PDA

View Full Version : Krivsky Offers Twin Peek



Krusty
10-15-2006, 08:55 AM
If this is what he is trying to do, it makes all the sense.
Krivsky offers Twins peek
Reds insider
The firing of Chris Chambliss was the latest move in the "Minnesota-ization" of the Reds. If the Minnesota-ization continues we could see bigger moves.

Let's explain the Minnesota-ization theory.

Reds general manager Wayne Krivsky worked for the Twins for 11 years before coming to the Reds. Minnesota GM Terry Ryan has had more influence on Krivsky than anyone in baseball.



So it stands to reason that Krivsky is trying to rebuild the Reds in the Twins' mold - given the success of the franchise.

The Reds were the antithesis of the Twins offensively under Chambliss.

All you have to do is take a look at the final stats for this season to see that.

The Twins led the American League in batting average. They struck out fewer times than any team in the AL. They were 13th in home runs. And they were fourth in the AL in sacrifice flies.

The Reds were second last in the National League in batting average. They struck out more than all but four teams in the NL. They were second in home runs. And they were 14th in the NL in sacrifice flies.

The Twins won 95 games; the Reds 80.

Krivsky said the Chambliss move wasn't a change in philosophy. But two days after Chambliss was fired the club hired Ronnie Ortegon to replace Leon Roberts as the minor-league hitting coordinator.

Sounds like the club wants a different approach to hitting.

"There are a lot of different ideas about hitting," Krivsky said. "I just want to win."

But he admits an aversion to strikeouts.

"I don't like strikeouts," he said. "I'd give up home runs for (fewer) strikeouts."

It should be noted that Chambliss didn't get fired because he and Krivsky and Jerry Narron clashed on philosophy. Chambliss got fired because the Reds didn't hit after Aug. 24.

They were first in the NL in slugging percentage and on-base percentage at that point. They ended up sixth in slugging percentage and seventh in on-base percentage.

"That's hard to do after 134 games - to fall off like that," Krivsky said.

Some of that had to do with the trade that sent Austin Kearns and Felipe Lopez to Washington. Some of that had to do with injuries to Ken Griffey Jr. and Ryan Freel.

But Chambliss took the fall. Narron talked about the lack of adjustments hitters made late in the season.

Chambliss had a lot of success as the Reds hitting coach before the team went into the mega-slump in late August.

The Reds led the NL in runs scored in 2005. They did that despite having five hitters strike out more than 100 times.

Chambliss was always concerned about the strikeouts. But he saw them as a byproduct of the kind of hitters the Reds had. "Strikeouts come with power," he would say.

Krivsky is willing to sacrifice power for contact. Again, look at the Twins. When Justin Morneau hit 34 home runs this year he was first Twin to exceed 30 since 1987. The Reds had players go over 30 eight times in that period.

Adam Dunn, the ultimate strikeout-power guy, has hit at least 40 the last three seasons.

Krivsky traded away three of the five hitters who struck out 100 times in 2005 - Wily Mo Peņa, Kearns and Lopez.

Dunn certainly could be next to go.

Remember the "I'll give up some home runs for less strikeouts" quote.

Krivsky also said this: "It's about scoring runs and preventing runs. The defense has to get better."

That's more of the Minnesota-ization of the Reds. The Twins finished third in the AL in defense. The Reds finished second last in the NL.

Cutting down on strikeouts and putting more emphasis on the defense would not seem to bode well for Dunn's long-term future with the Reds.

But whoever replaces Chambliss is not going to turn Dunn into Joe Mauer. And no one's going to turn him into a Gold Glove outfielder, or Silver or Bronze for that matter.

So if the Minnesota-ization continues, we could see Dunn playing elsewhere in 2007.

E-mail jfay@enquirer.com

Redhook
10-15-2006, 09:15 AM
Before reading this article this morning, I thought there was about a 50-50 chance of Dunn being traded. After reading this from Wayne,

"I don't like strikeouts," he said. "I'd give up home runs for (fewer) strikeouts."

I'd be shocked if Dunn is still here by 2007. Dunn seems to be the antithesis of what Wayne wants in a player, which is fine. I just hope he knows what he's doing when he trades Dunn. What we get in return, good or bad, will have a major impact on how successful this team will be 2007 and beyond. Let's hope it's good.

Tom Servo
10-15-2006, 09:30 AM
Before reading this article this morning, I thought there was about a 50-50 chance of Dunn being traded. After reading this from Wayne,

"I don't like strikeouts," he said. "I'd give up home runs for (fewer) strikeouts."

I'd be shocked if Dunn is still here by 2007. Dunn seems to be the antithesis of what Wayne wants in a player, which is fine. I just hope he knows what he's doing when he trades Dunn. What we get in return, good or bad, will have a major impact on how successful this team will be 2007 and beyond. Let's hope it's good.
Pretty much my exact thoughts. I was initially pretty sure he'd be moved, but the firing of Chambliss made me believe he'd stay. This article seems like damning evidence that we won't have Adam to kick around in 07.

mth123
10-15-2006, 09:40 AM
I don't know. When did he say this? Yesterday or 6 months ago? If its an old quote, he's already moved a bunch of strike outs as the article points out.

The article isn't real clear if the strike out remarks were made after the Chambliss firing or not. If they were, I agree there may be a move. If this is just a writer digging up an old quote because it fits the story, then it may mean nothing as far as Dunn is concerned.

Does anybody know if this is a recent quote?

steig
10-15-2006, 10:02 AM
Reading this article makes me believe that the Reds will definately move Dunn in the off season and that the return for Dunn will probably be significantly lower than what we would expect. Possibly a few AA level prospects because it seems like Wayne might want Dunn out of the lineup that much.

Spring~Fields
10-15-2006, 11:07 AM
If this is what he is trying to do, it makes all the sense.
All you have to do is take a look at the final stats for this season to see that.

The Twins led the American League in batting average. They struck out fewer times than any team in the AL. They were 13th in home runs. And they were fourth in the AL in sacrifice flies.

The Reds were second last in the National League in batting average. They struck out more than all but four teams in the NL. They were second in home runs. And they were 14th in the NL in sacrifice flies.

The Twins won 95 games; the Reds 80.



The Twins won 95 games in a tough division while the Reds struggled to win 80 in a weak division. It would be nice if Krivsky could bring 95 wins to Cincy.
Krivsky and Mr. C have a lot of work to do to achieve that.

