PDA

View Full Version : Dunn to the Red Sox?



savafan
10-17-2006, 01:39 PM
http://www.all-baseball.com/firebrand/archives/024469.html

The General Manager of the Cincinatti Reds, Wayne Krivsky, spent 11 years as the Assistant General Manager of the Minnesota Twins. He firmly believes in contact hitting and no strikeouts. The Cincinatti Reds prior to Krivskyís arrival were deep in power and strikeouts. Wily Mo Pena, Felipe Lopez, and Austin Kearns, hitters who struck out more than 100 times for the Reds in 2005, have already been moved.

Adam Dunn has been linked in trade rumors for several years now, and this year is looking like this is the year he could be moved. Dunn, a first baseman and left fielder, hit .234/.365/.490 this past season for a .855 OPS, and has a career of an .892 OPS. He had two straight seasons of OPSí over .900 and would have had a third if he did not hit for a .700 OPS in August and .598 in September.

Dunn strikes out a Ö ton. He Kíd a staggering 194 times in 2006, and if the Red Sox acquired him, thereís no doubt that in late August of 2007, Iíd be writing an article about how every time he struck out I gouged my eyes out repeatedly.

Nevertheless, his plate disclipine and power (HR total by year: 19, 26, 27, 46, 40, 40) make this an intriguing thought. Dunn, who has played first 108 times in his career (854 games total) could make the adjustment to first should the Red Sox acquire him. Iím not going to delve into who the Red Sox would have to send Cincinattiís way, but the Red Sox would have to move Mike Lowell - and itís possible he could be moved to the Los Angeles Angels or San Diego Padres.

Dunn will likely never hit for average (lifetime .245, and has hit as high as .266, so thatís what Iíd suggest for his average if he moved to the American League) so we would have to content ourselves with his career Isolated Eye of a staggering .135 (Youkilis is at .104 and Abreu at .110) and his career .512 Slugging Percentage. Dunnís career stats against righties come out to a .911 OPS, and .852 against lefties, which would afford Kevin Millar some (but not a lot) of playing time.

In addition, Adam Dunn is known as a clubhouse presence. As Lonnie Wheeler muses trading Dunn, he mentions that Dunn is ďfunniest, most self-effacing fellow in the Cincinnati clubhouse.Ē

Dunn would make $10.5 million next year, which tips the scales in favor of the Red Sox, for the Sox are a big market team. Trading Mike Lowell would mean the Red Sox only take on $1.5 million extra.

To give some measure of what the Reds may look in return for Dunn, Wheeler poses the questions of who they could get:

What, then, is his trade value? Is it the handsome sum of all the above, or what our eyes and exasperation tell us after six unfulfilling seasons?

Is it a starting pitcher who can stand next to Aaron Harang and Bronson Arroyo? An end-game reliever who can allow Todd Coffey, Gary Majewski, Bill Bray and Matt Belisle to come along in more comfortable roles? An outfielder with a package more complete? A starting shortstop?

Itís highly likely that if the Reds did call up the Red Sox about Adam Dunn, the price would be too high. In addition, we would certainly have to sacrifice young pitching - such as Craig Hansen, Manny Delcarmen Ö unless Theo pulls the wool over Krivskyís eyes. Is it worth it to sacrifice one of these young pitchers to acquire Adam Dunn? Are we so in debt to the need of pitching that we have to automatically dismiss any trade acquisition resulting in the loss of a pitcher? I donít know.

If Adam Dunn becomes available, the Red Sox should look into it. If Kevin Millar asks Boston to return as a bench player, the Red Sox should seriously consider it.

I am fully aware the Red Sox have problems. They have pitching problems, first and foremost. However, you cannot just concentrate on pitching. When you have a chance to improve somewhere, regardless of what position that is, you explore the opportunities there. In addition, if we traded Mike Lowell, perhaps we get a top pitcher in return (Scott Linebrink from San Diego?) and thereís where we are: Linebrink in the bullpen, Youkilis at third, and Dunn at first.

Let me just leave you with the 3-4-5-6 lineup of 2007 if Adam Dunn was a Red Sox:

DH David Ortiz
LF Manny Ramirez
1B Adam Dunn
RF Wily Mo Pena

Fireworks.

traderumor
10-17-2006, 01:49 PM
He firmly believes in contact hitting and no strikeouts.
Not true. Krivsky is on record as understanding why Dunn K's a lot. He just does not want a strikeout heavy lineup, which is a reasonable strategy for putting together a roster.

