PDA

View Full Version : Dunn for Smoltz?



gm
06-24-2006, 07:28 PM
Would you pull the trigger?

Would the Braves?

Why, or why not?

Reds4Life
06-24-2006, 07:30 PM
Not a chance.

Smoltz has a history of injuries, is one pitch away from blowing his elbow out, and is old. He'd be a rental at best, no chance I give up Dunn for someone like that.

TeamBoone
06-24-2006, 07:35 PM
Totally agree, R4L... besides, Smoltz is too old (39). If I were to trade Dunn, I'd not only want someone who is proven to be effective, but also much younger so that he can help the team out for awhile into the future.

OnBaseMachine
06-24-2006, 07:35 PM
No.

Smoltz is 39 years old and only has a couple years left in him. If I'm trading Dunn, I want young players in return.

Note: Dunn is a guy I would like to build around, but I would deal him if someone made a great offer.

Example:

Dunn to Angels for C Jeff Mathis, RHP Ervin Santana, and SS Brandon Wood.

Dunn for Francisco Liriano.

redsfanmia
06-24-2006, 08:03 PM
No.





Dunn to Angels for C Jeff Mathis, RHP Ervin Santana, and SS Brandon Wood.

Dunn for Francisco Liriano.


Wow those are the kind of deals that get one g.m. fired and the other g.m. executive of the year and a 5 year extension. Trading Dunn would not bring back in return anything close to these players.

MrCinatit
06-24-2006, 08:38 PM
No.

Smoltz is 39 years old and only has a couple years left in him. If I'm trading Dunn, I want young players in return.

Note: Dunn is a guy I would like to build around, but I would deal him if someone made a great offer.

Example:

Dunn to Angels for C Jeff Mathis, RHP Ervin Santana, and SS Brandon Wood.

Dunn for Francisco Liriano.

I would kiss Wayne K right on the lips.

deltachi8
06-24-2006, 08:58 PM
nope. notta. no. denied.

WVRed
06-24-2006, 09:01 PM
Dunn to Angels for C Jeff Mathis, RHP Ervin Santana, and SS Brandon Wood.


Take out Brandon Wood and Jeff Mathis, and its a little more fair for the Angels.

Even then, if the Angels are balking at Carl Crawford, who is as good a player in his own right, I doubt they would pull the trigger on Santana.

traderumor
06-24-2006, 09:15 PM
Some guy told Alan Cutler tonight that the Reds should trade Dunn for Bob Wickman. So, when compared to that trade idea, this one is at least better than that.

dougdirt
06-24-2006, 09:23 PM
Not for Smoltz no.
Dunn is young and durable. He has his flaws.
Smoltz is old. Very old. He has more flaws.
We dont really need starting pitching as much as we need bullpen help. Not that I trade Adam Dunn for bullpen help, but I dont think we go out and get an old starter just to get one. If we are getting a starter via a trade for Adam Dunn, he better be under the age of 30.

pedro
06-24-2006, 09:23 PM
I wouldn't trade Dunn for Smoltz and I wouldn't trade him for Ervin Santana (without other player(s) coming back too)

No way on earth is Ervin Santana worth as much as Adam Dunn.

pedro
06-24-2006, 09:36 PM
Besides, I don't see the Angels trading for a player like Dunn. He's just not their kind of player IMO.

I think Kearns for Santana might be a little more realistic.

dougdirt
06-24-2006, 09:56 PM
I wouldn't trade Dunn for Smoltz and I wouldn't trade him for Ervin Santana (without other player(s) coming back too)

No way on earth is Ervin Santana worth as much as Adam Dunn.

I think Carl Crawford is worth at least as much as Adam Dunn in the trade world, and he is being tossed around for Santana, so I would say that yeah, Santana is worth as much as Dunn in the trade world.

traderumor
06-24-2006, 10:01 PM
I think Carl Crawford is worth at least as much as Adam Dunn in the trade world, and he is being tossed around for Santana, so I would say that yeah, Santana is worth as much as Dunn in the trade world.If that is true, which I don't think it is, more like Kearns is closest in value to Crawford, then Crawford is definitely more hype than substance.

reds44
06-24-2006, 10:02 PM
Cubs get:
Adam Dunn

Reds get:
Sean Marshall
Scott Erye
Bob Howry


Lineup:
Freel-LF
Phillips-2B
Griffey
Edwin
Kearns
Lopez
Hat
Ross


Rotation:
Arroyo
Harang
Ramirez
Marshall
Milton

Bullpen:
Mays, Weathers, Standrige, Belisle, Erye, Howry, Coffey

I wouldn't mind dealing Dunn and Lopez for pitching help.

pedro
06-24-2006, 10:04 PM
I wouldn't trade Carl Crawford for Santana either, although Crawford isn't really as valuable as Dunn either IMO.

redsmetz
06-24-2006, 10:12 PM
Not to insult you, but the very title of this smacks of Dan O'Brien - just as everyone else noted, why would you trade a player with a future for a player with a past? Smoltz is a fine pitcher still, but he's 39 years old.

KronoRed
06-24-2006, 11:04 PM
Smoltz?

Maybe for Q, not Dunn

Henry Clay
06-25-2006, 01:24 AM
Maybe I'm missing something, but does Dunn have a long-term future with the Reds? The guy is getting very expensive. If the Reds controlled Dunn at reasonable rates for the next 3-4 years, I might see the point of demanding a Liriano, but let's be serious. Dunn is an expensive power bat with very interesting OBP numbers and the very high likelihood of wearing a different jersey in a couple of years, if not next year if the Reds begin to stink again. Anyway, regardless of his attributes, the Braves would not be interested in his salary, which is exactly the reason I don't see the Reds holding on to him for too long if the team begins to stink again (the Reds don't have the resources or market of the Braves). It is also the reason why I don't see him bringing a huge return if/when he is dealt.

As for the trade of an offensive player who will be expensive next year for the Reds (Dunn) for a player who could fill either of two holes for the Reds this year (Smoltz -- starter or superstar closer), I don't think this question is so ridiculous. Smoltz would improve the team in the areas where it is weak, especially if he would agree to be the closer and Coffey could move to setup where he was phenomenal. The loss of Dunn, while not insignificant, would yield daily playing time for Freel and Phillips. I'm not in favor of trading Dunn for anyone this year, but if someone called and made me that offer, I don't know that I would be so quick to reject it out of hand. As I said in a Reds Live thread, if Clemens makes Houston a contender, what does Smoltz do for the Reds? I would have to think a lot. If Smoltz could get the Reds to the playoffs this year, that is more than Dunn has been able to do for the Reds in a few years. To recycle a cliche: While home runs are interesting to watch, pitching is what wins championships. Pitching is also what has brought the Reds into contention this year.

KronoRed
06-25-2006, 01:26 AM
Dunn is signed through 2008 at a reasonable rate

reds44
06-25-2006, 01:31 AM
Dunn is signed through 2008 at a reasonable rate
If he doesn't turn it around, I don't know how reasonable that rate is.

KronoRed
06-25-2006, 01:35 AM
If he doesn't turn it around, I don't know how reasonable that rate is.
The last 2 seasons say he's gonna be fine.

TeamBoone
06-25-2006, 01:39 AM
Cubs get:
Adam Dunn

Reds get:
Sean Marshall
Scott Erye
Bob Howry


I would absolutely hate to see Adam Dunn traded; I would hate even more to see Adam Dunn traded to a competitor in the NL Central.... no way. :thumbdown




As for the trade of an offensive player who will be expensive next year for the Reds (Dunn) for a player who could fill either of two holes for the Reds this year (Smoltz -- starter or superstar closer), I don't think this question is so ridiculous.

This still makes no sense to me.

#1 - Adam Dunn already belongs to the Reds through the next two seasons... at a reasonable cost. If the Reds become a winning team, he might belong to the Reds for longer than that. I do agree with Reds44 that he needs to get something going. I've never seen a slump last this long. I love AD to death, and I want to see him get it going.

#2 - Smoltz is a whole lot more expensive than Adam Dunn.

#3 - And despite what you say, I don't see the advantage to having a 39-year-old rental on the Reds staff this year. They don't need a Smoltz to get over the hump... just a decent reliever... and they need more than one, which would be more than doable on Smoltz salary.

SteelSD
06-25-2006, 02:27 AM
I would absolutely hate to see Adam Dunn traded; I would hate even more to see Adam Dunn traded to a competitor in the NL Central.... no way. :thumbdown

This still makes no sense to me.

#1 - Adam Dunn already belongs to the Reds through the next two seasons... at a reasonable cost. If the Reds become a winning team, he might belong to the Reds for longer than that. I do agree with Reds44 that he needs to get something going. I've never seen a slump last this long. I love AD to death, and I want to see him get it going.

#2 - Smoltz is a whole lot more expensive than Adam Dunn.

#3 - And despite what you say, I don't see the advantage to having a 39-year-old rental on the Reds staff this year. They don't need a Smoltz to get over the hump... just a decent reliever... and they need more than one, which would be more than doable on Smoltz salary.

There's no logic to trading Adam Dunn for John Smoltz right now. Nor is there any logic involved with trading Adam Dunn for Scott Eyre, Bob Howry, and Sean Marshall.

I'd have zero issue with trading Adam Dunn as long as that trade brings the kind of performance influx the Reds actually need. In short, that trade needs to change the fortunes of the franchise. Barring that, you keep him and hope that the Reds don't screw him up.

That being said, Adam Dunn has never seen fewer pitches per PA than he has this year. He's been swinging earlier in AB in an effort to make contact recently and has been using meek inside-out swings to try to avoid the shift (which does nothing but play into the hands of the shift). It doesn't help that the two players consistently hitting ahead of him in the lineup have a combined OBP of less than .315. At some point I'm going to have a "Free Willy" moment and just hope that Dunn is traded for his own good because it appears that this organization hasn't a clue how to properly use or develop him.

OnBaseMachine
06-25-2006, 03:32 AM
At some point I'm going to have a "Free Willy" moment and just hope that Dunn is traded for his own good because it appears that this organization hasn't a clue how to properly use or develop him.


Couldn't agree with this more. I said the very same that in a game thread a few days ago. A team like Boston would be the ideal fit for Adam Dunn, an organization that doesn't bemoan over strikeouts and appreciates players who can get on base. I guarantee you that organization wouldn't advise Dunn to become a dead pull hitter, or expand his zone. Oakland is another team that would appreciate Dunn's talents, Cleveland most likely, Texas, Atlanta, etc.

Adam Dunn was well on his way to become possibily the best hitter in the major leagues back in 2001-2002. I can remember Kevin Goldstein (who now works for Baseball Prospectus) comparing Dunn to Ted Williams and Barry Bonds because of his ability to hit the ball to all fields, he could hit for average, power, and very, very rarely would you see Adam Dunn swing at a bad pitch out of the strikezone. The man was hitting .321/.470/.573-1.043 OPS in the middle of June 2002. And then the three headed monster of Bob Boone, Jim Bowden, and Jim LeFebvre decided that Adam Dunn should become a dead pull hitter in order to hit for power, all this despite the fact that young Adam was slugging in the .570's at the time. We all know what happened there, Dunn finished with a poor second half in 2002 and then struggled for all of 2003.

Then came new hitting coach Chris Chambliss and GM Dan O'Brien. I can recall O'Brien stating that Dunn's struggles the previous year and a half were due to too many people whispering different things in Dunn's ear - and to his credit, the only smart thing I can remember DOB doing, he declared that only one person in the organization could work with Dunn, and that person of course was new hitting coach Chris Chambliss. That worked out well as Dunn sets career highs in just about every offensive category and had one of the best single seasons in Reds history. Unsatisified with that terrific year, in the Spring of 2005 the Reds decided to work with Dunn on cutting down on his strikeout totals. Ugh. This led to 27 fewer strikeouts, but also a 19 point drop in BA and 30 point drop in OPS. Not worth it IMO.

On to 2006. In what may be the dumbest piece of coachign ever, Jerry Narron decides it would be a good idea to teach Adam Dunn to expand his strikeone (i.e. chase more bad pitches in an attempt to drive in more runs). Awful, awful thing to do. Dunn has followed this advice and has seen his P/PA drop to a career low, his batting average and OBP and hovering around the 2003 area, and his slugging is dropping faster than Paris Hilton's panties.

This organization has managed to turn a potential perennial MVP and Hall of Fame talent into just a .900 OPS hitter. Don't get me wrong - that is still damn good, but is no where near what we thought we would be getting out of Adam Dunn five years ago. I can only imagine what might have been had Dunn come up with another organzation or even had a smarter coachign staff that the one in Cincinnati.

