PDA

View Full Version : Narron not the source of Dunn bunt



Wheelhouse
05-22-2006, 07:07 AM
From the Dayton Daily News:

"The score was 0-0 and Austin Kearns was hit by a pitch with no outs. Dunn bunted, his second career sacrifice bunt and first since May 16, 2002.
In the dugout, Narron was dumbfounded, shocked, stunned. In the Detroit dugout, manager Jim Leyland was dancing and shouting, "Amen and hallelujah.
"I'm disappointed, really disappointed," said Narron. "If we were down two runs with nobody out, I can see Dunn trying to bunt for a hit. But he was the winning run and I would have loved to have seen him swing the bat. I was the most shocked person in the ball park.
"Do you think I'm going to have Adam Dunn bunt? For us to win, we can't do stupid things and that's what we did at the end of the game, as simple as that," Narron added."

Redhook
05-22-2006, 07:51 AM
I don't want to bash Dunn on this, even though this was the wrong time to bunt, but it is nice to see Narron calling out his players for making ridiculous mistakes. No one is above being held accountable for their mistakes, including Dunn.

Redhook
05-22-2006, 08:10 AM
Another thought just occurred to me. Is Dunn losing his confidence? He's obviously in a slump, but I don't think Dunn should ever bunt in that situation, even if he's struck out 15 times in a row. I want Dunn up there swinging away with the thought that he could win this thing win one swing. Also, Kearns was pitched around in the 4th to get to Dunn with the bases loaded. We all know the result, but what do you think Dunn was thinking? 'Walking Kearns to get to me'? Then he K's.....his confidence has to be at a career low. Not a good sign.

Heath
05-22-2006, 08:25 AM
Adam Dunn was bunting for a hit, because no one would have expected it. Even Marty was impressed. A few inches over (according to the radio anyway) and it was a hit.

Sometimes things out of the ordinary jumpstarts you. Maybe that's what Dunn's trying to do.

RedFanAlways1966
05-22-2006, 09:03 AM
Adam Dunn was bunting for a hit, because no one would have expected it. Even Marty was impressed. A few inches over (according to the radio anyway) and it was a hit.

Sometimes things out of the ordinary jumpstarts you. Maybe that's what Dunn's trying to do.

Common sense, Heath? I like common sense. :thumbup:

RFS62
05-22-2006, 09:17 AM
It's pretty obvious that he read the "Reds need to bunt more" thread on ORG.

OnBaseMachine
05-22-2006, 09:18 AM
Another thought just occurred to me. Is Dunn losing his confidence? He's obviously in a slump, but I don't think Dunn should ever bunt in that situation, even if he's struck out 15 times in a row. I want Dunn up there swinging away with the thought that he could win this thing win one swing. Also, Kearns was pitched around in the 4th to get to Dunn with the bases loaded. We all know the result, but what do you think Dunn was thinking? 'Walking Kearns to get to me'? Then he K's.....his confidence has to be at a career low. Not a good sign.

Nate Robertson has a .551 OPS vs lefties this year and .751 vs righties. That's why he pitched around Kearns.

smith288
05-22-2006, 09:25 AM
I agree with Narron 110%. It was DUMB. Nobody will change my mind about that and its one of the major reasons im going to boycott watching the reds for a week.

Its more for my own sanity than it is to take it to the man. Im not trying to be a "i quit" type of Reds fan. Its a "man...they are going to drive me into an episode of 'Cops'" and that Dunn bunt JUST about put me over the edge.

oneupper
05-22-2006, 09:28 AM
Dunn needs a couple of days off. His head is messed up more than his swing (two dingers in the DET series).
Bring up Ross, give him a start or two in LF. Let Dunn see that the team can play without him and let him chill a bit. When he gets back into the lineup hopefully he won't feel like the weight of the team is entirely on his shoulders.

And by doing that, you can give Kearns a day or two off also...because he needs to get his swing back.

Heath
05-22-2006, 10:01 AM
Common sense, Heath? I like common sense. :thumbup:

On top of that, I'm a Reds Fan. I need a psychiatric evaluation :dunno: ;)

Carin4Narron
05-22-2006, 10:02 AM
Narron should fine Dunn for his action

Red Heeler
05-22-2006, 10:21 AM
I suspect that there are too many cooks in the kitchen re Dunn's hitting. I'm pretty sure that Narron or somebody else has been bugging Dunn about bunting around the shift. So, Dunn gives it a shot, and Narron calls him out for it.

Johnny Footstool
05-22-2006, 10:54 AM
Sometimes things out of the ordinary jumpstarts you. Maybe that's what Dunn's trying to do.

A home run would have jumpstarted him even more.

Dunn bunting is like Harang throwing underhanded.

Heath
05-22-2006, 11:10 AM
A home run would have jumpstarted him even more.

I said at the beginning of that sentence "Things out of the ordinary".

An Adam Dunn bunt-for-a-hit is out of the ordinary. Its like maple syrup on the condiment stand at the GABP. Would have a strikeout been better in that situation because he was "trying"? What's Adam's HR per AB ratio this year? Is it time for a HR?

I think it takes marbles to bunt in that situation. I also think that he saw something on the infield that would have made it easier to get on base via a bunt. I'm impressed he thought outside the box.

It's too bad it didn't work out. He's on a pace where every 7.5 times up anyway, he gets an out.

flyer85
05-22-2006, 11:23 AM
I thought productive outs were good things?

Heath
05-22-2006, 11:26 AM
I thought productive outs were good things?

This is Adam Dunn however. If some people saw him walk out of the clubhouse with a wrinkled shirt, you could bet there would be a 21 page thread about his choice in clothes.

Cedric
05-22-2006, 11:34 AM
I thought productive outs were good things?

I've never seen anyone say that any situation can be a productive out. It all depends on the situation.

Johnny Footstool
05-22-2006, 11:38 AM
I thought productive outs were good things?

"Productive outs" are oxymorons most of the time.

flyer85
05-22-2006, 11:39 AM
People complain when Dunn Ks and now people complain when he makes a productive out. :dunno:

I guess the only hope for Dunn is to hit a HR in every AB, otherwise someone will always be complaining.

Cedric
05-22-2006, 11:41 AM
Who cares what people complain about. People complain about the stupidest stuff. That doesn't mean I want Griffey and Dunn bunting in that situation just to apease the morons.

flyer85
05-22-2006, 11:43 AM
Griffey and Dunn bunting in that situation just to apease the morons.Maybe Chris Welsh is listening, but I doubt it. :D

BUTLER REDSFAN
05-22-2006, 11:51 AM
did the coachs tell dunn to run from 3rd on the grounder to third??

flyer85
05-22-2006, 11:52 AM
did the coachs tell dunn to run from 3rd on the grounder to third??Does it matter?

smith288
05-22-2006, 12:09 PM
did the coachs tell dunn to run from 3rd on the grounder to third??
That was an out on instinct. It was a chopper to third that Dunn thought he could make.

The bunt was a predetermined decision Dunn made. Not only did it not give himself a chance to do serious damage, it also gave detroit one of our outs.

It was S-T-U-P-I-D. If FeLo does it, fine. If Hatte does it, uh, ok, but I see what he is trying to do.

If Dunn does it, its a dumb move that takes the threat away.

CTA513
05-22-2006, 12:23 PM
Does it matter?

I just wish the catcher would have stayed over homeplate instead of stepping to the side, that way Dunn could have flattened him and had a better chance of dropping the ball.

flyer85
05-22-2006, 12:27 PM
I just wish the catcher would have stayed over homeplate instead of stepping to the side, that way Dunn could have flattened him and had a better chance of dropping the ball.Wilson is obviously not a dumb guy, he saw Dunn lining him up and fortunately for him had enough time to partially get out of the way.

Johnny Footstool
05-22-2006, 12:40 PM
People complain when Dunn Ks and now people complain when he makes a productive out. :dunno:

I guess the only hope for Dunn is to hit a HR in every AB, otherwise someone will always be complaining.

I don't complain when he takes his normal approach and Ks. I only start complaining when he gives himself up at the plate by bunting. The guy is the toughest out on the team, and he can get to 1B quiet easily by walking.


Would have a strikeout been better in that situation because he was "trying"? What's Adam's HR per AB ratio this year? Is it time for a HR?

A strikeout wouldn't have bothered me as much because Dunn would have been taking his normal approach.

It's never "time" for a HR when you square around to bunt.

RedFanAlways1966
05-22-2006, 01:23 PM
None of this would be discussed right now IF...

LaRue and/or Phillips do their job when having men on 2nd and 3rd with less than 2 outs... which they DID NOT do. Instead they both hit easy hoppers to the 3rd baseman. Any grief for these guys for not doing the job w/ RISP and less than 2 outs? Just hope all the REDS fans DID NOT forget that.

LaRue or Phillips do their job at the plate and... this discussion does not exist. Substitute Griffey or Dunn for LaRue or Phillips and there will be people here reading the riot act about that inning when the REDS lose 1-0.

Oh well. Adam shouldn't be bunting. And we should be talking more about LaRue and Phillips failures than Dunn's successful sacrifice.

Johnny Footstool
05-22-2006, 01:41 PM
None of this would be discussed right now IF...

LaRue and/or Phillips do their job when having men on 2nd and 3rd with less than 2 outs... which they DID NOT do. Instead they both hit easy hoppers to the 3rd baseman. Any grief for these guys for not doing the job w/ RISP and less than 2 outs? Just hope all the REDS fans DID NOT forget that.

LaRue or Phillips do their job at the plate and... this discussion does not exist. Substitute Griffey or Dunn for LaRue or Phillips and there will be people here reading the riot act about that inning when the REDS lose 1-0.

Oh well. Adam shouldn't be bunting. And we should be talking more about LaRue and Phillips failures than Dunn's successful sacrifice.

I agree completely.

