PDA

View Full Version : Bowden shopping John Patterson and Nick Johnson



savafan
11-26-2006, 04:22 PM
Reportedly, JimBo is looking to move one or both of Patterson and Johnson for outfield help. I know trading with JimBo is always a questionable move, but if Patterson's healthy, I believe he'd really shore up the Reds' pitching staff. Short of moving Dunn, do you see any way the Reds and Nats have a match that would benefit both teams?

reds44
11-26-2006, 04:24 PM
I get the feeling after Majewskigate you will never see Wayne trade with JimBo again.

Falls City Beer
11-26-2006, 04:24 PM
I get the feeling after Majewskigate you will never see Wayne trade with JimBo again.

Which is dumb. Because, ultimately, it wasn't Bowden's fault what happened.

reds44
11-26-2006, 04:26 PM
Which is dumb. Because, ultimately, it wasn't Bowden's fault what happened.
I never said it was right, just that I doubt Wayne will trade with him.

Falls City Beer
11-26-2006, 04:27 PM
I never said it was right,. I know you didn't.

OnBaseMachine
11-26-2006, 04:50 PM
I would love to have John Patterson. That's who the Reds should have demanded in return for Kearns/Lopez.

Tigs
11-26-2006, 04:52 PM
What about offering Freel with a reliever and/or a prospect for Patterson

savafan
11-26-2006, 04:57 PM
How much does Patterson make? Would Freel and Cormier offset the money?

Highlifeman21
11-26-2006, 06:10 PM
I'd rather have Nick Johnson as an everyday 1B than Patterson in our rotation.

But maybe that's just me.

flyer85
11-26-2006, 06:30 PM
if Bowden is looking to move Patterson you can bet there are health issues. His track record pretty much tells you he has trouble staying healthy, same thing with Johnson.

wheels
11-26-2006, 06:31 PM
I'd rather have Nick Johnson as an everyday 1B than Patterson in our rotation.

But maybe that's just me.

It isn't just you.

The guy's a monster and it's a shame Bowden doesn't realize it.

RFS62
11-26-2006, 07:39 PM
It isn't just you.

The guy's a monster and it's a shame Bowden doesn't realize it.




He's Larry Bowa's nephew. If he can stay healthy, he's a stud.

vaticanplum
11-26-2006, 08:14 PM
God, I adore Nick Johnson, he's one of my favorite players in the world, and criminally underrated. If we had a platoon of Hatteberg/Johnson I'd sell my soul for season tickets.

mth123
11-26-2006, 08:29 PM
God, I adore Nick Johnson, he's one of my favorite players in the world, and criminally underrated. If we had a platoon of Hatteberg/Johnson I'd sell my soul for season tickets.

Keep your soul and just let Johnson play. Hat would be a good PH.

BEETTLEBUG
11-26-2006, 08:34 PM
I would not platoon they are both lefthanded I would start Johnson.I would like both as long as it don't include Bailey,Bruce,or Wood.

Highlifeman21
11-26-2006, 09:01 PM
I would not platoon they are both lefthanded I would start Johnson.I would like both as long as it don't include Bailey,Bruce,or Wood.

If Wood's the principle on our side bringing back Nick Johnson, You have to make that trade. Wood will never be anything better than a #3 in our system, so move him for a 1B who is criminally underrated (to steal a phrase from vaticanplum).

I have a feeling Bowden doesn't undervalue Johnson and will get quite the return for him.

Spitball
11-26-2006, 09:18 PM
Wood will never be anything better than a #3 in our system, so move him for a 1B who is criminally underrated (to steal a phrase from vaticanplum).

I don't know, number three starting pitchers are harder to come by than criminally underrated/continually disabled first basemen. Just watch the money Lilly, Suppan, Weaver, et al sign for this winter.

Highlifeman21
11-26-2006, 09:46 PM
I don't know, number three starting pitchers are harder to come by than criminally underrated/continually disabled first basemen. Just watch the money Lilly, Suppan, Weaver, et al sign for this winter.

Not one of this trio is what I would consider a #3. I know FCB will defend Suppan, and there will most likely be merit to his argument, but I'm not sold that Suppan is a #3. The other two, clearly are not.

I think most of us could agree, if we had to pick between trading Bailey or trading Wood, Wood would be the overwhelming favorite.

RedLegSuperStar
11-26-2006, 09:57 PM
What ever happened with that.. Krivsky and the Reds went to Selig about "The Trade" right?

With Soriano gone and in need we know Bowden and how he loves offense.. What about..

Dunn to Nationals
Hinckley, Balester, and T. Blanco

Money saved in the deal can be used to sign Trot Nixon and Adam Eaton

mth123
11-26-2006, 10:00 PM
Not one of this trio is what I would consider a #3. I know FCB will defend Suppan, and there will most likely be merit to his argument, but I'm not sold that Suppan is a #3. The other two, clearly are not.

I think most of us could agree, if we had to pick between trading Bailey or trading Wood, Wood would be the overwhelming favorite.

The other issue here is that Wood is still 3 or 4 years away and hasn't crossed the AA threshold yet. He isn't mentioned as a top 100 prospect or anything of that nature. I'd trade him to fill an obvious need as long as it was for a guy I could keep for a while. Not sure if Johnson qualifies with Votto on the way. I'd rather get an established rotation starter for him, but I like Johnson a lot too and could be convinced.

jojo
11-26-2006, 10:14 PM
I'd trade Dunn straightup for Nick Johnson in a heartbeat...

Dunn: '06 VORP: 23; UZR: -23 runs, PMR: -7 runs; true value: 0 to 16 runs above replacement (0 to 1.5 wins). Cost: $7.5M.
current contract: 07:$10.5M, 08:$13M club option ($0.5M buyout) Age:27

Johnson: '06 VORP: 51; UZR: ?, PMR: +11 runs (seems high to me); true value: 62* runs above replacement (6 wins). Cost: $3.2M.
Current contract: 07:$5.5M, 08:$5.5M, 09:$5.5M Age:28


Throw in Patterson too and, well, I might have to kiss Bowden.

vaticanplum
11-26-2006, 10:54 PM
I'd trade Dunn straightup for Nick Johnson in a heartbeat...

Dunn: '06 VORP: 23; UZR: -23 runs, PMR: -7 runs; true value: 0 to 16 runs above replacement (0 to 1.5 wins). Cost: $7.5M.
current contract: 07:$10.5M, 08:$13M club option ($0.5M buyout) Age:27

Johnson: '06 VORP: 51; UZR: ?, PMR: +11 runs (seems high to me); true value: 62* runs above replacement (6 wins). Cost: $3.2M.
Current contract: 07:$5.5M, 08:$5.5M, 09:$5.5M Age:28


Throw in Patterson too and, well, I might have to kiss Bowden.

Then you'd have gotten fleeced by Bowden once again. All numbers aside, most teams would give up much more for Adam Dunn in a trade. Keeping an eye on what you think a player is worth is all well and good, but if there's that great a disparity between what you think he's worth and what he's generally perceived to be worth, you've got to keep your eye on the latter in trading. In terms of trading, Dunn is worth more to this team than almost any first baseman in baseball apart from Pujols and Berkman.

Wheelhouse
11-27-2006, 12:50 AM
Johnson is a superb player. I'd do Dunn for Johnson in a heartbeat. And the bench would be a good deal stronger with Hatteberg. Then I'd sign Guillen.

We'd have this lineup

Freel CF
Guillen RF
Johnson 1B
Griffey LF
Encarnacion 3B
Phillips 2B
Ross C
Gonzalez SS

Bench:
Hatteberg
Castro
Hopper
Denorfia
Valentin

That's a team with cracklin' defense, speed on the bases and OPS.

Wheelhouse
11-27-2006, 12:56 AM
Then you'd have gotten fleeced by Bowden once again. All numbers aside, most teams would give up much more for Adam Dunn in a trade. Keeping an eye on what you think a player is worth is all well and good, but if there's that great a disparity between what you think he's worth and what he's generally perceived to be worth, you've got to keep your eye on the latter in trading. In terms of trading, Dunn is worth more to this team than almost any first baseman in baseball apart from Pujols and Berkman.

I dunno. Johnson walked 110 times last year. More than he struck out. And had some nice numbers in a big park. And throw in 10 SB and excellent D at his position. What more can you ask for--he is truly an all-around player that not only helps his team win, but I'm sure would be entertaining to watch. I think it would be Bowden getting fleeced--that has happened you know (see Paul O'Neill).

Jpup
11-27-2006, 01:21 AM
I'd trade Dunn straightup for Nick Johnson in a heartbeat...

Dunn: '06 VORP: 23; UZR: -23 runs, PMR: -7 runs; true value: 0 to 16 runs above replacement (0 to 1.5 wins). Cost: $7.5M.
current contract: 07:$10.5M, 08:$13M club option ($0.5M buyout) Age:27

Johnson: '06 VORP: 51; UZR: ?, PMR: +11 runs (seems high to me); true value: 62* runs above replacement (6 wins). Cost: $3.2M.
Current contract: 07:$5.5M, 08:$5.5M, 09:$5.5M Age:28


Throw in Patterson too and, well, I might have to kiss Bowden.

so, one year is all that matters?:help:

buckeyenut
11-27-2006, 07:34 AM
Problem with Johnson is that he is constantly hurt. Dunn is about the furthest you can get from injury prone without being Cal Ripken.

That said, I wouldn't mind having a conversation about a deal regarding the two. Patterson, Johnson and Hinckley for Dunn seems within the ballpark to me.

cincinnati chili
11-27-2006, 07:52 AM
Dunn: '06 VORP: 23; [b]UZR: -23 runs[b], PMR: -7 runs;


If any number seems inaccurate, it's that -23 number. As bad as Dunn was in LF, I find it suspicious that an LF could give up 23 more runs than a replacement level LF.

jojo
11-27-2006, 08:44 AM
If any number seems inaccurate, it's that -23 number. As bad as Dunn was in LF, I find it suspicious that an LF could give up 23 more runs than a replacement level LF.

I agree that twenty runs seems like ALOT... Also, evaluating defense is still rough justice in a sense-that's why I tried to give a range using a couple of the *gold standard* metrics...

But for what its worth, IMHO:

1. UZR is pretty much the gold standard system for evaluating defense. In fact, those numbers are hard to come by now because St Louis basically bought the system when they hired MGL.... most major league clubs use very similar derivations of UZR now... If I had to weight the best systems it would look something like this: UZR>>>PMR>Dewan's (why doesn't he translate +/- into runs?????).....

2. In the case with outfielders (who deal with high risk/reward chances e.g. line drives and fly balls), we’re talking about balls on the fringes of their range that by definition are either down the line or gappers and thus more likely to be extra base hits. Intuitively, just failing to convert 10 such balls into outs versus an average defender might be expected to translate into a lot of runs.

3. Even with the lower PMR value, Dunn's defense costs almost a game of VORP....and the metrics pretty much have a consensus opinion that Dunn is one of the worst defensive left fielders in the game.

Still the defensive runs side of the equation is, like you say, open to more debate...

jojo
11-27-2006, 09:25 AM
so, one year is all that matters?:help:

You're right that a season doesn't a career make.

I considered several levels of performance for Dunn over his remaining contractual years (in another recent thread about trading Dunn for Peavy) and its difficult to envision a likely scenario where he'll ever be anything more than exactly earning his keep (i.e. approx. $3M/win-and that is the best case scenario)...

He's a quick and dirty comparison of the two so far:

(caveats: 1. Johnson missed a significant portion of '04 so I'm looking at '03 for him instead but injury risk has got to be considered when discussing worth; 2. Basically roughing the defensive metrics, i'll call Dunn a -15 run defender and Johnson a +10 defender; 3. Just to keep things simple, I'm ignoring base running which would ding Dunn further and help Johnson a bit)

Dunn '04: VORP: 53; True Value: 38; salary: $445K
Johnson '03: VORP: 28; True Value: 38; salary: $364K

Dunn '05: VORP: 45; True Value: 30; salary: $4.6M
Johnson '05: VORP: 34; True Value: 44; salary: $1.45M

Dunn '06: VORP: 23; True Value: 8; salary: $7.5M
Johnson '06: VORP: 51; True Value: 61; salary: $3.2M

Here's their wins over replacement and cost to payroll over those years:

Dunn: 7.6 wins; $12.5M
Johnson: 14.3 wins; $5.01M

Future contractual obligations:

Dunn: 07:$10.5M, 08:$13M club option ($0.5M buyout)
Johnson: 07:$5.5M, 08:$5.5M, 09:$5.5M

So one player has regressed over those years and one player is behaving like he should into his *prime years*....