KronoRed
06-25-2006, 04:12 AM
I guess Dunn's real trouble is he listens to all the whispers

WMR
06-25-2006, 04:18 AM
What do people expect? When your manager tells you to do something, you do it.

Reading stuff like that really pisses me off. You know, maybe JN doesn't have the brain to do the right thing, but at least Krivsky should have the testicular fortitude and native intelligence to realize that Dunn hasn't all of a sudden lost his eye for pitch location and say something. Or Chambliss. Is he just biting his lip?

Deputy Dawg Drawl, "We'd like Adam to drive in more runs; swing the bat a bit more earlier in the count." Sheesh.

Guacarock
06-25-2006, 05:13 AM
Dunn for Smoltz?

Doesn't make one iota of sense. Not even if we were as deep-pocketed as the Yankees, as stocked with prospects as the Angels, as chronically short on one cylinder as the Red Sox or had a management as baseball-savvy as the A's.

Regardless of how you puff it up or dissect it, Dunn for Smoltz is a crash-and-burn trade. I would reject it morning, noon and night, through thick or thin, under every conceivable circumstance barring Smoltz rediscovering the Fountain of Youth and miraculously being 25 or 26 again.

In other words, there's room for discussion if we were approached about dealing off Dunn for a Liriano, a Kazmir or another SP who might carry the Reds for the next 2-5 years. Then the range of credible and plausible answers would fall somewhere between "Let's make a deal tomorrow" and "Let's pursue further talks." But Dunn for Smoltz, the response is an unequivocal: "No dice."

WVRed
06-25-2006, 09:19 AM
I wouldn't trade Carl Crawford for Santana either, although Crawford isn't really as valuable as Dunn either IMO.

I beg to differ, although comparing the two is like comparing apples and oranges.

Crawford is more of a speed freak who has started to show signs of power. While Dunn is more of a power threat, Crawford is a top of the lineup spark that could eventually move down to the three spot. He is also capable of playing CF as well, and is underrated defensively.

Basically, its comparing a guy who might hit .250 with 50 HR and 100 RBI to someone who is two years younger who might hit .300(and OPS .850, to point out the negative), 20 HR, 50 SB, and play better defense.

IMO, Crawford is equal to Dunn, but its all a matter of what you want.

OnBaseMachine
06-25-2006, 09:28 AM
Carl Crawford has never OPS'd .850 at any level, including the minors. Adam Dunn has never OPS'd below .850. 100 times out of 100 I would take Adam Dunn over Carl Crawford. JMO.

edabbs44
06-25-2006, 09:34 AM
Carl Crawford has never OPS'd .850 at any level, including the minors. Adam Dunn has never OPS'd below .850. 100 times out of 100 I would take Adam Dunn over Carl Crawford. JMO.
The way this team is set up right now, I think I'd rather have CC.

WVRed
06-25-2006, 09:41 AM
Carl Crawford has never OPS'd .850 at any level, including the minors. Adam Dunn has never OPS'd below .850. 100 times out of 100 I would take Adam Dunn over Carl Crawford. JMO.

I'm saying he's on pace to OPS .850 this year.

Another stat to notice, Dunn's OPS has been on a gradual decline from 2004-2006(.956, .927, .901 this season). Crawford, OTOH, has raised his from .781 to .846 during that span.

edabbs44
06-25-2006, 10:01 AM
Carl Crawford has never OPS'd .850 at any level, including the minors. Adam Dunn has never OPS'd below .850. 100 times out of 100 I would take Adam Dunn over Carl Crawford. JMO.
Dunn historically has a higher OPS than Ichiro. Take age out of the equation and would you still want Dunn over him?

deltachi8
06-25-2006, 10:24 AM
I'm with Steel on this one as well. I am watching Dunn seem to fall in line with what many think he needs to do - stop looking at pitches, swing more, adjust to the shift, etc and in the process become a worse hitter.

Its sad for Adam Dunn, and sad for the Reds because when they finally say OK, lets trade him they will have driven his trade value down and will get little for him (compared to what they could have). Its probably best for Adam to be traded now, it would be best for the Reds to have him sit down and watch tapes of what he was and then say, do what you do best. That wont happen though.

OnBaseMachine
06-25-2006, 10:55 AM
Dunn historically has a higher OPS than Ichiro. Take age out of the equation and would you still want Dunn over him?

Yes.

Dunn gets on base more, drives in more runs, slugs higher, has a higher OPS, is younger, and cheaper. Ichiro hits for a higher average and runs more, but those statistics are one of the last things I look for in a player.

Since both players entered the league in 2001, here is how they have stacked up to each other in the RC/27 category.

Adam Dunn

2001-7.44
2002-6.73
2003-5.95
2004-7.92
2005-7.53
2006-6.64

Ichiro

2001-7.13
2002-6.32
2003-6.07
2004-7.80
2005-5.95
2006-8.23

Dunn has posted a high RC/27 than Ichiro four out of five years and this year is still to be determind, although Ichiro has a pretty hefty lead at the moment. So to answer your question, yes, I would prefer Adam Dunn's bat over Ichiro.

westofyou
06-25-2006, 11:00 AM
Dunn historically has a higher OPS than Ichiro. Take age out of the equation and would you still want Dunn over him?
Any year after 1925 yeah... Ichiro is a dandy deadball player, but he is just that.

Buoyed by a batting average that aquires bases 1 at a time, he doesn't play CF or IF, doesn't steal a bunch of bases and has no power, why would anyone want to overpay for that.

Unless they had a Pacific Rim fan base that is.

TeamBoone
06-25-2006, 11:04 AM
Do you think Narron and Krivsky know of Dunn's historical coaching woes?

We know because we lived through it... but do they? Could Adam even relate it to them as well as Steel and OBM did?

pedro
06-25-2006, 11:06 AM
I beg to differ, although comparing the two is like comparing apples and oranges.

Crawford is more of a speed freak who has started to show signs of power. While Dunn is more of a power threat, Crawford is a top of the lineup spark that could eventually move down to the three spot. He is also capable of playing CF as well, and is underrated defensively.

Basically, its comparing a guy who might hit .250 with 50 HR and 100 RBI to someone who is two years younger who might hit .300(and OPS .850, to point out the negative), 20 HR, 50 SB, and play better defense.

IMO, Crawford is equal to Dunn, but its all a matter of what you want.

If Crawford was capable of playing CF why didn't he while Rocco Baldelli was out?

Defense in LF just isn't that important and the 4 assists he had from the OF last year suggest to me that his arm might not be that good.

edabbs44
06-25-2006, 11:08 AM
Any year after 1925 yeah... Ichiro is a dandy deadball player, but he is just that.

Buoyed by a batting average that aquires bases 1 at a time, he doesn't play CF or IF, doesn't steal a bunch of bases and has no power, why would anyone want to overpay for that.

Unless they had a Pacific Rim fan base that is.
Dunn's OBP is buoyed by walking. Which acquires bases one at a time.

But let's all turn a blind eye to anything which diminishes Dunn's value.

Ichiro is one of the best defensive OFs in the game. Dunn is a borderline disaster out there.

Ichiro steals over 30 bases every year and is on pace for 51 this season. Doesn't steal a bunch of bases?

He has a career OBP of over .380. Isn't OBP the lifeblood of this board, or is it only great when people walk an inordinate amt to raise their OBP?

Come on people. Ichiro is twice the player Dunn is or ever will be. Let's face the facts.

edabbs44
06-25-2006, 11:09 AM
Yes.

Dunn gets on base more, drives in more runs, slugs higher, has a higher OPS, is younger, and cheaper. Ichiro hits for a higher average and runs more, but those statistics are one of the last things I look for in a player.

Since both players entered the league in 2001, here is how they have stacked up to each other in the RC/27 category.

Adam Dunn

2001-7.44
2002-6.73
2003-5.95
2004-7.92
2005-7.53
2006-6.64

Ichiro

2001-7.13
2002-6.32
2003-6.07
2004-7.80
2005-5.95
2006-8.23

Dunn has posted a high RC/27 than Ichiro four out of five years and this year is still to be determind, although Ichiro has a pretty hefty lead at the moment. So to answer your question, yes, I would prefer Adam Dunn's bat over Ichiro.
Overall player...not just his bat.

paintmered
06-25-2006, 11:10 AM
Dunn's OBP is buoyed by walking. Which acquires bases one at a time.

But let's all turn a blind eye to anything which diminishes Dunn's value.

Ichiro is one of the best defensive OFs in the game. Dunn is a borderline disaster out there.

Ichiro steals over 30 bases every year and is on pace for 51 this season. Doesn't steal a bunch of bases?

He has a career OBP of over .380. Isn't OBP the lifeblood of this board, or is it only great when people walk an inordinate amt to raise their OBP?

Come on people. Ichiro is twice the player Dunn is or ever will be. Let's face the facts.


This horse has been beaten enough.

edabbs44
06-25-2006, 11:16 AM
This horse has been beaten enough.
Not really. This is an Ichiro vs Dunn debate, not an OBP debate. Defense and speed was brought up as well. And any of my OBP statements were brought up in rebuttal to other statements. But since Dunn is in a ridiculous slump, maybe we should close any thread which mentions him in an effort to keep him in good standing with the fans. :D

VR
06-25-2006, 11:27 AM
While O'Brien, Chambliss, et al are pointed to as the blame for Adam's downturn, does any of it fall on his shoulders?

It's Adam's comments in late March to the tune of "I haven't picked up a bat or glove since our last year" that says he isn't interested in being Ted Williams-esque.... and that's OK....he's so naturally gifted that his current game is well worth the salary being paid.

I think the opposition works a lot harder at understanding how to get Adam out than he does at countering the scouting. He's now purely a bad ball hitter, I'd imagine his 2-0 hitting vs. 0-2 is the widest chasm in baseball. He hurts bad pitches, he can't touch anything when behind in the count. If he decides to become a student of the game, it's going to be a really really bad deal for the rest of baseball. I just think it's right below bass fishing and XBox on Adam's to do list.

westofyou
06-25-2006, 11:31 AM
He has a career OBP of over .380. Isn't OBP the lifeblood of this board, or is it only great when people walk an inordinate amt to raise their OBP?I like power in the power game of today, Ichiro doesn't provide that.

Debate all YOU want.

I'm Dunn debating Dunn on this board with Reds fans.

It's absurd that they can't find a better target for the 5 years of losing

gm
06-25-2006, 11:31 AM
Not sure I'd do it either, but these are the factors that got me thinking about it.

The Braves will be listening for offers re: Smoltz
To get their attention (and to "outbid" the Yankees/Red Sox, etc) Dunn would be the only bait that Cincy could dangle.
No one "replaces" Adam, but the Reds' OF could manage with Denorfia/Freel

Downside
I have no idea what Smoltz' contract status is, and he's an injury risk
I'd hate to sell Dunn low

Is 2006 the Red's year? (The bullpen and team defense say "no") But if this season were to turn into another '99, then Smoltz is the #1 that could make a difference in the playoffs.

The question for Bob C. is "Do you feel lucky? Well, do ya?"

pedro
06-25-2006, 11:32 AM
Ichiro is a very nice player but factoring in age and the fact that the majority of his game revolves around his legs I'd have a hard time betting on him for the long haul.

Matt700wlw
06-25-2006, 11:34 AM
If Smoltz wasn't old, maybe.....


But he is.

pedro
06-25-2006, 11:35 AM
If Smoltz wasn't old, maybe.....


But he is.


he also makes 16 million a year.

Matt700wlw
06-25-2006, 11:36 AM
he also makes 16 million a year.


