PDA

View Full Version : Interesting Adam Dunn Numbers



TRF
07-31-2006, 10:23 AM
Well, July has come to a close and Dunn has posted the following numbers:


BA OBP SLG OPS
.348 .450 .576 1.026
And we say FANTASTIC! woo hoo! He cut down on his K's from the previous month too!

and yet, what was the result of this? Here are the rest of the numbers:


AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB HBP SO SB CS
92 17 32 6 0 5 19 15 2 25 4 0
In June he posted these numbers:


BA OBP SLG OPS
.221 .368 .537 .904
The result in July was one less RBI, 4 fewer HR's 2 fewer runs scored.

In May, a truely abysmal month for AD he posted this:



BA OBP SLG OPS
.212 .328 .535 .863

Yep another low BA, yet strangely only 10 points lower than June's but his production was in the toilet. only 13 runs scored. Again, here are the rest of his May numbers.


AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB HBP SO SB CS
99 13 21 8 0 8 15 17 0 26 1 0

In April Dunn posted the follow line:


BA OBP SLG OPS
.265 .432 .614 1.047

His BA is almost 100 points lower than his spectacular July, but was July a better month? I think not. Here is the rest of the story.



AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB HBP SO SB CS
83 25 22 2 0 9 17 25 1 33 0 0

In 9 fewer AB's, Dunn scored more runs, hit more HR's, had a much higher SLG% and drove in only 2 fewer runners, all while striking out 8 more times, and Walking 10 more times.

In the long run, IF Dunn can maintain this kind of hitting production without the accompanying power loss, he's going to be a legend, but make no mistake about this: regardless of whether Dunn hit's .220, .260, or .340 Dunn is productive if his OBP is above .365, and uber productive if it is above .400.

And I'll take Dunn's April every month. It projects to silly numbers. BA MIGHT make a difference in his production. OBP definitely does. K's don't matter one whit.

And knowing all this, I was still eyepopping excited to see Dunn's july numbers till I looked deeper. I'm still excited, but more about April than July.

wheels
07-31-2006, 10:48 AM
That was an excellent post right there.

It's all about not making outs, and accquiring as many bases as possible.

zombie-a-go-go
07-31-2006, 10:49 AM
That was an excellent post right there.

It's all about not making outs, and accquiring as many bases as possible.

Ditto.

Handofdeath
07-31-2006, 10:57 AM
That was an excellent post right there.

It's all about not making outs, and accquiring as many bases as possible.

I always thought it was about getting hits and scoring runs.

westofyou
07-31-2006, 11:03 AM
I always thought it was about getting hits and scoring runs.
Then it would be called "hitball" not "baseball"

TRF
07-31-2006, 11:08 AM
I always thought it was about getting hits and scoring runs.

Then look closer at his numbers from April. He scored more runs in April than he did in July, and with fewer hits and AB's too.

I don't have a problem with Dunn hitting .340, unless doing so robs him of his power. And it has a little. April was a better month than July.

Johnny Footstool
07-31-2006, 11:09 AM
"Hitball."

:laugh:

Rob Dicken
07-31-2006, 11:19 AM
I'd rather Dunn hit 40-45 homers a year, and hit .275, as opposed to 45-50 and hit .240

Why? It means he's getting on base more, getting keen base hits and driving in the runs that he needs to to make this team better all-around.

Now, if he could only work on his fielding game. :p:

Handofdeath
07-31-2006, 11:26 AM
Then look closer at his numbers from April. He scored more runs in April than he did in July, and with fewer hits and AB's too.

I don't have a problem with Dunn hitting .340, unless doing so robs him of his power. And it has a little. April was a better month than July.

I've also noticed that over the last month or so he's started to do much better with RISP. Are you discounting that? I'd say that July was a much better month than April.

TRF
07-31-2006, 11:27 AM
I'd rather Dunn hit 40-45 homers a year, and hit .275, as opposed to 45-50 and hit .240

Why? It means he's getting on base more, getting keen base hits and driving in the runs that he needs to to make this team better all-around.

Now, if he could only work on his fielding game. :p:

Myth.

Hitting .275 does not mean he gets on base more. it means he gets on base more via the hit. that isn't the same, and there is no guarantee that the increased BA means his power stays consistent. In fact so fat this year, the opposite is true.

So which AD do you prefer? the one from April or the one from July?

Johnny Footstool
07-31-2006, 11:27 AM
I'd rather Dunn hit 40-45 homers a year, and hit .275, as opposed to 45-50 and hit .240

Why? It means he's getting on base more, getting keen base hits and driving in the runs that he needs to to make this team better all-around.

Now, if he could only work on his fielding game. :p:

His batting average has very little to do with him getting on base, or getting "keen" base hits and driving in runs.