Truthfully, IMHO, if Dunn repeats '06, fans shouldn't be talking about trading him, they should be talking about buying him out...

Highlifeman21
11-27-2006, 10:05 AM
You're right that a season doesn't a career make.

I considered several levels of performance for Dunn over his remaining contractual years (in another recent thread about trading Dunn for Peavy) and its difficult to envision a likely scenario where he'll ever be anything more than exactly earning his keep (i.e. approx. $3M/win-and that is the best case scenario)...

He's a quick and dirty comparison of the two so far:

(caveats: 1. Johnson missed a significant portion of '04 so I'm looking at '03 for him instead but injury risk has got to be considered when discussing worth; 2. Basically roughing the defensive metrics, i'll call Dunn a -15 run defender and Johnson a +10 defender; 3. Just to keep things simple, I'm ignoring base running which would ding Dunn further and help Johnson a bit)

Dunn '04: VORP: 53; True Value: 38; salary: $445K
Johnson '03: VORP: 28; True Value: 38; salary: $364K

Dunn '05: VORP: 45; True Value: 30; salary: $4.6M
Johnson '05: VORP: 34; True Value: 44; salary: $1.45M

Dunn '06: VORP: 23; True Value: 8; salary: $7.5M
Johnson '06: VORP: 51; True Value: 61; salary: $3.2M

Here's their wins over replacement and cost to payroll over those years:

Dunn: 7.6 wins; $12.5M
Johnson: 14.3 wins; $5.01M

Future contractual obligations:

Dunn: 07:$10.5M, 08:$13M club option ($0.5M buyout)
Johnson: 07:$5.5M, 08:$5.5M, 09:$5.5M

So one player has regressed over those years and one player is behaving like he should into his *prime years*....

Truthfully, IMHO, if Dunn repeats '06, fans shouldn't be talking about trading him, they should be talking about buying him out...

The problem is you're comparing apples and oranges. You're comparing a guy who cashes his check playing 1B vs. a guy that cashes his check playing LF. Sure, VORP is an attempt to try and relate the two, but you're still throwing metrics out there for their respective positions.


Seasonal Averages (per 162 games played)

YEARS G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB SO SB CS AVG OBP SLG OPS
3.7 162 534 87 145 36 1 21 80 96 112 7 5 .272 .395 .458 .853
5.07 162 559 102 137 30 1 39 92 113 183 9 3 .245 .380 .513 .893


Dunn edges Johnson according to those, per ESPN.com. You'd essentially be giving Dunn away for free, while hurting our already suffering offensive production. A lot of people on here complain about Dunn not driving in runs. News flash, Nick Johnson does less of that.

Offer Joey Votto for Nick Johnson straight up. We'll see how those talks go.

M2
11-27-2006, 10:52 AM
I'm a big Nick Johnson fan, but why make it a choice between him and Dunn? My goal would be to have both in the fold.

The guy I'd try to pry Johnson with is Jr. In JimBo's stuck-in-1998 brain, that might look like a great move.

jojo
11-27-2006, 11:10 AM
The problem is you're comparing apples and oranges. You're comparing a guy who cashes his check playing 1B vs. a guy that cashes his check playing LF. Sure, VORP is an attempt to try and relate the two, but you're still throwing metrics out there for their respective positions.


Seasonal Averages (per 162 games played)

YEARS G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB SO SB CS AVG OBP SLG OPS
3.7 162 534 87 145 36 1 21 80 96 112 7 5 .272 .395 .458 .853
5.07 162 559 102 137 30 1 39 92 113 183 9 3 .245 .380 .513 .893


Dunn edges Johnson according to those, per ESPN.com. You'd essentially be giving Dunn away for free, while hurting our already suffering offensive production. A lot of people on here complain about Dunn not driving in runs. News flash, Nick Johnson does less of that.

Offer Joey Votto for Nick Johnson straight up. We'll see how those talks go.

Great discussion! I disagree that apples are being compared to oranges per se. I'm comparing value (contribution to wins) for payroll. Basically Johnson's overall value has been almost twice as much as Dunn's for roughly half of the payroll expenditure.

The quoted data from ESPN ignores several very important factors:
1. Dunn has regressed while johnson has gotten better over that span
2. Defense...defense.....defense.....defense.... (ok..you get the point :) )
3. The moola

IMHO, you simply can't discuss a players true value without considering defense and payroll along with his bat.... (RS and RA contribute to wins and unless you're the Yankees there are finite resources to pay for wins)

Finally (and not trivially), Dunn wouldn't be given away for free. In a straight up trade for Johnson, the Reds would be gaining more wins AND payroll flexibility....

westofyou
11-27-2006, 11:14 AM
IMHO, you simply can't discuss a players true value without considering defense and payroll along with his bat...

And in the case of Dunn vs Johnson you can't avoid the health issue, and how Johnson has a very poor history and Dunn a very good one.

cincy09
11-27-2006, 11:20 AM
Offer Joey Votto for Nick Johnson straight up. We'll see how those talks go.

What would we have to add to Votto to get a deal like this done. Low level pitching prospect? Perhaps a starter Ex. Ramirez? I love the fact that Johnson's salary is so affordable.

Highlifeman21
11-27-2006, 11:33 AM
And in the case of Dunn vs Johnson you can't avoid the health issue, and how Johnson has a very poor history and Dunn a very good one.

Nick Johnson's played in 599 games over 3.7 seasons. That's full seasons. He's played in 599 games between 2001 and 2006. That works out to be 599 over 6 years. So, we'll call it that he's averaged 100 games for his 6 year career, and only once played in 145+ games.

Adam Dunn, on the other hand, has played in 821 games over that same 6 year stretch, which works out to almost 137 games per. The past 3 years alone, Dunn's had 160 games, and in 2002 showed up in 158.

Nick Johnson makes Nick Johnson money b/c of his production and his lack of durability.

Adam Dunn makes Adam Dunn money b/c he has more production and is the model of durability.

So jojo, for you to say this....


Great discussion! I disagree that apples are being compared to oranges per se. I'm comparing value (contribution to wins) for payroll. Basically Johnson's overall value has been almost twice as much as Dunn's for roughly half of the payroll expenditure.

The quoted data from ESPN ignores several very important factors:
1. Dunn has regressed while johnson has gotten better over that span
2. Defense...defense.....defense.....defense.... (ok..you get the point )
3. The moola

IMHO, you simply can't discuss a players true value without considering defense and payroll along with his bat.... (RS and RA contribute to wins and unless you're the Yankees there are finite resources to pay for wins)

Finally (and not trivially), Dunn wouldn't be given away for free. In a straight up trade for Johnson, the Reds would be gaining more wins AND payroll flexibility....

I think you're placing way too much emphasis on defensive metrics comparing a 1B to a LF, as well as ignoring the fact Dunn trumps Johnson's production at the dish.

It's a bold statement to say "the Reds would be gaining more wins AND payroll flexibility" if you wanted to swap Dunn for Johnson. I just don't see it, even with factoring Johnson being a better 1B than Dunn is a LF.

Johnny Footstool
11-27-2006, 11:34 AM
I'm a big Nick Johnson fan, but why make it a choice between him and Dunn? My goal would be to have both in the fold.

The guy I'd try to pry Johnson with is Jr. In JimBo's stuck-in-1998 brain, that might look like a great move.

Absolutely. Throw in a ton of cash, too.

But I doubt Junior would accept that deal. And the Reds would still need to hunt down some RH offense.

HotCorner
11-27-2006, 11:58 AM
Patterson, Johnson and Hinckley for Dunn seems within the ballpark to me.

:eek:

M2
11-27-2006, 12:01 PM
Absolutely. Throw in a ton of cash, too.

But I doubt Junior would accept that deal. And the Reds would still need to hunt down some RH offense.

I'm not the least bit worried about RH offense. Encarnacion, Phillips and at least one OF will provide some RH hitting ability. The team doesn't have to chase down a RH masher.

As for Jr. taking the deal, D.C. is technically closer to home and Bowden might even tell him he can still play CF.

lollipopcurve
11-27-2006, 12:33 PM
As for Jr. taking the deal, D.C. is technically closer to home and Bowden might even tell him he can still play CF.

Griffey didn't like the dimensions in Safeco -- no way he'd agree to go to Washington (where covering the vast CF spaces would be further disincentive, I think).

Johnny Footstool
11-27-2006, 12:35 PM
I'm not the least bit worried about RH offense. Encarnacion, Phillips and at least one OF will provide some RH hitting ability. The team doesn't have to chase down a RH masher.

As for Jr. taking the deal, D.C. is technically closer to home and Bowden might even tell him he can still play CF.

Phillips just isn't that much of a threat offensively. For a 2B, he's decent, but he still belongs in the 7 hole in a lineup. Ross can provide about 350 ABs of good RH power. The Reds roster currently has zero OFs with RH pop, though.

M2
11-27-2006, 12:46 PM
Phillips just isn't that much of a threat offensively. For a 2B, he's decent, but he still belongs in the 7 hole in a lineup. Ross can provide about 350 ABs of good RH power. The Reds roster currently has zero OFs with RH pop, though.

I wasn't talking about pop specifically.

Phillips probably is a #7 hitter in an ideal situation, but he's probably the #6 hitter for the Reds next year. If he can lash out 150+ hits and 50+ extra base hits, then that's solid RH production. Deno might also be able to deliver something along those lines with a slightly better OB attached to it. Add in Ross (who puts a hurt on LHPs) and Dunn (who does pretty well against LHPs for a LH hitter) and Encarnacion and I'm not overly worried about other teams beating up on the Reds with southpaws.

Heck, Nick Johnson hits southpaws pretty well too. So, if you added him to that mix, it certainly wouldn't hurt your vs. LHP lineup.

Anyway, years of watching the Red Sox chase after RH pop they didn't need has weaned me off the notion that it's something a team has got to have in spades. The Reds need pop from mulitiple positions. I'd worry if the team was too right-handed, but too left-handed? I don't think such a thing exists and I don't think the Reds would be all that close to it even if it did.

jojo
11-27-2006, 12:47 PM
And in the case of Dunn vs Johnson you can't avoid the health issue, and how Johnson has a very poor history and Dunn a very good one.

You're right about VORP not accounting for a player being prone to injury.

Consider this though:

Dunn:
'05: 671 PA; 109 RC; $4.6M salary
'06: 683 PA; 98 RC; $7.5M salary
total: 1354 PA, 207 RC, $12.1 M

Johnson:
'05: 547 PA; 89 RC; $1.45M salary
'06: 628 PA; 110 RC; $3.2M salary
total: 1175 PA, 199 RC, $4.65 M

Simply ignoring defense altogether, the Reds would've been ahead of the game if they replaced Dunn with Johnson the last two years and made up the difference in PA's with a replacement level player.

Falls City Beer
11-27-2006, 12:57 PM
And in the case of Dunn vs Johnson you can't avoid the health issue, and how Johnson has a very poor history and Dunn a very good one.

That's the humongous deal-breaker with me. I hate injured players.

flyer85
11-27-2006, 02:03 PM
how Johnson has a very poor history ... and that is being kind.

M2
11-27-2006, 02:10 PM
You're right about VORP not accounting for a player being prone to injury.

Consider this though:

Dunn:
'05: 671 PA; 109 RC; $4.6M salary
'06: 683 PA; 98 RC; $7.5M salary
total: 1354 PA, 207 RC, $12.1 M

Johnson:
'05: 547 PA; 89 RC; $1.45M salary
'06: 628 PA; 110 RC; $3.2M salary
total: 1175 PA, 199 RC, $4.65 M

Simply ignoring defense altogether, the Reds would've been ahead of the game if they replaced Dunn with Johnson the last two years and made up the difference in PA's with a replacement level player.

A) They don't play the same position.

B) Saving money doesn't put you ahead of the game. Being a better team puts you ahead of the game. The offense wouldn't be any better with Johnson instead of Dunn and Hatteberg played some fine 1B last year. Would another LF play better defense than Dunn? Probably, but is that defensive gain in a corner position worth the drop in offensive production? Highly unlikely.

C) If you're goal is to move the team forward, the difference between Dunn and Johnson, regardless of which one you think is better, strikes me as negligible. The Reds with Johnson vs. the Reds with Dunn? Half a dozen of one vs. six of another. Figure out how to put both of them in the same lineup and then you're talking about leaping ahead instead of running in place.

jojo
11-27-2006, 03:25 PM
A) They don't play the same position.