There's another factor

pedro
06-25-2006, 11:39 AM
Smoltz is one of my favorite pitchers though. He's got as much guts and guille as any pitcher out there IMO. When his arm was hurt in 1999 he was just up there making crap up and it was still working.

edabbs44
06-25-2006, 11:39 AM
Ichiro is a very nice player but factoring in age and the fact that the majority of his game revolves around his legs I'd have a hard time betting on him for the long haul.
I agree...factoring in age I probably wouldn't want Ichiro over Dunn. But talking about OPS, when comparing CC to Dunn, is extremely unfair to Crawford. That's why I brought up Ichiro. That's like bringing up wins and saying you'd rather have Milton than Mariano. A guy with 40 HRs will out slug (and probably out OPS) most leadoff or 2 hole hitters. CC and Dunn are two completely different players. So it comes down to whether you'd rather have a guy who has outstanding power and walks a lot or a guy who does most things well. And, personally, I think the Reds need a player like Crawford more than a guy like Dunn. Crawford is still young and getting better. That's why I like him more.

edabbs44
06-25-2006, 11:42 AM
Smoltz is one of my favorite pitchers though. He's got as much guts and guille as any pitcher out there IMO. When his arm was hurt in 1999 he was just up there making crap up and it was still working.
Smoltz for Dunn would set this team back a few years. I would like to have Smoltz, but not at Dunn's price. Pitchers inching towards 40 yrs of age don't usually demand a price of Adam Dunn. Smoltz would demand more of a Travis Wood/mid-tier prospect combo. If Cincy was 5 games up with a good bullpen, I would be willing to pay that price. But with the amt of holes in this team, Smoltz would not get them to the post-season by himself.

pedro
06-25-2006, 11:44 AM
I agree...factoring in age I probably wouldn't want Ichiro over Dunn. But talking about OPS, when comparing CC to Dunn, is extremely unfair to Crawford. That's why I brought up Ichiro. That's like bringing up wins and saying you'd rather have Milton than Mariano. A guy with 40 HRs will out slug (and probably out OPS) most leadoff or 2 hole hitters. CC and Dunn are two completely different players. So it comes down to whether you'd rather have a guy who has outstanding power and walks a lot or a guy who does most things well. And, personally, I think the Reds need a player like Crawford more than a guy like Dunn. Crawford is still young and getting better. That's why I like him more.

The problem with the comparison between between Crawford and Ichiro is that Ichiro is one of the best defenders in the game playing a more crucial defensive position. Crawford OTOH, may be a good left fielder, but he's still a left fielder who may have a suspect arm and LF just isn't that important.

pedro
06-25-2006, 11:46 AM
Smoltz for Dunn would set this team back a few years. I would like to have Smoltz, but not at Dunn's price. Pitchers inching towards 40 yrs of age don't usually demand a price of Adam Dunn. Smoltz would demand more of a Travis Wood/mid-tier prospect combo. If Cincy was 5 games up with a good bullpen, I would be willing to pay that price. But with the amt of holes in this team, Smoltz would not get them to the post-season by himself.

I'm certainly not suggesting I'd make that trade, just that I like Smoltz. I also agree that he wouldn;t be enough, especially when you factor in teh loss of offense from Dunn.

Matt700wlw
06-25-2006, 11:49 AM
I'm certainly not suggesting I'd make that trade, just that I like Smoltz. I also agree that he wouldn;t be enough, especially when you factor in teh loss of offense from Dunn.

I like him too....but a guy like Dunn can get you top-notch quality no doubt...but also younger top-notch quality.

PuffyPig
06-25-2006, 12:10 PM
He has a career OBP of over .380. Isn't OBP the lifeblood of this board, or is it only great when people walk an inordinate amt to raise their OBP?



You fail to mention that Dunn's lifetime OBA is also over .380, and even higher than Suzuki's.

edabbs44
06-25-2006, 12:13 PM
You fail to mention that Dunn's lifetime OBA is also over .380, and even higher than Suzuki's.
I think most people on this board know that. I took it as a given.

SteelSD
06-25-2006, 12:35 PM
I agree...factoring in age I probably wouldn't want Ichiro over Dunn. But talking about OPS, when comparing CC to Dunn, is extremely unfair to Crawford. That's why I brought up Ichiro. That's like bringing up wins and saying you'd rather have Milton than Mariano. A guy with 40 HRs will out slug (and probably out OPS) most leadoff or 2 hole hitters. CC and Dunn are two completely different players. So it comes down to whether you'd rather have a guy who has outstanding power and walks a lot or a guy who does most things well. And, personally, I think the Reds need a player like Crawford more than a guy like Dunn. Crawford is still young and getting better. That's why I like him more.

Not sure how bringing up offensive production is "unfair" to Carl Crawford. Crawford just doesn't have the offensive production history of a guy like Dunn. Nor does Suzuki for that matter. And neither player projects to have such going forward. Nothing at all "unfair" about noting that. And a guy who hits 40 HR's will outslug guys like Suzuki and Crawford not because they're "leadoff" (or 2-hole) hitters. Crawford and Suzuki will be outslugged because they lack that kind of power. It has nothing to do with lineup position and everything to do with a skill set both players lack.

And of all three, Crawford is the one guy I'd be looking to trade yesterday. He's a "bad fit" player. He doesn't project a high enough Batting Average to produce an acceptable OBP there because of his awful Isolated Discipline (and it doesn't project to get a whole lot better). He doesn't have enough SLG to hit in the middle of the order. So he's a #6 or #7 hitter who will then see fewer opportunities to utilize his speed skillset on the bases. And his defensive advantage is grabbing a few more balls per season at one of the least important defensive positions on the field. Carl Crawford has value, of course. But it's the kind of value that's consistently overrated among MLB GM's. Tampa- if they're smart- should be able to post a significant trade "win" by dealing Crawford.

Marc D
06-25-2006, 12:43 PM
To get back to the point of the thread, no I would not trade Dunn for Smoltz due to age and contract status. I would trade Dunn for a young front of the rotation type pitcher or at least 2 near ML ready big time prospects of any denomination.

In my wildest dreams I see the Yankees desperate to catch the Bosox and needing outfield help to make up for Sheffield and Matsui. I see Kriv offering JR and his entire contract for Tebata or Dunn and his $$ for Hughes. They get to choose but have to do it quick because Theo's on the other line trying to get Arroyo back. At the mention of this, George sees a chance to stick it to Boston and offers to trade us both Hughes and Tebata for Arroyo. Kriv says that won't be enough but if you throw in a couple of schnooks we'll send a guy named Milton(and his contract) with Arroyo and its a deal. :)

RFS62
06-25-2006, 12:47 PM
While O'Brien, Chambliss, et al are pointed to as the blame for Adam's downturn, does any of it fall on his shoulders?

It's Adam's comments in late March to the tune of "I haven't picked up a bat or glove since our last year" that says he isn't interested in being Ted Williams-esque.... and that's OK....he's so naturally gifted that his current game is well worth the salary being paid.

I think the opposition works a lot harder at understanding how to get Adam out than he does at countering the scouting. He's now purely a bad ball hitter, I'd imagine his 2-0 hitting vs. 0-2 is the widest chasm in baseball. He hurts bad pitches, he can't touch anything when behind in the count. If he decides to become a student of the game, it's going to be a really really bad deal for the rest of baseball. I just think it's right below bass fishing and XBox on Adam's to do list.



I pretty much agree with this. And I don't consider it Dunn bashing to point it out.

pedro
06-25-2006, 12:57 PM
I pretty much agree with this. And I don't consider it Dunn bashing to point it out.


To further this hopefully Dunn is taking the hint from being replaced in LF in the 7th inning and is smart enough to realize that maybe he needs to work more on his OF play too, assuming that he isn't already, which I honestly don't know.

westofyou
06-25-2006, 01:00 PM
To further this hopefully Dunn is taking the hint from being replaced in LF in the 7th inning and is smart enough to realize that maybe he needs to work more on his OF play too, assuming that he isn't already, which I honestly don't know.
Nah, he goes to the clubhouse to cook burgers on his Foreman Grill and play X Box.

pedro
06-25-2006, 01:01 PM
Nah, he goes to the clubhouse to cook burgers on his Foreman Grill and play X Box.

You mean he's not a 4th level vegan? Now I realy hate him.

pedro
06-25-2006, 01:01 PM
Not that I really agree with taking him out in the 7th.

reds44
06-25-2006, 01:05 PM
While O'Brien, Chambliss, et al are pointed to as the blame for Adam's downturn, does any of it fall on his shoulders?

It's Adam's comments in late March to the tune of "I haven't picked up a bat or glove since our last year" that says he isn't interested in being Ted Williams-esque.... and that's OK....he's so naturally gifted that his current game is well worth the salary being paid.

I think the opposition works a lot harder at understanding how to get Adam out than he does at countering the scouting. He's now purely a bad ball hitter, I'd imagine his 2-0 hitting vs. 0-2 is the widest chasm in baseball. He hurts bad pitches, he can't touch anything when behind in the count. If he decides to become a student of the game, it's going to be a really really bad deal for the rest of baseball. I just think it's right below bass fishing and XBox on Adam's to do list.
Good post. I agree, and it definately isn't Dunn bashing.

RFS62
06-25-2006, 01:20 PM
Nah, he goes to the clubhouse to cook burgers on his Foreman Grill and play X Box.


Actually, I thought he was working on his cancer cure and his address to the UN.

:p:

westofyou
06-25-2006, 02:02 PM
Actually, I thought he was working on his cancer cure and his address to the UN.

:p:Nah, I think he ties flies and sells them down by the East End Cafe.

RFS62
06-25-2006, 02:08 PM
Nah, I think he ties flies and sells them down by the East End Cafe.


Nah, I believe he's a bass fisherman.

westofyou
06-25-2006, 02:10 PM
Nah, I believe he's a bass fisherman.
Always going for the big fish... Pete Rose was probably a Fly Fisherman

RFS62
06-25-2006, 02:19 PM
Always going for the big fish... Pete Rose was probably a Fly Fisherman


Yeah, maybe. Fly Fishermen are generally more scrappy, although Ted Williams was said to be one of the greatest fly fishermen in the world back in the day.

pedro
06-25-2006, 02:20 PM
Yeah, maybe. Fly Fishermen are generally more scrappy, although Ted Williams was said to be one of the greatest fly fishermen in the world back in the day.

according to david halberstam he was very intimidating to fish with too.

westofyou
06-25-2006, 02:33 PM
Yeah, maybe. Fly Fishermen are generally more scrappy, although Ted Williams was said to be one of the greatest fly fishermen in the world back in the day.
Ted hit for Power and Average, he also liked to deep sea fish.

RFS62
06-25-2006, 02:37 PM
Ted hit for Power and Average, he also liked to deep sea fish.


Very true. He was a great hunter too.

He was on the Sears Advisory Board.

I learned how to fly fish because of him. Seriously.

Casting is quite an art.

westofyou
06-25-2006, 02:40 PM
Very true. He was a great hunter too.

He was on the Sears Advisory Board.

I learned how to fly fish because of him. Seriously.

Casting is quite an art.
No doubt, once I was up in the Whiteface mountains in NY and I was privy to a guy fishing down stream from me, he was getting it done, that's for sure. I layed on a rock in the middle of the rapids and watched and drank beer.

RFS62
06-25-2006, 02:43 PM
Yeah, "A river runs through it" helped yuppify it and sold a lot of gear, but watching a serious fly fishermen is really something.

KronoRed
06-25-2006, 03:06 PM
Do you think Narron and Krivsky know of Dunn's historical coaching woes?

We know because we lived through it... but do they? Could Adam even relate it to them as well as Steel and OBM did?
They probably know all about it but they think THEY are in the right anyway cause they are 'baseball men' and all ;)

redsfanmia
06-25-2006, 03:53 PM
While O'Brien, Chambliss, et al are pointed to as the blame for Adam's downturn, does any of it fall on his shoulders?

It's Adam's comments in late March to the tune of "I haven't picked up a bat or glove since our last year" that says he isn't interested in being Ted Williams-esque.... and that's OK....he's so naturally gifted that his current game is well worth the salary being paid.

I think the opposition works a lot harder at understanding how to get Adam out than he does at countering the scouting. He's now purely a bad ball hitter, I'd imagine his 2-0 hitting vs. 0-2 is the widest chasm in baseball. He hurts bad pitches, he can't touch anything when behind in the count. If he decides to become a student of the game, it's going to be a really really bad deal for the rest of baseball. I just think it's right below bass fishing and XBox on Adam's to do list.

This is an excellent point and I think the main reason the Reds should be actively looking to deal him. As long as he doesn't pick up his glove or bat in the off season he will never improve and honestly that is my biggest beef with the guy, he has not improved any aspect of his game since he arrived in the majors.

edabbs44
06-25-2006, 03:57 PM
Not sure how bringing up offensive production is "unfair" to Carl Crawford. Crawford just doesn't have the offensive production history of a guy like Dunn. Nor does Suzuki for that matter. And neither player projects to have such going forward. Nothing at all "unfair" about noting that. And a guy who hits 40 HR's will outslug guys like Suzuki and Crawford not because they're "leadoff" (or 2-hole) hitters. Crawford and Suzuki will be outslugged because they lack that kind of power. It has nothing to do with lineup position and everything to do with a skill set both players lack.

