PDA

View Full Version : Adam Dunn



RedsManRick
11-14-2006, 06:44 PM
Most of you know that I tend to run with the stat-head crew that says Adam Dunn is great, ignore the strikeouts, OBP is life, etc. I just wanted to take a minute to address the fact that Dunn is both underrated and overvalued on this board. The basic premise is this: Adam Dunn is the Reds most important offensive player. However, his production, while somewhat unique in it's characteristics, is not irreplaceable -- not by a long shot.

Some observations:
- Adam Dunn is 27 years old.
- Adam Dunn has over 3400 career plate appearances.
- Adam Dunn has a career BA of .245, OBP of .380, and SLG of .513.
- All three of those values have decreased each of the last two seasons.
- Last year, Dunn was ranked 21st in OPS for OF in MLB, 15th in LF by VORP (behind such players as Raul Ibanez, Reed Johnson, and Chris Duncan).
- Adam Dunn is one of the worst defensive OF in baseball.
- Adam Dunn is 6-6, at least 280 lbs, and showing no signs of losing weight anytime soon.
- Adam Dunn is going to make $10.5 MM in 2007, $13 MM in '08 if he is a member of the Reds.
- In 2004 Dunn had a 19.3%/32.4%/48.3% LD/GB/FB ratio with a BABIP of .321, a 16.0 BB%, and a 34.3 K%.
- In 2006 Dunn had a 23.5%/27.8%/48.6% LD/GB/FB ratio with a BABIP of .278, a 16.6 BB%, and a 34.6 K%

Some inferences:
- Dunn is a very productive player offensively who would be an asset to any team.
- Dunn is no longer cheap and probably won't be ever again; particularly to the Reds.
- While Dunn could be a Albert Pujols type if he hit .300, he hasn't yet hit .300 and banking on him doing so in the future is not intelligent.
- His future likely lies at 1B or DH due to the effect age has on people of his body type.
- Though durable to date, over the next few years, it would not be a surprise to see him accrue increased levels of wear and tear type injuries such as back or feet problems.
- Because of the nature of his skill set, he's not likely to age well. Arguably, his batting eye and power are likely at their peak and could only see minimal improvement. However, his bat speed and hand/eye coordination will likely degenerate, lowering his contact rate.
- Maybe last year was an abberation. Maybe 2004 was the abberation. My money is on 2004.

Some conclusions:
- It's time to stop valuing Dunn based on potential and start valuing him based on reality.
- Yes, some players take great leaps later in their careers, like Luis Gonzalez. These players are the exception, not the rule. Dunn is likely to follow the rule and decline after a late 20's peak.
- Reality says that Adam Dunn is a very good, not great, offensive contributor and a poor defender.
- Reality says that Adam Dunn is not improving offensively, and that his 2006 performance was not a function of bad luck any more than 2004 was a function of good luck.
- Because of his plateaued performance and increased salary, his value has been established. There is no value in taking a "wait & see" approach like many (including myself) argued for Austin Kearns.

The rose is in bloom people. This is Adam Dunn. He's a guy who hits .245 with 40 homers and a boatload of walks, while striking out 190 times and playing a shaky LF. That might be worth $10.5 MM to the Reds in 2007. It might be worth $13 MM in '08. However, he's not irreplaceable. He's as much Carlos Lee as he is Lance Berkman. As much Pat Burrell as he is Jim Thome. He's not even CLOSE to what Ryan Howard just did.

Now our particular circumstance may increase his value to us as we're so shallow offensively. I'd happily have Dunn as a cog in my lineup for the next 5-6 years at a reasonable price (say 12MM). However, his trade value to the other 29 teams is not what some people want to make it out to be. He's not as valuable as he was when he OPS'd .957 and hit 46 homers as a 24 year old. We need to be realistic about his value to us, his value in the market place, and the likely yearly production we're going to see over his career arc. There should be no untouchables on the Reds, and Dunn has as many warts as virtues. If we can get a somewhat comparable offensive player while adding talent elsewhere, I think it should be done.

My suggestion was Brian Giles (remember, we have Dunn for 2 more years, that's it), Scott Linebrink, and a prospect. I'm open to keeping Dunn too. I just hate all the back and forth with so little agreement. It doesn't seem like there should be so much debate that can't even agree on the terms from which arguments are based.

Crosley68
11-14-2006, 06:53 PM
Nothing like reality to smack you in the face. Good analysis.

Mario-Rijo
11-14-2006, 07:21 PM
Yes very nice. I might argue that he could make a physical adjustment and become alot more potent over the next 5-6 years offensively speaking. But he is probably more likely to stay where he is for reasons I can't completely figure (although I have my opinions).

But his defense will never be any better, he is simply not fleet of foot enough to be an everyday OF. I could live with him in LF for a few more years to some degree if the rest of the OF was above average defensively but it's probably going to be awhile before that happens.

Bottom line he needs to step it up this coming season for the good of this team's present and future.

cincyinco
11-14-2006, 07:26 PM
You advocate trading Dunn, and picking up Giles?

Not sure I'm on board with that. Trading "old players skills" of one for another...

Hoosier Red
11-14-2006, 07:32 PM
edit never mind i'm an idiot.

RedsManRick
11-14-2006, 07:33 PM
You advocate trading Dunn, and picking up Giles?

Not sure I'm on board with that. Trading "old players skills" of one for another...

I agree. Giles isn't "the answer". Very few players are, Dunn included; hence the entire point of my analysis. In my opinion, you don't build a team for 5 years from now. You build an organization when you're looking that far out. You build a team for this year and maybe the next 1 or 2. We only have Dunn's rights for 2 years. Giles is signed at 9MM per through his '09 option year. I'll take Giles for the 2007, '08, and maybe '09 seasons. I think you can reasonably expect an OPS in the .850 range over those 3 years and certainly much better defense. More importantly, I get one of the most effective relievers in baseball to fill a need in the bullpen, while also grabbing some talent with upside for long term. Giles and Linebrink combined will make less money than Dunn in the next 2 years and I believe provide more value.

The real point of my entire post is that the haters need to realize that Dunn is a very productive player, despite his problems. Others need to realize that while a very productive player, Dunn has limits, which he may have reached, that his value is both established and likely peaked, and that his contributions on the field are not irreplaceable.

Ltlabner
11-14-2006, 09:17 PM
Great post RMR. Seems like generally a fair and accurate assement that cuts to the chase.

I think Dunner is destined to be the target of much scorn in years to come no matter what takes place. Fact is, while he is critical to our offense he will never have the trade value we think he should have because of our skewed perspective. So if he's traded Kriv will take a beating because he "should have gotten so much more" acording to the ever so objective home fans. Yet, without Dunn our offense takes a beating (barring a different big trade, a big FA pick up or trading for several not so big bats to add up to Dunns big bat).

If he stays here and produces at the same level Dunn will continue to take the beating of "he should do this" and "he should do that". If his production goes down nobody is happy.

Seems like the only way this can work out is for Dunn to start dating Kristie Alley, slim down and magically hit 50HR and 120 RBI for the rest of his life.

This story will not end well I tell you.

mth123
11-14-2006, 10:39 PM
Good post RMR and you are correct in your analysis. I disagree in one area though. As a Dunn backer I don't necessarily value him as high on the market as some of the suggestions would have you believe. Its just if you take his production out you have to get way over market value in return to keep the organization from going back to square one. Maybe square one would mean a championship caliber team in 5 years. Maybe not. I'd rather try to have some hope now so I keep him and build around him unless the deal gives me immediate hope. Trading him for unprovens doesn't make sense to me because they are not likely to ever be as good as the current version of Adam Dunn. I don't really believe any team will give that much, so you have to keep him. That is the situation that the Reds are in.

And I am not a believer in the assumption that we can take his money and go buy a replacement. Those guys don't sign in places like Cincinnati. The savings from trading Adam Dunn will be pissed away on the mediocre IMO much like the savings from trading Casey last year was. Mediocre players are the only ones who'll take the Reds money (that will be especially true if Dunn or a high profile replacement isn't here). You'll get 2 or 3 guys like Jamey Wright, Matt Stairs and with some luck Pedro Feliz. Then the $13 Million will be gone and the team will be dominated by consolation prizes.

Even the current flawed version of Dunn is a premium player and even though RMR is right on in his assessment, the Reds have to get a premium player back. Trade him for a bag of mediocre and use the money to buy more mediocre? No I'd just keep him if I couldn't get my unrealistic demands.

Oh, and he'd be awful at 1B IMO and would make Phillips, EE and whoever plays SS awful as well. He does less damage in LF.

RedsManRick
11-15-2006, 01:03 AM
Thanks for the compliment mth, but therein lies the rub. How do you get $1.20 for your $1.00 when, as we apparently agree, your $1.00 is only really worth $0.85? Maybe I'm wrong, and he suddenly appreciates in value. Problem solved. Maybe you find somebody who can't count and gives you 5 quarters for that "dollar". Problem solved again. Or maybe you just realize that you have 85 cents and realize, hey, that ain't so bad. I can do quite a bit with 85 cents...

This is a bit of a conundrum that was pretty well stated in another thread. If you keep Dunn, and he performs around his current .900 OPS level, you aren't getting enough production to get what you need from him. (there is most definitely an argument to be had regarding his actual dollar value) If you're WK, and you just made a deal where you get less than your perceived dollars worth, you probably don't have the political capital to do it again - so you better find somebody will to give you his perceived value. So basically, you're damned if you do, damned if you don't. See, the problem is in wishcasting his actual current value, not how to make the best of it.

This assumption of his irreplaceable value creates the dilemma in which the only positive outcome is Dunn truly turning in to that 1.050 OPS monster we all hope he can become. If Krivsky can't afford to trade him for actual fair value (say, Giles and Linebrink, or Thames and Robertson, etc.) because of perception, he's going to have to hitch his cart to Dunn and pray he learns how make contact more often without lowering his power or walk rates (steel and cyclone can tell you how often that happens). Or else, he's going to be faced with an equally unappetizing choice of trying to sign Dunn for his "real" value long term, overpay him long term, or trying again to trade him for his perceived value before his contract runs up. Tell me how much his value will increase as he gets closer to FA.

Again, don't get me wrong. I think Dunn is a very, very good, productive player and I want him on my team. However, I want management to proplerly value him such that we're not paying him for what he might someday become or pretend that we had the talent in place and it simply didn't perform up to our expectations. Adam Dunn creates a lot runs for an offense. He costs you a few on defense, but in the big picture, not a huge deal. However, you can't pretend he's Albert Pujols or Alex Rodriguez and you certainly can't pay him like he is. The best bet is to properly assess his value to the Reds, and make whatever move(s) best increase our chances of winning games now and in the future. I think that means making a fair, realistic offer to keep him around, and should he choose not to take it, to find the best way to maximize the value of the asset he represents -- be that now, or in the next two years. Personally, I think you start shopping now and don't stop shopping until you sign the deal or make the trade.