The Red Sox did not make the playoffs this year primarily because they miscalculated the depth of their pitching. I'm not real sure that they will be in the market for another slugger from a team looking for top shelf pitching in return.

HotCorner
10-17-2006, 01:52 PM
Anyone who repeatedly misspells Cincinnati loses all credibility with me. ;)

SeeinRed
10-17-2006, 01:56 PM
Anyone who repeatedly misspells Cincinnati loses all credibility with me. ;)

I agree, Its not like Cinncinati is that hard of a word to spell. I mean, come on, how many times does a sports writer see stories about Cincinati sports. Cincinatti is always in the news. The Cinsinnati Bengals make plenty of news, especially involving the Cincenati Police. Come on, get it right. Is it really that hard to spell?;)

savafan
10-17-2006, 02:04 PM
http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d134/savafan/5619ed3c.jpg

westofyou
10-17-2006, 02:04 PM
So a blogger is now generating news items ... dream on.

klw
10-17-2006, 02:09 PM
And here is the Sons of Sam Horn thread from which much of his blog seems to originate.

http://sonsofsamhorn.net/index.php?showtopic=11804&st=100

I know I started one a couple of weeks ago but is it possible to have a moratorium on Dunn trade threads for awhile? Perhaps we can have it coincide with Ramadan (ends Oct 24)? Or until the end of the World Series?:) :)

Always Red
10-17-2006, 02:11 PM
Dunn?

Sure, for Papelbon and Crisp.

But not to just take him off our hands.

Slyder
10-17-2006, 02:19 PM
Dunn?

Sure, for Papelbon and Crisp.

But not to just take him off our hands.

If Papelbon passes a physical, We dont want another Dumpster or Majik for Dunn.

TeamSelig
10-17-2006, 02:21 PM
Mike Lowell, and John Lester

SultanOfSwing
10-17-2006, 02:33 PM
If Papelbon passes a physical, We dont want another Dumpster or Majik for Dunn.

Agreed. I am more than a little worried about him. Even Red Sox nation is concerned that closing screwed him up.


Mike Lowell, and John Lester

Are you kidding me? Not in a million years. I'm sorry, but this is one of the worst trade proposals I have seen for Dunn. It doesn't even dump salary. Why on earth would the Reds want a 32 yr old 3B (who makes $9m) when they have EE. EE's 2006 matched Lowell's career year! And why would the Red's take a risk on Lester. He is a very good prospect, but he isn't Liriano. The Reds want a SP who can help now.

blumj
10-17-2006, 02:36 PM
Jon Lester's not a legitimate trade target anyway. He's being treated for cancer. I don't see a match with the Red Sox unless it's some sort of 3-way deal.

flyer85
10-17-2006, 02:38 PM
I'd take Papelbon, DelCarmen and Pedroia

klw
10-17-2006, 02:41 PM
Mike Lowell, and John Lester


The rationale I saw for this that I saw someone proposing something like this was that it would allow the Reds to move EE to left while shoring up the Reds infield defense. The other proposal was based on the Reds believing that the Reds could make a run next year- while Lowell would still be under contract.

klw
10-17-2006, 02:42 PM
I'd take Papelbon, DelCarmen and Pedroia

And Clay Buckholz too.

SultanOfSwing
10-17-2006, 02:48 PM
The rationale I saw for this that I saw someone proposing something like this was that it would allow the Reds to move EE to left while shoring up the Reds infield defense. The other proposal was based on the Reds believing that the Reds could make a run next year- while Lowell would still be under contract.
While I completely disagree with moving EE--if someone was thinking along those lines I can somewhat understand that. But to me the biggest thing is salary. The Red Sox would have to pay all of Lowell's salary to make this work. I don't think they would do that. Even then, in 2008 the Reds would be shopping for a 3B, and those are a lot harder to find than LF.

The second argument I don't really understand. I don't see how Lowell would put the Red's over the top.

TeamBoone
10-17-2006, 03:12 PM
The rationale I saw for this that I saw someone proposing something like this was that it would allow the Reds to move EE to left while shoring up the Reds infield defense. The other proposal was based on the Reds believing that the Reds could make a run next year- while Lowell would still be under contract.

Just wondering... why would you want to move EE to left when he's just starting to heat it up on the hot corner with extremely promising defense. That's hard to find.

