problem when a huge part of the guys game is OBP.

kyle1976
05-14-2006, 10:48 AM
RUNNERS ON 35 56 23 10 1 0 5 18 13 24 1 0 .333 .464 .179
BASES EMPTY 37 71 8 19 3 0 8 8 19 23 0 0 .422 .648 .268

Dunn OPS drops 273 with runners on. And his strikeouts/at-bat (including walks) goes up 9 points from .26 to .35. That's very alarming and very frustrating if you watch him every game like I do. Couldn't he choke up on the bat when he has two strikes on him??? I don't know what his stats are when he has two strikes on him, but I'm terrified to know.

Hopefully, he'll improve soon because right now he's just not getting it 'dunn'.

pedro
05-14-2006, 01:52 PM
you know what the funniest thing about all this BS is? Dunn, despite having a horrible may so far, is on pace for 57 HR's, 136 runs and 114 RBI's. So please go on telling me about how he sucks. It's really amusing.

Matt700wlw
05-14-2006, 02:13 PM
He should just pretend there's nobody on base every time he steps to the plate...


I guess it's not that easy :)

TeamBoone
05-14-2006, 02:40 PM
To satisfy all I won't talk about Avg. RISP, though it is the stat I look at. Let's look at his OBP this year with runners in scoring position Bases empty: .422 and with RISP:.333 -- that's almost a ninety point difference, about twice the difference between his batting avg. and avg. with RISP! This a guy who has a problem when men are on base.

Perhaps he's pitched differently in this situation.

kxblue
05-14-2006, 03:48 PM
So Adam swings at bad pitches with RISP?

Why does the blame immediately get thrown on the manager? How do we know that Adam is not the one pressing in these situations (possibly because of his low RBI numbers)?

Many of you, do to his production, won't fault Adam for anything other than his bad defense. I agree someone needs to get Adam to relax with RISP, but maybe it is Adam's fault and not the manager (whose comments have been blown out of proportion IMHO.)

NastyBoy
05-14-2006, 04:22 PM
Dunn should be batting 5th.. not 4th.

pedro
05-14-2006, 04:23 PM
Dunn should be batting 5th.. not 4th.

I think he should be batting 3rd because he'll benefit from the protection and also because he'll get on base in front of teh guys who put the bat on the ball more.

NastyBoy
05-14-2006, 04:26 PM
I think he should be batting 3rd because he'll benefit from the protection and also because he'll get on base in front of teh guys who put the bat on the ball more.

So where do you bat griffey?

NastyBoy
05-14-2006, 04:29 PM
He should just pretend there's nobody on base every time he steps to the plate...


I guess it's not that easy :)

I think the opposing pitchers are content to give up a walk instead of a solo HR. With runner in scoring position, pitchers are obiviously having to pitch to him. He his more likely to strike out with 2 men on than hit a 3 run homer. They are playing the odds.

pedro
05-14-2006, 04:31 PM
So where do you bat griffey?

4th.

NastyBoy
05-14-2006, 04:34 PM
4th.

So you move your worst batter up to third in the order? That makes no sense.

I think it should be griffey, kearns, dunn.

KronoRed
05-14-2006, 04:48 PM
Dunn is far from the worst batter.

I think he's being coached to swing more with runners on, it's not working.

pedro
05-14-2006, 04:49 PM
So you move your worst batter up to third in the order? That makes no sense.

I think it should be griffey, kearns, dunn.

he's not the worst batter. He is the worst of the contact hitters but he has great plate disipline so get him on base before the guys who do put the bat on the ball more. Plus with Kearns & Griffey hitting behind him Dunn will see better pitches.

NastyBoy
05-14-2006, 04:52 PM
Dunn is far from the worst batter.

I think he's being coached to swing more with runners on, it's not working.

You are correct.. I forgot about mccraken and larue and harang.

pedro
05-14-2006, 04:54 PM
You are correct.. I forgot about mccraken and larue and harang.

Come back and have an honest discussion when you're willing but as long as you're going to deny the fact that Dunn is a serious run producer I'm finished talking about it with you.

SteelSD
05-14-2006, 04:56 PM
You are correct.. I forgot about mccraken and larue and harang.

And yet there's Dunn at #9 in the NL with 29.1 Runs Created.

That would actually make Dunn the Reds most productive hitter.

Is there a reason you wouldn't want your best hitter hitting in the #3 slot?

BTW, every time you think Batting Average is the gauge of hitting prowess, God kills a kitty. Please think of the kitties next time.

KronoRed
05-14-2006, 04:57 PM
Where is Raisor?

Bat avg counts singles, doubles, triples and home runs the same.

It's a stat with limited use.

pedro
05-14-2006, 04:58 PM
Don't you know it's Adam Dunn who kills kitties? (and baby bunnies)

because HR's don't count unless George Foster hit them.

NastyBoy
05-14-2006, 04:58 PM
I was taking about "hitting". I do not doubt that Dunn can hit the long ball. I just don't think he should be batting 4th with a .223 batting average. Why not bat Kearns 4th who is hitting .317 and is a much better "hitter" and has far few strikeouts.

NastyBoy
05-14-2006, 04:59 PM
And yet there's Dunn at #9 in the NL with 29.1 Runs Created.

That would actually make Dunn the Reds most productive hitter.

Is there a reason you wouldn't want your best hitter hitting in the #3 slot?

BTW, every time you think Batting Average is the gauge of hitting prowess, God kills a kitty. Please think of the kitties next time.

I do want our best hitter in number 3 slot... Griffey.... you know the HOFer.

pedro
05-14-2006, 05:00 PM
I was taking about "hitting". I do not doubt that Dunn can hit the long ball. I just don't think he should be batting 4th with a .223 batting average. Why not bat Kearns 4th who is hitting .317 and is a much better "hitter" and has far few strikeouts.

Like I said, get back to us when you have some concept of how runs are actually acquired. Hint: it's not by BA alone.

SteelSD
05-14-2006, 05:02 PM
I was taking about "hitting". I do not doubt that Dunn can hit the long ball. I just don't think he should be batting 4th with a .223 batting average. Why not bat Kearns 4th who is hitting .317 and is a much better "hitter" and has far few strikeouts.

Hitting:

1) Don't make Outs
2) Acquire Bases

He who does both better than the next guy is the better HITTER.

Until you realize that, all you're doing is leaving behind a trail of dead kittens. Heck, you probably killed a dozen or so while I was typing this post. Quit it.

Wheelhouse
05-14-2006, 05:05 PM
And yet there's Dunn at #9 in the NL with 29.1 Runs Created.

That would actually make Dunn the Reds most productive hitter.

Is there a reason you wouldn't want your best hitter hitting in the #3 slot?

BTW, every time you think Batting Average is the gauge of hitting prowess, God kills a kitty. Please think of the kitties next time.

Doesn't that make you doubt the validity of the "new-jack" Runs Created stat, when Dunn is clearly flailing? Do you feel good when the guy is at bat? Not me. I think these flavor-of-the-month stats need to be taken with a grain of salt.

NastyBoy
05-14-2006, 05:05 PM
Like I said, get back to us when you have some concept of how runs are actually acquired. Hint: it's not by BA alone.

26 or 25 RBIs.... himmm tough call. 47 or 28 Ks.

KronoRed
05-14-2006, 05:06 PM
Turn Dunn's bases emtpy walks into singles and he's hitting .326

Last year it would be .299

Wheelhouse
05-14-2006, 05:08 PM
Turn Dunn's bases emtpy walks into singles and he's hitting .326

Last year it would be .299

Yeah, and if you do that he becomes a huge whiff artist with few walks, 40 hrs in a band-box, terrible d, and horrible baserunning instincts.

pedro
05-14-2006, 05:10 PM
Doesn't that make you doubt the validity of the "new-jack" Runs Created stat, when Dunn is clearly flailing? Do you feel good when the guy is at bat? Not me. I think these flavor-of-the-month stats need to be taken with a grain of salt.


First, Dunn is flailing right now because he's in a slump.

Second, Dunn is never going to be proficient in you're beloved RISP (which BTW has little to no correlation to actual runs scored) because that's not the type of hitter he is.

Third, these "new jack" stats have been run in regression tests against the entire modern history of baseball and proven to be accurate.

Finally, what needs to be taken with a grain of salt is the opinion of people who don't attempt to learn anything new or question their perceptions with data to back up their opinions.

NastyBoy
05-14-2006, 05:11 PM
Game on the line in the bottom of the ninth with 2 men on... a walk is exactly what I want.

SteelSD
05-14-2006, 05:17 PM
Doesn't that make you doubt the validity of the "new-jack" Runs Created stat, when Dunn is clearly flailing? Do you feel good when the guy is at bat? Not me. I think these flavor-of-the-month stats need to be taken with a grain of salt.

There's nothing "fotm" about Runs Created. When a performance metric correlates so highly (@97-98%) with actual results on a consistent basis, it must be taken seriously. It's accurate and entirely relevant (the two benchmarks of "good" versus "bad" numbers) in measuring actual contribution and has been over the long haul. The problem with Batting Average is that, while accurate (it measures what its supposed to), what it measures isn't all that relevant to Run production.

And not only do I feel quite fine when Dunn walks to the plate, I'd feel just as good if they gave him more Plate Appearances.

dsmith421
05-14-2006, 05:26 PM
Yeah, and if you do that he becomes a huge whiff artist with few walks, 40 hrs in a band-box, terrible d, and horrible baserunning instincts.

Just incredible. Best player the club's produced since Larkin and all the fans do is crap on his head.

KronoRed
05-14-2006, 05:27 PM
Just incredible. Best player the club's produced since Larkin and all the fans do is crap on his head.
Did the same to Eric Davis.

pedro
05-14-2006, 05:29 PM
If it's so easy to hit home runs in the GABP "band box" how come no on else on the Reds had 40?

I guess HR's don't count unless George Foster hit them.

Wheelhouse
05-14-2006, 05:49 PM
First, Dunn is flailing right now because he's in a slump.

Second, Dunn is never going to be proficient in you're beloved RISP (which BTW has little to no correlation to actual runs scored) because that's not the type of hitter he is.

Third, these "new jack" stats have been run in regression tests against the entire modern history of baseball and proven to be accurate.

Finally, what needs to be taken with a grain of salt is the opinion of people who don't attempt to learn anything new or question their perceptions with data to back up their opinions.

First, this is an ongoing problem with Dunn, not a slump.
Second, hitting with RISP is not a "type" of hitting, it's good hitting! Leaving ducks on the pond is bad hitting.
Third, these stats have been run in regression tests by the people who invented them--which is like the divorcee validating the botox.
Finally, an opinion does not have to be data-based to be valid--empirical opinions have crafted some of the greatest teams, and moments in the game. I realize that with the new statistical analyses some people feel they've found manna in the wilderness. I just am not one of them.

Wheelhouse
05-14-2006, 05:51 PM
If it's so easy to hit home runs in the GABP "band box" how come no on else on the Reds had 40?

I guess HR's don't count unless George Foster hit them.

Because Jr and Kearns have been hurt much of the time GABP has been open...OOOOP! You dusted off the George Foster reference again. Nice.

pedro
05-14-2006, 05:55 PM
First, this is an ongoing problem with Dunn, not a slump.
Second, hitting with RISP is not a "type" of hitting, it's good hitting! Leaving ducks on the pond is bad hitting.
Third, these stats have been run in regression tests by the people who invented them--which is like the divorcee validating the botox.
Finally, an opinion does not have to be data-based to be valid--empirical opinions have crafted some of the greatest teams, and moments in the game. I realize that with the new statistical analyses some people feel they've found manna in the wilderness. I just am not one of them.