RedsManRick
10-15-2006, 11:17 AM
Krivksy better pull off a rule 5 robbing of the best pitcher in baseball (Santana) and another one of the most lopsided trades in MLB history, sending a catcher for an all-star catcher, a #1 pitcher prospect, and a #3 pitching propsect (Pierzynski for Nathan, Liriano, and Bonser). The Twins have been winning on pitching for the last 5 years. The Twins offense, until this year, has been the thing holding them back, not enabling them to win. Paring down on strikeouts at the expense of power is fine if you're keeping your opponents to 700 runs a year. But we're a LONG way from there.

Reds4Life
10-15-2006, 11:22 AM
Reading this article makes me believe that the Reds will definately move Dunn in the off season and that the return for Dunn will probably be significantly lower than what we would expect. Possibly a few AA level prospects because it seems like Wayne might want Dunn out of the lineup that much.

Doubt it. Krivsky was asked about Dunn last week on Sports of all Sorts, he called Dunn a premire player in the game and dismissed the strikeouts. He said the strikeouts were normal for hitters like Dunn because of the longer swing.

westofyou
10-15-2006, 11:23 AM
The article isn't real clear

Typical John Fay material, vague, uninspired research and void of any analysis other then assumptions based on looking at Krivskys resume and the final standings this season, not to mention once again sacrifice flies are actually mentioned as an offensive goal to pursue. Give me a break.

dougdirt
10-15-2006, 11:27 AM
Reds4life, I agree that strikeouts are normal for power hitters, but Dunns strikeouts are a lot, even for power hitters. He owns the 2 highest strikeout seasons in the history of baseball....

dougdirt
10-15-2006, 11:29 AM
Typical John Fay material, vague, uninspired research and void of any analysis other then assumptions based on looking at Krivskys resume and the final standings this season, not to mention once again sacrifice flies are actually mentioned as an offensive goal to pursue. Give me a break.

WOY, Sac flies RULE!

Except I was kidding. I hate when people get upset because so and so wasnt bunted over to third so someone could "try" to hit a pop up deep enough to score a runner. Apparently its fairly easy to hit a fly ball 250+ feet against a professional pitcher and you can do it on purpose all the time....

Spitball
10-15-2006, 11:40 AM
Doubt it. Krivsky was asked about Dunn last week on Sports of all Sorts, he called Dunn a premire player in the game and dismissed the strikeouts. He said the strikeouts were normal for hitters like Dunn because of the longer swing.

Of course, if you are trying to sell a used car, you downplay the the oil leak and that clanking noise. ;)

But...I don't think the, "I'd give up home runs for fewer strikeouts," can be translated to mean, "I'd give up Adam Dunn for fewer strikeouts." I believe he is talking about an overall team philosophy.

TOBTTReds
10-15-2006, 12:14 PM
I'm a WK supporter, but this article did NOT help at all. This was very discouraging. I whole heartedly feel I would rather have 9 Dunn's up to bat than 9 Scott Hattebergs with last years numbers (down year for Dunn, career year for Hatte).

I'm not a fan of that direction if it is an all out move to fewer K's and less power. Most guys who strike out less, hit into more outs. Sean Casey didn't strike out a lot, but he was not the type of hitter I wanted in my lineup batting above 6th.

TC81190
10-15-2006, 12:16 PM
I juust LOVE how sportswriters are enamored with sac flies, even though with a HR you don't get out and you score more runs.

dougdirt
10-15-2006, 12:19 PM
I'm a WK supporter, but this article did NOT help at all. This was very discouraging. I whole heartedly feel I would rather have 9 Dunn's up to bat than 9 Scott Hattebergs with last years numbers (down year for Dunn, career year for Hatte).

I'm not a fan of that direction if it is an all out move to fewer K's and less power. Most guys who strike out less, hit into more outs. Sean Casey didn't strike out a lot, but he was not the type of hitter I wanted in my lineup batting above 6th.

Well I think Krivsky would sacrafice 5 HRs for 50 less strikeouts from Dunn. I dont think he wants to go Scott Hatteberg at every position hitting wise. Although Hatteberg RC/27 was 6.03 this year, and Adam Dunns was 6.05 Hardly a difference at all.

redsfanfalcon
10-15-2006, 05:51 PM
Which would you rather have...a guy that hits .300 and hits 25 home runs, or a guy that hits .240 with 40 HR and only 92 RBIs? Does anyone know what a good ratio of HR to RBI's are, if there is such a statistic out there? Granted Dunn's OBP is fantastic, his lack of hitting with RISP is pathetic. Take out that torrid 3 weeks that he had tearing the cover off the ball, and he really had a down year.

dougdirt
10-15-2006, 05:59 PM
I dont know what a good ratio is for HR to RBI, but prior to this season players with 40 or more home runs have had fewer than 95 RBI just 5 times in the history of baseball. Duke Snider in 1957, Mickey Mantle in 1960, Darrell Evans in 1985, Ken Griffey Jr in 1994 (strike shortened year) and Barry Bonds in 1994. Only Evans and Mantle played in more than 140 games in their seasons. Personally when I see 40 Home Runs, I expect 110+ RBI or I think its probably been a disappointing season.

As a matter of fact, prior to 2006 there had been 276 40+ home runs seasons in baseball history, and just 12 of those times has the player had less than 100 RBI*(Griffey ad Matt Williams barring injury in 1994 would have gotten 10 and 4 RBI in their reminaing 50+ games if the strike did not occur). Of those 276 seasons, just 56 times has a player had 40+ HR and had fewer than 110 RBI. So When a player has 40 or more HR in a season, just 20% of the time do they end up with fewer than 110 RBI.

TOBTTReds
10-15-2006, 06:06 PM
Which would you rather have...a guy that hits .300 and hits 25 home runs, or a guy that hits .240 with 40 HR and only 92 RBIs? Does anyone know what a good ratio of HR to RBI's are, if there is such a statistic out there? Granted Dunn's OBP is fantastic, his lack of hitting with RISP is pathetic. Take out that torrid 3 weeks that he had tearing the cover off the ball, and he really had a down year.

Which 3 weeks is that?

The month of April he hit:
.265/.432./614 with 9 HR and 17 RBI?

Or May when he OPS'd .863 and hit 8 HR's with 15 RBI

Or do you mean June when he OPS'd .905 with 9 HR's and 20 RBI

Or maybe July when he hit .354 and OBP of .451 and SLG .573???