Why does that matter? We're talking about contribution to wins from each player relative to payroll. Clearly, Johnson was the more valuable player in that regard-its not even close.


B) Saving money doesn't put you ahead of the game. Being a better team puts you ahead of the game. The offense wouldn't be any better with Johnson instead of Dunn and Hatteberg played some fine 1B last year. Would another LF play better defense than Dunn? Probably, but is that defensive gain in a corner position worth the drop in offensive production? Highly unlikely.

But here's the rub-overpaying for production certainly doesn't put you ahead of the game. If a team adopts a small market payroll strategy, it has to rely upon solid player development and smart roster management to gain a competitive advantage. I think, if nothing else, the lesson sabermetrics teaches is that by more properly evaluating player worth a clear competitive advantage can be gained.

Concerning last year, Dunn had 98 RC (THT). The NL average for left fielders was 92 (given 600 PA). A league average left field bat who played league average defense was probably a win better than Dunn in '06. The '06 version of Dunn would be pretty easy to replace and the Reds would save money on the deal. In fact, if you accept his '06 UZR rating, he wasn't any different than a replacement level player relative to his VORP.

You are right about Hatteberg though. The Reds did a GREAT job squeezing blood out of a turnip with their platoon at first last year. But the Reds could just as easily get enough from left in '07 to make the Dunn for Johnson swap a real gain.

Consider this: Hatteberg had a VORP of 17 in '06. His PMR suggests he was a +5 defender (wow, I say) so ignoring baserunning, he was basically 2 wins over replacement. In another thread I laid out the argument for Dunn being between 0 and 1.5 wins over replacement in '06. Lets error on the side of Dunn so that Hatteberg and Dunn were 3.5 wins over replacement total (at roughly $8.5M of payroll). Johnson alone in '06 was roughly 6 wins better than replacement (at $3.2M in payroll). That would've been an over all gain for the roster-even if left field was filled with a replacement level player to fill Dunn's void. Presumably that $5M in payroll flexibility could've been spent on getting someone for left that was at least league average which would've roughly meant another 2 wins over replacement. That would be roughly 4.5 wins and the division title. :beerme:


C) If you're goal is to move the team forward, the difference between Dunn and Johnson, regardless of which one you think is better, strikes me as negligible. The Reds with Johnson vs. the Reds with Dunn? Half a dozen of one vs. six of another. Figure out how to put both of them in the same lineup and then you're talking about leaping ahead instead of running in place.

Actually the difference between Johnson and Dunn last year was easily 3 wins (if you consider offense, defense and base running) and possibly as much as 5. Basically I'm suggesting replacing Dunn's 40 hrs might be difficult. Replacing his true value relative to wins in '06 would be pretty easy.

M2
11-27-2006, 04:21 PM
Why does that matter? We're talking about contribution to wins from each player relative to payroll. Clearly, Johnson was the more valuable player in that regard-its not even close.

You're talking about that. I'm not. I don't like 79 wins for $57M any more than I like 79 wins for $61M. Nothing could interest me less.

Plus, if what you're doing is trying to assess what a swap of those two would net the club then it's Dunn and what you'd have at 1B without Johnson vs. Johnson and what you'd have in LF without Dunn. My guess is that in final analysis you come out with a relative wash if you use last year's numbers, probably a slight edge for Dunn because Hatteberg had his best year while Freel was off a bit (the club got an .870 OPS from 1B last season and only a .759 OPS from RF, and that's with Kearns' .844 OPS in the mix).


But here's the rub-overpaying for production certainly doesn't put you ahead of the game. If a team adopts a small market payroll strategy, it has to rely upon solid player development and smart roster management to gain a competitive advantage. I think, if nothing else, the lesson sabermetrics teaches is that by more properly evaluating player worth a clear competitive advantage can be gained.

I'd be for paying for production. Dunn produces. Pay him. This over/under garbage strikes me as a perfect method for talking yourself out of good ideas. Pretty much everyone on the team outside of Dunn, Jr. and Milton (the latter two being the team's problematic spending) doesn't cost that much. I'm not going to get tweaked over the fact that a guy with a high OB and SLG year-in, year-out makes some coin.

I think what you've got there is the misinterpretation of Moneyball. Yes, look for undervalued talents, but paying 50% less for 85% of the production will put you into a losing sprial real fast.


Concerning last year, Dunn had 98 RC (THT). The NL average for left fielders was 92 (given 600 PA). A league average left field bat who played league average defense was probably a win better than Dunn in '06. The '06 version of Dunn would be pretty easy to replace and the Reds would save money on the deal. In fact, if you accept his '06 UZR rating, he wasn't any different than a replacement level player relative to his VORP.

Seeing that his UZR is out of whack with every other measurement I've seen, I'm not inclined to accept it at face value. Easy to replace? Dunn had a poor season by his standards and the Reds need better in the future, but what you've typed right there strikes me as one of those things that's easy to say and nearly impossible to do.


You are right about Hatteberg though. The Reds did a GREAT job squeezing blood out of a turnip with their platoon at first last year. But the Reds could just as easily get enough from left in '07 to make the Dunn for Johnson swap a real gain.

No, if they did the same in LF all they'd manage to do is find themselves in basically the same place. If they missed in LF then they'd probably find themselves a bit behind. Mind you, I expect better from Dunn in 2007 (and there's every reason to expect it), so I'd be looking to recoup from a .950ish OPS, not one around .850.


Consider this: Hatteberg had a VORP of 17 in '06. His PMR suggests he was a +5 defender (wow, I say) so ignoring baserunning, he was basically 2 wins over replacement. In another thread I laid out the argument for Dunn being between 0 and 1.5 wins over replacement in '06. Lets error on the side of Dunn so that Hatteberg and Dunn were 3.5 wins over replacement total (at roughly $8.5M of payroll). Johnson alone in '06 was roughly 6 wins better than replacement (at $3.2M in payroll). That would've been a over all gain for the roster-even if left field was filled with a replacement level player to fill Dunn's void. Presumably that $5M in payroll flexibility could've been spent on getting someone for left that was at least league average which would've roughly meant another 2 wins over replacement. That would be roughly 4.5 wins and the division title.

If the Reds pick up 4.5 wins from this year to next, they'll be watching the playoffs on TV again.

I think you're seriously fudging the margins on Dunn as it is just to get your numbers (again back to treating the UZR outlier as gospel). That doesn't get into Johnson just having had his career year and Dunn having slumped, situations that could easily be reversed in 2007.

Anyway, if we were to take a holistic player measurement like, say, Win Shares, Johnson was worth two wins more than Dunn last year. Dunn was worth two more in 2005. Both were good players both years. It gets me back to the wash aspect of the whole thing. Johnson or Dunn strikes me as a worthless difference. Johnson AND Dunn makes you an interesting team.

jojo
11-27-2006, 05:18 PM
You're talking about that. I'm not. I don't like 79 wins for $57M any more than I like 79 wins for $61M. Nothing could interest me less.

Plus, if what you're doing is trying to assess what a swap of those two would net the club then it's Dunn and what you'd have at 1B without Johnson vs. Johnson and what you'd have in LF without Dunn.

Which is exactly the analysis that you ignored.... :)


My guess is that in final analysis you come out with a relative wash if you use last year's numbers, probably a slight edge for Dunn because Hatteberg had his best year while Freel was off a bit (the club got an .870 OPS from 1B last season and only a .759 OPS from RF, and that's with Kearns' .844 OPS in the mix).

Actually, I didn't guess and for '06 the gain for the Reds would've been significant. It's in the part you ignored.... :cool:


I'd be for paying for production. Dunn produces. Pay him. This over/under garbage strikes me as a perfect method for talking yourself out of good ideas. Pretty much everyone on the team outside of Dunn, Jr. and Milton (the latter two being the team's problematic spending) doesn't cost that much. I'm not going to get tweaked over the fact that a guy with a high OB and SLG year-in, year-out makes some coin.

I'm all for paying for production too. The question is how much do you pay for production and still be smart. I've argued in several threads here over the last day that Dunn's best offensive year still would be a marginal deal at his '07 salary and would be a bad deal at his '08 salary.


I think what you've got there is the misinterpretation of Moneyball. Yes, look for undervalued talents, but paying 50% less for 85% of the production will put you into a losing sprial real fast.

Actually no and no. Moneyball essentially argues that undervalued skills should be sought after in order to gain a competitive advantage (i.e. value defense because no one else does and it can be had relatively cheaply versus starting pitching which everyoe is currently coveting). Paying 50% less for 85% of the production is a GREAT idea. Take that 50% that has been saved and buy another 85% of the production somewhere else on the roster-thats the whole crux of my argument.




Seeing that his UZR is out of whack with every other measurement I've seen, I'm not inclined to accept it at face value. Easy to replace? Dunn had a poor season by his standards and the Reds need better in the future, but what you've typed right there strikes me as one of those things that's easy to say and nearly impossible to do..

Trading Dunn for Johnson would actually be the hard part-I don't think Bowden is that stupid. But if he is, then its real easy as the math in my argument supports. In '06, Johnson plus a warm body in left iwould've been a gain over Dunn+Hatteberg.




No, if they did the same in LF all they'd manage to do is find themselves in basically the same place. If they missed in LF then they'd probably find themselves a bit behind. Mind you, I expect better from Dunn in 2007 (and there's every reason to expect it), so I'd be looking to recoup from a .950ish OPS, not one around .850.

Well that is the wildcard....what will dunn do? once again though, IMHO, Dunn's best offensive year still would be a marginal deal at his '07 salary and would be a bad deal at his '08 salary.


If the Reds pick up 4.5 wins from this year to next, they'll be watching the playoffs on TV again.

Maybe. But we were talking about the difference between Johnson and Dunn/Hatteberg in '06. Those 4.5 wins would've been nice last season.


I think you're seriously fudging the margins on Dunn as it is just to get your numbers (again back to treating the UZR outlier as gospel). That doesn't get into Johnson just having had his career year and Dunn having slumped, situations that could easily be reversed in 2007.

Actually I used the much more favorable PMR rating for Dunn in the analysis to arrive at 4.5 games in order to error on his side. If i would've used the UZR data, Dunn would be about replacement level.

Your point about career years is well taken. But Dunn's worth is almost entirely derived from his OBP and SLG. The fact that they are trending down (especially his SLG) going into his peak years should at least be cause for pause.... Johnson is riding the exact opposite trend and he can actually catch.


Anyway, if we were to take a holistic player measurement like, say, Win Shares, Johnson was worth two wins more than Dunn last year. Dunn was worth two more in 2005. Both were good players both years. It gets me back to the wash aspect of the whole thing. Johnson or Dunn strikes me as a worthless difference. Johnson AND Dunn makes you an interesting team.

If you consider defensive win shares to be superior to UZR or even PMR, well, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Anyway....great discussion!!!!!!!! :beerme:

M2
11-27-2006, 06:00 PM
Actually, I didn't guess and for '06 the gain for the Reds would've been significant. It's in the part you ignored.... :cool:

You did guess and I don't think you managed to come all that close to a working set of figures. I didn't ignore it and posted the Win Shares if you'd like to discuss a more practical set of numbers. Seeing what the team got from 1B and what it got from corner OFs after Kearns left, I don't think you've got much of a leg stand on.

As currently constructed, the Reds would have to make a serious move or two to cover for Dunn if he was dealt for Johnson and all that might accomplish is to get you back to even with what the current LF/1B mix would deliver.


I'm all for paying for production too. The question is how much do you pay for production and still be smart. I've argued in several threads here over the last day that Dunn's best offensive year still would be a marginal deal at his '07 salary and would be a bad deal at his '08 salary.

Over the past three years, Dunn's created 334 runs. It's the most of any Reds OF since the heyday of George Foster. If you're not willing to pay what's becoming an ever-more pedestrian figure for that to a guy WHO HASN'T TECHNICALLY ENTERED HIS PRIME YET then I'd suggest you're being cheap.


Actually no and no. Moneyball essentially argues that undervalued skills should be sought after in order to gain a competitive advantage (i.e. value defense because no one else does and it can be had relatively cheaply versus starting pitching which everyoe is currently coveting). Paying 50% less for 85% of the production is a GREAT idea. Take that 50% that has been saved and buy another 85% of the production somewhere else on the roster-thats the whole crux of my argument.