This just serves to prove how little you know or care to learn about statistical analysis. If you knew what you were talking about, well, you'd know what you're talking about. But you don't so have a nice day and try not to pick on WOY too much.

NastyBoy
05-14-2006, 05:59 PM
Don't EVER mention Larkin or Foster in the same post as Dunn. Dunn is a LONG way from winning an MVP.

:rolleyes:

Johnny Footstool
05-14-2006, 06:00 PM
"New jack" stats?

I guess that makes Branch Rickey the O.G.

Word.

dsmith421
05-14-2006, 06:04 PM
Don't EVER mention Larkin or Foster in the same post as Dunn. Dunn is a LONG way from winning an MVP.

:rolleyes:

In terms of win shares, OPS, or any other metric used to judge players' careers, Dunn is the best player the Reds have produced since Larkin.

The Dunn bashers sure have gotten condescending recently.

Wheelhouse
05-14-2006, 06:05 PM
Just incredible. Best player the club's produced since Larkin and all the fans do is crap on his head.

Hmmm, I wonder why? Maybe I'm, I'mmm...
http://www.animationusa.com/picts/wbpict/3_Classic-Joker.jpg

pedro
05-14-2006, 06:09 PM
In terms of win shares, OPS, or any other metric used to judge players' careers, Dunn is the best player the Reds have produced since Larkin.

The Dunn bashers sure have gotten condescending recently.

They also are so absolutely non inqusitive that they don't even pretend to find out what they are talking about before they blather on with their platitudes.

Chip R
05-14-2006, 06:22 PM
I have had about enough of you people bashing each other just because you have different viewpoints. I do not want to see it again!

Caveat Emperor
05-14-2006, 06:27 PM
Don't EVER mention Larkin or Foster in the same post as Dunn. Dunn is a LONG way from winning an MVP.

:rolleyes:

You just mentioned Larkin, Foster and Dunn in the same sentence. :D

NastyBoy
05-14-2006, 06:31 PM
You just mentioned Larkin, Foster and Dunn in the same sentence. :D

:thumbup:

2001MUgrad
05-14-2006, 06:32 PM
Don't EVER mention Larkin or Foster in the same post as Dunn. Dunn is a LONG way from winning an MVP.

:rolleyes:

As far as I can tell Dunn isn't even an All-Star. If you want to compare Dunn let's compare apples and apples. Compare him to players like Rob Deer not Barry Larkin or Foster.

Raisor
05-14-2006, 06:33 PM
Third, these stats have been run in regression tests by the people who invented them--which is like the divorcee validating the botox.
.


Fine, check it your self. Seriously.

We'll wait.

griffeyfreak4
05-14-2006, 06:39 PM
Game on the line in the bottom of the ninth with 2 men on... a walk is exactly what I want.
Yeah, your right. Don't take the walk, swing at the crap they're pitching you, and make crappy contact with the ball. When my best hitter is going up to the plate in this situation, the first thing I tell him is, "Don't take a walk at all costs."

Ummm.....hello? If they're going to walk him, then that's not his fault. He shouldn't swing at bad pitches just because a walk doesn't help.

BTW, you'd make a GREAT baseball coach...............

IslandRed
05-14-2006, 06:39 PM
Third, these stats have been run in regression tests by the people who invented them--which is like the divorcee validating the botox.

These tests have been done by lots and lots of people. Nothing about Runs Created is a secret -- not the Runs Created stats, not the formulas used to generate those values, not the data used to feed into the formula, not the real-world results being tested against. If Runs Created wasn't accurate, any schmuck who knew how to run a regression could blow it up.

Believe it or not, the statistically-oriented community does not just fall down and worship every new stat someone trots out. After all, a lot of these people are statisticians or math wonks. They're used to peer review and "prove it," and it's a competitive area. If someone tries to make a name for himself by inventing some garbage metric, using either bad data or flawed statistical methods or both, there's no shortage of people waiting to smack it down.

westofyou
05-14-2006, 06:44 PM
As far as I can tell Dunn isn't even an All-Star. If you want to compare Dunn let's compare apples and apples. Compare him to players like Rob Deer not Barry Larkin or Foster.
Hey if you want to go that far, why not compare Granny Smiths with Granny Smiths? By looking what they accomplished at the same age?

If you want to compare Dun to a guy who probably retired before you even started school then you probably want to make it fair because you didn't get to see the George Foster in his prime or the one who wasn't.

Or Rob Deer, whom I had the pleasure to watch first hand when he came up.


ADAM DUNN

AGE < 26

YEAR TEAM AGE G AB R H 2B 3B HR HR% RBI BB SO SB CS AVG SLG OBA OPS
2001 Reds 21 66 244 54 64 18 1 19 7.79 43 38 74 4 2 .262 .578 .371 .948
2002 Reds 22 158 535 84 133 28 2 26 4.86 71 128 170 19 9 .249 .454 .400 .854
2003 Reds 23 116 381 70 82 12 1 27 7.09 57 74 126 8 2 .215 .465 .354 .819
2004 Reds 24 161 568 105 151 34 0 46 8.10 102 108 195 6 1 .266 .569 .388 .956
2005 Reds 25 160 543 107 134 35 2 40 7.37 101 114 168 4 2 .247 .540 .387 .927

TOTALS 661 2271 420 564 127 6 158 6.96 374 462 733 41 16 .248 .518 .383 .901
LG AVERAGE 2267 313 608 123 13 73 3.23 298 231 418 38 17 .268 .431 .340 .771
POS AVERAGE 2295 347 627 132 13 97 4.23 351 292 465 36 16 .273 .469 .359 .828



GEORGE FOSTER

AGE < 26

YEAR TEAM AGE G AB R H 2B 3B HR HR% RBI BB SO SB CS AVG SLG OBA OPS
1969 Giants 20 9 5 1 2 0 0 0 0.00 1 0 1 0 0 .400 .400 .400 .800
1970 Giants 21 9 19 2 6 1 1 1 5.26 4 2 5 0 0 .316 .632 .381 1.013
1971 Giants 22 36 105 11 28 5 0 3 2.86 8 6 27 0 1 .267 .400 .304 .704
Reds 22 104 368 39 86 18 4 10 2.72 50 23 93 7 6 .234 .386 .289 .675
TOTALS 140 473 50 114 23 4 13 2.75 58 29 120 7 7 .241 .389 .292 .681
1972 Reds 23 59 145 15 29 4 1 2 1.38 12 5 44 2 1 .200 .283 .230 .513
1973 Reds 24 17 39 6 11 3 0 4 10.26 9 4 7 0 1 .282 .667 .349 1.016
1974 Reds 25 106 276 31 73 18 0 7 2.54 41 30 52 3 2 .264 .406 .343 .749

TOTALS 340 957 105 235 49 6 27 2.82 125 70 229 12 11 .246 .394 .303 .697
LG AVERAGE 987 120 257 40 7 22 2.20 112 98 142 16 9 .260 .381 .329 .709
POS AVERAGE 999 133 269 45 9 24 2.37 117 103 158 22 12 .269 .402 .339 .741

ROB DEER

AGE < 26

YEAR TEAM AGE G AB R H 2B 3B HR HR% RBI BB SO SB CS AVG SLG OBA OPS
1984 Giants 23 13 24 5 4 0 0 3 12.50 3 7 10 1 1 .167 .542 .375 .917
1985 Giants 24 78 162 22 30 5 1 8 4.94 20 23 71 0 1 .185 .377 .283 .660
1986 Brewers 25 134 466 75 108 17 3 33 7.08 86 72 179 5 2 .232 .494 .336 .830

TOTALS 225 652 102 142 22 4 44 6.75 109 102 260 6 4 .218 .466 .325 .791
LG AVERAGE 666 88 174 30 4 18 2.75 83 66 109 14 7 .261 .402 .329 .731
POS AVERAGE 672 98 178 31 5 26 3.91 96 69 139 19 7 .264 .441 .333 .774

NastyBoy
05-14-2006, 06:51 PM
Yeah, your right. Don't take the walk, swing at the crap they're pitching you, and make crappy contact with the ball. When my best hitter is going up to the plate in this situation, the first thing I tell him is, "Don't take a walk at all costs."

Ummm.....hello? If they're going to walk him, then that's not his fault. He shouldn't swing at bad pitches just because a walk doesn't help.

BTW, you'd make a GREAT baseball coach...............

I guess you did not see the Griffey walk off the other night. The reds did not need a walk, they needed a hit.

When was the last time the opposing team intentionally walked Dunn to load the bases? You are giving him alot more credit than he deserves.

The point is, if there are 2 men on base, he should be getting something to hit because the opposing team does not want to walk the bases loaded.

NastyBoy
05-14-2006, 06:54 PM
As far as I can tell Dunn isn't even an All-Star. If you want to compare Dunn let's compare apples and apples. Compare him to players like Rob Deer not Barry Larkin or Foster.

He has been to the all star game once.

NastyBoy
05-14-2006, 07:02 PM
Dunn should be batting 5th.. not 4th.


The whole point of my original post was that Dunn may hit because of seeing better pitches in the 5th slot. Ofcourse, after todays game, everyone is really sucking. Good pitching can beat hitters everytime.

griffeyfreak4
05-14-2006, 07:06 PM
I guess you did not see the Griffey walk off the other night. The reds did not need a walk, they needed a hit.

When was the last time the opposing team intentionally walked Dunn to load the bases? You are giving him alot more credit than he deserves.

The point is, if there are 2 men on base, he should be getting something to hit because the opposing team does not want to walk the bases loaded.
When you say 2 men on do you mean 1st and 2nd, 2nd and 3rd or 1st and 3rd.

If you mean 1st and 2nd or 1st and 3rd and then he takes a walk, then he just moved a very important run up 90 feet. Also, now a base hit potentially scores one instead of two so if he walks in this situation I say kudos.

If you mean 2nd and 3rd, well then they aren't going to give him anything to hit because putting the team's most dangerous hitter on first doesn't make a difference, not letting the runner score on 3rd is what counts.

If there are 2 men on base, and he walks, he obviously DIDN'T get anything good to hit and that's why he walked.

Do you know how to play the game of baseball?

NastyBoy
05-14-2006, 07:09 PM
When you say 2 men on do you mean 1st and 2nd, 2nd and 3rd or 1st and 3rd.

If you mean 1st and 2nd or 1st and 3rd and then he takes a walk, then he just moved a very important run up 90 feet. Also, now a base hit potentially scores one instead of two so if he walks in this situation I say kudos.

If you mean 2nd and 3rd, well then they aren't going to give him anything to hit because putting the team's most dangerous hitter on first doesn't make a difference, not letting the runner score on 3rd is what counts.

If there are 2 men on base, and he walks, he obviously DIDN'T get anything good to hit and that's why he walked.

Do you know how to play the game of baseball?

The first one.

Wheelhouse
05-14-2006, 07:12 PM
Yeah, your right. Don't take the walk, swing at the crap they're pitching you, and make crappy contact with the ball. When my best hitter is going up to the plate in this situation, the first thing I tell him is, "Don't take a walk at all costs."