Bottom line is, he was All-Star caliber from April-July 31. After that he was awful. Your 3 weeks of tearing the cover off the ball was really 4 months. His number as of July 31 was .263/.394/.563 for an OPS of .957. That is REALLY good. After that, he was awful.

redsfanfalcon
10-15-2006, 06:34 PM
Which 3 weeks is that?

The month of April he hit:
.265/.432./614 with 9 HR and 17 RBI?

Or May when he OPS'd .863 and hit 8 HR's with 15 RBI

Or do you mean June when he OPS'd .905 with 9 HR's and 20 RBI

Or maybe July when he hit .354 and OBP of .451 and SLG .573???

Bottom line is, he was All-Star caliber from April-July 31. After that he was awful. Your 3 weeks of tearing the cover off the ball was really 4 months. His number as of July 31 was .263/.394/.563 for an OPS of .957. That is REALLY good. After that, he was awful.

I believe it was July that he had his really good month. The point is, give me a guy that hits .300 and hits 25 HR. Also, naturally a guy that hits 40 HR is going to have an outstanding slugging percentage. Dunn does walk a lot, but I think his .240 batting average, lack of good glove, and leading the league in strikeouts overshadow his OBP. I actually enjoy watching Dunn crush the ball into another stratosphere as much as anyone else, but I also realize if a man of that stature would just shorten his swing, the amount of HRs and RBIs the man could have with reducing his strikeouts would be unreal.

fearofpopvol1
10-15-2006, 06:34 PM
But...I don't think the, "I'd give up home runs for fewer strikeouts," can be translated to mean, "I'd give up Adam Dunn for fewer strikeouts." I believe he is talking about an overall team philosophy.

Great point. I think this is what you should take away from the article.

WMR
10-15-2006, 06:50 PM
this article makes me beleive that the redlegs really are headed in the rite direction. we need some players who like to paly good defese, move the runner over, lay down a good bunt hit a sac fly when you need 1 and play some good ball. all a strikeout does is give the team an out i wnt players who p\but the ball in play and know how to give a man like jerry narron a qulity at bat. what good is 40 homers if it only gets yolu 75 rbis??/ krvisky aint no stathead hes a man that likes a real ballplayer who does what you need him to do when u need it done, not beg for a walk with the bat on his shoulders thinking about his next big mac and not carring a whip about playing some defense

redsfanfalcon
10-15-2006, 07:41 PM
this article makes me beleive that the redlegs really are headed in the rite direction. we need some players who like to paly good defese, move the runner over, lay down a good bunt hit a sac fly when you need 1 and play some good ball. all a strikeout does is give the team an out i wnt players who p\but the ball in play and know how to give a man like jerry narron a qulity at bat. what good is 40 homers if it only gets yolu 75 rbis??/ krvisky aint no stathead hes a man that likes a real ballplayer who does what you need him to do when u need it done, not beg for a walk with the bat on his shoulders thinking about his next big mac and not carring a whip about playing some defense

I couldn't agree with you more!

Johnny Footstool
10-15-2006, 07:50 PM
I believe it was July that he had his really good month. The point is, give me a guy that hits .300 and hits 25 HR. Also, naturally a guy that hits 40 HR is going to have an outstanding slugging percentage. Dunn does walk a lot, but I think his .240 batting average, lack of good glove, and leading the league in strikeouts overshadow his OBP. I actually enjoy watching Dunn crush the ball into another stratosphere as much as anyone else, but I also realize if a man of that stature would just shorten his swing, the amount of HRs and RBIs the man could have with reducing his strikeouts would be unreal.

Explain how batting average overshadows OBP.

Slyder
10-15-2006, 08:13 PM
Explain how batting average overshadows OBP.

I am too among those who would take the guy who gets on base more than guys who got more hits. Yes he homers, Yes he strikes out a lot but he also walks a lot. My one problem about the lineup (besides Ed E disappearance act) was that it never let Dunn get settled into a groove with his "role" constantly changing. I wish Narron would have let Dunn hit 2nd the entire year because that seemed to be where Dunn was most comfortable by the numbers.

redsfanfalcon
10-15-2006, 08:22 PM
Explain how batting average overshadows OBP.

It would be interesting to see a statistic on how many 2 out walks Dunn got, or how many times he struck out with men on base. A lot of times the mentality of a team is "don't let the big guy hurt you." So what? Don't give him a pitch to hit, so he'll either strike himself out or walk.

redsfanfalcon
10-15-2006, 08:30 PM
If OPS is such a big deal, there were 53 other players that ranked higher than Adam Dunn in that category. Guys like Bill Hall, Robinson Cano, and Lyle Overbay rank higher than Dunn. There were also 50 other players with a better OBP than Dunn.

neal1017
10-15-2006, 08:44 PM
I always thought that it was better to get a hit than a walk. Especially if you are counted on to be the big bat in a lineup?

dougdirt
10-15-2006, 08:45 PM
Neal you are right, a hit is always better than a walk.

pahster
10-15-2006, 08:47 PM
I always thought that it was better to get a hit than a walk.

Sure, but it is also better for a batter to not make an out. Hits are great, but a hitter has done their job if they didn't make an out.

traderumor
10-15-2006, 08:54 PM
I still think that Krivsky learned a thing or two in his tenure with Terry Ryan. Of course, while Ryan is hailed now, the first half of his tenure was not pretty, and he was likely close to losing his job if things did not turn around in 2001. So, it seems that one might, without making broad generalizations, look toward the mentor to see what direction the protege is likely to go.

RedsManRick
10-15-2006, 09:06 PM
I always thought that it was better to get a hit than a walk. Especially if you are counted on to be the big bat in a lineup?

But as much better as a hit is than a walk, a walk or a hit is better than out. Give me guys who avoid making outs and I'll worry about the hits vs walks issue later.

Kc61
10-15-2006, 09:41 PM
But as much better as a hit is than a walk, a walk or a hit is better than out. Give me guys who avoid making outs and I'll worry about the hits vs walks issue later.

This is one of those bromides about baseball I just don't buy. "Avoiding outs." Perhaps it is ok for a second tier, complimentary player merely to "avoid outs." Scott Hatteberg, for example.

But I am not satisfied when a highly paid, middle of the order hitter, merely "avoids outs." Someone has to knock in runs. They don't come home by themselves. A middle-of-the-order hitter who avoids an out, but leaves it to others to knock in runs, isn't helping all that much.