Dunn's OPB is based mostly on his ability to walk, not his ability to get hits. And SLG has more effect on driving in runs than batting average.

TRF
07-31-2006, 11:29 AM
I've also noticed that over the last month or so he's started to do much better with RISP. Are you discounting that? I'd say that July was a much better month than April.

You would be wrong. He scored more runs in fewer AB's, Drove in more runners, and got on base more.

When AD comes to the plate he's already in scoring position. Not many players can say that.

BoydsOfSummer
07-31-2006, 11:35 AM
Then it would be called "hitball" not "baseball":roll: :bowrofl:

Handofdeath
07-31-2006, 11:35 AM
You would be wrong. He scored more runs in fewer AB's, Drove in more runners, and got on base more.

When AD comes to the plate he's already in scoring position. Not many players can say that.
Thome is still better.

TRF
07-31-2006, 11:37 AM
His batting average has very little to do with him getting on base, or getting "keen" base hits and driving in runs.

Dunn's OPB is based mostly on his ability to walk, not his ability to get hits. And SLG has more effect on driving in runs than batting average.

Ding ding. This is the crux of the arguement. One that many of us have been trying to explain for months, even years on this board.

It's all about the OBP. get on base, and acquire as many of those bases (SLG%) as you possibly can.

BA really tells us nothing about the kind of hits a batter gets. Just that he gets them. 200 hits is nice, but 200 singles is not as nice as 134 hits with 40 HR's and 35 doubles.

SLG% is very important, but OBP is even more important. It's a measure of respect in a sense. Pitchers fear Dunn's power, and coupled with his incredible plate discipline, you get back to back seasons matched only by a few other Reds in the history of the franchise, the last being Joe Morgan: 100+ BB's, 100+ Runs and 100+ RBI's. And he's going to do it again this year.

TRF
07-31-2006, 11:39 AM
Thome is still better.

his numbers are a hair better than Dunn's, but Dunn is 9 years younger. I know who I'd rather have.

wheels
07-31-2006, 11:44 AM
2B>1B

3B>2B

Hr>3B

vermilion
07-31-2006, 12:11 PM
I think some of the arguments here regarding Dunn's April vs. July are a bit simplistic. Yeah, he scored more runs in April - he spent much of that month batting ahead of Edwin Encarnacion, who lead the team in RBI through April. In July, Dunn has most frequently batted second, ahead of the stone cold Griffey. Runs scored are a lousy metric because only some of it is up to Dunn.

Moreover, if we really geek out on the stats, most sabrmetric types will tell you that OBP is undervalued in the OPS calculation. Yeah, Dunn hit 4 fewer homers this month, but his OBP was nearly 20 points higher, so is this month's 1.024 really worth less than April's 1.046?

Finally, we're talking two almost arbitrary groups of less than 100 ABs. In the grand scheme of things... well, this is silly. Some say they prefer his April to his July, some his July to April, when it's such a negligible point. He had an OPS well over 1.000 for both months. Debating which is better is like arguing between filet mignon and prime rib after eating Hamburger Helper the previous six weeks...

TRF
07-31-2006, 12:16 PM
I think some of the arguments here regarding Dunn's April vs. July are a bit simplistic. Yeah, he scored more runs in April - he spent much of that month batting ahead of Edwin Encarnacion, who lead the team in RBI through April. In July, Dunn has most frequently batted second, ahead of the stone cold Griffey. Runs scored are a lousy metric because only some of it is up to Dunn.

Moreover, if we really geek out on the stats, most sabrmetric types will tell you that OBP is undervalued in the OPS calculation. Yeah, Dunn hit 4 fewer homers this month, but his OBP was nearly 20 points higher, so is this month's 1.024 really worth less than April's 1.046?

Finally, we're talking two almost arbitrary groups of less than 100 ABs. In the grand scheme of things... well, this is silly. Some say they prefer his April to his July, some his July to April, when it's such a negligible point. He had an OPS well over 1.000 for both months. Debating which is better is like arguing between filet mignon and prime rib after eating Hamburger Helper the previous six weeks...

Except you completely ignored his SLG% for those two months. In my mind, once the OBP sit's well above .400 as it did for both months, the runs are going to come in bunches. However, Dunn's SLG% in April was a MAMMOTH .614. That is significantly higher than his july .576. And that directly ties to the rest of his offensive production.

vermilion
07-31-2006, 12:22 PM
If I had the inclination, I could search the web until I found the 'weighted' OPS calculation that puts more emphasis on OBP than SLG. Presto-chango, his July would be accorded value greater than his April, despite the SLG which I have "completely ignored." I don't have the inclination, because there really isn't anything to be gained in debating it - a season long effort equivalent to either April or July would be worth MVP consideration.

So shall I put you down for the filet, or are you a prime rib kinda guy?