Ummm.....hello? If they're going to walk him, then that's not his fault. He shouldn't swing at bad pitches just because a walk doesn't help.

BTW, you'd make a GREAT baseball coach...............

Em, today he took a fat strike fastball in the lower part of the zone on 2-0, a pitch he should be ready for.

Raisor
05-14-2006, 07:14 PM
Wheelhouse.

Just fyi, going into today's game the Reds Runs Created was 95% accurate.

195 Actual runs vs 205 created runs.

NastyBoy
05-14-2006, 07:15 PM
When you say 2 men on do you mean 1st and 2nd, 2nd and 3rd or 1st and 3rd.

If you mean 1st and 2nd or 1st and 3rd and then he takes a walk, then he just moved a very important run up 90 feet. Also, now a base hit potentially scores one instead of two so if he walks in this situation I say kudos.

If you mean 2nd and 3rd, well then they aren't going to give him anything to hit because putting the team's most dangerous hitter on first doesn't make a difference, not letting the runner score on 3rd is what counts.

If there are 2 men on base, and he walks, he obviously DIDN'T get anything good to hit and that's why he walked.

Do you know how to play the game of baseball?

I was not referring to any one particular "real" stituation. I was trying to imply that if he was in that situation, that he would be looking to hit a home run. I can assure you that when griffey went to the plate thursday night, he was only thinking one thing... Home Run.

SteelSD
05-14-2006, 07:25 PM
When was the last time the opposing team intentionally walked Dunn to load the bases? You are giving him alot more credit than he deserves.

Opposing pitchers have issued 3 BB in seven PA this season with Runners on 2nd and 3rd. Opposing pitchers did that 5 times in 18 PA in 2005.

Dunn acquired 309 AB last season with no Runners on. He walked 40 times. With Runners on, he acquired 234 AB and a whopping 74 BB. Even more staggering, opposing pitchers issued 24 BB with Runners on 2nd only in 2005 versus 36 At Bats. Men on 2nd and 3rd? 13 AB and 5 BB. Ducks on the pond and a base open? Dunn was pitched around at LEAST 60% of the time.

When you're pitched around that often, there's no possible way to give enough credit to the hitter. Thems the facts.

It's obvious that pitchers don't give Dunn much of anything to hit when Runners on and hasn't for quite some time. It's also absolutely clear that Dunn's issues this season have to do with him not wanting to take those intentional non-intentional Walks as his situational BB rates have dropped across the board versus last season. Instead, he's swinging at crap offerings in a lame attempt to acquire more Hits in those situations which has done exactly nothing other than trading Walks for Outs while producing nothing at all in the way of additional Hits (gee...imagine that).

Every year I have to tell folks that swinging at bad pitches results in more Outs rather than more of anything else and every year it's proven to be absolutely 100% true. If Dunn weren't such an offensive threat, he wouldn't get crap to swing at with Runners on. And at this point, his problem is that he's swinging at it rather than just taking what he's being given. And now it appears that he's being told to do so by the Reds manager.

Oh joy.

Raisor
05-14-2006, 07:31 PM
Here's a thread where someone did what I'm asking Wheelhouse to do. He checked it himself:

http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=45218&highlight=dirty

hatcher
05-14-2006, 07:32 PM
Listen its quite obvious what is going on..

ADAM DUNN IS NOT CLUTCH

that has always been the case. Im not hating but its true. He is in fact the opposite of clutch. He can only hit His pitch. He can never hit the Pitchers pitch and come out ahead. Adam Dunn is the best in the business at making pitchers pay who make mistakes. But if youre a pitcher who is on his game.. id rather have just about anybody else in the line up in a clutch situation than Adam Dunn. I like Adam Dunn... but it just has always been that way.
Im suprised that more people dont see it.

I would like to see Adam Dunn's Stats against top tier pitchers ( i dont know how you quantify that) compared to the rest of the league. I think that would be a telling stat.

Raisor
05-14-2006, 07:33 PM
Listen its quite obvious what is going on..

ADAM DUNN IS NOT CLUTCH

.


Define clutch.

hatcher
05-14-2006, 07:51 PM
im not getting into this socratic trap
if you do not have a loose idea of what a clutch hitter is or a clutch situation i dont feel inclined to explain it.

i think someone else posted a thread about some statician defining clutch situations and calculated how some players who were thought to be "clutch", demonstativly (sp?) performed significantly above their career averages in those situations.

Raisor
05-14-2006, 07:57 PM
It all comes down to what stats you're using. It can be proven, it HAS been proven many many times over that batting average is not as accurate as other more advanced stats. Dunn has a bad batting average. Yep. Sure does. I don't think there's anyone that can dispute that. But what can be disputed, and what can be proven is that it's not a big deal.

Steel is right, until we can better educate the masses, God is going to keep killing puppies.

Don't be a puppy killer.

Cyclone792
05-14-2006, 08:01 PM
Here's a thread where someone did what I'm asking Wheelhouse to do. He checked it himself:

http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=45218&highlight=dirty

I'll even go one step further, Raisor. I asked the poster in the above link to run the analysis, and he did so, though I did give him instructions on how to set it up. I guess I can be nice again and lay out easy, simple to follow instructions on how to run the analysis ;)

Wheelhouse, NastyBoy and 2001MUGrad ... Fellas, do yourself a favor ...

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

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

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

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

Follow the directions in the link I provided, and it will take five minutes tops to set up that spreadsheet.

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

Finally, ask yourself what you're seeing. If you're unsure what you're seeing, post your exact results and I'm sure a few people will explain to what you're seeing. The hope is if you run the correlation yourself you may start to understand what we're talking about.

Now, Wheelhouse, NastyBoy and 2001MUGrad ... on the other side of the coin, if you A) ignore this altogether, or B) respond in a snippy way and make some lame excuse not to run the data, it will be beyond telling how much effort you're willing to put in to actually learn about something that you all continually claim as being inaccurate.

Many of us patiently await your response to this very simple request.

Good luck.

redsfanmia
05-14-2006, 08:07 PM
Define clutch.
Clutch cant be defined by a statistic and all the Olgolvies on this board will tell you that it doesnt exist because of that.

Highlifeman21
05-14-2006, 08:08 PM
I'll even go one step further, Raisor. I asked the poster in the above link to run the analysis, and he did so, though I did give him instructions on how to set it up. I guess I can be nice again and lay out easy, simple to follow instructions on how to run the analysis ;)

Wheelhouse, NastyBoy and 2001MUGrad ... Fellas, do yourself a favor ...

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

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

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

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

Follow the directions in the link I provided, and it will take five minutes tops to set up that spreadsheet.

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

Finally, ask yourself what you're seeing. If you're unsure what you're seeing, post your exact results and I'm sure a few people will explain to what you're seeing. The hope is if you run the correlation yourself you may start to understand what we're talking about.

Now, Wheelhouse, NastyBoy and 2001MUGrad ... on the other side of the coin, if you A) ignore this altogether, or B) respond in a snippy way and make some lame excuse not to run the data, it will be beyond telling how much effort you're willing to put in to actually learn about something that you all continually claim as being inaccurate.

Many of us patiently await your response to this very simple request.

Good luck.

This ought to be hilarious. I can't wait to see what kind of response you get, Cyclone. If i'm a betting man, I bet that you get ignored altogether.

Mark it, Dude. Next frame.

pedro
05-14-2006, 08:20 PM
Clutch cant be defined by a statistic and all the Olgolvies on this board will tell you that it doesnt exist because of that.

what is an Olgolvie?

I hope you're not calling us bowel obstructions, because that, like, wouldn't be nice.

Sham
05-14-2006, 08:24 PM
Dunn is not perfect, but he is very, very good and a huge asset to the Reds. You guys need to realize what he has to offer and stop trying to make him into something he's not.

The team as a whole is struggling right now, they will get over their slump and so will Adam. Peace.

griffeyfreak4
05-14-2006, 08:25 PM
Em, today he took a fat strike fastball in the lower part of the zone on 2-0, a pitch he should be ready for.
Therefore, he must suck with RISP! :rolleyes:

NastyBoy
05-14-2006, 08:27 PM
Opposing pitchers have issued 3 BB in seven PA this season with Runners on 2nd and 3rd. Opposing pitchers did that 5 times in 18 PA in 2005.

When you say issue 3 BB what exactly do you mean? Is this IBB or intentional base on balls or just a BB? Do you know how to play the game?

I forgot that every on this forum over analizes every thing post.

Raisor
05-14-2006, 08:27 PM
what is an Olgolvie?

I hope you're not calling us bowel obstructions, because that, like, wouldn't be nice.


Wasn't he one of the Bad News Bears?

Raisor
05-14-2006, 08:30 PM
Do you know how to play the game?



oh, TAG.

KronoRed
05-14-2006, 08:35 PM
Playing baseball, get on base and try and prevent the other team from getting on base.

:D

NastyBoy
05-14-2006, 08:37 PM
Okay.... for all the stat freaks out there. My original point was that Dunn may be more productive batting 5th rather than 3rd or 4th. Any yes I am idiot because I have the internet and can look this crap up... just like the rest of you. And after Analizing the data, there may be some validatity to my arguement. And for those that think he should be batting third... well go do that science project thingie... and I sure it will somehow show how dunn should be batting third.


G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB K SB CS AVG OBP SLG OPS
Batting 1st 17 56 16 12 0 0 7 12 11 18 2 0 .214 .371 .589 .961
Batting 2nd 63 249 53 63 17 1 15 46 40 77 3 0 .253 .361 .510 .871
Batting 3rd 102 360 57 77 16 0 23 52 90 122 8 4 .214 .378 .450 .828
Batting 4th 203 740 135 201 49 2 46 112 136 230 10 5 .272 .392 .530 .922
Batting 5th 163 549 110 134 23 3 50 109 133 198 12 4 .244 .397 .570 .967
Batting 6th 112 372 66 87 23 0 25 61 70 117 6 3 .234 .362 .497 .860
Batting 7th 19 52 12 14 2 0 4 7 10 12 1 0 .269 .418 .538 .956
Batting 8th 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 .000 .000 .000 .000
Batting 9th 15 16 2 5 1 0 1 1 4 4 0 0 .313 .450 .563 1.013

Cyclone792
05-14-2006, 08:41 PM
And for those that think he should be batting third... well go do that science project thingie... and I sure it will somehow show how dunn should be batting third.

Translation: I refuse to look at the correlations myself and instead will continue to provide one excuse after another while continuing to provide half-truths and misinformation about those statistics that I do not like, regardless of their actual proven validity for accuracy and usefulness.

Where's the correlation chart at? I'm still waiting.

NastyBoy
05-14-2006, 08:52 PM
Translation: I refuse to look at the correlations myself and instead will continue to provide one excuse after another while continuing to provide half-truths and misinformation about those statistics that I do not like, regardless of their actual proven validity for accuracy and usefulness.

Where's the correlation chart at? I'm still waiting.

I will take that as a vote for batting 3rd.

Blimpie
05-14-2006, 08:59 PM
Steel is right, until we can better educate the masses, God is going to keep killing puppies.