And of all three, Crawford is the one guy I'd be looking to trade yesterday. He's a "bad fit" player. He doesn't project a high enough Batting Average to produce an acceptable OBP there because of his awful Isolated Discipline (and it doesn't project to get a whole lot better). He doesn't have enough SLG to hit in the middle of the order. So he's a #6 or #7 hitter who will then see fewer opportunities to utilize his speed skillset on the bases. And his defensive advantage is grabbing a few more balls per season at one of the least important defensive positions on the field. Carl Crawford has value, of course. But it's the kind of value that's consistently overrated among MLB GM's. Tampa- if they're smart- should be able to post a significant trade "win" by dealing Crawford.
Thanks...but i was saying that CC and Ichiro are diff types of hitters. Not everyone is going to hit 40 HRs or hit .350 or whiff 180 times or have OBPs of .400. Everyone is different. And to judge a player solely on their slugging is a little harsh. For that SLG to work to a team's benefit, it's nicer to have people on base and in scoring pos. CC and Ichiro are those guys.

Raisor
06-25-2006, 04:31 PM
Thanks...but i was saying that CC and Ichiro are diff types of hitters. Not everyone is going to hit 40 HRs or hit .350 or whiff 180 times or have OBPs of .400. Everyone is different. And to judge a player solely on their slugging is a little harsh. For that SLG to work to a team's benefit, it's nicer to have people on base and in scoring pos. CC and Ichiro are those guys.


This is why the Runs Created stat is so good at comparing "unlike" players.

It takes those "different" skills all into account.

SteelSD
06-25-2006, 05:03 PM
Thanks...but i was saying that CC and Ichiro are diff types of hitters. Not everyone is going to hit 40 HRs or hit .350 or whiff 180 times or have OBPs of .400. Everyone is different. And to judge a player solely on their slugging is a little harsh. For that SLG to work to a team's benefit, it's nicer to have people on base and in scoring pos. CC and Ichiro are those guys.

No one is judging anyone solely based on SLG.

But let's face facts here...

Carl Crawford's OBP has traditionally been low. It's been low because his IsoD has been low. Very low. And there's nothing in his performance history that indicates it's something that's going to get significantly better. Crawford's "natural" SLG isn't as high as more powerful players. While Crawford augments his SLG with basepath speed, his Stolen Bases have suppressed his OBP to the point of unacceptable of the course of his MLB career. His OBP numbers have been anything but good thusfar, yet you consider him as a real OBP help to a team. Not sure why that is. Now, if you wanted to talk about a guy like Curtis Granderson, then you'd be on to something.

It's every hitter's job to avoid Outs and acquire as many bases as possible. Those who do both better than someone else are more productive offensively than those who don't. The fact that Carl Crawford or Ichiro Suzuki are leadoff hitters isn't germaine to any discussion about offensive value. The fact that Carl Crawford or Ichiro Suzuki attempt to avoid Outs and acquire Bases differently than other players isn't relevant. Fast, less powerful players don't somehow gain value over players who are better at both because they're different. Different doesn't matter. Better does.

edabbs44
06-25-2006, 05:42 PM
Yes.

Dunn gets on base more, drives in more runs, slugs higher, has a higher OPS, is younger, and cheaper. Ichiro hits for a higher average and runs more, but those statistics are one of the last things I look for in a player.

Since both players entered the league in 2001, here is how they have stacked up to each other in the RC/27 category.

Adam Dunn

2001-7.44
2002-6.73
2003-5.95
2004-7.92
2005-7.53
2006-6.64

Ichiro

2001-7.13
2002-6.32
2003-6.07
2004-7.80
2005-5.95
2006-8.23

Dunn has posted a high RC/27 than Ichiro four out of five years and this year is still to be determind, although Ichiro has a pretty hefty lead at the moment. So to answer your question, yes, I would prefer Adam Dunn's bat over Ichiro.
OBM, where are you getting those RC/27 numbers?

SteelSD
06-25-2006, 05:47 PM
OBM, where are you getting those RC/27 numbers?

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

RedsBaron
06-25-2006, 05:55 PM
Actually, I thought he was working on his cancer cure and his address to the UN.

:p:
You've somehow confused Adam Dunn with Billy Ray Cyrus.

edabbs44
06-25-2006, 05:59 PM
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/stats/batting?seasonType=2&type=sab&sort=avg&minpa=0&split=0&season=2006&pos=all&hand=a&league=mlb&ageMin=17&ageMax=51
I was reading this and thought it was very interesting. I'd like to see those numbers run on this "new" method. I think it is from 2002.


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

RedsBaron
06-25-2006, 06:01 PM
Ichiro is twice the player Dunn is or ever will be. Let's face the facts.
Then please offer some facts to show that Suzuki is "twice the player" Dunn is.
By the way, Suzuki was 27 his rookie year with Seattle in 2001. Dunn will be 27 next season.

edabbs44
06-25-2006, 06:24 PM
Then please offer some facts to show that Suzuki is "twice the player" Dunn is.
By the way, Suzuki was 27 his rookie year with Seattle in 2001. Dunn will be 27 next season.
By watching many games of both players, I would rather have Ichiro on my team than Dunn. It is my personal opinion that he is a much better player. I know what RC says, and what OPS says. But Ichiro's defensive abilities are off the charts and those aren't included. I think Ichiro, at the top of a lineup, is invaluable. So I can't give anyone any "facts" to back up my statement, since any "facts" I bring up will be shot to pieces like they invaded Iraqi airspace or something. From what I read, those RC stats from ESPN are flawed. They heavily weigh walks and HRs. In fact a little too much, so says Bill James.

Dunn is obviously going to squash Ichiro in the hitting stats that are spoken about on this site, so I won't even bother. But I can't quite comprehend the bulletproofness Dunn has gotten on this site. It's almost like if someone says a bad word about the guy is like ripping on nuns and babies.

According to ESPN, ARod had a RC/27 of 9.53 and Papi had a 8.51 in 2005. Sorry to say, but Papi was a much better hitter than ARod last season. I watched enough Boston and NY games last season and it wasn't even close. But since RC/27 says so, ARod was better. Even though ARod was a choke artist and Papi seemed to have every big hit for Boston.

And last year, Brian Giles had a .301/.423/.483 with 15 HRs, 83 RBI and 82 runs scored. Teixeira had a .304/.384/.582 with 42 HRs, 134 RBI and 108 runs scored in roughly 50 more PAs. But Giles had a higher RC/27 than Teixeira. So after looking at that, RC/27 leaves something to be desired.

TOBTTReds
06-25-2006, 06:29 PM
Can we change the name of this thread? Everytime I see Dunn for Smoltz I get slightly ill.

SteelSD
06-25-2006, 07:12 PM
By watching many games of both players, I would rather have Ichiro on my team than Dunn. It is my personal opinion that he is a much better player. I know what RC says, and what OPS says. But Ichiro's defensive abilities are off the charts and those aren't included. I think Ichiro, at the top of a lineup, is invaluable. So I can't give anyone any "facts" to back up my statement, since any "facts" I bring up will be shot to pieces like they invaded Iraqi airspace or something. From what I read, those RC stats from ESPN are flawed. They heavily weigh walks and HRs. In fact a little too much, so says Bill James.

The you cited is old. There have been many improvements to the formula since 1999 and it's more accurate than ever and it was pretty darn accurate to begin with.

Oh, and if you had some facts to bring to the table, I'd encourage you to type them. If they're accurate and valid, they'll be accepted.


Dunn is obviously going to squash Ichiro in the hitting stats that are spoken about on this site, so I won't even bother. But I can't quite comprehend the bulletproofness Dunn has gotten on this site. It's almost like if someone says a bad word about the guy is like ripping on nuns and babies.

Dunn is obviously going to squash Suzuki offensively, period. And let's just say the "Dunn is God" strawman is far beyond played out.


According to ESPN, ARod had a RC/27 of 9.53 and Papi had a 8.51 in 2005. Sorry to say, but Papi was a much better hitter than ARod last season. I watched enough Boston and NY games last season and it wasn't even close. But since RC/27 says so, ARod was better. Even though ARod was a choke artist and Papi seemed to have every big hit for Boston.

ARod was a choke artist last year?

w/Runners on (305 AB): .305 BA/.406 OBP/.551 SLG
w/RISP (186 AB): .290 BA/.410 OBP/.484 SLG
Close and Late: .293 BA/.418 OBP/.620 SLG

It appears that your observations didn't provide you an accurate representation of events. If that's "choking" then I sure wish the Reds had players who choked that well. RC/27 shows ARod being more productive last season because ARod WAS more productive last season.


And last year, Brian Giles had a .301/.423/.483 with 15 HRs, 83 RBI and 82 runs scored. Teixeira had a .304/.384/.582 with 42 HRs, 134 RBI and 108 runs scored in roughly 50 more PAs. But Giles had a higher RC/27 than Teixeira. So after looking at that, RC/27 leaves something to be desired.

Giles 39 point OBP advantage over Teixeira was enough to equalize their RC/27 numbers in 2005 because Outs are more important than Bases (i.e. Teixeira's SLG advantage). If it leaves something to be desired, I'd suggest it's due to the fact that RC/27 doesn't jibe with your personal views on productivity. But that has nothing to do with RC/27.

GAC
06-25-2006, 07:17 PM
The last 2 seasons say he's gonna be fine.

Really? Not saying it won't; but what one does in the past is not necessarily a reflection of what they will do in the future.

No one can predict the future, regardless of what some think on this forum. ;)

GAC
06-25-2006, 07:23 PM
While O'Brien, Chambliss, et al are pointed to as the blame for Adam's downturn, does any of it fall on his shoulders?

It's Adam's comments in late March to the tune of "I haven't picked up a bat or glove since our last year" that says he isn't interested in being Ted Williams-esque.... and that's OK....he's so naturally gifted that his current game is well worth the salary being paid.

I think the opposition works a lot harder at understanding how to get Adam out than he does at countering the scouting. He's now purely a bad ball hitter, I'd imagine his 2-0 hitting vs. 0-2 is the widest chasm in baseball. He hurts bad pitches, he can't touch anything when behind in the count. If he decides to become a student of the game, it's going to be a really really bad deal for the rest of baseball. I just think it's right below bass fishing and XBox on Adam's to do list.


:thumbup:

I also find it interesting that on this forum we can debate and critique any other player..... but to do so concerning Dunn is bashing?

edabbs44
06-25-2006, 07:54 PM
Close and late:
Ortiz: 78 ABs, .346/.447/.846 with 11 HRs and 33 RBI
ARod: 75 ABs, .293/.418/.520 with 4 HR and 12 RBI

Scoring position:
Ortiz: 162 ABs, .352/.462/.580 with 7 HR and 92 RBI
ARod: 186 ABs, .290/.410/.484 with 9 HR and 77 RBI

Overall:
Ortiz: .300/.397/.604
ARod: .321/.421/.610

Who raises their game to the next level? Who's stats decline when the situation arises?

And regarding Giles and Teixeira, come on. Look at the numbers. RC/27 is great and all but I think most people would have to question the validity of that equation when looking at that example. But since an equation says so, I guess Giles was better last year.

dougdirt
06-25-2006, 08:03 PM
Oh how I hate reading through Adam Dunn debates.... its the same stuff over and over and over. Yet it all still drives me insane.

"Dunn walks a lot and hits home runs. Walks avoid outs."
"Yeah, but he also cant hit the broad side of a barn 78% of the time"
"But he avoids an out 36% of the time"
"But he strikes out 32% of the time"

Cant we all just agree to disagree? I dont think anyone has, or will change their stance on Adam Dunn.

SteelSD
06-25-2006, 08:06 PM
Close and late:
Ortiz: 78 ABs, .346/.447/.846 with 11 HRs and 33 RBI
ARod: 75 ABs, .293/.418/.520 with 4 HR and 12 RBI

Scoring position:
Ortiz: 162 ABs, .352/.462/.580 with 7 HR and 92 RBI
ARod: 186 ABs, .290/.410/.484 with 9 HR and 77 RBI

Overall:
Ortiz: .300/.397/.604
ARod: .321/.421/.610

Who raises their game to the next level? Who's stats decline when the situation arises?

Neither. Players, over time, will play to their levels regardless of situation. The point at issue is that you claimed that ARod was a "choker". He obviously wasn't, yet you were sure of it.


And regarding Giles and Teixeira, come on. Look at the numbers. RC/27 is great and all but I think most people would have to question the validity of that equation when looking at that example. But since an equation says so, I guess Giles was better last year.