Wheelhouse
05-22-2006, 02:10 PM
People complain when Dunn Ks and now people complain when he makes a productive out. :dunno:

I guess the only hope for Dunn is to hit a HR in every AB, otherwise someone will always be complaining.

Nope. I'd be happy if Dunn homered occasionally with a man on base.

Wheelhouse
05-22-2006, 02:17 PM
Adam Dunn was bunting for a hit, because no one would have expected it. Even Marty was impressed. A few inches over (according to the radio anyway) and it was a hit.

Sometimes things out of the ordinary jumpstarts you. Maybe that's what Dunn's trying to do.

Do you have any data to back that opinion up? ;) Just kidding. I can see your reasoning, but why do that when you need two runs and you are on the road and need to play for the win, not a the tie? I'm fine if Dunn needs to do that, but not in that situation.

flyer85
05-22-2006, 02:18 PM
Nope. I'd be happy if Dunn homered occasionally with a man on base.might have to do with pitchers giving a lot less to hit when batting with runners on. One thing that is certainly true about Dunn(and most other HR hitters), they hit mistakes for HRs, not pitchers pitches.

Mario-Rijo
05-22-2006, 02:18 PM
I was stunned to see it and automatically knew it would be an issue. He was the winning run of course and you have to swing the bat in that situation if you are a run producer. However he was thinking to himself that we could easily tie this up if I bunt him to 2nd which they will never expect and I might just get on base as well 2 on w/ 0 outs will really ruffle Jonesie's feathers. I understand Narron's point, but for him to call him out like that is foolish. Now if he is trying to be selfish I could see it, but he is being selfless and trying to just get a run on the board on a day where neither team has had much luck in scoring. I mean it's the same scenario if he walks except they double him up on one of those grounders to 3rd.

Narron wants him to be a run producer as do we all, but a guy who takes over a 100 walks a season has a different mindset. In order to change that mindset you don't offend the guy in the newspaper. Just sayin'.

redsrule2500
05-22-2006, 02:46 PM
Why was it dumb?

Adam Dunn can't hit at all with Runners on base, so I think it was worth a shot. Nobody expected, not even Narron - and it almost worked. If it would have worked, everyone would be singing a different song.

BUTLER REDSFAN
05-22-2006, 02:48 PM
Does it matter?
---my point is if he was told to stay at third,then bunting on his own then maybe our star player isnt listening to coachs,thats not a good sign

flyer85
05-22-2006, 02:52 PM
---my point is if he was told to stay at third,then bunting on his own then maybe our star player isnt listening to coachs,thats not a good signYou're never told to stay at third, it is always the baserunners decision to break unless the "contact play" is on which means you run on any ground ball.

Not listening to coaches would only make sense if he was told not to bunt or was told to stay at third and it is HIGHLY unlikely the former happened an no way the latter happened.

Dunn's getting thrown out at the plate put the Reds in no worse position than his having stayed and Phillips getting thrown at first.

flyer85
05-22-2006, 02:54 PM
I was stunned to see it and automatically knew it would be an issue. and if he had struck out it would have been an issue so in the end the real issue was going to be lack of success.

M2
05-22-2006, 03:03 PM
I actually like the idea of bunting against the shift and taking the free hit in that situation.

You're almost assured of getting an outside pitch. Problem is Dunn probably doesn't have the skill to push the ball up the 3B line. It's something he'd need to practice a lot before he whipped it with any sort of success in a game situation.

Even more ideal would be looking to cue the ball down the 3B line and move the runner to third. Again, I don't know that Dunn's got that swing, but it would be a good one to learn since he's likely to be seeing the shift the rest of his life. Master that and he could pick up enough cheap hits to become a .300 hitter.

Heath
05-22-2006, 03:12 PM
Do you have any data to back that opinion up? ;) Just kidding. I can see your reasoning, but why do that when you need two runs and you are on the road and need to play for the win, not a the tie? I'm fine if Dunn needs to do that, but not in that situation.

It's part of the whole "out of the ordinary" scene.

Maybe Dunn shoulda just kicked back and popped a Corona. That's at least miles from ordinary.

osuceltic
05-22-2006, 03:15 PM
Look, Dunn isn't a smart player. He has never shown any sense for situational baseball either at the plate, in the field or on the basepaths. He strikes me as a guy who has played the game because he's good at it, not because he loves it. I don't think he has watched a lot of baseball in his life and I doubt he's a student of the game now. It's frustrating, especially for purists who really appreciate the finer points of the game. But it is who he is. Narron is just trying to make sure it doesn't happen again. For a guy like Narron, that bunt had to almost cause a stroke. It's just not good baseball. His heart may have been in the right place, but his head wasn't.

There is some frustration with Dunn among many posters because of his trend toward becoming a player who helps you with HRs and walks but little else. For example, if you take away his 15 HRs this season (I know, I know), he has a .145 BA and .188 slugging percentage. He has 15 HRs and only 28 RBI. And his struggles with runners on base this season have been well documented. The arguments about being pitched around just ring hollow. Other good hitters face the same pitching approach. They get it done. The Reds, as has been pointed out here many times, are among the most potent offensive teams in baseball. If there isn't enough protection in this linuep, then what does he need?

And for me anyway, all this would be a little more acceptable if I didn't see a guy regressing. He's worse defensively now than he was the day he arrived from AAA. This was a guy who was a .300 hitter throughout the minors and hit for a good average when he arrived. But pitchers have adjusted and he hasn't. So he's a guy who hits a lot of home runs and draws a lot of walks, but he contributes almost nothing else. His other at-bats are terrible. His defense is terrible. His base-running is terrible. His baseball IQ is terrible.

There are different kinds of baseball fans. Some can watch a player like this and be completely satisfied with the package -- the HRs and walks make him a very good offensive player even when he contributes nothing else. Personally, I'm frustrated. I see a guy who is a good athlete and capable of more. Instead we have a good, but very flawed, player.

osuceltic
05-22-2006, 03:20 PM
You're never told to stay at third, it is always the baserunners decision to break unless the "contact play" is on which means you run on any ground ball.

Not listening to coaches would only make sense if he was told not to bunt or was told to stay at third and it is HIGHLY unlikely the former happened an no way the latter happened.

Dunn's getting thrown out at the plate put the Reds in no worse position than his having stayed and Phillips getting thrown at first.
That was a terrible play. A guy with Dunn's uh ... speed ... has to see the ball through the left side of the infield before breaking. The only exception is if it's a ball to the left of the shortstop, toward second. Then he might break because the fielder is moving away from the play and would have trouble making a quick, strong throw. That was just terrible baseball and you learn that at a very young age.

And there is a huge difference between having a runner on third and a runner on first, even with two out. A wild pitch, a passed ball, a balk, a base hit, an error all score the runner from third. None of them score the runner from first.

flyer85
05-22-2006, 03:26 PM
That was a terrible play. A guy with Dunn's uh ... speed ... has to see the ball through the left side of the infield before breaking. The only exception is if it's a ball to the left of the shortstop, toward second. Then he might break because the fielder is moving away from the play and would have trouble making a quick, strong throw. That was just terrible baseball and you learn that at a very young age.

And there is a huge difference between having a runner on third and a runner on first, even with two out. A wild pitch, a passed ball, a balk, a base hit, an error all score the runner from third. None of them score the runner from first.For those actually watching and comprehending, there was a runner on 3rd after the play, EE. Followed by a Phillips steal which put runners on 2nd and 3rd exactly where they were before the Phillips GB, except the speed of said runners has increased actually putting the Reds in a better position. Hey, but don't ever let the facts get in the way of an argument.

TeamBoone
05-22-2006, 03:29 PM
I think Dunn's been pretty good in the OF recently... opening day sticks in people craw. He could be perfect in the OF from now on until the end of the season and everyone would say his defense stinks because opening day is all they can remember.

jimbo
05-22-2006, 03:44 PM
I think Dunn's been pretty good in the OF recently... opening day sticks in people craw. He could be perfect in the OF from now on until the end of the season and everyone would say his defense stinks because opening day is all they can remember.

Ahhhh.....you might just be on to something.

I think some fans are just having a hard time accepting Dunn for what he is. He is a mediocre outfielder who is slow, going to strikeout a lot, hit for low average, but also hit 40+ home runs, 100+ rbis, and score 100+ runs a season. He is what he is. He will never be a Pujols type player. He gets paid well for those three stats and there isn't a team in the league that wouldn't benefit from having a player like him.

CTA513
05-22-2006, 03:48 PM
I think Dunn's been pretty good in the OF recently... opening day sticks in people craw. He could be perfect in the OF from now on until the end of the season and everyone would say his defense stinks because opening day is all they can remember.

If I remember right he made some good plays in the outfield this weekend.
The bad plays stick in peoples minds like how bad Hammond was at the start of the season. In March & April his ERA was 16.20, while this month his ERA is 1.08.

osuceltic
05-22-2006, 03:50 PM
For those actually watching and comprehending, there was a runner on 3rd after the play, EE. Followed by a Phillips steal which put runners on 2nd and 3rd exactly where they were before the Phillips GB, except the speed of said runners has increased actually putting the Reds in a better position. Hey, but don't ever let the facts get in the way of an argument.
You're right. Of course, they were at second and third without the steal before Dunn was thrown out. If Phillips is thrown out stealing, the argument might be different. But you're right and I'm wrong. I comprehend that just fine.

flyer85
05-22-2006, 03:56 PM
You're right. Of course, they were at second and third without the steal before Dunn was thrown out. If Phillips is thrown out stealing, the argument might be different. But you're right and I'm wrong. I comprehend that just fine.Gosh and I was hoping for an apology to Adam. :eek:

SteelSD
05-22-2006, 03:57 PM
Nope. I'd be happy if Dunn homered occasionally with a man on base.

Boy, you're going to be jumping for joy now!

Over the past two seasons, no National League hitter other than Albert Pujols has hit more Home Runs with Runners On than Adam Dunn.