An aside, one comment I've seen elsewhere in defense of Dunn is the "uniqueness" of his skill set. I won't deny that his combination of skills is pretty darn rare, if not unique. However, unique does not necessarily mean value. The contents of my garbage can are unique in their combination. Whether or not that combination is of any value is a completley different subject. This is a stamp collection where rarity equals value. In baseball, production equals value. Albert Pujols is valuable because his level of production is uniquely incredible. Dunn is valuable because his level of production is really darn good. Maybe there is some aesthetic value to having such a unique player on your team. Personally, I'd rather win ballgames - unique or not.

Another aside, nothing against Dunn personally in any way, we all have our talents and his are certainly more valuable than mine, but I'm willing to be I've written more on him today, than he's ever written about himself. The man likes to fish, hunt, and play sports -- and he's probably good at all three. I like to pretend I sort of know how to make an argument on a largely unimportant fansite on which I spent lots of time and don't make a dime. I envy him and wish him the best.

Johnny Footstool
11-15-2006, 02:05 AM
.900 OPS isn't good enough???

Wheelhouse
11-15-2006, 03:33 AM
Good post RMR and you are correct in your analysis. I disagree in one area though. As a Dunn backer I don't necessarily value him as high on the market as some of the suggestions would have you believe. Its just if you take his production out you have to get way over market value in return to keep the organization from going back to square one. Maybe square one would mean a championship caliber team in 5 years. Maybe not. I'd rather try to have some hope now so I keep him and build around him unless the deal gives me immediate hope. Trading him for unprovens doesn't make sense to me because they are not likely to ever be as good as the current version of Adam Dunn. I don't really believe any team will give that much, so you have to keep him. That is the situation that the Reds are in.

And I am not a believer in the assumption that we can take his money and go buy a replacement. Those guys don't sign in places like Cincinnati. The savings from trading Adam Dunn will be pissed away on the mediocre IMO much like the savings from trading Casey last year was. Mediocre players are the only ones who'll take the Reds money (that will be especially true if Dunn or a high profile replacement isn't here). You'll get 2 or 3 guys like Jamey Wright, Matt Stairs and with some luck Pedro Feliz. Then the $13 Million will be gone and the team will be dominated by consolation prizes.

Even the current flawed version of Dunn is a premium player and even though RMR is right on in his assessment, the Reds have to get a premium player back. Trade him for a bag of mediocre and use the money to buy more mediocre? No I'd just keep him if I couldn't get my unrealistic demands.

Oh, and he'd be awful at 1B IMO and would make Phillips, EE and whoever plays SS awful as well. He does less damage in LF.

You obviously have ignored the final and most important statistic: team wins. Dunn folded like a tent when it counted, as did, granted, other players. This is not a winning team, and a major shift in the makeup is necessary. Dunn was a layup out in the stretch. But hey, Ryan Howard, with the same skill set, was a champ. Stop measuring Dunn against the league, measure him against other "franchise" players, and how they perform when the championship is on the line, and see how he measures up then. And this is not "hatred" of Adam Dunn. 1) I think to each degree he helps the team he hurts it and 2) I don't find his style of play entertaining. I have no feelings about it one way or another. In the same way those who are fans of statistics are not "blind love" with Dunn. Now as for Bob Boone, I hated him. :) But posters and mods have to expect, that each time I see a post lauding Dunn to the sky, I'm going to respond. I have initiated no posts with Dunn as a subject for a while, yet when I make a response to a Dunn apologists thread I'm told to "get over it." Well those people truly need to get over the fact that someone disagrees with them. There's the real emotional hurdle...

Ron Madden
11-15-2006, 04:13 AM
You obviously have ignored the final and most important statistic: team wins. Dunn folded like a tent when it counted, as did, granted, other players. This is not a winning team, and a major shift in the makeup is necessary. Dunn was a layup out in the stretch. But hey, Ryan Howard, with the same skill set, was a champ. Stop measuring Dunn against the league, measure him against other "franchise" players, and how they perform when the championship is on the line, and see how he measures up then. And this is not "hatred" of Adam Dunn. 1) I think to each degree he helps the team he hurts it and 2) I don't find his style of play entertaining. I have no feelings about it one way or another. In the same way those who are fans of statistics are not "blind love" with Dunn. Now as for Bob Boone, I hated him. :) But posters and mods have to expect, that each time I see a post lauding Dunn to the sky, I'm going to respond. I have initiated no posts with Dunn as a subject for a while, yet when I make a response to a Dunn apologists thread I'm told to "get over it." Well those people truly need to get over the fact that someone disagrees with them. There's the real emotional hurdle...

You obviously ignore the fact that the Reds would not have been anywhere near a play off race without Adam Dunn.

Eighther you are blided by hatred or ignorant of the game.

Dunn is not and will never be the best All Around Player on the Club. The cold hard fact of life is that Dunn produces runs. THAT'S A FACT.

mth123
11-15-2006, 07:49 AM
Thanks for the compliment mth, but therein lies the rub. How do you get $1.20 for your $1.00 when, as we apparently agree, your $1.00 is only really worth $0.85? Maybe I'm wrong, and he suddenly appreciates in value. Problem solved. Maybe you find somebody who can't count and gives you 5 quarters for that "dollar". Problem solved again. Or maybe you just realize that you have 85 cents and realize, hey, that ain't so bad. I can do quite a bit with 85 cents...

This is a bit of a conundrum that was pretty well stated in another thread. If you keep Dunn, and he performs around his current .900 OPS level, you aren't getting enough production to get what you need from him. (there is most definitely an argument to be had regarding his actual dollar value) If you're WK, and you just made a deal where you get less than your perceived dollars worth, you probably don't have the political capital to do it again - so you better find somebody will to give you his perceived value. So basically, you're damned if you do, damned if you don't. See, the problem is in wishcasting his actual current value, not how to make the best of it.

This assumption of his irreplaceable value creates the dilemma in which the only positive outcome is Dunn truly turning in to that 1.050 OPS monster we all hope he can become. If Krivsky can't afford to trade him for actual fair value (say, Giles and Linebrink, or Thames and Robertson, etc.) because of perception, he's going to have to hitch his cart to Dunn and pray he learns how make contact more often without lowering his power or walk rates (steel and cyclone can tell you how often that happens). Or else, he's going to be faced with an equally unappetizing choice of trying to sign Dunn for his "real" value long term, overpay him long term, or trying again to trade him for his perceived value before his contract runs up. Tell me how much his value will increase as he gets closer to FA.

Again, don't get me wrong. I think Dunn is a very, very good, productive player and I want him on my team. However, I want management to proplerly value him such that we're not paying him for what he might someday become or pretend that we had the talent in place and it simply didn't perform up to our expectations. Adam Dunn creates a lot runs for an offense. He costs you a few on defense, but in the big picture, not a huge deal. However, you can't pretend he's Albert Pujols or Alex Rodriguez and you certainly can't pay him like he is. The best bet is to properly assess his value to the Reds, and make whatever move(s) best increase our chances of winning games now and in the future. I think that means making a fair, realistic offer to keep him around, and should he choose not to take it, to find the best way to maximize the value of the asset he represents -- be that now, or in the next two years. Personally, I think you start shopping now and don't stop shopping until you sign the deal or make the trade.

An aside, one comment I've seen elsewhere in defense of Dunn is the "uniqueness" of his skill set. I won't deny that his combination of skills is pretty darn rare, if not unique. However, unique does not necessarily mean value. The contents of my garbage can are unique in their combination. Whether or not that combination is of any value is a completley different subject. This is a stamp collection where rarity equals value. In baseball, production equals value. Albert Pujols is valuable because his level of production is uniquely incredible. Dunn is valuable because his level of production is really darn good. Maybe there is some aesthetic value to having such a unique player on your team. Personally, I'd rather win ballgames - unique or not.

Another aside, nothing against Dunn personally in any way, we all have our talents and his are certainly more valuable than mine, but I'm willing to be I've written more on him today, than he's ever written about himself. The man likes to fish, hunt, and play sports -- and he's probably good at all three. I like to pretend I sort of know how to make an argument on a largely unimportant fansite on which I spent lots of time and don't make a dime. I envy him and wish him the best.

Good post. I agree there isn't a perfect answer. The most likely is that 2006 was a bad year and keeping him is the way to get the most value. He may not be 2004 again. But something like 2005 wouldn't be a bad guy to build around. Keeping him still seems like the least risk to me unless you are blown away by over market value. I think teams see what you see and will try to steal him. If Krivsky obliges we have our answer as to how successful he'll be IMO.

redsmetz
11-15-2006, 08:21 AM
Good post RMR and you are correct in your analysis. I disagree in one area though. As a Dunn backer I don't necessarily value him as high on the market as some of the suggestions would have you believe. Its just if you take his production out you have to get way over market value in return to keep the organization from going back to square one. Maybe square one would mean a championship caliber team in 5 years. Maybe not. I'd rather try to have some hope now so I keep him and build around him unless the deal gives me immediate hope. Trading him for unprovens doesn't make sense to me because they are not likely to ever be as good as the current version of Adam Dunn. I don't really believe any team will give that much, so you have to keep him. That is the situation that the Reds are in.

And I am not a believer in the assumption that we can take his money and go buy a replacement. Those guys don't sign in places like Cincinnati. The savings from trading Adam Dunn will be pissed away on the mediocre IMO much like the savings from trading Casey last year was. Mediocre players are the only ones who'll take the Reds money (that will be especially true if Dunn or a high profile replacement isn't here). You'll get 2 or 3 guys like Jamey Wright, Matt Stairs and with some luck Pedro Feliz. Then the $13 Million will be gone and the team will be dominated by consolation prizes.

Even the current flawed version of Dunn is a premium player and even though RMR is right on in his assessment, the Reds have to get a premium player back. Trade him for a bag of mediocre and use the money to buy more mediocre? No I'd just keep him if I couldn't get my unrealistic demands.

Oh, and he'd be awful at 1B IMO and would make Phillips, EE and whoever plays SS awful as well. He does less damage in LF.

This is as cogent an analysis as I've seen of Adam Dunn and the Reds. He's not the perfect player and just who he is seems to elicit derision from the fandom. Perhaps it's illogical on my part (although MTH123 makes a strong argument that it isn't), but I think the Reds will be a worse team without him, at least for the immediate future. If we can't get enough for him (and that too is a possiblity, again as outlined above), then we're better keeping him.

And finally, I think you're absolutely right regarding his defensive position on the team.

redsmetz
11-15-2006, 08:28 AM
RMR wrote: This is a bit of a conundrum that was pretty well stated in another thread. If you keep Dunn, and he performs around his current .900 OPS level, you aren't getting enough production to get what you need from him. (there is most definitely an argument to be had regarding his actual dollar value) If you're WK, and you just made a deal where you get less than your perceived dollars worth, you probably don't have the political capital to do it again - so you better find somebody will to give you his perceived value. So basically, you're damned if you do, damned if you don't. See, the problem is in wishcasting his actual current value, not how to make the best of it.

But I think you build a team around the guy and that heals a lot of wounds. Adam wasn't the only player who tanked late in the season and that brought the team down in the end. Only one or two players produced over the last month.


Wheelhouse wrote: You obviously have ignored the final and most important statistic: team wins. Dunn folded like a tent when it counted, as did, granted, other players.