It also recognizes that just because it's cheap, it doesn't mean that it nets you a good team. Yeah, you can always save money to get less. The Reds likely aren't going to be getting superior production from any up-the-middle position on the diamond. The club doesn't need any more of robbing Peter to pay Paul when it comes to production. It needs to pay Paul in LF, at 1B, at 3B and in RF, perhaps handsomely.


Trading Dunn for Johnson would actually be the hard part-I don't think Bowden is that stupid. But if he is, then its real easy as the math in my argument supports. In '06, Johnson plus a warm body in left iwould've been a gain over Dunn+Hatteberg.

Well, no, you've fudged the math. Again, I've given you some unfudged numbers if you want to work with those. I don't know if Bowden's willing to make the trade or not, but I'll stand by my statement that Dunn for Johnson is an ultimately pointless exercise for the Reds. Dunn plus Johnson is the only dynamic that does anything for me.


Well that is the wildcard....what will dunn do? once again though, IMHO, Dunn's best offensive year still would be a marginal deal at his '07 salary and would be a bad deal at his '08 salary.

Let me get this straight, the guy who ranked 9th in the NL in Win Shares in 2004 and 23rd overall in VORP would only be a marginal addition at $10M? Sorry, I can't stuff myself inside that box.

As for the wildcard aspect, what will Johnson do strikes me as every bit the wildcard as what will Dunn do. Chances are both will have pretty tasty seasons.


Maybe. But we were talking about the difference between Johnson and Dunn/Hatteberg in '06. Those 4.5 wins would've been nice last season.

Once again, fictional number. The truth is closer to it being a complete wash with Dunn/Hatteberg probably coming out a bit ahead because the Reds hit the wall on corner OFs after Kearns got traded and Jr. got injured.

I'll add that last year will not be replayed, so it's really only the numbers moving forward that really interest me.


Actually I used the much more favorable PMR rating for Dunn in the analysis to arrive at 4.5 games in order to error on his side. If i would've used the UZR data, Dunn would be about replacement level.

If you think Dunn was replacement level then good luck selling that snake oil. Plus, even if you buy into the notion that the "runs" in, say, RARP (Dunn was plus 33.8 last season) are directly equivalent to the "runs" in, say, this (http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/dialed_in/discussion/2006_national_league_gold_gloves_as_i_see_it/) defensive measurement, Dunn still comes out far ahead of replacement level. My guess is that the one thing that Win Shares got most right (along with taking the mean to task) was the way it bulks together a player's offensive and defensive contributions. It's entirely possible the defensive value of PMR or UZR or whatever system you want to apply is worth roughly half the value of the runs in RARP or VORP with a sliding scale based on position (e.g. higher defensive value for middle positions, lower for the corners).


Your point about career years is well taken. But Dunn's worth is almost entirely derived from his OBP and SLG. The fact that they are trending down (especially his SLG) going into his peak years should at least be cause for pause.... Johnson is riding the exact opposite trend and he can actually catch.

Trend, schmend. If he were in his 30s, I'd be concerned. He isn't. He's 27, primetime for a major league baseball player. As for the defense, a poor LF isn't much of a drag and a good 1B isn't that much of a boon. Given the nature of the chances in those positions and the uninspired skill level of the overwhelming majority of the players at those positions, it's always struck me that dramatic findings of skill or incompetence at those positions by folks in the stats community are overstated. The outliers, e.g. Manny Ramirez, strike me as evidence that the systems need some fine tuning, not that actual runs are being hemorrhaged.


If you consider defensive win shares to be superior to UZR or even PMR, well, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

I consider the methodology used to derive Win Shares to be far superior to the method you've used to judge "replacement level." One's a systematic approach to the game and the numbers it generates and the other is a random grab at unconnected stats providing a thoroughly distorted picture. I'm not completely dismissing what you're saying because I think you're correct that Dunn's defense, particular in the early part of last season, undermined his total value, but I think you've grossly overestimated the effect.

Cooper
11-27-2006, 06:14 PM
Not to change the subject, but are UZR out yet? If so , could someone point me in the right direction?

Cooper
11-27-2006, 06:15 PM
Found them....sorry to bother.

vaticanplum
11-27-2006, 06:45 PM
I dunno. Johnson walked 110 times last year. More than he struck out. And had some nice numbers in a big park. And throw in 10 SB and excellent D at his position. What more can you ask for--he is truly an all-around player that not only helps his team win, but I'm sure would be entertaining to watch. I think it would be Bowden getting fleeced--that has happened you know (see Paul O'Neill).

That's not my point. My point is that regardless of how much anyone believes either of these guys is worth on any given team, their general perceived market value is not the same. Most teams would pay a hell of a lot more to Adam Dunn than to Nick Johnson. If that trade were made, Bowden could likely turn around and trade dunn for a decent starting pitcher, but the Reds' shiny new first baseman would not bring in the same return.

You may not like Dunn, but an awful lot of teams do. He is worth a lot of money, and as the Reds' trading chips are minimal Dunn needs to bring in his absolute maximum return. It's debatable what that is, but I'm pretty sure it's more than Nick Johnson. And I do, as I've stated, love and value Nick Johnson.

If Wayne Krivsky ultimately traded Austin Kearns, Felipe Lopez, and Adam Dunn for a collective return of Gary Majewski, Bill Bray, Nick Johnson and five other guys I can't remember, then he would be tarred and feathered on Fountain Square. Rightfully so, in my opinion.

buckeyenut
11-27-2006, 07:38 PM
I would love to add Johnson and bat him in the 2 hole behind Freel and in front of Dunn and Encarnacion.

Cyclone792
11-27-2006, 08:27 PM
I'd trade Dunn straightup for Nick Johnson in a heartbeat...

Dunn: '06 VORP: 23; UZR: -23 runs, PMR: -7 runs; true value: 0 to 16 runs above replacement (0 to 1.5 wins). Cost: $7.5M.
current contract: 07:$10.5M, 08:$13M club option ($0.5M buyout) Age:27

Johnson: '06 VORP: 51; UZR: ?, PMR: +11 runs (seems high to me); true value: 62* runs above replacement (6 wins). Cost: $3.2M.
Current contract: 07:$5.5M, 08:$5.5M, 09:$5.5M Age:28


Throw in Patterson too and, well, I might have to kiss Bowden.

There's an insanely massive flaw in your methodology above.

You're combining offensive and fielding run value on two completely different platforms. What I mean by this is you're using a replacement level platform for offensive contributions combined with an average level platform for fielding contributions. The platform "base of 0" of average level is very much different from the "base of 0" of replacement value.

If you're going to use the platform of replacement value (or VORP) for offensive analysis, then you must use a platform of replacement value for fielding analysis to successfully combine the two. If you're going to use a platform of average production for offensive analysis, then you must use a platform of average production for fielding analysis to successfully combine the two.

FWIW, on a sidenote, the more I see of UZR, the more I realize that defensive system needs a world of help in the facet of converting its findings to run value. UZR may very well be the best defensive system out there for determining which players were better than other players in defensive value. In fact, I believe it does show us with ok precision which players could be rated as excellent, good, average, below average or poor fielders.

However, where the system needs a plethora of help is in converting its data into run value format. Here's a recent snippet from MGL which illustrates my point:

http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/newsstand/discussion/boston_herald_a_glove_story_gonzo_eyes_gold_nugget/


Jeter is -12 per 150 in UZR, about his average over the last 5 years or so. Surely even the observers can "see" a -12.

Gonzalez is +7, of which most of that is lack of errors. I suppose that is worthy of a GG, although there are better UZR's at SS in the AL this year (e.g. Uribe at +11).

Some notable UZR's: A. Everett an incredible +44. Griffey at -49 and Dunn at -23. How's that for 2/3 of an OF!? Manny at -39 (after park adjusting of course). Even Crisp was -14. Boston defense was horrible this year, which is one large reason why the Sox did not do well and their "pitching" was poor.

Best defensive teams overall by UZR: Cubs, Mets, and Cardinals. Worst were Boston, CIN, PIT, TB, and TEX. Boston by far (more than 1/2 run a game!).

BTW, a player's error rate has very little correlation from year to year, which suggests that fielding % is mostly luck and the judgment of the scorer.

Adam Everett is an outstanding defensive shortstop, possibly the best since Ozzie Smith, and he may eventually go down as one of the greatest defensive shortstops of all-time. Ken Griffey, Jr. is a world class awful defensive center fielder now, and that's precisely why he needs to be moved out of center field. Adam Dunn is a below average defensive left fielder; he is what he is in that regard.

But the run values attributed to each of those guys is nothing short of ridiculous. MGL is claiming that per 150 games, Ken Griffey, Jr. is worth -49 runs defensively compared to an average center fielder. That's five whole wins. That's huge! It's so huge it's not even in the realm of believability. Adam Dunn, in left field at one of the least important defensive positions on the defensive spectrum, worth -23 runs defensively compared to the average defensively left fielder? Again, he's a below average left fielder defensively, but -23 runs is an absurd amount. Adam Everett is an outstanding defensive shortstop, but it's ridiculous to believe that he's worth 4.5 wins over an average defensive shortstop.

As I said, MGL's UZR system may be very accurate in determining who are excellent fielders, who are good fielders, who are average fielders, who are below average fielders and who are poor fielders, but it suffers from the same problems of Pete Palmer's linear weights system: the differences between the best fielders, the average fielders, and the worst fielders is overstated by miles.

Remember, the average major league baseball team is approximately 48 percent offense, 35 percent pitching, and 17 percent fielding defense. Fielding defense just simply isn't a large enough percentage of the game's overall run value to have such wide margins of run value between two sets of defensive players.

In Win Shares, Bill James touched on this when comparing the run value differentials of defensive win shares to linear weights, and he used Bill Mazeroski vs. Willie Randolph at second base for the example. Palmer's linear weights gave Mazeroski +362 fielding runs for his career and Randolph exactly zero fielding runs (or average). Defensive win shares saw the difference as 15 win shares, or about 50 runs, in Mazeroski's favor.

Bill Mazeroski was a better defensive second baseman than just about everyone, including Willie Randolph. But he was not 362 runs better than Willie Randolph over the course of their careers. Was he 50 runs better? Maybe not exactly, but I can bet a run value differential of 50 runs between the two is far more accurate than a run value differential of 362 runs.

As far as UZR vs. defensive win shares, well, it depends on what you want to know. If you want to know who's been a better defensive player between a group of players, then use UZR. If you want to know the run value differential in defensive value over a group of players, then you're better off using defensive win shares.

Or, if you want the most complete picture, use UZR to determine which players are greater defensively than other players, and then correlate those findings with a defensive win shares type of run value conversion to find out a general ball park on the run value differentials between those players.

Spitball
11-27-2006, 08:55 PM
Not one of this trio is what I would consider a #3. I know FCB will defend Suppan, and there will most likely be merit to his argument, but I'm not sold that Suppan is a #3. The other two, clearly are not.

I think most of us could agree, if we had to pick between trading Bailey or trading Wood, Wood would be the overwhelming favorite.

I know this response is a couple of pages late, but I think you missed my point. I didn't mean these guys were number three starters. I was pointing out how much money starters of their ilk will make this winter. It was suggested that Travis Wood figures to be a number three starter and thus possible fodder for Nick Johnson trade bait. As I said, Travis Wood-types should not be traded for "a criminally underrated/continually injured first baseman." If Wood is traded, I would hope it would be to upgrade the current pitching situation and not for a first baseman.

jojo
11-27-2006, 08:58 PM
Found them....sorry to bother.


I'd love to have the complete set if you have them! :thumbup:

M2
11-27-2006, 09:05 PM
To echo what Cyclone's saying, the average LF will see roughly 400 flyballs a year and the bad ones will snare a little better than 80% of them (Dunn's raw ZR was .815 last year, worst of his career). Pretty much no one gets to more than 90% unless they're Carl Crawford (career .899 ZR in LF). So that means that the difference between the best LF on the planet and a cigar statue is about 35-40 outs. You can halve that for the difference between the bad LF and the "average" LF (though the median LF is probably a pretty poor defender). In any of the above cases, the run value would be under half the number of outs. Twenty outs might net you eight runs.

In a lot of cases, defensive stats are making the case that fielders are bleeding as many runs as they are outs. It doesn't jibe.

TeamSelig
11-27-2006, 09:06 PM
Sorry, not going to trade Dunn for Johnson. Johnson and Patterson? Probably so.

jojo
11-27-2006, 11:10 PM
As currently constructed, the Reds would have to make a serious move or two to cover for Dunn if he was dealt for Johnson and all that might accomplish is to get you back to even with what the current LF/1B mix would deliver.