IslandRed
10-17-2006, 03:16 PM
The Cincinatti (sic) Reds prior to Krivskyís arrival were deep in power and strikeouts. Wily Mo Pena, Felipe Lopez, and Austin Kearns, hitters who struck out more than 100 times for the Reds in 2005, have already been moved.

I like traderumor's explanation -- having a high-K power hitter is no big deal; having a lineup full of them may not be optimal.

Anyway, I think the blogger is making a common misdiagnosis in cause and effect. He sees the trades of some whiff-prone sluggers as evidence of a bias against those types of hitters. In reality, that was the only area of strength in the organization from which to deal.

TeamSelig
10-17-2006, 03:17 PM
I just added Lowell in there to add value to the deal on their side. They want to move his contract, so we take it to get an awesome prospect. Plus, Lowell isn't too bad. Lowell is one of the best defensive 3B in the league, so I'm sure he would make a pretty good 1B ;) We could always hold him until the deadline and swap him for a prospect or reliever (or whatever we can get). I wonder if EE would be OK at SS? Hmmm... lol just kidding

Raisor
10-17-2006, 03:19 PM
I like traderumor's explanation -- having a high-K power hitter is no big deal; having a lineup full of them may not be optimal.

.



The Yanks and the Redsox have won World Series while leading the AL in K's. The Reds have led the NL in scoring while leading the world in them.

Big to do about nothing.

SultanOfSwing
10-17-2006, 03:27 PM
I just added Lowell in there to add value to the deal on their side. They want to move his contract, so we take it to get an awesome prospect. Plus, Lowell isn't too bad. Lowell is one of the best defensive 3B in the league, so I'm sure he would make a pretty good 1B ;) We could always hold him until the deadline and swap him for a prospect or reliever (or whatever we can get). I wonder if EE would be OK at SS? Hmmm... lol just kidding
I don't think Lester is an awesome prospect. He didn't project like a #1 (more like a #2-3 and his MLB debut was nothing to write home about (I know, small sample size). If the Red's do go the prospect route, it will need to be several, and one has to be a #1 SP prospect. Lester has too many concerns with health and performance to qualify. If you add Delcarmen, Hansen, Pedroia, Buckholz, etc., then you may have something.

But the biggest thing is salary. The Reds wouldn't gain any payflex. That hurts big-time. If they gained say $8m+ in payflex that is like trading for a #3-4 starter as well. The main attraction in dealing Dunn is his salary. If Dunn was making $2-3m for the next 3 years would you deal him? I don't think so.

And I understand Lowell is good defensively, but he is not a world-beating difference maker, especially at 1B. His offense is solid as well, but not $9m solid. Lowell does not fit on the Reds, IMO.

IslandRed
10-17-2006, 03:31 PM
The Yanks and the Redsox have won World Series while leading the AL in K's. The Reds have led the NL in scoring while leading the world in them.

Big to do about nothing.

I've never been worried about, say, Adam Dunn's strikeouts. As long as they are a byproduct of power and patience, great. He still has the OBP to fall back on. But a lot of high-K guys don't fit that profile. They don't take and rake, they hack, and as a result they don't have that built-in hedge against not putting the ball in play. To me, that was the essential difference between Dunn and Pena.

That's why I said a high-K lineup "may" not be optimal. Depends on what kind of high-strikeout hitters we're talking about.

Raisor
10-17-2006, 03:34 PM
I've never been worried about, say, Adam Dunn's strikeouts. As long as they are a byproduct of power and patience, great. He still has the OBP to fall back on. But a lot of high-K guys don't fit that profile. They don't take and rake, they hack, and as a result they don't have that built-in hedge against not putting the ball in play. To me, that was the essential difference between Dunn and Pena.

That's why I said a high-K lineup "may" not be optimal. Depends on what kind of high-strikeout hitters we're talking about.

The important thing isn't the strikeouts. It's the getting on base/extra base hit stuff that matters.

If a guy is only striking out 10 times a season, well, great. But if he's OBPing like he's Juan Castro then who cares?

I don't care how a guy, or a team makes their outs. I care about what they're doing when they AREN'T making outs.

SultanOfSwing
10-17-2006, 03:38 PM
The important thing isn't the strikeouts. It's the getting on base/extra base hit stuff that matters.