During that span, 46% of Pujols HR were hit with at least one man on base. Dunn? A whopping 43%. That's elite.

Sounds like you should be happy about that, because it means Dunn does really well at something you said you'd be happy about if he did it well.

Patrick Bateman
05-22-2006, 03:59 PM
Boy, you're going to be jumping for joy now!

Over the past two seasons, no National League hitter other than Albert Pujols has hit more Home Runs with Runners On than Adam Dunn.

During that span, 46% of Pujols HR were hit with at least one man on base. Dunn? A whopping 43%. That's elite.

Sounds like you should be happy about that, because it means Dunn does really well at something you said you'd be happy about if he did it well.

Steel, he said occasionally. Dunn does it far too often to fit the requirements.

flyer85
05-22-2006, 03:59 PM
Boy, you're going to be jumping for joy now!
:jump:

Wheelhouse
05-22-2006, 04:03 PM
For those actually watching and comprehending, there was a runner on 3rd after the play, EE. Followed by a Phillips steal which put runners on 2nd and 3rd exactly where they were before the Phillips GB, except the speed of said runners has increased actually putting the Reds in a better position. Hey, but don't ever let the facts get in the way of an argument.
Way to go--don't just make your case, create some bad blood by putting someone down. Just what the board needs.

By the way, the Reds were not in the same position after the play--only after the following play and the success of the Phillips steal--a risk in itself, and not by any means sound strategy for the inning. Dunn returned to the dugout with his team in a worse position because of his play.

flyer85
05-22-2006, 04:08 PM
Way to go--don't just make your case, create some bad blood by putting someone down. What's even better is putting a player down (Dunn) by building your argument on a completely false scenario, one that is no way related to what actually occurred.

He made the statements, all I did was hand him the sign.

Wheelhouse
05-22-2006, 04:08 PM
Boy, you're going to be jumping for joy now!

Over the past two seasons, no National League hitter other than Albert Pujols has hit more Home Runs with Runners On than Adam Dunn.

During that span, 46% of Pujols HR were hit with at least one man on base. Dunn? A whopping 43%. That's elite.

Sounds like you should be happy about that, because it means Dunn does really well at something you said you'd be happy about if he did it well.

Terrific! We'll start a fantasy league and I'll take Pujols and you can have Dunn and I'll spot you the 3% difference! Great how things work out...

flyer85
05-22-2006, 04:11 PM
By the way, the Reds were not in the same position after the play--only after the following play and the success of the Phillips steal--a risk in itself, and not by any means sound strategy for the inning. Dunn returned to the dugout with his team in a worse position because of his play.Wow, let's ignore what actually occurred once again. Forget what really happened, lets just play "what if".

Let's see,

1)Inge could have made a bad throw
2) a late throw
3) an offline throw
4) Dunn could have knocked the ball loose
5) EE could have scored on a wild pitch that Dunn wouldn't have

etc, etc, etc

VR
05-22-2006, 04:18 PM
Look, Dunn isn't a smart player. He has never shown any sense for situational baseball either at the plate, in the field or on the basepaths. He strikes me as a guy who has played the game because he's good at it, not because he loves it. I don't think he has watched a lot of baseball in his life and I doubt he's a student of the game now. It's frustrating, especially for purists who really appreciate the finer points of the game. But it is who he is. Narron is just trying to make sure it doesn't happen again. For a guy like Narron, that bunt had to almost cause a stroke. It's just not good baseball. His heart may have been in the right place, but his head wasn't.

There is some frustration with Dunn among many posters because of his trend toward becoming a player who helps you with HRs and walks but little else. For example, if you take away his 15 HRs this season (I know, I know), he has a .145 BA and .188 slugging percentage. He has 15 HRs and only 28 RBI. And his struggles with runners on base this season have been well documented. The arguments about being pitched around just ring hollow. Other good hitters face the same pitching approach. They get it done. The Reds, as has been pointed out here many times, are among the most potent offensive teams in baseball. If there isn't enough protection in this linuep, then what does he need?

And for me anyway, all this would be a little more acceptable if I didn't see a guy regressing. He's worse defensively now than he was the day he arrived from AAA. This was a guy who was a .300 hitter throughout the minors and hit for a good average when he arrived. But pitchers have adjusted and he hasn't. So he's a guy who hits a lot of home runs and draws a lot of walks, but he contributes almost nothing else. His other at-bats are terrible. His defense is terrible. His base-running is terrible. His baseball IQ is terrible.

There are different kinds of baseball fans. Some can watch a player like this and be completely satisfied with the package -- the HRs and walks make him a very good offensive player even when he contributes nothing else. Personally, I'm frustrated. I see a guy who is a good athlete and capable of more. Instead we have a good, but very flawed, player.


Very solid points.

I hate the fact that Adam has the skills, but not the desire to be an uber elite player in this league. Not one facet of his game has improved since his arrival, and his that's aggravating. At the same time he is an high caliber player that is a screaming deal under his current contract. I think he makes Albert Pujols look like Mickey Morandini if he was a student of the game like Al. But he's not, yet still not far off from where Albert is. Anyone recall the different responses from Adam and Albert when asked to move to a new position? One went out and immediately started taking grounders to help make the team better.

I think Adam would be happy if he made enough $ for a new bass boat, an XBox, and unlimited bbq and Lucky Lager for his buddies.

That being said, I'm very, very glad he's on this team, hopefully for a long time.

Matt700wlw
05-22-2006, 04:22 PM
If Dunn homers, obviously this debate isn't taking place.

If Dunn K's, tying run stays at first. If Dunn flies out, runner possibly could have advanced. Dunn bunted, the tying run was at second, with Dunn, the winning run being thrown out at first.

What if Dunn would have successfully bunted a single? Then it'd be 1st and
2nd, with nobody out, only needing a base hit to get the lead. If this had happened, would this conversation be taking place?

I don't know....it may have been the wrong decision, but had it worked, he'd be looked at as the hero.

westofyou
05-22-2006, 04:27 PM
What if Dunn would have successfully bunted a single? Then it'd be 1st and
2nd, with nobody out, only needing a base hit to get the lead. If this had happened, would this conversation be taking place?

Possible, but the old adage is you play for the win on the road and the tie at home.

Wheelhouse
05-22-2006, 04:51 PM
Wow, let's ignore what actually occurred once again. Forget what really happened, lets just play "what if".

Let's see,

1)Inge could have made a bad throw
2) a late throw
3) an offline throw
4) Dunn could have knocked the ball loose
5) EE could have scored on a wild pitch that Dunn wouldn't have

etc, etc, etc

Wow, I can't believe you don't understand that the Phillips steal you referred to WAS a "what if" after Dunn's play...

flyer85
05-22-2006, 04:54 PM
Wow, I can't believe you don't understand that the Phillips steal you referred to WAS a "what if" after Dunn's play...It actually occurred in this universe, not sure about the one you inhabit.

What actually happened was
1) Dunn got thrown out at the plate
2) EE took 3rd and Phillips first
3) Phillips actually stole 2B without a throw. (the fact he could have been thrown out is rendered moot by the fact that he wasn't)

It really happened, trust me.

SteelSD
05-22-2006, 05:13 PM
Terrific!

Yeah, it is terrific. What'd be even more terrific would be you doing some fact checking before trying to say that someone does something poorly when they actually do said something really well.

You'd be wrong less often if you did that; which would make me happier. It might also put you in a better mood more often as you'd be right more often. So you doing your homework is really a win-win scenario for the both of us. I'd think that would be better than the zero-sum game that isn't at all working out for you.

forfreelin04
05-22-2006, 05:42 PM
Boy, you're going to be jumping for joy now!

Over the past two seasons, no National League hitter other than Albert Pujols has hit more Home Runs with Runners On than Adam Dunn.

During that span, 46% of Pujols HR were hit with at least one man on base. Dunn? A whopping 43%. That's elite.

Sounds like you should be happy about that, because it means Dunn does really well at something you said you'd be happy about if he did it well.

How many times was it just 1 man on base? 2 on base? In scoring posistion? A Close ballgame?

forfreelin04
05-22-2006, 05:52 PM
Personally, I have no problem with Dunn bunting. i do however have a problem with someone like McKraken not running for Kearns after he got on in the 9th. That would have put more pressure on the defense to actually pay attention to the runner. With Dunn up that is something that moves the odds more in our favor.

SteelSD
05-22-2006, 05:54 PM
How many times was it just 1 man on base? 2 on base? In scoring posistion? A Close ballgame?

Not necessarily relevant, but good questions. But, alas, I'm not your researcher.

The great thing about baseball is that every event is recorded so you shouldn't have any problem finding the answers if you choose to look for them.

Happy hunting.:thumbup:

reds44
05-22-2006, 05:55 PM
It really wasn't a bad play on Adam's part. He was a foot away from having a hit.

BRM
05-22-2006, 05:58 PM
Three year splits (2003-2005)

RISP

Dunn - 27 HRs in 365 ABs
Pujols - 31 HRs in 414 ABs

Close/Late

Dunn - 19 HRs in 228 ABs
Pujols - 20 HRs in 241 ABs

reds44
05-22-2006, 06:01 PM
Three year splits (2003-2005)

RISP

Dunn - 27 HRs in 365 ABs
Pujols - 31 HRs in 414 ABs

Close/Late

Dunn - 19 HRs in 228 ABs
Pujols - 20 HRs in 241 ABs
Adam Dunn is jsut as good of a homerun hitter as Pujols. As players they aren't even close though.

SteelSD
05-22-2006, 06:02 PM
Three year splits (2003-2005)

RISP

Dunn - 27 HRs in 365 ABs
Pujols - 31 HRs in 414 ABs

Close/Late

Dunn - 19 HRs in 228 ABs
Pujols - 20 HRs in 241 ABs

RISP

Dunn- 1 HR/13.52 AB
Pujols- 1 HR/13.35 AB

Close/Late

Dunn- 1 HR/12.00 AB
Pujols- 1 HR/12.05 AB

Well, imagine that. :)

BRM
05-22-2006, 06:04 PM
Adam Dunn is jsut as good of a homerun hitter as Pujols. As players they aren't even close though.