OK now your argument is approaching religious devotion. Since you’ve brought up RC, let’s consider the last two seasons. Dunn only has 7 more RC than Johnson despite Dunn having a whopping 179 more PA. Eric Milton could make up those 7 RC if given those PAs. The reality is that somebody would be making up those PA’s and it most likely wouldn’t be a pitcher…. Conservatively, a replacement level player could chip in 20 RC given that playing time. That would give Johnson/RLP about a 1.5 win advantage.

Let’s turn our attention to that platoon at firstbase....

Two mid thirties guys platoon in '06, one has a career year offensively and the other one has a career year against lefties.... hmmmmm....now what should I predict about their production in '07? :mooner: (sorry couldn't resist-i'm addicted to those tags...). In all seriousness, it’s likely a good deal of the production in the Hatteberg half of the holy Dunn/Hatteberg biumpharant will need replaced anyway... Is there any point to discussing Aurilia? We already know that production is gone.

Even if I played devils advocate and conceded Dunn for Johnson is a wash offensively, it’s pretty likely an average leftfielder would out perform Hatteberg in ’07.

Should we even fight about the defense? Lets just say whatever the value, it makes replacing Dunn’s production that much easier…

No fudging there….just RC’s. :)


Well, no, you've fudged the math. Again, I've given you some unfudged numbers if you want to work with those. I don't know if Bowden's willing to make the trade or not, but I'll stand by my statement that Dunn for Johnson is an ultimately pointless exercise for the Reds. Dunn plus Johnson is the only dynamic that does anything for me. .

Basically YOUVE argued that the two are a wash using win shares. If you believe that but don’t see the value in paying half as much for equal production (saving roughly 10% from last season’s opening day payroll in the process), I frankly don’t know how to continue a discussion about evaluating player worth….


Let me get this straight, the guy who ranked 9th in the NL in Win Shares in 2004 and 23rd overall in VORP would only be a marginal addition at $10M? Sorry, I can't stuff myself inside that box. .

I said marginal value...I should've clarified-i.e value in the sense of a bargain. Given his defense he'd be basically a 3.5 win guy at that VORP (I know, you don't even think guys need gloves :) ) That would put him in at just under $3M a win. Pretty much $2.5M a win is considered about right though that might be going up. His production for the price wouldn't be considered a bargain.... Take your pick though when predicting his value, he's done everything from a VORP of 53 to one of 23.


As for the wildcard aspect, what will Johnson do strikes me as every bit the wildcard as what will Dunn do. Chances are both will have pretty tasty seasons.

Absolutely. Pecota isn't destiny. But once again, Dunn's worth is almost entirely derived from his OBP and SLG. The fact that they are trending down (especially his SLG) going into his peak years should at least be cause for pause........ Trend, schemd-I know..... (hearing angels' trumpets and a VORP of 53 next year :) ). It will be interesting to see what Dunn’s ’06 does to his updated Pecota projections….


The truth is closer to it being a complete wash with Dunn/Hatteberg probably coming out a bit ahead because the Reds hit the wall on corner OFs after Kearns got traded and Jr. got injured. .

Alright, you’ve lost me completely.


I'll add that last year will not be replayed, so it's really only the numbers moving forward that really interest me. .

Yes, I won’t bring up the platoon at firstbase again… :cool:


I consider the methodology used to derive Win Shares to be far superior to the method you've used to judge "replacement level." One's a systematic approach to the game and the numbers it generates and the other is a random grab at unconnected stats providing a thoroughly distorted picture.

Alright, now you’ve pissed me off (no, not really-just kidding)

I haven’t judged replacement level any differently than the definition of Keith Woolner…. I kind of think replacement level is a pretty important concept. Also, there is absolutely nothing random about assessing a players worth by summing his offensive and defensive value and relating it to his salary…. VORP is a systematic approach. UZR and PMR are systematic approaches. Replacement level is a sound concept.

Frankly, I don’t know anybody who takes defensive win shares seriously. Win shares themselves have issues (i.e. any system that claims Ozzie Smith’s bat was more valuable than his glove, frankly needs tweaking). BBTF has a five part series on just that. Tangotiger chimes in too (http://www.tangotiger.net/#Winshares). Bill James is brilliant but win shares are not his greatest achievement….

Anyway…how is that for a finale?

We come at things from a different perspective….that’s a good thing right? :thumbup:

jojo
11-27-2006, 11:36 PM
There's an insanely massive flaw in your methodology above.

Do tell..... :)


You're combining offensive and fielding run value on two completely different platforms. What I mean by this is you're using a replacement level platform for offensive contributions combined with an average level platform for fielding contributions. The platform "base of 0" of average level is very much different from the "base of 0" of replacement value.

You of course are absolutely right on this point (well sort of as I try to explain below).


If you're going to use the platform of replacement value (or VORP) for offensive analysis, then you must use a platform of replacement value for fielding analysis to successfully combine the two. If you're going to use a platform of average production for offensive analysis, then you must use a platform of average production for fielding analysis to successfully combine the two.

I pretty much absolutely disagree. Its very kosher to use an offensive metric that measures runs above replacement and a defensive metric that uses runs above average. Here me out on this one...

Basically the average defensive value of a replacement level player is the same as the average defensive value of a non-replacement level player. In other words, the available pool of replaceable talent at any one position is made up of guys who can field well enough to be in the majors but can't hit well enough to sustain more than a sip of coffee at the big starbucks. If you can hit, you pretty much find a way into the bigs. If you can't hit, you play ball in AAA.

So replacement level assumes average defense.

You've written some great stuff about defense in the rest of your reply and it was a joy to read.

I don't like win shares as the end all-there are better ways IMHO. But you're right, space isn't the final frontier-evaluating major league defense is..... :cool:

Cyclone792
11-27-2006, 11:49 PM
Do tell..... :)



You of course are absolutely right on this point (well sort of as I try to explain below).



I pretty much absolutely disagree. Its very kosher to use an offensive metric that measures runs above replacement and a defensive metric that uses runs above average. Here me out on this one...

Basically the average defensive value of a replacement level player is the same as the average defensive value of a non-replacement level player. In other words, the available pool of replaceable talent at any one position is made up of guys who can field well enough to be in the majors but can't hit well enough to sustain more than a sip of coffee at the big starbucks. If you can hit, you pretty much find a way into the bigs. If you can't hit, you play ball in AAA.

So replacement level assumes average defense.

You've written some great stuff about defense in the rest of your reply and it was a joy to read.

I don't like win shares as the end all-there are better ways IMHO. But you're right, space isn't the final frontier-evaluating major league defense is..... :cool:

Doesn't work that way, at least according to the authors of the same site whom you're using their other replacement value statistics:

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/glossary/index.php?mode=viewstat&stat=76


Fielding Runs Above Replacement. The difference between an average player and a replacement player is determined by the number of plays that position is called on to make. That makes the value at each position variable over time. In the all-time adjustments, an average catcher is set to 39 runs above replacement per 162 games, first base to 10, second to 29, third to 22, short to 33, center field to 24, left and right to 14.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/glossary/index.php?mode=viewstat&stat=193


Wins Above Replacement Player, level 1. The number of wins this player contributed, above what a replacement level hitter, fielder, and pitcher would have done, with adjustments only for within the season.

There is replacement value hitting, replacement value pitching, and replacement value fielding. None of those values are anywhere close to the average value of each respective category. This is how you're arriving at a far different conclusion of overall value above replacement compared to WARP.

jojo
11-27-2006, 11:59 PM
Doesn't work that way, at least according to the authors of the same site whom you're using their other replacement value statistics:

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/glossary/index.php?mode=viewstat&stat=76



http://www.baseballprospectus.com/glossary/index.php?mode=viewstat&stat=193



There is replacement value hitting, replacement value pitching, and replacement value fielding. None of those values are anywhere close to the average value of each respective category. This is how you're arriving at a far different conclusion of overall value above replacement compared to WARP.

You are assuming I trust davenport's defensive metrics-which I don't. I don't know very many people who take them seriously either-basically for the reasons I already stated and the super-secret and everchanging nature of his methodogy. There are much better ways....

VORP and davenport's defensive evaluations are dramatically different beasts from a credibility standpoint.

Cyclone792
11-28-2006, 12:03 AM
Since you’ve brought up RC, let’s consider the last two seasons. Dunn only has 7 more RC than Johnson despite Dunn having a whopping 179 more PA. Eric Milton could make up those 7 RC if given those PAs. The reality is that somebody would be making up those PA’s and it most likely wouldn’t be a pitcher…. Conservatively, a replacement level player could chip in 20 RC given that playing time. That would give Johnson/RLP about a 1.5 win advantage.

Again, your numbers are off.


Runs Created

Dunn (PA) Johnson (PA)
2001 53 (286) 6 (78)
2002 105 (676) 51 (441)
2003 68 (469) 68 (406)
2004 129 (681) 37 (295)
2005 120 (671) 87 (547)
2006 106 (683) 114 (628)

CAREER 581 (3,466) 363 (2,395)
CAREER PA/RC 5.97 6.60
05-06 PA/RC 5.99 5.85
04-06 PA/RC 5.73 6.18

You've cherry-picked 2005-2006 so I'll start with that. In those two seasons combined, Johnson has ever-so-slightly nudged Dunn offensively by creating one run every 5.85 plate appearances compared to Dunn creating one run every 5.99 plate appearances. That's the definition of neglible right there.

Change 05-06 to 04-06, and the story shifts, as seen above. Highlight their entire career, and we've got Dunn creating one run every 5.97 plate appearances while Johnson's created one run every 6.60 plate appearances.

None of this even mentions the fact that Adam Dunn is 14 months younger than Nick Johnson.

jojo
11-28-2006, 12:35 AM
Again, your numbers are off.


Runs Created

Dunn (PA) Johnson (PA)
2001 53 (286) 6 (78)
2002 105 (676) 51 (441)
2003 68 (469) 68 (406)
2004 129 (681) 37 (295)
2005 120 (671) 87 (547)
2006 106 (683) 114 (628)

CAREER 581 (3,466) 363 (2,395)
CAREER PA/RC 5.97 6.60
05-06 PA/RC 5.99 5.85
04-06 PA/RC 5.73 6.18

You've cherry-picked 2005-2006 so I'll start with that. In those two seasons combined, Johnson has ever-so-slightly nudged Dunn offensively by creating one run every 5.85 plate appearances compared to Dunn creating one run every 5.99 plate appearances. That's the definition of neglible right there.

Change 05-06 to 04-06, and the story shifts, as seen above. Highlight their entire career, and we've got Dunn creating one run every 5.97 plate appearances while Johnson's created one run every 6.60 plate appearances.

None of this even mentions the fact that Adam Dunn is 14 months younger than Nick Johnson.


First, I didn't cherry pick anything. We're basically talking about what to reasonbly expect in '07. I think the last three years are more important than say '02 or '03 for those purposes. THT, doesn't bother to go farther back than 3 years with their win shares... :cool:

Johnson missed alot of time in '04, a fact that makes head to head comparison difficult so I dropped it. Quibble with that if you want....

BTW, I prefer THT's RC (they actually use the most rigourous formula which includes the impact of hitting well with runners in scoring position, and is of course adjusted for park effects). ESPN derives their RC values someway, I'm just not sure how. Heaven help them if they adjust it for park effects using their own park factors. :cool:

Its difficult for me to envision how Dunn's 207 RC in 1354 PA (1 RC/6.54 AB) over '05 and '06 is negligibly different than Johnson's 199 RC in 1175 PA (1 RC/5.9 AB) over that same period (basically thats a win right there over 600 PA). Even so, lets just say they were- one guy was paid $12.1M and the other guy was paid $4.65M-which one would seems like a better deal?

Cyclone792
11-28-2006, 01:16 AM
First, I didn't cherry pick anything. We're basically talking about what to reasonbly expect in '07. I think the last three years are more important than say '02 or '03 for those purposes. THT, doesn't bother to go farther back than 3 years with their win shares... :cool:

Johnson missed alot of time in '04, a fact that makes head to head comparison difficult so I dropped it. Quibble with that if you want....

BTW, I prefer THT's RC (they actually use the most rigourous formula which includes the impact of hitting well with runners in scoring position, and is of course adjusted for park effects). ESPN derives their RC values someway, I'm just not sure how. Heaven help them if they adjust it for park effects using their own park factors. :cool:

Its difficult for me to envision how Dunn's 207 RC in 1354 PA (1 RC/6.54 AB) over '05 and '06 is negligibly different than Johnson's 199 RC in 1175 PA (1 RC/5.9 AB) over that same period (basically thats a win right there over 600 PA). Even so, lets just say they were- one guy was paid $12.1M and the other guy was paid $4.65M-which one would seems like a better deal?
Well, let's see ...

