PDA

View Full Version : Has Adam Dunn's performance been beaten to death yet?



savafan
05-22-2006, 03:42 AM
Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Starting a new thread or post to advertise a personal web site. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please.

It seems like there are about 10 new threads or more a day popping up about Adam Dunn. It's getting real old really fast. At times, it makes me not want to even open up threads here, because even topics that have nothing to do with Adam Dunn tend to have posts in them complaining about Adam Dunn. It's depressing.

GridironGrace
05-22-2006, 07:40 AM
Adam's head seems to be elsewhere at times in some games this season, otherwise he's just in a slump.

I dunno, I KNOW he'll be ok and work out of this rut he's in.

And yes i agree, there is WAY TO MUCH player bashing here, kills me when peeps talk about "so n so shouldnt bat here cause......." or "so n so shoulnt start because........"

Its great to have an opinion, but we all cheer for the SAME team, to do the SAME thing.. and thats WIN!!!!!!!!!!

No matter who we field that day, no matter who we Start on the mound, no matter WHO comes in to PH late in a game we all want the SAME result, from whatever player it is. TO WIN!!!!

I say cheer on that player, lets here WHY he should be batting 4th, or why he should be starting today. I'm sure theres a reason for it all or Narron wouldnt write em in that way

TeamCasey
05-22-2006, 08:10 AM
I've said previously that there's always one player that seems untouchable for discussion. Anytime someone discusses that player, it's like sparking a flint. The player used to be Griffey, now it's Dunn.

Although I haven't been as deeply involved in all the threads as I have in past years, I do have an observation.

For every player "basher", there are as many defenders turning these threads into long bitter arguments. Not blaming either side. I have friends on both sides and it makes me a little sad.

There's no solution that mods or admins can impose other than consolidating threads. It's a discussion board. Folks are going to discuss players on the team. Opinions are going to differ. I wish people would discuss, debate or ignore without the ugliness.

If you have a negative comment about Dunn, post it constructively. (Leave the "sucks" BS out). If someone comments on Dunn, don't get so sensitive about it. Debate it. If you're tired of the same debate ..... close the thread and walk away. You'll live longer. ;)

We're all adults, respect goes a long way.

Leave the ugliness for the cincy.coms.

membengal
05-22-2006, 10:22 AM
It is obvious that it has.

After observing yet another broadside on Dunn over on Live, I can safely say I am done with that portion of the site for awhile, and will back off on this side. WOY, M2, OBM and others make the same reasoned responses, and are ignored or belittled. It gets old.

Heath
05-22-2006, 10:25 AM
It is obvious that it has.

After observing yet another broadside on Dunn over on Live, I can safely say I am done with that portion of the site for awhile, and will back off on this side. WOY, M2, OBM and others make the same reasoned responses, and are ignored or belittled. It gets old.

Its a combination of a fast start paced by above-average norms divided by new posters plus a losing streak.

For you mathematicians - its the "RedsZone May Theorem" where FS is a Fast Start, AAN is above average norms, NP is New Posters, and LS is losing streak.

(FS+AAN)/(NP+LS)=Whining.

membengal
05-22-2006, 10:28 AM
You are no doubt right, there are plenty of good explanations for it, but that doesn't change the fact that the new posters who scream "Dunn sucks" unendingly have begun to affect my enjoyment of the team at the moment. I flinch when he's up, knowing that every out will be magnified 1000 times by anti-Dunn people on here.

There are precious few who have been realists about this team from the outset, so there are few who are equipped to ride out the ups and downs without starting 10,000,000 Dunn sucks threads or trying to deal him for Chien Wang.

Long view is needed with baseball. Chat boards are notoriously short on long view. So the bad times are magnified, I know all that.

It's just that the Dunn stuff has reached such a crescendo, it drowns out everything else.

Heath
05-22-2006, 10:30 AM
It is obvious that it has.

After observing yet another broadside on Dunn over on Live, I can safely say I am done with that portion of the site for awhile, and will back off on this side. WOY, M2, OBM and others make the same reasoned responses, and are ignored or belittled. It gets old.

Then cyclone makes a nice statistical based formula with facts about Dunn and it gets punted by post #4.

Yikes.

Joseph
05-22-2006, 10:42 AM
It has grown tiresome. As a whole the board seems to have taken a negative tone. A few wins start to lessen it, but then two losses in a row and everyone on the team sucks, doesn't matter if they were an All-Star, a Hall of Famer, or a backup, everyone of them needs to be jettisoned for the first available warm body.

This team has problems, from top to bottom. I think every single team in baseball does. I do think they are going to hang near the upper half of the division all season rather than the bottom half, so the constant bashing and calling to trade, bench, or swap positions for every player has to stop, especially when it's all been posted a thousand times already.

We know Dunn K's a lot, we know FeLo commits some errors, and we know Griffey has lost a step [or three] but talking about it every time one of them comes up to bat isn't going to change it one iota.

Also, last time I checked, not many of us were bringing in paychecks for our baseball knowledge, so it's not up to us to decide.

RANDY IN INDY
05-22-2006, 11:02 AM
It has grown tiresome. As a whole the board seems to have taken a negative tone. A few wins start to lessen it, but then two losses in a row and everyone on the team sucks, doesn't matter if they were an All-Star, a Hall of Famer, or a backup, everyone of them needs to be jettisoned for the first available warm body.

This team has problems, from top to bottom. I think every single team in baseball does. I do think they are going to hang near the upper half of the division all season rather than the bottom half, so the constant bashing and calling to trade, bench, or swap positions for every player has to stop, especially when it's all been posted a thousand times already.

We know Dunn K's a lot, we know FeLo commits some errors, and we know Griffey has lost a step [or three] but talking about it every time one of them comes up to bat isn't going to change it one iota.

Also, last time I checked, not many of us were bringing in paychecks for our baseball knowledge, so it's not up to us to decide.:thumbup:

Heath
05-22-2006, 11:12 AM
:thumbup:

But Randy, aren't there pictures of you in a Reds Uni somewhere? :D

NJReds
05-22-2006, 11:16 AM
I fought the battle w/BF (Prose) for 2 seasons on mlb.com. I don't even bother with the Dunn arguement anymore. He is what he is.

But there is a negative tone on the board. For example, B. Phillips has a few bad days at the plate and all of the sudden there's a post about him being a "black hole" in the lineup. Even though he leads the team in RBIs. That's more frustrating to me then the Dunn stuff. Dunn is and always will be a lightning rod for discussion.

RANDY IN INDY
05-22-2006, 11:19 AM
But Randy, aren't there pictures of you in a Reds Uni somewhere? :D

:laugh: Yeah, but I payed for that uniform.

Heath
05-22-2006, 11:40 AM
I fought the battle w/BF (Prose) for 2 seasons on mlb.com. I don't even bother with the Dunn arguement anymore. He is what he is.