If a guy is only striking out 10 times a season, well, great. But if he's OBPing like he's Juan Castro then who cares?

I don't care how a guy, or a team makes their outs. I care about what they're doing when they AREN'T making outs.
Exactly. And to even take it a step further striking out is a preferred out to say a ground ball. Sean Casey rarely struck out. But his outs were often ground balls that resulted in a lot of DPs. A strikeout only records one out.

klw
10-17-2006, 04:25 PM
Just wondering... why would you want to move EE to left when he's just starting to heat it up on the hot corner with extremely promising defense. That's hard to find.

I don't want to. I was just relaying someone else's justification for their proposal. It is in the SOSH thread to which I posted a link earlier in this thread. The post says:


QUOTELowell is going to have some value this offseason due to the week free agent 3B market. The Red Sox really shouldn't have any trouble dealing a third baseman with an .814 OPS and Gold Glove caliber defense. If they have to eat a portion of his salary, so be it.

It's funny you say this, because on another site recently I was arguing that if the Reds thought they could compete next year, they should offer the Red Sox Dunn for Lowell + maybe something else and shift Encarnacion to LF. Dunn was a below-average left-fielder this year, it's that simple. For him to have any value at all, he needs to have an OPS ~1.000. In this regard, he is similar to Manny. He can't run the bases and he is nearly as bad a LF as Manny, and a worse hitter. The only thing "near passable" means to me is that he should be a DH in a few years. The Sox should be moving away from trying to acquire one-dimensional mashers. Lowell, who was the 2nd best player on the Sox this year, is worth more to the team than Dunn in LF. I suppose Dunn would be a better 1B than he is a LF, but we don't know that. This team was bad enough defensively this year with the best defensive 3B in baseball and Youks, who played a decent 1B. It could get really ugly if you move Youks to 3B and Dunn to 1B.

RedsManRick
10-17-2006, 04:29 PM
It would be interesting if, instead of strikeouts, they tracked a stat called "NPO", non-productive outs. Who cares if it's a soft grounder to second versus a strikeout with the bases empty? People complain when the strikeout happens with a guy on 2nd and no outs. So let's track the amount of times people make outs and the percentage of their outs which are productive. That's what people who hate strikeouts are really complaining about anyways.

Johnny Footstool
10-17-2006, 04:43 PM
The Yanks and the Redsox have won World Series while leading the AL in K's. The Reds have led the NL in scoring while leading the world in them.

Big to do about nothing.

Yep, K's in and of themselves aren't all that important. However, if you're striking out with no power and no walks, you've got a problem.

westofyou
10-17-2006, 04:46 PM
Yep, K's in and of themselves aren't all that important. However, if you're striking out with no power and no walks, you've got a problem.
It's what you do when you ain't striking out.


NATIONAL LEAGUE
CAREER
1970-1978
RUNS vs. the league average displayed only--not a sorting criteria

STRIKEOUTS DIFF PLAYER LEAGUE R
1 Reds 1253 8320 7067 544
2 Padres 1185 8347 7162 -1187
3 Phillies 1133 8253 7120 -262
4 Giants 898 8002 7104 -171
5 Mets 686 7868 7182 -908
6 Pirates 618 7722 7104 218
7 Expos/Nationals 591 7742 7151 -745
8 Astros 464 7595 7131 -363
9 Cubs 204 7321 7117 -208
10 Dodgers 160 7280 7120 -78
11 Braves 86 7215 7129 -359
12 Cardinals -32 7104 7136 -313

traderumor
10-17-2006, 04:57 PM
The Yanks and the Redsox have won World Series while leading the AL in K's. The Reds have led the NL in scoring while leading the world in them.

Big to do about nothing.Using the exception to prove the rule? Maybe since a team once won the World Series with a lineup that gave a lot of at-bats to the likes of Al Weis, Ed Kranepool, Art Shamsky, Bud Harrelson, Wayne Garrett, Ed Charles, and Jerry Grote, having a below average offense is a "big to do about nothing?"

TeamSelig
10-17-2006, 05:23 PM
Maybe I'm wrong, but I was almost positive Lester was HIGHLY regarded????

Also, Lowell is a FA after this season right? I was thinking of getting him only to ship him off soon after.

SultanOfSwing
10-17-2006, 05:30 PM
Maybe I'm wrong, but I was almost positive Lester was HIGHLY regarded????