Just because you consider other less accurate performance metrics to be far more relevant than they actually are, that doesn't take away the fact that RC/27 is a more accurate representation of player performance than anything you use. Sorry. That's just the way it goes sometimes. Sometimes we think one thing, but accurate relevant information tells us otherwise. When that happens, we can either choose to alter our view or pooh-pooh the numbers that don't jibe with our own world view. I choose to do the former. You?

reds44
06-25-2006, 08:20 PM
This is from Lance's blog:

Adam Dunn numbers
Current ML rank for Adam Dunn
43 rbi's......57th
.364 OBP......61st
.901 OPS......38th
On pace for 95 rbi's......last year 33 players had more than 95 rbi's
Runners on .178
Runners on, two outs .133
Runners in scoring position .150
Runners in scoring position with 2 outs .160
After count gets to 0-2 against him: 1 for 40
vs RHP batting . 195
vs LHP batting .289
Since May 1st.....35 for 175 (.200).......26 rbi, 34 walks, 50 k's

How many players are on pace to have their batting average, on base %, slugging and OPS all drop in back to back years?
Drops, by year, from 2004 to now:
Average: .266, .247, .223
OBP: .388, .387, .364
SLG: .569, .540, .539
OPS: .957, .927, .903

Runners in scoring position since 2003 .214 in 425 ab's

__________________________________________
This is from me:

Here are Dunn's strong points:
43 rbi's......57th
.364 OBP......61st
.901 OPS......38th
On pace for 95 rbi's......last year 33 players had more than 95 rbi's

So he is not even the Top 30 in any of his best catagories.

Then we go to his worst catagories.
Runners on .178
Runners on, two outs .133
Runners in scoring position .150
Runners in scoring position with 2 outs .160
BA: .221
SO: 86

He is a terrible fielder, and has a bad work ethic.

So please tell me what makes Adam Dunn elite? Sorry there has never been and never will be a great player that has a BA of .246 (Dunn's career BA) and that can't field at all.

People mock it when people bring up Dunn's inability to do anything in key situations. The truth is, he can't.

I would trade Dunn for pitching, and allow Freel and Denorfia to take his place. Freel is more valuable to this team then Dunn, and Dunn will bring twice as much in via trade then Freel would.

How many players are on pace to have their batting average, on base %, slugging and OPS all drop in back to back years?
Drops, by year, from 2004 to now:
Average: .266, .247, .223
OBP: .388, .387, .364
SLG: .569, .540, .539
OPS: .957, .927, .903

The man who is supposed to be entering his prime, is regressing not progressing.

edabbs44
06-25-2006, 08:21 PM
Neither. Players, over time, will play to their levels regardless of situation. The point at issue is that you claimed that ARod was a "choker". He obviously wasn't, yet you were sure of it.

Just because you consider other less accurate performance metrics to be far more relevant than they actually are, that doesn't take away the fact that RC/27 is a more accurate representation of player performance than anything you use. Sorry. That's just the way it goes sometimes. Sometimes we think one thing, but accurate relevant information tells us otherwise. When that happens, we can either choose to alter our view or pooh-pooh the numbers that don't jibe with our own world view. I choose to do the former. You?
How do you know whether players will play to their levels regardless of situation? Do you have any facts to back that up?

And about what I choose, I don't let one stat tell me what and what not to believe. If one guy outperforms another in pretty much every category except OBP, then to me that person had a better year. No matter what Bill James, Baseball Prospectus or some other publication tells me. That's my own choice. I won't become a slave to one or two stats. If someone is outstanding in HRs and awful in most other things, that won't make me feel any different than if another player was great in BA, OBP, runs scored or RBI and lacking in other things. But if you want to think something else, that's fine.

Now do me a favor...look at Teixeira's 2005 season and Giles' 2005 season and tell me why Giles had a better season. If walks is the only reason then just say that and we won't have to debate any longer. But if I am missing something, I'm all ears. I have no problem learning something new.

westofyou
06-25-2006, 08:43 PM
Sorry there has never been and never will be a great player that has a BA of .246 (Dunn's career BA) and that can't field at all.

http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/hofers_and_honorees/plaques/images/Killebrew_Harmon.jpg

Reds1
06-25-2006, 08:45 PM
NO way! Old guy for young stud with 24HRS. IF Dunn ever makes more contact he could be the best player along with Pujols in the league. Salary ok for next 2 yrs. Smoltz old and hurts himself pitching. Again, no way.

dougdirt
06-25-2006, 08:53 PM
WOY, Killer was a career .256 hitter

Cedric
06-25-2006, 08:55 PM
Dunn walks much more, evens that out.

westofyou
06-25-2006, 08:55 PM
WOY, Killer was a career .256 hitter
Yeah and Adam Dunn is 26 years old so I'll wait until I declare him lazy and useless.

BTW at age 26 Mike Schmidt sported a lifetime .252 batting average.

westofyou
06-25-2006, 08:55 PM
Dunn walks much more, evens that out.
Shhh... it's our secret.

flyer85
06-25-2006, 08:58 PM
Dunn happens to have an extremely low (and unlucky) 22 hit% to this point in the season. Do with that what you may.

reds44
06-25-2006, 09:01 PM
Yeah and Adam Dunn is 26 years old so I'll wait until I declare him lazy and useless.

BTW at age 26 Mike Schmidt sported a lifetime .252 batting average.
I would consider someone that said he didn't pick up a bat in the offseason "lazy".

Useless? Of course not.

edabbs44
06-25-2006, 09:03 PM
Yeah and Adam Dunn is 26 years old so I'll wait until I declare him lazy and useless.

BTW at age 26 Mike Schmidt sported a lifetime .252 batting average.
And started a string of 9 GGs in a row. I do realize that GGs are a little overrated, but you have to be a somewhat solid defender to win 9 in a row. And I know Palmeiro won one while playing like 30 games at first. But he won 9 in a row and 10 in 11 years.

reds44
06-25-2006, 09:08 PM
Dunn happens to have an extremely low (and unlucky) 22 hit% to this point in the season. Do with that what you may.
What exactly does that mean?

Would the shift have something to do with it?

flyer85
06-25-2006, 09:11 PM
What exactly does that mean?

Would the shift have something to do with it?nope, teams have employed the shift against Dunn in the past, it is nothing new.

It means his h% is about 6% below his historical rate. You can decide for yourself what it means.

reds44
06-25-2006, 09:13 PM
nope, teams have employed the shift against Dunn in the past, it is nothing new.

It means his h% is about 6% below his historical rate. You can decide for yourself what it means.
That he is regressing like all of his other stats say?

vaticanplum
06-25-2006, 09:28 PM
Whatever your general thoughts on Adam Dunn, I really feel that it is a little early in his relatively short career to say that he is "regressing" yet.

reds44
06-25-2006, 09:29 PM
Whatever your general thoughts on Adam Dunn, I really feel that it is a little early in his relatively short career to say that he is "regressing" yet.
His numbers in 05 were down from 04, and so far his numbers from 05 are down in 06.

vaticanplum
06-25-2006, 09:37 PM
His numbers in 05 were down from 04, and so far his numbers from 05 are down in 06.

I just don't think it's enough time to tell yet. That says to me that he had an unusually good early career which is an indicator of his exceptional talent and potential, and that the last two years have been a period of his getting adjusted to the big leagues and focusing on other aspects of his game. It doesn't say to me that he's likely to keep getting worse -- he'd have to be superhuman for his numbers to climb significantly every year from 2004...which is, after all, only two years. If his numbers keep going down for two more years, that's serious regression. This is adjustment in my opinion. I do expect his numbers to go back up.

SteelSD
06-25-2006, 09:54 PM
How do you know whether players will play to their levels regardless of situation? Do you have any facts to back that up?

Of course I do. People (myself included) have searched long and hard for baseball players capable of overshooting their norms over long periods of time in certain situations and no one can find much of anything to indicate the existence of a "clutch" skill set. Over time, and particularly over careers, players- almost without exception- play to their norms across all situations.

Oh, and if a player outperforms another in everything but OBP, Runs Created and RC/27 will tell you that.


And about what I choose, I don't let one stat tell me what and what not to believe. If one guy outperforms another in pretty much every category except OBP, then to me that person had a better year. No matter what Bill James, Baseball Prospectus or some other publication tells me. That's my own choice. I won't become a slave to one or two stats. If someone is outstanding in HRs and awful in most other things, that won't make me feel any different than if another player was great in BA, OBP, runs scored or RBI and lacking in other things. But if you want to think something else, that's fine.

Actually, what you're doing is choosing to disregard that which doesn't jibe with your preconceived notions. If Player A posts good numbers that you value, regardless of whether those numbers are poor indicators of individual performance (see: RBI, RS), you like him. If alternative information is provided that runs counter to your notion of performance, you disregard it regardless of how accurate and valid that data is. You've done it in this thread consistently and it's because, contrary to your belief, you are a slave to certain statistics and they're not the most relevant ones.


Now do me a favor...look at Teixeira's 2005 season and Giles' 2005 season and tell me why Giles had a better season. If walks is the only reason then just say that and we won't have to debate any longer. But if I am missing something, I'm all ears. I have no problem learning something new.

I've already looked at those seasons and I already told you why Giles was worth more Runs per 27 Outs- he made a lower percentage of Outs than Teixeira . I don't care what caused Giles to make a lower percentage of Outs. Fact is Giles OBP advantage was worth more than Teixiera's SLG advantage. OBP is more valuable than SLG. Opportunity is more important than distance. It's just the way baseball was designed and that's what you're missing.

It's why Ichiro Suzuki has performed better than Dunn this season. It's also one of the reasons Kevin Youkilis has been worth more than Suzuki this season. How players avoid Outs doesn't matter to me from a performance analysis standpoint (however, it matters a great deal from a projection standpoint). Youkilis and Suzuki rank 16th and 17th respectively in MLB in RC/27. Youkilis has the OBP and SLG advantage but the latter is somewhat neutralized by Suzuki's speed. Both players avoid Outs and acquire bases differently yet they're basically neck-in-neck from a Run value standpoint.

And please note that I have zero issue with you challenging the logic of anything I've said. If that doesn't happen, knowledge gain doesn't happen either. And if you are, in earnest, open to the consideration of new concepts there's something you should know...

I'm a pretty darned skeptical guy. Runs Created formula? Questioned it myself. Broke it down to it's core components. Deciphered exactly the value of each individual event contained within. Ran correlation studies versus traditional metrics. Before presenting anything as accurate and valid, I put it to the litmus test. Runs Created and RC/27 passes that litmus test better than any other rate or counting statistic I've studied. One of the reasons that's the case is that it's not a single statistic. Rather, it's a product of the incorporation of every offensive event that actually matters. It's accurate, it's relevant, and it's the most valid single-look representation of performance outside of even more complex workings such as Linear Weights.

KronoRed
06-25-2006, 10:18 PM
His numbers in 05 were down from 04, and so far his numbers from 05 are down in 06.
Expanding the strike zone ane avoiding strike outs at work.

His 04 numbers were extremely better then his 03 ;)

edabbs44
06-25-2006, 10:39 PM
Opportunity is more important than distance. It's just the way baseball was designed and that's what you're missing.

This is the one area where I disagree with this formula. Giles, without a dispute, is someone who gives more opportunity to others in the lineup since his OBP is higher than Teixeira. Teixeira is someone who takes advantage of those opportunities. More than Giles, as seen by the enormous differences in SLG and RBI in 2005.

Teixeira, with RISP, had 161 ABs and hit .366/.447/.758 with 15 HRs and 99 RBI. With runners on, had 311 ABs and hit .328/.411/.691 with 29 HRs and 130 RBI.

Giles, on the other hand, had 136 ABs with RISP and hit .360/.478/.515 with 3 HR and 62 RBI. With runners on, had 269 ABs and hit .353/.462/.517 with 5 HR and 73 RBI.

To me, I would rather have someone who takes advantage of opportunities than someone who makes opportunities for others since "one in the hand is worth two in the bush." Looking at the numbers above, it isn't like Teix had many more scoring opportunities than Giles. He definitely had more, but his numbers dwarf what Giles accomplished in those situations, even if they were pro-rated to even out the ABs.

I guess my main problem here is reality vs. theory. RC/27 is theoretical since it assumes that the whole team is made up of 9 Giles or 9 Teixeiras. The reality of last year was that by taking the equation of actual runs (R+RBI)-HR/PAs, Teixeira contributed to more runs overall and per PA. And it actually wasn't close in either respect. Giles had 160 in 664 PAs (.241) and Teix had 213 in 716 PAs (.297). So, theoretically, Giles was worth more runs than Teix and, in reality last year, Teixeira contributed to more runs than Giles. What is correct? I'm of the believer of what actually takes place. I would rather have someone who actually takes part in more scoring than someone who should or theoretically takes part in more. And maybe that is flawed. But I cannot see Giles as being more productive last year than Teix, no matter what any equation says. Like I said before, I would rather have someone knocking in the runs than someone getting on base waiting for someone to knock them in. Both are very important, don't get me wrong. Just my personal opinion.