The truth is the whole season counts. As I said above, virtually the whole team collapsed late in the season when it was absolutely necessary to produce. But those wins early in the season counted just as much as September and racking up the wins then helped in the end. It wasn't enough, and you correctly note that the collapse wasn't solely Adam's doing. But every player and every team goes through some slump in the long, arduous season. And, yes, the championship caliber teams minimize that reality, but I'd like to see the Reds, as a team, accomplish that with Adam Dunn.

We'll see.

Wheelhouse
11-15-2006, 11:23 AM
You obviously ignore the fact that the Reds would not have been anywhere near a play off race without Adam Dunn.

Eighther you are blided by hatred or ignorant of the game.

Dunn is not and will never be the best All Around Player on the Club. The cold hard fact of life is that Dunn produces runs. THAT'S A FACT.

Perfect example of true blindness and ignorance: calling run production an "All-Around player." Can't even take you seriously. Especially with the shouting capitals at the end of the post.

westofyou
11-15-2006, 11:28 AM
Stop measuring Dunn against the league, measure him against other "franchise" players, and how they perform when the championship is on the line,

Yes, when all your stats fail to paint him as crap invent an ever shifting matrix to set him in.

Fools errand reading that stuff.

pedro
11-15-2006, 01:17 PM
Perfect example of true blindness and ignorance: calling run production an "All-Around player." Can't even take you seriously. Especially with the shouting capitals at the end of the post.

How funny. Ron didn't call Dunn the best "all around player" on the club and didn't equate "Run Production" with "All Around Production" and yet you call HIM ignorant.

And we're supposed to take YOU seriously?

How utterly charming.

Spring~Fields
11-15-2006, 03:08 PM
You obviously have ignored the final and most important statistic: team wins. Dunn folded like a tent when it counted, as did, granted, other players. This is not a winning team, and a major shift in the makeup is necessary.

Stop measuring Dunn against the league, measure him against other "franchise" players, and how they perform when the championship is on the line, and see how he measures up then.

I don't find his style of play entertaining. I have no feelings about it one way or another. In the same way those who are fans of statistics are not "blind love" with Dunn.

Are we making an error in our processing of information and not applying it consistently across the board? Often it seems to me that when we or others use a certain measure or standard to evaluate Adam Dunn to make value and comparison assessments, that the same principles and applications should be applied equally and fairly to the other six regulars or semi-regular players on the team that are hired to produce offensively and defensively (leaving out Griffey because of the natural effects of aging and injuries that are beyond his control).

When certain posters do the research and post the results of that research which tells us what Dunn has produced or can I say caused x number of runs to be scored for the Reds and that he excels over the other six regular or semi-regulars, shouldn’t we be saying that it is some of or all of those six that are not performing or producing vs. focusing on Dunn alone?

Shouldn’t we expect as much from them too? It seems to me that we should be taking the hardest look at the rest of the regulars because if we think that Dunn is inadequate or bad in our estimation while he is causing more runs to be accounted for than any of the individual regulars, then just how bad are those other six individual regulars that cannot or do not produce as much as Dunn. They should be cited for improvement. Where would the team be if the other six individuals caused or produced ¾ of the widgets that Dunn does?

Seems like the same measure and expectations should be applied to Freel, Phillips, Larue, Ross, EE and Hatteberg when they don’t cause as many widgets to be produced as Dunn does.

Wheelhouse
11-15-2006, 03:33 PM
Yes, when all your stats fail to paint him as crap invent an ever shifting matrix to set him in.

Fools errand reading that stuff.

Look, just because your avatar is Adam Dunn, doesn't mean your support of him has to be so unconditional... :laugh:

westofyou
11-15-2006, 03:36 PM
Look, just because your avatar is Adam Dunn, doesn't mean your support of him has to be so unconditional... :laugh:

That's the kind of response I'd expect from someone who has Moe Howard as theirs.

jimbo
11-15-2006, 03:42 PM
I think it's interesting to point out that even with as bad of a September Dunn had hitting, he still led the team in runs scored that month. How? Because he led the team in walks also.

Johnny Footstool
11-15-2006, 03:48 PM
I think it's interesting to point out that even with as bad of a September Dunn had hitting, he still led the team in runs scored that month. How? Because he led the team in walks also.

A great point that will continue to be ignored because "Dunn isn't being paid to score runs, he's being paid to drive them in." :laugh:

Wheelhouse
11-15-2006, 04:25 PM
That's the kind of response I'd expect from someone who has Moe Howard as theirs.

Yep, I knew it. Pete Rose is the next stathead target!

westofyou
11-15-2006, 04:28 PM
I'm just a stathead?

Funny... I always thought of myself as a fan.

Falls City Beer
11-15-2006, 04:33 PM
I said it once I'll say it again: Dunn's on the "smiling side" of 30--anything can happen, and several huge years from him is not only possible, but, IMO, probable.

Patrick Bateman
11-15-2006, 05:56 PM
Yep, I knew it. Pete Rose is the next stathead target!

Based on stats, Pete Rose was a great player. Cyclone has done some era adjustments and stuff, and showed that he has had some very great seasons, and one of the best careers of all time, but not quite to the level that his hit record would suggest.

pedro
11-15-2006, 06:00 PM
Based on stats, Pete Rose was a great player. Cyclone has done some era adjustments and stuff, and showed that he has had some very great seasons, and one of the best careers of all time, but not quite to the level that his hit record would suggest.


Even if he does have Moe Howard's hair cut.

registerthis
11-15-2006, 06:20 PM
I said it once I'll say it again: Dunn's on the "smiling side" of 30--anything can happen, and several huge years from him is not only possible, but, IMO, probable.

I hope you're right, FCB, but the past two seasons from him have me wondering if we've seen pretty much what he brings to the table. He does have age on his side, so perhaps he does have a couple of "monster" years in him. But i think he's going to have to work his tail off to achieve that--so I guess the question is how much Adam Dunn wants it.

RedsManRick
11-15-2006, 06:50 PM
As much as he has "age" on his side, I can't help but think that experience is the more relevant measuring stick. Dunn has 6+ full seasons worth of PA at the major league level. While players are constantly improving or declining, I just don't think we're going to see a quantum leap from Dunn.

Where is he going to improve his game? He's not going to benefit from more power and I don't see how he could become more selective. The only real avenue of growth is increased contact rates on pitches in the zone. Most of what I've read suggests that contact is not a skill which improves with time and experience. I'm open to being proved wrong. I'd love to see a .280/.420/.630 Howardesque season out of Dunn.

Falls City Beer
11-15-2006, 06:55 PM
As much as he has "age" on his side, I can't help but think that experience is the more relevant measuring stick. Dunn has 6+ full seasons worth of PA at the major league level. While players are constantly improving or declining, I just don't think we're going to see a quantum leap from Dunn.

Where is he going to improve his game? He's not going to benefit from more power and I don't see how he could become more selective. The only real avenue of growth is increased contact rates on pitches in the zone. Most of what I've read suggests that contact is not a skill which improves with time and experience. I'm open to being proved wrong. I'd love to see a .280/.420/.630 Howardesque season out of Dunn.

Better hitters surrounding him would help. But I think peak years Dunn will look more like 2004-2005 than 2006. I don't see him as having already peaked and now headed to decline. I just don't see that his skills have diminished so far as to warrant a certainty that he'll continue to "slide."

I don't expect a quantum leap, either, but how "quantum" can you go from a .956 OPS?

flyer85
11-15-2006, 06:58 PM
Dunn has 6+ full seasons worth of PA at the major league level. While players are constantly improving or declining, I just don't think we're going to see a quantum leap from Dunn. Derrick Lee says hi.

Ltlabner
11-15-2006, 07:00 PM
Better hitters surrounding him would help. But I think peak years Dunn will look more like 2004-2005 than 2006. I don't see him as having already peaked and is now headed to decline. I just don't see that his skills have diminished so far as to warrant a certainty that he'll continue to "slide."

I don't expect a quantum leap, either, but how "quantum" can you go from a .956 OPS?

I agree. I've posted previously that I'd like to see Dunn 2nd and EE 3rd. Gives Dunn protection and gives EE a chance to move base runners around which he seems to do well.

RedsManRick
11-15-2006, 07:12 PM
Derrick Lee says hi.

Interesting comp. I've heard announcers say that he closed the gap in his plate coverage in on his hands which is why he exploded in 2005. That said, I wouldn't mind seeing more than 1 season of it. I'm curious what the scouting report on Dunn is in terms of why he misses the pitches he misses. How many strikes is he taking because he knows he can't hit them? How many pitches is he swing at and missing due to simple coordination?

Mario-Rijo
11-15-2006, 08:22 PM
Great point on Derek Lee which is why I continue wonder out loud if Dunn wouldn't improve by having a wise batting coach. We shall see if that happens with Jacoby.

Look his power comes from strength as opposed to bat speed, he is the exact opposite of Jr. in that respect. I am not saying he doesn't have good bat speed but he certainly doesn't have elite bat speed, the guy I would liken him to with power and bat speed is Mark McGwire (I know, save that argument for another day). The difference between the 2 as I have stated on numerous occasions, is hand positioning which made McGwire far superior once he gained some valuable experience.

But here is a shot of the 2 and there batting stances, once there click on the link for a larger picture. Unfortunately I don't know how to paste the pics right on here. My claim is if Dunn drops his hands closer to where McGwire held his he would (after a period of adjustment) improve significantly at making contact and therefore exploding into a SuperStar! Well at hitting anyway.

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.mostlymemories.com/ebay_images/success.jpg&imgrefurl=http://cgi.ebay.com/Rare-MLB-collector-poster-large-Mark-McGwire_W0QQitemZ140019227124QQihZ004QQcategoryZ73 427QQcmdZViewItem&h=428&w=300&sz=34&hl=en&start=42&tbnid=pN-cpuzXWDSPmM:&tbnh=126&tbnw=88&prev=/images%3Fq%3DMark%2BMcGwire%26start%3D40%26ndsp%3D 20%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26sa%3DN

http://cgi.ebay.com/2006-Fleer-Ultra-Adam-Dunn-Diamond-Producers_W0QQitemZ190050551325QQihZ009QQcategoryZ 638QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

Ravenlord
11-15-2006, 10:05 PM
Interesting comp. I've heard announcers say that he closed the gap in his plate coverage in on his hands which is why he exploded in 2005.

Lee actually made the original adjustment in Florida. he did it by actually standing about 8" further off the plate than he did for most of his life. then while in Chicago, he opened his stance a very, very tiny bit. the result not only gave him greater plate coverage, it sped up his bat too, giving him power on outside pitches that he'd never had before.

edabbs44
11-15-2006, 10:14 PM
I think it's interesting to point out that even with as bad of a September Dunn had hitting, he still led the team in runs scored that month. How? Because he led the team in walks also.

I think it's even more interesting that Dunn scored 11 runs in September while walking 20 times, and that exactly three of those runs happened when he reached base via a walk. So I think it is hardly truthful to say what you said above. And I think this is the reason why we cannot categorically talk about how great walks are and how they lead to runs and how Dunn walking is going to get the Reds to the WS and how walking etc etc etc.