But there is a negative tone on the board. For example, B. Phillips has a few bad days at the plate and all of the sudden there's a post about him being a "black hole" in the lineup. Even though he leads the team in RBIs. That's more frustrating to me then the Dunn stuff. Dunn is and always will be a lightning rod for discussion.

After this bad streak, the Reds (this is MAY still, BTW) are leading the wild-card AND Brandon Phillips leads this team in RBI's.

Wow.

Spring~Fields
05-22-2006, 12:10 PM
For six seasons, six parts of seasons or for six long years the Griffey/Dunn debate has been debated with great passion and re-debated, surely the subject has been covered thoroughly and exhausted within a six year time frame as is being suggested by the previous posters within. Surely the debate results are in by now, the only thing left is for the debate winner, pro or con to be announced and to move on to a new subject. Time has gone by, so who won the debate? I think the anti/con group was right. ;)

guttle11
05-22-2006, 12:16 PM
Adam Dunn is a polarizing player. Both sides get a little bit out of hand at times. Half the board thinks he sucks, half the board seems to think he's going to be an all-time great.

The truth lies somewhere in the middle. Adam Dunn is a very good power hitter, but only a decent overall player. He's like a G-Unit medallion. He's shiny, looks good, and you can brag that you have him, but when it comes down to it, what does he really provide?

BABIP is a pointless stat. If you're down by two in the ninth with two on, you HAVE to put the ball in play. All too often he won't. And until he does that he won't evolve into anything but a good power hitter. I don't ever want to hear or see that stat again.

The blind Adam Dunn hatred is annoying, but so is the blind Dunn love. There's more to baseball than OPS. Adam Dunn is a pretty solid player, no more, no less.

Falls City Beer
05-22-2006, 12:20 PM
People are okay with Dunn-bashing, but when someone points out that Brandon Phillips has done NOTHING (and let's not kid ourselves, a mid-.500 OPS at the MLB level and only a decent minor league record is NOTHING) in baseball, and further is doing nothing to change his plate approach, that's a crime.

This crap is going to make me insane. I really need to stay off these threads dealing with Dunn. Just avoid them altogether.

CTA513
05-22-2006, 12:24 PM
Have the admins/mods aprove every topic and post before it can show up on the forums.

:evil:

Joseph
05-22-2006, 12:27 PM
Have the admins/mods aprove every topic and post before it can show up on the forums.

:evil:

Oh yeah, we need THAT kind of work. :p:

NJReds
05-22-2006, 12:28 PM
People are okay with Dunn-bashing, but when someone points out that Brandon Phillips has done NOTHING (and let's not kid ourselves, a mid-.500 OPS at the MLB level and only a decent minor league record is NOTHING) in baseball, and further is doing nothing to change his plate approach, that's a crime.

This crap is going to make me insane. I really need to stay off these threads dealing with Dunn. Just avoid them altogether.

Pointing out that Phillips has offensive shortcomings is fine. Waiting until his hot streak ended to call him a 'black hole' is not particularly constructive. Especially when he leads the team in RBI, is 25, and also brings solid defense to the table.

Gratuitous player bashing is never acceptible - against Dunn and everyone else. As I said, I defended Dunn for two years on a board where most people hate him. I'm sick of typing the same stuff over and over again...

Cyclone792
05-22-2006, 12:33 PM
But there is a negative tone on the board. For example, B. Phillips has a few bad days at the plate and all of the sudden there's a post about him being a "black hole" in the lineup. Even though he leads the team in RBIs. That's more frustrating to me then the Dunn stuff. Dunn is and always will be a lightning rod for discussion.

If Brandon Phillips was a good hitter, there'd be evidence of that in over seven seasons of professional baseball. But I won't get into that here, because there's another thread on that.

RBI is a product of team OBP of the hitters in front you and your individual slugging percentage. And the last I looked, the team OBP of the hitters in front of you has nothing to do you with your individual hitting accomplishments. It's such a shame that people continually fail to understand the simple fact that when the OBP of the hitters in front of you is ridiculously high, you're likely to drive in a load of runs, even if you're a below average hitter.

Brandon Phillips has 125 at bats this season, and 42 of them have occurred with runners in scoring position. That's 34 percent of his total at bats, compared to the league average in 2005 of 25 percent of all at bats occurring with runners in scoring position. Brandon Phillips has also had 65 at bats with runners on base, which is 52 percent of his total at bats. League average? Try 43 percent of all at bats.

So no, I'm not at all surprised that Brandon Phillips leads the team in RBI since the ratio of his at bats with runners on and in scoring position is considerably higher than the league average, a feat that he deserves zero credit for. Stick a bunch of league average OBPs in front of him and his RBI total drops considerably. But when trying to explain that to people, the notion slides in one ear and right out the other. The more chances you have to drive in runs, the more runs you'll drive in. But people continue to overlook that simple fact, and when equating RBI total with good hitting, they're making a flawed analysis.

I don't know about you, but I sure as heck don't want somebody running my team if that's the type of analysis they consider true and accurate.

But this isn't about Adam Dunn, nor is it about Brandon Phillips. It's not about any single hitter or group of hitters on the team or in the league.

No, it's not about any of them. It's about statistics, namely a colossal misunderstanding by several people to comprehend which statistics are vastly more valuable than others. Several people have a fondness for obsessing over inaccurate measures of player performance, especially RBI and BA w/RISP, and have absolutely zero concept about the lack of validity those stats carry. When presented with actual, factual evidence that those specific statistics are very poor indicators of a player's performance, those same people either ignore the evidence or respond in a way that shows that they have absolutely no desire to do anything except spout their own heavily misinformed opinion.

It is like somebody saying the world is flat and then refusing to believe otherwise, or it's like somebody saying that the sun doesn't exist.

The result of all this is we constantly see posts such as "I don't care what Bill James or your fancy stats say ... Adam Dunn sucks because he strikes out, has low RBI and can't hit with runners in scoring position."

Yet it has been proven more times than I can ever count how absolutely wrong those assertions are, because the evidence that backs up those assertions fails miserably when tested a valid test of what constitutes actual run production.

It's truly baffling and mind-boggling.

Kc61
05-22-2006, 12:33 PM
A lively debate about Dunn is to be expected. He is the big hitter in the lineup who brings an unusual mix of talents/deficiencies. So there is discussion, sometimes lively, and I don't mind that.

To me the most interesting aspect of the debate is what the front office thinks. Does the new GM think that Dunn -- and Kearns, Griffey, Lopez -- are the kind of players who can make the Reds contenders? We all know the pitching has to keep improving, but it is not a given that this "core" of position players is necessarily good enough to compete with the best teams.