Yes, in theory, if everyone could "avoid outs" the team would score tons of runs. But that's not reality. At some point, there will be outs. So when the best hitters are up, I want them knocking in runs.

Similarly, walks, while ok, are not great. If one of your main hitters walks, it leaves it to other (often weaker) hitters to knock in runs. Not to say good hitters should swing at bad pitches; but if there are pitches to hit, I'm not that thrilled with my main guys trying for walks.

flyer85
10-15-2006, 09:59 PM
Great point. I think this is what you should take away from the article.That ought to scare th crap out of any Reds fan. WKs comment is a complete non sequitur. I'd trade less HRs for a more OPS effieciency but simply trading them for non-strikeout events is beyond absurd.

The Twins model is all about pitching with an excellent bullpen and developing a lot of your own players. Until this year their offense has had little to do with their winning.

And a lot of the Twins success, as pointed out earlier was built on the best Rule 5 pick in history and maybe the most lopsided trade in the last 30 years.

TC81190
10-15-2006, 10:05 PM
This is one of those bromides about baseball I just don't buy. "Avoiding outs." Perhaps it is ok for a second tier, complimentary player merely to "avoid outs." Scott Hatteberg, for example.

But I am not satisfied when a highly paid, middle of the order hitter, merely "avoids outs." Someone has to knock in runs. They don't come home by themselves. A middle-of-the-order hitter who avoids an out, but leaves it to others to knock in runs, isn't helping all that much.

Yes, in theory, if everyone could "avoid outs" the team would score tons of runs. But that's not reality. At some point, there will be outs. So when the best hitters are up, I want them knocking in runs.

Similarly, walks, while ok, are not great. If one of your main hitters walks, it leaves it to other (often weaker) hitters to knock in runs. Not to say good hitters should swing at bad pitches; but if there are pitches to hit, I'm not that thrilled with my main guys trying for walks.

Winner.


Explain how batting average overshadows OBP.

Because even though they both show up as 1 TB in the box score, you can't drive in a run with a walk (unless the bases are loaded, but c'mon).

Natty Redlocks
10-15-2006, 10:05 PM
This is one of those bromides about baseball I just don't buy. "Avoiding outs." Perhaps it is ok for a second tier, complimentary player merely to "avoid outs." Scott Hatteberg, for example.

But I am not satisfied when a highly paid, middle of the order hitter, merely "avoids outs." Someone has to knock in runs. They don't come home by themselves. A middle-of-the-order hitter who avoids an out, but leaves it to others to knock in runs, isn't helping all that much.

Yes, in theory, if everyone could "avoid outs" the team would score tons of runs. But that's not reality. At some point, there will be outs. So when the best hitters are up, I want them knocking in runs.

Similarly, walks, while ok, are not great. If one of your main hitters walks, it leaves it to other (often weaker) hitters to knock in runs. Not to say good hitters should swing at bad pitches; but if there are pitches to hit, I'm not that thrilled with my main guys trying for walks.

I agree. This is why Dunn would be a great complementary player for a bigger money team -- think Edmonds hitting behind Pujols and Rolen -- but not such a great player for a mid-market team that can't afford half a lineup full of guys making 10+ a year. With Griffey at the stage of his career where he's also that type of a player (yet still being paid like a centerpiece), the Reds just can't afford to keep them both. I'd love to see Jr. (and his salary) be the one to go, but that's not realistic.

Yachtzee
10-15-2006, 10:29 PM
This is one of those bromides about baseball I just don't buy. "Avoiding outs." Perhaps it is ok for a second tier, complimentary player merely to "avoid outs." Scott Hatteberg, for example.

But I am not satisfied when a highly paid, middle of the order hitter, merely "avoids outs." Someone has to knock in runs. They don't come home by themselves. A middle-of-the-order hitter who avoids an out, but leaves it to others to knock in runs, isn't helping all that much.

Yes, in theory, if everyone could "avoid outs" the team would score tons of runs. But that's not reality. At some point, there will be outs. So when the best hitters are up, I want them knocking in runs.

Similarly, walks, while ok, are not great. If one of your main hitters walks, it leaves it to other (often weaker) hitters to knock in runs. Not to say good hitters should swing at bad pitches; but if there are pitches to hit, I'm not that thrilled with my main guys trying for walks.


Here are a few reason why "avoiding outs" are good.

1. It keeps the inning going. You have a better chance of scoring more runs in an inning if you aren't giving up outs by sacrificing or grounding into double plays.
2. It wears out the pitcher. The more pitches he throws, the better.

I think this is an important skill for any player, not just "second tier complimentary players." The better Dunn is at avoiding outs, the more likely he will be to produce runs. Sure he strikes out a lot. I would like it if he struck out less, because those are outs. But I'd much rather have a Dunn K than a Casey GIDP.

For all Dunn's Ks, he still scored 99 runs, far and away more runs than anyone else on this team, including the ones with higher batting averages.

SteelSD
10-15-2006, 10:32 PM
Yes, in theory, if everyone could "avoid outs" the team would score tons of runs. But that's not reality.

Yeah, it actually is reality. Teams that do a better job of avoiding Outs- regardless of how they do so- tend to score more Runs than teams that don't. That's the way baseball works. Always has. Always will.

And players don't trade Walks for Hits. They trade Walks for Outs.

flyer85
10-15-2006, 10:35 PM
And players don't trade Walks for Hits. They trade Walks for Outs.which is the part that most people just don't seem to get. Swinging at pitchers pitches is for almost every player in every situation, simply a way to make an easy out.

flyer85
10-15-2006, 10:41 PM
I wonder how WK would answer the following two questions?

Why were the Reds such a good offense early in the year?

Why were the Reds such a poor offense late in the year?

wolfboy
10-15-2006, 10:46 PM
And players don't trade Walks for Hits. They trade Walks for Outs.

That is a very important point.

I've seen people say that Dunn needs to be more aggressive at the plate (i.e. swing at pitches out of the strike zone) Well, if the guy does that, his walks will go down. That is a certainty. But with 190 strikeouts, what makes people think that swinging at pitches out of the strike zone will make the guy get more hits (and RBI)? I fail to see the logic.

Falls City Beer
10-15-2006, 10:48 PM
Why were the Reds such a poor offense late in the year?

Chris Chambliss.

RFS62
10-15-2006, 10:51 PM
Chris Chambliss.

Yeah, that bum didn't get a single hit in September.