I thought the discussion was on HR hitting, not overall ability.

forfreelin04
05-22-2006, 06:04 PM
Three year splits (2003-2005)

RISP

Dunn - 27 HRs in 365 ABs
Pujols - 31 HRs in 414 ABs

Close/Late

Dunn - 19 HRs in 228 ABs
Pujols - 20 HRs in 241 ABs

Thanks BRM. But isnt there a big difference between close and late?

BRM
05-22-2006, 06:06 PM
Thanks BRM. But isnt there a big difference between close and late?

I don't think so. ESPN lists it as one stat.

reds44
05-22-2006, 06:07 PM
I don't think so. ESPN lists it as one stat.
Well couldn't late be the 9th inning of a 7-0 game?

BRM
05-22-2006, 06:08 PM
Well couldn't late be the 9th inning of a 7-0 game?

It's close AND late, not close or late. I believe it's considered 7th inning on, not sure how close the score has to be.

forfreelin04
05-22-2006, 06:10 PM
I just wonder if that means Close and Late. As in the game is a close one in the 7th or later. Or if it combines if the game is close in the 1st. And it combines it with whether or not the game is in the 7th or beyond even if the game is not close but it is late. Whose on first? :)

BRM
05-22-2006, 06:12 PM
According to ESPN.


Close And Late - results in the 7th inning or later with the batting team either ahead by one run, tied or with the potential tying run at least on deck.

SteelSD
05-22-2006, 06:16 PM
It's close AND late, not close or late. I believe it's considered 7th inning on, not sure how close the score has to be.

Here ya' go:

Close And Late - results in the 7th inning or later with the batting team either ahead by one run, tied or with the potential tying run at least on deck.

And to augment your research, no NL hitter has hit as many Close and Late Home Runs over the past two seasons than has Adam Dunn. In fact, he led all of MLB in CaL Home Runs in 2005.

Kinda' puts a damper on the "meaningless HR" crowd, doesn't it? Guy leads the NL in late-game important Home Runs over the past two seasons and folks think bunting while down one with a duck on the pond is a super idea. Ugh.

forfreelin04
05-22-2006, 06:31 PM
I thought the discussion was on HR hitting, not overall ability.

It is on homerun hitting. I don't think anyone is denying Dunn is just as good of homerun hitter as Pujols is. However, I think people's beef with Dunn his is baseball common sense. Routes to balls in the outfield, bunting when maybe he shouldn't, baserunning blunders, and adjusting his approach at the plate. (say that big swing with RISP.) However, I think people naturally view Dunn as being lazy. Certainly not factual nor could really be proven, but a belief nonetheless. His overall size and country boy persona seem to sway many towards that notion. Not to mention, his first love of football over anything baseball. I do believe he started playing football first and then converted to baseball. That he actually was not going to play baseball at all in college? Correct me if Im mistaken. But all these things add up to fire spewing fans. Fans upset with a football player who has a good eye and a gift to hit a baseball a very long way.
Being a baseball purist, I'd rather have someone else. Not someone necessarily worse, just someone who contributed in more facets of the game. If that makes me stupid or ignant so be it. I feel like statheads, Bill James junkies, and virtually every kid who loved baseball but couldnt break a pane of glass can now make their team too. They can base their players on stats and all base mine on pure observation and experience. May the best man win.

James B.
05-22-2006, 06:33 PM
The problem for me was after Dunn the reds last chance was with the bottom of the order. I have got no problem with Dunn laying down a bunt in certain situations when trying to get a base hit with the shift on. I just don't think that this was the right time.

Reds1
05-22-2006, 06:36 PM
I was just amazed he got it down. I don't know if the situation was right, but 1st and 2nd with no outs was a nice thought. It actually was a pretty good bunt. Another foot or so towards 3rd and he walks to 1st.

He can't seem to hit that clutch HR anyways. LOL :) - just kidding.

westofyou
05-22-2006, 06:43 PM
Being a baseball purist, I'd rather have someone else.
What is a purist?

I certainly feel I'm one.

Guess not in your world eh?

Got to go and try and break some glass now.....

Redhook
05-22-2006, 06:43 PM
I was just amazed he got it down. I don't know if the situation was right, but 1st and 2nd with no outs was a nice thought. It actually was a pretty good bunt. Another foot or so towards 3rd and he walks to 1st.

He can't seem to hit that clutch HR anyways. LOL :) - just kidding.

I was surprised how well he got that bunt down too. A few more of those, in more appropriate situations of course, and he may not have to worry about that ol' frustrating shift he adores so much.

Ltlabner
05-22-2006, 07:14 PM
It's kinda funny how those who don't care for Dunn seem to shift their arguments. After reading this and other current threads you can see their aruments against him shifting as the facts are presented time and time again.

It's as though they really don't know why they don't like him, they just don't. Now, many people will likely quickly reply to this post stating "I don't like Dunn because of ABC". But my point is that as people try to say they don't like him because of some factual argument (RISP, "solo home runs", close and late vs close or late, OPB vs SLG, etc etc etc) other people can whip out concrete stats to poke holes in their arguments.

It seem to me that people don't like him for less than concrete reasons. They don't like the way he walks back to the dougout after a SO, his percieved work ethic, his percieved attitude, his apparent weight, rumors that he woln't move to 1B, etc etc. That's fine, and is people's right. It's just funny to watch them try so hard to come up with a reason that can be backed up with more than, " I feal....."

KronoRed
05-22-2006, 07:20 PM
It's pretty obvious that he read the "Reds need to bunt more" thread on ORG.
I hope not..he might retire if he reads all the posts about him here ;)

saboforthird
05-22-2006, 08:06 PM
It's kinda funny how those who don't care for Dunn seem to shift their arguments. After reading this and other current threads you can see their aruments against him shifting as the facts are presented time and time again.

It's as though they really don't know why they don't like him, they just don't. Now, many people will likely quickly reply to this post stating "I don't like Dunn because of ABC". But my point is that as people try to say they don't like him because of some factual argument (RISP, "solo home runs", close and late vs close or late, OPB vs SLG, etc etc etc) other people can whip out concrete stats to poke holes in their arguments.

It seem to me that people don't like him for less than concrete reasons. They don't like the way he walks back to the dougout after a SO, his percieved work ethic, his percieved attitude, his apparent weight, rumors that he woln't move to 1B, etc etc. That's fine, and is people's right. It's just funny to watch them try so hard to come up with a reason that can be backed up with more than, " I feal....."

I hear what you're saying, and if I were like you I'd agree. I don't agree, though. What I have noticed is that people here DO present their arguments iwth facts (facts don't have always have been written as statistics), but they are shot down every time. Pretty soon, one just flat out says why he does or doesn't like a player, without so much an attempt at supporting the argument. Could you blame them? I sure don't.

Ltlabner
05-22-2006, 08:13 PM
What I have noticed is that people here DO present their arguments iwth facts (facts don't have always have been written as statistics), but they are shot down every time.

Saboforthird...in the world of sports performance what other "facts" are there besides stats? Just expressing frustation over a critical strike out (and trust me, he's been frustrating me lately too) doesn't make it a fact that he "always strikes out when it counts".

forfreelin04
05-22-2006, 08:24 PM
What is a purist?

I certainly feel I'm one.

Guess not in your world eh?

Got to go and try and break some glass now.....

Great if you feel you are. What in your mind is a baseball purist? Maybe our definitions are different? To me a baseball purist is just someone who wants to see the game played the correct way at all times. I see many on this board who don't understand that because it cannot be found on a stat sheet. Do many understand what a delayed steal is, a choke steal, first and third plays, push bunting, an inside out swing, taking the curve oppo, going back on a fly ball before coming in, charging ground balls, using your whole body to pitch and not just your arm, how to hold a circle change, a roundhouse curve, and drop n drive? Knowing these "how" questions is a baseball purist to me. How to play the game and then being able to discern which players are going to perform these tasks to the best benefit of your baseball team. Who is going to listen? Who is going to put the work in to make himself better? Who is going to hustle at all times? You'll probably say you know all these things and you simply combine them with stats to complete the deal. I agree. I just am more likely to spend time watching the games and noticing these "how" things while you jot down what you and everyone else in the ballpark just saw. Then, as player struggles I attempt to improve him by doing little things like tweaking his swing, hitting him fly balls to improve his defense, or changing his arm angle. When a player is struggling on your team. You chalk it up to "he is what he is."

westofyou
05-22-2006, 08:32 PM
I just am more likely to spend time watching the games and noticing these "how" things while you jot down what you and everyone else in the ballpark just saw.I don't keep score at ballgames.

You see.. you're full of assumptions and you can't keep from blurting them out.

forfreelin04
05-22-2006, 08:52 PM
I don't keep score at ballgames.

You see.. you're full of assumptions and you can't keep from blurting them out.

Well if I don't know your opinion, what is one to do? If you do not keep score at ballgames, you use the data from those that do correct?

harangatang
05-22-2006, 09:11 PM
I don't keep score at ballgames.

You see.. you're full of assumptions and you can't keep from blurting them out.Back-peddling are we?

M2
05-22-2006, 09:27 PM
Well if I don't know your opinion, what is one to do? If you do not keep score at ballgames, you use the data from those that do correct?

Who doesn't? The difference is that some use it responsibly and some ham-handedly. I mean when you have to play defense against nonsense like Dunn can't drive in runs or hit homers with men on base or hit homers when it counts and the facts disprove every bit of it, that doesn't leave room for opinion. Having the opinion that Dunn is a wispy, short, singles hitter would be just as valid. Hey, it's an opinion and who is anyone to judge it?