So I wouldn't cut off discussion of Dunn, but I do think it would be interesting to discuss the broader question of whether the Reds should keep its position player core, whether these guys are potentially championship caliber.

guttle11
05-22-2006, 12:51 PM
It is like somebody saying the world is flat and then refusing to believe otherwise, or it's like somebody saying that the sun doesn't exist.



That doesn't work simply because there's glaring evidence that proves Dunn isn't as good as some make him out to be. His defense is not good, his base running is suspect at best, and he just doesn't seem to "get it" when it comes to being a great player.

I couldn't care less about the total strikeouts he has, but there is something to be said for his complete lack of understanding situations where you simply have to put the ball in play. Just yesterday on Edwin's double he wasn't running hard all the way. It's like he didn't think there was any way the ball was staying in the yard. You simply can't do that.

Again, I think Dunn is a very good player and a valuable asset to this team, but there is plenty of room for criticism. I'd just like to see it evolve past the strikeout debate.

Ignoring Dunn's faults is just as bad as ignoring his strengths.

registerthis
05-22-2006, 12:57 PM
If Brandon Phillips was a good hitter, there'd be evidence of that in over seven seasons of professional baseball. But I won't get into that here, because there's another thread on that.

RBI is a product of team OBP of the hitters in front you and your individual slugging percentage. And the last I looked, the team OBP of the hitters in front of you has nothing to do you with your individual hitting accomplishments. It's such a shame that people continually fail to understand the simple fact that when the OBP of the hitters in front of you is ridiculously high, you're likely to drive in a load of runs, even if you're a below average hitter.

So why not flip Phillips with a higher OPS guy--i.e. Dunn--so that these loads of RBI opportunities go to someone who could be more constructive with them than Brandon? Clearly, the #5 and #6 guys are getting on with a level of consistency that have allowed an otherwise mediocre singles hitter like Phillips to lead the team in RBI.

One of people's complaints abotu Dunn is that he doesn't hit enough HRs with men on base. So why not try him in the 7 spot for awhile, and see what he can do with some of the opportunities currently being afforded to Brandon?

dsmith421
05-22-2006, 01:00 PM
he just doesn't seem to "get it" when it comes to being a great player.

What does this even mean?

guttle11
05-22-2006, 01:06 PM
What does this even mean?

The intangibles. The ability to think one step ahead of the game. Look at Derek Jeter. He always seems to be in the right place at the right time. There's a select few who seem to be able to do that, and to this point, Dunn isn't one of them. Dunn got a late start in baseball, so maybe one day he will "get it", who knows?

Cyclone792
05-22-2006, 01:20 PM
That doesn't work simply because there's glaring evidence that proves Dunn isn't as good as some make him out to be. His defense is not good, his base running is suspect at best, and he just doesn't seem to "get it" when it comes to being a great player.

I couldn't care less about the total strikeouts he has, but there is something to be said for his complete lack of understanding situations where you simply have to put the ball in play. Just yesterday on Edwin's double he wasn't running hard all the way. It's like he didn't think there was any way the ball was staying in the yard. You simply can't do that.

Again, I think Dunn is a very good player and a valuable asset to this team, but there is plenty of room for criticism. I'd just like to see it evolve past the strikeout debate.

Ignoring Dunn's faults is just as bad as ignoring his strengths.

Wait, so let me get this straight? Just because I try to objectively quantify Adam Dunn and every other player I attempt to analyze, I'm suddenly ignoring Dunn's faults? I'd sure like to see some examples where I've blatantly ignored all of Dunn's faults since you seem to be accusing me of doing just that. Chances are if I've ignored any fault of any player it's because the fault is so minimal it's not even worth debating about.

I know Dunn's faults well, very well, in fact. I know the rough amount of negative value his faults cost us during the season, and I know that his negative value, when combined with his positive value, is a complete waste of time to concentrate on given the faults of every other player on the entire roster. Sure, let's all harp on Adam Dunn for being a below average left fielder while continuing to ignore the negative value certain other players cost us during the season at far more important defensive positions. That just makes all the sense in the world ...

So again, ignoring Dunn's faults? Nope. Attempting to quantify their actual value? Of course.

Adam Dunn has faults. Sean Casey has faults. Ken Griffey, Jr. has faults. Quinton McCracken has faults. Babe Ruth had faults. Ted Williams had faults. Ditto Ty Cobb, Honus Wagner, Walter Johnson, Willie Mays and Hank Aaron.

Every player that's ever stepped onto a baseball field has had faults. There is no such thing as the perfect player, because the perfect player has never existed and never will exist.

Cyclone792
05-22-2006, 01:24 PM
So why not flip Phillips with a higher OPS guy--i.e. Dunn--so that these loads of RBI opportunities go to someone who could be more constructive with them than Brandon? Clearly, the #5 and #6 guys are getting on with a level of consistency that have allowed an otherwise mediocre singles hitter like Phillips to lead the team in RBI.

One of people's complaints abotu Dunn is that he doesn't hit enough HRs with men on base. So why not try him in the 7 spot for awhile, and see what he can do with some of the opportunities currently being afforded to Brandon?

Scott Hatteberg, Austin Kearns and Edwin Encarnacion. Three players who have all largely been the players batting in front of Brandon Phillips this season, and all three of them started off this season very well in terms of on-base ability. The chances of any of them continuing at that pace is highly unlikely.

It's hilarious. I pointed out several weeks ago that the week Brandon Phillips won the Player of the Week with his incredible RBI total, Scott Hatteberg was batting one or two spots in front of him and had something like a .600 OBP during the week Phillips won that award. My post has been the only evidence on this board crediting Hatteberg's performance that week.

Too bad Hatteberg's gotten absolutely zero credit from anyone else around here for his "share" in Phillips receiving all those accolades. If Hatteberg wasn't getting on base, Phillips doesn't drive in all those runs.

Kc61
05-22-2006, 01:24 PM
What makes the Dunn debate so interesting is that his talents and deficiencies are clear. He hits for power; doesn't hit for average; strikes out a lot; walks a lot; below average fielder; cautious baserunner. I don't think any of this is open to much question.

Because of the walks and power, his OBP and OPS are high. For some people, this tells the whole story.

But, with the strikeouts and low batting average, he makes his share of outs in key spots, often via the strikeout. This frustrates many posters.

So the debate is really about this type of player -- not so much Dunn as an individual player -- and whether each of us as armchair GM wants such a player to have a prominent role on the team. It is an interesting debate.

dsmith421
05-22-2006, 01:25 PM
I don't buy it. If Jeter played for Kansas City no one would be going on about what a great team guy he is. He'd be respected as an outstanding player but a great deal of his "moral authority" comes from pinstripes and four rings.

If the Reds win 100 games this season and Dunn has a carbon copy of his last two years, the national media will be feting him for providing a "laid back attitude" in the clubhouse, for his ability to intimidate opposing pitching, etc., and largely ignoring his strikeouts and alleged failures with RISP.