Handofdeath
07-31-2006, 12:22 PM
Ding ding. This is the crux of the arguement. One that many of us have been trying to explain for months, even years on this board.

It's all about the OBP. get on base, and acquire as many of those bases (SLG%) as you possibly can.

BA really tells us nothing about the kind of hits a batter gets. Just that he gets them. 200 hits is nice, but 200 singles is not as nice as 134 hits with 40 HR's and 35 doubles.

SLG% is very important, but OBP is even more important. It's a measure of respect in a sense. Pitchers fear Dunn's power, and coupled with his incredible plate discipline, you get back to back seasons matched only by a few other Reds in the history of the franchise, the last being Joe Morgan: 100+ BB's, 100+ Runs and 100+ RBI's. And he's going to do it again this year.

Dunn is a statistical oddity. But no one with his strikeout numbers can be said to have incredible great discipline. He can get on base like few can but plate discipline? Not with the K's He's done much better over the last month though and if he continues to improve he will do greater things. The last I will say is this. Those of you who say that AVG isn't important are in the minority outside of this board. Fact is, Dunn can do the over .900 OPS and score runs and hit homers and have the high OBP. But if he is hitting .240 he will be sitting at home during the All-Star game and will getting into Cooperstown only by buying a ticket. Fair? Maybe. Maybe not. But it's true.

texasdave
07-31-2006, 12:45 PM
one thing that i never understood is why walks and hbps aren't incorporated into slugging percentage. i feel they should be. to illustrate my point look at this example. player a leads off the first game of the season with a single. at this point in time he stands on first base with an obp of 1.000 and a slg pct of 1.000. this adds up to an ops of 2.000. player b leads off the bottom of the inning in the same game with a walk. he stands on first base with an obp of 1.000 and a slg pct of 0.000. this adds up to an ops of 1.000. both players achieved the same result and yet player a has an ops twice that of player b. so with regards to ops it seems to me that a player that walks often actually gets penalized. Wheels states in the second post of this thread that it is all about not making outs, and acquiring as many bases as possible. i took the first part of that sentence as referring to obp, and the second part of that sentence as referring to slg pct. this seems reasonable to me. but isn't a walk looked upon as acquiring a base? i think it should be. i must be missing something here. but i can't figure out what it is. am i wrong?

TRF
07-31-2006, 01:02 PM
Dunn is a statistical oddity. But no one with his strikeout numbers can be said to have incredible great discipline. He can get on base like few can but plate discipline? Not with the K's He's done much better over the last month though and if he continues to improve he will do greater things. The last I will say is this. Those of you who say that AVG isn't important are in the minority outside of this board. Fact is, Dunn can do the over .900 OPS and score runs and hit homers and have the high OBP. But if he is hitting .240 he will be sitting at home during the All-Star game and will getting into Cooperstown only by buying a ticket. Fair? Maybe. Maybe not. But it's true.

Actually, It isn't true. Dunn's on a pace to have a creer with well over 600 HR's with nary a sniff of controversy about him. And being able to lay off pitches you can't do anything with is plate discipline.

Now name a player with the numbers Dunn projects to have without the steroid contoversy not in the HOF? You can't because he doesn't exist. Adam Dunn has very few peers. And by peers I mean guys within 2-3 years of his age with numbers close to his.

Here are the players aged 24-29 that have more HR's than Dunn.

Howard, Pujols, Beltran.

Here are the players aged 24-29 that have more BB's than Dunn.

No One.

Here are the players aged 24-29 that have scored more Runs than Dunn.

Utley, Beltran, Rollins.

Spot any trends here? Here is another stat:

Here are the players aged 24-29 that have a better OBP than Dunn.

Johnson, Pujols, Hafner, Bay, Youklis.

For this age group, Dunn is 10th in SLG%, 10th in OPS. This covers 73 players. Dunn's peers.

All this with a lifetime .250 BA too.

TRF
07-31-2006, 01:04 PM
one thing that i never understood is why walks and hbps aren't incorporated into slugging percentage. i feel they should be. to illustrate my point look at this example. player a leads off the first game of the season with a single. at this point in time he stands on first base with an obp of 1.000 and a slg pct of 1.000. this adds up to an ops of 2.000. player b leads off the bottom of the inning in the same game with a walk. he stands on first base with an obp of 1.000 and a slg pct of 0.000. this adds up to an ops of 1.000. both players achieved the same result and yet player a has an ops twice that of player b. so with regards to ops it seems to me that a player that walks often actually gets penalized. Wheels states in the second post of this thread that it is all about not making outs, and acquiring as many bases as possible. i took the first part of that sentence as referring to obp, and the second part of that sentence as referring to slg pct. this seems reasonable to me. but isn't a walk looked upon as acquiring a base? i think it should be. i must be missing something here. but i can't figure out what it is. am i wrong?