This is why no one can automaticaly assume all I have mentioned above. Adam Dunn scored 3 times in September after drawing a walk, and he walked 20 times! Think about that and get back to me. Thanks for playing.

westofyou
11-15-2006, 10:46 PM
Think about that and get back to me. Thanks for playing.

Beats the crap out of an out, creates stress on the pitcher by creating more pitches and making him pitch from the stretch.

Think of that.

Thanks for playing.

edabbs44
11-15-2006, 11:18 PM
Beats the crap out of an out, creates stress on the pitcher by creating more pitches and making him pitch from the stretch.

Think of that.

Thanks for playing.

Thought of it already, and I was responding to the statement where we were emphatically told that Dunn led the team in runs in September because he led the team in walks that month as well. Which was promptly shot down by using facts. Things that actually took place during the games, not hypothetical situations which are so often stated on this board.

But since I did expand my post to include the other hypotheticals that are preached on here, let's look into it a little more.


Beats the crap out of an out

Sure does. But if a player looks at 2 pitches right down the middle for strikes and then walks, who's to say that the player wouldn't have gotten a hit before? That "working the count" didn't stop him from getting a hit? I know Cyclone has posted charts with probabilities of getting a hit by location, and let me tell you Dunn has looked at his fair share of pitches right down the shoot.


creates stress on the pitcher by creating more pitches

Again, cannot argue with that. But this doesn't really guarantee anything. If they have a good bullpen, who's to say that this is a good thing? It does have its advantages, but I wouldn't use this as a main basis of argument.


making him pitch from the stretch

Stretching it here. Again, is this proven that this helps the batter? What if a pitcher throws better from the stretch? What if there's already someone on base? I guess this "advantage" of taking a walk is nullified if the walk is against most relievers, no?

So there you have it. The whole "walk" argument cannot be used as a blanket statement. It is obviously a good thing for a hitter to take a walk when it is his best option (i.e., no good pitches to hit), but let's try and talk about it in that way. A walk isn't automatically a good thing.

And oh BTW, when we start throwing walk stats around, try and remove IBBs from the equation since the batter does nothing during that AB to really say it was a good piece of hitting. People tend to lump all walks together and it shouldn't work that way in some situations which are quoted on here quite often.

Cedric
11-15-2006, 11:55 PM
Derrick Lee says hi.

Derrick Lee wasn't producing at the high rate that Dunn has for that six years. Lends me to believe that he was still developing his skills and had a much higher ceiling than Dunn.

Adam Dunn was a polished hitter with a great approach early in his career. He shouldn't be punished for that, but Derrick Lee isn't a good comp. IMO.

edabbs44
11-16-2006, 12:00 AM
Derrick Lee wasn't producing at the high rate that Dunn has for that six years.
High rate for six years? Let's not get crazy. I like Dunn, but I have to take exception to that statement.

Cedric
11-16-2006, 12:04 AM
High rate for six years? Let's not get crazy. I like Dunn, but I have to take exception to that statement.

Very high rate.

For his age at that time he was a freak of nature.

jimbo
11-16-2006, 12:35 AM
Think about that and get back to me. Thanks for playing.

These are the kinds of comments that lead threads into nasty directions. This really isn't a game for me, I don't take it that seriously. You can make a point effectively without a condescending tone.

Take away those three runs scored off of a walk and Dunn no longer leads the team in September in runs scored. I never made any such comments saying that Dunn will lead the Reds to the WS with his walks or anything of that nature. I think the fact that he only scored 3 times from his 20 walks represents more of how the team was in an overall hitting funk during that month. Dunn scores more from those walks if the rest of the team was at full force and hitting more to their norm. Dunn led the team for the season in runs scored and walks and I can't believe they are not connected to some degree.

Ravenlord
11-16-2006, 01:33 AM
Very high rate.

For his age at that time he was a freak of nature.



Lee
Age AVG OBP SLG BB AB
22 259 365 370 9 54
23 233 318 414 47 454
24 206 263 326 17 218
25 281 368 507 63 477
26 282 346 474 50 561
27 270 378 494 98 581
28 271 379 508 88 539
29 278 356 504 68 605
30 335 418 662 85 594
31 286 368 474 25 175
Total 276 363 500 550 4258

Dunn
Age AVG OBP SLG BB AB
22 262 371 578 38 244
23 249 400 454 128 535
24 215 354 465 74 381
25 266 388 569 108 568
26 247 387 540 114 543
27 234 365 490 112 561
Total 245 380 513 574 2832

Cedric
11-16-2006, 01:45 AM
Lee
Age AVG OBP SLG BB AB
22 259 365 370 9 54
23 233 318 414 47 454
24 206 263 326 17 218
25 281 368 507 63 477
26 282 346 474 50 561
27 270 378 494 98 581
28 271 379 508 88 539
29 278 356 504 68 605
30 335 418 662 85 594
31 286 368 474 25 175
Total 276 363 500 550 4258

Dunn
Age AVG OBP SLG BB AB
22 262 371 578 38 244
23 249 400 454 128 535
24 215 354 465 74 381
25 266 388 569 108 568
26 247 387 540 114 543
27 234 365 490 112 561
Total 245 380 513 574 2832


Throughout the six years. I was talking about Dunn's production at such a young age. And it's quite obvious from your info above that Lee produced at a much slower rate than Dunn.

Ravenlord
11-16-2006, 02:14 AM
Throughout the six years. I was talking about Dunn's production at such a young age. And it's quite obvious from your info above that Lee produced at a much slower rate than Dunn.

yep. for their careers they're similar statistical hitters. i'm not sure it translates all that well because they have very disimiliar approaches and mechanics with hitting, and i don't know enough about the mechanics to disect it.

ochre
11-16-2006, 03:31 AM
so 30ish% of his runs came from walks that month?

Topcat
11-16-2006, 04:03 AM
Ok this may be an odd question but I am curious for an answer from the more astute posters on here. But if a player racks alot of his ops or runs or obp in the latter 2 months of a season on a non contender playing a weak schedule versus other also rans who are out of the contending bracket. Does this not actually inflate a players true value? I ask this due to the fact I am just becoming more aware of how to truly identify a players true talents and ability batting wise. I thank you in advance for anyone who can give me some in depth understanding of how to truly rate a very good players ability with the bat.

edabbs44
11-16-2006, 06:52 AM
so 30ish% of his runs came from walks that month?

That's like saying a switch hitter has great power from the left side of the plate b/c 100% of his HRs came from that side. And that hitter had one HR total.

It is true that 30ish% of his runs occurred after he had taken a walk. But it is also true that he didn't score 85% of the time he walked that month.

Ravenlord
11-16-2006, 07:48 AM
isn't it more indicitive of a problem of the guys behind Dunn that he only scored three times on 20 walks?

yes Dunn mostly sucked the last two months, but so did just about everyone else in the lineup. unless you're capable of OPSing 1300 or so, one man can not be the entire offense for such a length of time and still win games.

edabbs44
11-16-2006, 09:00 AM
isn't it more indicitive of a problem of the guys behind Dunn that he only scored three times on 20 walks?

yes Dunn mostly sucked the last two months, but so did just about everyone else in the lineup. unless you're capable of OPSing 1300 or so, one man can not be the entire offense for such a length of time and still win games.

Thanks Raven. This is exactly what I have been saying all along. Walks to not guarantee anything. Walks are treated by some as the cure for all woes and they are far from that. You then need to rely on others in the lineup to drive you in. Especially a bat like Dunn. Take the walk when you get nothing good to hit. Agreed. Many like to equate OBP with runs scored, and it is quite obvious that the two work hand in hand. You can score w/o getting to first base safely. But many forget that OBP is made from BA and walks, not strictly walks alone. Walks aren't bad. In some cases, they are quite good. But walking then puts the onus on others to get a hit. And since Dunn is probably the biggest run producer in the lineup, why would anyone be happy with the amt he walks? He needs to swing the bat at strikes for this team to be most effective.

But going back to my point, the original post stated that Dunn led the team in runs b/c he also led the team in walks. That, as we see now, is far from the truth.

registerthis
11-16-2006, 10:12 AM
I don't expect a quantum leap, either, but how "quantum" can you go from a .956 OPS?

Hey, I'd be tickled pink at a few more .956 OPS seasons from Dunn. It's the .855 OPS seasons I could do without.

texasdave
11-16-2006, 10:32 AM
Derrick Lee wasn't producing at the high rate that Dunn has for that six years. Lends me to believe that he was still developing his skills and had a much higher ceiling than Dunn.

Derrick Lee's OPS for the five seasons immediately preceding his first year as a Cub was approximately .865. Not too shabby considering that he played in Florida, which is probably the worst hitter's park in the NL outside of San Diego. I am not smart enough to figure out what that OPS would translate to if he played in merely a hitter's neutral park. If he got just a five percent bump in OPS that puts him up over .900. A ten percent bump and he is knocking on .950.


Adam Dunn was a polished hitter with a great approach early in his career. He shouldn't be punished for that, but Derrick Lee isn't a good comp. IMO.

If we assume this statement to be correct then that lessens the chance of Dunn suddenly breaking out and throwing up a 2005-Derrick-Lee type season.

Redsland
11-16-2006, 10:57 AM
I agree. I've posted previously that I'd like to see Dunn 2nd and EE 3rd. Gives Dunn protection and gives EE a chance to move base runners around which he seems to do well.
(On the subject of "Dunn could use some better hitters around him.")

Me three.

texasdave
11-16-2006, 11:32 AM
(On the subject of "Dunn could use some better hitters around him.")

Me three.

Does "protection" exist in baseball? Does having a quality batter behind a player have a positive effect on said player's performance? Read this. You may be surprised. It is an article that has at the bottom a link to a study.
Their conclusion at the end of the study suggests that "protection" may actually hurt. If it has any positive effect it is minimal. Not sure if I agree with this.

http://www.sabernomics.com/sabernomics/index.php/2004/09/the-protection-externality-it-doesnt-exist/

PS If you don't want to read the whole study you can simply scroll down to the bottom for their conclusion.

RedsManRick
11-16-2006, 11:45 AM
There's a distinction to be made between the protection effect of the specific at-bat outcome of the hitter and the overall effect of the at-bat. That is, having a better hitter behind Dunn may not affect whether or not he takes a walk. However, having a better hitter behind Dunn DOES affect whether or not he scores once reaching base. Having a better hitter ahead of him DOES affect whether or not that extra base hit drives in any runs.

As other's have stated, walks, while good, are the least productive non-out outcome. If much of Dunn's value is going to come from getting on base via the walk, we need other people to contribute as well to maximize the value of those walks. If every other hitter made an out every single time, 40 homers and 560 strikeouts would produce more runs than 600 walks. Obviously that's a crazy extreme, but you get the idea.

texasdave
11-16-2006, 11:57 AM
Maybe I have had it wrong all these years, but I have always thought protection meant having a solid hitter behind a player so that the player saw better pitches. And thus hit better. I see and accept your position that having good hitters surrounding a player will result in more RBI and run-scoring opportunities.

RedsManRick
11-16-2006, 12:00 PM
Maybe I have had it wrong all these years, but I have always thought protection meant having a solid hitter behind a player so that the player saw better pitches. And thus hit better. I see and accept your position that having good hitters surrounding a player will result in more RBI and run-scoring opportunities.