Fans tend to want to ascribe positive personality traits to athletes who win. We prefer to believe that a given team wins because of the quality of its character, its effort, etc., rather than God-given talent. So I think when you compare "intangibles"--whatever they are--and success, you've got a classic chicken-egg argument.

The fact that the very concept is wholly immeasurable and unverifiable further complicates matters, because it makes for "I feel" arguments rather than "I believe this, based upon the following objective data" disputes.

guttle11
05-22-2006, 01:31 PM
Wait, so let me get this straight? Just because I try to objectively quantify Adam Dunn and every other player I attempt to analyze, I'm suddenly ignoring Dunn's faults? I'd sure like to see some examples where I've blatantly ignored all of Dunn's faults since you seem to be accusing me of doing just that. Chances are if I've ignored any fault of any player it's because the fault is so minimal it's not even worth debating about.

I know Dunn's faults well, very well, in fact. I know the rough amount of negative value his faults cost us during the season, and I know that his negative value, when combined with his positive value, is a complete waste of time to concentrate on given the faults of every other player on the entire roster. Sure, let's all harp on Adam Dunn for being a below average left fielder while continuing to ignore the negative value certain other players cost us during the season at far more important defensive positions. That just makes all the sense in the world ...

So again, ignoring Dunn's faults? Nope. Attempting to quantify their actual value? Of course.

Adam Dunn has faults. Sean Casey has faults. Ken Griffey, Jr. has faults. Quinton McCracken has faults. Babe Ruth had faults. Ted Williams had faults. Ditto Ty Cobb, Honus Wagner, Walter Johnson, Willie Mays and Hank Aaron.

Every player that's ever stepped onto a baseball field has had faults. There is no such thing as the perfect player, because the perfect player has never existed and never will exist.


See what you did there? You went on and on basically saying "How dare you..." while completely ignoring the fact that I provided you faults.

I'm not saying Dunn's faults are making him any less of a player, I'm saying they are keeping him from the next "level."

Adam Dunn is a terrible situational hitter, and a below average fielder and baserunner, and there's no two ways about it. If someone is willing to gloss over that without any thought, then there's no point of discussing baseball with them. Baseball isn't played on a computer or in a Bill James book.

His stats are impressive, but he's simply not as good as many people make him out to be. He's "bling-bling" and "flossing" material. I see no reason to go all MC Hammer for Adam Dunn. He's just not worth it.

westofyou
05-22-2006, 01:33 PM
Baseball isn't played on a computer or in a Bill James book.

You know smug statements like that are a big part of the problem on this board, especially when no one on that side of the fence ever suggested that that was the case.

TeamBoone
05-22-2006, 01:34 PM
This crap is going to make me insane. I really need to stay off these threads dealing with Dunn. Just avoid them altogether.

Good luck FCB because every thread turns into one, regardless of the title.

flyer85
05-22-2006, 01:35 PM
You know smug statements like that are a big part of the problem on this board, especially when no one on that side of the fence ever suggested that that was the case.Strawmen can always be useful when lacking the ability to make a real argument.

Cyclone792
05-22-2006, 01:42 PM
See what you did there? You went on and on basically saying "How dare you..." while completely ignoring the fact that I provided you faults.

I'm not saying Dunn's faults are making him any less of a player, I'm saying they are keeping him from the next "level."

Adam Dunn is a terrible situational hitter, and a below average fielder and baserunner, and there's no two ways about it. If someone is willing to gloss over that without any thought, then there's no point of discussing baseball with them. Baseball isn't played on a computer or in a Bill James book.

His stats are impressive, but he's simply not as good as many people make him out to be. He's "bling-bling" and "flossing" material. I see no reason to go all MC Hammer for Adam Dunn. He's just not worth it.

Go ahead.

Quantify all this negative value.

Quantify his "terrible situational hitting."

Quantify his below average defense. I know he's a below average defensive player, and I know how many runs his defense costs us.

Quantify his supposed "below average baserunning."

You're making assertions, and now I want to see the actual evidence to back those assertions up. For all of Dunn's faults that you're asserting he has how many runs is he costing the team because of those faults?

This is the polar opposite of a "How dare you?" This is an open invitation for you to describe how much negative value Dunn provides the team over the course of a half season, full season, many seasons, etc.

I'm very curious to see this.

Falls City Beer
05-22-2006, 01:47 PM
. It is an interesting debate.

But it isn't. One side offers up fact. Another side beholds these facts and proceeds to smother them with a pillow. That's not debate; that's voluntary manslaughter.

guttle11
05-22-2006, 01:49 PM
Go ahead.

Quantify all this negative value.

Quantify his "terrible situational hitting."

Quantify his below average defense. I know he's a below average defensive player, and I know how many runs his defense costs us.

Quantify his supposed "below average baserunning."

You're making assertions, and now I want to see the actual evidence to back those assertions up. For all of Dunn's faults that you're asserting he has how many runs is he costing the team because of those faults?

This is the polar opposite of a "How dare you?" This is an open invitation for you to describe how much negative value Dunn provides the team over the course of a half season, full season, many seasons, etc.

I'm very curious to see this.

There's no reason for me to do that. Not once have I argued that Dunn "costs the team" anything. In fact, if you'll look back I said he was a valueable asset to the team. All I have ever said was that a lot of people are overstating his ability as an individual player. He's good, but not great.


You know smug statements like that are a big part of the problem on this board, especially when no one on that side of the fence ever suggested that that was the case.

The entire premise of this thread is very smug.

westofyou
05-22-2006, 01:52 PM
The entire premise of this thread is very smug.

By all means bring more gasoline to the fire then.

Cyclone792
05-22-2006, 01:54 PM
There's no reason for me to do that. Not once have I argued that Dunn "costs the team" anything. In fact, if you'll look back I said he was a valueable asset to the team. All I have ever said was that a lot of people are overstating his ability as an individual player. He's good, but not great.

Oh yes there is very much a reason for you to do that. Let's review your statement exactly:


I'm not saying Dunn's faults are making him any less of a player, I'm saying they are keeping him from the next "level."

If Dunn's faults are keeping him from the next "level" as you're stating, then his faults are providing us with negative value, which costs the team runs, wins, and like you state, keep Dunn from the next "level."

Quantify this negative value for me that you claim keeps Dunn from the next level. If Dunn is not costing us anything due to his faults, then he is already at the next level.

So again, how many runs is he costing us?

smith288
05-22-2006, 01:56 PM
To Guttle11 defense, this board is filled to the brim with statheads with whom you offer an opinion that directly counters their opinion, the stat head will barrage said traditionalist with stats, questions, requests of proof from you to back up your opinion and a dash of sarcasm.