Don't be a puppy killer.Wha?...first kitties, now he's having a go at the puppies? :D

pedro
05-14-2006, 09:06 PM
Okay.... for all the stat freaks out there. My original point was that Dunn may be more productive batting 5th rather than 3rd or 4th. Any yes I am idiot because I have the internet and can look this crap up... just like the rest of you. And after Analizing the data, there may be some validatity to my arguement. And for those that think he should be batting third... well go do that science project thingie... and I sure it will somehow show how dunn should be batting third.


G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB K SB CS AVG OBP SLG OPS
Batting 1st 17 56 16 12 0 0 7 12 11 18 2 0 .214 .371 .589 .961
Batting 2nd 63 249 53 63 17 1 15 46 40 77 3 0 .253 .361 .510 .871
Batting 3rd 102 360 57 77 16 0 23 52 90 122 8 4 .214 .378 .450 .828
Batting 4th 203 740 135 201 49 2 46 112 136 230 10 5 .272 .392 .530 .922
Batting 5th 163 549 110 134 23 3 50 109 133 198 12 4 .244 .397 .570 .967
Batting 6th 112 372 66 87 23 0 25 61 70 117 6 3 .234 .362 .497 .860
Batting 7th 19 52 12 14 2 0 4 7 10 12 1 0 .269 .418 .538 .956
Batting 8th 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 .000 .000 .000 .000
Batting 9th 15 16 2 5 1 0 1 1 4 4 0 0 .313 .450 .563 1.013



First, I'm the one who said that he should bat third so your post is only relevant to that part of the discussion, it has nothing to do with the argument about the value of OPS and Runs Created as indicators of value.

Secondly, most of those AB's in the #3 hole came in 2002 when Dunn was 22 years old so it really doesn't prove what you think it does.

Now, perhaps I'm wrong and Dunn wouldn't do better in the #3 hole than #5 were he to be put there now, but that really has nothing to do with the larger argument, despite your specious proclamations to the contrary.

NastyBoy
05-14-2006, 09:31 PM
First, I'm the one who said that he should bat third so your post is only relevant to that part of the discussion, it has nothing to do with the argument about the value of OPS and Runs Created as indicators of value.

Secondly, most of those AB's in the #3 hole came in 2002 when Dunn was 22 years old so it really doesn't prove what you think it does.

Now, perhaps I'm wrong and Dunn wouldn't do better in the #3 hole than #5 were he to be put there now, but that really has nothing to do with the larger argument, despite your specious proclamations to the contrary.

I only took exception with moving griffey out the third slot if he his healthy and available to play. This could be the 1st season where we have griffey, dunn and kearns are healthy for most of the season. I was thinking that maybe the team and Dunn would be more productive if Dunn was batting 5th behind Kearns. I have gotten some sh*t for some of my comments in this thread... I just assumed people read the entire thread... but it looks like people like to selectively pick and choose to read parts of the thread without putting into context. I never claimed to be an expert, but it would seem to me that having that left/right/left/right batting order in the middle of the order would be benefitical. With Dunn slumping in the 3 and 4 slot, I don't think moving him down to the 5 slot is going make it any worse.

griffeyfreak4
05-14-2006, 09:36 PM
I don't have a problem with moving Dunn around in the order and trying new things, I just have a problem when people say that there is a problem with Dunn with RISP. He doesn't suck, doesn't take too many walks, and he is this team's most dangerous hitter.

Highlifeman21
05-14-2006, 09:37 PM
I only took exception with moving griffey out the third slot if he his healthy and available to play. This could be the 1st season where we have griffey, dunn and kearns are healthy for most of the season. I was thinking that maybe the team and Dunn would be more productive if Dunn was batting 5th behind Kearns. I have gotten some sh*t for some of my comments in this thread... I just assumed people read the entire thread... but it looks like people like to selectively pick and choose to read parts of the thread without putting into context. I never claimed to be an expert, but it would seem to me that having that left/right/left/right batting order in the middle of the order would be benefitical. With Dunn slumping in the 3 and 4 slot, I don't think moving him down to the 5 slot is going make it any worse.


Without running those correlations, how do you know this? Did you shake your Magic 8 Ball, and it gave you the answer? Last time I checked, left/right/left/right is 4, and you named Griffey, Dunn and Kearns... Who's the 4th?

NastyBoy
05-14-2006, 09:44 PM
Without running those correlations, how do you know this? Did you shake your Magic 8 Ball, and it gave you the answer? Last time I checked, left/right/left/right is 4, and you named Griffey, Dunn and Kearns... Who's the 4th?

If you go way back in this discussion, I suggested that 3-4-5 is Griffey Kearns Dunn. If you throw in EE or Phillips at the 2 or 6 slot ... you have an alternating batting order. I don't have to prove anything. I am just suggestion. As we proved earlier, I know nothing about baseball.

NastyBoy
05-14-2006, 09:53 PM
I don't have a problem with moving Dunn around in the order and trying new things, I just have a problem when people say that there is a problem with Dunn with RISP. He doesn't suck, doesn't take too many walks, and he is this team's most dangerous hitter.

I never said he sucks... I am sure all the pitchers in the NL has seen the monster shots on Baseball Tonight or experienced them first hand. I have stated in other threads that he will probably go down as the reds most prolific home hitter of all time. I think he still pretty young and needs to improve in all aspects of his game. It appears I need to have a baseball almanac ready in order be able to support all opinions. But hey, I thought the Dave Williams trade was brilliant, so what do i know?

griffeyfreak4
05-14-2006, 09:57 PM
But hey, I thought the Dave Williams trade was brilliant, so what do i know?


As we proved earlier, I know nothing about baseball.
Now that's self confidence. :(

reds44
05-14-2006, 10:02 PM
The entire team not named Felipe Lopez and Scott Hatteberg is in a slump. Don't worry we have the Pirates next.

NastyBoy
05-14-2006, 10:09 PM
Now that's self confidence. :(

I was trying to be sarcastic! :thumbup:

Someone earlier in the thread sarcastically attacked and told me that I would make a great baseball coach. Same person asked later if I knew anything about baseball. Then I made a sarcastic response, then 2 people gave me negative reputation feedback for my response. Go figure. This forum really needs a sarcasm filter.

griffeyfreak4
05-14-2006, 10:12 PM
I was trying to be sarcastic! :thumbup:

Someone earlier in the thread sarcastically attacked and told me that I would make a great baseball coach. Same person asked later if I knew anything about baseball. Then I made a sarcastic response, then 2 people gave me negative reputation feedback for my response. Go figure. This forum really needs a sarcasm filter.
And those neg. rep points could've been positive rep for me. Darn! ;)

NastyBoy
05-14-2006, 10:20 PM
And those neg. rep points could've been positive rep for me. Darn! ;)

Only when you don't reply when someone attacks you do you get positive reps. What a country!

:thumbdown

griffeyfreak4
05-14-2006, 10:21 PM
Only when you don't reply when someone attacks you do you get positive reps. What a country!

:thumbdown
:lol:

Highlifeman21
05-14-2006, 10:26 PM
If you go way back in this discussion, I suggested that 3-4-5 is Griffey Kearns Dunn. If you throw in EE or Phillips at the 2 or 6 slot ... you have an alternating batting order. I don't have to prove anything. I am just suggestion. As we proved earlier, I know nothing about baseball.


Phillips at the 2? Not in our lifetimes on a consistent basis

NastyBoy
05-14-2006, 10:35 PM
Phillips at the 2? Not in our lifetimes on a consistent basis

Probably not on a consistent basis, I would rather see lopez in 2 slot and EE in 6 slot. Phillips 7.

griffeyfreak4
05-14-2006, 10:36 PM
And who leads off.....?

reds44
05-14-2006, 10:37 PM
Felipe
Hatteberg
Griffey
Kearns
Dunn
EE (seems most comfortable here)
BP
Larue

griffeyfreak4
05-14-2006, 10:37 PM
Now that's interesting.........

NastyBoy
05-14-2006, 10:44 PM
And who leads off.....?

Well... that is a good question. In an Ideal world you would give freel some time in the 1 slot, but that means sitting down someone to get him in the lineup.

NastyBoy
05-14-2006, 10:50 PM
Felipe
Hatteberg
Griffey
Kearns
Dunn
EE (seems most comfortable here)
BP
Larue

I don't know about Hatteburg in 2 slot. I am sure he is not as slow as Casey, but I don't think he gives you enough speed at the top. We can't forget about Aurillia, which I think make a better fit in the 2 slot when he comes off the d/l.

I thought an interesting move in todays game was EE playing first.

Caveat Emperor
05-15-2006, 12:03 AM
im not getting into this socratic trap
if you do not have a loose idea of what a clutch hitter is or a clutch situation i dont feel inclined to explain it.

i think someone else posted a thread about some statician defining clutch situations and calculated how some players who were thought to be "clutch", demonstativly (sp?) performed significantly above their career averages in those situations.

If you lose a game 3-4 because Adam Dunn struck out in the 9th with two men on, he gets blamed for not being "clutch." Go back and read the transcript of any game with a choke finish and you'll find half a dozen other times in innings 1-9 where the team had a chance to score runs and blew it or, in addition, where Adam Dunn (or whoever is being labled non-clutch) plated runs early that gave the Reds a chance in the 9th.

Clutch exists. Clutch doesn't exist. Who cares -- give me the guy that performs at a high level ALL the time versus someone who turns it on occasionally. The runs count all the same no matter when you score them in a ballgame.

kyle1976
05-15-2006, 12:25 AM
Tough question......With the game on the line, would you rather have Dunn up there with a man on third needing one run or Weathers trying to hold onto a one-run lead in the ninth???? I don't feel comfortable in either situation.

Also, Dunn doesn't sniff performing at a high level all the time. The last month of ineptitude has proved that.

paintmered
05-15-2006, 12:30 AM
Doesn't that make you doubt the validity of the "new-jack" Runs Created stat, when Dunn is clearly flailing? Do you feel good when the guy is at bat? Not me. I think these flavor-of-the-month stats need to be taken with a grain of salt.

If you feel they aren't worth the time of day, the onus is on you to prove that it is crap using relevent objective data. On the contrary, there has been scores of studies done that you can find that proves the statistical relevence of these "flavor-of-the-month" stats.

Come on, step up to the plate. Prove us wrong.

paintmered
05-15-2006, 12:34 AM
And as a moderator side note, please re-read your posts after writing them. If it attacks another poster or could be perceived as being snide, please consider revising your post.

Personal attacks reduce the quality of discussion. There is already one reds.com forum, redszone will not be reduced to another.

BuckeyeRedleg
05-15-2006, 11:21 AM
Translation: I refuse to look at the correlations myself and instead will continue to provide one excuse after another while continuing to provide half-truths and misinformation about those statistics that I do not like, regardless of their actual proven validity for accuracy and usefulness.

Where's the correlation chart at? I'm still waiting.


Cyclone. Could you guide me to the best site to get team stats (per year) so that I could throw it in excel and try one of these correlation tests?

What do I need? I assume G, AB, R, H, 2B, 3B, HR, BB, K, SB, CS, SF, SH, BA, OBP, SLG. Anything else?

I was thinking about running one for each team over the past 10 years.

Here's the big question. The correlation is supposed to be measured against runs, to see how accurate RC, TA, and OPS is, correct? What other category can I measure? TA, BRA? What is BRA, exactly? Also, what formula do you use to measure OPS and correlate it with runs scored? Same with batting average.



As far as RC, here is what I have. Am I okay with the simplified version?

RC = H+BB*TB/AB+H

Or should I go with...

RC = H+BB-CS=HBP-GIDP * TB + (.26*(BB-IBB+HBP)) + (.52*(SH+SF+SB)) / AB+BB+HBP+SH+SF


I guess I just want to try this and see for myself how the numbers plug into the formulas to come up with the best measurement. I'm really trying to understand WIN SHARES and RUNS CREATED right now, but I find it somewhat overwhelming. I'm wondering if maybe my brain just cannot think that way, as far as numbers go. I'm great with basic math, but when formulas get involved, I lose sight of what I'm looking for (I don't understand why the numbers are being divided and multiplied by each other). In fact, the first day of freshman calculus at OSU, I felt pretty stupid, dropped the course and decided I would have to go with a communications degree (just basic math required) if I ever was going to graduate. If I'm getting over my head here, let me know. If I would have known calculus and algebra could have helped me to understand baseball better, maybe I wouldn't have given up so easily. :)

BRM
05-15-2006, 11:24 AM
Has RedsZone ever had a month without one of these "discussions" about Dunn?

BuckeyeRedleg
05-15-2006, 11:27 AM
Has RedsZone ever had a month without one of these "discussions" about Dunn?

Yeah, I'm sorry I bumped the thread, but I felt it was the best place to ask Cyclone (or anyone else) for a bit of advice. Cyclone, feel free to PM me. Thanks.

redsfan30
05-15-2006, 11:55 AM
First off, this whole thread is exactly what is wrong with Redszone....

Second, I've said it before that I am an Adam Dunn fan, but he is a perfect example of statistics not even beginning to tell the whole story of a player.

kyle1976
05-15-2006, 12:03 PM
First off, this whole thread is exactly what is wrong with Redszone....

Second, I've said it before that I am an Adam Dunn fan, but he is a perfect example of statistics not even beginning to tell the whole story of a player.

Well said.

westofyou
05-15-2006, 12:07 PM
but he is a perfect example of statistics not even beginning to tell the whole story of a player.On both ends of the spectrum, folks want to lean on his RISP but want to ignore his walk totals, massive amount of pitches he takes, the pressure his power and eye puts on a pitcher is a firm example of the wonders of attrition.

The game is about matchups and the wearing down of the leverage one gets in these matchups. Dunns approach often lends to this without the benefit of a hit, a day with a k and 2 walks and a flyout can equal up to 16-22 pitches, if 80% of those are from the starter then part of the unseen battle has been won.

redsfan30
05-15-2006, 12:23 PM
On both ends of the spectrum, folks want to lean on his RISP but want to ignore his walk totals, massive amount of pitches he takes, the pressure his power and eye puts on a pitcher is a firm example of the wonders of attrition.

The game is about matchups and the wearing down of the leverage one gets in these matchups. Dunns approach often lends to this without the benefit of a hit, a day with a k and 2 walks and a flyout can equal up to 16-22 pitches, if 80% of those are from the starter then part of the unseen battle has been won.
I agree that Dunn seeing a high number of pitches is important...I don't think anyone would argue with that.

Now I know with his career walk totals, this is almost absurd to say, but sometimes I am left scratching my head in regards to his eye at the plate. Using Saturday night's last at bat as an example. He flailed at breaking balls out of the zone three times, but let fastballs right down the middle near the knees go by that very easily could have been called strikes. Now since those were called balls by the homeplate umpire, he looks good. But I thought to myself that 9 umpires out of 10 would have called those strikes. I don't want to label him a "guess hitter" but that phrase at least runs through my mind when I see this happen.

Johnny Footstool
05-15-2006, 12:26 PM
First off, this whole thread is exactly what is wrong with Redszone....

What? Differing opinions? Disagreements without profanity or blatant name-calling?


Second, I've said it before that I am an Adam Dunn fan, but he is a perfect example of statistics not even beginning to tell the whole story of a player.

I'd say he's a perfect example of a player whose true value is hidden by reliance upon poor statistics (BA and RBIs, for example).

redsfan30
05-15-2006, 12:26 PM
Take the statistics argument out of it for just a minute....

With the game on the line, would you as an opposing pitcher feel more comfortable facing Adam Dunn or would you feel more confortable facing Austin Kearns?

redsfan30
05-15-2006, 12:28 PM
What? Differing opinions? Disagreements without profanity or blatant name-calling?
Certain posters being told they don't know what they're talking about and being told thier opinion is invalid because they don't have stats to back up thier opinion....that's what's wrong.

BRM
05-15-2006, 12:29 PM
Take the statistics argument out of it for just a minute....

With the game on the line, would you as an opposing pitcher feel more comfortable facing Adam Dunn or would you feel more confortable facing Austin Kearns?

Dunn is more likely to hurt me with the long ball but is easier to K. He's also more likely to "force" me to bring him something to hit because of his plate discipline. Tough choice. I'd hate to have to choose.

westofyou
05-15-2006, 12:30 PM
Take the statistics argument out of it for just a minute....You can't.. your question leads to other questions.

Who's the pitcher, what's situation, what's "on the line" really mean... 7th inning? 8th inning?

How have they been hitting? Who's batting behind them? Are the bases empty or partially full?

Try and take the statistics out of the game and you find yourself walking around in a furniture warehouse in the dark, bumping your shins into all sorts of things that make you ponder... "what was that?"

redsfan30
05-15-2006, 12:35 PM
You can't.. your question leads to other questions.

Who's the pitcher, what's situation, what's "on the line" really mean... 7th inning? 8th inning?

How have they been hitting? Who's batting behind them? Are the bases empty or partially full?

Try and take the statistics out of the game and you find yourself walking around in a furniture warehouse in the dark, bumping your shins into all sorts of things that make you ponder... "what was that?"
It doesn't need to be made that hard...it's just a general question. I don't want to make up a sitution, because I don't think that would be fair to do.

SteelSD
05-15-2006, 12:35 PM
First off, this whole thread is exactly what is wrong with Redszone....

Actually, this whole thread is exactly what's RIGHT with Redszone because conflict can facilitate learning if the guy on the wrong side of the fence is open to it.


Second, I've said it before that I am an Adam Dunn fan, but he is a perfect example of statistics not even beginning to tell the whole story of a player.

You're exactly right on that if you're speaking about Batting Average...and only if you're speaking about Batting Average.

Johnny Footstool
05-15-2006, 12:36 PM
Take the statistics argument out of it for just a minute....

With the game on the line, would you as an opposing pitcher feel more comfortable facing Adam Dunn or would you feel more confortable facing Austin Kearns?

I'd rather face Kearns 9 times out of 10. He simply makes outs more often.


Certain posters being told they don't know what they're talking about and being told thier opinion is invalid because they don't have stats to back up thier opinion....that's what's wrong.

We expect people to be able to support their opinions with some kind of logic. There's nothing wrong with that. People need to show some validity in their reasoning. If someone wants to say Rey Olmedo is the Reds' best hitter, they shouldn't get upset if someone challenges them to back up that opinion.

OnBaseMachine
05-15-2006, 12:40 PM
Take the statistics argument out of it for just a minute....

With the game on the line, would you as an opposing pitcher feel more comfortable facing Adam Dunn or would you feel more confortable facing Austin Kearns?

Kearns. I like Austin but he makes more outs than Dunn, plus Dunn is more likely to smack an extra-base hit.

westofyou
05-15-2006, 12:41 PM
It doesn't need to be made that hard...it's just a general question. I don't want to make up a sitution, because I don't think that would be fair to do.
Baseball is hard, it is full of a zillion questions and they can't be ignored.

That's why the game thread is a joke, everyone thinks that it's a cakewalk and that is IMO a display of a lack of understanding of the games massive layers of difficulties.

It's the kind of thing that turns its nose up at a guy that doesn't make outs as much as another guy, just because the other guy makes the majority of his outs by hitting the ball at someone 80% of the time.

redsfan30
05-15-2006, 12:44 PM
Actually, this whole thread is exactly what's RIGHT with Redszone because conflict can facilitate learning if the guy on the wrong side of the fence is open to it.
I think this is what gets people iire (sp?) up. Just because people disagree, thier on the "wrong side of the fence"???

redsfan30
05-15-2006, 12:47 PM
That's why the game thread is a joke, everyone thinks that it's a cakewalk and that is IMO a display of a lack of understanding of the games massive layers of difficulties.
So very true.

RANDY IN INDY
05-15-2006, 12:47 PM
I think it all depends on who is pitching, and what they bring to the table. After a decision is made in that situation, it all boils down to talent against talent, and will against will. Those are the situations that make baseball the wonderful game that it is.

Johnny Footstool
05-15-2006, 12:51 PM
I think this is what gets people iire (sp?) up. Just because people disagree, thier on the "wrong side of the fence"???

It's not those who disagree who are on the wrong side of the fence. It's those who don't have any kind of logic to back up their opinions.

When the Reds traded Pena for Arroyo, I came out against the trade. I gave plenty of reasons why I thought it was a bad deal. Lots of people disagreed with me. We discussed it, and still disagreed. No feelings were hurt.

If I would have said, "Bronson Arroyo sucks" and left it at that, well, I would have deserved to be made fun of.

SteelSD
05-15-2006, 01:02 PM
I think this is what gets people iire (sp?) up. Just because people disagree, thier on the "wrong side of the fence"???

Actually, what makes folks grumpy is being told they're wrong when they know they can't produce any relevant objective facts to back their assertions. You think that has something to do with the messenger. It doesn't. If being wrong makes folks grumpy, that's not about other folks. It's about them.

And there's a cure for it- learn and be right more often. It's a pill we all have to swallow eventually; sometimes against our own will. But kicking and screaming doesn't change the fact that when someone walks into a conversation about facts the only inoculation they have against being wrong is facts.

Being wrong is a disease. Facts are the cure. Being grumpy about that is akin to yelling at your doctor because you got mumps after you refused to get the MMR shot he said you needed.

NastyBoy
05-15-2006, 01:14 PM
What I really like about the redszone is how people will make up there own stats and flame for people not embracing them just because they do not appear in the box score or any record books. It is really enlightening to be surrounded by people with such great baseball knowledge that they will revolutionize the way statistics are looked upon. It is sort of like being in the presence of Tony Larusa.

westofyou
05-15-2006, 01:15 PM
What I really like about the redszone is how people will make up there own statsNow that is funny.

rdiersin
05-15-2006, 01:17 PM
Cyclone. Could you guide me to the best site to get team stats (per year) so that I could throw it in excel and try one of these correlation tests?

What do I need? I assume G, AB, R, H, 2B, 3B, HR, BB, K, SB, CS, SF, SH, BA, OBP, SLG. Anything else?

I was thinking about running one for each team over the past 10 years.

Here's the big question. The correlation is supposed to be measured against runs, to see how accurate RC, TA, and OPS is, correct? What other category can I measure? TA, BRA? What is BRA, exactly? Also, what formula do you use to measure OPS and correlate it with runs scored? Same with batting average.



As far as RC, here is what I have. Am I okay with the simplified version?

RC = H+BB*TB/AB+H

Or should I go with...