Well, I agree that's what protection means as it's usually used. I was deferring to the posted study which claims protection in that sense really doesn't exist.

Johnny Footstool
11-16-2006, 01:16 PM
As other's have stated, walks, while good, are the least productive non-out outcome.

Not to pick on you, but they're not "the least productive non-out outcome." A bases-empty first-pitch single is. Any bases-empty single requiring less than 4 pitches is less productive than a walk. Any single that doesn't advance base runners more than one base falls into that same category.

RANDY IN INDY
11-16-2006, 02:06 PM
I think that all depends on who is pitching on a given day.

RedsManRick
11-16-2006, 02:22 PM
Not to pick on you, but they're not "the least productive non-out outcome." A bases-empty first-pitch single is. Any bases-empty single requiring less than 4 pitches is less productive than a walk. Any single that doesn't advance base runners more than one base falls into that same category.

If you want to control for the number of pitches being thrown, the discussion gets quite a bit more complicated. However, a bases empty single also leaves room for fielder error, where a walk does not. Also, the word outcome suggests that we are not accounting for the productive quality of the at-bat itself, just the event which ends it.

Otherwise, you might suggest that a more productive at-bat is one where the batter fouls off 120 pitches and then strikes out....

Redsland
11-16-2006, 02:24 PM
Nah. Strikeouts are bad.

:)

Johnny Footstool
11-16-2006, 03:46 PM
If you want to control for the number of pitches being thrown, the discussion gets quite a bit more complicated. However, a bases empty single also leaves room for fielder error, where a walk does not. Also, the word outcome suggests that we are not accounting for the productive quality of the at-bat itself, just the event which ends it.

Otherwise, you might suggest that a more productive at-bat is one where the batter fouls off 120 pitches and then strikes out....

Why wouldn't you want to control the number of pitches thrown? That's basic strategy.

But aside from that, you're loading the argument by including an outcome over which the batter has no control (error) and disallowing one of the main benefits of a walk (pitch count).

And yes, fouling off 120 pitches and striking out would be more productive than a non-run-scoring hit. So would fouling off 20 pitches and striking out. The benefits wouldn't be immediately reaped, but such events would be more beneficial to the team than a non-run-scoring hit or walk.

Cyclone792
11-16-2006, 03:50 PM
Evaluating the importance of walks for hitters is something that many people fail to account for, especially when considering the debate of walks vs. singles.

Now, on a strict outcome-based scenario, a single is more valuable than a walk - the difference is roughly 0.15 runs in the favor of a single. Singles can advance runners more than one base, singles can advance runners on second and/or third without needing to have a man already on first, singles can force the defense to commit errors or bad plays which thereby allow baserunners to advance even more, etc.

If the importance of walks is to be analyzed strictly on the outcome-based scenarios, however, then their importance will be greatly undervalued. Teams and players who walk with high frequencies have a tendency to be successful in other offensive aspects that lead to higher run scoring. Teams and players who walk with low frequencies have a tendency to not be successful in other offensive aspects that lead to lower run scoring.

Let me show everyone what I mean by this, and I'm using 103 seasons worth of data here so sample size is the last of our worries:


http://img292.imageshack.us/img292/8359/singlesrunsgy5.jpg
http://img103.imageshack.us/img103/3791/walksrunscy1.jpg

Notice which of the two events, singles and walks, correlates more strongly with run scoring. It's not singles, instead, it's walks. In outcome-based scenarios, we know that singles are more valuable than walks; but when we stretch out past the outcome-based scenarios we're finding that it's walks, not singles, that correlates stronger to run scoring.

We need to look at a few more things here:


http://img244.imageshack.us/img244/3279/singlesisonm9.jpg
http://img293.imageshack.us/img293/5949/walksisoqt0.jpg
http://img62.imageshack.us/img62/3377/singlesslgfu7.jpg
http://img292.imageshack.us/img292/9719/walksslgxf4.jpg


Correlations

Metric Singles Walks

Runs .479874 .604688
OPS .258608 .520101
OBP .426142 .597793
SLG .339848 .412131
ISO .382503 .482879
HR .385687 .507975
2B .299919 .358868

While the above may not be overwhelming, there's clearly better correlations in walks to every one of those useful offensive aspects than we see with singles. Now this doesn't mean there's causation, and it's not full-blown proof that walks always result in increases in every one of those offensive metrics. However, what we're seeing is that when walks show up, we tend to see those other highly valuable offensive aspects show up too. And, those other highly valuable offensive aspects do tend to show up more often when we see walks than when we see singles.

To simplifly the above, players who tend to draw walks tend to hit for more power and tend to get on base at a higher clip, and getting on base and hitting for power is clearly an offensive aspect that will result in a plethora of run scoring. When walks show up, on base events and power tends to follow. This isn't all that much different than what we see when strikeouts show up, which is that power tends to follow those as well.

Most people already knew this, but avoiding an out and getting on base is the single most important offensive event that exists. Since I've seen some people questioning the value of on-base percentage, I figured I'd toss this in extra:


http://img65.imageshack.us/img65/1614/obprunser4.jpg

Ltlabner
11-16-2006, 04:09 PM
And yes, fouling off 120 pitches and striking out would be more productive than a non-run-scoring hit. So would fouling off 20 pitches and striking out. The benefits wouldn't be immediately reaped, but such events would be more beneficial to the team than a non-run-scoring hit or walk.

How does this jive with avoiding outs and acquiring bases? An inflated pitch count versus having a runner on base?

I guess you could agrue that since the run didn't score you didn't acomplish anything. But since you don't know whether or not the run will score before hand, I'd rather put people on base and have a chance at scoring rather than fight a war of attrition.

Cyclone792
11-16-2006, 04:16 PM
How does this jive with avoiding outs and acquiring bases? An inflated pitch count versus having a runner on base?

Or are you strictly comparing the two in the micro?

As an offense in any given game, you want to reach the opposing team's middle relief corp as quickly as possible since those guys are generally a team's weakest pitchers. Most teams typically have one to three high quality relievers, but after those guys the remaining bullpen quality goes south pretty quick. It's that middle relief remainder you want to force out to the mound, and if you can knock a starting pitcher out early either by knocking him around, raising his pitch count or both, then that means there's a lot of innings for that lackluster middle relief to have to work through.

flyer85
11-16-2006, 04:22 PM
Well if the Reds do trade Dunn the insane contracts and money being thrown/bandied about are seriously driving up the price I would guess.

Ltlabner
11-16-2006, 04:29 PM
As an offense in any given game, you want to reach the opposing team's middle relief corp as quickly as possible since those guys are generally a team's weakest pitchers. Most teams typically have one to three high quality relievers, but after those guys the remaining bullpen quality goes south pretty quick. It's that middle relief remainder you want to force out to the mound, and if you can knock a starting pitcher out early either by knocking him around, raising his pitch count or both, then that means there's a lot of innings for that lackluster middle relief to have to work through.

That part I understood.

But having an extraordinarly long at bat followed by a K seems to fly in the face of "acquire bases and avoid outs". It's hard to put value on the outcome which does neither of these two main goals over the event that met both of them.

I'm assuming that for this discussion the non-run scoring hit took place in pitches 1 or 2 instead of the 20 pitches in the example. But it would seem that the value of the hit (that ultimatley doesn't score) would be higher because it at least provides an opportunity to score a run in the short term. Yet the long PA ending in the K only provides a chance to score later when the BP guy comes in later.

BTW - I'm not arguing that shorter PA's are good.

Johnny Footstool
11-16-2006, 04:32 PM
But having an extraordinarly long at bat followed by a K seems to fly in the face of "acquire bases and avoid outs". It's hard to put value on the outcome which does neither of these two main goals over the event that met both of them.

A 20-pitch AB falls on the "avoiding outs" side of the equation, in a roundabout way.

Avoiding outs against a starting pitcher is usually relatively hard. It's usually easier to avoid outs vs. a middle reliever (as Cyclone mentioned) or a tired starter in the middle innings of a game.

Most ABs usually take 3-4 pitches. Assuming you can put a baserunner on each inning, you're averaging *roughly* 15 or so pitches for 3 outs.

So in a 20-pitch AB, you're seeing about 3.5 outs worth of pitches. You've essentially burned up almost an inning's worth of pitching for a single out.

You're right about the immediate impact being less desirable than a hit, but in the macro view, I have to assume (and it is an assumption) that the extra pitches increase your team's chances of scoring more than having a single base runner on first.

A plate appearance, an inning, a game, a season -- they're all wars of attrition.

RedsManRick
11-16-2006, 05:01 PM
Cyclone, I think you're treading on dangerous territory there. There are many confounding variables involved when comparing the correlation of singles and walks to runs. I know you know this -- you say as much. However, you fundamentally change the discussion by taking it in a predictive context rather than descriptive.

I agree, that if you tell me I can choose team A, who hit 1,000 singles and never walked or team B, who hit 800 singles and walked 200 times, I'll take team B. Both teams hit an unreported number of extra base hits. But that's beacuse I know walking correlates strongly with those extra base hits, not because I'd rather have 200 walks over 200 singles.

It's not that a walk is more valuable. It's that people who walk tend to do things which are more valuable and those things lead to more runs.

I agree that there is certainly value in taking pitches. If the bases are empty and I know the fielder's won't commit an error, sure, I'll take a walk over 1 or 2 pitch single. If I don't know how many runners are on base or what the fielders are going to do, I'll take the single.

Ravenlord
11-16-2006, 05:10 PM
It's not that a walk is more valuable. It's that people who walk tend to do things which are more valuable and those things lead to more runs.for reference:

MLB walks leaders by OBP and SLG, 2002-2005

Player OBP SLG
Bonds 570 782
Abreu 414 502
Helton 450 592
Dunn 385 511
Giambi 416 529
Edmonds 403 589
Berkman 422 554
Burrell 361 480
Gonzalez 386 495
Ramirez 414 608
Posada 382 474
Bagwell 382 496
Williams 369 431
Chavez 354 498
Delgado 403 561
A. Jones 349 522
Thomas 382 531
Damon 362 441
Thome 386 543
Castillo 377 370

Johnny Footstool
11-16-2006, 05:14 PM
I agree that there is certainly value in taking pitches. If the bases are empty and I know the fielder's won't commit an error, sure, I'll take a walk over 1 or 2 pitch single. If I don't know how many runners are on base or what the fielders are going to do, I'll take the single.

For this argument, we need to assume the outcome of "a single" is just a single (which acquires one base) and not a "single and an error" (which acquires more).

If you add in the variable of defense, the argument becomes more about "putting the ball in play" than about acquiring a single base via walk vs. hit.

Wheelhouse
11-16-2006, 05:23 PM
Interesting post--some questions:

1) The ultimate payoff of a run scoring usually happens by a hit, unless a run is sacrificed in (somewhat rare), or walked in (rarer), or a FC (rarest). Must not there be players on a team that have a good Avg RISP, or else this avoiding outs plan won't yield runs?