SLG% describes the types of hits a player gets. It describes said players power. OBP is a measure of getting on base only, and doesn't care how you do it. Put them together and you get a pretty complete picture.

Handofdeath
07-31-2006, 01:55 PM
Actually, It isn't true. Dunn's on a pace to have a creer with well over 600 HR's with nary a sniff of controversy about him. And being able to lay off pitches you can't do anything with is plate discipline.

Now name a player with the numbers Dunn projects to have without the steroid contoversy not in the HOF? You can't because he doesn't exist. Adam Dunn has very few peers. And by peers I mean guys within 2-3 years of his age with numbers close to his.

Here are the players aged 24-29 that have more HR's than Dunn.

Howard, Pujols, Beltran.

Here are the players aged 24-29 that have more BB's than Dunn.

No One.

Here are the players aged 24-29 that have scored more Runs than Dunn.

Utley, Beltran, Rollins.

Spot any trends here? Here is another stat:

Here are the players aged 24-29 that have a better OBP than Dunn.

Johnson, Pujols, Hafner, Bay, Youklis.

For this age group, Dunn is 10th in SLG%, 10th in OPS. This covers 73 players. Dunn's peers.

All this with a lifetime .250 BA too.

It's impressive that Dunn is 10th among active players under 29 in a few categories. But when it comes to All-Star Games and the Hall, the big three categories are going to be the most important. Not one HOF voter is going to care about walks. I'm not denying his prodigious talent and I'm liking the improvements I'm seeing in his hitting. Hitting .240 or .250 won't get it done though. He will have to do as well as Killebrew or better to get into the Hall and Killebrew had to wait several years. He might do it but has yet to reach 200 homers. When he does he will probably need 400 more. Those trade rumors that come around a few times a year concerning him? Where there's smoke... He is a future DH and we know that. Adam Dunn will not finish the decade with the Reds IMO.

vermilion
07-31-2006, 02:28 PM
Actually, It isn't true. Dunn's on a pace to have a creer with well over 600 HR's with nary a sniff of controversy about him. And being able to lay off pitches you can't do anything with is plate discipline.

I disagree. If I went to the plate in a major league game, didn't swing at a single pitch all game and struck out looking four times, we could argue that I laid off all the pitches I couldn't do anything with. I'm not disciplined, I'm passive.

I think Dunn's situation is different, in that he only offers at a small selection of pitches he really feels he can crush. His personal 'strike zone' isn't seventeen inches wide, nor does it run from his knees to his chest - the pitches he offers at are rarely on the edges of the zone. As a result, he doesn't swing at pitches outside the strikezone, but he also doesn't swing at a lot of pitches which are in the strikezone. You can't set the ML record for single-season strikeouts without letting strikes go by.

Dunn is disciplined insofar as his refusing to swing at pitches he doesn't think he can drive, but his control of the strikezone is nothing to write home about. The alternate explanation is that he's got a great eye but is such a terrible contact hitter that he swings and misses more frequently than he swings and puts the ball in play. I can't rule that out just yet :p

Finally, I wouldn't think about career numbers at this point. Once upon a time, Junior was on pace for well over 600 homers himself. Now... maybbe it happens, maybe not.

TeamBoone
07-31-2006, 02:51 PM
You talk about his east/west strikezone... what about his north/south strikezone... especially the south? That's one area that causes a whole lot of controversy regarding a fair percentage of his stikeouts (looking).

I've lost count of how many times he's been called out on strikes because the umpires seemingly refuse to recognize the true south side of his strikezone. Adam knows the pitch is low and doesn't swing... the umpires look at how far the ball is above the plate, instead of where his knees are.

They really need to get a clue and recognize his true zone.

Handofdeath
07-31-2006, 02:56 PM
You talk about his east/west strikezone... what about his north/south strikezone... especially the south? That's one area that causes a whole lot of controversy regarding a fair percentage of his stikeouts (looking).

I've lost count of how many times he's been called out on strikes because the umpires seemingly refuse to recognize the true south side of his strikezone. Adam knows the pitch is low and doesn't swing... the umpires look at how far the ball is above the plate, instead of where his knees are.

They really need to get a clue and recognize his true zone.

But surely by now if he knows the ump is going to call it a strike then he has to swing. Crappy umpiring is no excuse.

TRF
07-31-2006, 02:57 PM
It's impressive that Dunn is 10th among active players under 29 in a few categories. But when it comes to All-Star Games and the Hall, the big three categories are going to be the most important. Not one HOF voter is going to care about walks. I'm not denying his prodigious talent and I'm liking the improvements I'm seeing in his hitting. Hitting .240 or .250 won't get it done though. He will have to do as well as Killebrew or better to get into the Hall and Killebrew had to wait several years. He might do it but has yet to reach 200 homers. When he does he will probably need 400 more. Those trade rumors that come around a few times a year concerning him? Where there's smoke... He is a future DH and we know that. Adam Dunn will not finish the decade with the Reds IMO.