RC = H+BB-CS=HBP-GIDP * TB + (.26*(BB-IBB+HBP)) + (.52*(SH+SF+SB)) / AB+BB+HBP+SH+SF


I guess I just want to try this and see for myself how the numbers plug into the formulas to come up with the best measurement. I'm really trying to understand WIN SHARES and RUNS CREATED right now, but I find it somewhat overwhelming. I'm wondering if maybe my brain just cannot think that way, as far as numbers go. I'm great with basic math, but when formulas get involved, I lose sight of what I'm looking for (I don't understand why the numbers are being divided and multiplied by each other). In fact, the first day of freshman calculus at OSU, I felt pretty stupid, dropped the course and decided I would have to go with a communications degree (just basic math required) if I ever was going to graduate. If I'm getting over my head here, let me know. If I would have known calculus and algebra could have helped me to understand baseball better, maybe I wouldn't have given up so easily. :)

BuckeyeRedLeg,
I usually go to retrosheet for this sort of stuff.

www.retrosheet.org

It has quite a bit of data. I know I've done the same sort of tests, I think last year and I just updated my data for 2005. So, using retrosheet you can do the test from 1960 to 2005 (actually past, 1960 was my cutoff date IIRC). The only problem I found is that some information isn't always complete (why they mark with an i). So you can simply delete these entries. If it helps I've linked a Excel spreadsheet that I use, it has RC and a another estimate XR.

Link (http://www.nd.edu/~rdiersin/corr_data.xls)

With these types of run estimates it is also interesting to look at the error (R-RC or R-XR) and to find the standard deviation of this error. That gives two important properties of the estimates, the standard deviation of the error and the correlation coefficient.

Also an interesting read, if you are interested is
http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/btf/scholars/furtado/articles/accuracy.htm

NastyBoy
05-15-2006, 01:18 PM
Now that is funny.

Yeah I thought so too... Runs Created. :mooner:

Roy Tucker
05-15-2006, 01:18 PM
What I really like about the redszone is how people will make up there own stats and flame for people not embracing them just because they do not appear in the box score or any record books.
Here are some: 7, 12, .872, and 1.2.

They seem embraceable to me. Particularly 1.2. But .872 is pretty good too.

westofyou
05-15-2006, 01:20 PM
Yeah I thought so too... Runs Created. :mooner:

Yes, Raisor invented that too.

pedro
05-15-2006, 01:21 PM
Yeah I thought so too... Runs Created. :mooner:

I think it's funny when people who don't know any better show what they don't know any better.


I guess someone must be doing well on RZ if ESPN is using Runs Created.

RC= Runs Created , RC/27 = RC per 27 outs.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/stats/batting?seasonType=2&type=sab&sort=avg&minpa=0&split=0&season=2006&pos=all&hand=a&league=nl&ageMin=17&ageMax=51

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runs_created

BRM
05-15-2006, 01:22 PM
Yes, Raisor invented that too.

So, he invented the Runs Created stat as well as the Pythagorean theorem. The man is amazing.

pedro
05-15-2006, 01:22 PM
Here are some: 7, 12, .872, and 1.2.

They seem embraceable to me. Particularly 1.2. But .872 is pretty good too.


I like Pi.

NastyBoy
05-15-2006, 01:26 PM
Pi R square. Pi R not square. Pi R round.

pedro
05-15-2006, 01:29 PM
Pi R square. Pi R not square. Pi R round.

See, Pi was named after what Adam Dunn eats after he strikes out because he does so at a rate of 1 every 3.14 ab's.


or was it Wily Mo?

rdiersin
05-15-2006, 01:29 PM
What I really like about the redszone is how people will make up there own stats

Do you really think people are just making some of these things up? Some of these "stats" are based upon well known estimation principles that are used in many different areas. They are also built upon probability. Maybe they seem like they are just made up because they are given different names and sometimes (in particular with BP) they aren't fully explained and because they are being applied to "game" instead of more serious applications, but they are reasonable ways to look at things and insight can be gained by examining them. That's really the only thing anyone here is looking for is further insight into the game. You don't have to accept them, but if you are going to argue against them, then I suggest you argue not out of ignorance, but try and understand them and then if you aren't satisfied come back and argue that they aren't valid.

Johnny Footstool
05-15-2006, 01:31 PM
I'm currently in the process of inventing a new stat. It measures how often a batted ball allows a batter to successfully reach base. It doesn't take into account how many bases the batter acquired in the process, but that's really unimportant because singles, doubles, triples, and homers are all equal.

The current working title for this stat is "hitting percentage," but I'm open to suggestions.

pedro
05-15-2006, 01:35 PM
TTBOMK, the only stat ever invented on RZ is the infamous, HPIP (Hugs Per Innngs Played) which was used to track the effectiveness of Sean Casey.

rdiersin
05-15-2006, 01:36 PM
I'm currently in the process of inventing a new stat. It measures how often a batted ball allows a batter to successfully reach base. It doesn't take into account how many bases the batter acquired in the process, but that's really unimportant because singles, doubles, triples, and homers are all equal.

The current working title for this stat is "hitting percentage," but I'm open to suggestions.

Maybe you could call it "Hitting mean"

BRM
05-15-2006, 01:40 PM
TTBOMK, the only stat ever invented on RZ is the infamous, HPIP (Hugs Per Innngs Played) which was used to track the effectiveness of Sean Casey.

Didn't BF invent a KRISP stat?

pedro
05-15-2006, 01:42 PM
Didn't BF invent a KRISP stat?

Yes, it was he who shall not be named who invented that k-rific statistic.

SteelSD
05-15-2006, 01:47 PM
Didn't BF invent a KRISP stat?

Yes, but that virus was cultured elsewhere and attempts to introduce the bug to the Redszone populace were unsuccessful.

Unless I'm forgetting a couple, the only statistic I can remember being created and introduced by a Redszone member was Speed Adjusted OPS (mine). It's basically OPS that incorporates Stolen Base results as Outs and bases as a shorthand attempt to equalize power hitters versus more punch-and-judy speed guys. And at no point would I possibly claim that it's a more relevant metric than something like Runs Created.

But that new stat Johnny is working on might just have some legs. I'd suggest we call it "Batsman Rate". Sounds flashy!

Cyclone792
05-15-2006, 02:05 PM
Cyclone. Could you guide me to the best site to get team stats (per year) so that I could throw it in excel and try one of these correlation tests?

What do I need? I assume G, AB, R, H, 2B, 3B, HR, BB, K, SB, CS, SF, SH, BA, OBP, SLG. Anything else?

I was thinking about running one for each team over the past 10 years.

You will want to use Retrosheet (http://www.retrosheet.org) as it will be the best site to provide the necessary statistical information. Click on Boxscores, then find the years you want to include in the correlation. For each year, you'll want to click on the link that says ML Team Totals. For example, this is what you'll get for the 2005 ML Team Totals (http://www.retrosheet.org/boxesetc/YT_2005.htm).


Here's the big question. The correlation is supposed to be measured against runs, to see how accurate RC, TA, and OPS is, correct? What other category can I measure? TA, BRA? What is BRA, exactly? Also, what formula do you use to measure OPS and correlate it with runs scored? Same with batting average.

Yep, the correlation is measured against team runs scored.

BRA is known as Batter Run Average, and the formula is simply OBP * SLG.
OPS is simply OBP + SLG
TA is Total Average and gets a bit more complicated:

TA = (((1B + (2B * 2) + (3B * 3) + (HR * 4)) + HP + BB + SB) * CS) / ((AB - H) + CS + DP)
ERP is Estimated Runs Produced, which is also complicated:

ERP = (2 * (TB + BB + HBP) + H + SB - (.605 * (AB + CS + GIDP - H))) * .16

Since you're concentrating on Runs Created right now, it'd probably be easier to skip over TA and ERP for the time being until you have a better understanding of Runs Created.


As far as RC, here is what I have. Am I okay with the simplified version?

RC = H+BB*TB/AB+H

Or should I go with...

RC = H+BB-CS=HBP-GIDP * TB + (.26*(BB-IBB+HBP)) + (.52*(SH+SF+SB)) / AB+BB+HBP+SH+SF

Honestly, go with both of them, and then you'll see the difference in correlation for the basic formula and the more complex one. In fact, if you want to get really fancy, you can even include the newest version of Runs Created, which was found in James' book Win Shares:


A = H+BB+HBP-CS-GIDP
B = TB+.24*(BB-IBB+HBP)+.62*SB+.5*(SH+SF)-.03*SO
C = AB+BB+HBP+SH+SF

RC = (((2.4*C+A)*(3*C+B))/(9*C))-(.9*C)

Essentially, just make four separate columns, one for A, B and C, and then the final column for RC which uses the values for A, B and C.

Once you have Runs Created, you can take it a step further and figure out RC/27, which is Runs Created per 27 outs. This turns Runs Created into a rate stat, which becomes very useful when comparing two separate players. If you want to test the correlation, create a column for runs per game for each team in the spreadsheet and test RC/27 against the runs per game totals.


RC/27 = ((RC*3*LgIP)/(2*LgG))/(AB-H+SH+SF+CS+GIDP)

RC is Runs Created obviously, LgIP is League Innings Pitched and LgG is the total number of League Games.


I guess I just want to try this and see for myself how the numbers plug into the formulas to come up with the best measurement. I'm really trying to understand WIN SHARES and RUNS CREATED right now, but I find it somewhat overwhelming. I'm wondering if maybe my brain just cannot think that way, as far as numbers go. I'm great with basic math, but when formulas get involved, I lose sight of what I'm looking for (I don't understand why the numbers are being divided and multiplied by each other). In fact, the first day of freshman calculus at OSU, I felt pretty stupid, dropped the course and decided I would have to go with a communications degree (just basic math required) if I ever was going to graduate. If I'm getting over my head here, let me know. If I would have known calculus and algebra could have helped me to understand baseball better, maybe I wouldn't have given up so easily. :)

This may be hard to believe if you've read some of my posts, but honestly, I hate math with a passion. In fact, if it doesn't involve baseball statistics, I really have zero interest in math at all. But for some reason when it comes to baseball and attempting to understand as much as possible, I latch on to all the mathematical concepts behind the formulas and attempt to understand every little bit as much as I possibly can.

The main reason why the numbers are all being divided and multiplied by each other is the formulas all attempt to place each offensive event within an offensive context or value. The basic premise behind all the formulas is that offense is the product of getting on base (OBP) and advancing runners through hits and extra base hits (SLG). If you get down to the bare bones roots of all the formulas, then you find that avoiding outs and acquiring bases are the core roots of all offense. The long, drawn out formulas such as Runs Created just get even more specific and more precise in order to correlate to run scoring even stronger than a simple statistic such as OPS.

Win Shares is incredibly complicated, and unless a site such as The Hardball Times (http://www.thehardballtimes) stops providing individual win shares, I will have no interest in ever attempting to calculate win shares on my own! Instead of calculating the "runs created," win shares attempts to calculate wins created, or thirds of wins. Since it takes 3 win shares to equal 1 win, then 1 win share is worth 1/3 of a win. If a player has 30 win shares, he was worth roughly 10 wins for the season.

Cyclone792
05-15-2006, 02:15 PM
BuckeyeRedLeg,
I usually go to retrosheet for this sort of stuff.

www.retrosheet.org

It has quite a bit of data. I know I've done the same sort of tests, I think last year and I just updated my data for 2005. So, using retrosheet you can do the test from 1960 to 2005 (actually past, 1960 was my cutoff date IIRC). The only problem I found is that some information isn't always complete (why they mark with an i). So you can simply delete these entries. If it helps I've linked a Excel spreadsheet that I use, it has RC and a another estimate XR.

Link (http://www.nd.edu/~rdiersin/corr_data.xls)

With these types of run estimates it is also interesting to look at the error (R-RC or R-XR) and to find the standard deviation of this error. That gives two important properties of the estimates, the standard deviation of the error and the correlation coefficient.

Also an interesting read, if you are interested is
http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/btf/scholars/furtado/articles/accuracy.htm

This is great stuff right here for anyone interested in checking out the correlations for themselves. Thanks much, rdiersin.

NastyBoy
05-15-2006, 02:58 PM
I think it's funny when people who don't know any better show what they don't know any better.


I guess someone must be doing well on RZ if ESPN is using Runs Created.

RC= Runs Created , RC/27 = RC per 27 outs.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/stats/batting?seasonType=2&type=sab&sort=avg&minpa=0&split=0&season=2006&pos=all&hand=a&league=nl&ageMin=17&ageMax=51

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runs_created

Just because they exist, does not mean that everyone must embrace them. For any stat to have meaning it must accurately reflect what happens on the baseball field. To say that a players productivity can be defined by one single stat is lunacy. So any stat must used in context of era and ballpark.
According the the stats, Todd Helton is one great player, but in the context of Coors field, they only tell me he a good hitter hitting at Coors field.

BRM
05-15-2006, 03:03 PM
Tood Helton's three year road splits: .313/.433/.505 for a .938 OPS. He's a pretty good hitter away from Coors.

westofyou
05-15-2006, 03:04 PM
To say that a players productivity can be defined by one single stat is lunacy. So any stat must used in context of era and ballpark.

And turning a blind eye to them is lunacy.


According the the stats, Todd Helton is one great player, but in the context of Coors field, they only tell me he a good hitter hitting at Coors field.

Well he has a road line of .297/.397/.518

Which is about what Bobby Abreu and Edgar Martinez career lines are.

What's that tell you about Todd Helton?

pedro
05-15-2006, 03:07 PM
Just because they exist, does not mean that everyone must embrace them. For any stat to have meaning it must accurately reflect what happens on the baseball field. To say that a players productivity can be defined by one single stat is lunacy. So any stat must used in context of era and ballpark.
According the the stats, Todd Helton is one great player, but in the context of Coors field, they only tell me he a good hitter hitting at Coors field.

You were claiming that someone on RZ created the RC stat. I merely was showing you that they didn't. What you do or don;t do with that info is your business but don't pretend that your subjective opinion outways scientific analysis because, well, that's just lunacy.

BRM
05-15-2006, 03:08 PM
Is "lunacy" the word of the day? It seems to be getting used quite a bit. :)

NastyBoy
05-15-2006, 03:09 PM
And turning a blind eye to them is lunacy.


Well he has a road line of .297/.397/.518

Which is about what Bobby Abreu and Edgar Martinez career lines are.

What's that tell you about Todd Helton?

His stats are inflated at home.

pedro
05-15-2006, 03:09 PM
Is "lunacy" the word of the day? It seems to be getting used quite a bit. :)

what are you talking about you loon ;)

westofyou
05-15-2006, 03:10 PM
His stats are inflated at home.
You mean Coors Field is a hitters Park?

Stop the presses!!!

BRM
05-15-2006, 03:12 PM
His stats are inflated at home.

Yep. His road numbers prove he's still a very good hitter though.

NastyBoy
05-15-2006, 03:13 PM
You mean Coors Field is a hitters Park?

Stop the presses!!!

I thought that was implied. Yes Coor Field is a hitters park... and Todd Helton is a good hitter hitting in a hitters park.

BRM
05-15-2006, 03:14 PM
I thought that was implied. Yes Coor Field is a hitters park... and Todd Helton is a good hitter hitting in a hitters park.

He's also a good hitter when hitting away from that park.

Caveat Emperor
05-15-2006, 03:15 PM
What I really like about the redszone is how people will make up there own stats and flame for people not embracing them just because they do not appear in the box score or any record books. It is really enlightening to be surrounded by people with such great baseball knowledge that they will revolutionize the way statistics are looked upon. It is sort of like being in the presence of Tony Larusa.

There is conclusive proof out there, which has been linked many times by Cyclone, Steel and WOY, that shows the "made up stats" have actual validity. There is correlation between what those numbers say about a player and they're actual performance rates on the diamond.

You can choose to ignore these statistics, just as you can choose to ignore the fact that water is made up of two hydrogen atoms and an oxygen atom -- but I wouldn't reccomend getting into a debate with a physicist if you're not going to educate yourself on how things really are. Similarly, if you're going to ignroe stats and performance metrics, don't go around telling other people they're wrong for using information on which you remain wilfully ignorant. Enjoy the game your way, but recognize that it's silly to be confrontational when you're armed with no knowledge on the subject.

NastyBoy
05-15-2006, 03:17 PM
He's also a good hitter when hitting away from that park.

Did I not just say Todd Helton was a good hitter? Is there an echo in here?

BRM
05-15-2006, 03:19 PM
You also said this.


According the the stats, Todd Helton is one great player, but in the context of Coors field, they only tell me he a good hitter hitting at Coors field.

I interpreted that to mean you thought he was only good at home. If not, I'm sorry I mistook the intent of your post.

NastyBoy
05-15-2006, 03:22 PM
There is conclusive proof out there, which has been linked many times by Cyclone, Steel and WOY, that shows the "made up stats" have actual validity. There is correlation between what those numbers say about a player and they're actual performance rates on the diamond.

You can choose to ignore these statistics, just as you can choose to ignore the fact that water is made up of two hydrogen atoms and an oxygen atom -- but I wouldn't reccomend getting into a debate with a physicist if you're not going to educate yourself on how things really are. Similarly, if you're going to ignroe stats and performance metrics, don't go around telling other people they're wrong for using information on which you remain wilfully ignorant. Enjoy the game your way, but recognize that it's silly to be confrontational when you're armed with no knowledge on the subject.

I never said anyone was wrong. I just have a different opinion. And to call me ignorant because I do not share your opinion... that is what is just wrong.

NastyBoy
05-15-2006, 03:31 PM
You also said this.



I interpreted that to mean you thought he was only good at home. If not, I'm sorry I mistook the intent of your post.

Yeah, your just doing what everyone else on this forum does... pick and choose what they read without actually reading what the words say. I generally make assumptions that I probably should not, such as everyone knowing that Coors Field is a hitters park. I state that Todd Helton is a good hitter... and that gets turned into he is a horrible hitter on the road.

BRM
05-15-2006, 03:34 PM
Yeah, your just doing what everyone else on this forum does... pick and choose what they read without actually reading what the words say. I generally make assumptions that I probably should not, such as everyone knowing that Coors Field is a hitters park. I state that Todd Helton is a good hitter... and that gets turned into he is a horrible hitter on the road.

Well, to be fair, your words weren't exactly crystal clear. I read what you typed and came to the conclusion I did. I wasn't trying to rip you or anything like that. I was merely responding to what you typed.

westofyou
05-15-2006, 03:37 PM
Yeah, your just doing what everyone else on this forum does... pick and choose what they read without actually reading what the words say. I generally make assumptions that I probably should not, such as everyone knowing that Coors Field is a hitters park. I state that Todd Helton is a good hitter... and that gets turned into he is a horrible hitter on the road.
The implication was that he was inflated to great by Coors yes, but his road numbers implicate him as being "great" as well. Especially if his road numbers equal the career numbers of players like Abreu and Martinez.

BTW We all understand home and road splits, nobody here is lost on that simple part of the game.

BuckeyeRedleg
05-15-2006, 03:44 PM
Cyclone and rdiersin, thanks for the info.

Before your posts, I was messing around with the RC formula's with last year's Reds team stats and Adam Dunn's individual stats. I just looked both up at ESPN. I was surprised how deep ESPN gets into the stats. I would assume that is Neyer and his association with James and STATS, INC.

Anyway, first I tried the basic RC formula (H+BB *TB/AB+H) and came up with the Reds as a team having 830 Runs Created. Compared with their actual total (820) I was impressed with how accurate it was. Then, I figured Adam Dunn's RC using the basic RC formula and I came up with 110.6 Runs Created.

Then I went to the next formula (stolen base version) and I noticed the RC numbers go up a bit. The Reds as a team went up to 867 and Dunn went up to 123.

Now, I haven't had a chance yet to try out the most recent formula (2002-clutch version), but I'm sure it will change a bit again. Of course, this is only a small sample size (the 2005 Reds) so once I plug this in for all teams over a 10-20 year stretch, I'm sure I'll see how well each formula correlates.

I did see ESPN has the Reds team RC as 847.5, so I'm assuming that is what I would come up with using the newer more complex version of the RC formula.


One other question, if you don't mind. Finding the correlation for RC makes sense to me. Compare the team RC to the actual number of team runs. How do you correlate something like team OPS into a number to measure up against team runs? or any of the other's- team batting average, OBP, SLG, BRA, RA, etc.?

Thanks again. Once I put the three kids and wife to bed tonight, I'm going to begin crunching some of these numbers.

HermW
05-15-2006, 04:02 PM
Nothing like talking religion.

I think everyone here has at least one pretty valid point to make about Dunn. Obviously Dunn is not the ideal guy to get you a single on this or any other team (and with a runner on 2nd base there is a difference between a single and a walk no matter what the stats say). I also don't think Dunn is the ideal batter in those rare instances that you want a flyout (you know, 1 out and a man on third type situations).

Of course, Dunn has a better chance of actually not making an out than any of the players that I think would have a better chance of producing a single or a flyout. The question really is are there players that have a better chance of producing either a single or a flyout than Dunn has of producing a non-out PA. Anybody know the answer? Anybody have good metrics on "situational" hitting? Seems logical to me that even the numbers might say that some players are better in certain situations than others (or worse, you know, like Sean Casey hitting with a runner on 1B).

I think Dunn does a poor job of making contact on the ball (for a variety of reasons, plain missing the ball, not swinging at some strikes he should and, on the other side of the spectrum, swinging at some balls he likely wouldn't swing at in other at-bats) maybe would not swing at in other doesn in certain "clutch" or "tight" situations. That's just my feeling and opinion, I can't prove it with numbers. And I think he needs to work on it and improve on it. IMO, that observation is basically undeniable.

But I still want him up there because nobody else on this team can do more damage than he can in those critical situations (provable by SLG% and just by watching him) and nobody on the team has a better chance of getting on base (prove by OBP and just by watching him).

Based on the numbers and on what I see, in the long run (and if baseball is anything it is a long run), I'll take Dunn over most players in the league in just about any hitting situation.

Johnny Footstool
05-15-2006, 04:02 PM
This may be hard to believe if you've read some of my posts, but honestly, I hate math with a passion. In fact, if it doesn't involve baseball statistics, I really have zero interest in math at all. But for some reason when it comes to baseball and attempting to understand as much as possible, I latch on to all the mathematical concepts behind the formulas and attempt to understand every little bit as much as I possibly can.

Baseball gives (somewhat) practical meaning to the mathematical concepts. It makes the abstract concepts concrete. I hate math without context, too, but I don't mind crunching numbers for sports, games, etc.

registerthis
05-15-2006, 04:09 PM
I never said anyone was wrong. I just have a different opinion.

But you're mocking those whose opinions are supported by evidence which you are willfully ignorant of.

It's fine to maintain differing opinions on subjects--people do it here all the time. But others are presenting the basis for their opinions, and you are doing the equivalent of closing your eyes and covering your ears. This isn't simply a question of one opinion versus another, it's understanding how to properly rebut an argument. If you don't agree with the statistics that say that Player A is a good hitter, explain why--don't simply say you disagree with it and express disdain for those who use methods different from your own.

You'll learn a lot here if you open your mind a bit.

WMR
05-15-2006, 04:14 PM
What's happening to Adam Dunn with Runners in Scoring Position?

From an OBP perspective, he's getting crap to hit and he swings at it too much. Thanks for channelling Bob Boone, Mr. Narron.

For the RBI and Runs Scored initiates...

Adam Dunn is tied for 13th in the NL in RBI w/RISP with 18 despite a Batting Average of .184 w/RISP in 38 AB. The two guys he's tied with (Khalil Greene, Jeff Francoeur) have 37 and 41 AB respectively and are putting up RISP Batting Averages of .270 and .341 respectively. Dunn has acquired one less RBI in three more AB than has Austin Kearns (35 AB) despite Kearns' 159 point RISP Batting Average adavantage. Dunn's 119 point SLG w/RISP advantage will do that.

What's "happening" to adam Dunn is that folks tend to not have a clue about what actually drives RBI acquisition and Run production. And yes, that includes Jerry Narron.

Dunn is also tied for 8th in the NL in RBI w/RISP and 2 Out with 8 (16 AB). His RBI/AB conversion percentage (50%) is excellent. A .688 SLG will do that for you.

Dunn is tied for fourth in the NL in Runs w/RISP with 22; four behind the NL leader- Felipe Lopez. Lopez' numbers with RISP are .303 BA/.425 OBP/.394 SLG. Yet Lopez has acquired only 11 RBI w/RISP in 33 AB despite that .303 BA. How? A sub-.400 SLG from Lopez.

And all that being said, I do need to give props to Wheelhouse for producing a post centered on OBP rather than BA.

When I heard Jerry Narron tell Marty he'd like for Adam to "expand his strike zone more often," I felt like puking.

BuckeyeRedleg
05-15-2006, 04:17 PM
I just googled "Run Created" and read this other article by Furtado from baseballthinkfactory. In it he criticizes James and his newer version of RC. Any thoughts on this from the guru's?

Thanks.


http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/btf/scholars/furtado/articles/NewRC.html

pedro
05-15-2006, 04:19 PM
I just googled "Run Created" and read this other article by Furtado from baseballthinkfactory. In it he criticizes James and his newer version of RC. Any thoughts on this from the guru's?

Thanks.


http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/btf/scholars/furtado/articles/NewRC.html


I haven't read it yet, but it does serve to prove the argument that these stats aren't just accepted without examination.

rdiersin
05-15-2006, 04:37 PM
Cyclone and rdiersin, thanks for the info.

Before your posts, I was messing around with the RC formula's with last year's Reds team stats and Adam Dunn's individual stats. I just looked both up at ESPN. I was surprised how deep ESPN gets into the stats. I would assume that is Neyer and his association with James and STATS, INC.

Anyway, first I tried the basic RC formula (H+BB *TB/AB+H) and came up with the Reds as a team having 830 Runs Created. Compared with their actual total (820) I was impressed with how accurate it was. Then, I figured Adam Dunn's RC using the basic RC formula and I came up with 110.6 Runs Created.

Then I went to the next formula (stolen base version) and I noticed the RC numbers go up a bit. The Reds as a team went up to 867 and Dunn went up to 123.

Now, I haven't had a chance yet to try out the most recent formula (2002-clutch version), but I'm assuming the RC number will go up again. Of course, this is only a small sample size (the 2005 Reds) so once I plug this in for all teams over a 10-20 year stretch, I'm sure I'll see how well each formula correlates.

I did see ESPN has the Reds team RC as 847.5, so I'm assuming that is what I would come up with using the newer more complex version of the RC formula.

What I think is interesting and kind of fun is using XR for comparing Players contribution to the team. The main reason is that XR is a simple estimate that places weights on a team/player's hits, HRs, etc., thereby making it linear. Since it is linear if you add up all of the individual players XR then you'll get the team's XR. RC is nonlinear, so this can't really be done even though you can use it for an individual player and it is close to the same as XR, I think. You can really have a bit of fun playing around with these things.



One other question, if you don't mind. Finding the correlation for RC makes sense to me. Compare the team RC to the actual number of team runs. How do you correlate something like team OPS into a number to measure up against team runs? or any of the other's- team batting average, OBP, SLG, BRA, RA, etc.?


Sure can. The correlation mainly means if there is an increase of OBP does that correspond to an increase in R, RC, XR, SLG, AVG, ISO, ISD anything you want. Also what else is interesting is looking at the correlation coefficients for strikeouts and runs scored. To help understand this consider strikeouts and runs. They have a correlation coefficient of .1880, which is pretty much insignificant (rule of thumb might be .5 for it be significant). Now look at the scatter plot.

http://www.nd.edu/~rdiersin/k_runs2.jpg

Each '*' is one team's K's and their corresponding runs scored. Notice how its all over the place? This makes sense considering their insignificant correlation. Now consider this plot

http://www.nd.edu/~rdiersin/xr_runs2.jpg

The correlation coefficient between runs and XR is .9788, close to one, and the plot shows that's a pretty much linear relationship. This can be done whether the desired quantity you are comparing with runs scored is a rate stat like OPS or a runs estimate like RC. The only thing that you really can't do with OPS that you can with an estimate like RC is to determine an error.

rdiersin
05-15-2006, 04:40 PM
I haven't read it yet, but it does serve to prove the argument that these stats aren't just accepted without examination.

And there is probably a bit of ego as well, as there is with all theories;) . As with any theory there are drawbacks and advantages to each method. Its up to you to determine which is the best or maybe, said better, which you prefer because a lot of them are very good.

harangatang
05-15-2006, 04:57 PM
you can choose to ignore the fact that water is made up of two hydrogen atoms and an oxygen atom -- but I wouldn't reccomend getting into a debate with a physicist if you're not going to educate yourself on how things really are.
I would highly recommend getting into a debate with a physicist if you don't know anything about atoms. Unless they're in to nanotechnology they aren't going to know lots of relevant information other then maybe the motion of the water after it has bonded. The atom parts are all left to the chemists.

SteelSD
05-15-2006, 05:33 PM
I just googled "Run Created" and read this other article by Furtado from baseballthinkfactory. In it he criticizes James and his newer version of RC. Any thoughts on this from the guru's?

Thanks.


http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/btf/scholars/furtado/articles/NewRC.html

That article is from 1999. RC has gone through further evolution since then. And when I mean "further evolution" I'm talking about changes that make it more accurate by fractions of percentage points.

And if you look harder, you'll find a lot more recent online articles taking a stab at skewering Runs Created. Linear Weights proponents will tell you that Runs Created is outright dead and that BaseRuns is the new king of the hill. And if they're honest, they'll also tell you that BaseRuns can't be applied to individual hitters. That's what we call a problem.

Oh, and there's Equivalent Average (EQA), Runs Above Position (RAP), Wins Above Replacement Player (WARP), etc., etc.

Here's what we know...

Regardless of which valid performance metric we're looking at, the same guys end up at the top of the list in some kind of order.

Reds4Life
05-15-2006, 06:07 PM
I was hoping this thread would work itself out, but that doesn’t seem to be the case.

Some folks in this thread (you know who you are) need to knock it off with the sarcastic little jabs and the constant baiting of each other. It isn’t going to fly anymore; if you can’t stop this on your own we’ll stop it for you.

BuckeyeRedleg
05-15-2006, 07:51 PM
Linear Weights proponents will tell you that Runs Created is outright dead and that BaseRuns is the new king of the hill. And if they're honest, they'll also tell you that BaseRuns can't be applied to individual hitters. That's what we call a problem.

Thanks Steel. I didn't realize that article was that old. I like the RC formula.

Speaking of Runs Created and Linear Weights, do you know if this formula has a better correlation with actual runs scored?

Runs = .47 1B + .78 2B + 1.09 3B + 1.40 HR + .33 (BB+HBP) + .30 SB - .60 CS - .25 (AB-H) - .5 (Outs on Base)

Raisor
05-16-2006, 09:38 AM
Current accuracy of Reds' Runs Created (as of 5/16/06-pre game)

207.1 rc (5.45 rc/game)
196 rs (5.16 rs/game)

Difference is about 1/4 run a game.

94.6%

rdiersin
05-16-2006, 10:58 AM
Thanks Steel. I didn't realize that article was that old. I like the RC formula.

Speaking of Runs Created and Linear Weights, do you know if this formula has a better correlation with actual runs scored?

Runs = .47 1B + .78 2B + 1.09 3B + 1.40 HR + .33 (BB+HBP) + .30 SB - .60 CS - .25 (AB-H) - .5 (Outs on Base)

When looking at run estimates, the correlation coefficient is nice to look at, but what might be better to look at and understand is statistical properties of the error. Why? Well, lets say we have an estimator for runs called R_hat, then the error is the runs scored minus the estimate, i.e. e=R-R_hat. If the error can be charatcherized then that tells us a lot about the estimate. Typically we can assume that the error is a Gaussian random variable, that means its probability density function(which completely characterizes the error) is the old bell curve we all know and love. Nice properties of Gaussian random variables is that their density function is completely characterized by the mean and the variance. Well, since we are making an estimate of runs and out e=R-R_hat, then the mean is pretty much zero, so what is important is the variance (or standard deviation which is simply the square root of the variance). If we can find which run estimator (or any kind of estimator) produces these best properties then it is a great way of characterizing the estimate. The smaller the mean square error, the narrower the shape of the bell curve around 0, i.e. it most of the error in the estimate is small. This can be seen in the following histogram. The first plot has a lower standard deviation and is noticably narrower around zero then the second.

http://www.nd.edu/~rdiersin/hist2.jpg

westofyou
05-16-2006, 11:13 AM
Good Stuff on Reggie Jackson in the 1978 Bill James Baseball Abstract.


New York Yankees: "A number of numerical attacks on Reggie Jackson's status as a superstar have attempted to downgrade him by making statistical inferences which I think are misleading...He is described as a ballplayer who has never hit .300--but that is lilke describing Roberto Clemente as a guy who never hit 30 home runs, or Ty Cobb as a player who never hit 20. The fact remains, Jackson does an awful lot of things well, and most often does them well when his team needs them. His On-Base percentage last year was .378, better than most .300 hitters, and it's a more important statistic. His excellent SB% (.850), GIDP/AB ratio (1/175), and slugging percentage (.550) add up to a hell of a lot more than the eight singles by which he missed .300.

RichRed
05-16-2006, 02:08 PM
Good Stuff on Reggie Jackson in the 1978 Bill James Baseball Abstract.

I just want to say that I am constantly amazed by some of the interesting stuff you guys seem to have right at your fingertips. I had an interest in statistical analysis before, thanks largely to staring at the backs of baseball cards for hours on end as a kid, but some of you guys have helped heighten that interest.

This piece about Reggie is great because all I remember hearing about back then was how overrated Reggie was because he struck out so much. Nice to be reminded that there were, and are, voices of reason when it comes to this stuff.