Also, Lowell is a FA after this season right? I was thinking of getting him only to ship him off soon after.
Yes he was (and still is) highly regarded. However, the projections I always heard were #2-3 SP not an ace. Dunn is worth an ace prospect plus more (I think quite a bit more).

However Lester's stock and tradability has dropped considerably when he was diagnosed with cancer. He hopes to return for ST, but he is still a risk. Any any case, he is not type of pitcher the Reds will seek in return for Dunn (especially with him as the centerpiece).

With Lowell, ok. But, how does he become more valuable to ship to someone rather than just trade for more/better players with another team? If you think Lester is that desirable, I guess, but I think you will be in the minority of one on this. Just my opinion.

WMR
10-17-2006, 05:49 PM
Itís highly likely that if the Reds did call up the Red Sox about Adam Dunn

This kind of crap annoys me to no end.

lollipopcurve
10-17-2006, 05:58 PM
Red Sox are not a good match, in my opinion. The Reds need either good pitching or a core-quality middle of the diamond position player at the center of a deal for Dunn. Guys like Lester and Pedroia are too iffy, I think, and I doubt they'd move Papelbon, despite his shoulder problem. In any case, the Red Sox have shifted to a mode where they want to mix in younger players, so I doubt they'd load up a package for good prospects for anybody. Now, talk about a 3-way that involves the Sox moving Manny to someone else and getting Dunn from the Reds, and I think some better possibilities emerge.

gm
10-17-2006, 06:36 PM
Using the exception to prove the rule? Maybe since a team once won the World Series with a lineup that gave a lot of at-bats to the likes of Al Weis, Ed Kranepool, Art Shamsky, Bud Harrelson, Wayne Garrett, Ed Charles, and Jerry Grote, having a below average offense is a "big to do about nothing?"

Cleon Jones, Tommie Agee and Donn Clendenon had a lot to say about that

(not to mention the starting pitching)

BTW, you forgot to mention Ron Swoboda, Ken Boswell, Bobby Pfeil and Rod Gaspar

dougdirt
10-17-2006, 06:49 PM
Yes he was (and still is) highly regarded. However, the projections I always heard were #2-3 SP not an ace. Dunn is worth an ace plus more (I think quite a bit more).

However Lester's stock and tradability has dropped considerably when he was diagnosed with cancer. He hopes to return for ST, but he is still a risk. Any any case, he is not type of pitcher the Reds will seek in return for Dunn (especially with him as the centerpiece).

With Lowell, ok. But, how does he become more valuable to ship to someone rather than just trade for more/better players with another team? If you think Lester is that desirable, I guess, but I think you will be in the minority of one on this. Just my opinion.

Adam Dunn is worth an Ace plus more? On what grounds? Adam is a good hitter, but he is not worth an Ace pitcher, he might not even be worth a #2 + a prospect.

SultanOfSwing
10-18-2006, 10:26 AM
Adam Dunn is worth an Ace plus more? On what grounds? Adam is a good hitter, but he is not worth an Ace pitcher, he might not even be worth a #2 + a prospect.
A #1 Ace prospect. Lester is still a prospect and unproven. If you go that route it has to be a #1 blue-chip SP. And some other prospects. I don't think you would disagree with that, would you?

Raisor
10-18-2006, 10:40 AM
Yep, K's in and of themselves aren't all that important. However, if you're striking out with no power and no walks, you've got a problem.

it's the no power and no walks that's the problem.

It's making all those extra outs thats the problem, not the kinds of outs they are.

Raisor
10-18-2006, 10:42 AM
Using the exception to prove the rule? Maybe since a team once won the World Series with a lineup that gave a lot of at-bats to the likes of Al Weis, Ed Kranepool, Art Shamsky, Bud Harrelson, Wayne Garrett, Ed Charles, and Jerry Grote, having a below average offense is a "big to do about nothing?"


TR, check out the search function. There is a great big baseball prospectus Strike Out study that goes back over 50 years that shows there is no correlation between King and scoring.

It's been posted here to death.

traderumor
10-18-2006, 09:28 PM
TR, check out the search function. There is a great big baseball prospectus Strike Out study that goes back over 50 years that shows there is no correlation between King and scoring.

It's been posted here to death.I was more replying to your faulty reasoning (which makes the indignancy of the above reply unwarranted) that because you could name two teams that led the league in Ks and won the WS that it validated your point. Of course, without using the search function, I can make an educated guess that the above statement is a gross oversimplification.