I got news for you. Rickey Henderson will walk right into the HOF, largely because of his walks.

Handofdeath
07-31-2006, 03:12 PM
I got news for you. Rickey Henderson will walk right into the HOF, largely because of his walks.

Uh, no he's going because he's the greatest base stealer the game has ever seen and has over 3,000 hits. Walks have nothing to do about it and you know it.

TeamBoone
07-31-2006, 03:29 PM
But surely by now if he knows the ump is going to call it a strike then he has to swing. Crappy umpiring is no excuse.

I don't agree, depending on the situation of course. If there's a runner on and 0-1 out, he could possibly hit into a DP by swinging at a pitch like that. If there's two outs, yeah, I guess.... but I'm sure he always things the ump will get it right.

Handofdeath
07-31-2006, 03:41 PM
I don't agree, depending on the situation of course. If there's a runner on and 0-1 out, he could possibly hit into a DP by swinging at a pitch like that. If there's two outs, yeah, I guess.... but I'm sure he always things the ump will get it right.

But he can't possibly be that naive at this point. You make a good case but sometimes a man of his talent has to have the confidence to say "@%$# it, I'm knocking this mother out of the park. I'm not leaving it up to the ump." I'm not saying swing at everything but even an out can advance a runner in the right situation.

TRF
07-31-2006, 03:55 PM
Uh, no he's going because he's the greatest base stealer the game has ever seen and has over 3,000 hits. Walks have nothing to do about it and you know it.

You actually think 2190 walks had nothing to do with those SB's?

ridiculous, and you know that.

Handofdeath
07-31-2006, 04:10 PM
You actually think 2190 walks had nothing to do with those SB's?

ridiculous, and you know that.

Not at all. You said that Henderson was going to the Hall of Fame "largely because of his walks." You and both know that is ridiculous. He's going because he got over 3,000 hits and is the best base stealer ever. The hits and walks both had something to do with the stolen base totals of course. But walks are not the reason he's going. He's going because of hits and stolen bases. Not OBP or OPS. Let me give an example for you to ponder. You and I are playing on a softball team and we both get four plate appearances. I get three walks and a line drive single to left. No RBI's and one run. You hit a long fly out to center and in your next appearance hit a ground out to shortstop because you foolishly thought it would be fun to use a wooden bat. Your next time up you hit a run scoring double and later score. Your last plate appearance you jack a two run homer to right.
For the night you have one double, one homer, two runs, and three RBI's. I have one hit and one run with three walks. Who had the better game? OPS says neither because ours is the same.

2001MUgrad
07-31-2006, 09:56 PM
I'll take a July month every month. None the less you can't judge a player on 1 month. July was very odd for the Reds. I do like the recent strides that Dunn has made. I don't know if its the lighter bat or what. I like how it appears as though he is attempting to use all fields. He is doing what all of us should do, work on our weakness harder than our strengths.

SteelSD
07-31-2006, 10:48 PM
Let me give an example for you to ponder. You and I are playing on a softball team and we both get four plate appearances. I get three walks and a line drive single to left. No RBI's and one run. You hit a long fly out to center and in your next appearance hit a ground out to shortstop because you foolishly thought it would be fun to use a wooden bat. Your next time up you hit a run scoring double and later score. Your last plate appearance you jack a two run homer to right.

For the night you have one double, one homer, two runs, and three RBI's. I have one hit and one run with three walks. Who had the better game? OPS says neither because ours is the same.

Player A would have a .500 OBP and a 1.500 SLG. Player B would have a 1.000 OBP and a 1.000 SLG.

Now go find players that go through entire seasons with those numbers. The problem with using extreme micro examples is that those examples don't actually exist over time in real baseball.

But if you really want to use that example, let's expand on it. A team of nine Player B's would score infinite Runs given your scenario and would beat a team of nine Player A's every single time.

And you're wrong on Henderson. His .401 OBP was a huge reason he's at the Cooperstown gates right now. His Isolated Discipline not only offered him opportunities to augment his SB totals, but also allowed him to prolong his career long enough to acquire the magical "3,000" with a career .279 BA.

1,865 Bases on Balls is a primary reason that Joe Morgan is widely considered one of the best- if not THE best- Second Baseman of all time; .271 Batting Average and all. If he doesn't draw those Walks, he's hanging his HOF hat on two World Series titles. Unfortunately, those are titles the Reds most likely wouldn't have won without Joe Morgan's BB totals, BTW. He was the single most important offensive player on most Reds teams he played on. And he did it without ever acquiring more than 167 Hits in a single season.