Cyclone792
10-15-2006, 10:51 PM
My favorite chart ...

http://www.fangraphs.com/custom%20graphs/MLB%20All.png

The nine squares in the center represent the strike zone while the outer collar is all outside the strike zone. Each square represents the percentage of pitches in that zone that become hits.

Frankly, that chart is about as self-explanatory as it gets.

RFS62
10-15-2006, 10:56 PM
That chart is about as self-explanatory as it gets.



Ahem....

traderumor
10-15-2006, 10:57 PM
I've seen people say that Dunn needs to be more aggressive at the plate (i.e. swing at pitches out of the strike zone)While I'm sure there is someone who thinks that, I think everyone else is referring to letting good strikes go by or getting rung up on the pitch at the knees or on the corner.

wolfboy
10-15-2006, 11:17 PM
While I'm sure there is someone who thinks that, I think everyone else is referring to letting good strikes go by or getting rung up on the pitch at the knees or on the corner.

My point is that it makes no sense at all for a hitter, Dunn or not, to cut down on walks. Cutting down on walks will not make a better player.

People seem to think that if Dunn starts hacking away at anything that's near the strike zone, he's going to become a better player. The evidence doesn't support that. Cyclone's graph makes that crystal clear. It will likely cut down on his walks, and is not likely to increase his hits.

Natty Redlocks
10-15-2006, 11:29 PM
My point is that it makes no sense at all for a hitter, Dunn or not, to cut down on walks. Cutting down on walks will not make a better player.

People seem to think that if Dunn starts hacking away at anything that's near the strike zone, he's going to become a better player. The evidence doesn't support that. Cyclone's graph makes that crystal clear. It will likely cut down on his walks, and is not likely to increase his hits.

My question is, what if Dunn is as good as he is ever going to be? Is that worth 13 million a year? Is that truly an offensive centerpiece?

I don't fault him one bit for what he does. I don't think he's lazy. I don't think he needs to walk less. I'm just not sure he's right for this team at a premium price tag. Especially if he's going to peter out before Labor Day every year.

Johnny Footstool
10-15-2006, 11:30 PM
This is one of those bromides about baseball I just don't buy. "Avoiding outs." Perhaps it is ok for a second tier, complimentary player merely to "avoid outs." Scott Hatteberg, for example.

But I am not satisfied when a highly paid, middle of the order hitter, merely "avoids outs." Someone has to knock in runs. They don't come home by themselves. A middle-of-the-order hitter who avoids an out, but leaves it to others to knock in runs, isn't helping all that much.

Yes, in theory, if everyone could "avoid outs" the team would score tons of runs. But that's not reality. At some point, there will be outs. So when the best hitters are up, I want them knocking in runs.

Similarly, walks, while ok, are not great. If one of your main hitters walks, it leaves it to other (often weaker) hitters to knock in runs. Not to say good hitters should swing at bad pitches; but if there are pitches to hit, I'm not that thrilled with my main guys trying for walks.

Your logic is flawed.

You insist that "at some point, there will be outs", but you fail to acknowledge that avoiding outs puts men on base, which in turn leads to more runs.

You also fall into the trap of trying to pigeonhole hitters into a role based on their salary and/or one small skillset. Dunn makes good money and hits a lot of homers, so you automatically expect him to play like a prototype #3 hitter. It's a mentality instilled in us in little league -- "Swing the bat, junior. Don't embarass yourself (i.e. don't embarass your dad) by striking out."

No one "tries" for walks. They are a by-product of being a late-count hitter. So are strikeouts. Luckily, with Dunn, another by-product of his game is lots and lots of base accumulation -- OBP and Slugging. He was fantastic at this for 4 months this season.

Then he slumped. Of course, so did the rest of the lineup (except for Aurilia), but that fact gets ignored and people keep pointing the finger at their favorite whipping boy. Nevermind the fact that he led the team in Runs Scored during September -- thanks almost exclusively to his ability to take a walk.

Which is another by-procuct of being a selective hitter -- even when you're slumping, you can still avoid outs at a decent rate.

Kc61
10-15-2006, 11:54 PM
Yeah, it actually is reality. Teams that do a better job of avoiding Outs- regardless of how they do so- tend to score more Runs than teams that don't. That's the way baseball works. Always has. Always will.

And players don't trade Walks for Hits. They trade Walks for Outs.

Obviously teams should avoid outs. Obviously teams need walks. And I agree that a hitter shouldn't swing at bad pitches.

But I expect star power hitters to produce with their bats. The walks are ok but don't compensate when a player fails to hit over the course of a season. Particularly if it is one of the team's primary hitters.

Reading Redszone sometimes I think posters view walks as a primary objective. Walks are fine, but if they are a hitter's primary "skill", I probably don't want him on my team. Or at least I don't pay him too much.

I also believe that different players have different roles. A lead-off hitter who walks a lot and gets singles, leading to a high OBP, is doing his job. A middle-of-the-order hitter who walks a lot but doesn't knock in runs, isn't.

Just my view. I'm sure there are other philosophies.

Kc61
10-16-2006, 12:20 AM
Your logic is flawed.

You insist that "at some point, there will be outs", but you fail to acknowledge that avoiding outs puts men on base, which in turn leads to more runs.

You also fall into the trap of trying to pigeonhole hitters into a role based on their salary and/or one small skillset. Dunn makes good money and hits a lot of homers, so you automatically expect him to play like a prototype #3 hitter. It's a mentality instilled in us in little league -- "Swing the bat, junior. Don't embarass yourself (i.e. don't embarass your dad) by striking out."

No one "tries" for walks. They are a by-product of being a late-count hitter. So are strikeouts. Luckily, with Dunn, another by-product of his game is lots and lots of base accumulation -- OBP and Slugging. He was fantastic at this for 4 months this season.

Then he slumped. Of course, so did the rest of the lineup (except for Aurilia), but that fact gets ignored and people keep pointing the finger at their favorite whipping boy. Nevermind the fact that he led the team in Runs Scored during September -- thanks almost exclusively to his ability to take a walk.

Which is another by-procuct of being a selective hitter -- even when you're slumping, you can still avoid outs at a decent rate.

On base accumulation: Dunn had 64 extra base hits this year, tied for 48th place in baseball, behind such guys as Eric Byrnes, Craig Monroe and Luis Gonzalez.

Late count hitter: Dunn may be a late count hitter, but when he is behind in the count he hit .148 (with a .158 OBP).

I really didn't post earlier to debate your points about Adam Dunn again. I hope you are judging him correctly and he has a super year for the Reds in 2007 and 08.