The who idea of a stathead requiring a traditionalist to have stats to back up their gut instinct is like asking a polar bear why he chose the penguin instead of the seal at any particular time.

guttle11
05-22-2006, 01:59 PM
Oh yes there is very much a reason for you to do that. Let's review your statement exactly:



If Dunn's faults are keeping him from the next "level" as you're stating, then his faults are providing us with negative value, which costs the team runs, wins, and like you state, keep Dunn from the next "level."

Quantify this negative value for me that you claim keeps Dunn from the next level. If Dunn is not costing us anything due to his faults, then he is already at the next level.

So again, how many runs is he costing us?

Twisting arguements 101. I hear you're a good teacher.

Again, not once did I say he costs the team anything. Saying that would imply that he's not a good player or not valuable, two things I've never said. If he improved on his faults, he could provide the team more.

There is a difference.

dsmith421
05-22-2006, 02:04 PM
The who idea of a stathead requiring a traditionalist to have stats to back up their gut instinct is like asking a polar bear why he chose the penguin instead of the seal at any particular time.

Well, the problem with the "traditionalist" position*, then, is that you can just make crap up out of whole cloth with no objective backing for it whatsoever.

I don't really have a problem with that, but if that's your rhetorical style, be prepared to be taken to the woodshed from time to time by people who can back up contrary positions with facts.

One thing that new posters may want to remember is that a lot of the 'veterans' on this board have been here for years and have heard these arguments dozens of times. It doesn't make it right, but I think people can understand why they get snippy after a while.

(*--I think this "traditionalist"/"stathead" split is pretty useless too, given that most people here lie somewhere in the middle.)

registerthis
05-22-2006, 02:06 PM
I don't think that Adam Dunn has reached the level of Willie Mays or Hank Aaron, but I'm not going to spend hours researching stats to support that assertion. Just my own opinion, worth no more or less than the average fan--or anyone else on this board.

I do think the complaints are legitimate for both sides of this argument--for both people who bury themselves in statistics, and those who do not (and those, like myself, who reside somewhere in the middle.)

westofyou
05-22-2006, 02:08 PM
Well, the problem with the "traditionalist" position*, then, is that you can just make crap up out of whole cloth with no objective backing for it whatsoever.How come the "traditionalists" tend to be the ones who fail to recognize that baseball is a game of disappointments? It's a game of failure and more of the same, day in and day out. No one doesn't get scored against, no one wins them all and no one drives them all in. Yet time and time again the only aspect of the game examined is the failure and not the success.

Cyclone792
05-22-2006, 02:09 PM
To Guttle11 defense, this board is filled to the brim with statheads with whom you offer an opinion that directly counters their opinion, the stat head will barrage said traditionalist with stats, questions, requests of proof from you to back up your opinion and a dash of sarcasm.

The who idea of a stathead requiring a traditionalist to have stats to back up their gut instinct is like asking a polar bear why he chose the penguin instead of the seal at any particular time.

If guttle, or anyone else here for that matter, is able to provide some serious quantifiable analysis on Dunn's negative value, I for one would love to see it. Not to pick it apart, but to try to learn anything I possibly can from it.

Make me think, make me reconsider. Find the flaws, course correct and then get an even better understanding of the negative value. Want to talk about situational hitting? Fine, let's figure out how important situational hitting is in the overall picture so we have a better understanding the positive or negative value a player's situation hitting provides.

There's a half dozen fielding systems abound and freely available. Nobody uses them when bashing Dunn's defense. In fact, the only time they're used is to defend Dunn against irrational arguments claiming he costs the team an impossibly absurd amount of runs.

And baserunning? There's studies out there on baserunning. Why none of them ever appear in a post bashing Dunn's baserunning is a curious wonder.

savafan
05-22-2006, 02:10 PM
M: Ah, Is this the right room for an argument?
A: I told you once.
M: No you haven't.
A: Yes I have.
M: When?
A: Just now.
M: No you didn't.
A: Yes I did.
M: You didn't
A: I did!
M: You didn't!
A: I'm telling you I did!
M: You did not!!
A: Oh, I'm sorry, just one moment. Is this a five minute argument or the full half hour?
M: Oh, just the five minutes.
A: Ah, thank you. Anyway, I did.
M: You most certainly did not.
A: Look, let's get this thing clear; I quite definitely told you.
M: No you did not.
A: Yes I did.
M: No you didn't.
A: Yes I did.
M: No you didn't.
A: Yes I did.
M: No you didn't.
A: Yes I did.
M: You didn't.
A: Did.
M: Oh look, this isn't an argument.
A: Yes it is.
M: No it isn't. It's just contradiction.
A: No it isn't.
M: It is!
A: It is not.
M: Look, you just contradicted me.
A: I did not.
M: Oh you did!!
A: No, no, no.
M: You did just then.
A: Nonsense!
M: Oh, this is futile!
A: No it isn't.
M: I came here for a good argument.
A: No you didn't; no, you came here for an argument.
M: An argument isn't just contradiction.
A: It can be.
M: No it can't. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.
A: No it isn't.
M: Yes it is! It's not just contradiction.
A: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.
M: Yes, but that's not just saying 'No it isn't.'
A: Yes it is!
M: No it isn't!

A: Yes it is!
M: Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes.
(short pause)
A: No it isn't.
M: It is.
A: Not at all.
M: Now look.
A: (Rings bell) Good Morning.
M: What?
A: That's it. Good morning.
M: I was just getting interested.
A: Sorry, the five minutes is up.
M: That was never five minutes!
A: I'm afraid it was.
M: It wasn't.
Pause
A: I'm sorry, but I'm not allowed to argue anymore.
M: What?!
A: If you want me to go on arguing, you'll have to pay for another five minutes.
M: Yes, but that was never five minutes, just now. Oh come on!
A: (Hums)
M: Look, this is ridiculous.
A: I'm sorry, but I'm not allowed to argue unless you've paid!
M: Oh, all right.
(pays money)
A: Thank you.
short pause
M: Well?
A: Well what?
M: That wasn't really five minutes, just now.
A: I told you, I'm not allowed to argue unless you've paid.
M: I just paid!
A: No you didn't.
M: I DID!
A: No you didn't.
M: Look, I don't want to argue about that.
A: Well, you didn't pay.
M: Aha. If I didn't pay, why are you arguing? I Got you!
A: No you haven't.
M: Yes I have. If you're arguing, I must have paid.
A: Not necessarily. I could be arguing in my spare time.
M: Oh I've had enough of this.
A: No you haven't.
M: Oh Shut up.

Cyclone792
05-22-2006, 02:11 PM
Twisting arguements 101. I hear you're a good teacher.

Again, not once did I say he costs the team anything. Saying that would imply that he's not a good player or not valuable, two things I've never said. If he improved on his faults, he could provide the team more.

There is a difference.

I'm not twisting anything.

I'm asking for whatever amount of value his faults cost us, and you're refusing to provide any information.

You say he has faults. Fine, what's their negative value?

It's as simple as that.