TRF
08-01-2006, 09:05 AM
Not at all. You said that Henderson was going to the Hall of Fame "largely because of his walks." You and both know that is ridiculous. He's going because he got over 3,000 hits and is the best base stealer ever. The hits and walks both had something to do with the stolen base totals of course. But walks are not the reason he's going. He's going because of hits and stolen bases.

You can't take away the Walks without destroying the player. The walks are part of why Henderson even reaches 3,000 hits. It is certainly at least 40% of the reason he got all those steals. maybe more even.

You can't steal 1st bubba.

Ltlabner
08-01-2006, 09:14 AM
And you're wrong on Henderson. His .401 OBP was a huge reason he's at the Cooperstown gates right now. His Isolated Discipline not only offered him opportunities to augment his SB totals, but also allowed him to prolong his career long enough to acquire the magical "3,000" with a career .279 BA.

1,865 Bases on Balls is a primary reason that Joe Morgan is widely considered one of the best- if not THE best- Second Baseman of all time; .271 Batting Average and all. If he doesn't draw those Walks, he's hanging his HOF hat on two World Series titles. Unfortunately, those are titles the Reds most likely wouldn't have won without Joe Morgan's BB totals, BTW. He was the single most important offensive player on most Reds teams he played on. And he did it without ever acquiring more than 167 Hits in a single season.

Have walks become the new "solo home run" in terms of "uselessness" ?

SteelSD is dead on. Extra walks lead to extra stolen base opportunities, extra run scoring opportinities and at the very least makes the pitcher throw extra pitches.

Dunn augments his offensive prowess with walks. When he's struggling he's usually still getting on base at a fair clip via walks. When he's dialed in he's usually either hitting homers or getting on base and the walks are iceing on the cake. And his extra work in the cage, and lighter bat seem to be helping him make more consistant contact for singles/doubles.

And now that he's a big stealing threat, the league better look out!

Handofdeath
08-01-2006, 01:54 PM
Player A would have a .500 OBP and a 1.500 SLG. Player B would have a 1.000 OBP and a 1.000 SLG.

Now go find players that go through entire seasons with those numbers. The problem with using extreme micro examples is that those examples don't actually exist over time in real baseball.

But if you really want to use that example, let's expand on it. A team of nine Player B's would score infinite Runs given your scenario and would beat a team of nine Player A's every single time.

And you're wrong on Henderson. His .401 OBP was a huge reason he's at the Cooperstown gates right now. His Isolated Discipline not only offered him opportunities to augment his SB totals, but also allowed him to prolong his career long enough to acquire the magical "3,000" with a career .279 BA.

1,865 Bases on Balls is a primary reason that Joe Morgan is widely considered one of the best- if not THE best- Second Baseman of all time; .271 Batting Average and all. If he doesn't draw those Walks, he's hanging his HOF hat on two World Series titles. Unfortunately, those are titles the Reds most likely wouldn't have won without Joe Morgan's BB totals, BTW. He was the single most important offensive player on most Reds teams he played on. And he did it without ever acquiring more than 167 Hits in a single season.

Henderson's "Isolated Discipline" is a nice little theory or term to use. But facts are facts. Walks are very important but it is after Henderson got on the bases that he stole them. He got there two ways but he still had to steal them. HOW he got on base is important but Henderson is going to the HOF because of what he did AFTER he got on base. 3000 hits or 3000 walks it does not matter. The fact that he got 3,000 hits and was one of the greatest players of his generation is also a primary reason he's going. As far as Joe Morgan perhaps he could hang his HOF hat on his 5 Gold Gloves or his 689 stolen bases. I won't dignify the remark about the Reds not winning the World Series without his walks.

TRF
08-01-2006, 01:55 PM
Henderson's "Isolated Discipline" is a nice little theory or term to use. But facts are facts. Walks are very important but it is after Henderson got on the bases that he stole them. He got there two ways but he still had to steal them. HOW he got on base is important but Henderson is going to the HOF because of what he did AFTER he got on base. 3000 hits or 3000 walks it does not matter. The fact that he got 3,000 hits and was one of the greatest players of his generation is also a primary reason he's going. As far as Joe Morgan perhaps he could hang his HOF hat on his 5 Gold Gloves or his 689 stolen bases. I won't dignify the Reds not winning the World Series without his walks.

Deion Sanders stole a lot of bases, but he couldn't find first with a map.

Handofdeath
08-01-2006, 02:04 PM
Deion Sanders stole a lot of bases, but he couldn't find first with a map.
And yet never drew more than 34 walks in a season. Lifetime average .263. Your point? And I changed my mind about talking about the walks being the primary cause of the 75 and 76 Reds W.S. wins. The team that finished second in BB and third in OBP in 1975 in the N.L was the Cubs. Guess who finished last that year? The Cubs.

TRF
08-01-2006, 02:44 PM
Keep focusing in the wrong areas.

Yes deion stole a bunch of bases, but big deal? he laso made a ton of outs. Rickeys game was all about not making outs (OBP) and accumulating bases. He got those bases by being on base. Name three players with 500+ SB's that had a poor lifetime OBP.

You can't.

BTW I think the 75-76 Reds INCREDIBLE SLG% might have had something to do with it too. And which stat is created by combining OBP and SLG class?

Also I beleive the Cubs were dead last in pitching that year. Might have had a little to do with finishing dead last.

Handofdeath
08-01-2006, 03:37 PM
I'm not disputing the idea of OBP or SLG or OPS being important. I'm disputing the idea of a walk being talked about with the reverence of a Pink Floyd fan discussing Dark Side of the Moon. The Cubs did finish last in pitching that year but the Reds "incredible" SLG that year was only good for 3rd in the NL and therein lies my point. Too many fans have the idea that only A, B, and C are important as far as success in baseball lies. They have their favorite ideas and will use stats to prove their point. They will crunch the numbers, but the problem is, there are too many variables to ever use the selected therories as fact. Who's the career leader in homers? Hank Aaron. How do we know? Because we know for a fact that he hit more than anybody else. Now the question is why? There are a variety of factors. You can say that OPS is the end all in baseball. Jeff Bagwell's career OPS is 7 points higher than Willie Mays. Does that mean Bagwell was the better hitter? Certainly not. Why not? Many reasons so the theory that OPS is all-important is now not a fact. It is now proven to not be a 100% accurate measure of a hitter's prowess. It is a theory that has some basis but cannot be accepted as fact.

SteelSD
08-01-2006, 08:00 PM
Henderson's "Isolated Discipline" is a nice little theory or term to use. But facts are facts. Walks are very important but it is after Henderson got on the bases that he stole them. He got there two ways but he still had to steal them. HOW he got on base is important but Henderson is going to the HOF because of what he did AFTER he got on base. 3000 hits or 3000 walks it does not matter. The fact that he got 3,000 hits and was one of the greatest players of his generation is also a primary reason he's going.

Without his plate discipline skill set, Rickey Henderson wouldn't have been able to make that much hay on the bases to begin with. See, you can't steal bases without first reaching base. He couldn't have set MLB Stolen Base records without his plate discipline. Without his extreme IsoD, he wouldn't have been around long enough to achieve 3,000 hits. His career would have been over much much sooner. In short, Rickey Henderson is not a HOF player without his plate discipline because he couldn't have done what he did on the bases without getting on base as often.


As far as Joe Morgan perhaps he could hang his HOF hat on his 5 Gold Gloves or his 689 stolen bases. I won't dignify the remark about the Reds not winning the World Series without his walks.

And, like Henderson, Joe Morgan wouldn't have swiped 689 bags without having a career IsoD of 121 points. You've got the cart before the horse here.

And methinks you don't realize how important the Reds OBP was in 1975 and 1976:

1975: .352 OBP (+11 points versus 2nd best club)
1976: .357 OBP (+20 points versus 2nd best club)

That allowed the Reds to maximize the effect of their SLG to score tons of Runs. It allowed them to maximize their speed game. The Reds are the only NL team to post a .350+ OBP. Only NL team to put up a .400+ SLG in both seasons. They were the only NL team to draw more than 600 Walks in both seasons. Oh, they were also the only NL team to strike out over 900 times both seasons as well. Funny how that works, eh?

That teams plate discipline allowed them to maximize their Run scoring potential. That's really really important- especially when they ended up with a league average pitching staff in 1976. You think the Reds' 141 Home Runs in 1976 would have produced as many Runs without those 681 Walks? You think they'd have even hit 141 Home Runs had those Walks not extended Innings? You think their SLG would have mattered as much without those additional baserunners? The answers are very clear to those who choose to see them.

And TRF's "point" is that even though Deion Sanders was blazing fast, he could not get on base enough to truly maximize the effect of that skill set. Lacking plate discipline, he couldn't make the grade over the long haul while a guy like Rickey Henderson remained a productive MLB player despite severe Batting Average volatility later in his career.

Handofdeath
08-01-2006, 09:49 PM
Without his plate discipline skill set, Rickey Henderson wouldn't have been able to make that much hay on the bases to begin with. See, you can't steal bases without first reaching base. He couldn't have set MLB Stolen Base records without his plate discipline. Without his extreme IsoD, he wouldn't have been around long enough to achieve 3,000 hits. His career would have been over much much sooner. In short, Rickey Henderson is not a HOF player without his plate discipline because he couldn't have done what he did on the bases without getting on base as often.