On a side note, I have now officially decided to buy that Baseball Prospectus book and take it to Vegas next week. And if this book doesn't answer my questions, then I am coming back with a vengence. :D

westofyou
06-25-2006, 11:00 PM
His numbers in 05 were down from 04, and so far his numbers from 05 are down in 06.
Al Kaline regressed

reds44
06-25-2006, 11:02 PM
Al Kaline regressed
At 26?

flyer85
06-25-2006, 11:11 PM
At 26?it would seem to be a stretch to consider a < 5% dropoff half way through a season a regression.

OPS from 2005 and 2006

Dunn .927(05) .910(06)
Lopez .838(05) .738(06)
Jr .945(05) .814(06)

reds44
06-25-2006, 11:14 PM
it would seem to be a stretch to consider a < 5% dropoff half way through a season a regression.

OPS from 2005 and 2006

Dunn .927(05) .910(06)
Lopez .838(05) .738(06)
Jr .945(05) .814(06)
Drops, by year, from 2004 to now:
Average: .266, .247, .223
OBP: .388, .387, .364
SLG: .569, .540, .539
OPS: .957, .927, .903

his OPS has dropped off more then 50 points since 04.

westofyou
06-25-2006, 11:15 PM
At 26?
At 21, 24, 29.

The point is nothing is a given, guys have pocket years that are good or bad, no player is a sure thing either way, and careers, just like seasons are full of ups and downs.

On July 1st 2005 Adam Dunn had 21 HR's and 41 RBI's and 51 runs scored.

On June 25th 2006 Adam Dunn has 24 HR's 43 RBI's and 53 runs scored.

It's amazing how much he is regressing.

flyer85
06-25-2006, 11:17 PM
Drops, by year, from 2004 to now:
Average: .266, .247, .223
OBP: .388, .387, .364
SLG: .569, .540, .539
OPS: .957, .927, .903

his OPS has dropped off more then 50 points since 04.which is around 5%. Shouldn't one be more concerned with offensive players who are exhibiting a bigger drop(well over 10%) from years in 2005 that were a career seasons at that point in their careers?

reds44
06-25-2006, 11:19 PM
which is around 5%. Shouldn't one be more concerned with offensive players who are exhibiting a bigger drop(well over 10% from a year in 2005 that was a career season at this point in their career?
I'm just as concerned about Lopez as Dunn. Lopez had a career year last year, a dropoff was almost to be expected, not so much for Dunn.

Also nobody is here telling me how great Felipe is, Dunn on the other hand.

Cedric
06-25-2006, 11:22 PM
Dunn has a proven track record. Not one year of success. Can't compare them in the least.

flyer85
06-25-2006, 11:23 PM
I'm just as concerned about Lopez as Dunn. Lopez had a career year last year, a dropoff was almost to be expected, not so much for Dunn.

Also nobody is here telling me how great Felipe is, Dunn on the other hand.you should be even more concerned about Jr. His OBP in the three hole is a huge problem.

edabbs44
06-25-2006, 11:25 PM
you should be even more concerned about Jr. His OBP in the three hole is a huge problem.
I don't have as much of a problem with his OBP as I do with him being cemented in the 3 hole no matter how he performs.

reds44
06-25-2006, 11:25 PM
you should be even more concerned about Jr. His OBP in the three hole is a huge problem.
The offense is a concern, I have expressed my feelings about Lopez and Griffey time and time again. Griffey is on the downside, Lopez had a career year, and Rich has no buisness batting 4th.

We have possibly the worse 2-3-4 in baseball.

Again that has nothing to do with Dunn. Nobody is telling me how good Junior and Felipe are, but people are telling me that about Dunn.

flyer85
06-25-2006, 11:29 PM
Again that has nothing to do with Dunn. so then why focus on what is not a real problem, but is more an issue of perception, seems like a waste of energy.

The Reds right now have 3 and 4 hitters that have an OBP that is entirely BA driven and simply don't get on base enough.

reds44
06-25-2006, 11:30 PM
so then why focus on what is not a real problem, but is more an issue of perception, seems like a waste of energy.

The Reds right now have 3 and 4 hitters that have an OBP that is entirely BA driven and simply don't get on base enough.
I would rather have Griffey in the 3 hole then Dunn. Dunn simply doesn't hit with runners on base.

Edwin belongs batting 4th.

gonelong
06-25-2006, 11:36 PM
It's Adam's comments in late March to the tune of "I haven't picked up a bat or glove since our last year" that says he isn't interested in being Ted Williams-esque.... and that's OK....he's so naturally gifted that his current game is well worth the salary being paid.


I'd be real intested in finding a reference for that paraphrase, it seemed to be at odds with what I had remembered, so I did a quick search.

This article, dated 29 January about Dunn's broken hand:
http://frontier.cincinnati.com/blogs/spring/2006/01/dunn-follow-up.asp


Doc Kremchek saw the article Saturday morning and called Mann, who has been in Sarasota for a week and a half. Mann was just as surprised as Kremchek and got in touch with Dunn on Saturday.

"I said ‘Adam, what’s the story? Is this thing still bothering you?’ He said, ‘Absolutely not.’"

Mann said he had already talked to Dunn about a week earlier, just checking in, and the new first baseman had told him everything was going fine with his offseason -- he was hitting and working out as normal.


To be fair, I searched for an article to find the context in which your paraphase had come from. I didn't find one, but maybe it came from a chat or radio?

GL

MWM
06-25-2006, 11:38 PM
gl, our resident "insider" said it so it must be fact.

flyer85
06-25-2006, 11:42 PM
I would rather have Griffey in the 3 hole then Dunn. who said anything about batting Dunn in the 3 hole?

flyer85
06-25-2006, 11:43 PM
gl, our resident "insider" said it so it must be fact.anecdotal evidence that fits a preconceived notion is still preferred.

reds44
06-25-2006, 11:43 PM
who said anything about batting Dunn in the 3 hole?

You said:


so then why focus on what is not a real problem, but is more an issue of perception, seems like a waste of energy.

The Reds right now have 3 and 4 hitters that have an OBP that is entirely BA driven and simply don't get on base enough.
I thought that meant you wanted Dunn hitting 3rd.

Sorry if I read too much into your post.

MWM
06-25-2006, 11:45 PM
Over the past three seasons, Dunn hit .245/.424/.526/.950 with 49 HRs and 196 RBI with men on base. That's over about 850 plate appearances. I'd say he hits about the same with men on that he does any other time. And I'll take what 850 plate appearances tell me over less than half of a year. Can we please put to rest the notion that he can't hit with men on base. It gets said a few dozen times a day on here and it simply isn't true. He's got plenty of weaknesses in his game, but hitting with runners on base isn't one of them.

SteelSD
06-25-2006, 11:45 PM
This is the one area where I disagree with this formula. Giles, without a dispute, is someone who gives more opportunity to others in the lineup since his OBP is higher than Teixeira. Teixeira is someone who takes advantage of those opportunities. More than Giles, as seen by the enormous differences in SLG and RBI in 2005.

Teixeira, with RISP, had 161 ABs and hit .366/.447/.758 with 15 HRs and 99 RBI. With runners on, had 311 ABs and hit .328/.411/.691 with 29 HRs and 130 RBI.

Giles, on the other hand, had 136 ABs with RISP and hit .360/.478/.515 with 3 HR and 62 RBI. With runners on, had 269 ABs and hit .353/.462/.517 with 5 HR and 73 RBI.

To me, I would rather have someone who takes advantage of opportunities than someone who makes opportunities for others since "one in the hand is worth two in the bush." Looking at the numbers above, it isn't like Teix had many more scoring opportunities than Giles. He definitely had more, but his numbers dwarf what Giles accomplished in those situations, even if they were pro-rated to even out the ABs.

And there's where you need to look- RBI. It's just not a valid measure of individual performance. It's a transient, opportunity-driven, team-driven statistic. It's accurate for sure as RBI does track the number of Runs Batted In. But it's not valid as an individual performance metric because, as you've stated, the preceeding players need to be on base.


I guess my main problem here is reality vs. theory. RC/27 is theoretical since it assumes that the whole team is made up of 9 Giles or 9 Teixeiras. The reality of last year was that by taking the equation of actual runs (R+RBI)-HR/PAs, Teixeira contributed to more runs overall and per PA. And it actually wasn't close in either respect. Giles had 160 in 664 PAs (.241) and Teix had 213 in 716 PAs (.297). So, theoretically, Giles was worth more runs than Teix and, in reality last year, Teixeira contributed to more runs than Giles. What is correct? I'm of the believer of what actually takes place. I would rather have someone who actually takes part in more scoring than someone who should or theoretically takes part in more. And maybe that is flawed. But I cannot see Giles as being more productive last year than Teix, no matter what any equation says. Like I said before, I would rather have someone knocking in the runs than someone getting on base waiting for someone to knock them in. Both are very important, don't get me wrong. Just my personal opinion.

First, you're using a bad formula (RS+RBI)-HR/PA. It's interesting that more valid sabermetric formulas like Runs Created are derided (not speaking to you, of course) as "fantasy baseball" metrics, but the formula you just cited actually was utilized for quite some time in an effort to determine which players were more likely to "fit" the traditional fantasy league scoring (which includes RS and RBI). And you're right- at one point something like Runs Created was a theory. But considering how highly correlated RC is to actual Runs Scored, we're well beyond that point now.

Here's the thing about RBI and the following is really important. The major issue with evaluating players based on RBI performance is that such evaluation assumes that "capitalization" and "opportunity" run independent of each other.

The reality is that those aren't independent concepts because baseball is a dynamic system. Innings don't end when a player produces a non-Out event that leads to no RBI and all non-Out events increase the probability that more Runs will be scored that Inning. It tends to be hard to accept, but that which leads to higher Run Scoring probability is preferable to that which does not. The reason that concept tends to be hard to accept is that we tend to view the game from a "capitalization" standpoint rather than a probability standpoint. And yet, we've found- quite conclusively- that teams and players who provide the most probability gain are the most productive players in the game. And we're not just talking about situational RBI opportunity. We're talking about every single PA acquired by any hitter because, literally, every single MLB player is in Scoring Position the moment they step into the batter's box regardless of the hitters preceeding him.

One of my initial mistakes when arguing against the same metrics you're challenging is that I viewed behavior within Innings as "capitalization" opportunities rather than understanding that all Out avoidance behavior during an Inning increased the probability that a team would score more Runs in that Inning- and moreso when Out avoidance results in multiple Base aquisition. That's what RC and RC/27 guages- the probability that more Runs would be scored and the most accurate version is based on all possible offensive behavior. I've run correlations and when a metric produces a correlation over time of well over 90%, I stand up and take notice because it tells us that doing that which results in most probable Run scoring actually does represent more Run scoring.


On a side note, I have now officially decided to buy that Baseball Prospectus book and take it to Vegas next week. And if this book doesn't answer my questions, then I am coming back with a vengence. :D

Well, be careful my friend. It's incredibly difficult to beat Vegas in single-game betting scenarios because they've got a huge statistical advantage built into their system.

And, again, I do very much appreciate the dialogue. You've made many good points that deserved a response and, IMHO, have demonstrated you're interested in finding truth. We may disagree on a couple things even after this post but I really do appreciate the fact that you've engaged in an honest dialogue. Kudos.

flyer85
06-25-2006, 11:48 PM
I highlighted what I consider the biggest offensive problem the Reds have, that their #3 and #4 hitters are by far the worst of the everyday players at getting on base. Over the course of the season it will cost the Reds some runs.

SteelSD
06-25-2006, 11:54 PM
I'm just as concerned about Lopez as Dunn. Lopez had a career year last year, a dropoff was almost to be expected, not so much for Dunn.

Also nobody is here telling me how great Felipe is, Dunn on the other hand.

Actually, earlier this season you were telling everyone who'd listen that Felipe Lopez was the Reds' best player without qualification. There was no talk from you of an "expected" dropoff for Lopez.

reds44
06-25-2006, 11:57 PM
Actually, earlier this season you were telling everyone who'd listen that Felipe Lopez was the Reds' best player without qualification. There was no talk from you of an "expected" dropoff for Lopez.
D'oh.

Yes that was a bad call on my part.

SteelSD
06-26-2006, 12:00 AM
I highlighted what I consider the biggest offensive problem the Reds have, that their #3 and #4 hitters are by far the worst of the everyday players at getting on base. Over the course of the season it will cost the Reds some runs.

It's already cost the Reds. Only three MLB teams have a 3-slot OBP of .310 or less. Only two MLB teams have a 4-slot OBP of .310 or under.

flyer85
06-26-2006, 12:05 AM
Yes that was a bad call on my part.it doesn't stop one from continuing to offer opinions but it will stop some from paying any attention.

BTW, a half season is a small sample size and Lopez(and others) could well bounce back with a good 2nd half and end up where they did in prior years. There is certainly a better chance of that than there ever was of guys like White, Burns and Hammond pitching well for the Reds in 2006.

flyer85
06-26-2006, 12:08 AM
It's already cost the Reds. Only three MLB teams have a 3-slot OBP of .310 or less. Only two MLB teams have a 4-slot OBP of .310 or under.the Reds have a manager who proclaims it "his best lineup". For those who are in the Narron camp he is likely to be a large impediment to long term success for this team as he way overvalues qualities that can't be quantified (like experience and scrappiness) for those that can.

SteelSD
06-26-2006, 12:27 AM
D'oh.

Yes that was a bad call on my part.

Dude, we all make them. FCB can hand me my hat on Miguel Batista, Russ Ortiz, and it appears Matt Clement (although I didn't know about his asthma problem).

And, as others will tell you, I was a HUGE Felipe Lopez supporter (still am, BTW) when it looked like Lopez wasn't going to be much of anything. I was also one of the three or four supporters when the trend was to just release Wily Mo Pena. I've also been a Brandon Phillips supporter even though his performance history doesn't mandate that I jump on that bandwagon.

Why? Because sometimes a players tools do actually matter if they've got extreme tools. Lopez, Pena, and Phillips have those. And over the short term that indicates those players can perform. That being said, we also need to understand that those players can be more volatile than others so our opinions of guys like that can't be extreme while they're on hot or cold streaks.

SteelSD
06-26-2006, 12:42 AM
the Reds have a manager who proclaims it "his best lineup". For those who are in the Narron camp he is likely to be a large impediment to long term success for this team as he way overvalues qualities that can't be quantified (like experience and scrappiness) for those that can.

Yep. Narron is doing an excellent job to suppress Run scoring. He's been doing it all year. At some point the GM needs to step in. But I'm not sure that'll ever happen considering the environment from which Krivsky came.

Unfortunate.

Cedric
06-26-2006, 12:43 AM
Dude, we all make them. FCB can hand me my hat on Miguel Batista, Russ Ortiz, and it appears Matt Clement (although I didn't know about his asthma problem).

And, as others will tell you, I was a HUGE Felipe Lopez supporter (still am, BTW) when it looked like Lopez wasn't going to be much of anything. I was also one of the three or four supporters when the trend was to just release Wily Mo Pena. I've also been a Brandon Phillips supporter even though his performance history doesn't mandate that I jump on that bandwagon.

Why? Because sometimes a players tools do actually matter if they've got extreme tools. Lopez, Pena, and Phillips have those. And over the short term that indicates those players can perform. That being said, we also need to understand that those players can be more volatile than others so our opinions of guys like that can't be extreme while they're on hot or cold streaks.

I loved Wily Mo and Lopez.

But I thought Willie Greene was a perennial all star.

That negates all.

edabbs44
06-26-2006, 08:11 AM
Yep. Narron is doing an excellent job to suppress Run scoring. He's been doing it all year. At some point the GM needs to step in. But I'm not sure that'll ever happen considering the environment from which Krivsky came.

Unfortunate.
A winning environment?:D

Krusty
06-26-2006, 09:00 AM
Here is the slobber-knocker I would consider trading Dunn:

Cincy trading Dunn, Bailey, Claussen and Coffey to the Twins for LHP Johan Santana, RHP Joe Nathan and LHP Dennys Reyes.

RANDY IN INDY
06-26-2006, 09:02 AM
Why do you want "the big sweat" back, Krusty?

edabbs44
06-26-2006, 09:02 AM
Here is the slobber-knocker I would consider trading Dunn:

Cincy trading Dunn, Bailey, Claussen and Coffey to the Twins for LHP Johan Santana, RHP Joe Nathan and LHP Dennys Reyes.
Never happen in a million years.

Krusty
06-26-2006, 09:07 AM
Why do you want "the big sweat" back, Krusty?

Reyes' stats this season has been outstanding by a situational lefthanded pitcher. He would bolster the bullpen compared to a Burns or even Mercker.

Krusty
06-26-2006, 09:11 AM
Never happen in a million years.

So, if you're the Twins you wouldn't do it especially if you're out of contention? Eventually Santana and Nathan will price them out of Minnesota. Liriano replaces Santana as the ace of the staff. Claussen fills out the rotation. Bailey gives them a future starter. Coffey is the closer.

For the Reds, let's see if Castanelli commits the dollars to winning. Santana along with Harang, Arroyo, Milton and Ramirez gives the Reds a rock solid rotation. Nathan is a proven closer. Reyes bolsters the bullpen as a setup man especially on the leftside. Weathers and Belisle can handle the duties on the right side.

You replace Dunn with either Freel or Denorfia in LF.

OnBaseMachine
06-26-2006, 09:53 AM
Adam Dunn-Career

Bases empty-.250/.351/.533-.884

Runners on-.240/.415/.505-.920


People mock it when people bring up Dunn's inability to do anything in key situations. The truth is, he can't.


It appears Adam Dunn is actually better when runners are on base as opposed to being empty. With this little tidbit in mind, Adam Dunn will now be referred to as Adam "clutch" Dunn.

registerthis
06-26-2006, 10:09 AM
Without diving too much into this whole AD debate (I'm generally content to watch everyone else duke this out), it does make one wonder about why DUnn's numbers just aren't up to par this year. The power is there, but just about everything else has been down. That Dunn doesn't rank anywhere close to the top 30 in the game in SLG and OBP--two of his strongest points--tells me there's a problem. He's become way too easy for the other team to get out--particularly once he gets behind in the count, which also limits the effectiveness of his swing since he goes into defensive mode.

My guess is, some blame lies equally with Narron, Chambliss and Dunn himself for the situation. And as to why people come down so hard on Dunn as opposed to other players, I would guess it has something to do with "to whom much is given much is expected."

westofyou
06-26-2006, 10:17 AM
So, if you're the Twins you wouldn't do it especially if you're out of contention?What hints does the Ryan regime give you that they are ready to dump their #1 starter and top reliever for a 11 million dollar player?

I mean aside from the empty sixer in your trash?

edabbs44
06-26-2006, 10:24 AM
Adam Dunn-Career

Bases empty-.250/.351/.533-.884

Runners on-.240/.415/.505-.920



It appears Adam Dunn is actually better when runners are on base as opposed to being empty. With this little tidbit in mind, Adam Dunn will now be referred to as Adam "clutch" Dunn.
I'm not sure if walking with runners on is considered "clutch". :) Valuable I can deal with.. But not clutch. And I am sure those numbers include IBBs with men on as well, which would surely boost his numbers w/o Dunn needing to do anything except stand there.

OnBaseMachine
06-26-2006, 10:34 AM
I'm not sure if walking with runners on is considered "clutch". :) Valuable I can deal with.. But not clutch. And I am sure those numbers include IBBs with men on as well, which would surely boost his numbers w/o Dunn needing to do anything except stand there.

Dunn's job is to not make outs. As evidenced by the statistics noted above, Dunn does a better job of not making outs when runners are on base.

edabbs44
06-26-2006, 10:52 AM
Dunn's job is to not make outs. As evidenced by the statistics noted above, Dunn does a better job of not making outs when runners are on base.
Then say he is doing his job. Don't call him clutch. Two different things. I was pointing out that he has had 54 IBBs. Which would raise his OBP in those situations and doesn't require any clutchness.

OnBaseMachine
06-26-2006, 11:01 AM
Then say he is doing his job. Don't call him clutch. Two different things. I was pointing out that he has had 54 IBBs. Which would raise his OBP in those situations and doesn't require any clutchness.

I was being sarcastic dude, hence the quotation marks around clutch.

NYMoose
06-26-2006, 12:43 PM
No doubt, once I was up in the Whiteface mountains in NY and I was privy to a guy fishing down stream from me, he was getting it done, that's for sure. I layed on a rock in the middle of the rapids and watched and drank beer.


I hope this was after black fly season. Beautiful area.

reds44
06-26-2006, 12:47 PM
Adam Dunn-Career

Bases empty-.250/.351/.533-.884

Runners on-.240/.415/.505-.920



It appears Adam Dunn is actually better when runners are on base as opposed to being empty. With this little tidbit in mind, Adam Dunn will now be referred to as Adam "clutch" Dunn.
I hope Dunn goes back to those numbers by the end of the year, but this year he can't hit at all with runners on base.

pedro
06-26-2006, 12:50 PM
I hope Dunn goes back to those numbers by the end of the year, but this year he can't hit at all with runners on base.


Yes he is struggling but with such a small sample size the difference is only about 5-6 hits, about half of which could easily be chalked up to bad luck.

gonelong
06-26-2006, 01:02 PM
I have been paying a bit more attention to such things this season and I have noticed 2 things.

1. There are a large number of hits that don't more a runner more than one base.
2. There are quite a few hits with RISP that don't produce a run

GL

edabbs44
06-26-2006, 01:30 PM
I have been paying a bit more attention to such things this season and I have noticed 2 things.

1. There are a large number of hits that don't more a runner more than one base.
2. There are quite a few hits with RISP that don't produce a run

GL
I agree that you cannot assume the two situations mentioned above. But you can also say that walks only move runners up a base when they are forced. Walks also can kill a rally (i.e., 2nd and 3rd and one out is now a DP situation with one out). And walks with RISP only drive in runs when the bases are loaded.

But "large number of hits" and "quite a few hits" should be changed to "large number of singles" or "quite a few singles". And those situations are magnified when you have a Hatteberg or someone like him on first or 2nd.

I know I will get abused after this post so bring it on. But I feel what is mentioned above are facts. And if Bill James mentioned in his 1974 speech at his family reunion about how walking into a DP situation actually helps a team score runs, then let's hear it.

Reds Nd2
06-26-2006, 01:59 PM
Walks also can kill a rally (i.e., 2nd and 3rd and one out is now a DP situation with one out).

Avoiding an out has never killed a rally.

edabbs44
06-26-2006, 02:09 PM
Avoiding an out has never killed a rally.
I guess if you had 2nd and 3rd and one out then the manager should never intentionally walk a hitter? I'm saying it could, not would.

pedro
06-26-2006, 02:09 PM
I guess if you had 2nd and 3rd and one out then the manager should never intentionally walk a hitter? I'm saying it could, not would.

The walk doesn't kill the rally. The DP does.

edabbs44
06-26-2006, 02:11 PM
The walk doesn't kill the rally. The DP does.
But the walk raises the possibility of the DP, does it not?

Reds Nd2
06-26-2006, 02:13 PM
I guess if you had 2nd and 3rd and one out then the manager should never intentionally walk a hitter? I'm saying it could, not would.

That would be the defense assuming the risk of the additional base runner for the opportunity of the double play though.

Reds Nd2
06-26-2006, 02:14 PM
But the walk raises the possibility of the DP, does it not?

It also raises the possibilty for another run to score.

pedro
06-26-2006, 02:14 PM
But the walk raises the possibility of the DP, does it not?

sure, but that doesn't mean the walk is necessarily bad as that runner now has a chance to score as well.

Reds Nd2
06-26-2006, 02:20 PM
The EXPECTED_RUNS of a team with runners on 2nd and 3rd with one out is 1.43261. That rises to 1.64246 with the bases loaded and one out.

edabbs44
06-26-2006, 02:30 PM
The EXPECTED_RUNS of a team with runners on 2nd and 3rd with one out is 1.43261. That rises to 1.64246 with the bases loaded and one out.
I'd be interested to see what the frequency of runs scored in those situations is. For example, if someone were to hit a GS and 3 DPs in 4 ABs with one out and bases loaded, that would be 4 total runs in 4 tries but only 1 scoring opportunity (25%) cashed in. But if someone hit 4 sac flies in 4 tries with 2nd and 3rd and one out, it would be the same amt of runs scored but a frequency of 100%. Just curious.

Reds Nd2
06-26-2006, 03:40 PM
I'd be interested to see what the frequency of runs scored in those situations is. For example, if someone were to hit a GS and 3 DPs in 4 ABs with one out and bases loaded, that would be 4 total runs in 4 tries but only 1 scoring opportunity (25%) cashed in. But if someone hit 4 sac flies in 4 tries with 2nd and 3rd and one out, it would be the same amt of runs scored but a frequency of 100%. Just curious.

I suppose you could use Net Expected Run Values. (http://www.harvardmagazine.com/on-line/050221.html) It wouldn't answer your question about the frequency of run scoring in the situations you mentioned but it would give you a value for the contributions each player made to their team. A word of warning though. There are flaws with this and it's more of a fun thing to play around with than it is for comparing players and their respective accomplishments.

WebScorpion
06-26-2006, 03:50 PM
Smoltz has 10/5 rights...I think he will try to engineer a return to his hometown (funny how old players do that) of Detroit since they seem to be surging. I think that's the only place he might like to end his career other than Atlanta. Of course, he might have some attachment to Leo Mazzone, so the O's might be another possibility. I don't think he'd accept a trade to Cincy.

KronoRed
06-26-2006, 03:59 PM
I doubt very much Smotz is going anywhere.

So can we rename this topic "Dunn Clutch and you part 75" ? :D

IslandRed
06-26-2006, 04:51 PM
I'd be interested to see what the frequency of runs scored in those situations is. For example, if someone were to hit a GS and 3 DPs in 4 ABs with one out and bases loaded, that would be 4 total runs in 4 tries but only 1 scoring opportunity (25%) cashed in. But if someone hit 4 sac flies in 4 tries with 2nd and 3rd and one out, it would be the same amt of runs scored but a frequency of 100%. Just curious.

Based on the scoring expectation table James Click used in Baseball Between The Numbers -- where he expanded on his work that attempted to quantify situations where playing for one run beat playing for multiple runs -- the practice of walking a batter to set up a possible DP does make sense, but only slightly. A team with second and third, one out, will score one run (or more) 67.4% of the time. Bases loaded and one out, it's 65.4%. That makes some sense, given the setup of force plays or potential double plays. But as the previous stat shows, the extra baserunner ups the run-scoring potential by about 15%, a considerably bigger difference.

Sometimes stat analysis challenges conventional wisdom, sometimes it reinforces it. This is one of the latter cases. Teams intuitively understand that allowing that extra baserunner is probably a bad idea unless the critical thing is not to allow any runs at all. That's why they only walk the bases loaded at certain times and not all the time. Conversely, then, it should be obvious that being walked in that situation is generally good for the team. The situations where it isn't good for the team are usually easy to spot, because the walk will be intentional.

gm
06-26-2006, 05:51 PM
He's become way too easy for the other team to get out--particularly once he gets behind in the count, which also limits the effectiveness of his swing since he goes into defensive mode.

My guess is, some blame lies equally with Narron, Chambliss and Dunn himself for the situation

Ah, the Dunn paradox. How can a guy who's batting eye is so well-developed that he can average 100+ walks/season fail so often to make contact when he swings?

Possible answer: it's not his eyes that are the problem, it's his long swing.

Does Adam have a two-strike "defensive" swing? I sure haven't noticed one

(I've also noticed Dunn wraps the bat around his neck and the barrel dips downward, similar to Bret Boone, circa 1998)

The league has a book on Dunn. It's Chambliss' job to help Adam adjust to how the league is pitching to him. Without successful adjustments, Dunn's failure to make contact when he chooses to swing will continue to suffer

RFS62
06-26-2006, 05:55 PM
Ah, the Dunn paradox. How can a guy who's batting eye is so well-developed that he can average 100+ walks/season fail so often to make contact when he swings?

Possible answer: it's not his eyes that are the problem, it's his long swing.

Does Adam have a two-strike "defensive" swing? I sure haven't noticed one

(I've also noticed Dunn wraps the bat around his neck and the barrel dips downward, similar to Bret Boone, circa 1998)

The league has a book on Dunn. It's Chambliss' job to help Adam adjust to how the league is pitching to him. Without successful adjustments, Dunn's failure to make contact when he chooses to swing will continue to suffer


It's a fair question. I don't see any evidence of Adam ever shortening his stroke or cutting down his swing in a pitchers count.

Should he?

An awful lot of people don't want him to, and consider any attempt to do so as misguided.

It used to be a pretty basic baseball skill. But when you compare him with Killebrew and past sluggers with high strikeout totals, it's easier to accept him the way he is, I guess.

Too bad we never discuss his game around here.

RedsBaron
06-26-2006, 06:35 PM
It's a fair question. I don't see any evidence of Adam ever shortening his stroke or cutting down his swing in a pitchers count.

Should he?

An awful lot of people don't want him to, and consider any attempt to do so as misguided.

It used to be a pretty basic baseball skill. But when you compare him with Killebrew and past sluggers with high strikeout totals, it's easier to accept him the way he is, I guess.

Too bad we never discuss his game around here.
Ted Williams generally refused to "go the other way" just to try to beat the shift, but I believe that Teddy Ballgame did soemtimes shorten his swing with two strikes, based upon my recollection of his book; he retired before I was a fan.
RFS, from the games you watched him play, how did Cap Anson do it?

pedro
06-26-2006, 07:01 PM
Ah, the Dunn paradox. How can a guy who's batting eye is so well-developed that he can average 100+ walks/season fail so often to make contact when he swings?

Possible answer: it's not his eyes that are the problem, it's his long swing.

Does Adam have a two-strike "defensive" swing? I sure haven't noticed one

(I've also noticed Dunn wraps the bat around his neck and the barrel dips downward, similar to Bret Boone, circa 1998)

The league has a book on Dunn. It's Chambliss' job to help Adam adjust to how the league is pitching to him. Without successful adjustments, Dunn's failure to make contact when he chooses to swing will continue to suffer

I appears to me that Dunn wraps his bat behind his back much more than he did when he came up. IIRC, I believe he also stood more like Jeff Bagwell w/out the pronounced crouch.

RFS62
06-26-2006, 10:31 PM
RFS, from the games you watched him play, how did Cap Anson do it?


Cap was just coming up as I was ending my playing days, so I didn't see him that often, RB.

I do believe he and the other youngsters of my day were prone to hitting it where it was pitched, though.

:p:

Jpup
06-27-2006, 02:55 AM
Here is the slobber-knocker I would consider trading Dunn:

Cincy trading Dunn, Bailey, Claussen and Coffey to the Twins for LHP Johan Santana, RHP Joe Nathan and LHP Dennys Reyes.

...and Ryan would laugh in your face.

Krusty
06-27-2006, 08:42 AM
...and Ryan would laugh in your face.

Ah, can't hurt to try.

But if you want to get serious, see if LHP Juan Rincon is available for the right price. Same for Reyes. Reason? I'm not convinced Hammond and Mercker can do the job the second half of the season.

edabbs44
06-27-2006, 09:10 AM
Ah, can't hurt to try.

But if you want to get serious, see if LHP Juan Rincon is available for the right price. Same for Reyes. Reason? I'm not convinced Hammond and Mercker can do the job the second half of the season.
Second half? They aren't exactly doing the job in the first half.

Krusty
06-27-2006, 09:15 AM
Second half? They aren't exactly doing the job in the first half.

That is why it is critical that Krivsky makes a move or two to bring in two arms that can bolster the bullpen. Preferably, you would like another lefty who can get lefties out on a consistent basis. Same with another righthander.

If I'm Krivsky, I shoot for Rincon and Wickman. But the Twins have been hot lately and might get back in the AL Central race. Wickman could give the Reds a co-closer with Coffey. If anything, he would be a better setup man than what the Reds have been running out there.

edabbs44
06-27-2006, 09:24 AM
That is why it is critical that Krivsky makes a move or two to bring in two arms that can bolster the bullpen. Preferably, you would like another lefty who can get lefties out on a consistent basis. Same with another righthander.

If I'm Krivsky, I shoot for Rincon and Wickman. But the Twins have been hot lately and might get back in the AL Central race. Wickman could give the Reds a co-closer with Coffey. If anything, he would be a better setup man than what the Reds have been running out there.
We have the LHP who can get lefties out. He's in Louisville. I think a set up man and a guy who could go more than one inning would be the two things needed. Not exactly a long reliever, but someone who might be able to come in during the 6th and also work the 7th.

SteelSD
06-28-2006, 02:29 AM
It's a fair question. I don't see any evidence of Adam ever shortening his stroke or cutting down his swing in a pitchers count.

Should he?

An awful lot of people don't want him to, and consider any attempt to do so as misguided.

It used to be a pretty basic baseball skill. But when you compare him with Killebrew and past sluggers with high strikeout totals, it's easier to accept him the way he is, I guess.

Too bad we never discuss his game around here.

Yeah. Adam Dunn's game never becomes a topic of conversation. Daily, weekly, every second Thursday, etc. ;)

You bring up a good point about his swing and I do think that needs to be addressed. gm noted the bat wrap and I think that's a pretty fair observation. Another thing I've observed in watching Dunn is that he seems to allow pitchers to dictate tempo. Much of his timing this season appears to be based on when he thinks the pitcher is getting ready to deliver.

In fact if you note the number of phantom swings he makes preparing for delivery during each PA, I'd suggest that there may be a timing issue- particularly because I've seen a goodly number of PA in which Dunn should call time and step out of the box but doesn't with ducks on the pond. In quite a few situations this season I've actually verbally said "step out" when Dunn has been at the plate. You and I know that the action of calling time can certainly help reset a player's timing yet I haven't seen Dunn take real advantage of that. It's quite possible that the shift- combined with scouting- has engineered a plan to disrupt Dunn's timing by allowing him to simply think to much and, thus, become overanxious. That being said, a pitcher has rhythm too but they can dictate the rhythm because nothing can possibly happen until they release the ball.

That being said, I've seen a number of PA in which Dunn has attempted to cut down on his swing in order to improve his 2-strike hitting. But that behavior comes with a cost as it impacts other behavior. I've seen him pop up to the right side far too often this year. I've seen him hit weak grounders far too often this year. Dunn's seeing fewer pitches per PA and has hit into as many Double Plays already this year as he did last season. He's chasing more bad pitches while trying to protect the plate. His Doubles are down significantly.

Is it the shift? I've seen Hits turned into Outs by the shift, but Dunn's 0.72 GB/FB rate tends to minimize the shift's effectiveness. And Dunn's BABIP is certainly down this season. That being said, if we're asking Dunn to "beat" the shift, we're really expecting him to hit ground balls to 3B (or closer to the line) at this point. I'm not sure a hitter like Dunn would ever actually have enough bat control to do that without sacrificing a considerable portion of power. And honestly, I think he's trying to do that with two strikes. Problem is that he's expanded his zone to protect the plate there and he just isn't an adept plate coverage hitter.

And here's the thing...

Adam Dunn is an awful two-strike hitter. Awful. If anyone cares, here are the numbers for 2005 and 2006 for when Dunn gets into an 0-2 hole:

2006:

Count 0-2: 16 AB, 0 Hits- .000 BA/.000 OBP/.000 SLG
After 0-2: 42 AB, 1 Hits- .024 BA/.109 OBP/.048 SLG

2005:

Count 0-2: 48 AB, 5 Hits- .104 BA/.104 OBP/.125 SLG
After 0-2: 113 AB, 16 Hits- .142 BA/.178 OBP/.265 SLG

Basically, when Dunn goes 0-2, we might as well stop watching that PA. Go get some chips and dip. Start the grill. Grab a beer. Go to the restroom because it's very unlikely that you'll miss anything. Ditto for the majority of Dunn's other 2-strike count appearances. The saving grace there is that few players actually do hit well with 2 strikes on them because they have to expand their zone (if they have one).

That being said, the opinion positioned most often is that Dunn should stay out of two-strike counts by swinging early. Problem is that for Dunn to swing early he'd have to expand his zone which is nothing but trouble because he's a "zone" swinger. And it's a real issue when a "zone" swinger expands his zone early in counts while trying to shorten his swing while expanding his zone later in counts to protect the plate. Why might that happen? Well, first, Dunn has demonstrated that he's a coachable player. He'll listen and attempt to apply instruction even to his own detriment. He did it with Boone and he's doing it now. He's too eager. Always has been. What he needs is someone to tell him to swing less. What he needs is someone to treat him like the Red Sox treated David Ortiz. Either that, or he needs someone to plop him in the two-hole and tell him that his job is to get on base. If that happens consistently, it's the same thing as telling him to swing less and he'll simply crush.

Jpup
06-28-2006, 06:50 AM
Ah, can't hurt to try.

But if you want to get serious, see if LHP Juan Rincon is available for the right price. Same for Reyes. Reason? I'm not convinced Hammond and Mercker can do the job the second half of the season.

wonder why?;)

I'm in the boat with you as far as Rincon and Reyes, it would be a huge upgrade.