My point here is simple. Walks are good but, if I'm paying big bucks to a guy, I want a lot more, particularly when the player is a primary power hitter.

deltachi8
10-16-2006, 12:49 AM
I too think people are miscasting Dunn into the tradition 3/4 hitter that they think he should be. I am much more comfortable with AD in thetwo hole where his greatest skill (IMHO) - avoiding outs - is best suited.

deltachi8
10-16-2006, 12:55 AM
Chris Chambliss.

You know, that is bugging me. I don't know if Chambliss should have stayed or not, but the fact that he is being blamed (not by you FCB, I know your throwing a jab out) by some for this team''s offensive collapse down the streatch is silly.

As others have pointed out, missing Kearns, Felo, Jr and Freel is going to kill your run production.

I have been one of Wayne's biggest supporters but I think the kool aide has worn off...

SteelSD
10-16-2006, 01:04 AM
Obviously teams should avoid outs. Obviously teams need walks. And I agree that a hitter shouldn't swing at bad pitches.

But I expect star power hitters to produce with their bats. The walks are ok but don't compensate when a player fails to hit over the course of a season. Particularly if it is one of the team's primary hitters.

Reading Redszone sometimes I think posters view walks as a primary objective. Walks are fine, but if they are a hitter's primary skill, I probably don't want him on my team. Or at least I don't pay him too much.

I also believe that different players have different roles. A lead-off hitter who walks a lot and gets singles, leading to a high OBP, is doing his job. A middle-of-the-order hitter who walks a lot but doesn't knock in runs, isn't.

Huh? Dunn didn't produce with the bat? The guy created about 106 Runs at the plate this season. That's Dunn being personally responsible for 14.2% of the Reds' Runs in 2006. During an off season. Tops on the team. By far. That 14.2% ranked him 15th in the NL. He was responsible for 14.3% in 2005.

The interesting thing is that only 42 NL players produced 90 or more Runs in 2006. The Reds had their hands on three of those players at one point in the season. Then they gave up two of them for a negligible return. And we wonder why the offense got worse.

Offensive players have exactly one "role"- to create runs by avoiding Outs and acquiring as many Bases as possible when avoiding Outs. The only reason most good leadoff hitters end up being leadoff hitters is that they're deficient in the latter area. Assigning expectations based on player "role" is exceptionally outmoded; particularly when we consider that "roles", in regard to batting order slotting, are solely at the discretion of the manager.

If a player's job is to create Runs, then why do we actually give a crap where he hits or how he does it as long as it's happening? That should be a rhetorical question, but for some reason it isn't.

Oh, and a player can't possibly have a "primary" skill set of acquiring Walks. It's pretty much impossible as BB acquisition is a secondary OBP acquisition skill set.

TOBTTReds
10-16-2006, 01:11 AM
My point here is simple. Walks are good but, if I'm paying big bucks to a guy, I want a lot more, particularly when the player is a primary power hitter.

You can't ask a guy to be less patient in my opinion. That will kill his approach. Also, are you saying you wouldn't want David Ortiz up to bat or Ryan Howard bc you are afraid they might get walked? They led the league ahead of Dunn. Would you have the same argument for Howard bc he K'd 181 times and walked 108 times. That is 289 plate appearances where he or the pitcher didn't give himself a chance to drive in runs (being a primary power hitter in a lineup and bound to make 13+ mil soon).

Dunn had 306 such plate appearances, only 17 more than Ryan Howard where he wasn't able to do his "power display" bc of a K or BB.

You can not blame a guy for walking. Not saying you are, but it is hard for him to get hits when guys pitch around you so much. Take a look at all the HR leaders, they naturally have walks because they get pitched around. There is one main exception that got on base more than Dunn, with considerably fewer walks, and that is Jermaine Dye (59 BB .385 obp).

Even a guy like Alfonso Soriano who hit .277 only got on base at a .350 rate. He made an out 65% of his plate appearances, which isn't very good. Some of the guys that got on base more often where Mike Cameron, Dave Roberts, Adam LaRoche, Omar Visquel, and Kenny Lofton.

By no means am I saying that Soriano is not good bc of this, obviously his slugging makes up for that, but it shows that "aggressive" hitters that are good hitters like Soriano make frequent outs. Now take a hitter like Dunn, who K's record amount, make him more aggressive and he K's 230 times a season. He is K'ing at record paces even when swinging at pitches he should crush some times. I would love to see Dunn's hitting zone, bc I'm pretty sure anything over the plate would be dead red hot, and anything anywhere else period would be pretty bad. He is pretty much a mistake pitch hitter, and a good one at that. But if he tries to reach for one, he won't do much with it, and anything on the inner third, he will jam himself because he extends his hands too much for his own good.

I think Dunn will forever be consistant with around a .250 average, .380 obp, 40-50 HR's, 185 K, 110 BB's. He would have to make some major adjustments, or go back to July for him to take advantage any more of his given abilities.

TOBTTReds
10-16-2006, 01:33 AM
Reading Redszone sometimes I think posters view walks as a primary objective. Walks are fine, but if they are a hitter's primary "skill", I probably don't want him on my team. Or at least I don't pay him too much.


I'm in this crowd that believes in patience at the plate. I'll express my reasons why with a list, also just my opinion. Being patient gives you these luxeries.

1. More pitches thrown by starter, easier to get to middle "crappy" relief. One single patient hitter can see on average 4-5 pitches per PA. That can be 20 pitches on a good day for 3 PA's in one game, do you know how much closer you are to getting the starter out with that? Think if everyone avg. 4-5 pitcher per PA. That is 36-45 pitches one time through the order, which would probably be less than 3 innings because people will be walking at that rate and at the natural rate of the average pitcher.

2. The more pitches you see, the more likely you are to find your "meatball" to drive. If you can get to a 2 ball count, the likelyhood of you finding your pitch is much higher than earlier in the AB. There is a reason why 2-1 is called the action count, because the pitcher throws a lot good hittable strikes there (4 pitches into the AB). What are the other hitters counts? 2-0, you were patient enough to get to 2-0, you are rewarded with a strike, if not here comes 3-0 or 3-1 later. 3-1 is atleast a five pitch AB, which is good, and also a hitters count.

3. If you swing at pitches that aren't your "meatball" then you are more likely to hit a weak grounder or pop up (see: Casey, Sean. He swings at a lot of pitches, he bats .300 because about 3 out of 10 balls Case swings at, he makes half decent contact, if anyone is on base, chalk up the DP. He didn't ground into so many DP's bc he is slow.)