One run created over 5.84 plate appearances results in 103 runs created over 600 plate appearances. One run created over 5.99 plate appearances results in 100 runs created over 600 plate appearances. That's not one win, that's only roughly one-third of a win.

Now win shares ...


Win Shares

Dunn (G) Johnson (G)
2001 10 (66) 0 (23)
2002 21 (158) 11 (129)
2003 13 (116) 14 (96)
2004 32 (161) 7 (73)
2005 28 (160) 22 (131)
2006 20 (160) 26 (147)

Career 124 (821) 80 (599)
WS/162 24.47 21.64

Johnson missed time in 2004 because he was injured. Health matters. Durability matters. Being in the lineup matters. If you're not in the lineup, you're not accumulating value, and you're not helping your team win.

And guess why Nick Johnson is making less money than Adam Dunn?

http://washington.nationals.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/news/article.jsp?ymd=20060311&content_id=1345057&vkey=spt2006news&fext=.jsp&c_id=was


Johnson said he understands why his new deal is for an average of $5.5 million per season instead of the $10 million he could have possibly earned annually if he had stayed healthy during his career.

"It's not a secret that I've been injured six years in a row," Johnson said. "Even though some of them were freak injuries, they put me on the DL."


Adam Dunn's averaged 151 games per season since the 2002 season while Johnson's averaged 115 games per season over that same time span. Not to mention the fact that Nick Johnson's 2006 season ended in late September due to a gruesome broken leg, another injury. In addition to his broken leg last season, Nick Johnson thus far in his career has suffered a bruised heel, a fractured cheekbone, a lower back strain, a fractured right hand, a bruised left wrist and a sprained right wrist.

Adam Dunn is 14 months younger than Nick Johnson and has been injury free for the past three plus years.

Listen, I like Nick Johnson. I wish he was a Red, and I wish he was the guy going out to play first base for the Reds next season. But swapping out Adam Dunn for Nick Johnson is a step sideways, not a step forward, just as M2 stated many posts ago. Want to make an impact on this team involving Nick Johnson? Add him to our lineup in addition to our young sluggers in Adam Dunn and Edwin Encarnacion. Figure out a way to add him to our roster while swapping him in for Scott Hatteberg at first base, and now you're cooking something very nice.

jojo
11-28-2006, 01:46 AM
Well, let's see ...

One run created over 5.84 plate appearances results in 103 runs created over 600 plate appearances. One run created over 5.99 plate appearances results in 100 runs created over 600 plate appearances. That's not one win, that's only roughly one-third of a win.

Except the more credible total gives Johnson 1 RC/5.9 AB over that period and Dunn 1 RC/6.54 AB for a difference of 10 runs more for Johnson.... You like THT's win shares.....why not give their RC a try too? :cool:


Now win shares ...

Uuuuuuuuuggggghhhhhhhhh. :)

I simply object to defensive win shares making the total win shares as a measure of true value, well, objectionable.... :cool:

But I did notice something that might interest someone who does value winshares. Dunn's have steadily declined each of the last three years. I wonder what a trend like that would suggest for '07? Johnson's on the other hand have went up steadily.

If you were going to sign a free agent would you rather ink one that has improved his production each of the last three years or one that has steadily decreased his production over that period?

Anyway, it simply can not be argued that Dunn has been a better value than Johnson over the last few seasons-well not credibly anyway....:rockband:

ochre
11-28-2006, 02:48 AM
This would seem to be pertinent to this discussion:

Nationals 1B Nick Johnson had arthroscopic surgery to clean out scar tissue in his right knee Tuesday, 1½ months after an on-field collision ended his season. Johnson, who had the operation in Sacramento, Calif., is expected to be ready for spring training. A metal rod and screws were inserted in his broken right leg on Sept. 23, the day he slammed into outfielder Austin Kearns during a game against the Mets.
(Updated 11/08/2006).

The Reds need to improve their run scoring potential over what they ended the season with last year. Either that, or they need to drop a couple hundred runs against instead.

The sunk cost of existing productive offensive players, particularly those in non-premium defense positions (left field), shouldn't really be the issue. Of course, any business wants to increase productivity while reducing costs, but the Reds are painted into a corner offensively and need to add Johnsons without subtracting Dunns to make any kind of net improvement for next season, while improving the pitching and middle of the field (CF particularly) defense.

Or, they could punt.

M2
11-28-2006, 03:22 AM
jojo, Dunn had more value than Johnson every season but last year and in 2003. There's no getting around that. You can ignore 2004. You can ignore their ages. You can pretend that the scoreboard cares about what the teams on the field spend for their players. At the end of the day, Adam Dunn outproduced Johnson in 2001, 2002, 2004 and 2005.

No one's arguing that Johnson wasn't more valuable last year, but you're grossly overstated the difference. Dunn was quite a bit better than replacement value. Guys who can produce an RC/27 of 7.00+ (something Dunn did in 2004 and 2005 and something I guarantee he will do a few more times in the coming years) are not easily replaced and are worth a fair bit of coin, particularly on teams with as many offensive holes as the current Reds.

You keep tossing a red herring into the mix on Win Shares. It's being used because you introduced the concept of total player value here and then you fumbled on determining it. You may not like defensive Win Shares, I think they've got their flaws too, but they don't do silly things like claim players cost their team more runs than outs. What WS offer is what you've fanned on, a sensible comparison of a player's defensive abilities to his total worth. James may not have skewered the method for determining the exact value of a player's defense (no one has), but he pretty much nailed the relative value of defense.

You also basically proved the wash aspect, inadvertently mind you. Dunn had 210 runs created over the past two years. Johnson has 195. You were pretty much dead on with 20 RC being what you'd get from a replacement level player making up their PA difference. So that's what? A difference of 5 RC over two seasons? Maybe as many as 10 if you have a replacement that gets hot. That ain't changing your team's fortunes.

I'll state it again, swapping a good LH hitter for a good LH hitter nets you no more good LH hitters than you had before the trade. The Reds have got enough structural problems that ephemeral changes like that strike me as a waste of time. If Johnson were being shopped and JimBo asked for Dunn, Krivsky's reaction should be, "What's the point?"

jojo
11-28-2006, 09:26 AM
jojo, Dunn had more value than Johnson every season but last year and in 2003. There's no getting around that.

Accept when you consider defense, base running and salary too..... :cool: Dunn wins 2004, because, well, he's a big oaf who doesn't get hurt ;)


No one's arguing that Johnson wasn't more valuable last year, but you're grossly overstated the difference. Dunn was quite a bit better than replacement value. Guys who can produce an RC/27 of 7.00+ (something Dunn did in 2004 and 2005 and something I guarantee he will do a few more times in the coming years) are not easily replaced and are worth a fair bit of coin, particularly on teams with as many offensive holes as the current Reds.

2004 and 2005 have NOTHING to due with Dunn's true worth in 2006. Ignoring defense he was a marginal left fielder-----14 other guys had a higher VORP.

Just intuitively, think about it. Every metric considers Dunn one of the worst defensive left fielders in the game. Isn't it even plausible that since offensively he was only 2 wins better than a replacement level player that even being optimistic about his defense, he was closer to only a win above replacement in total? I errored on the side of caution and suggested he was 1.5 wins better...... We know how St Louis likely rates him in this regard... :cool:


You keep tossing a red herring into the mix on Win Shares. It's being used because you introduced the concept of total player value here and then you fumbled on determining it. You may not like defensive Win Shares, I think they've got their flaws too, but they don't do silly things like claim players cost their team more runs than outs. What WS offer is what you've fanned on, a sensible comparison of a player's defensive abilities to his total worth. James may not have skewered the method for determining the exact value of a player's defense (no one has), but he pretty much nailed the relative value of defense.

You like wins shares-I don't. Don't suggest I'm incapable of formulating a rationale argument. You have a different interpretation of defensive evaluation than I do-I prefer a system actual teams pay money to gain access too-you prefer a system largely marginalized by the sabermetric community. By the way, VORP has pretty much nailed a player's offensive value and frankly, replacement level is an essential concept to understand when determining a player's value. If I have fumbled on the defensive side, its because a 300 lb linebacker smacked helmets with me.....using winshares, you simply just drop the ball. There are much, much, much much, better ways to deal with defense than winshares- any system that claims Ozzie Smith's bat was more valuable to his team than his glove has serious issues.


You also basically proved the wash aspect, inadvertently mind you. Dunn had 210 runs created over the past two years. Johnson has 195. You were pretty much dead on with 20 RC being what you'd get from a replacement level player making up their PA difference. So that's what? A difference of 5 RC over two seasons? Maybe as many as 10 if you have a replacement that gets hot. That ain't changing your team's fortunes.

Actually, no again. Dunn had 207 and Johnson had 199 (THT). Add 20 RC and Johnson /RLP have 219 or roughly a win advantage-----for less than half of Dunn's payroll expenditure. If you don't see that as a REAL advantage, then I have no idea how to continue this discussion...... :bang:


I'll state it again, swapping a good LH hitter for a good LH hitter nets you no more good LH hitters than you had before the trade. The Reds have got enough structural problems that ephemeral changes like that strike me as a waste of time. If Johnson were being shopped and JimBo asked for Dunn, Krivsky's reaction should be, "What's the point?"

Uhhhhhhhgggggggggg. :)

Except that you'd have significantly more payroll flexibility over the next two years to spend on improving production somewhere else. Also, somebody would be playing left field-whoever that is would likely be an upgrade over Hatteberg.....

Anyway. Its a great discussion but given issues over winshares and defense, we're likely going to have to agree to disagree. :beerme:

Highlifeman21
11-28-2006, 10:18 AM
jojo...

Why do you continually frame your argument to basically say Dunn is a waste of money and Johnson is a bargain?

Dunn makes his money b/c he's in the lineup on average 35 more games a year than Johnson, and, aside from 2006, has outproduced Johnson at the plate. While Dunn will never win any Gold Gloves in LF, his defense isn't such a liability that when compared to Johnson's 1B defensive abilities we're talking about Dunn costing the team wins. I just don't buy it. You can throw all your favorite defensive metrics at me, but when I look at Win Shares I see that Dunn's Win Shares trump Johnson's Win Shares and that neat little metric takes into account the offensive and defensive aspects of a player.

Essentially it tells us that as great as Johnson is defensively in regards to our total team payroll, his glove can't make up the gap between his offensive production and Dunn's offensive production. Bottomline, as many have said, Dunn's bat makes up for his defensive woes.

Maybe you want to pay Nick Johnson his contract to average 115 games a year. I want to pay Dunn his contract to show up 150+ games a year. Especially considering Dunn's Win Shares trump Johnson, not only in peak and career to this point, but the Win Shares/162.

jojo
11-28-2006, 11:21 AM
jojo...

Why do you continually frame your argument to basically say Dunn is a waste of money and Johnson is a bargain?

Well, because over the last two seasons, when ONLY considering their offense, Dunn has more PA and basically the same RC. He did that at over twice the cost. I didn't say Dunn was a waste of money the last few years. I said Johnson was a BETTER use of money and Dunn at his level of performance last year was dramatically overpaid.



Dunn makes his money b/c he's in the lineup on average 35 more games a year than Johnson, and, aside from 2006, has outproduced Johnson at the plate. While Dunn will never win any Gold Gloves in LF, his defense isn't such a liability that when compared to Johnson's 1B defensive abilities we're talking about Dunn costing the team wins. I just don't buy it.

No. Dunn makes his money because of his SLG and OBP but is paid like he can catch too......

I do buy it. Reasonable people can disagree though-but I'm very confident in my position. :)


You can throw all your favorite defensive metrics at me, but when I look at Win Shares I see that Dunn's Win Shares trump Johnson's Win Shares and that neat little metric takes into account the offensive and defensive aspects of a player.

Yes but holes have been poked into that metric such that the sabermetrics community has largely marginalized it. There are better ways. And by the way, even if you think win shares are a good thing, explain to me how paying Dunn over twice as much as Johnson over the last two seasons-when their wins shares are essentially the same- suggests value.


Essentially it tells us that as great as Johnson is defensively in regards to our total team payroll, his glove can't make up the gap between his offensive production and Dunn's offensive production. Bottomline, as many have said, Dunn's bat makes up for his defensive woes.

Right but, its win shares. :cool:


Maybe you want to pay Nick Johnson his contract to average 115 games a year. I want to pay Dunn his contract to show up 150+ games a year. Especially considering Dunn's Win Shares trump Johnson, not only in peak and career to this point, but the Win Shares/162.

Well over the last two seasons Johnson+a replacement level player was not only cheaper than Dunn but that duo was about a win better than Dunn----BEFORE CONSIDERING DEFENSE.

My argument is pretty simple. Payroll flexibility is a valubable commodity in and of itself because it can be used to get more bang for the buck and defensive value shouldn't be marginalized when determinig a player's true worth.

registerthis
11-28-2006, 11:51 AM
Kind of an aside to this discussion, but does anyone think that management's insistence on running Dunn out there seemingly every day is hurting him? I love the fact that Dunn as durable as he is, but I wonder if he'd become a more consistent producer if he had an extra day or two off each month. Knock down those 160 games played to 145-150, and I wonder if you wouldn't see the 2004 Adam Dunn again.

ochre
11-28-2006, 11:56 AM
what are the historical (stat) projections for players returning from fractured femurs again?

ochre
11-28-2006, 11:57 AM
Kind of an aside to this discussion, but does anyone think that management's insistence on running Dunn out there seemingly every day is hurting him? I love the fact that Dunn as durable as he is, but I wonder if he'd become a more consistent producer if he had an extra day or two off each month. Knock down those 160 games played to 145-150, and I wonder if you wouldn't see the 2004 Adam Dunn again.
His late season splits drop appreciably off from his career norms. I was thinking something similar to that last night when I was looking over his 3 year splits.

M2
11-28-2006, 12:01 PM
Accept when you consider defense, base running and salary too..... :cool: Dunn wins 2004, because, well, he's a big oaf who doesn't get hurt ;)

No, Dunn gets 2005 when you mix in defense and health too. As for the money, I continue to not give a rat's ass about that. The Reds didn't spend the rapidly expanding league revenues that were coming in under the Lindner regime. If the team wants to be reflexively cheap, I'm not going to cheer it.


2004 and 2005 have NOTHING to due with Dunn's true worth in 2006. Ignoring defense he was a marginal left fielder-----14 other guys had a higher VORP.

Yeah, Dunn had a down year. No one's said otherwise. Of course 2004 and 2005 have something to do with projecting what you might get from Dunn in 2007 (back to the 7.00+ RC/27 I was talking about). Again, that's what I care about. I would think that's what you care most about too.


Just intuitively, think about it. Every metric considers Dunn one of the worst defensive left fielders in the game. Isn't it even plausible that since offensively he was only 2 wins better than a replacement level player that even being optimistic about his defense, he was closer to only a win above replacement in total? I errored on the side of caution and suggested he was 1.5 wins better...... We know how St Louis likely rates him in this regard...

Cyclone already pointed out the glaring flaw in your analysis. You can continue to act like you've accurately weighted Dunn's offensive positives with his defensive negatives, but don't expect anyone else to swallow that horse pill.


You like wins shares-I don't.

I like metrics that aren't built on fallacies. Win Shares isn't perfect, but it's worlds better than what you've drummed up here when it comes to assigning overall player value.


Don't suggest I'm incapable of formulating a rationale argument. You have a different interpretation of defensive evaluation than I do-I prefer a system actual teams pay money to gain access too-you prefer a system largely marginalized by the sabermetric community.

Yeah, if only that Win Shares guy could get hired by a numbers-minded baseball club ...

James pissed off the stats community by taking linear weights to task. He was/is right about it. The "average" isn't average and it doesn't really tell us much of anything to state that a player fell outside the top 1/3 of players at his position.


By the way, VORP has pretty much nailed a player's offensive value and frankly, replacement level is an essential concept to understand when determining a player's value.

I like VORP, but the world isn't going to stop with it. I agree it's important to understand replacement level, both in theory and reality. For instance, you've repeatedly dodged the question of who would Dunn's replacement on the Reds have been last year if you swapped him for Johnson.

And replacement level is nothing like league or positional average, a line you've been repeatedly blurring in this thread.


If I have fumbled on the defensive side, its because a 300 lb linebacker smacked helmets with me.....using winshares, you simply just drop the ball. There are much, much, much much, better ways to deal with defense than winshares- any system that claims Ozzie Smith's bat was more valuable to his team than his glove has serious issues.

Hmm, half the game is scoring, half the game is scoring prevention and defense is subordinate to pitching when it comes to scoring prevention. Yeah, I can't figure out why any player would accrue more value with the stick than the glove.


Actually, no again. Dunn had 207 and Johnson had 199 (THT). Add 20 RC and Johnson /RLP have 219 or roughly a win advantage-----for less than half of Dunn's payroll expenditure. If you don't see that as a REAL advantage, then I have no idea how to continue this discussion......

Fine, we'll use the THT numbers. One win over two seasons. Big whoop. Money saved? Don't care. I don't root for corporate savings. If I did, then rather than focus on baseball, I'd watch Bloomberg TV with a blowhorn.

Plus, in a world where Carlos Lee is going to be pulling down $16M a year, Adam Dunn's a bargain.


Except that you'd have significantly more payroll flexibility over the next two years to spend on improving production somewhere else. Also, somebody would be playing left field-whoever that is would likely be an upgrade over Hatteberg.....

You're new here, so you don't know the amount of derision we've heaped on PayFlex over the years. It's a concept that's been thoroughly flogged ... and by the numbers folks on this board to boot.

Seeing that the team already needs an upgrade over Scott Hatteberg at 1B (because the chances are heavily stacked against him repeating his 2006 numbers), that's not much of a limb you've gone out on. Problem is you know what the club got from RF last season. It wasn't pretty. With Jr. hopefully out of CF for good, that could shore up RF a bit on the offensive end for half to 2/3 of the season when Jr.'s healthy (provided Jr. rebounds in the OB department). What Jr.'s defense will be like out there remains to be seen, probably not good, but certainly less crippling than having him in CF.

Anyway, the Reds need a 7.00+ RC/27 from LF next season if they want any chance at making a go at a winning season. They're carrying an all-glove SS and the production from the catchers could be fairly spotty. 2B and CF profile as nothing special. Phillips and Freel/Deno should have their uses, but they're not going to vault an offense forward.

That leaves you with the corner positions. The Reds need Encarnacion to take another step forward and for someone to produce big time in RF during the large chunks of time Jr. will miss. First base is screaming for an upgrade. Problem is, upgrading it and blowing a hole in LF (when the rest of your OF is hardly a pack of world beaters) makes just about zero sense.

The point you keep dodging here, and don't think the dodge is anything but obvious, is that what the Reds really need is to add a bat like Johnson's to Dunn, not swap them. Mind you, if you acknowledged that, all you'd be left with is your academic preference for Johnson. I've got no problem with that. I'm not really interested in the distinction. My concern is that the Reds make some moves to improve the club.

I flat out reject the notion that the Reds can't afford both Dunn and Johnson. They can and should happily pay the freight if the opportunity to pair them arises.

westofyou
11-28-2006, 12:07 PM
Plus, in a world where Carlos Lee is going to be pulling down $16M a year, Adam Dunn's a bargain.One year removed from an .811 OPS.

This year 6.69 RC/27 and Dunn at 6.48.

Now how is that worth more years and more money per season for an older player?

Go Corporate!!

Cyclone792
11-28-2006, 01:29 PM
VORP is valuable and has its uses ... when it's applied correctly. Likewise with UZR, it's valuable and has its uses ... when it's applied correctly. However, when it's applied incorrectly, serious issues crop up, and I mean serious issues ...

Here's jojo's preferred methodology, as he outlined himself ...


By the way, VORP has pretty much nailed a player's offensive value and frankly, replacement level is an essential concept to understand when determining a player's value.

---------

UZR is pretty much the gold standard system for evaluating defense.

---------

Dunn: '06 VORP: 23; UZR: -23 runs, PMR: -7 runs; true value: 0 to 16 runs above replacement (0 to 1.5 wins).

Broken down, this is very simple: he prefers VORP + UZR. Let's make this interesting and run his methodology on a few players now ...


2006 VORP + UZR
VORP UZR True Runs Over
Player Runs Runs Replacement

Adam Dunn 23 -25 -2
Ken Griffey, Jr. 16 -35 -19
Manny Ramirez 66 -34 32
Adam Everett -9 44 35

According to jojo's methodology, Adam Everett, with his skinny .239/.290/.352 batting line in 2006, comes out as being 35 runs above replacement overall, three runs higher than Manny Ramirez and his .321/.439/.619 batting line.

Ken Griffey, Jr.? He's only close to being the worst player in the history of the game, or if not, he's probably darn close. jojo's methodology shows Ken Griffey, Jr. to be two whole wins worse than a replacement level player. That's essentially claiming that any random AAA lifer in center field would have been worth two more wins than Ken Griffey, Jr. in 2006.

Oh, and Adam Everett vs. Ken Griffey, Jr.? Only a difference of 54 runs in Adam Everett's favor, which is the rough equivalent of 5.5 wins. Basically, according to jojo's methodology, Adam Everett in 2006 was worth 5.5 more wins than Ken Griffey, Jr.

And this is before his PayFlex argument, which I can imagine where that goes since Everett made only about 20 percent of the salary that Griffey hauled in last season.

jojo, it's very generous of you to introduce to the board a new total player value system, but let me tell you ... it doesn't work, and it's not close to working.

The problem with it is actually very simple, which is that you're valuing one run of VORP equal to one run of UZR (or whatever preferred defensive system). As I've already explained to you, when you're using two metrics with different floors of a "base of 0" (replacement floor for offense and average floor for fielding), then the ratio of runs for offense to fielding absolutely cannot be simply one-to-one. Doing so values fielding defense exponentially higher than what it's worth in reality.

Pete Palmer made the same mistake with his old fielding runs and total player value system. Under his system, Nap Lajoie was worth an incredibly high and unrealistic sum of fielding runs (the same as Bill Mazeroski, btw), and thus his total player value system ranked Lajoie as the second greatest player in the history of the game. Nap Lajoie was an outstanding player, a rightful Hall of Famer, and likely one of the top five second baseman ever to play ... but he's not close to being the second greatest player in the history of the game.

For an average major league team, the game is broken down such that offense is worth 48 percent, pitching 35 percent, and fielding defense 17 percent. Valuing fielding defense at such a high level relative to the value of offense as you've attempted to do with your methodology is highly flawed and wholly inaccurate.

jojo
11-28-2006, 04:51 PM
VORP is valuable and has its uses ... when it's applied correctly. Likewise with UZR, it's valuable and has its uses ... when it's applied correctly. However, when it's applied incorrectly, serious issues crop up, and I mean serious issues ...

Here's jojo's preferred methodology, as he outlined himself ...

Broken down, this is very simple: he prefers VORP + UZR. Let's make this interesting and run his methodology on a few players now ...

Actually lets try to accurately characterize what I've said.

I do prefer VORP and the current gold standard defensive metrics like UZR, PMR and Dewan's system (i've even weighted them in trustworthiness as UZR>>PMR> Dewans).

What I have said several times is that these systems should be used to arrive at a consensus opinion about a player's defense and to suggest a range of run values (i.e. with Dunn its -7 to -23 for '06 and if you want to keep it simple split the middle and call him a -15 run guy). I've given a high and low value for Dunn's true worth several times and when only giving one, I've used the one more favorable to Dunn. Is this perfect? No. Is it better than win shares? Of course it is: VORP is a better system for evaluating offense and UZR etc are better systems for evaluating defense.



According to jojo's methodology, Adam Everett, with his skinny .239/.290/.352 batting line in 2006, comes out as being 35 runs above replacement overall, three runs higher than Manny Ramirez and his .321/.439/.619 batting line.

If you only want to look at the high end of the range, i'll play along if you first explain how Ozzie Smith's bat was worth more than his glove.

So lets keep it real because you're all about keeping it real and lets look at the conclusions I would've made though:

Griffey was a replacement level center fielder last year. Check. Have fun arguing he wasn't. He was basically only 1.5 wins above replacement level offensively and is considered by most to play the worst defense in the majors at one of the more premium positions on the diamond. Don't buy he was replacement level? You certainly can't argue he was league average. If you want to hide his defense on one of the corners, beware-there is a higher offensive standard there. At best you hope he's league average defensively in a corner. Who wants to bet their house, he'll be above league average offensively there?

Manny's defense is a terrible lag on his value. Well. DUH, he's considered the worst defensive outfielder in the game. We can all argue about how much of a drag it is. Given outfield defensive chances are high risk/high reward and by definition misses on the outer edge of range are going to be in the gaps and down the lines, I could buy Manny's defense could cost him roughly two wins relative to replacement.

Everett's defense is a huge part of his value. DUH again, he's considered the best defensive player at a position that is second farthest right on James' spectrum.

And for the record, I'd trade Griffey for Everett straight up....I'd trade Griffey for Taveras-straight up. Hell, i'd trade Griffey straight up for Emil Brown. :cool:

UZR numbers DO seem to be overestimates at the extremes. But then again, I don't rely upon them soley like you suggest I do.

Taking a consensus of several of the currently best systems is still more accurate than a system that argues neither Griffey nor Dunn cost their teams runs.



And this is before his PayFlex argument, which I can imagine where that goes since Everett made only about 20 percent of the salary that Griffey hauled in last season.

Enough with trying to characterize my philosophy as some catch phrase. I advocate getting the most production possible out of a given payroll. If, you can seriously argue that paying half as much for roughly similar production is bad for roster formulation, you're nuts. Did i ever say its bad to increase payroll or even willfully overpay for production if that production is vital to wins? NO. Did I ever say, money saved though intelligent roster management would'nt be spent on the roster? No. I did suggest its stupid to willfully overpay for production if that production can reasonably be had via a cheaper route. Its simple. If the Reds are only going to spend $65-70M in a year and they have several holes to fill, overpaying for production decreases their chances of filling those holes.


jojo, it's very generous of you to introduce to the board a new total player value system

Thanks! But there is absolutely nothing new about it and I'm certainly not the first one using this approach-in fact I'm not even in the minority.


The problem with it is actually very simple, which is that you're valuing one run of VORP equal to one run of UZR (or whatever preferred defensive system). As I've already explained to you, when you're using two metrics with different floors of a "base of 0" (replacement floor for offense and average floor for fielding),

Yes but once again, replacement floor for defense IS roughly league average.

I understand the limitations of the above defensive metrics. I also understand defensive win shares are even more problematic.

Cyclone792
11-28-2006, 04:58 PM
Actually lets try to accurately characterize what I've said.

I do prefer VORP and the current gold standard defensive metrics like UZR, PMR and Dewan's system (i've even weighted them in trustworthiness as UZR>>PMR> Dewans).

What I have said several times is that these systems should be used to arrive at a consensus opinion about a player's defense and to suggest a range of run values (i.e. with Dunn its -7 to -23 for '06 and if you want to keep it simple split the middle and call him a -15 run guy). I've given a high and low value for Dunn's true worth several times and when only giving one, I've used the one more favorable to Dunn. Is this perfect? No. Is it better than win shares? Of course it is: VORP is a better system for evaluating offense and UZR etc are better systems for evaluating defense.




If you only want to look at the high end of the range, i'll play along if you first explain how Ozzie Smith's bat was worth more than his glove.

So lets keep it real because you're all about keeping it real and lets look at the conclusions I would've made though:

Griffey was a replacement level center fielder last year. Check. Have fun arguing he wasn't. He was basically only 1.5 wins above replacement level offensively and is considered by most to play the worst defense in the majors at one of the more premium positions on the diamond. Don't buy he was replacement level? You certainly can't argue he was league average. If you want to hide his defense on one of the corners, beware-there is a higher offensive standard there. At best you hope he's league average defensively in a corner. Who wants to bet their house, he'll be above league average offensively there?

Manny's defense is a terrible lag on his value. Well. DUH, he's considered the worst defensive outfielder in the game. We can all argue about how much of a drag it is. Given outfield defensive chances are high risk/high reward and by definition misses on the outer edge of range are going to be in the gaps and down the lines, I could buy Manny's defense could cost him roughly two wins relative to replacement.

Everett's defense is a huge part of his value. DUH again, he's considered the best defensive player at a position that is second farthest right on James' spectrum.

And for the record, I'd trade Griffey for Everett straight up....I'd trade Griffey for Taveras-straight up. Hell, i'd trade Griffey straight up for Emil Brown. :cool:

UZR numbers DO seem to be overestimates at the extremes. But then again, I don't rely upon them soley like you suggest I do.

Taking a consensus of several of the currently best systems is still more accurate than a system that argues neither Griffey nor Dunn cost their teams runs.




Enough with trying to characterize my philosophy as some catch phrase. I advocate getting the most production possible out of a given payroll. If, you can seriously argue that paying half as much for roughly similar production is bad for roster formulation, you're nuts. Did i ever say its bad to increase payroll or even willfully overpay for production if that production is vital to wins? NO. Did I ever say, money saved though intelligent roster management would'nt be spent on the roster? No. I did suggest its stupid to willfully overpay for production if that production can reasonably be had via a cheaper route. Its simple. If the Reds are only going to spend $65-70M in a year and they have several holes to fill, overpaying for production decreases their chances of filling those holes.



Thanks! But there is absolutely nothing new about it and I'm certainly not the first one using this approach-in fact I'm not even in the minority.



Yes but once again, replacement floor for defense IS roughly league average.

I understand the limitations of the above defensive metrics. I also understand defensive win shares are even more problematic.

All the above is nothing but a red herring. You've still continued to ignore the fundamental concept of the worth of offensive value relative to the worth of defensive fielding value. Not only are you continuing to ignore it, but you're continuing to greatly misrepresent the value of each. That's the mistake you keep making, and it's the same mistake you keep trying to talk everybody around.

Until you're able to grasp the relative worth of each facet of the game, your system will continue to be flawed and inaccurate.

ochre
11-28-2006, 05:27 PM
I have ¥1000, want to give me $1000 in exchange?

Additionally, a healthy debate requires the participants to agree on some basic premises. You've unilaterally determined a set of premises that have not been agreed to, namely your ranking of defensive metric systems. Additionally, it would appear, by giving the defensive measure (you have chosen) equal weight to the offensive metric you've failed to normalize the measures based on their relative impact.

jojo
11-28-2006, 08:46 PM
I have ¥1000, want to give me $1000 in exchange?

Additionally, a healthy debate requires the participants to agree on some basic premises.

Yes. I've already acknowledged that we'll have to agree to disagree because given our perspectives, it will be nearly impossible to reach a consensus. Yet, somehow the debate continues.


You've unilaterally determined a set of premises that have not been agreed to, namely your ranking of defensive metric systems.

Or perhaps your side has? :evil:


Additionally, it would appear, by giving the defensive measure (you have chosen) equal weight to the offensive metric you've failed to normalize the measures based on their relative impact.

Baseball is a zero sum game. You have to score more than you give up to win. A run scored is no more valuable than a run prevented in that equation.
Or to say it another way, preventing runs is just as valuable as scoring them. Just to point out the obvious-you can score 20 runs and still lose. Its imposiible to lose if you don't give any up. Let win shares chew on that awhile... :mooner:

Seriously for a moment. The point about the offensive and defensive metrics weighing runs equally is a fair point to bring up. But it essentially takes care of itself. Right now it appears that the most elite defensive player has an upper limit of +20 runs (yes that means Everett is NOT really good for 44 runs IMHO). Obviously an elite offensive player can be much much better than that. That being said, there probably isnt a physical limit to the runs a bad defender can give up rather the negative runs are most likely limited by the willingness of the manager to keep running the poor defender out there. A guy like Manny, whose bat is extraordinary, could really get a chance to stink it up defensively in other words... But in reality, a -20 run guy is probably very rare as well. Basically I'm arguing the metrics weigh themselves.

How do you insulate against extremes and become as accurate as possible? Use them all to try to get a bigger picture; Dewan's, UZR, PMR, ZR, Range, ZR, Fielding DTs, scouting reports, even tangotoger's fan poll. Look for a consensus.

Yikes you say? Well win shares is a lousy system that hides it's inadequcies by spitting out very precise numbers. There simply are better ways.

jojo
11-28-2006, 08:56 PM
All the above is nothing but a red herring.

Actually not really so much. Disagreeing with you isn't a logical fallacy. :cool:

(though I am starting to understand the fascination some have with Bill James puh pum pump)


You've still continued to ignore the fundamental concept of the worth of offensive value relative to the worth of defensive fielding value. Not only are you continuing to ignore it, but you're continuing to greatly misrepresent the value of each. That's the mistake you keep making, and it's the same mistake you keep trying to talk everybody around.

Until you're able to grasp the relative worth of each facet of the game, your system will continue to be flawed and inaccurate.

I just posted this, but its catchy so i'll do it again. Baseball is a zero sum game. You have to score more than you give up to win. A run scored is no more valuable than a run prevented in that equation. Or to say it another way, preventing runs is just as valuable as scoring them. Just to point out the obvious-you can score 20 runs and still lose. Its imposiible to lose if you don't give any up.

Anyway, I talked a little about *weighting runs* in a recent reply in this thread.

Cyclone792
11-28-2006, 09:02 PM
Actually not really so much. Disagreeing with you isn't a logical fallacy. :cool:

Your player value system has a crippling flaw at its foundation. Using said player value system to evaluate players will result in inaccurate conclusions of the evaluations of those players.

Diverting attention away from that crippling flaw is a red herring.


Basically I'm arguing the metrics weigh themselves.

http://web.archive.org/web/20031202021441/www.baseballprimer.com/articles/humphreys_2003-11-19_0.shtml


Note that it would be incorrect to calculate separate replacement-level "rates" for fielding and batting/baserunning and then add the separate amounts by which [that player] exceeded each rate.

jojo's methodology does precisely the above, despite the fact that it's incorrect and flawed at the foundation.

ochre
11-28-2006, 10:53 PM
as you are attempting to paint it, baseball is not a zero sum game.

It is a zero sum game at the macro level.

The level you are attempting to call it zero sum, if it is, it can't be effectively measured (defense). You are saying that, within acceptable correlation levels to actual w/l results, you can tell that a particular players alleged defensive efficiency contributes 'x' to a particular win/loss event?

If for no other reason than the correlations aren't even ballpark between individual defensive and offensive metrics, you can't realistically weigh them evenly.

As a team sport, where measures can be taken to compensate for individual weaknesses, it becomes even more tenuous to try and paint the individual contributions as zero sum events.

as to the "debate" in question, as far as I can tell, it hasn't moved passed the establishing the base premise(s). Your "argument" that the stats weigh themselves isn't very compelling.

From what I've seen in the various defensive metrics you have listed there is extreme inconsistency across all of them from player to player. There are, occasionally players that all systems rate similarly, but the systems are too inconsistent to baseline, leaving their results statistically unreliable and prone to people picking and choosing the metric that best fits their argument.

jojo
11-28-2006, 11:02 PM
Your player value system has a crippling flaw at its foundation. Using said player value system to evaluate players will result in inaccurate conclusions of the evaluations of those players.

Diverting attention away from that crippling flaw is a red herring.

On the first point, No...that is your opinion.

On the second, rejecting your premise is not a red herring. Although your attempt to discredit post after post by characterizing it as a red herring is an argumentum ad nauseam.... now stop it! :cool:


Note that it would be incorrect to calculate separate replacement-level "rates" for fielding and batting/baserunning and then add the separate amounts by which [that player] exceeded each rate.

But you left out his next sentence which is kind of important IMHO:

The very poor hitters who have been used to define replacement level hitting at each position are generally (though not always) above-average fielders, in other words, they haven't been replaced because they compensate in the field for what they lack at the plate.
In other words, replacement level for hitting and fielding are two different things????? Shocking.

That completely invalidates using Woolners definition of replacement level for offense (i.e. .85 of league average for 1B and DH, .75 for catchers and .80 for all others) and league average as replacement level for defenders.... no wait.... it actually suggests it...... :thumbup:


jojo's methodology does precisely the above, despite the fact that it's incorrect and flawed at the foundation.

Not so much because clearly since it is using a platform of replacement level value for offensive analysis and a platform of replacement value for fielding analysis, summation is valid as per cyclone's criteria....

TOBTTReds
11-29-2006, 12:08 PM
Nick Johnson is a beast, that is all I have to say. Get him here, and he will be an all-star every year.

redsfanfalcon
11-29-2006, 12:33 PM
Nick Johnson is a beast, that is all I have to say. Get him here, and he will be an all-star every year.

Agreed...IF he can stay healthy.

M2
11-29-2006, 02:48 PM
The Reds clearly gaffed in keeping Dunn around instead of Reggie Taylor.

flyer85
11-29-2006, 02:58 PM
IF he can stay healthy.which his track record says he can't ... and it usually doesn't get better as a player ages.