And, like Henderson, Joe Morgan wouldn't have swiped 689 bags without having a career IsoD of 121 points. You've got the cart before the horse here.

And methinks you don't realize how important the Reds OBP was in 1975 and 1976:

1975: .352 OBP (+11 points versus 2nd best club)
1976: .357 OBP (+20 points versus 2nd best club)

That allowed the Reds to maximize the effect of their SLG to score tons of Runs. It allowed them to maximize their speed game. The Reds are the only NL team to post a .350+ OBP. Only NL team to put up a .400+ SLG in both seasons. They were the only NL team to draw more than 600 Walks in both seasons. Oh, they were also the only NL team to strike out over 900 times both seasons as well. Funny how that works, eh?

That teams plate discipline allowed them to maximize their Run scoring potential. That's really really important- especially when they ended up with a league average pitching staff in 1976. You think the Reds' 141 Home Runs in 1976 would have produced as many Runs without those 681 Walks? You think they'd have even hit 141 Home Runs had those Walks not extended Innings? You think their SLG would have mattered as much without those additional baserunners? The answers are very clear to those who choose to see them.

And TRF's "point" is that even though Deion Sanders was blazing fast, he could not get on base enough to truly maximize the effect of that skill set. Lacking plate discipline, he couldn't make the grade over the long haul while a guy like Rickey Henderson remained a productive MLB player despite severe Batting Average volatility later in his career.

If everything the statheads are spouting is true then Brian Giles is a HOF'er based on his OPS totals. All you are left is theories but no facts in the end. Evidence but circumstantial evidence.

SteelSD
08-02-2006, 12:08 AM
If everything the statheads are spouting is true then Brian Giles is a HOF'er based on his OPS totals. All you are left is theories but no facts in the end. Evidence but circumstantial evidence.

Brian Giles might just be one of the most unappreciated true superstars of our era. Problem is that he didn't get his full-time start in the Show until age 28. That severely hurt his chances of making the HOF because he's not going to be able to play long enough to produce the kind of counting stats your average HOF voter really digs. And now he plays in a park that really hurts his power numbers. Oh well.

If Giles had been given a full-time job at age 22 or 23 instead of 28, you'd most likely be seeing a Hall of Famer in action. But then, entrance to the HOF is predicated on more than just OBP, SLG, and OPS. Of course it is. It would be unfair to say otherwise. Those are a unwritten rules of the Hall of Fame. It is, after all, the Hall of Fame rather than the Hall of Numbers.

That being said, I'm unsure as to why you're fixated on HOF induction. It's almost as if you can't appreciate a player who's actually putting up tremendous numbers if you can't project him as a HOF-level player at age 26 due to what you obviously value (Base Hits).

You might also want to know that a large percentage of the eligible career OBP list have busts in Cooperstown. Of the 34 players who hold a career OPS+ (career OPS versus league average OPS) of 150 or higher, 26 are HOF eligible. 21 of them are Hall of Famers. If you're keeping track, that's 81% of those eligible. That's what we call a "fact", BTW.

Handofdeath
08-02-2006, 04:32 PM
Brian Giles might just be one of the most unappreciated true superstars of our era. Problem is that he didn't get his full-time start in the Show until age 28. That severely hurt his chances of making the HOF because he's not going to be able to play long enough to produce the kind of counting stats your average HOF voter really digs. And now he plays in a park that really hurts his power numbers. Oh well.

If Giles had been given a full-time job at age 22 or 23 instead of 28, you'd most likely be seeing a Hall of Famer in action. But then, entrance to the HOF is predicated on more than just OBP, SLG, and OPS. Of course it is. It would be unfair to say otherwise. Those are a unwritten rules of the Hall of Fame. It is, after all, the Hall of Fame rather than the Hall of Numbers.

That being said, I'm unsure as to why you're fixated on HOF induction. It's almost as if you can't appreciate a player who's actually putting up tremendous numbers if you can't project him as a HOF-level player at age 26 due to what you obviously value (Base Hits).

You might also want to know that a large percentage of the eligible career OBP list have busts in Cooperstown. Of the 34 players who hold a career OPS+ (career OPS versus league average OPS) of 150 or higher, 26 are HOF eligible. 21 of them are Hall of Famers. If you're keeping track, that's 81% of those eligible. That's what we call a "fact", BTW.

Brian Giles played in 130 games in 1997 when he was 26. He had over 350 AB's at ages 26 and 27 but let's not split hairs. I would hesitate to call him a "true superstar" at his best. Damn good hitter? Yes. Superstar? No. I would not say I'm fixated on HOF induction or hits for that matter. I simply don't think that pure numbers can tell the story. Especially when you are basically mixing philosophy with mathematics which do not go together well.