M2
05-22-2006, 02:12 PM
Ignoring Dunn's faults is just as bad as ignoring his strengths.

Unfortunately this board has gotten to point where folks are being put in the constant position of having to defend his strengths. When you have to justify that a guy who drives in 100+ runs every season can drive in runs, the discussion has officially gotten retarded.


The who idea of a stathead requiring a traditionalist to have stats to back up their gut instinct is like asking a polar bear why he chose the penguin instead of the seal at any particular time.

I'm more interested in why so many supposed polar bears chose salad.

We've got a lot of quality seamheads on the site, most of whom know their stats too. What I often find is that folks with an obsessive reliance on BA and pitcher's wins have falsely cloaked themselves as traditionalists. That's not a traditionalist argument. It requires no skills of observation whatsoever or any deeper insight into the game. It's just a reflection of being stuck on the most basic information provided on the backs of baseball cards and sports pages.

BCubb2003
05-22-2006, 02:13 PM
Maybe this thread should be a sticky and the permanent Adam Dunn thread.

KittyDuran
05-22-2006, 02:15 PM
It seems like there are about 10 new threads or more a day popping up about Adam Dunn. It's getting real old really fast. At times, it makes me not want to even open up threads here, because even topics that have nothing to do with Adam Dunn tend to have posts in them complaining about Adam Dunn. It's depressing.So why did you add another? :p: I should beat you with a wet noodle!!! ;) Seriously, the answer to the Dunn question is somewhere in the middle. Unfortunately, both sides do not want to budge from their stance, to give the impression of being weak.

I'm in the middle, but tend to be more on the "dark side", i.e. complaining about Dunn. Something happens when he's up at the plate w/RISP. It very complicated but to the average fan (which I'm one) we only see the Ks in critical situations. Other players do it - but why is Dunn so special and why do we care? It might be the hype, it might be because he's tall, from TX and a good ole boy, it might be the fact he's making a lot of money, it might be he gives good sound bites, etc. But the spotlight is on him [whether he or his fans like it]. I believe it comes with the territory. The moment he gets out of his slump, everybody will be jumping on the bandwagon, myself included - because when he does the team will be better for it.

Now the BIG question... will there be another exodus to another fansite? In 2000, RedsZone was created because of the constant critisizing of Junior on the Cincinnati Talk board. Have we gotten that far yet?

Just my 2 cents...

Jane Average Fan

smith288
05-22-2006, 02:16 PM
Well, the problem with the "traditionalist" position*, then, is that you can just make crap up out of whole cloth with no objective backing for it whatsoever.

True. How about this analogy to Dunn. Can you give me a statistical reason as to why you dont like lima beans? Sure, they taste like dirt but they are pretty healthy and can help your body as a whole. Would you prefer the lima bean or some other option to help your body?

Some here love the lima bean whereas others hate that lima bean and would prefer something that taste a little better to their liking... For the time being, im leaning on liking that lima bean but if it EVER lays down another bunt in its career...that lima bean's going down the disposal.

guttle11
05-22-2006, 02:20 PM
I'm not twisting anything.

I'm asking for whatever amount of value his faults cost us, and you're refusing to provide any information.

You say he has faults. Fine, what's their negative value?

It's as simple as that.


You said he has faults, as well.

You're asking me to argue a point I've never made. I bet you're just waiting with some stats of your own to throw out at me just to prove me wrong and prove your dominance on this board. Talk about smug...

I think I'm done with this place for a while. Too many people like this guy just waiting for anyone to disagree with them so they can prove them "wrong" and show their "knowledge."

No amount of player bashing can approach that level of annoying.

registerthis
05-22-2006, 02:22 PM
You say he has faults. Fine, what's their negative value?

It's as simple as that.

That's not really a fair question, IMO, because not everyone on this board possesses the ability and knowhow to analyze and study statistics to the level that posters such as yourself can, Cyclone. Doing what you're asking isn't "simple", it requires a very thorough understanding of various statistics and how they relate to one another. Perhaps you believe that if he is incapable/unwilling to go through the rigors of an in-depth statistical anlysis, it's not his right to hold an opinion on this topic--or at least he should expect to receive flak if he does. Fair enough. But an opinion based on observation rather than statistical analysis isn't necessarily faulty.

I, too, am tired of the seemingly endless attacks on Dunn and his performance. I, too, wish that some people would have a better understanding of the numbers that drive the game. But expecting every poster with a contrary opinion to be able to provide a summarized analysis of statistics to the level that you do is simply expecting too much, IMO, and is what leads to many of the disagreements between the "statheads" and the "traditionalists" that have arisen on this board in recent weeks.

Cyclone792
05-22-2006, 02:26 PM
You said he has faults, as well.

You're asking me to argue a point I've never made. I bet you're just waiting with some stats of your own to throw out at me just to prove me wrong and prove your dominance on this board. Talk about smug...

I think I'm done with this place for a while. Too many people like this guy just waiting for anyone to disagree with them so they can prove them "wrong" and show their "knowledge."

No amount of player bashing can approach that level of annoying.

Adam Dunn does have faults. He does cost the team some amount of negative value with his defense in the neighborhood of about 7-10 runs per season, depending on the fielding metric. That was real hard to type, let me tell you.

Got another fielding metric that claims otherwise? Let's take a look at it. It may be more accurate, but we'll never know if you don't bring it up.

And here's some points you "never made"


His defense is not good, his base running is suspect at best, and he just doesn't seem to "get it" when it comes to being a great player.

I'm asking you to argue those points and provide some run value as to their worth.

M2
05-22-2006, 02:30 PM
I bet you're just waiting with some stats of your own to throw out at me just to prove me wrong and prove your dominance on this board. Talk about smug...

Enjoy your paranoia.

Here's someone actively NOT ignoring Dunn's faults, but instead trying to discuss what their effect is and you won't have any of it. Seems clear to me your intent here isn't to talk about Adam Dunn.

BCubb2003
05-22-2006, 02:36 PM
I do have a question about the runs created formula. Is it true that the only element in the formula that actually produces a run is the sac fly? On some unlikely level, you could have a huge runs created number while never actually producing a run. In real life, all those bases acquired tend to push runs home. And the runs created total supposedly comes pretty close to the team's actual runs total. But doesn't it, like the RBI, depend on the performance of other players? Dunn could be acquiring all kinds of bases, but if Hatteberg, Valentin and McCracken aren't driving him in, the runs aren't being created. Should the runs created factor in left on base? Should there be an on base percentage in innings that don't produce a run?

guttle11
05-22-2006, 02:37 PM
Adam Dunn does have faults. He does cost the team some amount of negative value with his defense in the neighborhood of about 7-10 runs per season, depending on the fielding metric. That was real hard to type, let me tell you.

Got another fielding metric that claims otherwise? Let's take a look at it. It may be more accurate, but we'll never know if you don't bring it up.