What happens far too often with Dunn is that folks make up fictions about his game. Sorry, but you don't get to claim a guy can't do what he demonstrably does season after season. This is basic, easy-to-document stuff.

Now to the point that started this thread, I find it interesting that the supposed Defenders of Dunn don't agree on whether bunting for a hit in that situation was a good idea (I think it was because the hit would have advanced the runner and put the winning run on base with no outs, though I concede Dunn may need to hone the skills necessary to drop that bunt) yet once again the thread has been hijacked by the Dunn Sucks Stalker Chorus. Personally I'd like to get onto having a proper give-and-take with Steel and some others about the bunting against the shift issue. If only such things could happen on this board.

westofyou
05-22-2006, 09:29 PM
Back-peddling are we?
Yeah.... I'm running scared.

M2
05-22-2006, 09:30 PM
Back-peddling are we?

I suggest you read what he wrote again as you clearly hadn't understood an ounce of it when you made the above post.

M2
05-22-2006, 09:32 PM
It's kinda funny how those who don't care for Dunn seem to shift their arguments. After reading this and other current threads you can see their aruments against him shifting as the facts are presented time and time again.

It's as though they really don't know why they don't like him, they just don't. Now, many people will likely quickly reply to this post stating "I don't like Dunn because of ABC". But my point is that as people try to say they don't like him because of some factual argument (RISP, "solo home runs", close and late vs close or late, OPB vs SLG, etc etc etc) other people can whip out concrete stats to poke holes in their arguments.

It seem to me that people don't like him for less than concrete reasons. They don't like the way he walks back to the dougout after a SO, his percieved work ethic, his percieved attitude, his apparent weight, rumors that he woln't move to 1B, etc etc. That's fine, and is people's right. It's just funny to watch them try so hard to come up with a reason that can be backed up with more than, " I feal....."

Excellent post.

forfreelin04
05-22-2006, 09:43 PM
Who doesn't? The difference is that some use it responsibly and some ham-handedly. I mean when you have to play defense against nonsense like Dunn can't drive in runs or hit homers with men on base or hit homers when it counts and the facts disprove every bit of it, that doesn't leave room for opinion. Having the opinion that Dunn is a wispy, short, singles hitter would be just as valid. Hey, it's an opinion and who is anyone to judge it?

What happens far too often with Dunn is that folks make up fictions about his game. Sorry, but you don't get to claim a guy can't do what he demonstrably does season after season. This is basic, easy-to-document stuff.

Now to the point that started this thread, I find it interesting that the supposed Defenders of Dunn don't agree on whether bunting for a hit in that situation was a good idea (I do because the hit would have advanced the runner and put the winning run on base with no outs, though I concede Dunn may need to hone the skills necessary to drop that bunt) yet once again the thread has been hijacked by the Dunn Sucks Stalker Chorus. Personally I'd like to get onto having a proper give-and-take with Steel and some others about the bunting against the shift issue. If only such things could happen on this board.


If you go back and read my posts I was never bashing Dunn. I just simply said I would prefer someone who is more learned in more facets of the game. I appreciate him for what he does do, but I get tired of what he does not do well. I think people make up ficticious things about Dunn because they are frustrated with the "star" player. Granted on a whole Dunn might not be these things. But because he that he has not hit well with RISP recently is certainly not ficticious. Or the fact he often strikesout with RISP. To say he never does well with RISP is certainly ficticious. I think fans tend to blurt out things to the extreme to vent such frustration. Luckily there are stat gurus and others here to prove them wrong. It gives some posters and opportunity to feel important. It just gets a little quiet on this board when the intriacacies of "HOW" to play the game are spoken of.
Back to topic as you so accurately reminded me of. Do you think Dunn had a better chance of getting a bunt hit or hitting a homerun? I'd say homerun.

Ltlabner
05-22-2006, 09:47 PM
I think it was a good move to try the bunt, but as someone said, it seemed like a snap decision, perhaps brought on by frustration so he may have been better practiced or thought out before he tried it.

saboforthird
05-22-2006, 09:56 PM
I don't keep score at ballgames.

You see.. you're full of assumptions and you can't keep from blurting them out.

But, you seem to be about everything that has to do with stats, and nothing else, on this board. Just an observation, not poking fun or anything. I could definitely see you in DanO'esque mode at the ballpark. :D

M2
05-22-2006, 10:18 PM
If you go back and read my posts I was never bashing Dunn.

I didn't say you were and my apologies that I wasn't clearer on that point.


I just simply said I would prefer someone who is more learned in more facets of the game. I appreciate him for what he does do, but I get tired of what he does not do well. I think people make up ficticious things about Dunn because they are frustrated with the "star" player. Granted on a whole Dunn might not be these things. But because he that he has not hit well with RISP recently is certainly not ficticious. Or the fact he often strikesout with RISP. To say he never does well with RISP is certainly ficticious. I think fans tend to blurt out things to the extreme to vent such frustration.

Listen, my personal baseball bent, the kind of baseball I enjoy most, doesn't mesh with Dunn's game. Yet I do appreciate the impact a player with his offensive talents can have on the game. He's not a Barry Larkin, Eric Davis, Joe Morgan, Johnny Bench type. His skills are nowhere near that broad (which disappoints me more than a little because he has some natural foot speed and some athletic talents to go with it). The problem with the BA w/RISP and KRISP arguments is that they ignore the immense amount of good he does w/RISP. The guys hits for a ton of power in those situations and his high OB causes him to contribute to big innings (not enough attention is paid to his runs scored line in the w/RISP tally).

I've never seen anyone argue he's a perfect player or anything like it, but, even though I like a more up tempo game, I'm not one to look the gift horse that is a high OB power hitter in the mouth.


Luckily there are stat gurus and others here to prove them wrong. It gives some posters and opportunity to feel important.

You had a really nice post going until right there. All I'm going to say in response is that if that's what you think you're dead wrong.


It just gets a little quiet on this board when the intriacacies of "HOW" to play the game are spoken of.

In six years on this board, most of the truly astute observations I've seen on "HOW" to play the game have come from folks who are also conversant on stats. The best posters here know the numbers, the intracacies and the history of this game.

I find that a lot of people who only have a basic understanding of the game cloak themselves is traditionalist clothing. They spout out the truisms they've heard from the media over the years and get stuck on things like batting average, strikeouts and pitcher's wins. Rarely do I see those people posting something incisive about "HOW" to play game.


Back to topic as you so accurately reminded me of. Do you think Dunn had a better chance of getting a bunt hit or hitting a homerun? I'd say homerun.

I say bunt single (provided he's trained to do it properly). I subscribe to the notion that even the greatest power hitters never should go to the plate attempting hit homers. I'm also a firm believer in the power of OB and stringing together an inning. To me, playing the shift with a one-run lead in the ninth is like playing a prevent defense in football. Take what they're giving you, get into scoring position and have some faith in your team to deliver.

With an out or two, I'd advocate swinging away, but if the other team's going to let you putting the winning run on base with no outs then I say you take them up on the offer.

M2
05-22-2006, 10:22 PM
But, you seem to be about everything that has to do with stats, and nothing else, on this board. Just an observation, not poking fun or anything. I could definitely see you in DanO'esque mode at the ballpark.

I've know WOY, virtually speaking, since 1998. You've been here for a few weeks. If you think all he talks about is stats then I'd suggest you read more of his stuff because you couldn't be more wrong. Simply put, what you've got here is an ill-formed knee-jerk reaction.

BUTLER REDSFAN
05-22-2006, 10:27 PM
looks like they need to move the games to 8pm-looks like nobody shows up till the 8th inning

forfreelin04
05-22-2006, 10:37 PM
I didn't say you were and my apologies that I wasn't clearer on that point.



Listen, my personal baseball bent, the kind of baseball I enjoy most, doesn't mesh with Dunn's game. Yet I do appreciate the impact a player with his offensive talents can have on the game. He's not a Barry Larkin, Eric Davis, Joe Morgan, Johnny Bench type. His skills are nowhere near that broad (which disappoints me more than a little because he has some natural foot speed and some athletic talents to go with it). The problem with the BA w/RISP and KRISP arguments is that they ignore the immense amount of good he does w/RISP. The guys hits for a ton of power in those situations and his high OB causes him to contribute to big innings (not enough attention is paid to his runs scored line in the w/RISP tally).

I've never seen anyone argue he's a perfect player or anything like it, but, even though I like a more up tempo game, I'm not one to look the gift horse that is a high OB power hitter in the mouth.



You had a really nice post going until right there. All I'm going to say in response is that if that's what you think you're dead wrong.



In six years on this board, most of the truly astute observations I've seen on "HOW" to play the game have come from folks who are also conversant on stats. The best posters here know the numbers, the intracacies and the history of this game.

I find that a lot of people who only have a basic understanding of the game cloak themselves is traditionalist clothing. They spout out the truisms they've heard from the media over the years and get stuck on things like batting average, strikeouts and pitcher's wins. Rarely do I see those people posting something incisive about "HOW" to play game.



I say bunt single (provided he's trained to do it properly). I subscribe to the notion that even the greatest power hitters never should go to the plate attempting hit homers. I'm also a firm believer in the power of OB and stringing together an inning. To me, playing the shift with a one-run lead in the ninth is like playing a prevent defense in football. Take what they're giving you, get into scoring position and have some faith in your team to deliver.

With an out or two, I'd advocate swinging away, but if the other team's going to let you putting the winning run on base with no outs then I say you take them up on the offer.


Good post M2 and I agree with you on the bunting. But in that situation the odds are heavily against Dunn even with a shift. Bunting is certainly hard when you are not used to doing it at least some of the time in games. Doesn't Dunn probably bunt 2 or 3 times a year? In that situation I do think he should have swung away because the opposing pitcher might have gave him the base anyways with a walk. Jones being a smart pitcher would know such a thing.

In regards to your comment on my comments about posters on this site. It is how I see it. Of course, some are better then others. I think it is important for both sides (traditionalists and stat minded fellows) to teach each other. Rather than simply, placing the stat and then inserting a snide comment about the persons ignorance. I used to do this. I realized I was wrong and had much to learn. Being a traditonalist, this was hard for me since I thought I knew everything there was to know already. I think it must work both ways. Baseball is not something that is totally quanifiable. It is beyond statistical prediction. It is simply eliminating the necessity for luck. I mean who could have predicted the Reds lambasting the Brewers against someone they barely could hit the start before in Bush. Or who could predict Lieber would almost throw a no hitter against the Reds? That is what I love about the game of baseball. You just never know. Now some feel that statistics can better prove a hitters predictability. Which it can that is fact. But I feel I can use these stats plus my own experience to make my decisions. The difference from me and other posters. Is I use stats 10% and they use it more then 50% if not alot more.

BUTLER REDSFAN
05-22-2006, 10:43 PM
oops sorry posted in wrong thread

M2
05-22-2006, 11:50 PM
forfreelin04, seems to me the wiser course of action is to use the relevant information where it's applicable. Using stats 10% of the time? 50% of the time? That strikes me as meaningless. And anyone who feels the need to keep tabs on such things is, IMO, missing the point. Use whatever gets you the best answer.

I've been around these parts long enough to see a lot of people manage to figure out where a course of action taken by the Reds is headed and a lot of people make horribly wrong calls on the same points. The common thread running through almost every single one of those instances is that the folks who've gotten those calls right have had one goal -- answering the question at hand. My take is it's been the folks on the other side of the coin putting their egos ahead of the baseball issues. They tend to fade away after awhile because they never really had an iron in the fire other than trying to puff themselves up.

The people who last here, who get respect around here, they're all about the baseball.

Wheelhouse
05-23-2006, 01:26 AM
To settle all this, from the horse's mouth:

Dunn doesn't need to be told that bunt was a bad idea
By Hal McCoy
Staff Writer

CINCINNATI — There is a copy of The Da Vinci Code in front of Adam Dunn's locker, and it is certain there is nothing in it about bunting in the ninth inning with nobody out and a runner on first and your team trailing, 1-0.
That's what Dunn did Sunday in Detroit, and while the bunt was successful, moving Austin Kearns to second, it caused consternation in the Cincinnati Reds dugout, as in, "What in the name of Abner Doubleday is he doing?"
Dunn wonders the same thing, and Ken Griffey Jr. said kiddingly, "His second brain took over and said, 'You can do it.' "
Said Dunn, "Oh, gosh. I still don't know why I ever did that. As soon as I was running down to first base I was cussing myself. I was asking myself, 'Why did I do that?'
"I got into the batter's box and thought I could lay down a bunt for a hit, and then it just happened," said Dunn. "I don't know what I was trying to do. It was just stupid. It was still stupid even if I bunted for a hit. It was dumb, and I don't know what else to say."
Reds manager Jerry Narron, like everybody, wanted Dunn swinging to possibly hit a two-run home run. Narron was mortified after the game, but on Monday softened a bit.
Asked if he talked to Dunn, Narron said, "I think a lot of people talked to him about it (Sunday). If it's bunted a little harder, it's a hit. If he puts the ball in play, it might have been out of the ballpark."

forfreelin04
05-23-2006, 08:29 AM
forfreelin04, seems to me the wiser course of action is to use the relevant information where it's applicable. Using stats 10% of the time? 50% of the time? That strikes me as meaningless. And anyone who feels the need to keep tabs on such things is, IMO, missing the point. Use whatever gets you the best answer.

I've been around these parts long enough to see a lot of people manage to figure out where a course of action taken by the Reds is headed and a lot of people make horribly wrong calls on the same points. The common thread running through almost every single one of those instances is that the folks who've gotten those calls right have had one goal -- answering the question at hand. My take is it's been the folks on the other side of the coin putting their egos ahead of the baseball issues. They tend to fade away after awhile because they never really had an iron in the fire other than trying to puff themselves up.

The people who last here, who get respect around here, they're all about the baseball.


The 10% was just a relative guess to how much I actually use them in viewing a baseball game and how I form my opinions. Sorry if you misinterpreted that. I will try to be more clear next time.

Honestly, I don't really care about respect here M2. I have found that the people that do get the most rep points if you want to consider that respect are those who have a stats library at their leisure. But when a post relies on "how" to play the game arises no rep points are given. Correct me if I'm jumping to conclusions but I think that's because alot of times those who have rep points to give don't understand the post. Again. "how" to play the game IS actual baseball. It is the "how" not the "what" that seperates mere fans of the game from someone more apt to make a better situtational decision.

SteelSD
05-23-2006, 11:14 AM
The 10% was just a relative guess to how much I actually use them in viewing a baseball game and how I form my opinions. Sorry if you misinterpreted that. I will try to be more clear next time.

Honestly, I don't really care about respect here M2. I have found that the people that do get the most rep points if you want to consider that respect are those who have a stats library at their leisure. But when a post relies on "how" to play the game arises no rep points are given. Correct me if I'm jumping to conclusions but I think that's because alot of times those who have rep points to give don't understand the post. Again. "how" to play the game IS actual baseball. It is the "how" not the "what" that seperates mere fans of the game from someone more apt to make a better situtational decision.

Folks have been tiptoeing around telling you the truth, but I've been watching a lot of "House M.D." lately, so let me give it to you straight:

You don't know anything the "stat-minded fellows" don't already know. That's a tough disease for you to fight, but the good news is that it's not always terminal. But the treatment involves you swallowing an awfully big pill...

The people you're attempting to conveniently box have learned and do learn about "how" to play the game on the subjective and objective level and they have learned and do learn about both concurrently. They are not "traditionalists" who, one day, went retarded and paid attention to nothing but stats. In fact, they are "purists" who broke away from the Church of Being Wrong an Awful Lot and decided that they'd learn about how to be right more often while also continuing to build their subjective knowledge base.

But instead of realizing that all baseball fans are borne of the same mother, it's easier for you to compartmentalize the "stat-minded fellows" as being folk who couldn't possibly understand things like how to grip a curveball or the mechanics of a swing. That kind of thinking may give you warm fuzzies, but like Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and lipstick-wearing man-loving lesbians, your "one or the other" scenario is a figment your imagination.

The reason you don't see posts about rudimentary baseball theory is that the long-time posters around these parts rightly assume that everyone who matters already knows the simple stuff regardless of their philosophical "slant".

M2
05-23-2006, 11:37 AM
Honestly, I don't really care about respect here M2. I have found that the people that do get the most rep points if you want to consider that respect are those who have a stats library at their leisure. But when a post relies on "how" to play the game arises no rep points are given. Correct me if I'm jumping to conclusions but I think that's because alot of times those who have rep points to give don't understand the post. Again. "how" to play the game IS actual baseball. It is the "how" not the "what" that seperates mere fans of the game from someone more apt to make a better situtational decision.

It's a community. Respect happens and it's got nothing to do with your individual rep score. To date I haven't seen anything from you that would indicate you know "how" to play baseball better than anyone else or that you've got some incredibly valuable insight to give. Maybe you do, but I suggest you show it rather than insist you've got it even though it never seems to manifest itself. If you aren't getting the rep points you feel you deserve perhaps it's because you're not as special as you think you are.

I can tell you the conclusions you're jumping to here aren't earning my respect. You're working off an incredibly shallow stereotype.

BTW, everyone with an Internet connection has a stats library at their fingertips. Some people are enterprising enough to use it. Others aren't.

Heath
05-23-2006, 12:40 PM
Gee, I have a little bit of rep points here, and I am not a stat geek by any stretch of the imagination.

I just like baseball, preferably Cincinnati Reds baseball, and I try to express it in a manner that is civil and organized, like you are hanging with your buddies on the back deck.

It's not rocket science or a livelihood to be on chat board. Well, except for Krono. If I'm the IRS, I'm investigating his tax returns for W-2's issued by redszone.com. And you can't take it as a "business expense".

registerthis
05-23-2006, 12:57 PM
Yeah, geez, I got most of my rep shouting at GAC and traderumor about creationism back before religious threads were banned around here.

But, hey, whatever man...if it means I get some respect around here, so be it. :)

smith288
05-23-2006, 01:01 PM
"I got into the batter's box and thought I could lay down a bunt for a hit, and then it just happened," said Dunn. "I don't know what I was trying to do. It was just stupid. It was still stupid even if I bunted for a hit. It was dumb, and I don't know what else to say."

I was saying that the moment he did it. In fact, the game thread has me saying something to the effect of "F'n stupid"... Glad me and Dunn are on the same page. :D

Johnny Footstool
05-23-2006, 01:36 PM
To me a baseball purist is just someone who wants to see the game played the correct way at all times.

There is only one "correct way" to play baseball -- score more runs than your opponent.

How you choose to get that done depends on the talents on your team and how you use them.

Bunting, hitting for average, hitting to opposite field, pitching to contact, turning a double play, and executing a double steal are the correct ways to play the game. So are home runs, walks, striking batters out, taking pitches, and working the count. The methods you use to win games depend on your skill set.

If you happen to value bunting and stealing, that's fine. But you need to recognize that home runs and walks also contribute to winning (more than bunts and steals, if the history of the game is to be believed).

Wordman306
05-23-2006, 02:07 PM
I said at the beginning of that sentence "Things out of the ordinary".

An Adam Dunn bunt-for-a-hit is out of the ordinary. Its like maple syrup on the condiment stand at the GABP. Would have a strikeout been better in that situation because he was "trying"? What's Adam's HR per AB ratio this year? Is it time for a HR?

I think it takes marbles to bunt in that situation. I also think that he saw something on the infield that would have made it easier to get on base via a bunt. I'm impressed he thought outside the box.

It's too bad it didn't work out. He's on a pace where every 7.5 times up anyway, he gets an out.

Dunn needs to do something to get them to take the shift off, anyway. I think the bunt was a good idea.

M2
05-23-2006, 02:19 PM
Dunn needs to do something to get them to take the shift off, anyway. I think the bunt was a good idea.

I like the idea, but clearly (as Dunn himself has all but admitted) he hasn't honed the skill necessary to making the play work. IMO it's something he ought to work on for the future.

RedFanAlways1966
05-23-2006, 03:07 PM
This thread has become a personal fav of mine. And it has nuthin' to do with Dunn's sac. bunt. The last couple of pages are real informative and so factual (I hope I can use this word).

Oh... I love stats. :D

westofyou
05-23-2006, 03:23 PM
I have found that the people that do get the most rep points if you want to consider that respect are those who have a stats library at their leisure. But when a post relies on "how" to play the game arises no rep points are given. Correct me if I'm jumping to conclusions but I think that's because alot of times those who have rep points to give don't understand the post. Again. "how" to play the game IS actual baseball. It is the "how" not the "what" that seperates mere fans of the game from someone more apt to make a better situtational decision.

Yawn.....


Statistics are an objective record of a ballplayer's performances. Interpreted adroitly, statistics can provide an informative, sight-unseen picture of a player; a young pitcher's strikeout rate, for instance, is a powerful indicator of his future prospects. There is a great deal, though, that numbers cannot tell you, which is where subjective, first-hand observation comes in.

Numbers may tell you that a pitcher had a 1.50 ERA last year, but they don't tell you that he throws across his body, his neck may snap with every pitch, he's aroused by underage livestock, his personal habits are so bad that like the colonial terrorist Nathaniel Bacon he may be devoured from within by his own body lice, and whenever a runner reaches third his he loses control of his curve and his bladder. You need an experienced scout to tell you that, and you always will.

Moneyball gives the 2002 amateur draft as an example of these two forms of analysis in conflict, but in reality their complementary relationship goes back to the beginning of time. Due to an ill-timed injury in 1934, some scouts advised their teams to take a pass on Joe DiMaggio. Here were the two competing inputs teams faced when the Clipper was a 20-year-old with the San Francisco Seals:

Performance analysis: "He's hitting .350 with a ton of doubles and homers."
Scouting: "Forget it. He's got a bad knee."

That's where the discussion ended for a lot of teams, but the Yankees continued the conversation.

Performance analysis: "Yeah, but even with the bad knee he's hitting like crazy. There must be more to this story. Go get a second opinion."
Scouting [after heading out to the coast for another look]: "Forget the bleeping knee and sign this guy in a hurry."

Statistics are a tool, not unlike a microscope. Statistics are a hammer, a speculum, a thermometer. A statistics-based approach to understanding of baseball is one of many paths to knowledge of the game. Calling those who take that path "freaks" or "Nazis" makes as much sense as calling a Ph.D. chemist a wimp because he tests the qualities of his cyanide compound by means of Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy rather than just drinking the thing.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=2740

Ltlabner
05-23-2006, 05:36 PM
This has been a very interesting thread. Stats and mechanics can live in harmony on the ball field.

There is no "right way" IMO to play baseball other than to score more points than the oponent consistantly. How you do that, within the rules of the game, is irrelevant. You can have the worst looking swing, that defies the "tradional approach" to batting (say Eric Davis, for example) but if it results in many trips to 1B and beyond, who really cares? You can have the weirdest delivery in MLB (side arm guys, for example) but if you can send more batters back to the dougout than cross the plate...who cares. So all the knowledge about how to hold, hit and throw a ball is frankly, irrlevant as long as you can execute.

Stats are simply a measurment of past performance and a predictor or likely outcomes in the future. Nothing more or less. So from that perspective, looking at stats outweighs the mechanics because how you acomplish the goal is less important than knowing the likely hood of doing so (in terms of management, building a team, etc).

All this being said, those who excell while flauting the tradional way of doing things are rare. So knowing the mechanics of the game is also important because those are the most likely methods to acheive success. Stats can't measure everything. You can assemble a team on paper that statisctically has a better chance of winning than any other team.....but have it fail misserably because the things stats can't measure aren't being done. Stats measure what happened but don't tell you how to actually acomplish the goal (scoring more runs than the oponent). You have to understand the mechanics of the game, which can be an intangiable factor sometimes, to be able to acomplish the task which is later measured by the stat.

A prime example is the AAA kid who excells and puts up fantastic stats. He comes to the bigs and fails. Why? The stats said he stood a better chance of success than his peers. Could be 1000 reasons that can't be measured...fear of failure, inablity to adjust to MLB speed of game, poor coaching that destroys his confidence, bad habbits that he could get away with at AAA but not in the bigs, personal issues, and the list goes on and on.

So this is a really long winded way of saying, nobody has the market cornered on how to understand and manage the game. What we do have the market cornered on is loving baseball, specifically, Reds baseball.

danwl
05-23-2006, 06:08 PM
That kind of thinking may give you warm fuzzies, but like Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and lipstick-wearing man-loving lesbians, your "one or the other" scenario is a figment your imagination.

You know, here I am, minding my own business, trying to learn a little something-sometin about the Reds, you've got to give me "warm fuzzies" about lipstick lesbians. Sigh ... back over to the baseball cube for me, I guess.

People who put the time and effort into statistical analysis deserve more respect than those who just make it up (like me).

I thought the bunt was great, because when else are you going to see a 275-pound man bunt for a hit? Worth it for that, and no other reason.

Ltlabner
05-23-2006, 06:12 PM
You can have the weirdest delivery in MLB (side arm guys, for example) but if you can send more batters back to the dougout than cross the plate...who cares.

Speeking of which...who is that bullpen guy from the Phillies. Abe or something. His delivery is freakish...he starts his windup. Stops for a breif second and then suddenly resumes towards the plate. Never seen anything like it.

Ok...back to our regularly scheduled conversation about stats and mechanics.

forfreelin04
05-23-2006, 06:19 PM
Folks have been tiptoeing around telling you the truth, but I've been watching a lot of "House M.D." lately, so let me give it to you straight:

You don't know anything the "stat-minded fellows" don't already know. That's a tough disease for you to fight, but the good news is that it's not always terminal. But the treatment involves you swallowing an awfully big pill...

The people you're attempting to conveniently box have learned and do learn about "how" to play the game on the subjective and objective level and they have learned and do learn about both concurrently. They are not "traditionalists" who, one day, went retarded and paid attention to nothing but stats. In fact, they are "purists" who broke away from the Church of Being Wrong an Awful Lot and decided that they'd learn about how to be right more often while also continuing to build their subjective knowledge base.

But instead of realizing that all baseball fans are borne of the same mother, it's easier for you to compartmentalize the "stat-minded fellows" as being folk who couldn't possibly understand things like how to grip a curveball or the mechanics of a swing. That kind of thinking may give you warm fuzzies, but like Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and lipstick-wearing man-loving lesbians, your "one or the other" scenario is a figment your imagination.

The reason you don't see posts about rudimentary baseball theory is that the long-time posters around these parts rightly assume that everyone who matters already knows the simple stuff regardless of their philosophical "slant".


Ok, Mr. Defensive. Where in this post did you once prove me that you do know these things you say you claim to know? That it is not a figment imagination. You seem to be using smoke and mirrors to hide your true lack of anything resembling how to play the game? By all indications, I haven't seen one thing so far that leads me to believe you know more then what is in a Willie James Book?

forfreelin04
05-23-2006, 06:21 PM
Yawn.....



http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=2740

Again with you. Do you have anything that resembles true thought. Or just a double click copy and paste? You seem to be clearly good at that though. Yawn

Johnny Footstool
05-23-2006, 06:25 PM
You seem to be using smoke and mirrors to hide your true lack of anything resembling how to play the game? By all indications, I haven't seen one thing so far that leads me to believe you know more then what is in a Willie James Book?

I love in when former players like Joe Morgan, etc. use this line of reasoning to try to disparage people they consider "stat geeks." It's like a musician saying, "How dare you criticize my two-hour rock opera based on the life of James Garfield? You don't even know how to play guitar."

Heath
05-23-2006, 06:27 PM
By all indications, I haven't seen one thing so far that leads me to believe you know more then what is in a Willie James Book?

Who is Willie James?

I know Jesse James, and the other Jesse James. I've heard of Bill James.

:dunno:

westofyou
05-23-2006, 06:28 PM
Again with you. Do you have anything that resembles true thought.
Yes.

Just one.

If God didn't intend for us to play with ourselves he would have given us shorter arms.

Ltlabner
05-23-2006, 06:31 PM
Who is Willie James? I know Jesse James, and the other Jesse James. I've heard of Bill James.

I think he played gituar for "The James Gang".

BRM
05-23-2006, 06:34 PM
If God didn't intend for us to play with ourselves he would have given us shorter arms.

:laugh:

Honestly, can this debate get any more ridiculous? Now we have people accusing WOY and Steel of having no clue "how to play the game".

forfreelin04
05-23-2006, 06:38 PM
There is only one "correct way" to play baseball -- score more runs than your opponent.

How you choose to get that done depends on the talents on your team and how you use them.

Bunting, hitting for average, hitting to opposite field, pitching to contact, turning a double play, and executing a double steal are the correct ways to play the game. So are home runs, walks, striking batters out, taking pitches, and working the count. The methods you use to win games depend on your skill set.

If you happen to value bunting and stealing, that's fine. But you need to recognize that home runs and walks also contribute to winning (more than bunts and steals, if the history of the game is to be believed).

Well the WhiteSox say hello. See baseball is a situtational game. You forget the other team is trying to outscore you too! This isn't baseketball my friend. You can't be the Phoenix Suns and outscore your opponents everynight. This is baseball. I believe there was a little team we all root for that scored alot of runs last year and had a crappy season. Oh yeah..... that pitching thing again. Pitching something that prevents scoring. Pitching is everything. Pitching you have more control over. Hitting you do not. It is not within your power to take a walk. Your simply taking what the pitcher gives you. Now wants you swing sir, you are giving yourself up to the defense. The way they are posistioned on the field, their ability to field and throw the ball, and the ability to beat you to the bag before you get there. Sadly, you could hit a ball a 100 MPH and still be out if its right at a defensive player. Gladly, I will say that homeruns are under your control. Of course, you hear that often those homeruns come at the cost of a mistake by the pitcher. For instance, the pitching wanted to throw a ball up over the strike zone with an 0-2 count but throw it too low and boom its gone. Of course, hitting a homerun handcuffs the opposing teams defense to do anything at all. And you get a free run plus whoever is on base. But do you know how hard it is to hit a homerun? Turn a pitch going faster then you can on the highway into a freight train going the opposite direction even faster? Not to mention its got to be between those pesky foul poles. Where in this madness, does it seem like outscoring your opponent is the easiest thing to do?
Granted homeruns and walks are important than bunts and steal. They happen more often in a game then the latter. However, bunts and steals put pressure on a defense to make certain plays. Hence, why you wouldnt a catcher who couldnt prevent anyone from picking up that next bag or two. Or perhaps a bad fielding pitcher inept at fielding a bunt and throwing someone out. Harang comes to mind with that. Or perhaps the Dunn bunt. Maybe the Lopez throwing error to end the previous game? I think the Detroit series easily could have been a sweep if fundamentally the Reds would have made the plays. That is what baseball is about making the plays when you have the chance to with the greatest effieciency. Of course, I agree with you it doesn't hurt to have a great offense. But it is not wholly necessary.

forfreelin04
05-23-2006, 06:41 PM
Dad, always said never trust a man with two first names

Johnny Footstool
05-23-2006, 07:07 PM
Well the WhiteSox say hello. See baseball is a situtational game. You forget the other team is trying to outscore you too! This isn't baseketball my friend. You can't be the Phoenix Suns and outscore your opponents everynight. This is baseball. I believe there was a little team we all root for that scored alot of runs last year and had a crappy season. Oh yeah..... that pitching thing again. Pitching something that prevents scoring. Pitching is everything. Pitching you have more control over. Hitting you do not.

Nice tirade. But you missed my point completely.

I never said the whole game revolves around offense. I simply said you have to score more than your opponent to win.

The White Sox scored more runs than they allowed last season. That's why they won games. They were able to use good pitching and defense to decrease the amount of runs they needed to score. That's what good pitching does for you. No amount of good pitching will produce runs, though.


It is not within your power to take a walk. Your simply taking what the pitcher gives you.

Complete and utter nonsense. A batting eye is a skill. Knowledge of the strike zone is a skill. The ability to lay off borderline pitches or pitches out of the zone is a skill. Check the walk rates of pretty much every player in the game. They're fairly consistent from season to season. Oh wait -- actually checking numbers would make you a dreaded "stat geek," so don't bother. Just fall back on what your little league coach taught you.

pedro
05-23-2006, 07:10 PM
Just fall back on what your little league coach taught you.

My little league coaches all used to say "come on now, a walk is a good as a hit"


(of course it really was in my case)

forfreelin04
05-23-2006, 07:31 PM
Nice tirade. But you missed my point completely.

I never said the whole game revolves around offense. I simply said you have to score more than your opponent to win.

The White Sox scored more runs than they allowed last season. That's why they won games. They were able to use good pitching and defense to decrease the amount of runs they needed to score. That's what good pitching does for you. No amount of good pitching will produce runs, though.



Complete and utter nonsense. A batting eye is a skill. Knowledge of the strike zone is a skill. The ability to lay off borderline pitches or pitches out of the zone is a skill. Check the walk rates of pretty much every player in the game. They're fairly consistent from season to season. Oh wait -- actually checking numbers would make you a dreaded "stat geek," so don't bother. Just fall back on what your little league coach taught you.


I check stats all the time my friend. They tell me exactly what I need to know. The chances that a player will do the same thing today as he did in the past. However, what you mistakenly called a tirade was actually and education for you. Batting eye and has pedro so acually put it a walk was something more along the lines of what your coach probably told you. Told me too. However, I doubt he told you that pitching is something that can more controlled than hitting. Hitting is something more controlled by chance. Granted, batting eye is a skill. So is making contact. So is making solid contact. However, even once that is accomplished you are at the mercy of the defense. The different betwen a texas leaguer and a screaming shot to the gap can have literally the same result if the defense cuts off the gap before the batter can take the next base. Pitching on the other hand is something more controlled. The pitcher has the option to throw a ball in the zone or outside of the zone. Of course, easier said than done but he has the control to slow the game down or speed it up. He can do this by pitching to contact or nipping at the corners. He can take his time between pitches or he can work quickly like a Mark Buerllhe type. He controls the speed of the game and "if" the offense will score. I agree with you though basically and logically all you have to do is outscore your opponent to win. But the bottom line is hitting occurs more by chance then pitching does.

Oh yeah. Walks are what the pitcher gives you sir. Not what the batter sees. Granted he must take the walk by using his "good eyes." But he does so because the pitcher either (A) cannot find the plate or (B) feels he will fair far better situtatinally with the hitter after him, or (C) the ump is not agreeing with him (something out of the pitchers control)! Bottom line walks are taken with more frequence by those who are patient (Scott Hatteberg) or with those who are feared and pitched around (Dunn). Not that he doesnt have patience which he does just not with that itch to bunt I guess! HAHA

Anyways, walks are also called "Free passes." They are much more "free" than earned.

pedro
05-23-2006, 07:38 PM
Yeah thanks for that.

TeamBoone
05-23-2006, 08:29 PM
Anyways, walks are also called "Free passes." They are much more "free" than earned.

Not usually, unless the pitcher is really bad.

Many, many batters earn those walks by having a very good eye and not letting the pitchers suck them into swinging at a bad pitch that looks good in the beginning.

SteelSD
05-23-2006, 08:57 PM
:laugh:

Honestly, can this debate get any more ridiculous? Now we have people accusing WOY and Steel of having no clue "how to play the game".

I don't mind, particularly when those kind of indictments are 99.9% of the time followed by things like misunderstanding how Walks are acquired and misinterpretations of how the White Sox actually won baseball games.

It's like someone saying you don't know anything about geography and then going on to explain how the sun revolves around our flat Earth.

Raisor
05-23-2006, 09:08 PM
It's like someone saying you don't know anything about geography and then going on to explain how the sun revolves around our flat Earth.


Now wait a minute junior, the Earth, is in FACT, flat.

http://www.wnet.org/hawking/programs/assets/images/pe.flatearth.gif

BUTLER REDSFAN
05-23-2006, 10:54 PM
can someone stop this thread? pleeeeeeeeeeze

Johnny Footstool
05-24-2006, 01:09 AM
However, what you mistakenly called a tirade was actually and education for you.

Thanks for that. I found it only slightly less valuable that someone trying to teach me how the sun revolves around the Earth or how bloodletting can balance the body's humours.


Walks are what the pitcher gives you sir. Not what the batter sees. Granted he must take the walk by using his "good eyes." But he does so because the pitcher either (A) cannot find the plate or (B) feels he will fair far better situtatinally with the hitter after him, or (C) the ump is not agreeing with him (something out of the pitchers control)! Bottom line walks are taken with more frequence by those who are patient (Scott Hatteberg) or with those who are feared and pitched around (Dunn).

forfreelin04, for someone who professes to be a "baseball purist," you seem to possess shocking ignorance of what goes on in at at-bat.

Batters only acquire walks because of the pitcher? Pitchers don't try to fool batters with pitches out of the zone? Walks have nothing to do with the batter choosing not to swing at pitches out of the zone? Sorry, but you're very wrong. Myopically wrong.

Patrick Bateman
05-24-2006, 03:21 AM
(A) cannot find the plate or (B) feels he will fair far better situtatinally with the hitter after him, or (C) the ump is not agreeing with him (something out of the pitchers control)!

Anyways, walks are also called "Free passes." They are much more "free" than earned.

If this were true (which it isn't), how come a guy like Anderson Machado gets walked so frequently? The only thing he can do is walk. If he never walked he wouldn't make it out of A ball.

Are we to assume that Machado constantly runs into awful umpires who favour small Latino guys and picthers who simply can't throw strikes? Obviously Machado is the perfect guy for a picther to face in every possible scenario so option B can't exist with him. So how come Machado walks so frequently if batting eye is not a skill?

M2
05-24-2006, 11:47 AM
Oh yeah. Walks are what the pitcher gives you sir. Not what the batter sees. Granted he must take the walk by using his "good eyes." But he does so because the pitcher either (A) cannot find the plate or (B) feels he will fair far better situtatinally with the hitter after him, or (C) the ump is not agreeing with him (something out of the pitchers control)! Bottom line walks are taken with more frequence by those who are patient (Scott Hatteberg) or with those who are feared and pitched around (Dunn). Not that he doesnt have patience which he does just not with that itch to bunt I guess! HAHA

Anyways, walks are also called "Free passes." They are much more "free" than earned.

If that last bit were right then hitter BBs would be totally random. Instead what you could learn if you actually paid nearly as much attention to the stats as you claim you do (not to mention the past 140 years of baseball history) is that some hitters consistently draw more BBs than others. It's as simple as some hitters know the strike zone and others don't. I'd think a supposed traditionalist would get that as it has nothing to do with stats and everything to do with taking a good approach to the plate.

Once again, your powers of observation on "HOW" to play the game have come up short. I suggest that rather than continue to flail around in this thread while misinterpreting pretty much everything that's been said to you and putting on an exhibition of exactly how little of this game you understand, you calm down and listen.

ochre
05-24-2006, 11:52 AM
You guys done yet?

Well, you are now :)