MWM
10-18-2006, 09:43 PM
It's not fauly reasoning. The hypothesis that's been put out there is that teams that strike out a ton can't win. And yes, that's been put out there plenty of times here with several reasons attached to it. His "reasoning" was simply a refutation of that hypothesis by citing examples that disprove it. He wasn't making a hypothesis himself, he was disputing another one. If he was hypothesizing that teams that strike out a lot are more likely to win and then citing those two, then THAT would be faulty reasoning.

And it's not the "rule" as you claim it to be that high strike out teams don't win. It's been shown time and time again that there's absolutely NO correlation to strike outs and runs. And since pythagorus is so accurate you can't say that high scoring teams that strike out more are more likely to lose more often than similar scoring low strike out teams. So I think the fault is in the idea that there's a rule that Raisor is trying to disprove with exceptions.

Falls City Beer
10-18-2006, 09:53 PM
It's not fauly reasoning. The hypothesis that's been put out there is that teams that strike out a ton can't win. And yes, that's been put out there plenty of times here with several reasons attached to it. His "reasoning" was simply a refutation of that hypothesis by citing examples that disprove it. He wasn't making a hypothesis himself, he was disputing another one. If he was hypothesizing that teams that strike out a lot are more likely to win and then citing those two, then THAT would be faulty reasoning.

And it's not the "rule" as you claim it to be that high strike out teams don't win. It's been shown time and time again that there's absolutely NO correlation to strike outs and runs. And since pythagorus is so accurate you can't say that high scoring teams that strike out more are more likely to lose more often than similar scoring low strike out teams. So I think the fault is in the idea that there's a rule that Raisor is trying to disprove with exceptions.


When you butt up against 50 years of data, you'll excuse a little "oversimplification" for the near-certainty that those data provide.

traderumor
10-18-2006, 10:34 PM
It's not fauly reasoning. The hypothesis that's been put out there is that teams that strike out a ton can't win. And yes, that's been put out there plenty of times here with several reasons attached to it. His "reasoning" was simply a refutation of that hypothesis by citing examples that disprove it. He wasn't making a hypothesis himself, he was disputing another one. If he was hypothesizing that teams that strike out a lot are more likely to win and then citing those two, then THAT would be faulty reasoning.

And it's not the "rule" as you claim it to be that high strike out teams don't win. It's been shown time and time again that there's absolutely NO correlation to strike outs and runs. And since pythagorus is so accurate you can't say that high scoring teams that strike out more are more likely to lose more often than similar scoring low strike out teams. So I think the fault is in the idea that there's a rule that Raisor is trying to disprove with exceptions.

Please find the post in this thread that I made a hypothesis as you state it above. And he was responding to what I had said. Neither post dealing with the subject said anything about one way or the other leading to winning a World Series. Raisor was making one of his glib, dismissive "I'm so tired of telling all of you idiots this" responses and it proved nothing, so I pointed it out. I also have a sneaking suspicion that FCB is taking Raisor's word for the study he is referring to.

Falls City Beer
10-18-2006, 10:42 PM
I also have a sneaking suspicion that FCB is taking Raisor's word for the study he is referring to.

You'd be right. I trust that Raisor can give a summary of a statistical study. And I assume he's not making it up. Sue me for trusting a respected poster.

I'd be glad to look at the study, I just have a feeling that I'll arrive at the same conclusion.

SteelSD
10-19-2006, 02:09 AM
Please find the post in this thread that I made a hypothesis as you state it above. And he was responding to what I had said. Neither post dealing with the subject said anything about one way or the other leading to winning a World Series. Raisor was making one of his glib, dismissive "I'm so tired of telling all of you idiots this" responses and it proved nothing, so I pointed it out. I also have a sneaking suspicion that FCB is taking Raisor's word for the study he is referring to.

I've read that study and have cited it many times.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=2617

You'll want to read it.

And it's pretty clear that Raisor wasn't trying to produce some false correlation between high K rates and successful teams and/or offenses. All he did was cite examples of teams whose respective K rates didn't inhibit their success. And he's completely right on that because K rates simply don't matter.

Raisor
10-19-2006, 01:04 PM
You'd be right. I trust that Raisor can give a summary of a statistical study. And I assume he's not making it up. Sue me for trusting a respected poster.

.

If I am respected, we're all doomed.

:devil: