PDA

View Full Version : RISP not important?



BoCcc2832
05-27-2006, 01:50 AM
For all of you that posted the comment about the Reds pathetic RISP average not mattering because we still score plenty of runs, what now? What do you have to say for yourself now after the Reds wasted three perfect opportunities to score from third base with one out? Runners in scoring position average doesn't matter? Bull crap. I don't know the stats, but I would bet money that if you compared our RISP average in April to the one in May, the April one would be much better. The end result? A winning April. What does May hold? Another failure of a month...a losing May once again. Why? It's not been the pitching for the most part. RISP. RISP. RISP. I think I made myself clear.

Caveat Emperor
05-27-2006, 02:33 AM
For all of you that posted the comment about the Reds pathetic RISP average not mattering because we still score plenty of runs, what now?

Batting average is an inferior statistic to use when calculating RISP productivity when compared to SLG percentage. Hit value matters, especially considering that I'd like my chances in a footrace with a full half of the Reds "everyday 8." Right now the Reds are slugging .453 with RISP as opposed to .444 in normal situations (OPSing .810 w/ RISP v. .794 w/o). They're right in line with where they usually are, meaning "productive."

But, even if you insist on using BA here you go:

Ken Griffey Jr.: .370 w/ RISP
Brandon Phillips: .333 w/ RISP
Felipe Lopez: .306 w/ RISP
Austin Kearns: .303 w/ RISP
Edwin Encarnacion: .298 w/ RISP
Rich Aurillia: .241 w/ RISP
Scott Hatteberg: .211 w/ RISP
Adam Dunn: .174 w/ RISP
LaRue/Valnetine: .143 w/ RISP

There's your everyday 8 in that group -- and a full half are hitting roughly .300 or better w/ RISP. Not that it matters because, as has been shown in countless other posts, it's SLG and OPS that really matter for run production.


What do you have to say for yourself now after the Reds wasted three perfect opportunities to score from third base with one out? Runners in scoring position average doesn't matter?

I'd say that if three opportunities was enough to make sweeping judgments, Luke Hudson would've won a Cy Young 2 seasons ago. Yeah, they struggled recently and it makes you mad as a fan -- I was mad earlier tonight, but common sense always prevails. The team is scoring tons of runs -- but even great teams are going to get shut down now and then. Even the Red Sox and the Yankees lose games.


Bull crap. I don't know the stats, but I would bet money that if you compared our RISP average in April to the one in May, the April one would be much better. The end result? A winning April.

The Reds were hitting better in all facets of their game in April. They hit .267 w/ .362/.468/.831 in April vs. .254 and .336/.417/.753 in May thus far. They haven't been gathering extra base hits with the same regularity this month -- the doubles total has fallen from 57 to 34 and HRs are down as well, though not nearly as pronounced. Extra base hits produce runs -- the Reds haven't been getting enough of them.


What does May hold? Another failure of a month...a losing May once again. Why? It's not been the pitching for the most part. RISP. RISP. RISP. I think I made myself clear.

Your opinion is crystal clear. Facts, on the other hand, would've been helpful in showing me that this post was anything other than just angry ranting after a game.

And a little bit of calm/civility kills no one. :thumbup:

NastyBoy
05-27-2006, 04:20 AM
Tonight was a perfect example of lack of defense and lack of timely hitting equates to a loss. Ofcourse, you have to give some credit to Webb, there is a reason why he is now 8-0. Best defense in National League has a lot to do with it. Its a lot easier to pitch when you know the defense behind you is going to make the big plays. I am curious what was going through Milton mind tonight as he saw the defense give it up and the offense fail to get a timely hit.

Ron Madden
05-27-2006, 05:17 AM
We have some fine young talented players.

Let'em play and learn now. That's how you improve your future.

FeLo and EE will help this team win a lot more games than Milton ever will.

Eric did deserve to win though.

RAS
05-27-2006, 05:57 AM
Hatteberg and Dunn are both poor hitters with RISP so why then are they continually placed in RBI slots in the order at #5 and #6 on most days? Dunn is given chance after chance to bring in runners and fails on most occasions. Drop him in the order and let Valentin at #8 drive him in after he walks. :bang:

RAS
05-27-2006, 06:00 AM
I give Narron some blame for this loss. After 2 failed attempts to bring in a runner from 3rd with only 1 out, he should have called for Lopez to squeeze in the run. It is nothing short of ridiculous to think that with a drawn in infield against one of the best groundball pitchers in baseball that it was going to work on the 3rd try. Narron didn't have the guts to make the call so a fine pitched game by Milton was wasted.

Ron Madden
05-27-2006, 06:02 AM
Have you lost your mind?

RAS
05-27-2006, 06:04 AM
Maybe, which portion?

Ron Madden
05-27-2006, 06:17 AM
Maybe, which portion?

I just hope I never see the day Dunn bats 7th and depends on Javy Valintin to drive him in. ;)

KronoRed
05-27-2006, 06:19 AM
Dunn's 3-4 day wasn't enough I guess, nobody on base for him..also his fault ;)

RAS
05-27-2006, 06:23 AM
You're darn right becasue if you stick someone out there on 3rd base, he'd take a called 3rd strike just like he does most nights. I think it's called "choking"

Ltlabner
05-27-2006, 06:41 AM
You're darn right becasue if you stick someone out there on 3rd base, he'd take a called 3rd strike just like he does most nights. I think it's called "choking"

Wow...you've got one mighty chrystal ball there. Care to let the rest of us know the lottery numbers for tonight?

Ok, hitting 3-4 one night does not make up for his horrible slump, but some of the posts in this thread are proof positive that some people hate Dunn no matter what he does.

GAC
05-27-2006, 06:47 AM
Hatteberg and Dunn are both poor hitters with RISP so why then are they continually placed in RBI slots in the order at #5 and #6 on most days? Dunn is given chance after chance to bring in runners and fails on most occasions. Drop him in the order and let Valentin at #8 drive him in after he walks. :bang:

Drop him? How about putting him in the #2 slot because he does get on base. They currently have a guy batting #2 whose OB% rivals Womack's (.262 career).

RadfordVA
05-27-2006, 06:57 AM
Hatteberg and Dunn are both poor hitters with RISP so why then are they continually placed in RBI slots in the order at #5 and #6 on most days? Dunn is given chance after chance to bring in runners and fails on most occasions. Drop him in the order and let Valentin at #8 drive him in after he walks. :bang:

I completely agree. Dunn should be moved from the middle of the lineup. He is not a Rbi man so why have him in RBI situations. His game is getting on base and hitting homers so it seems to me that the best place for him is the leadoff spot. That way he is on base for others to drive him in and he gets more at bats which means more homeruns. Plus Lopez likes second better and Freel is out of the equation for the most part, for now. Dunn doesn't change what he does no matter the situation which is why he struggles in key situations. Pitchers bare down when in jams and just exploit his weaknesses because he is still trying to swing for the fences instead of picking up the runs. Don't get me wrong I love Dunn but we should use him for what he is great at instead of hoping he becomes a prototypical power, rbi guy. Its no coincidence that Griffey's homers are 3 and 4 run shots and dunns are solo's. Griffey knows how to adjust in big situations, Dunn doesn't. But he is still great at what he does.

Raisor
05-27-2006, 08:13 AM
Have fun!


http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/stats/aggregate?statType=batting&group=8&seasonType=2&type=type1&sort=avg&split=39&season=2006


http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/stats/aggregate?statType=batting&group=8&seasonType=2&type=type1&sort=avg&split=39&season=2006

Heath
05-27-2006, 09:13 AM
wow - up and "adam" for you this morning Raisor.

Just, remember folks, its STILL May.

If "Ifs" and "buts" were candy & nuts, we'd all have a Merry Christmas!

I'm running outta cliches, so I'll be mosing down the road.

Ltlabner
05-27-2006, 10:12 AM
Ok, I have a beginners stats question....I noticed the OPS of the Phillies, Mets and Reds are petty low yet there are some horrible teams like Pittsburg and Marlins who have higher OPS. Why is that?

If a team has a low team OPS but are at the tops of their divisions does that mean they are regulalry winning games while scoring relativley less runs than other teams? While other teams are scoring lots of runs, but still finding ways to lose?

Redhook
05-27-2006, 10:17 AM
[QUOTE=Raisor]Have fun!


http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/stats/aggregate?statType=batting&group=8&seasonType=2&type=type1&sort=avg&split=39&season=2006

Good stats here! Nice proof that batting avg. with RISP isn't that important.

I'm not concerned with the batting average at all, I would just like some sac flys more often. Not getting a hit with someone on second doesn't bother me. But, when there is someone on third with less than two outs and he doesn't score, that makes me upset. It's happens way too often with this club. Is Chambliss instructing them on how to hit in different situational opportunities? Time and time again we seem to fail at the little things that would win close games, like last night.

GAC
05-27-2006, 10:23 AM
Dunn's 3-4 day wasn't enough I guess, nobody on base for him..also his fault ;)

Now he knows how it feels to be stranded! :lol:

TeamBoone
05-27-2006, 11:08 AM
Tonight was a perfect example of lack of defense and lack of timely hitting equates to a loss. Ofcourse, you have to give some credit to Webb, there is a reason why he is now 8-0. Best defense in National League has a lot to do with it. Its a lot easier to pitch when you know the defense behind you is going to make the big plays. I am curious what was going through Milton mind tonight as he saw the defense give it up and the offense fail to get a timely hit.

And just how many times has MILTON let the team down?




Dunn is given chance after chance to bring in runners and fails on most occasions. Drop him in the order and let Valentin at #8 drive him in after he walks.

You mean like he did tonight?





You're darn right becasue if you stick someone out there on 3rd base, he'd take a called 3rd strike just like he does most nights. I think it's called "choking"

Dunn left no one on base tonight; Valentin left four.

Johnny Footstool
05-27-2006, 11:16 AM
Funny how an elite pitcher can make everyone question the offense.

westofyou
05-27-2006, 11:28 AM
Funny how an elite pitcher can make everyone question the offense.
Even funnier how blame needs to be bandied around so badly that it gets attached to faulty logic and half truths.

I'm sure if we look long and hard enough at last nights game we can maybe blame Bob Boone too.

Blimpie
05-27-2006, 12:08 PM
For all of you that posted the comment about the Reds pathetic RISP average not mattering because we still score plenty of runs, what now? What do you have to say for yourself now after the Reds wasted three perfect opportunities to score from third base with one out? Runners in scoring position average doesn't matter? Bull crap. I don't know the stats, but I would bet money that if you compared our RISP average in April to the one in May, the April one would be much better. The end result? A winning April. What does May hold? Another failure of a month...a losing May once again. Why? It's not been the pitching for the most part. RISP. RISP. RISP. I think I made myself clear.Rule # 1 of Statistical Analysis: Correlation does not imply causality

Then again, you've already conceded that you "don't know the stats"...so I don't see how this advice would help you in this case. Never mind. Please carry on with your diatribe.

Heath
05-27-2006, 12:24 PM
I'm sure if we look long and hard enough at last nights game we can maybe blame Bob Boone too.

Of course, Bob Boone got to have deal with Young Adam Dunn. I blame Boone there. :D

GAC
05-27-2006, 12:30 PM
Funny how an elite pitcher can make everyone question the offense.

You're so right Johnny. :lol:

But some can't see the trees for the forrest. It just can't be that simple - facing an elite pitcher - it's someone's fault and heads should roll!

Ltlabner
05-27-2006, 12:33 PM
Frankly, I think it's the fault of Dan Billadello. His curse has cast a pall over this team that we've yet to shake!

RAS
05-27-2006, 01:10 PM
GAC, I actually like Dunn at #2 and we saw him there ONCE about a week ago and then for some unknwon reason....it probably hurt his feelings; Narron moves him back to 4-5 area. The guy is not an RBI machine. 100 RBIs from a guy that hits 40 HRs isn't overly productive when you consider we were a very strong offensive unit last year and I do believe that if Kearns or possibly EE were installed at the #4 slot, you would see 100 out of them too. I'm guessing that 100 RBIs is the least amount of RBIs from any individual that hit 40 HRs or more last year and I wonder how many year that would go back?

paintmered
05-27-2006, 01:39 PM
Funny how an elite pitcher can make everyone question the offense.

Yep, Brandon Webb was on his game last night. He's been on it all season.


SPLIT G IP H R HR BB SO W L Sv P/GS WHIP BAA ERA
Season 11 82.2 80 21 5 9 53 8 0 0 99.5 1.08 .261 2.18

I say let's recognize him for his brilliance this year and tip our hat to him for last night's performance.

pedro
05-27-2006, 01:53 PM
For all of you that posted the comment about the Reds pathetic RISP average not mattering because we still score plenty of runs, what now? What do you have to say for yourself now after the Reds wasted three perfect opportunities to score from third base with one out? Runners in scoring position average doesn't matter? Bull crap. I don't know the stats, but I would bet money that if you compared our RISP average in April to the one in May, the April one would be much better. The end result? A winning April. What does May hold? Another failure of a month...a losing May once again. Why? It's not been the pitching for the most part. RISP. RISP. RISP. I think I made myself clear.

Reds April .267 .362 .468 .831

Reds May .253 .333 .412 .745

OPS OPS OPS OPS . Do I make myself clear?

RedFanAlways1966
05-27-2006, 01:57 PM
I'm guessing that 100 RBIs is the least amount of RBIs from any individual that hit 40 HRs or more last year and I wonder how many year that would go back?

Your description needs "tweaked" to make it fair. Along these lines we should take RBIs divided by HRs... RBIs per HR. I looked at the ML's top ten LOW RBI/HR guys with 35 or more HRs. Here is the rank of the lowest RBI/HR guys in 2005:

(1) Derrek Lee, CHIC (46 HR): 2.33 RBI/HR.
(2) Paul Konerko, CWS (40 HR): 2.50 RBI/HR.
(3) Andruw Jones, ATL (51 HR): 2.51 RBI/HR.
(4) Adam Dunn, CIN (41 HR): 2.53 RBI/HR.
(5) Troy Glaus, ARI (37 HR): 2.62 RBI/HR.
(6) Ken Griffey, CIN (35 HR): 2.63 RBI/HR.
(7) Alex Rodriguez, NYY (48 HR): 2.71 RBI/HR.
(8) Morgan Ensberg , HOU (36 HR): 2.81 RBI/HR.
(9) Albert Pujols, STL (41 HR): 2.85 RBI/HR
(X) Alfonso Soriano, TEX (36 HR): 2.89 RBI/HR.

Some impressive names in that list. Should we fault all of them for this stat? Or do we blame the guys who do not seem to get on base before these guys get their hits or HRs?

Lee (4 hole), Konerko (4 hole), Andruw (4 hole), Junior (3 hole), AROD (5 hole), Ensberg (4 hole), Pujols (4 hole). I must ask... should these guys be raised/dropped in the order by their respective managers too when they play?

BTW... Konerko had 40 HRs-100 RBIs last year. Dunn 41 HRs-101 RBIs. So Dunn was not the lowest RBI guy with 40 or more HR last year. A guy who was on the WS winner was. Perhaps it has more to do with the rest of the team than that one individual who can hit the longball? TEAM.

pedro
05-27-2006, 02:05 PM
And why is it that all the folks who want to hang their hat on RISP are the same ones say "I don't know the stats, but I would bet money.........."?

I find that both sad and hilarious.

westofyou
05-27-2006, 02:07 PM
G I'm guessing that 100 RBIs is the least amount of RBIs from any individual that hit 40 HRs or more last year and I wonder how many year that would go back?

SEASON
RBI < 100

HOMERUNS YEAR HR RBI
T1 Harmon Killebrew 1963 45 96
T1 Barry Bonds 2003 45 90
3 Hank Aaron 1969 44 97
T4 Davey Johnson 1973 43 99
T4 Matt Williams 1994 43 96
6 Mickey Mantle 1958 42 97
T7 Mickey Mantle 1960 40 94
T7 Rico Petrocelli 1969 40 97
T7 Duke Snider 1957 40 92
T7 Hank Aaron 1973 40 96
T7 Darrell Evans 1985 40 94
T7 Ken Griffey Jr. 1994 40 90
T13 Mark McGwire 1995 39 90
T13 Willie McCovey 1965 39 92
T13 Lee May 1971 39 98
T13 Boog Powell 1964 39 99
T13 Bobby Bonds 1973 39 96
T13 Norm Cash 1962 39 89
T13 Jim Edmonds 2003 39 89
T20 Alfonso Soriano 2003 38 91
T20 Frank Robinson 1956 38 83
T20 Mike Schmidt 1975 38 95
T20 Ted Williams 1957 38 87
T20 Nate Colbert 1970 38 86

big boy
05-27-2006, 02:10 PM
If ba with risp is improved, more runs are scored. I am not talking about slg or ops...if one gets more hits (thus improving his ba) with risp, he will get more rbi. With a runner on third, acquiring bases is great but all that is needed to improve run production is a single.

I am not going to say it is the most important thing but it sure seems to be useful.

RedFanAlways1966
05-27-2006, 02:11 PM
Some real "nobodys" in woy's list there. Who are those guys? :confused: :laugh: :confused:

Ltlabner
05-27-2006, 02:14 PM
Now now WOY. Don't screw anybody up with facts. :bash:

BTW, since you guys are out there now, do you have a second to answer my question in post #17? Its prob a novice stats question but I'm currious.

Raisor
05-27-2006, 02:25 PM
If ba with risp is improved, more runs are scored. I am not talking about slg or ops...if one gets more hits (thus improving his ba) with risp, he will get more rbi. With a runner on third, acquiring bases is great but all that is needed to improve run production is a single.




I really wish no one started keeping track of Runs Batted In. It'd make things much easier.

SteelSD
05-27-2006, 02:27 PM
If ba with risp is improved, more runs are scored. I am not talking about slg or ops...if one gets more hits (thus improving his ba) with risp, he will get more rbi.

That is wholly inaccurate.

westofyou
05-27-2006, 02:30 PM
I really wish no one started keeping track of Runs Batted In. It'd make things much easier.

RBI (Runs Batted In)

First debated as a viable stat in the 1880’s the run batted in disappeared into the background of baseball stats until the 1920’s. However it was adored and kept alive by one Ernie Lanigan, New York Press baseball editor, who labeled them as “Runs Responsible For” and kept track of them in the daily sports section of the Press. Ernie also is credited with starting “This Day in Baseball” as a newspaper item. A true stats nut, Ernie is responsible for keeping track of every player in baseballs RBI’s from 1907-1920.

http://baseballminutia.com/blog/2006/05/08/those-stats-at-the-bottom-of-the-screen/

Caveat Emperor
05-27-2006, 02:35 PM
If ba with risp is improved, more runs are scored. I am not talking about slg or ops...if one gets more hits (thus improving his ba) with risp, he will get more rbi.

How many singles to short right field do you think Scott Hatteberg, Rich Aurillia, Jason LaRue or Ken Griffey Jr. are going to score from 2nd on?

How many infield hits from Ryan Freel are going to score a run?

Hit quality matters. A double, triple, or HR scores the runner from 2nd in virtually every situation (save for the misplayed fly ball that requires runners to hold) whereas a player like Ichiro might bat 1.000 w/ RISP but only acquire 15 or 20 RBI.


With a runner on third, acquiring bases is great but all that is needed to improve run production is a single.

Single drives in a run. Double drives in a run AND puts another baserunner closer to scoring. Home Run drives in the run and scores the batter. Walk continues the inning. Any outcome is vastly superior to making an Out. Acquiring bases and avoiding outs are ALWAYS important -- especialy when you're trying to produce RUNS, as opposed to A RUN.

M2
05-27-2006, 02:36 PM
One of these days I intend to take a vacation in this apparently heavily populated alternate reality where MLB teams go 162-0 and players bat 1.000.

Raisor
05-27-2006, 02:42 PM
One of these days I intend to take a vacation in this apparently heavily populated alternate reality where MLB teams go 162-0 and players bat 1.000.


in that alternate reality milkshakes don't cause you to gain weight too.

M2
05-27-2006, 02:42 PM
If ba with risp is improved, more runs are scored. I am not talking about slg or ops...if one gets more hits (thus improving his ba) with risp, he will get more rbi.


Despite the fact that you say this all the time (and little else), it's still wrong.

At some point it might behoove you to consider the mountains of evidence to the contrary that's been presented to you.

westofyou
05-27-2006, 02:42 PM
One of these days I intend to take a vacation in this apparently heavily populated alternate reality where MLB teams go 162-0 and players bat 1.000.I bet you won't need sunscreen there and the meat is always cooked just right...

M2
05-27-2006, 02:43 PM
in that alternate reality milkshakes don't cause you to gain weight too.

And supermodels constantly invite you out for beer and cheesesteaks.

big boy
05-27-2006, 02:44 PM
That is wholly inaccurate.

Are you saying that a runner on third will not score almost every time when the batter hits a single? I would guess the runner will score more than 95% (probably closer to 99%) of the time.

Maybe you were joking.

Ltlabner
05-27-2006, 02:51 PM
in that alternate reality milkshakes don't cause you to gain weight too.

Holy mackeral! Milkshakes can cause you to gain weight? When the heck did this start? :shocked: No wonder I'm getting big enough that people will start questioning my weight as if I were Dunn or something.....

M2
05-27-2006, 02:53 PM
Are you saying that a runner on third will not score almost every time when the batter hits a single? I would guess the runner will score more than 95% (probably closer to 99%) of the time.

Maybe you were joking.

No, what he's saying is that hitting singles over the long haul won't do much for your overall RBI totals.

Certainly a single in that situation is always welcome, but people don't hit 1.000 in this plane of reality and often times good pitchers who are on their games strand baserunners that you'd normally expect to score.

Highlifeman21
05-27-2006, 03:09 PM
GAC, I actually like Dunn at #2 and we saw him there ONCE about a week ago and then for some unknwon reason....it probably hurt his feelings; Narron moves him back to 4-5 area. The guy is not an RBI machine. 100 RBIs from a guy that hits 40 HRs isn't overly productive when you consider we were a very strong offensive unit last year and I do believe that if Kearns or possibly EE were installed at the #4 slot, you would see 100 out of them too. I'm guessing that 100 RBIs is the least amount of RBIs from any individual that hit 40 HRs or more last year and I wonder how many year that would go back?


Actually, 40 is the least amount of RBI you can have with 40 HR, but since you asked about who was last in RBI with 40 HR....

I'm glad you're so in love with RBIs, since they are so based on your teammates...

Highlifeman21
05-27-2006, 03:11 PM
SEASON
RBI < 100

HOMERUNS YEAR HR RBI
T1 Harmon Killebrew 1963 45 96
T1 Barry Bonds 2003 45 90
3 Hank Aaron 1969 44 97
T4 Davey Johnson 1973 43 99
T4 Matt Williams 1994 43 96
6 Mickey Mantle 1958 42 97
T7 Mickey Mantle 1960 40 94
T7 Rico Petrocelli 1969 40 97
T7 Duke Snider 1957 40 92
T7 Hank Aaron 1973 40 96
T7 Darrell Evans 1985 40 94
T7 Ken Griffey Jr. 1994 40 90
T13 Mark McGwire 1995 39 90
T13 Willie McCovey 1965 39 92
T13 Lee May 1971 39 98
T13 Boog Powell 1964 39 99
T13 Bobby Bonds 1973 39 96
T13 Norm Cash 1962 39 89
T13 Jim Edmonds 2003 39 89
T20 Alfonso Soriano 2003 38 91
T20 Frank Robinson 1956 38 83
T20 Mike Schmidt 1975 38 95
T20 Ted Williams 1957 38 87
T20 Nate Colbert 1970 38 86

Damn, I was hoping we'd see Dave Kingman on there somewhere, so we could continue to perpetuate the Kingman = Dunn correlation myth...

Chip R
05-27-2006, 03:32 PM
I'm sure if we look long and hard enough at last nights game we can maybe blame Bob Boone too.

If we cannot blame Bob Boone, then the terrorists have won.

Raisor
05-27-2006, 03:35 PM
http://www.redszone.com/forums/search.php?searchid=112452

pedro
05-27-2006, 04:09 PM
RISP - ah - saviour of the universe
RISP - ah - it'll save ev'ry one of us
Seemingly there is no reason for these
Extraordinary intergalactical upsets (ha ha ha)
What's happening RISP?
Only dr hans zarkov formerly at n a s a
Has provided any explanation
RISP - ah - it's a miracle
This mornings unprecedented solar eclipse
Is no cause for alarm
RISP - ah - king of the impossible
it's for ev'ry one of us
Stand for ev'ry one of us
it'll save with a mighty hand
Ev'ry man ev'ry woman ev'ry child
With a mighty RISP
General kaka RISP Dunn approaching
What do you mean RISP Dunn approaching?
Open fire all weapons
Dispatch war rocket ajax to bring back his body

KronoRed
05-27-2006, 04:37 PM
If we cannot blame Bob Boone, then the terrorists have won.
Can't have that.

Bob Boone made Webb a good pitcher...somehow.

deltachi8
05-27-2006, 04:45 PM
gotta love rants not bases in logic and with little to credible evidence to back points.

but hey, it makes it fun, it takes all kinds.

BCubb2003
05-27-2006, 05:07 PM
As a diehard optimist I wish there was a stat that would bring the two sides together.

As it's been pointed out before, the flaw in batting average is that it counts a three-run homer the same as an infield single that doesn't score a run. Even batting average with RISP doesn't quite get to it, and it doesn't account for a home run hitter like Dunn who "always has a runner in scoring position."

Slugging percentage considers the value of a hit pretty well, although it counts a triple that gets stranded as three times more valuable than a two-run single. I also wonder if the O in the OPS skews things slightly by counting a first-base-empty walk to get to the pitcher the same as the two-run single. Even runs created, as far as I can tell, doesn't actually measure runs, but assumes that all those bases add up to runs somehow.

The real divide is between the individualists and the situationalists. The individualists want to separate a player's performance from the rest of the lineup, and measure it purely, since stats like RBIs are team-dependent.

Situationalists expect a player to change his approach at bat depending on whether Austin Kearns or Javy Valentin is hitting behind him. The chances of being driven in are different with no outs and Kearns behind you than with two outs and Valentin and the pitcher. Maybe the O in OPS is more important at the beginning of the inning, and the S is more important with two outs and runners in scoring position.

Team-dependent stats are misleading because you could put an average player in the middle of a good lineup and his numbers will benefit. But if OBP is valuable because sooner or later someone might drive that base runner in, the act of actually driving in that run should be valuable.

The individualists assume that if you acquire enough bases, the runs get pushed home by default. The situationalists assume that with two outs and the bottom of the order coming up, it's Get'er Done Time, not Let Javy Get'er Done If He Can Time. RBI is team-dependent in a front-loaded way. Your team has to get on ahead of you. OBP is team-dependent in a back-loaded way. Your team has to drive you in. The most self-contained player might actually be a slugger like Dunn, who can score a run with one swing of the bat. It might take another player three or four more at-bats from the rest of the lineup to score him, all the while risking the running out of outs.

But what are the probabilities? Consider three players whose OPS is the same number. But one is homer heavy, one is walk heavy and one is singles heavy. With two outs and runners in scoring position, which OPS is more likely to drive in the runs? Probably the singles-heavy OPS. The homer OPS will drive in the run, but is less likely to happen. The walking OPS is more likely to happen, but is less likely to drive in the run. When all you need is a single, do you say, "give me the guy who hits a home run once every 10 at bats, or give me the guy who gets a single once every three or four at bats"?

But this is just one situation, and it's probably unfair to measure a player's contribution to the team on one type of situation. Call it a situation-dependent stat. If the complaint is that OBP with RISP isn't enough to get the job done, we should at least acknowledge that it was OBP that created the RISP in the first place.

Do runs created or win shares adequately measure every ballplayer's ability to contribute to a victory, from the solo home run in the first inning of a game that turns out to be a one-run victory, to the three-run homer that puts you within one, to the player who steals second, goes to third on a grounder and scores on a sac fly to tie the game? My guess is that they come the closest so far, but there'll alway be somebody trying to sharpen the stats.

For all of this, I think it needs to be repeated that Dunn drives in runs and gets driven in, and there's not really a switch that goes off in his mind that shuts down his ability when runners are in scoring position. The guy who creates clutch situations should be valued along with the guy who finishes them off.

Caveat Emperor
05-27-2006, 05:33 PM
The individualists assume that if you acquire enough bases, the runs get pushed home by default. The situationalists assume that with two outs and the bottom of the order coming up, it's Get'er Done Time, not Let Javy Get'er Done If He Can Time. RBI is team-dependent in a front-loaded way. Your team has to get on ahead of you. OBP is team-dependent in a back-loaded way. Your team has to drive you in. The most self-contained player might actually be a slugger like Dunn, who can score a run with one swing of the bat. It might take another player three or four more at-bats from the rest of the lineup to score him, all the while risking the running out of outs.

But the thing is, there are no assumptions to be made. It's been statistically shown that acquiring bases (SLG) and avoiding outs (OBP) correlates directly with run production. If you build a team full of players that do those two things in all their ABs, not just the 25% of ABs w/ RISP that a team takes, you are likely going to score runs.

The "situationalist" falls into the trap of citing X, Y, and Z scenarios where runs were failed to be produced as opposed to looking at the bigger picture of the 162 game season. You've got to look at it like a history class: you can be an A student and still fail some tests as long as the professor gives enough over the course of the semester. Pointing out that you failed a test on October 15th or November 3rd is irrelevant to the bigger picture.


But what are the probabilities? Consider three players whose OPS is the same number. But one is homer heavy, one is walk heavy and one is singles heavy. With two outs and runners in scoring position, which OPS is more likely to drive in the runs? Probably the singles-heavy OPS. The homer OPS will drive in the run, but is less likely to happen. The walking OPS is more likely to happen, but is less likely to drive in the run. When all you need is a single, do you say, "give me the guy who hits a home run once every 10 at bats, or give me the guy who gets a single once every three or four at bats"?

The problem is you don't build a baseball team to be situation specific. You build a team that gives you the best chance to win as many of the 162 games as possible. That means you want the players who acquire the most bases and avoid the most outs. In your situation, the choice is irrelevant because if all three post the same OPS for a year, they're all going to have a similar impact on the ballclub in the long run. The guy who hits singles might be good in a 1 run game with runners on, but the guy who hits home runs might be just as useful hitting a walk-off shot in the 9th to win a game. It'll all even out because, over a 162 game season, every player will come to bat in a sitaution tailored to their success at some point. Me personally? I want the guy who is most successful in ALL his ABs, not just the 25% w/ RISP.

All in all, though, an interesting and well-articulated post.

GAC
05-27-2006, 06:14 PM
Reds April .267 .362 .468 .831

Reds May .253 .333 .412 .745

OPS OPS OPS OPS . Do I make myself clear?

I know the "P" stands for pedro; but what does the "O" and the "S" stand for? :D

pedro
05-27-2006, 06:19 PM
Oh and Shutup. :)

RAS
05-27-2006, 07:55 PM
westofyou, Thanks for the list and I admit I am surprised...

BCubb2003
05-27-2006, 09:45 PM
But the thing is, there are no assumptions to be made. It's been statistically shown that acquiring bases (SLG) and avoiding outs (OBP) correlates directly with run production.

It's a strong argument that should be made as clearly as possible, with the numbers backing it up: The higher a team's OPS, the more runs a team scores, and because Dunn has a high OPS, he helps the Reds score runs. If only it could be chanted in a stadium.

Before Saturday, the NL Central standings for runs are:

Cincinnati 249
St. Louis 245
Milwaukee 243
Houston 226
Pittsburgh 207
Chicago 172

The NL Central standings for OPS are:

Milwaukee .816
Cincinnati .789
St. Louis .770
Houston .753
Pittsburgh .733
Chicago .669

That's a pretty good correlation. (But what's Milwaukee doing to its OPS that keeps it from scoring as many runs as it should? Bad baserunning? Too many LOB?)

By the way, Cincinnati is just slightly behind St. Louis in getting the most runs out of its OPS. So there's no problem there. Although I guess we'll have to see if these gaudy numbers are primarily a function of one high-scoring hot streak.


Me personally? I want the guy who is most successful in ALL his ABs, not just the 25% w/ RISP.

OPS leaders in the Central, and their rank in the NL:

1 Albert Pujols 1.255
2 Morgan Ensberg 1.047
4 Jason Bay 1.024
8 Lance Berkman .980
11 Adam Dunn .965

dabvu2498
05-27-2006, 09:56 PM
Here's my problem:

Reds lead NLCentral in runs, yet...

Have been shutout 5 times.

Scored once 6 times (won one of those, by the way)

Scored twice 3 times (0-3)

That's too many (12/49 games), especially for a team with tremendous run-scoring potential. Basically in 1/4 of their games, they have not given themselves, no matter how good their pitching is, a chance to win the game. That's frustrating.

Anyone have any thoughts? Or is this team really just that inconsistent???

NastyBoy
05-27-2006, 09:59 PM
0 for 14 with RISP = 0 runs scored.

Raisor
05-27-2006, 10:03 PM
Here's my problem:

Reds lead NLCentral in runs, yet...

Have been shutout 5 times.

Scored once 6 times (won one of those, by the way)

Scored twice 3 times (0-3)

That's too many (12/49 games), especially for a team with tremendous run-scoring potential. Basically in 1/4 of their games, they have not given themselves, no matter how good their pitching is, a chance to win the game. That's frustrating.

Anyone have any thoughts? Or is this team really just that inconsistent???

The Cards, with the second best offense in the division have also scored 2 or less runs 12 times.

Just sayin.

NastyBoy
05-27-2006, 10:07 PM
The Cards, with the second best offense in the division have also scored 2 or less runs 12 times.

Just sayin.


Both the Reds and Cards score their runs in bunches... scoring 0 runs in one game and 15 in the next really helps out average runs per game... but doesn't necessary equate to wins.

BCubb2003
05-27-2006, 10:14 PM
Both the Reds and Cards score their runs in bunches... scoring 0 runs in one game and 15 in the next really helps out average runs per game... but doesn't necessary equate to wins.

I feel your frustration too, but take a look. Who's leading the division in wins? The Cards and Reds.

That said, if this is not a long-term problem, what is the turnaround going to be? Another meeting, warmer weather, a lineup change?

Maybe this is just the picture of a .500 team, taking 2 of 3 from lesser teams and 1 of 3 from better teams.

M2
05-27-2006, 10:59 PM
westofyou, Thanks for the list and I admit I am surprised...

Hey, credit to you for reading the list and not bringing a bias to it. You'd be amazed by how often people ignore stuff like that or dismiss it because it's not what they wanted to hear. One of the things you'll find around here is that there's more things in baseball to consider than you ever imagined. I've been here for pushing six years and I still find that to be the case.

I haven't agreed with the stuff you've posted earlier in this thread, but I really like the open mind you've shown with the above post.

M2
05-27-2006, 11:03 PM
Both the Reds and Cards score their runs in bunches... scoring 0 runs in one game and 15 in the next really helps out average runs per game... but doesn't necessary equate to wins.

You'll find that most teams that score a lot of runs tend to score in bunches.

Fans often seem to think their team is the only one scoring 0, 1 or 2 runs with any sort of frequency when the truth is it's fairly common (though I can see why 21st century Reds fans would be under the impression it doesn't happen to other clubs all that often given the state of the team's pitching).

Yet, when you look at it, even good offensive teams have plenty of dry days. The real key is to convert those three- and four-run days into wins more often than not (iirc, the Astros were doing that with regularity in the latter half of 2005).

Caveat Emperor
05-27-2006, 11:46 PM
0 for 14 with RISP = 0 runs scored.

0 XBH = 0 runs scored (2 XBH so far this series)

It's hard to score runs when there's nobody bopping in the lineup.

dsmith421
05-28-2006, 12:29 AM
Ok, I have a beginners stats question....I noticed the OPS of the Phillies, Mets and Reds are petty low yet there are some horrible teams like Pittsburg and Marlins who have higher OPS. Why is that?

If a team has a low team OPS but are at the tops of their divisions does that mean they are regulalry winning games while scoring relativley less runs than other teams? While other teams are scoring lots of runs, but still finding ways to lose?

Two possibilities (without looking at the stats right now):

1. Sample size: what a team does over 1 game, or 10, or 50, may not have anything to do with their actual ability. Over the course of 162 games, barring incredible injury problems, water will find its level.

2. OPS correlates very closely to scoring runs. But as every Reds fan knows, if your pitching sucks it doesn't matter how many runs you score, you won't be too successful.

Good question.

dsmith421
05-28-2006, 12:33 AM
GAC, I actually like Dunn at #2 and we saw him there ONCE about a week ago and then for some unknwon reason....it probably hurt his feelings; Narron moves him back to 4-5 area.

Once again, someone making a comment about Dunn's character and personality based on absolutely no information whatsoever. Either Dunn is too lazy to "get to the next level" or he's over-sensitive and worries about where he plays and where he hits. I don't think he can be both. So will the "I know what I see, and don't care about the stats" crowd at least get their stories straight?

KronoRed
05-28-2006, 01:42 AM
So will the "I know what I see, and don't care about the stats" crowd at least get their stories straight?
They need to consolidate under the "Dunn sucks" banner ;)

RAS
05-28-2006, 01:50 AM
dsmith, Just where would you bat Dunn and what info would you base your decision on? None of us know much about anything so it is truly all opinions for the most part. I do not he is not producing at 4-5 slots though

Johnny Footstool
05-28-2006, 03:24 AM
Is this the 2006 "Welcome, Newbies" thread? Sure feels like it.

Caveat Emperor
05-28-2006, 03:52 AM
Is this the 2006 "Welcome, Newbies" thread? Sure feels like it.

Always fun getting new RedsZone members. First they must purge themselves of their anger, abandon their old ways, and embrace a wider view of things.

It's like becoming a Jedi -- except a lot less backpacking in the swamp and a lot more time picking through ESPN.com's sortables.

KronoRed
05-28-2006, 03:56 AM
It's like becoming a Jedi -- except a lot less backpacking in the swamp and a lot more time picking through ESPN.com's sortables.
Does that make Raisor Yoda?

Raisor
05-28-2006, 09:15 AM
Does that make Raisor Yoda?


Like my wife says, "Size matters not".

wait...

nevermind.

Ltlabner
05-28-2006, 09:55 AM
:starwars:


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA "Size matters not" .

westofyou
05-28-2006, 11:15 AM
Is this the 2006 "Welcome, Newbies" thread? Sure feels like it.
Next seminar is

"Why baseball ain't Football and why you need to know that crud."

dsmith421
05-28-2006, 11:52 AM
dsmith, Just where would you bat Dunn and what info would you base your decision on? None of us know much about anything so it is truly all opinions for the most part. I do not he is not producing at 4-5 slots though

Based upon the fact that he has the highest OBP on the team and is our best run producer, I would bat him either second or third. I would protect him with either Griffey or Kearns.

EDIT: To expand, my lineup would be:

Freel CF
Dunn 1B
Griffey LF
Kearns RF
Lopez SS
Encarnacion 3B
Phillips 2B
LaRue C
Punching Bag P

Highlifeman21
05-28-2006, 01:48 PM
Based upon the fact that he has the highest OBP on the team and is our best run producer, I would bat him either second or third. I would protect him with either Griffey or Kearns.

EDIT: To expand, my lineup would be:

Freel CF
Dunn 1B
Griffey LF
Kearns RF
Lopez SS
Encarnacion 3B
Phillips 2B
LaRue C
Punching Bag P


OBP

Player 2006 Career Games
Freel .368 .369 338
EE .366 .333 114
Lopez .373 .328 469

Dunn .386 .383 709
Griffey .291 .376 2148
Kearns .368 .361 413

Phillips .342 .270 176
LaRue .313 .325 664

Based on these figures, 2006 OBP, and career OBP shown over career games played, I'm comfortable with Freel or Lopez leading off, and then either one in the 2 hole. EE could be a good guy in the 2 as well, but clearly not a lead off guy.

After this, I firmly believe it should be Dunn, Griffey, Kearns, in that order.

Then, probably EE, Phillips, C spot, P spot.

So:

Freel/Lopez
Lopez/Freel/EE
Dunn/Griffey
Griffey/Dunn
Kearns/EE
EE
Phillips
Catcher
Pitcher

While Dunn does have a very high OBP, his SLG just has to lower him to 3 or 4 in the lineup. Same goes for Griffey and Kearns. They both have the OBP to be moved up, but their SLG needs them in the meat of the lineup.

Ltlabner
05-28-2006, 07:28 PM
Always fun getting new RedsZone members. First they must purge themselves of their anger, abandon their old ways, and embrace a wider view of things.

Thanks for that harty "welcome aboard" to RZ. It's always great when the folks who have been around a while extend open arms to new folks who want to engage in intelligent baseball discussion.

Not all of us think the Reds suck, that Dunn sucks, that Narron is an idiot ,that our opinion trumps reality and that stats are useless (or the holy grail for that matter).

dabvu2498
05-28-2006, 07:33 PM
Always fun getting new RedsZone members. First they must purge themselves of their anger, abandon their old ways, and embrace a wider view of things.

So long as embracing a wider view of things doesn't mean drinking to kool-aid, I'm good with that.

Raisor
05-28-2006, 07:38 PM
So long a embracing a wider view of things doesn't mean drinking to kool-aid, I'm good with that.


I heart orange kool-aid

Ltlabner
05-28-2006, 07:41 PM
I'm not a big fan of Koolaid. I prefer the $4 sodas instead :doh:

Caveat Emperor
05-28-2006, 07:56 PM
So long as embracing a wider view of things doesn't mean drinking to kool-aid, I'm good with that.

But the Kool-Aid man is so cool:
http://washblog.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/hey_kool_aid4.jpg

BTW, the answer to your signature offends me, as a graduated law stdent. :evil:

dabvu2498
05-28-2006, 07:59 PM
BTW, the answer to your signature offends me, as a graduated law stdent. :evil:
S'alright... I work for a criminal defense attorney. BOO!!! HISS!!! (Not as bad as a PI lawyer though.)

M2
05-28-2006, 08:33 PM
So long a embracing a wider view of things doesn't mean drinking to kool-aid, I'm good with that.

At this very moment I'm drinking Gatorade, so you'll need to slam down 32 oz. of Lemon-Lime candysweat pronto if you want any rep from me.

Honestly "wider view of things" can be translated to "be willing to accept that certain off-the-cuff truisms might prove to be false." A lot of the newbie/established poster friction around here comes from arguments over what someone thought was true, but isn't (e.g. player X can't do something that he demonstrably can or can do something that he demonstrably can't).

Not everybody on the ORG agrees with everybody else on the ORG, far from it. For instance some people loved the Arroyo trade, others hated it. Yet what most established posters have is some perspective. Over six years on an active board like this, we've worked through a lot of stuff. We've been able to track how well some lines of thinking have done vs. others. Just as an example, there were a lot of folks who insisted Eric Milton and Ramon Ortiz were proven winners who were going win big for the 2005 Reds. Others made the case that these were guys who gave up way too much power for the GAB and that they were likely to get beaten like pinatas in 2005. That worked itself out. There's been a lot of stuff like that. As you can tell, this board covers a lot of ground.

It's created a culture where people on the board do a little homework. I'm not talking about doing seventh-level actuary math here, but people do a quick drive by an ESPN.com stats page to check their own hypotheses. Over time, this board has found it instructive to investigate the truth of certain statements (both from the seamhead and numbers cruncher realms) and it's been that kind of environment that's allowed this board to get in front of stuff the Reds have been behind (hopefully that's changing with the Krivsky regime). I'm going on too long here, but suffice to say we've seen what works, what kind of takes survive the test of reality.

IMO, RAS' response to WOY in this thread was perfect. RAS got some evidence contrary to what he thought and now it's up to him to determine how that fits in with other things he's been thinking about the game. I thought it was a classy response. I know I haven't been coming back to this board for six years because it confirms everything I think about the game. I come back because the quality of the board challenges what I think I know about the game and it drives me to learn more.

RAS
05-28-2006, 08:59 PM
dsmith, I actually love your moves and that lineup other than I am anxious to see Denorfio get his chance so I would have Freel platooning with him in CF. I really like the move of Griff and Dunn position wise. I am starting to think that Ross should be taking more of LaRue's PT away from him too.