And here's some points you "never made"



I'm asking you to argue those points and provide some run value as to their worth.

Ah, there you go again. Find for me where I ever said that Adam Dunn "costs" the team anything and I'll play your little game. Since you can't do that, have fun popping around the board proving everyone who has a different opinion than you wrong and wowing everyone with your vast "knowledge" of things other people came up with.

Again, I'm done with this place and people like you for a while. The egos kill this place more than the "Adam Dunn suxxx!111!!1!" people.

flyer85
05-22-2006, 02:37 PM
Enjoy your paranoia.Nah, you guys are really out to get him. :bash:

Krusty
05-22-2006, 02:43 PM
Since I took the anti-Dunn approach for sake of argument, I got a worst beating than Vito took on the Sopranos Sunday night.

I will now turn my discussions to the Paris Hilton/Matt Leniart affair.

NJReds
05-22-2006, 02:43 PM
No, it's not about any of them. It's about statistics, namely a colossal misunderstanding by several people to comprehend which statistics are vastly more valuable than others. Several people have a fondness for obsessing over inaccurate measures of player performance, especially RBI and BA w/RISP, and have absolutely zero concept about the lack of validity those stats carry. When presented with actual, factual evidence that those specific statistics are very poor indicators of a player's performance, those same people either ignore the evidence or respond in a way that shows that they have absolutely no desire to do anything except spout their own heavily misinformed opinion.


I'm by no means a statistician. But I appreciate the effort and research that go into the statistical analysis that go on here at Redszone. That's why I stick around.

pedro
05-22-2006, 02:47 PM
I know a lot of folks are very enamored by the BA with RISP stat.

While I admit it would be nice if Adam Dunn hit for a higher BA,especially with RISP, I want to draw a comparison between two players to make a point. (I am using the three year splits 2003-2005)

Juan Encarnacion



By Situation AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB HBP SO SB CS AVG OBP SLG OPS

Scoring Position 432 149 125 23 5 11 169 48 10 66 3 2 .289 .365 .442 .807


Adam Dunn




By Situation AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB HBP SO SB CS AVG OBP SLG OPS

Scoring Position 365 183 82 22 0 27 150 127 10 122 8 2 .225 .431 .507 .938



Now, by the metric (BA w/ RISP) that the anti-Dunn crowd likes to use in its' arguments, Juan Encarnacion is clearly better player than Adam Dunn because his BA w/ RISP is much higher. And yet, Dunn is producing an RBI every 2.43 AB's within this period while Encarnacion is producing an RBI every 2.55 AB's.

Furthermore, over that entire period Encarnacion only had 232 in 1591 AB's (1 RBI every 6.85 AB's)

During that same period Dunn had a total of 260 RBI's in 1492 AB's (1 RBI every 5.7 AB's)

Additionally during that same period Encarnacion scored 202 runs while Dunn scored 282.

How can this be if BA with RISP is the most important factor in evaluating a supposed middle of the order hitter?

M2
05-22-2006, 02:48 PM
I do have a question about the runs created formula. Is it true that the only element in the formula that actually produces a run is the sac fly? On some unlikely level, you could have a huge runs created number while never actually producing a run. In real life, all those bases acquired tend to push runs home. And the runs created total supposedly comes pretty close to the team's actual runs total. But doesn't it, like the RBI, depend on the performance of other players? Dunn could be acquiring all kinds of bases, but if Hatteberg, Valentin and McCracken aren't driving him in, the runs aren't being created. Should the runs created factor in left on base? Should there be an on base percentage in innings that don't produce a run?

RC is more quantum that linear in nature. The short answer is that the formula doesn't work if you don't take the more universal view with it. Oddly, what we've learned about offense is that it works better when you take a universal of it. It's a complex set of interdependencies based on same rather simple principles (get on base, rack up the total bases).

Heath
05-22-2006, 02:54 PM
All I know is that, historically speaking, that the average major leaguer will fail 7.5 times out of 10 at bats. By fail, I mean that someone gets an out.

And, statiscally speaking, the more runs you score than the other team, generally will give you wins.

Now, that Dr. Obvious has left the building - here's the point.

Statistics are baseball. Like the Dow Market tracks stocks and historical trends and future projections, all the different types of statistics in baseball are used to analyize player performance. I mean, when I invest my 401(k) money, I don't choose my stocks/mutual funds because "They Have Veteran Stock Director Precesence" or "They Know How To Invest The Right Way". I look at this historical data and what shape the market is in now, compared to long-term financial goals. I even have an advisor (a "Manager" if you will) who helps with the research and keeps me up-to-date on trends.

Same stuff with baseball. It's almost ignorant to forget about "past performance". Past Performance is a key to evaluating talent and dissecting trends and future performance. Baseball has been a thinking man's game for a very long time, and the mathematical data waiting to be analyzed is simply mind-boggling.

The baseball season is a glorious occasion that covers parts of 2 equinoxes and an solistice. Its a marathon, not a sprint. It's patience, determination, and the crests of winning streaks and the valleys of losing streaks. This isn't football, slammed into 4 months, nor is it the artificially length generated by the NBA or NHL. In this micro-wave, fast-food, give-it-to-me-now, what-have-you-done-for-me-lately world, baseball basically is the anti-speed.

There is an old cartoon by Charles Schultz with Charlie Brown and Lucy discussing the team stats. After Lucy breaks it down, Charlie Brown, with a defiant glare at Lucy says 'Lucy, tell your statistics to shut up."

There are those in the Charlie Brown Camp...and those in Lucy's camp. But, hey its baseball and that's what matters.

And woy looks bad in a dress. Unless its Halloween :D

pedro
05-22-2006, 02:56 PM
Nice analogy Heath.

KittyDuran
05-22-2006, 02:59 PM
Now, by the metric (BA w/ RISP) that the anti-Dunn crowd likes to use in its' arguments, Juan Encarnacion is clearly better player than Adam Dunn because his BA w/ RISP is much higher. And yet, Dunn is producing an RBI every 2.43 AB's within this period while Encarnacion is producing an RBI every 2.55 AB's."anti-Dunn crowd"??? Painting with a broad brush aren't we? I only know of one person that would truly be called that - BF. But hey! I'm anti-Dunn and I demand my money back from the Reds (for the figurines) and Skyline for the special cup...:p:

BCubb2003
05-22-2006, 02:59 PM
Is there a way to turn the anecdotes into a stat? To be fair to the other side, is it possible to count the "bases acquired but stranded"? We can call it BABS.

pedro
05-22-2006, 03:07 PM
"anti-Dunn crowd"??? Painting with a broad brush aren't we? I only know of one person that would truly be called that - BF. But hey! I'm anti-Dunn and I demand my money back from the Reds (for the figurines) and Skyline for the special cup...:p:

I guess I could call them the "pro aurilia" crowd because those are pretty much the only two players that come up in discussion about BA w/ RISP.