3a. I'd rather have no contact than crappy contact in many situations, obviously there are times where you need some sort of contact, but get your pitch to do it on. If Casey had waited for his pitch, or swung and missed more, he might have been able to see a 2nd strike that he like more than the 1st. Pitchers make so many mistakes, and are bound to make many more the deeper in the count you go. A hitters average gets better the deeper in the count they go. Advantage: hitter that can go deep in counts.

4. If you don't find your meatball, you find 4 balls that put you on base, and get you a baserunner and gives the next hitter up a good chance to do THE EXACT SAME PROCESS, NOW HE GOES UP TO #1 AND REPEATS (it's just like shampoo).

That is why you have a good hitter in the lineup behind your star. If they don't want to pitch to him, let them walk him. They still have to face a .300 hitter that is good at the same process above. Baseball is not a timed sport, so your star doesn't have to do it in his AB, the guy after him can always get the same opportunity. One of the greatest hitters of all-time subscribes to this method; Ted Williams.

SteelSD
10-16-2006, 02:28 AM
You know, that is bugging me. I don't know if Chambliss should have stayed or not, but the fact that he is being blamed (not by you FCB, I know your throwing a jab out) by some for this team''s offensive collapse down the streatch is silly.

As others have pointed out, missing Kearns, Felo, Jr and Freel is going to kill your run production.

I have been one of Wayne's biggest supporters but I think the kool aide has worn off...

The Chambliss firing bugs me as well because of what it represents. Narron made comments about Lopez (pre-trade) and Dunn changing their approaches to swing at more borderline pitches situationally. That's the same kind of garbage that came out of Bob Boone's mouth when he screwed up Dunn in 2003.

The team went from 694 Runs in 2003 (pre-Chambliss) to 750 Runs in 2004 and then 820 Runs in 2005. This is a guy who was the Yankees hitting coach during their last title run. Chris Chambliss is as much a success story as Jerry Narron is a baseball footnote. So when a Chris Chambliss gets fired by a Jerry Narron after being dramatically more successful than either of his two bosses, there's an organizational philosophy issue.

That's particularly evident after Krivsky's numbskull-like comments about being willing to trade power for fewer strikeouts. I honestly don't think he could have said anything more stupid if he'd have gameplanned for it considering that his mid-season mechanizations actually ended up producing the following:

2006 Reds:

Pre-All Star Break:

17.9 AB/2B
23.7 AB/HR
8.65 AB/BB
4.73 AB/K

Post-All Star Break:

20.5 AB/2B
28.1 AB/HR
9.43 AB/BB
4.45 AB/K

Freakin' guy wants to cut down on strikeouts but didn't do it. Doesn't mean anything from a production standpoint, but if your goal is to cut down on strikeouts and you don't do it, it's pretty ridiculous. Furthermore, if you've made dramatic changes to your offensive roster and your offense gets worse, it's beyond ridiculous to hold your Hitting Coach accountable. The Reds lost power. They lost plate discipline. They lost Run Differential. The firing of Chambliss was, in no uncertain terms, a "cover your arse" maneuver orchestrated by two people who have to report to a guy who wants to win.

Right now this is a team with no real clue. Maybe the offseason can provide some hope, but I'm not at all hopeful considering that they have virtually nothing they can realistically swap for the kind of Run Diff gain they actually need. The true irony is that Dan O'Brien's five-year plan was most likely preferable to the current administration's plan of losing more than they gain via action for action's sake.

WVRedsFan
10-16-2006, 02:47 AM
But as much better as a hit is than a walk, a walk or a hit is better than out. Give me guys who avoid making outs and I'll worry about the hits vs walks issue later.

Great words of wisdom.

WVRedsFan
10-16-2006, 02:51 AM
which is the part that most people just don't seem to get. Swinging at pitchers pitches is for almost every player in every situation, simply a way to make an easy out.

And how many times have we seen this? A pitcher who can't throw a strike and the player swings at a bad pitch and ruins a promising inning? The secret is taking what they give you.

WVRedsFan
10-16-2006, 02:58 AM
I wonder how WK would answer the following two questions?

Why were the Reds such a good offense early in the year?

Why were the Reds such a poor offense late in the year?

I hate to keep posting, but there is so much good stuff here. Two very good questions that Wayne needs to answer. The theory was that Denorfia and Freel could handle right field and that Clayton, with all his defense powress could handle short (yeah, right). They the pitching would be so much improved (he watched lead after lead dissolve and didn't realize that some of that lead was generated by what he gave away) that we would win.

Fallacy number one. It was a fragile offense based on power statistics that went away with the trade. You traded run production for potential pitching that did not work out.

Fallacy number two. You must look at the statistics to know what the club needs. I don't think Krivsky had looked closely at what was the reason we were scoring runs to adequately make the decision, otherwise he would not have traded away about 30% of the offense in the hope that others who had not produced would make it up. To Wayne Krivisy, defense and pitching is everything, and that may be true in other situations. In the Reds' situation, the pitching had to be much better for this to work. It wasn't and we lost and lost.

I fear the future.

RedsManRick
10-16-2006, 08:28 AM
The purpose of being patient is to get a good pitch to hit. Some hitters, like Soriano and Vlad, can and do hit just about anything. Telling them to be more patient wouldn't help their game. Inversely, some hitters simply aren't able to make good contact except on certain pitches. If they go after pitches that they can't hit, even if they're in the strike zone, they are likely going to be outs. Dunn works counts not because he wants to walk, but because he wants to get hits. If he never gets his pitch, he's not going to chase. Perhaps he could do a little about expanding his zone with 2 strikes, but otherwise, you're simply asking him to hit weak grounders to SS instead of striking out, and forcing the pitcher to use fewer pitches in the process.

traderumor
10-16-2006, 08:38 AM
My point is that it makes no sense at all for a hitter, Dunn or not, to cut down on walks. Cutting down on walks will not make a better player.

People seem to think that if Dunn starts hacking away at anything that's near the strike zone, he's going to become a better player. The evidence doesn't support that. Cyclone's graph makes that crystal clear. It will likely cut down on his walks, and is not likely to increase his hits.Again, there may be someone out there who thinks he should cut down on walks. Everyone else is saying that he could be more aggressive in the strike zone at times. In other words, no one is really making the point that he should cut down on walks by swinging at balls. If they are, I'm imagining they have a negative rep and left the board.

RANDY IN INDY
10-16-2006, 10:03 AM
more aggressive in the strike zone

I just wish Dunn would hit more of the pitches that he swings at. I don't really think the argument that he doesn't swing at pitches that he can't hit holds any water. There are a lot of pitches that he swings at that he doesn't hit, and he swings at a lot of pitches that are far worse than the strikes he takes. Nobody is arguing that he swing at the bad pitches.

westofyou
10-16-2006, 10:08 AM
I just wish Dunn would hit more of the pitches that he swings at.IIRC he missed 18% in 2005, LaRue led the NL with 24% missed.

SultanOfSwing
10-16-2006, 11:01 AM
even when you're slumping, you can still avoid outs at a decent rate.

Excellent point. I think this is key as to why Dunn is so valuable. Even when slumping he is a great player.

A) He strikes fear in opposing pitchers even when slumping, because of his power and quick-strike ability
B) His hits during a slump have a greater chance of leaving the yard and thus are much more valuable
C) He will still get on base a ton. Slumping or not, he will walk.
D) He sees more pitches, thus tiring the pitchers out.
E) Even when slumping, his presence in the lineup makes everyone around him better.

A high-BA guy (Sanchez, Cano, Tejada, Ichiro, Lo Duca, etc.) is virtually useless when slumping. Dunn is still very valuable, and is incredible (able to carry an entire team) when hot. Those other players don't have that ability.

neal1017
10-16-2006, 11:08 AM
I think Dunn would strikeout less with better lineup protection. I'm sorry but this lineup is weak .

Johnny Footstool
10-16-2006, 11:52 AM
I think Dunn would strikeout less with better lineup protection. I'm sorry but this lineup is weak .

Exactly.

Falls City Beer
10-16-2006, 11:56 AM
I think Dunn would strikeout less with better lineup protection. I'm sorry but this lineup is weak .

No doubt. Griffey and Aurilia ain't exactly Rolen and Edmonds.

Ltlabner
10-16-2006, 11:59 AM
I haven't read every post on this thread.

What is the main gripe with "Twins Style Baseball"? Do people feel it's not an effective way to win games? Just too borning? Not a good fit for the type of players we currently have?

I guess I see the Twins making the playoffs and the Reds sitting on their hands and think, "what could be so bad about that" ?

Falls City Beer
10-16-2006, 12:01 PM
I haven't read every post on this thread.

What is the main gripe with "Twins Style Baseball"? Do people feel it's not an effective way to win games? Just too borning? Not a good fit for the type of players we currently have?

I guess I see the Twins making the playoffs and the Reds sitting on their hands and think, "what could be so bad about that" ?

I have no problem with Twins' Pitching Style Baseball.

flyer85
10-16-2006, 12:06 PM
What is the main gripe with "Twins Style Baseball"? effective if you have quality pitching and a bunch of power arms and minor league talent(which the Reds obviously do not) .

"Trading less HRs for less Ks" is absurd.

terminator
10-16-2006, 12:25 PM
Not a good fit for the type of players we currently have?

That's what I'd say. Clearly we don't currently have the pitching to be a pitching and defense team. We probably can't acquire that kind of pitching through trading or on the free agent market and we don't have a plethora of young pitching talent waiting in AAA, so it means that we're going to have to develop our own pitching talent. Which means that us having a winning style of Twins ball isn't going to happen in 2007 or 2008 without a lot of luck. Not Wayne's fault, of course.

Sometimes I really just wish the Reds would have picked a philosophy and then hired a GM and manager for ten years a few years ago. The lack of continuity of ownership, GM and manager may not have sunk us for the last seven years, but it sure hasn't helped either. Why go two years into a five year plan and then blow it up?

For that reason, for better or worse, I hope Krivsky is given free reign to do what he wants for at least five years. Far better to go the whole distance and see if something works than to quit halfway and know it isn't going to work.

WVRedsFan
10-16-2006, 04:23 PM
I haven't read every post on this thread.

What is the main gripe with "Twins Style Baseball"? Do people feel it's not an effective way to win games? Just too borning? Not a good fit for the type of players we currently have?

I guess I see the Twins making the playoffs and the Reds sitting on their hands and think, "what could be so bad about that" ?

In all seriousness, to play Twin's baseball (which I perceive to be pitching and defense and not the big offensive numbers), the whole organization and the kinds of players we have will have to be replaced and maybe that's what Krivsky is doing right now and as long as it's successful, it's OK by me.

Of course, this may take years and that goes against the philosophy that the owner told us last year. He said he wanted to contend now. Maybe that's what he meant. Contend not win. We contended this year, you have to admit that.

Will M
10-17-2006, 09:53 PM
Harang, Arroyo, EZ Ramirez, Lohse, Bailey, Bray, Coffey, Majik,Belisle
(+ Claussen )
That is 9 decent to good to very good major league pitchers.
The Reds pitching isn't bad at all.

IF Bailey is the real deal, we get another starter & someone steps up as a decent closer then pitching will be a STRENGTH of the Reds over the next few years.

Topcat
10-18-2006, 12:01 AM
Call me crazy but can it not be a combination of both? Is Krivsky not wise enough to do that ? I feel he is and wants a good combination of both power and avg and good D.

Ron Madden
10-18-2006, 03:38 AM
Call me crazy but can it not be a combination of both? Is Krivsky not wise enough to do that ? I feel he is and wants a good combination of both power and avg and good D.

I really hope you are right.

Redsland
10-18-2006, 10:12 AM
Harang, Arroyo, EZ Ramirez, Lohse, Bailey, Bray, Coffey, Majik,Belisle
(+ Claussen )
That is 9 decent to good to very good major league pitchers.
Two of the nine are Harang and Arroyo. Coffey may be another. Who are the other six "good to very good" major league pitchers in that list?

RedsManRick
10-18-2006, 10:29 AM
I haven't read every post on this thread.

What is the main gripe with "Twins Style Baseball"? Do people feel it's not an effective way to win games? Just too borning? Not a good fit for the type of players we currently have?

I guess I see the Twins making the playoffs and the Reds sitting on their hands and think, "what could be so bad about that" ?

Until this year, the Twins had issues scoring runs and identifying the types of players who would allow them to do so. As good as the Twins have been the last few years, it has been in spite of, not because of their offense (until this year). I'm not looking forward to offenses built around Jacque Jones and Corey Koskie, because we don't have a Santana or Nathan to dominate on the mound.