2) Does not the strikeout hurt the ability of the following batter to walk? The strikeout ALWAYS reduces pressure on the pitcher for the following batter. He has one more out, and the runners, when on base, have not advanced or none been added--as can happen with a batted ball. Does not a batter prone to strikeouts hurt his teammates chances to avoid outs more often than a contact hitter?

Cyclone792
11-16-2006, 05:23 PM
Cyclone, I think you're treading on dangerous territory there. There are many confounding variables involved when comparing the correlation of singles and walks to runs. I know you know this -- you say as much. However, you fundamentally change the discussion by taking it in a predictive context rather than descriptive.

I agree, that if you tell me I can choose team A, who hit 1,000 singles and never walked or team B, who hit 800 singles and walked 200 times, I'll take team B. Both teams hit an unreported number of extra base hits. But that's beacuse I know walking correlates strongly with those extra base hits, not because I'd rather have 200 walks over 200 singles.

It's not that a walk is more valuable. It's that people who walk tend to do things which are more valuable and those things lead to more runs.

I agree that there is certainly value in taking pitches. If the bases are empty and I know the fielder's won't commit an error, sure, I'll take a walk over 1 or 2 pitch single. If I don't know how many runners are on base or what the fielders are going to do, I'll take the single.

Nah, what you're describing above is exactly what I was trying to say. As you state above, hitters who tend to walk more tend to do things that are more valuable offensively and lead to more runs, and that's precisely what I meant by using all the graphs and charts above. If there was confusion in how I described it, then that was just simply a communication error on my part, nothing more. ;)

Cyclone792
11-16-2006, 05:35 PM
for reference:

MLB walks leaders by OBP and SLG, 2002-2005

Player OBP SLG
Bonds 570 782
Abreu 414 502
Helton 450 592
Dunn 385 511
Giambi 416 529
Edmonds 403 589
Berkman 422 554
Burrell 361 480
Gonzalez 386 495
Ramirez 414 608
Posada 382 474
Bagwell 382 496
Williams 369 431
Chavez 354 498
Delgado 403 561
A. Jones 349 522
Thomas 382 531
Damon 362 441
Thome 386 543
Castillo 377 370


Average slugging percentage for the above hitter group is ~.525 (not exact since I just used the 20 slugging figures rather than actual total bases / at bats for each player). Either way, though, it's significantly higher than the league average slugging percentage of ~.430 during that same time period.

Just another visual showing that players who draw loads of walks tend to rack up a load of total bases, and there's nothing at all wrong with that combination.

RedsManRick
11-16-2006, 05:44 PM
For this argument, we need to assume the outcome of "a single" is just a single (which acquires one base) and not a "single and an error" (which acquires more).

If you add in the variable of defense, the argument becomes more about "putting the ball in play" than about acquiring a single base via walk vs. hit.

You make a good point. If were trying isolate the value of given discrete events, the inherent value of "putting the ball in play" (potential for an error and thus additional bases) should be kept separate from the outcome of a single.

One related note though, taken in the context of bases being empty (no runner advancement value) a single has the component values of both "number of pitches seen" and "ball in play", in addition to the value of the base accrued and out avoided (which are equal for the walk & single). For a walk to be more valuable, the value of the number of pitches seen before the walk has to be great than the value of both the number of pitches seen before the hit and the value of the "ball in play".

I'm curious if anybody has the numbers on the average number of pitches thrown prior to a walk vs. prior to a bases empty single, knows the completely isolated run value of a walk, and the isolated run value of putting the ball in play. (obviously not... interesting concept though).

It's fun to think that the average number of bases advanced by the batter on a bases empty single (no clue, maybe 1.01) is actually greater than the average number of bases advanced by a walk (1.00).

Anyways, none of this really means anything per se'. Fun nonetheless.

RedsManRick
11-16-2006, 05:59 PM
Touching briefly on one other point somebody made

If you have two players...

Player A: .250/.400/.600
Player B: .325/.400/.600

...and those players had equal opportunities, player B will probably have produced more runs because he was driving guys in with singles when Player A was taking walks. In this way, a higher average is better. However, when saying "which guy is better" or who do you want on your team, you might want player A because he has more room to improve. It's an interesting discussion that's been had here before.

Johnny Footstool
11-16-2006, 06:01 PM
Anyways, none of this really means anything per se'. Fun nonetheless.

These are the kinds of things you discuss when your team's idea of an impact free agent acquisition is Bubba Crosby. ;)

Ltlabner
11-16-2006, 06:02 PM
Anyways, none of this really means anything per se'. Fun nonetheless.

Your definition of "fun" leaves much to be desired! :laugh:

Actually, an interesting conversation and nice back-and-forth.

Johnny Footstool
11-16-2006, 06:12 PM
Interesting post--some questions:

1) The ultimate payoff of a run scoring usually happens by a hit, unless a run is sacrificed in (somewhat rare), or walked in (rarer), or a FC (rarest). Must not there be players on a team that have a good Avg RISP, or else this avoiding outs plan won't yield runs?

2) Does not the strikeout hurt the ability of the following batter to walk? The strikeout ALWAYS reduces pressure on the pitcher for the following batter. He has one more out, and the runners, when on base, have not advanced or none been added--as can happen with a batted ball. Does not a batter prone to strikeouts hurt his teammates chances to avoid outs more often than a contact hitter?

1) SLG is more important than BA RISP for creating runs. It's the "acquiring bases" side of the equation. It does requires hitting the ball, and any run-scoring hit is absolutely better than a walk. No dispute there.

2) If we assume that a strikeout reduces pressure on a pitcher, we've also got to take fatigue into account. Pressure is really unmeasurable, but the results of fatigue are apparent. A strikeout requires at least more effort than a one or two pitch AB; it often requires more. Does the reduced amount of pressure make up for the increased fatigue? That's a Tootsie Pop question (How many licks? The world may never know), but I'm guessing the fatigue is usually more important. So I'd say that by wearing down the pitcher, the strikeout-prone batter actually increases his teammates chances to avoid outs.

Cyclone792
11-16-2006, 06:12 PM
I'm curious if anybody has the numbers on the average number of pitches thrown prior to a walk vs. prior to a bases empty single, knows the completely isolated run value of a walk, and the isolated run value of putting the ball in play. (obviously not... interesting concept though).

EDIT: It looks like Retrosheet may provide that data buried somewhere within the wealth of their information. I'll try to see if I can dig anything out from it.

Dan Fox had a fantastic article (http://baseballanalysts.com/archives/2006/02/swinging_taking.php) earlier in the year that somewhat relates to what we've been discussing today, and Adam Dunn's name pops up a few times throughout the article.

Ltlabner
11-16-2006, 06:26 PM
However, swinging at the first pitch was strongly correlated with swinging and missing (.63) and very strongly negatively correlated with taking pitches for balls (-.84). Both of these associations make sense since players who swing more often at the first pitch are, therefore, less likely to get good pitches to hit and if you're swinging at the first pitch almost half the time you're obviously not being the most patient.

This is a quote that flew off the page of Dan Fox's article that Cyclone posted. How many times have we screamed on here about hacking away at the first pitch. I know it's a pet peave of mine and it drove me nuts last year when it seemed to be come standard protocol for the Reds to hack at the first pitch at various times last year.

It would be intersting to me to see the swinging at the first pitch percentages for the Reds.

ochre
11-16-2006, 08:04 PM
I meant to post this earlier today, but my connection was really slow. When valuing a walk compared to a one base hit (the only hit event that is proximally equivalent), the phenomenon associated with Dunn's September performance (in regards to the ratio of walks:runs)of last year seems a bit more understandable.

In that scenario, judging walks vs. aggregate hits isn't working to a common base. When viewed that way, he was dead even: 3 runs on 3 bb PAs, and 3 runs on 3 singles.

here's the plate appearance events prior to the runs for Sept.:
hbp
hr
h
hr
bb
h
2b
bb (walked 3 times that game, but only scored one run)
h
bb
2b


On a side note, Dunn scored a run every time he hit a hr in September! :)

September was also the only month Dunn didn't have a multi-run game last season (other than the 1 game played in Oct)

Cedric
11-16-2006, 10:22 PM
Derrick Lee's OPS for the five seasons immediately preceding his first year as a Cub was approximately .865. Not too shabby considering that he played in Florida, which is probably the worst hitter's park in the NL outside of San Diego. I am not smart enough to figure out what that OPS would translate to if he played in merely a hitter's neutral park. If he got just a five percent bump in OPS that puts him up over .900. A ten percent bump and he is knocking on .950.



If we assume this statement to be correct then that lessens the chance of Dunn suddenly breaking out and throwing up a 2005-Derrick-Lee type season.

I think that's true. I don't see Adam Dunn ever morphing into Derrick Lee/Albert Pujols territory. It's just not his skill set, IMO.

flyer85
11-16-2006, 10:26 PM
I don't see Adam Dunn ever morphing into Derrick LeeDunn's skill set was quite similar to Derrek Lee prior to his breakout in 2005 at age 29.

IslandRed
11-16-2006, 11:00 PM
Dunn's skill set was quite similar to Derrek Lee prior to his breakout in 2005 at age 29.

True or not, it's not something the Reds should bank on. Lee is an anomaly. So far as I know, there isn't such a thing as a skill set where you can reasonably project a breakout that sudden and that late as part of a player's career arc.

flyer85
11-16-2006, 11:03 PM
True or not, it's not something the Reds should bank on. Lee is an anomaly. So far as I know, there isn't such a thing as a skill set where you can reasonably project a breakout that sudden and that late as part of a player's career arc.actually Dunn to this point in his career has been a superior offensive player than the pre-29 Derrek Lee.

westofyou
11-16-2006, 11:21 PM
actually Dunn to this point in his career has been a superior offensive player than the pre-29 Derrek Lee.

No way... I know that's not true.

I read Redszone.

Cedric
11-16-2006, 11:24 PM
actually Dunn to this point in his career has been a superior offensive player than the pre-29 Derrek Lee.

Of course. In fact that is the premise of my whole arguement.

Lee had a skill set with a higher ceiling and he wasn't a polished product early in his career. Dunn had a much better approach and his numbers indicated that. Once Lee figured out his game he rose into the next level.

Raw athletes like Derrick Lee have a higher ceiling than other players, is my opinion.

I don't see Adam Dunn spiking up at the same rate that Derrick Lee did, which was your point right? One because it's almost impossible to expect someone with his OPS numbers to spike much higher and also because of his body size/approach already being great.

flyer85
11-16-2006, 11:28 PM
Lee had a skill set with a higher ceiling and he wasn't a polished product early in his career. Dunn had a much better approach and his numbers indicated that. Once Lee figured out his game he rose into the next level.Numbers show they had they same approach, same skill set. High walk, high K, power, middling BA.

Dunn/Lee(pre 29) are extrememly similar with Dunn having shown more power, little less BA. The overall skill set is match.

RedsManRick
11-16-2006, 11:29 PM
Regarding Lee, it was widely known that he could get around on inside cheese. He fixed it, and bam. What/where is Dunn's weakness? What does he need to fix?

Cedric
11-16-2006, 11:31 PM
Numbers show they had they same approach, same skill set. High walk, high K, power, middling BA.

Dunn/Lee(pre 29) are extrememly similar with Dunn having shown more power, little less BA. The overall skill set is match.

No it's not. The day Adam Dunn ever hits .335 is the day I win the lottery.

Not even .335. I'll give you a .300 clip even. If you are expecting that spike then you are gonna be dissapointed.

Derrick Lee has a different skill set. He has the ability to hit for average, slg, and walk. Dunn doesn't.

flyer85
11-16-2006, 11:38 PM
No it's not. The day Adam Dunn ever hits .335 is the day I win the lottery.

Not even .335. I'll give you a .300 clip even. And where did Lee ever shown that skill prior to age 29? The answer was he didn't. There was potential but there was absolutely nothing in his numbers to suggest he was capable of hitting .335 or OPSing over 1000. Dunn career to this point has shown a career of a guy a lot more likely to go over 1000 OPS than Lee in 2005 and he will just be coming into his age 27 season.

flyer85
11-16-2006, 11:41 PM
Derrick Lee has a different skill set. He has the ability to hit for average, slg, and walk. Dunn doesn't.Prior to age 29 Lee never exhibited the ability to hit over .300 in the majors(.282 had been his high).

Cedric
11-16-2006, 11:41 PM
Because I believe they had different approaches at the plate and different ceilings in natural ability. Disagree with me if you want, but that's what I believe.

Adam Dunn in my opinion doesn't have the plate coverage or the natural quick twitch skills to ever become a .300 hitter.

Is that bad? Hell no! He's a great ballplayer and I hope this thread doesn't somehow turn into me bashing Adam Dunn.

And Derrick Lee's four years before he hit .281, .282, .270, and .270.

That's a far cry from Adam Dunn.

flyer85
11-16-2006, 11:44 PM
Because I believe... well that must make it true(because the objective data sure doesn't suggest it)

Cedric
11-16-2006, 11:45 PM
... well that must make it true(because the objective data sure doesn't suggest it)

What objective data? There is no objective data to support what a players ceiling is.

I know you hate anything that isn't totally objective, but that's not baseball son.

You can continue to use Derrick Lee as a comp for Adam Dunn all you want, I'll bet the five dollars I got on me that you will be way off.

And that's because I have a personal opinion from watching each player that they have different subsets and different ceilings. Am I not allowed to subjectively debate a players ceiling?

flyer85
11-16-2006, 11:48 PM
And Derrick Lee's four years before he hit .281, .282, .270, and .270.

That's a far cry from Adam Dunn.
which works out to ~1 hit a week for the course of the season.

Data SAYS ... very similar skill sets with Dunn having slightly more power and Lee hitting for slightly more average.

Cedric
11-16-2006, 11:50 PM
which works out to ~1 hit a week for the course of the season.

Data SAYS ... very similar skill sets with Dunn having slightly more power and Lee hitting for slightly more average.

You aren't being reasonable. By your assertions there is no need to project a players performance as something above what he did in the past. Makes absolutely no sense.

Do you really believe that scouts don't look at certain players and use their eyes to evaluate their ceiling? You are arguing that's not possible.

Body type, overall athletic ability, and mental aptitude play a huge role in the progression of baseball players. Just because it's not a specific formula you can tabulate doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

flyer85
11-16-2006, 11:51 PM
What objective data? There is no objective data to support what a players ceiling is. that's utter nonsense. The guys are BP are gonna be upset to hear they are wasting their time. I''ll tell'em Ced said so :evil:

Cedric
11-16-2006, 11:54 PM
that's utter nonsense. The guys are BP are gonna be upset to hear they are wasting their time. I''ll tell'em Ced said so :evil:

They are using a mix of both objective and subjective data, or they should be.

Totally different from what you want. You've said as much. You want nothing but the past numbers. Anyone trying to bring up body type, mental aptitude, or overall athletic ability is just a lush.

I'll be waiting for a smart ass response instead of admitting you advocate exactly what I said above.

flyer85
11-17-2006, 12:02 AM
They are using a mix of both objective and subjective data, or they should be.

Totally different from what you want. You've said as much. You want nothing but the past numbers. Anyone trying to bring up body type, mental aptitude, or overall athletic ability is just a lush.except that all those things end up with pre 29 Lee is pretty much equal to Dunn.

The question is what happened to Lee at 29? The simple answer is that the swing has gotten shorter and everything finally clicked. Evaluating his past performance either objectively or anecdotally in no way shape of form allowed for a prediction of Lee's age 29 offensive explosion. What happened was most likely the synergistic effects of a number things converging at the same time.

Will it happen to Dunn? Not likely for an offensive explosion like Lee in 2005 but showing an improvement over 2004 in his age 27,28 and 29 season is still rather likely. Now is exactly the wrong time to cut bait on Dunn(especially considering the current market) unless you get an offer too good to refuse.

mth123
11-17-2006, 05:52 AM
Will it happen to Dunn? Not likely for an offensive explosion like Lee in 2005 but showing an improvement over 2004 in his age 27,28 and 29 season is still rather likely. Now is exactly the wrong time to cut bait on Dunn(especially considering the current market) unless you get an offer too good to refuse.

Yes.

GAC
11-17-2006, 11:16 AM
that's utter nonsense. The guys are BP are gonna be upset to hear they are wasting their time. I''ll tell'em Ced said so :evil:

What do they know about baseball? :evil:

http://as.wn.com/i/0f/b0e53f99aca08b.jpg

registerthis
11-17-2006, 11:22 AM
... well that must make it true(because the objective data sure doesn't suggest it)

To be fair, Flyer, there's not much data supporting your argument here either. Discussing whether or not Dunn has a Derrick Lee-esque year in him requires supposition from both sides.

Providing the fact that both players had similar offensive numbers to that point in their respective careers as evidence that Dunn could become Lee, could also be viewed as nothing more than coincidental. For every Derrick Lee, there are plenty of players who never see that spike in their careers.

Is is *possible* that Adam Dunn will have a season where he'll OPS around 1.100, and slug 50 HRs while hitting at a .330 clip? Sure. Is it likely? Well, I know *I* wouldn't wouldn't put much money on that happening.

flyer85
11-17-2006, 11:31 AM
To be fair, Flyer, there's not much data supporting your argument here either. They profile as similar hitters. There is no denying that the
- pre 29 Lee was high K, high BB, good power, middling average
- Dunn is high K, high BB, very good power, below middling average

I pointed out it is highly unlikley Dunn will have a "Lee spike" but he doesn't need one. He just needs to find a marginal improvement over his 2004/2005 season. And that is lot more likely to happen in his upcoming years than the spike that Lee had in 2005. WHich was the point in the first place, Dunn is coming in to his prime years and to be worth the big bucks he needs to show just a marginal(~5-7%) improvement over his 2004/2005 levels.

westofyou
11-17-2006, 11:32 AM
Is is *possible* that Adam Dunn will have a season where he'll OPS around 1.100, and slug 50 HRs while hitting at a .330 clip? Sure. Is it likely? Well, I know *I* wouldn't wouldn't put much money on that happening.

Of course if Dunn does have a season where he hits .330 with 50 HR's it will be legendary, because he walks over 100 times, and that will make his OB % outrageous.

But if he did that I'd wait for the steroid allegations, because he'd be playing ball with the giants.

He'd still upset the Moe Howard crowd though.


HOMERUNS YEAR HR BB SLG AVG OPS
1 Babe Ruth 1927 60 137 .772 .356 1.258
2 Babe Ruth 1921 59 145 .846 .378 1.359
3 Jimmie Foxx 1932 58 116 .749 .364 1.218
4 Hack Wilson 1930 56 105 .723 .356 1.177
5 Babe Ruth 1920 54 150 .847 .376 1.379
6 Mickey Mantle 1956 52 112 .705 .353 1.169
7 Jimmie Foxx 1938 50 119 .704 .349 1.166
T8 Babe Ruth 1930 49 136 .732 .359 1.225
T8 Lou Gehrig 1936 49 130 .696 .354 1.174
T8 Lou Gehrig 1934 49 109 .706 .363 1.172


HOMERUNS YEAR HR BB SLG AVG OPS
1 Barry Bonds 1993 46 126 .677 .336 1.136
2 Jimmie Foxx 1934 44 111 .653 .334 1.102
3 Hank Greenberg 1937 40 102 .668 .337 1.105

registerthis
11-17-2006, 11:37 AM
Of course if Dunn does have a season where he hits .330 with 50 HR's it will be legendary, because he walks over 100 times, and that will make his OB % outrageous.

Whatever it would take for him to achieve that 1.100 OPS, I'm not heavily banking on him doing it.

flyer85
11-17-2006, 11:39 AM
Whatever it would take for him to achieve that 1.100 OPS, I'm not heavily banking on him doing it.I wouldn't bank on anyone not named Pujols doing it. I will take a player that will OPS between .950-1.000 most years and learn to live with the fact that the player isn't Albert.

westofyou
11-17-2006, 11:41 AM
Whatever it would take for him to achieve that 1.100 OPS, I'm not heavily banking on him doing it.

I don't bank on anything with Dunn, but I also don't cite a two year decline in OPS as a major red flag.

registerthis
11-17-2006, 11:43 AM
I pointed out it is highly unlikley Dunn will have a "Lee spike" but he doesn't need one. He just needs to find a marginal improvement over his 2004/2005 season. And that is lot more likely to happen in his upcoming years than the spike that Lee had in 2005. WHich was the point in the first place, Dunn is coming in to his prime years and to be worth the big bucks he needs to show just a marginal(~5-7%) improvement over his 2004/2005 levels.

A 5% increase over Dunn's 2005 would still place him more than 100 OPS points below Lee's 2005. He would need to increase his OPS by approx. 230 points over what he did last year--no small task.

I'm not saying that Dunn has to achieve a 1.080 OPS like Lee did in 2005 to be considered a valuable offensive player. But I would say that the odds of him doing it are remote. I'm perfectly happy with Dunn OPSing in the .930-.950 range, as I'm sure we all would be.

registerthis
11-17-2006, 11:44 AM
I also don't cite a two year decline in OPS as a major red flag.

Nor do I. But it is a trend I hope he reverses.

registerthis
11-17-2006, 11:45 AM
I wouldn't bank on anyone not named Pujols doing it. I will take a player that will OPS between .950-1.000 most years and learn to live with the fact that the player isn't Albert.

Well, Dunn's achieved that number once in his career. But, to follow on this, I would absolutely take a player who will OPS between .950-1.000 most years. It would be great to see Dunn do that.

flyer85
11-17-2006, 11:50 AM
A 5% increase over Dunn's 2005 would still place him more than 100 OPS points below Lee's 2005. ... or in the 80-100 range. Personally I would take the .950-1000 OPS and run with it every day of the week and twice on Sunday. That .950-1000 OPS puts a player in with the games elite offensive players. The 1.080s of the 2005 Lee are rare indeed for a non chemically enhanced player which might lead one to question ...

registerthis
11-17-2006, 11:52 AM
... or in the 80-100 range. Personally I would take the .950-1000 OPS and run with it every day of the week and twice on Sunday. That .950-1000 OPS puts a player in with the games elite offensive players. The 1.080s of the 2005 Lee are rare indeed for a non chemically enhanced player which might lead one to question ...

Sure, but I only entered this argument because what was being debated was whether or not Dunn would have a Lee-like surge. I never said he couldn't, and I never said he'd have to. I also didn't pose the question.

And, again, if Dunn became a player who consistently OPS'ed in the .950-1.000 range, sign me up for some of that.

flyer85
11-17-2006, 11:52 AM
Nor do I. But it is a trend I hope he reverses.the 2004 and 2005 seasons are almost identical, the 30 point OPS difference is entirely within the range on randomness. We wouldn't even be discussing this because the 2006 Dunn season was right there with the 04/05 season until the bad last 7 weeks.

flyer85
11-17-2006, 11:55 AM
And, again, if Dunn became a player who consistently OPS'ed in the .950-1.000 range, sign me up for some of that.and what reason is to think he shouldn't in his age 27-29 years when he already posted a .957 and .927 at 24 and 25.

If not for the bad finish in 2006 this wouldn't even be a topic of discussion.

registerthis
11-17-2006, 11:56 AM
the 2004 and 2005 seasons are almost identical, the 30 point OPS difference is entirely within the range on randomness. We wouldn't even be discussing this because the 2006 Dunn season was right there with the 04/05 season until the bad last 7 weeks.

...but those last seven weeks were truly awful. I'm sure there are lots of players who would love to scratch out two months worth of bad play from their season stats.

flyer85
11-17-2006, 11:59 AM
...but those last seven weeks were truly awful. and it happens to players from time to time. Do those 7 weeks represent the "real" Dunn or the 2004/2005 seasons? If you beleive the 2004 Dunn is the best he will ever be and he won't achieve it again and the future Dunn is more like the end of 2006 then you had better trade him now.

Without a doubt he is coming into what for most players(27-30) their prime years in terms of offensive perfromance.

registerthis
11-17-2006, 11:59 AM
and what reason is to think he shouldn't in his age 27-29 years when he already posted a .957 and .927 at 24 and 25.

Perhaps he will, but it's by no means a lock. If he comes back and puts up an .875 OPS next year, what will we be saying? And I'd say the odds of him doing that are about as high as him going back up to .950.

Adam Dunn is a question mark, at least as I see it. I think he could certainly be that player who hits his prime years and is consistently in the .950-1.000 OPS range. But he's got some holes in his game that he needs to figure out before he can do that. Simply being in your prime years doesn't equate to an automatic increase in your numbers.

flyer85
11-17-2006, 12:03 PM
But he's got some holes in his game that he needs to figure out before he can do that. just needs marginal improvement. If he had holes then he shouldn't have been able to post .950+ OPS already.

registerthis
11-17-2006, 12:05 PM
and it happens to players from time to time. Do those 7 weeks represent the "real" Dunn or the 2004/2005 seasons?

I don't know. Did we see the "real" Dunn in May when he OPS'ed .863, or did we see the "real" Dunn in July when he OPS'ed 1.024? Or did we see the "real" Dunn when he OPS'ed .700 in August? Or 1.047 in April?

Did we see the "real" Dunn when he OPS'ed .956 in 2004, or the "real" Dunn when he OPS'ed .819 in 2003?

I don't think any of us have a monopoly on forseeing where Dunn's career is headed right now. I've allowed for the possibility that Dunn could return to his 2004 levels, certainly, but it's by no means written in stone.

registerthis
11-17-2006, 12:05 PM
just needs marginal improvement. If he had holes then he shouldn't have been able to post .950+ OPS already.

Or pitchers have started to figure him out.

flyer85
11-17-2006, 12:10 PM
Or pitchers have started to figure him out.well if that is true then Ted Williams was right because usually if players have a problem that can be consistently exploited it happens by the 2nd time through the league, not 5 years.

flyer85
11-17-2006, 12:15 PM
I've allowed for the possibility that Dunn could return to his 2004 levels, certainly, but it's by no means written in stone.looking at a general trend that most careers take it would seem to be more probable than just possible(as we have seen just about anything is possible).

Is it probable is the issue. I will be interested to see what PECOTA thinks moving forward. Even though Dunn had a "bad" season his OPS only dropped 70 points. Now in the case of Jr his OPS dropped almost 150 points with little disussion about what is likely moving forward in his case(and he is certainly well past his prime years).

registerthis
11-17-2006, 12:34 PM
Is it probable is the issue. I will be interested to see what PECOTA thinks moving forward. Even though Dunn had a "bad" season his OPS only dropped 70 points. Now in the case of Jr his OPS dropped almost 150 points with little disussion about what is likely moving forward in his case(and he is certainly well past his prime years).

I think with Junior, there isn't much argument that his career is pretty much finished. At this point, I'm happy getting 4 healthy months and 25 bombs out of him. I don't think you can project much more from him than that.

Which still seems weird to write. It's hard sometimes to watch players you iodlized fall off the way Junior has.

membengal
11-17-2006, 12:38 PM
Just out of curiosity, if all the Adam Dunn threads were added up, would it be infinity? Or infinity +1?

flyer85
11-17-2006, 12:44 PM
I think with Junior, there isn't much argument that his career is pretty much finished.When a player slumps or has a down season I have two questions.

1) Did they lose the ability to hit? (in general this is rhetorical)
2) Did they change their approach?

if the answer to those is no then it is a mechanical problem.

In the case of Jr he changed his approach in 2006. He became much more aggressive at the plate. Swinging early and often and getting himself out on pitchers pitches quite often. I think he can bounce back to a degree but ONLY if his approach changes.

In the case of Dunn when he was going through his late season drought I detected no change in approach, instead he was missing or fouling off pitches he had been driving but I didn't see him expand his strike zone or change his approach. Which means he had a mechanical problem(which in general can be traced back to head movement). Hopefully it will be fixed starting 2007. There isn't any reason to believe it won't.

westofyou
11-17-2006, 12:51 PM
Stuff that tickles me.

Since 1979 the Reds have had 96 players who compiled 500 ab's in a season. Every year that Dunn has had 500 ab's has been in the top 20 OPS seasons produced by a Reds player in that time frame.


CINCINNATI REDS
SEASON
1980-2006

OPS YEAR OPS
1 Eric Davis 1987 .991
2 Barry Larkin 1996 .977
3 Reggie Sanders 1995 .975
4 Adam Dunn 2004 .956
5 Ken Griffey Jr. 2005 .946
6 Ken Griffey Jr. 2000 .942
7 Sean Casey 1999 .938
8 Adam Dunn 2005 .927
9 Dave Parker 1985 .916
10 Sean Casey 2004 .915
11 Eric Davis 1989 .908
12 Sean Casey 2000 .902
13 Barry Larkin 1998 .901
14 Barry Larkin 1995 .886
15 Barry Larkin 1991 .884
16 Greg Vaughn 1999 .881
17 Kal Daniels 1988 .860
18 Chris Sabo 1991 .859
19 Adam Dunn 2006 .855
20 Adam Dunn 2002 .854

flyer85
11-17-2006, 01:12 PM
Since 1979 the Reds have had 96 players who compiled 500 ab's in a season. Every year that Dunn has had 500 ab's has been in the top 20 OPS seasons produced by a Reds player in that time frame.You need to go back and run that again, you missed all the Reds 1.000 OPS seasons in that time frame.

westofyou
11-17-2006, 01:15 PM
You need to go back and run that again, you missed all the Reds 1.000 OPS seasons in that time frame.

Who?

The 3 I get are Mitchell, Daniels and Guillen, with Daniels having the most PA's with 430.

I was going with a 500 PA minimum.

flyer85
11-17-2006, 01:18 PM
Who?
:D sorry, it was a joke. I shall :bang: until forgiven.

texasdave
11-17-2006, 01:59 PM
However, swinging at the first pitch was strongly correlated with swinging and missing (.63) and very strongly negatively correlated with taking pitches for balls (-.84). Both of these associations make sense since players who swing more often at the first pitch are, therefore, less likely to get good pitches to hit and if you're swinging at the first pitch almost half the time you're obviously not being the most patient.

Help! I will be the first to admit that my understanding of regression and correlation isn't the best. But shouldn't the correlation between swinging at the first pitch and taking a pitch for a ball be -1.0? How can you both swing at the first pitch AND take that pitch for a ball? Help, please!

IslandRed
11-17-2006, 05:38 PM
When a player slumps or has a down season I have two questions.

1) Did they lose the ability to hit? (in general this is rhetorical)
2) Did they change their approach?

if the answer to those is no then it is a mechanical problem.

In the case of Jr he changed his approach in 2006. He became much more aggressive at the plate. Swinging early and often and getting himself out on pitchers pitches quite often. I think he can bounce back to a degree but ONLY if his approach changes.


It's probably a combination of things. It could be that age and injuries have taken a toll on his bat speed, and he's not as confident at the plate as he used to be as a result. Loss of confidence sometimes shows up as a loss of patience; more guessing, more cheating (I mean by starting the swing earlier, not the using-banned-substances version of cheating), just trying to hit the first decent pitch instead of working the count to get that one pitch to drive. If scouting reports simultaneously tell opposing pitchers they can pitch him more aggressively early in the count, it only plays into the lack of patience.

You're correct, he'll need to discipline himself better or guess less, but it'll leave him more vulnerable to good heaters if, in fact, his bat has dramatically slowed down.

RedsManRick
11-17-2006, 07:22 PM
When you consider that Davis stole 50 bases and was only caught 6 times in '87, it's hard to believe he finished 9th in the MVP voting.

RedsManRick
11-17-2006, 07:39 PM
When a player slumps or has a down season I have two questions.

1) Did they lose the ability to hit? (in general this is rhetorical)
2) Did they change their approach?

if the answer to those is no then it is a mechanical problem.

Or just bad luck / randomness. Even a season's worth of AB is less than the standard sample of a political poll (1,000 respondents) to get a decent margin of error. Dunn's OPS and BABIP in his 5 full seasons:

2002: .854, .316
2003: .819, .241
2004: .957, .321
2005: .927, .281
2006: .855, .278

Make of that what you will. Though his best OPS happened at the same time as his best BABIP year is probably not a coincidence. OF course, 2005 shows that he can still produce better without the luck.

Patrick Bateman
11-17-2006, 08:14 PM
Or just bad luck / randomness. Even a season's worth of AB is less than the standard sample of a political poll (1,000 respondents) to get a decent margin of error. Dunn's OPS and BABIP in his 5 full seasons:

2002: .854, .316
2003: .819, .241
2004: .957, .321
2005: .927, .281
2006: .855, .278

Make of that what you will. Though his best OPS happened at the same time as his best BABIP year is probably not a coincidence. OF course, 2005 shows that he can still produce better without the luck.

Despite the higher OPS in 2004, I'd argue Dunn's best season was in 2005. He had 6 less HRs, but he cut down on his Ks by around 20 (when you factor in his at-bats), while also slightly increasing his walks. With some better luck, we should have seen some even more impressive results in 2005.

With that said, Dunn went back downhill in 2006, obviously. If Dunn can get back to 2005 levels, he'll be back in the .950+ OPS range. And that's not that difficult to believe.