And honestly, I think "anti-dunn crowd" is a fair categorization considering the number of threads that have been created to bash him during his recent slump.

NJReds
05-22-2006, 03:07 PM
Is there a way to turn the anecdotes into a stat? To be fair to the other side, is it possible to count the "bases acquired but stranded"? We can call it BABS.

AKA: KRISP?

Heath
05-22-2006, 03:19 PM
AKA: KRISP?

mmmmm....donuts....

Cyclone792
05-22-2006, 03:21 PM
Ah, there you go again. Find for me where I ever said that Adam Dunn "costs" the team anything and I'll play your little game. Since you can't do that, have fun popping around the board proving everyone who has a different opinion than you wrong and wowing everyone with your vast "knowledge" of things other people came up with.

Again, I'm done with this place and people like you for a while. The egos kill this place more than the "Adam Dunn suxxx!111!!1!" people.

Like M2 said, enjoy being paranoid.

You said Dunn's defense is not good and his baserunning is suspect.

When asked to elaborate, place a value on it and put in its proper context given Adam Dunn, the overall player, you've flatly refused.


That's not really a fair question, IMO, because not everyone on this board possesses the ability and knowhow to analyze and study statistics to the level that posters such as yourself can, Cyclone. Doing what you're asking isn't "simple", it requires a very thorough understanding of various statistics and how they relate to one another. Perhaps you believe that if he is incapable/unwilling to go through the rigors of an in-depth statistical anlysis, it's not his right to hold an opinion on this topic--or at least he should expect to receive flak if he does. Fair enough. But an opinion based on observation rather than statistical analysis isn't necessarily faulty.

I, too, am tired of the seemingly endless attacks on Dunn and his performance. I, too, wish that some people would have a better understanding of the numbers that drive the game. But expecting every poster with a contrary opinion to be able to provide a summarized analysis of statistics to the level that you do is simply expecting too much, IMO, and is what leads to many of the disagreements between the "statheads" and the "traditionalists" that have arisen on this board in recent weeks.

There are people who have opinions and always try to maintain an open mind, no matter their knowledge of statistics, baseball history, etc. And then there are people who have opinions and wouldn't know what an open mind was if it smacked them in the face.

I've learned an incredible amount in my time here from a vast array of posters, all of whom have made this an enjoyable board, and contrary to what many people may believe, they all aren't the statheads of this board, either. People don't have to be statheads to provide outstanding input, and I appreciate those people as much as the statheads. Collectively, those are the posters that make this a fine board, and there's plenty of those posters around.

The posters that get annoying are the ones that consistently remain close-minded and continue to harp on subjects with absolutely no basis of fact and no desire to step outside their own little world.

BCubb2003
05-22-2006, 03:26 PM
AKA: KRISP?

It would be closer to "Walks with runners in scoring position and first base open." It would probably be a flawed statistic but it might reveal something.

Runners on second and third, batter walks, runners ended up stranded. Runner has acquired a base, but no runs scored.

Or batter hits a double, steals third, and is stranded there. Batter has acquired three bases, but still no runs score.

Or this:

Batter walks, and the next batter hits a home run. The first batter acquired one base, which led to a run.

Another batter hits a triple, and is stranded there. This batter has acquired three bases, none of which led to a run.

Next batter walks, and steals second. These two batters have acquired five bases and no runs.

Next batter hits a triple, acquiring the same number of bases as the other triple, but produces two runs.

I'm just trying to turn all these anecdotes into something we can measure.

redsfan30
05-22-2006, 03:32 PM
I just wanted to throw my two cents in here.

I think there have been two seperate groups formed wrongingly. The group "for" Dunn, and the group "against" Dunn. This is absurd. There are no "groups" as it appears there is. We are all Reds fans and we are all rooting for the same thing....wins. Just because someone points out something negative about Dunn does not mean they are "against" him.

I think this board has somewhat of a tone that where some people think if you don't use stats in your posts you are not "educated" and they take your opinion as invalid. That's not right. Nor is it right to say those who do indulge themselves in the numbers don't enjoy the game, they just watch it to be right.

When it comes to my opinion of Dunn, I'm in the middle. I don't think he is anywhere near as bad as one half makes him out to be, but I also don't think he's near as good as the other half makes him out to be.

I'd really like to go more indepth on this, but to do so I need to have my thoughts more organized and right now I just don't have the time to do so.

Even though I know my opinions on this subject are just a tear drop in the ocean, I'll be back later on tonight to go more indepth....if this thread hasn't been closed by then.

KittyDuran
05-22-2006, 03:43 PM
Close the thread! Where's ochre when we need him?


When it comes to my opinion of Dunn, I'm in the middle. I don't think he is anywhere near as bad as one half makes him out to be, but I also don't think he's near as good as the other half makes him out to be.Post of the year! :beerme:

M2
05-22-2006, 03:50 PM
I don't think he is anywhere near as bad as one half makes him out to be, but I also don't think he's near as good as the other half makes him out to be.

The main pro-Dunn argument I see having to be made again and again is that he helps a team score piles of runs. It's inarguably true and it's ridiculous that it has to be made ten times a day in response to the constant flow of nonsense that he doesn't contribute all that much to the offense. He's as good as he is in that regard -- not the best, but awfully good.

Frankly, I think you'd be hard-pressed to find many posts wildly overstating his value while you can find scads of them every day that wildly understate it.

This is not a two equally relevant sides to an argument with the truth lying in the middle situation. This is a case of folks arguing a mythology contrary to the reality of the situation. Seeking to claim some sort of faux middle ground, IMO, only lends credence to what has usually been a preposterous case made against the guy. I'm open to all manner of topics concerning Adam Dunn -- how to improve his hitting mechanics, what his optimal lineup placement should be, where he needs to be positioned defensively, whether the team would be better in the long run to trade him, how he needs to approach the shift, etc.

What I've lost any and all tolerance for is the lunatic notion that he doesn't deserve credit for the things he clearly does well and that meaningless stats should somehow supercede meaningful ones.

registerthis
05-22-2006, 03:53 PM
The posters that get annoying are the ones that consistently remain close-minded and continue to harp on subjects with absolutely no basis of fact and no desire to step outside their own little world.

There are several aspects of posters on this board that I find annoying, not just one. I'm not going to go any further with this for fear of completely derailing the thread, but I will say that the tendency to belligerently hammer home points of view to the point of redundancy is a trait shared equally by members of both camps. And I don't have a dog in this fight, so I'm not picking sides here. Just sharing my observations of a thread that is discussing some interestng and relevant points but has unfortunately turned a bit nasty.

ochre
05-22-2006, 03:58 PM
Close the thread! Where's ochre when we need him?

Post of the year! :beerme:
:wave: