PDA

View Full Version : Q&A with Marty - comments on Dunn, pitching, and playoffs



Pages : 1 [2]

MikeS21
01-31-2007, 08:07 AM
Steve Finley is a "young" 37-42! ;)

In all fairness, last night when Marty mentioned Finley, he said Thom was the one who said Finley still had value. Marty said that Finely had like 12 triples last year, but in GAB, half those would be HR's.

But, still when Marty mentioned Finley, I was glad I had the car stopped, waiting on my daughter to come out of basketball practice because I totally busted out laughing ... Steve Finley.

gonelong
01-31-2007, 10:30 AM
I was thinking about this last night as I drifted off to sleep. Yes, I am a goofball.

The claim continues to be leveled that somehow Marty is at the head of a huge army of drones that just follow his marching orders. I continue to suggest that fans have their deeply held "views" of baseball despite what Marty says. He's reinforcing them, to be sure, but not creating them.

Listen to one hour of a Cincy based sports talk show during the baseball season and get back to me on that one.

Many of us (me included) literally grew up with Marty on the Radio. Marty has helped many a fan (me included) with forming their views as they were growing up. Keep in mind I have listened to several thousand games with Marty and Joe. Many of my best memories are spending time with my Dad fishing or tinkering in the garage listening to Marty and Joe.

How could you argue with Marty? He gets to watch every game, he knows all the players, and he knows the guys in the front office. (Which is an argument you'll see in this thread and others. I'll submit that Marty can watch the games but not "see" the game just like I could watch soccer every day and I'd never "see" the game. I am certainly not saying that Marty doesn't know anything about the game, he obviously does, but its obvious that player evaluation is nowhere near his strength.)


It's been hashed out here hundreds of time. A new poster comes in with one set of ideas and over time begins to accept new ways of thinking and different ways of understanding the game. And I'd say someone who spends any amount of time here is far beyond a casual fan. And yet how often is their resistance? How often does it take repeated viewings of cold hard numbers before someone sees the light?

It takes everyone some time simply because it shakes the foundation of the game you love and grew up with. It's hard to realize that your Dad, your coach, Marty, etc. didn't have as deep an insight to the game as you thought they would or should have.


Its been posted here before. "I grew up thinking BA and RBI was the sole way to measure a players performance". Heck, my father, who has been going to baseball games since the late 40's/early 50's can't see beyond those 2 numbers. So why would Marty, and anybody else around that age be any different?

Why give Marty a free pass? Dunn is expected to work on his game, but Marty doesn't have too? Marty is the gold standard for resting on your laurels IMO. He hasn't come up with anything new for a few decades.


So it shouldn't suprise people that (1) Marty, who grew up in an era of BA/RBI, would not be hip to new ways of thinking and (2) a sea of fans out there would hold the exact same view points.

Its not suprising, but it is disappointing. Do you have anyone at your place of business that still goes door-to-door with a demonstration product trying to sell their wares? Nope, they have evolved.


Should Marty use his position behind the mic to educate said vast sea of fans? Maybe yes, maybe no. It's hard enough to explain VORP in here where you can see the data, imagine trying to do so over the radio.

I agree that explaining VORP to a radio audience would be way to much, however, it might make a bit of sense for Marty to understand and utilize these concepts himself.

He already does educate the vast sea of fans. How do you think the casual fan knows that Dunn strikes out too much and Aurilla is the MVP of the team, etc.?

OBP is no more difficult to understand than BA. SLG is no more difficult to understand than BA. OPS is just adding those two together. Surely this wouldn't be too difficult to include in a handful of discussions over the course of the season.


Would the target audience be entertained by said "educations"? The people in here who would say "heck ya" represent a tiny gazzilionth of a sliver of the entire radio audience. Who's to say the casual fan, and that's who we're talking about here, otherwise they would be at RZ learning new ideas, would be remotley interested in understanding the game on a deeper level. There's a world of difference between enjoying the game and understanding it.

I have always said, the radio and TV guys are not hired for the die-hard, we all listen/watch anyway. They are hired for the casual fan.

I agree that casual fans wouldn't sit through a lecture of the values of VORP. However, I think they'd likely embrace additional measures of value if Marty dropped them into the broadcast occassionally. From what I have heard (though not personally confirmed) Oakland A's broadcasts dip into these areas with pretty good results.

GL

registerthis
01-31-2007, 10:38 AM
Did he also suggest the Reds go to all cotton uniforms?

No, but I did hear him mention something about doing away with gloves.

westofyou
01-31-2007, 10:40 AM
I agree that casual fans wouldn't sit through a lecture of the values of VORP. However, I think they'd likely embrace additional measures of value if Marty dropped them into the broadcast occassionally. From what I have heard (though not personally confirmed) Oakland A's broadcasts dip into these areas with pretty good results.
GL

Below is a list of the stats run beneath a players name when he comes to bat on the local TV broadcast.


=====================================
Yankees BA/HR/RBI/OB%
Boston BA/HR/RBI
Toronto BA/HR/RBI
Baltimore BA/HR/RBI
Devil Rays BA/HR/RBI
=====================================
White Sox BA/HR/RBI
Detroit BA/HR/RBI
Indians BA/HR/RBI/OB%
Minnesota BA/HR/RBI
Royals BA/HR/RBI
=====================================
Texas BA/HR/RBI
Oakland BA/HR/RBI
Angels BA/HR/RBI
Seattle BA/HR/RBI
=====================================
Mets Season BA + Game AB
Phillies BA/HR/RBI
Atlanta BA/HR/RBI
Nationals BA/HR/RBI
Florida BA/HR/RBI
=====================================
Cincinnati BA/HR/RBI
Houston BA/HR/RBI
St.Louis BA/HR/RBI
Milwaukee BA/HR/RBI
Cubs BA/HR/RBI/OB%-WGN only
Pittsburgh BA/HR/RBI
=====================================
Arizona BA/HR/RBI
Colorado BA/HR/RBI
San Diego Season BA + Game AB
Giants BA/HR/RBI
Dodgers BA/HR/RBI
=====================================

registerthis
01-31-2007, 10:42 AM
Who cares? Over the last five years you would need Mr. Rogers to actually make that product sound good.

Yeah, I'd say the team's performance on the field has a great deal more do with any fan apathy than anything Brennamen may be spouting off about on the mic. Not that Marty helps, but if the team were winning consistently I doubt you'd see too many 12-13 page threads about Marty Brennamen popping up.

dabvu2498
01-31-2007, 10:43 AM
Listen to one hour of a Cincy based sports talk show

Why oh why would anyone do that?

gonelong
01-31-2007, 10:51 AM
Below is a list of the stats run beneath a players name when he comes to bat on the local TV broadcast. [/code]

You probably get some local Oakland games ... do they drop OBP, etc. at all during their broadcasts (either radio or TV)?

The impression I have recieved is that they do, though this was garnered from an internet message board a few years back so I took it with a grain of salt.

GL

westofyou
01-31-2007, 10:54 AM
You probably get some local Oakland games ... do they drop OBP, etc. at all during their broadcasts (either radio or TV)?

The impression I have recieved is that they do, though this was garnered from an internet message board a few years back so I took it with a grain of salt.

GL

Yes they do, they also talk about pitch counts without the sound of their eyes rolling back in their sockets.

RANDY IN INDY
01-31-2007, 10:55 AM
Yes they do, they also talk about pitch counts without the sound of their eyes rolling back in their sockets.

What's wrong with pitch counts?

gonelong
01-31-2007, 11:01 AM
Yes they do, they also talk about pitch counts without the sound of their eyes rolling back in their sockets.

Nice, ha ha. It would appear that our good broadcasters have been given some instruction as to the content of their broadcast.

I have vowed this season to try listen to a few radio games from different markets such that I could compare them to Reds broadcasts. I know a few of them are downright awful and would have me begging for Marty.

GL

gonelong
01-31-2007, 11:03 AM
OK, I just hit total consciousness.

Some of us are POd because we don't think Marty is living up to his potential. Sure what he gives us is pretty darn good, but we see more there.

Some of us are POd because we don't think Dunn is living up to his potential. Sure what he gives us is pretty darn good, but we see more there.

:alien:

GL

westofyou
01-31-2007, 11:07 AM
What's wrong with pitch counts?

I don't know, ask the numerous announcers who refer back their youth (often in the hitting starved 60's) as the time when guys threw 10,000 pitches a game, as they deride the pitchers today.

RANDY IN INDY
01-31-2007, 11:12 AM
I don't know, ask the numerous announcers who refer back their youth (often in the hitting starved 60's) as the time when guys threw 10,000 pitches a game, as they deride the pitchers today.

There is a happy medium there, somewhere, and I think it depends on the individual. You have to know your pitchers.

Interesting to note that Little League Baseball has initiated mandatory pitch counts, effective this season. That's a huge step in the right direction. Now if we can just get a "Ban" on the curveball for the 9-12's.

TRF
01-31-2007, 11:33 AM
So the nature of the pitches Dunn sees when he does these things is not shaped by the lineup surrounding him? Wow, that shows real insight into the game.

Of course it does. But he can't drive in three runners with nobody on base. With bases empty, it's really his skill vs the pitcher's, and the pitches called. You're right. It's not a vacuum.

gonelong
01-31-2007, 11:39 AM
There is a happy medium there, somewhere, and I think it depends on the individual. You have to know your pitchers.

Interesting to note that Little League Baseball has initiated mandatory pitch counts, effective this season. That's a huge step in the right direction. Now if we can just get a "Ban" on the curveball for the 9-12's.

Thats good to hear, it should prevent coaches from riding those young guys too hard.

Hopefully the curveball will follow.

GL

BRM
01-31-2007, 11:47 AM
Brenneman and Dunn are easily the two biggest lightning rods on this site and we've got the pleasure of linking the two together in this thread. Yee-haw!

registerthis
01-31-2007, 11:50 AM
Brenneman and Dunn are easily the two biggest lightning rods on this site and we've got the pleasure of linking the two together in this thread. Yee-haw!

I think this thread is the RedsZone equivalent of the nexus of the universe.

RANDY IN INDY
01-31-2007, 11:51 AM
Thats good to hear, it should prevent coaches from riding those young guys too hard.

Hopefully the curveball will follow.

GL

It is amazing how much abuse some of the young arms have taken. It is amazing to me that the curve ball has not already been banned.

My son, who is a lefthander, has really good pitching mechanics as a 9 year old, and I want him to learn the right way. We've worked on it ever since he could pick up a ball. With that said, I really don't want him to pitch much right now. A lot of the guys in our organization tell me that he needs to get as much work against live hitting as possible, but I really don't agree. I'm looking much further down the road. The arm simply isn't ready to throw a lot of pitches at this juncture. Everything is not connected and strong.

I've been studying bio-mechanics and it really has opened up my eyes from both a hitting and throwing perspective. Real interesting stuff that I wish more people at the little league level would study.

paintmered
01-31-2007, 11:54 AM
It is amazing how much abuse some of the young arms have taken. It is amazing to me that the curve ball has not already been banned.

My son, who is a lefthander, has really good pitching mechanics as a 9 year old, and I want him to learn the right way. We've worked on it ever since he could pick up a ball. With that said, I really don't want him to pitch much right now. A lot of the guys in our organization tell me that he needs to get as much work against live hitting as possible, but I really don't agree. I'm looking much further down the road. The arm simply isn't ready to throw a lot of pitches at this juncture. Everything is not connected and strong.

I've been studying bio-mechanics and it really has opened up my eyes from both a hitting and throwing perspective. Real interesting stuff that I wish more people at the little league level would study.

Unfortunately for the children, the emphasis is often on winning and not player development. I think you are taking the right route with your son.

RANDY IN INDY
01-31-2007, 11:56 AM
Unfortunately for the children, the emphasis is often on winning and not player development. I think you are taking the right route with your son.

Nothing wrong with developing the winning aspect, if you don't abuse the kids. Winning is the object of the game, but teaching kids to do it the right way is the best thing that coaches in youth league's can accomplish.

Red Leader
01-31-2007, 11:58 AM
It is amazing how much abuse some of the young arms have taken. It is amazing to me that the curve ball has not already been banned.

My son, who is a lefthander, has really good pitching mechanics as a 9 year old, and I want him to learn the right way. We've worked on it ever since he could pick up a ball. With that said, I really don't want him to pitch much right now. A lot of the guys in our organization tell me that he needs to get as much work against live hitting as possible, but I really don't agree. I'm looking much further down the road. The arm simply isn't ready to throw a lot of pitches at this juncture. Everything is not connected and strong.

I've been studying bio-mechanics and it really has opened up my eyes from both a hitting and throwing perspective. Real interesting stuff that I wish more people at the little league level would study.

Great to hear on the little league requirements. You should make that a new thread, RANDY, I'd love to read responses on that.

When I was in little league I was one of that leagues best pitchers. We only had one game during the week and one on the weekend. There were no requirements like there are today. I pitched every game one year because no one else could pitch. So from 5th grade and 6th grade, I threw every pitch of every game we played (20). That's 100 innings each season since they were 5 inning games.
Who knows how many pitches I actually threw...
Then there was the year end tournament. We made it to the finals and I pitched every game but 1 (4 games over 3 days).
Surprisingly, my arm is still strong and I never had any injuries other than straining a muscle in my lat when I was a catcher in H.S. We went on a Spring Break trip and played 16 games in 7 days. I caught them all. My arm was hanging by a string on day 6.

forfreelin04
01-31-2007, 12:47 PM
There is a happy medium there, somewhere, and I think it depends on the individual. You have to know your pitchers.

Interesting to note that Little League Baseball has initiated mandatory pitch counts, effective this season. That's a huge step in the right direction. Now if we can just get a "Ban" on the curveball for the 9-12's.

Amen there! I was the kid with the nasty hook and drop when I was 10. Everyone said it'l hurt your arm and sure enough it did when I was 18 trying to get into a college baseball program. Dad wanted me to be good but I think he probably should have listened. Oh well, guess I can pass the info on to future generations.

Wheelhouse
01-31-2007, 01:08 PM
So does that mean you trade away (or give up on as Marty said) a perennial 40 HR guy with a high OBP and Slugging % just because he isn't Ryan Howard or David Ortiz? Maybe he'll never be 50/130, but what he is is pretty darn productive. Why would you give up on pretty darn productive when there is no option in sight to replace that productivity? If Dunn is never anything more than what he has been, the Reds would be well suited to have him in the middle of the line-up and look elsewhere for things this team needs to fix.

So go ahead and "give-up" on Adam Dunn. Enjoy the parade of Jeff Conine's and the like playing LF and batting in the middle of the order. They'll probably play better defense in the least important defensive position on the field and strike out a little less so that we can all enjoy a few more lazy fly balls or dribblers back to the mound. That should make us all happy with 16 HR and 75 RBI while struggling to get on base at an acceptable clip in the middle of the order.

Many scoff, but at his current level Adam Dunn would be very difficult to replace. It seems to me that at least twice in fairly recent history the Reds have struggled to replace productive but flawed sluggers when George Foster ("he won't run into the wall, he doesn't care about winning") and Eric Davis ("he's never in the line-up, he doesn't really care about winning and doesn't really want to play") left town. So I'm sure that the same contingent that wanted those guys gone feel the same way about ("he doesn't run to his position and looks like he doesn't care") Adam Dunn.

If the guy is as rare a talent as you suggest we're lucky to have him. Don't we ever learn anything?

When you say "productive" your definition seems to mean embracing his good stats and ignoring the many and gapingly bad elements of his game. Marty's point is that he feels there is a lack of effort from Dunn. He watches him every day--he's entitled to that opinion. And if that is true, the Reds should try to get him off the team, for even if he is "productive" in your sense of the game, he's destructive to the team in mine, and I think Marty's. And I think you're overestimating how hard it would be to replace Dunn's stats. It would be hard, but finding a player who could put up numbers like Dunn's in a bandbox like GABP is doable. And the overall effect of dispensing with a Texan Manny Ramirez, who's not nearly as good as Manny Ramirez, would be a move toward a winning team.

texasdave
01-31-2007, 01:15 PM
But Marty Brennamen, very pointedly, is not speaking on a message board or at a bar. He is paid for intelligent, well-rounded, entertaining analysis of the Cincinnati Reds. If anyone of those things drops significantly out of play, then he is, by the defintion of paid employment, subject to heavy criticism of his "opinions" due to the way he is fulfilling his duties.



Those may be your criteria for what a broadcaster should be, but that is all they are - your criteria. I am sure other people would differ with them. Perhaps the people who employ Marty have a different set of criteria. I would be willing to bet they place more of an emphasis on listenership. They want Marty to get people to listen to the game. Baseball is entertainment. And that is what I believe he is paid to do. Entertain folks so they stay tuned to the game. The more people tune in, the more money that is made. It is probably just that simple. There have been numerous successful broadcasters and I can't imagine they all used the same style and criteria for how they broadcast a game.

Red Leader
01-31-2007, 01:16 PM
a

I would have given that quote an A+, personally.

Roy Tucker
01-31-2007, 01:20 PM
Brenneman and Dunn are easily the two biggest lightning rods on this site and we've got the pleasure of linking the two together in this thread. Yee-haw!

More like crossing the beams.

And spring training is still a ways off. :eek:

Team Clark
01-31-2007, 01:31 PM
Fair enough.

But that seems like a fine tightrope to walk between not grousing and being a homer.

Excellent point. The Reds have three. Brennaman (Grouser), Grande (Total Homer) and Welsh (Homer who has to wear a uniform)

big boy
01-31-2007, 02:02 PM
Could Marty have been trying to motivate Dunner? Perhaps he believes Dunner's talent is so great that he has the ability to put up 50-130 and is currently underachieving. Maybe redzoners don't see that kind of greatness in him and are content with 40-90 every year which could put him in the hall but maybe not as a top-100 player. It is possible that Marty sees the potential top-100 player within and wants to pull it out and lead the Reds to World Series glory.

pedro
01-31-2007, 02:12 PM
I've just never heard another announcer personalize his attacks on people or things he doesn't like the way Marty does. Taken in tandem with the all the extraneous nonsense he brings to the broadcasts and I just find it very unprofessional. I also find it very ironic as he seems to hold himself up as the paragon of professionalism.

Redsland
01-31-2007, 02:20 PM
I can't believe that some on this board doubt whether Marty Brennaman, Hall of Fame broadcaster and voice of the Cincinnati Reds for 32 years, influences the way people think about this team. He does.

Let me ask this: Adam Dunn is by all accounts a likeable, self-deprecating, funny, handsome young man and one of the top offensive players in the league. His face should be on billboards all over town, but it isn't. Why is that?

flyer85
01-31-2007, 02:22 PM
I also find it very ironic as he seems to hold himself up as the paragon of professionalism.... and if that were true we would never even know that he ain't partial to Jim Bowden, much less that he hates his guts.

pedro
01-31-2007, 02:24 PM
... and if that were true we would never even know that he ain't partial to Jim Bowden, much less that he hates his guts.

Or that I'm a "BOOB" and that all the folks out here in portland must be proud of me. :laugh:

Redsland
01-31-2007, 02:29 PM
... and if that were true we would never even know that he ain't partial to Jim Bowden, much less that he hates his guts.
Buck Schowalter says hi.

Chip R
01-31-2007, 02:29 PM
Could Marty have been trying to motivate Dunner? Perhaps he believes Dunner's talent is so great that he has the ability to put up 50-130 and is currently underachieving. Maybe redzoners don't see that kind of greatness in him and are content with 40-90 every year which could put him in the hall but maybe not as a top-100 player. It is possible that Marty sees the potential top-100 player within and wants to pull it out and lead the Reds to World Series glory.


Yep. I'm sure it's going to work too because since he hasn't been able to get motivated by his teammates - including one that is going to be in the HOF - his peers, his coaches and managers, Marty's going to be the one to flip the switch. Any day now Adam's going to wake up and think, "Ya know, maybe I'm all wrong about how to play baseball. Gee, I think I'll take Marty's advice on how to be the best ballplayer I can be. It's all so simple. After all, if it wasn't for Marty, Johnny Bench would have to buy a ticket to get into the HOF."

Red Leader
01-31-2007, 02:33 PM
Or that I'm a "BOOB" and that all the folks out here in portland must be proud of me. :laugh:

I forgot about that little golden nugget from last year.

Priceless.

dsmith421
01-31-2007, 02:48 PM
And the overall effect of dispensing with a Texan Manny Ramirez, who's not nearly as good as Manny Ramirez, would be a move toward a winning team.

Just laughable.

Subtract Dunn from this team right now, assume Griffey's annual injury, and we have a legitimately terrible offense featuring one (1) player who can hit for power. Oh, and that guy's got terrible fundamentals and can't play defense and every other freaking excuse Reds fans can think up to bash a talented young player.

Blimpie
01-31-2007, 02:51 PM
I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't like Marty's comments about Milton any better than I do his comments about Dunn even if I do happen to agree with them. I don't think the Reds' game announcer should be grousing about the team's players in public.I like to call this the "Reds Caravan Factor."

For the last few weeks, Marty has been schlepping himself around in a Madden-Cruiser to a every single food court and gas-n-sip within the 76 US states (and 46 Canadian provinces) that Matt was referring to in his earlier post.

Problem is: I have been to a Caravan or two before. Every year, for some reason, fans will walk RIGHT PAST the Reds' GM and special scouts just to ask Marty a question about the quality of a particular Reds player.

If the fans keep annointing him as the de facto player expert, eventually Marty has no choice but to believe it to be true. Of course, that "eventually" part happened in about 1979.

flyer85
01-31-2007, 02:51 PM
Or that I'm a "BOOB" and that all the folks out here in portland must be proud of me. :laugh:... maybe if you have you shirt off the next time you call.

forfreelin04
01-31-2007, 02:53 PM
I can't believe that some on this board doubt whether Marty Brennaman, Hall of Fame broadcaster and voice of the Cincinnati Reds for 32 years, influences the way people think about this team. He does.

Let me ask this: Adam Dunn is by all accounts a likeable, self-deprecating, funny, handsome young man and one of the top offensive players in the league. His face should be on billboards all over town, but it isn't. Why is that?


Not being from Cincinnati and only getting down there 3 or less times a year, I have no clue. However, which Red is? Is it Griff? Bronson now?

Dunn might not also be on billboards because he doesn't want to be. He sounds like a guy that turns away from the limelight rather then revels in it. He could have been given the key to city after his grand slam last year, but chose to get the heck outta dodge (i think he was going to a concert). I think he considers himself more of a Texas guy then an Ohio guy. Which is all well and good considering hes from there and he has the right to make that choice. But, it is funny that Dunn isn't as publicized as some others are. I wonder how much of that has to do with Marty? I'm gonna guess alot, but a big part of it too could be the fact Dunns tenure here is in question. Perhaps, if WayneK signed him to a long term deal he would be the face of the franchise.

Bottom line is, Dunn has two fan bases and neither one of them are the majority of fans. The first fans are the we go to the ballpark to get tanked and love to see the long ball. The other fans are the ones that love Dunn for his stats. But the majority of fans grew up playing baseball are apt to be jealous of Dunns natural ability and hold him to a higher standard then others like say a Ryan Freel. Who is the quinnessential working mans ballplayer. Then on the other hand, the majority of fans undervalue the walk and OPS to them is a rap artist instead of a valuable baseball stat. Thus Dunn is hated by the traditionalists who are not stat savvy and Im gonna guess that most fans are like this instead of stat savvy or boozers. Okay, maybe theres more boozers then anything in Chicago. :beerme:

Chip R
01-31-2007, 02:58 PM
Not being from Cincinnati and only getting down there 3 or less times a year, I have no clue. However, which Red is? Is it Griff? Bronson now?


Neither. Now it's Mr. Red.

westofyou
01-31-2007, 03:01 PM
Neither. Now it's Mr. Red.

Big white guy, always running, eats and sleeps baseball.

forfreelin04
01-31-2007, 03:01 PM
Neither. Now it's Mr. Red.

What a bum! He has seams for sideburns. Bet ya he strikes out alot too....... with the ladies. :doh:

Cyclone792
01-31-2007, 03:09 PM
I can't believe that some on this board doubt whether Marty Brennaman, Hall of Fame broadcaster and voice of the Cincinnati Reds for 32 years, influences the way people think about this team. He does.

Let me ask this: Adam Dunn is by all accounts a likeable, self-deprecating, funny, handsome young man and one of the top offensive players in the league. His face should be on billboards all over town, but it isn't. Why is that?

Exactly.

Marty's job function, longevity, and fame have collectively appointed him as one of the Reds' chief marketing tools among the primary fan base. And when one of the chief marketing tools does nothing but repeatedly bash one of the franchise's greatest assets - even with factually inaccurate information - many members of the local audience are going to eat it up.

This franchise needs to use Adam Dunn for the full asset he is, which isn't just producing runs in the lineup, but also as the face of a franchise trying to rebound and rebuild itself as a primary entertainment force in the region. Unfortunately, Adam Dunn has little control over the latter; that's up to the Reds' marketing department and the team's top spokespeople, namely Marty himself.

Instead, all we hear is that Adam Dunn is fat, lazy, doesn't care, destructive to the team, and that he should be the first person to go if this team is ever going to win. We hear it from the franchise's top spokesperson, and we hear it from a large chunk of the team's fan base. If Adam Dunn makes the Hall of Fame, maybe we'll all be so lucky if Marty and a chunk of the team's fans follow him up to Cooperstown to berate his induction speech.

When Bob Castellini makes a stupid decision, it's harmful to the franchise. When Wayne Krivsky makes a stupid decision or makes an idiotic move, it's harmful to the franchise. And when Marty and a large group of fans take an idiotic stance and bash the franchise's assets, it's also harmful to the franchise.

registerthis
01-31-2007, 03:11 PM
Just laughable.

But, sadly, not an anomaly amongst Reds fans.

Reds fans will miss Adam Dunn when he is gone, I can guarantee that.

Redsland
01-31-2007, 03:20 PM
Perhaps, if WayneK signed him to a long term deal he would be the face of the franchise.
That first part happened already.

big boy
01-31-2007, 03:21 PM
Yep. I'm sure it's going to work too because since he hasn't been able to get motivated by his teammates - including one that is going to be in the HOF - his peers, his coaches and managers, Marty's going to be the one to flip the switch. Any day now Adam's going to wake up and think, "Ya know, maybe I'm all wrong about how to play baseball. Gee, I think I'll take Marty's advice on how to be the best ballplayer I can be. It's all so simple. After all, if it wasn't for Marty, Johnny Bench would have to buy a ticket to get into the HOF."

Reading through the attempted humor, are you saying that Dunner doesn't work hard and that Marty is a homer after all since he is using his audience to make Dunner better?

RANDY IN INDY
01-31-2007, 03:28 PM
I can't believe that some on this board doubt whether Marty Brennaman, Hall of Fame broadcaster and voice of the Cincinnati Reds for 32 years, influences the way people think about this team. He does.

Let me ask this: Adam Dunn is by all accounts a likeable, self-deprecating, funny, handsome young man and one of the top offensive players in the league. His face should be on billboards all over town, but it isn't. Why is that?

He strikes out too much.;)

Couldn't resist.:evil:

paintmered
01-31-2007, 03:30 PM
Reading through the attempted humor, are you saying that Dunner doesn't work hard and that Marty is a homer after all since he is using his audience to make Dunner better?

Making Dunn better? Marty's bashing of Dunn corresponded with Dunn's downward trend. If they are related (and they aren't), he's done nothing but make Dunn worse through his comments.

Cyclone792
01-31-2007, 03:30 PM
But the majority of fans grew up playing baseball are apt to be jealous of Dunns natural ability and hold him to a higher standard then others like say a Ryan Freel. Who is the quinnessential working mans ballplayer.

What exactly is the "higher standard" here as it relates to Adam Dunn?

Seriously, the only higher standard I've seen around here recently is griping because Adam Dunn isn't on a path to being an all-time great player. Merely being on the route of possibly being a ho-hum Hall of Famer seemingly isn't good enough. If he's not going to be one of the absolute best players of all-time (read: 50 homers and 130 runs batted in annually, for whatever that's worth), he's apparently an underachiever that needs to be shipped out in order for this franchise to win.

Boy I can't wait until Homer Bailey arrives. I wonder what the reaction to Bailey will be if he doesn't jump out and immediately make the baseball world forget about Christy Mathewson.

Chip R
01-31-2007, 04:17 PM
Reading through the attempted humor, are you saying that Dunner doesn't work hard and that Marty is a homer after all since he is using his audience to make Dunner better?


No. What I'm saying is that if you subscribe to the theory that Adam's fat, lazy and out of shape and doesn't Play The Game The Right Way, do you really believe that Marty's going to be the one person to turn him around when everyone else couldn't? Marty may be a hall of famer in the broadcast booth but he hasn't accomplished squat on the field. Stands to reason, DUnn is going to listen to a teammate, a peer or a coach before he takes any advice from Marty. What do you think Marty would do if Dunn took him aside and told him how he could improve his broadcasting skills? :laugh:

forfreelin04
01-31-2007, 04:26 PM
What exactly is the "higher standard" here as it relates to Adam Dunn?

Seriously, the only higher standard I've seen around here recently is griping because Adam Dunn isn't on a path to being an all-time great player. Merely being on the route of possibly being a ho-hum Hall of Famer seemingly isn't good enough. If he's not going to be one of the absolute best players of all-time (read: 50 homers and 130 runs batted in annually, for whatever that's worth), he's apparently an underachiever that needs to be shipped out in order for this franchise to win.

Boy I can't wait until Homer Bailey arrives. I wonder what the reaction to Bailey will be if he doesn't jump out and immediately make the baseball world forget about Christy Mathewson.

These people hold Dunn to higher standards because of the hustle aspect or the fact he strikesout alot. Now some obviously consider these standards to be bunk and Im in aggreance. However, these are the standards of the traditionalist mindest. I think someone hit the nail on the head when they said "strikeouts are not bad because they hurt your team but because they hurt your feelings." The traditionlist mindest is based on playing the game the right way... whatever that may be. Strikeouts are not tolerated in key situations because it makes you look like a fool to traditionalists, amplify that times twenty when your the all time season leader in that department. Hustle is another aspect. Hustle is to baseball as what simple politness is to social character. People notice when you dont say "thank you" or "please." Same can be said for hustle, I would venture to say most people have seen Dunn taking his sweet time onto the field. It just looks bad. Just like not saying Please makes you look bad in anothers eyes. Now do you need to hustle to be a great ballplayer, hell no. Nor do you need to say please and thank you all the time to be a nice person. But doing each more often, certainly helps. In relation to Dunn, these negatives of his game are more clearly known to everyone. They can be seen instead of quanitified. Thus when Ryan Freel gets picked off first base for the second time in the game, it is forgiven with a "Freel is having a bad day." Now if Dunn made the same mistake, people say, "The bum, maybe if he hustled out to his position he would be more alert."

Not to get all philosophical there, but Im trying to help you understand why people are so apt to criticize such an amazing ballplayer.

westofyou
01-31-2007, 04:32 PM
http://www.deadballart.com/redszone/ed1.gif

Cyclone792
01-31-2007, 04:36 PM
These people hold Dunn to higher standards because of the hustle aspect or the fact he strikesout alot. Now some obviously consider these standards to be bunk and Im in aggreance. However, these are the standards of the traditionalist mindest. I think someone hit the nail on the head when they said "strikeouts are not bad because they hurt your team but because they hurt your feelings." The traditionlist mindest is based on playing the game the right way... whatever that may be. Strikeouts are not tolerated in key situations because it makes you look like a fool to traditionalists, amplify that times twenty when your the all time season leader in that department. Hustle is another aspect. Hustle is to baseball as what simple politness is to social character. People notice when you dont say "thank you" or "please." Same can be said for hustle, I would venture to say most people have seen Dunn taking his sweet time onto the field. It just looks bad. Just like not saying Please makes you look bad in anothers eyes. Now do you need to hustle to be a great ballplayer, hell no. Nor do you need to say please and thank you all the time to be a nice person. But doing each more often, certainly helps. In relation to Dunn, these negatives of his game are more clearly known to everyone. They can be seen instead of quanitified. Thus when Ryan Freel gets picked off first base for the second time in the game, it is forgiven with a "Freel is having a bad day." Now if Dunn made the same mistake, people say, "The bum, maybe if he hustled out to his position he would be more alert."

Not to get all philosophical there, but Im trying to help you understand why people are so apt to criticize such an amazing ballplayer.

I've long understood all of that. And frankly, it's a bunch of crap (which you seem to agree with). Unfortunately, it's a bunch of crap that is constantly and continually revered because of a broadcaster repeatedly beating it into the ground ad nauseum.

I'm only assuming here, but I would hope to think that all Reds fans - Marty included - want to see the franchise be successful. The problem is people need to separate reality from perception as far as how this franchise will be successful.

It's quite simple; the Reds need to score x number of runs more than they allow in any given season to have a great shot at the playoffs. If people want to see this team in the playoffs, it would behoove them to understand how a team can achieve scoring x number of runs more than it allows. Perhaps then the primary fan base can be supportive and critical of the franchise with factual evidence instead of half-truths and misinformation.

When Marty and the team's fan base live in a fantasy world for how a team scores/allows runs and then collectively bash the franchise's assets who actually do contribute greatly to that aspect, that's not contributing a whole bunch of positives to the underlying cause known as winning.

Red Leader
01-31-2007, 04:41 PM
If Adam Dunn dressed like Chip R with the wool sweater everytime he "walked" out to his position, I wouldn't like him very much.

The fact is he plays baseball in the current century.

Johnny Footstool
01-31-2007, 04:47 PM
But, sadly, not an anomaly amongst Reds fans.

Reds fans will miss Adam Dunn when he is gone, I can guarantee that.

Yep. The same way we missed Paul O'Neill.

Maybe even like we missed Frank Robinson.

In the immortal words of Cinderella frontman Tom Kiefer, you don't know what you've got until it's gone.

RedsManRick
01-31-2007, 05:17 PM
Seems to me this debate is a question about the nature of being a broadcaster for a team. What are Marty's professional obligations as a broadcaster? Is he required to be objective and purely factual? Is he required to be a marketing tool -- a mouthpiece for the voice of the Reds organization, with a message determined by the organization? Furthermore, are there "moral" obligations to put the best interests of the team (by whatever definition you want -- marketing, factual, etc.) ahead of ones personal views. I don't know the answers.

If Marty is a guy with an opinion and a talent of sharing it in an entertaining way, and his job is to do just that, then he should be free to spout off as he wishes. If the Reds don't like his opinions or the way he chooses to share them, fire him.

If Marty is a guy with an opinion and a talent of sharing it in an entertaining way, but his job is to promote a message determined by the Reds, then he needs to watch himself and keep his personal opinions to himself where they aren't in alignment.

Reality is probably something in between, with an assumption of creative and personal freedom, but within certain bounds. It seems to me that the problem here is that, by virtue of time, experience, and fame, Marty is becoming increasingly willing to push those bounds -- disrupting the balance between promoting his own personal views and one which the organization itself would promote. Perhaps those bounds aren't clearly stated by the Reds. Perhaps Marty has always been asked to be his own judge in this regard. Again, I don't know.

A last question would be, is Marty allowed to do both? Can he have (express) his own personal opinion when he's not serving as a formal representative of the team? Or, by definition, is Marty always a representative of the Reds, and thus obligated, by whatever terms of his position, to maintain certain boundaries?

Ltlabner
01-31-2007, 05:56 PM
Listen to one hour of a Cincy based sports talk show during the baseball season and get back to me on that one.

Why give Marty a free pass? Dunn is expected to work on his game, but Marty doesn't have too? Marty is the gold standard for resting on your laurels IMO. He hasn't come up with anything new for a few decades.

Ok, if Marty is the sorce of all evil and has everyone under this "BA/RBI" spell how do you explain the millions of casual fans across the entire country, most of whom who have never heard of Marty much less one of his broadcasts, and yet they still hold to the "traditional" measurements? Why is it my father and grandfather both, neither of whom "grew up with Marty" pretty much look at baseball the same way Marty does? How on earth did he program them? And why is it pretty much universal for most casual fans to complain that the highest paid players isn't doing enough X or too much Y? Has Marty gone on a city to city campaign to convince them to view baseball as he does?

The argument that Marty controlls what other people think falls apart the second you get beyond WLW's airwaves.

You do raise an excellent point about Marty embracing some news schools of thought. One that I think would only enhance his broadcasts. He should look to expand his knowledge. At the same time I don't fault the guy who (1) grew up long before the stats craze (2) has been around the game and throught about it 1 way for his entire life and (3) is in his early 60's for being resistant to change. Not everybody is as wonderfull, enlightenened and willing to expand our minds as those of us at RZ.


I have vowed this season to try listen to a few radio games from different markets such that I could compare them to Reds broadcasts. I know a few of them are downright awful and would have me begging for Marty. GL

I listend to a few games on TV last year, I think on WTBS. It might have been WGN. I can't remember. Either way it was dreadfull. Both totally not entertaining and not informative.

HumnHilghtFreel
01-31-2007, 06:01 PM
I listend to a few games on TV last year, I think on WTBS. It might have been WGN. I can't remember. Either way it was dreadfull. Both totally not entertaining and not informative.

All I know is, the guy on WGN that does White Sox games and says "He gone" after every strikeout annoys the hell out of me! lol

westofyou
01-31-2007, 06:03 PM
All I know is, the guy on WGN that does White Sox games and says "He gone" after every strikeout annoys the hell out of me! lol

http://www.baseballminutia.com/images/hawk.jpg

Ltlabner
01-31-2007, 06:08 PM
I can't believe that some on this board doubt whether Marty Brennaman, Hall of Fame broadcaster and voice of the Cincinnati Reds for 32 years, influences the way people think about this team. He does.

Let me ask this: Adam Dunn is by all accounts a likeable, self-deprecating, funny, handsome young man and one of the top offensive players in the league. His face should be on billboards all over town, but it isn't. Why is that?

I'm not arguing that he doesn't effect how people feal about the team. I'm arguing that he is not the sole effect on how people feal about the team. The idea that bunches of people sit huddled around a radio with a notepad so they get their marching orders from Marty is absurd.

It is much more reasonable that Marty is reinforcing their already held (incorrect) beliefs. Why is the top performing player on just about any team a lighting rod? Go to most any MLB city and you hear the top guy isn't doing Y or doing too much X. Does Marty program all of them too?

Casual fans all jump on the same easy to comment on items (K's, RBI's percieved work ethic) becuase it's all they generally know about the game. If they knew more about the game they wouldn't be casual fans.

Why is Dunn's face not on billboards? Seems like the marketing department would have much more to do with that decision than the radio broadcaster. Was Casey's all over billboards? I've seen some with Freel.

I do know that WLW uses the Dunn walk-off GS as a promo on a regular basis. I *think" I've seen TV comercials for the Reds showing Dunner swinging away.

Ltlabner
01-31-2007, 06:14 PM
What exactly is the "higher standard" here as it relates to Adam Dunn?

His paycheck.

Casual fans, who are rooted in RBI's K's and hustle, look at his paycheck and expect (unreasonably) more from him than other players.

Same fans bash Jr for getting hurt and claim he does it on purpose.

Same fans think A-Rods a dork.

It isn't fair, reasonable or just, but it is what it is.

Ltlabner
01-31-2007, 06:18 PM
It's quite simple; the Reds need to score x number of runs more than they allow in any given season to have a great shot at the playoffs. If people want to see this team in the playoffs, it would behoove them to understand how a team can achieve scoring x number of runs more than it allows. Perhaps then the primary fan base can be supportive and critical of the franchise with factual evidence instead of half-truths and misinformation.

When Marty and the team's fan base live in a fantasy world for how a team scores/allows runs and then collectively bash the franchise's assets who actually do contribute greatly to that aspect, that's not contributing a whole bunch of positives to the underlying cause known as winning.

You are, of course, 100% correct.

But I don't think "casual" fans give witt about the team winning. They claim the do. They'll show up at the world series parties. They will suddenly all be wearing Reds caps and jerseys. But I doubt they would really care to understand how to really generate wins.

If they did really care to understand....they wouldn't be casual fans. Casual fans just want to go to a few games a year, usually on free tickets, and see the Reds win that night. The rest of the season, unless they are in the WS, is mostly irrlevant with the exception of complaining around the water cooler and throwing out that Dunn K's too much to try to fit into the conversation.

reds44
01-31-2007, 06:21 PM
Who cares what Marty thinks? He doesn't run the team.

pedro
01-31-2007, 06:25 PM
Who cares what Marty thinks? He doesn't run the team.

that's right. he just runs them into the ground. ;)

Ltlabner
01-31-2007, 06:30 PM
that's right. he just runs them into the ground. ;)

How much can you pimp 6 seasons of crap?

Chip R
01-31-2007, 06:37 PM
Why is Dunn's face not on billboards? Seems like the marketing department would have much more to do with that decision than the radio broadcaster. Was Casey's all over billboards? I've seen some with Freel.

I do know that WLW uses the Dunn walk-off GS as a promo on a regular basis. I *think" I've seen TV comercials for the Reds showing Dunner swinging away.


I believe he was on some of the "Power of Tradition" billboards last year. I don't remember too many billboards with Casey on them unless it was a team shot and he was in the middle of it. I saw some with Freel last year too.

I'm not so sure that's WLW using that promo rather than the Reds using it for season tickets. Yeah, it plays on WLW but it's a Reds ad. But that's picking nits.

Why isn't Dunn on billboards on a regular basis? I don't know for sure. Only the Reds marketing people could tell you that. The bunch they had before Bob took over were pathetic. Maybe they don't want to promote one player over the team. Maybe Dunn doesn't want his mug up there. Maybe the marketing dept. believes that putting Dunn on a billboard would be counter-productive because of his failures. Maybe there's a trade in the works and they don't want to promote someone who is going to be traded. There could be other reasons.

pedro
01-31-2007, 06:53 PM
How much can you pimp 6 seasons of crap?

a lot more than he does.

and if he's so bored with the job that he has to talk about golf, tomato's and elvis maybe he ought to step aside.

edabbs44
01-31-2007, 09:07 PM
These people hold Dunn to higher standards because of the hustle aspect or the fact he strikesout alot. Now some obviously consider these standards to be bunk and Im in aggreance. However, these are the standards of the traditionalist mindest. I think someone hit the nail on the head when they said "strikeouts are not bad because they hurt your team but because they hurt your feelings." The traditionlist mindest is based on playing the game the right way... whatever that may be. Strikeouts are not tolerated in key situations because it makes you look like a fool to traditionalists, amplify that times twenty when your the all time season leader in that department. Hustle is another aspect. Hustle is to baseball as what simple politness is to social character. People notice when you dont say "thank you" or "please." Same can be said for hustle, I would venture to say most people have seen Dunn taking his sweet time onto the field. It just looks bad. Just like not saying Please makes you look bad in anothers eyes. Now do you need to hustle to be a great ballplayer, hell no. Nor do you need to say please and thank you all the time to be a nice person. But doing each more often, certainly helps. In relation to Dunn, these negatives of his game are more clearly known to everyone. They can be seen instead of quanitified. Thus when Ryan Freel gets picked off first base for the second time in the game, it is forgiven with a "Freel is having a bad day." Now if Dunn made the same mistake, people say, "The bum, maybe if he hustled out to his position he would be more alert."

Not to get all philosophical there, but Im trying to help you understand why people are so apt to criticize such an amazing ballplayer.

Amazing? Let's control ourselves here. I know this is the NAMDLA (North American Man-Dunn Love Association) board, but please let's keep the ridiculousness to a certain level. What word would be used for a player like Pujols, since amazing was reserved for Dunn?

We all know that:

BA doesn't matter in the slightest.
Ks, again, don't matter in the slightest.
Neither does fielding.
Hustling is overrated.

What does matter is what Dunn is good at: walks and HRs. Those are the only two things in baseball which make a difference.

Now back to our regularly scheduled Dunn love-a-thon.

RANDY IN INDY
01-31-2007, 09:12 PM
I know this is the NAMDLA (North American Man-Dunn Love Association) board

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Yachtzee
01-31-2007, 10:27 PM
Amazing? Let's control ourselves here. I know this is the NAMDLA (North American Man-Dunn Love Association) board, but please let's keep the ridiculousness to a certain level. What word would be used for a player like Pujols, since amazing was reserved for Dunn?

We all know that:

BA doesn't matter in the slightest.
Ks, again, don't matter in the slightest.
Neither does fielding.
Hustling is overrated.

What does matter is what Dunn is good at: walks and HRs. Those are the only two things in baseball which make a difference.

Now back to our regularly scheduled Dunn love-a-thon.

Don't forget scoring runs, that's what Dunn is good at. There are trees (BA, Ks, walks, HRs, hustling), and then there's the forest (scoring runs). With Dunn, that's a pretty big forest. Does it really matter that his forest has certain types of trees and not others?

So Dunn is not a perfect hitter. No one is. Isn't the solution to build a lineup around to complement his positive attributes rather than to expect him to be something he's not? Does it make sense to dump a guy who provides the majority of your team's offense when you have no one else to replace that offense?

As far as Marty and his ability to evaluate talent goes, if you were taking control of a team tomorrow, would you hire him to run your scouting department?

edabbs44
01-31-2007, 10:39 PM
Don't forget scoring runs, that's what Dunn is good at. There are trees (BA, Ks, walks, HRs, hustling), and then there's the forest (scoring runs). With Dunn, that's a pretty big forest. Does it really matter that his forest has certain types of trees and not others?

So Dunn is not a perfect hitter. No one is. Isn't the solution to build a lineup around to complement his positive attributes rather than to expect him to be something he's not? Does it make sense to dump a guy who provides the majority of your team's offense when you have no one else to replace that offense?

As far as Marty and his ability to evaluate talent goes, if you were taking control of a team tomorrow, would you hire him to run your scouting department?

Earlier in this post, someone brought up RBI as being team dependent and it's not a true measure of performance. Runs are just as team dependent as RBI and if one is discounted, then the other should be as well.

It's tough to be "good at scoring runs". If the people behind you produce while you are on base, you will probably score runs. If they don't, you probably won't score that many runs.

Now I would probably say that people who make things happen on the bases are beter at scoring runs than others, since they can move themselves up into scoring position, therefore elevating their chances of scoring. But I wouldn't put Dunn in that category.

Therefore, I find it hard to believe that he is good at scoring runs.

Yachtzee
01-31-2007, 10:49 PM
Earlier in this post, someone brought up RBI as being team dependent and it's not a true measure of performance. Runs are just as team dependent as RBI and if one is discounted, then the other should be as well.

It's tough to be "good at scoring runs". If the people behind you produce while you are on base, you will probably score runs. If they don't, you probably won't score that many runs.

Now I would probably say that people who make things happen on the bases are beter at scoring runs than others, since they can move themselves up into scoring position, therefore elevating their chances of scoring. But I wouldn't put Dunn in that category.

Therefore, I find it hard to believe that he is good at scoring runs.

Look up how many runs he scored last season compared to the rest of the team. Thats how you find out how good he was at scoring runs. One is good at scoring runs when the statistics show that he scores runs. He doesn't have to "make things happen" on the bases because he hits extra base hits.

The difference between runs and RBI as team dependent stats are that for runs, you yourself have to do something to make scoring the run possible (not making an out). With an RBI, unless you hit an HR, you require someone else to get on base ahead of you.

RedsBaron
01-31-2007, 10:50 PM
Marty just spent 20 minutes on SportsTalk. He criticized Dunn, and said the he would've traded Dunn to the Nationals last year over Kearns. Then said there is one player out there who would dramatically change this team. The player...one Steve Finley. Yes, soon to be 42-year-old Finley. He said he would guarantee Finley a starting spot. And he said there is no market for Dunn.

If there was a Hall of Fame for absolutely stupid statements, that statement by Marty would insure his first ballot induction.

edabbs44
01-31-2007, 10:56 PM
Look up how many runs he scored last season compared to the rest of the team. Thats how you find out how good he was at scoring runs. One is good at scoring runs when the statistics show that he scores runs. He doesn't have to "make things happen" on the bases because he hits extra base hits.

The difference between runs and RBI as team dependent stats are that for runs, you yourself have to do something to make scoring the run possible (not making an out). With an RBI, unless you hit an HR, you require someone else to get on base ahead of you.

Sorry, but that doesn't make any sense.

RBI
Dependence on team: Need teammate(s) to get on base
Self-dependence: Need to knock them in

Runs
Dependence on team: Need teammate(s) to knock you in
Self-dependence: Need to get on base

The only difference is that, apparently, Dunn is good at scoring runs and not good at knocking them in. So obviously it's his fault that he scores them and not his fault that he doesn't knock in more, since it's not his fault that he hit .221 with RISP last year since BA doesn't matter. There it is...I see now.

Yachtzee
01-31-2007, 10:57 PM
Last season Dunn scored 99 runs, the next 5 were Freel with 67, Phillips with 65, Griffey and Hatteburg with 62, and Encarnacion with 60. Even if you took away all of his HR, Dunn still scored 59 runs. So compared to the rest of the team, I'd say Dunn is pretty good at scoring runs.

gonelong
01-31-2007, 10:59 PM
Ok, if Marty is the sorce of all evil and has everyone under this "BA/RBI" spell how do you explain the millions of casual fans across the entire country, most of whom who have never heard of Marty much less one of his broadcasts, and yet they still hold to the "traditional" measurements? Why is it my father and grandfather both, neither of whom "grew up with Marty" pretty much look at baseball the same way Marty does? How on earth did he program them? And why is it pretty much universal for most casual fans to complain that the highest paid players isn't doing enough X or too much Y? Has Marty gone on a city to city campaign to convince them to view baseball as he does?

The argument that Marty controlls what other people think falls apart the second you get beyond WLW's airwaves. [/quote]

Thats quite a leap! :eek:

Marty doesn't 'control' anyone any more than a commercial on TV does. However I just don't see how it can be argued that he is not an influence. Again, the influence is both obvious and undeniable if you are in this area.


You do raise an excellent point about Marty embracing some news schools of thought. One that I think would only enhance his broadcasts. He should look to expand his knowledge. At the same time I don't fault the guy who (1) grew up long before the stats craze (2) has been around the game and throught about it 1 way for his entire life and (3) is in his early 60's for being resistant to change. Not everybody is as wonderfull, enlightenened and willing to expand our minds as those of us at RZ.

Marty ain't changing anytime soon, I realize it. I only bring it up because the same people bagging on Dunn (Marty included) for not working on his game give Marty a free pass from working on his. If Dunn can reach his full potential, than so can Marty.


I listend to a few games on TV last year, I think on WTBS. It might have been WGN. I can't remember. Either way it was dreadfull. Both totally not entertaining and not informative.

I know there are some absolutely awful announcers out there, just putrid.

GL

Yachtzee
01-31-2007, 11:04 PM
Sorry, but that doesn't make any sense.

RBI
Dependence on team: Need teammate(s) to get on base
Self-dependence: Need to knock them in

Runs
Dependence on team: Need teammate(s) to knock you in
Self-dependence: Need to get on base

The only difference is that, apparently, Dunn is good at scoring runs and not good at knocking them in. So obviously it's his fault that he scores them and not his fault that he doesn't knock in more, since it's not his fault that he hit .221 with RISP last year since BA doesn't matter. There it is...I see now.

Well look at it the other way, someone can be a great hitter and not get as many RBI because no one gets on base ahead of them. But no one was ever a great run scorer by making outs.

Patrick Bateman
01-31-2007, 11:08 PM
Earlier in this post, someone brought up RBI as being team dependent and it's not a true measure of performance. Runs are just as team dependent as RBI and if one is discounted, then the other should be as well.

It's tough to be "good at scoring runs". If the people behind you produce while you are on base, you will probably score runs. If they don't, you probably won't score that many runs.

Now I would probably say that people who make things happen on the bases are beter at scoring runs than others, since they can move themselves up into scoring position, therefore elevating their chances of scoring. But I wouldn't put Dunn in that category.

Therefore, I find it hard to believe that he is good at scoring runs.

Those are all good points.

I value Dunn's ability to get on base since it increases the chances of somebody knocking him in. The better the players the more runs he scores. The one singular stat is his ability to get on base which should lead to more runs scored than the average.

It's the same things as RBI's. The more power you have, the more likely you will be able to knock in runs assuming his teammates are league average.

It's not runs or RBI's that should be looked at as a guage of judging hitting prowess, but stats that value your ability to get on base and hit for power that will really give you a good idea how good a player is.

So I would say that Dunn is good at scoring runs. On base ability will lead to more runs, assuming every team has the same calibre of players surrounding him. But you are right, when it comes down to the facts, Dunn still has to rely on others to get him accross the plate.

Ltlabner
01-31-2007, 11:09 PM
Marty doesn't 'control' anyone any more than a commercial on TV does. However I just don't see how it can be argued that he is not an influence. Again, the influence is both obvious and undeniable if you are in this area.

GL

Several folks have posted that people just parrot what Marty says, or that they take every word he utters as gospel. There is where I am comming from with the "control" idea. I dissagree with the concecpt that Marty somehow plants these wild ideas in unspecting fans.

I agree he influcences the audience but I'm aruging that he's reinforcing what they already believe, not giving them some creative thought they never had on their own. Casual fans are taught from the time of t-ball that K's are bad, work really hard and don't leave runners stranded. They just carry these ideas with them to the big leagues.

And I agree with either you or Yatchee who posted that explaining OBP-SLG-OPS wouldn't be hard to do over the radio. I was thinking more like VORP or Win Shares or something abstract like that. But that was a good point that working those easier concepts in wouldn't be difficult.

edabbs44
01-31-2007, 11:11 PM
Well look at it the other way, someone can be a great hitter and not get as many RBI because no one gets on base ahead of them. But no one was ever a great run scorer by making outs.

Listen...you'll score more runs by getting on base over making outs and you'll have more RBI by getting hits over making outs. It's common sense. But everyone on this board likes to accentuate the positives about Dunn and totally discount his negatives. It's actually becoming quite hysterical.

I cannot wait to see someone post how by walking to his position he saves his energy for his long HRs.

Cedric
01-31-2007, 11:12 PM
Several folks have posted that people just parrot what Marty says, or that they take every word he utters as gospel. There is where I am comming from with the "control" idea. I dissagree with the concecpt that Marty somehow plants these wild ideas in unspecting fans.

I agree he influcences the audience but I'm aruging that he's reinforcing what they already believe, not giving them some creative thought they never had on their own. Casual fans are taught from the time of t-ball that K's are bad, work really hard and don't leave runners stranded. They just carry these ideas with them to the big leagues.

And I agree with either you or Yatchee who posted that explaining OBP-SLG-OPS wouldn't be hard to do over the radio. I was thinking more like VORP or Win Shares or something abstract like that. But that was a good point that working those easier concepts in wouldn't be difficult.

I think this is a great post. Sometimes I think Redszone and the fans that take baseball VERY VERY seriously just overestimate the average fan. Marty isn't unlike even baseball player them self in this. How many players really follow and understand the statistical side of baseball? Not many from what I've seen.

He's just calling the game in a partially ignorant way. It's not really unique to him though.

Patrick Bateman
01-31-2007, 11:14 PM
How many players really follow and understand the statistical side of baseball? Not many from what I've seen.


You're exactly right. Just as an example, I was reading how Ryan Howard was more excited about his high batting avergae than his 58 HRs.

edabbs44
01-31-2007, 11:16 PM
Those are all good points.

I value Dunn's ability to get on base since it increases the chances of somebody knocking him in. The better the players the more runs he scores. The one singular stat is his ability to get on base which should lead to more runs scored than the average.

It's the same things as RBI's. The more power you have, the more likely you will be able to knock in runs assuming his teammates are league average.

It's not runs or RBI's that should be looked at as a guage of judging hitting prowess, but stats that value your ability to get on base and hit for power that will really give you a good idea how good a player is.

So I would say that Dunn is good at scoring runs. On base ability will lead to more runs, assuming every team has the same calibre of players surrounding him. But you are right, when it comes down to the facts, Dunn still has to rely on others to get him accross the plate.

Exactly...and when Dunn is the biggest threat in the lineup, seeing him work the count like a leadoff hitter trying to draw a walk is SOMETIMES disappointing. He should be selective but my biggest problem with him is that he is sometimes too selective. He gets himself into a hole and he is pretty much useless with 2 strikes.

You want to see your big bats swing the bat...at strikes.

BRM
01-31-2007, 11:17 PM
everyone on this board likes to accentuate the positives about Dunn and totally discount his negatives.

I see an awful lot of the opposite on this board as well. Many people love to rail away on his negatives while discounting the positives. It tends to run both ways around here.

Yachtzee
01-31-2007, 11:26 PM
Listen...you'll score more runs by getting on base over making outs and you'll have more RBI by getting hits over making outs. It's common sense. But everyone on this board likes to accentuate the positives about Dunn and totally discount his negatives. It's actually becoming quite hysterical.

I cannot wait to see someone post how by walking to his position he saves his energy for his long HRs.

Well, you can get RBI by making outs through sacrifices, but then you can't score a run. You can move a runner over by getting a walk. You won't get the RBI yourself, but you've at least conserved an out and helped set the table for the next guy. Would I like to see Dunn hit for higher average? Sure. I didn't enjoy his slump at the end of this past season either. But I'm not going to skewer him on a pike and say I give up on him for a low BA and a high K rate when he still gets bases in bunches and scores lots of runs.

Dunn's not a "bad ball hitter" like Vlad Guerrero and is a big man with a huge strike zone, so it's hard to expect him to be good at protecting the plate. If you see that he gets on base a lot, does it make more sense to change his approach so to turn him into an "RBI" guy, or does it make more sense to move him up in the order and get some guys behind him who can hit?

Dom Heffner
01-31-2007, 11:29 PM
Look it's real simple--do you think Dunn has the power of David Ortiz or Ryan Howard?

I think Dunn has the power of those guys but getting him to demonstrate it with the same frequency might be asking too much of the guy.

He doesn't make enough contact- it is what it is. He isn't going to hit 50 -60 homeruns every year, no matter how much people want him to.

I'm with Marty on the 5 RBIs in September, but that's how power hitters are: streaky. It did seem like Dunn was phoning it in the last month, but how you tell that by looking at somebody I have no idea.

edabbs44
01-31-2007, 11:32 PM
I see an awful lot of the opposite on this board as well. Many people love to rail away on his negatives while discounting the positives. It tends to run both ways around here.

Couldn't agree more.

gonelong
01-31-2007, 11:44 PM
Several folks have posted that people just parrot what Marty says, or that they take every word he utters as gospel. There is where I am comming from with the "control" idea. I dissagree with the concecpt that Marty somehow plants these wild ideas in unspecting fans.

They do parrot, its indesputable. What percentage, I can't say, but its by no means an anomoly. You have to realize, for many Marty is either their sole or main source of Reds information.

Long before these debates on Redszone I used to tell people my only wish was to get a penny for every time I heard "Marty said".


I agree he influcences the audience but I'm aruging that he's reinforcing what they already believe, not giving them some creative thought they never had on their own. Casual fans are taught from the time of t-ball that K's are bad, work really hard and don't leave runners stranded. They just carry these ideas with them to the big leagues.

On he K's and BA, I'll agree. People bring that baggage with them.

On other things I don't buy it. Who works hard and who doesn't? Marty is gospel to a good sized segment of fans on that subject. What do the Reds need to add player-wise? If Marty thought a bullpen catcher would be a key ingredient to a better team, you'd get an earful about how bad our bull-pen catcher is from joe-casual-fan the next day. I am in no way joking about that in the least. Its unbelivable.


And I agree with either you or Yatchee who posted that explaining OBP-SLG-OPS wouldn't be hard to do over the radio. I was thinking more like VORP or Win Shares or something abstract like that. But that was a good point that working those easier concepts in wouldn't be difficult.

I don't expect it to ever happen on a Marty-cast. I'd have to believe that Marty has seen enough to be convinced on his own that OBP is an important piece, though I'd expect he'd confine it to the lead-off types.

I am pretty sure I caught the Creeper giving a quick tutorial on OBP or OPS one day on Real Reds last season. (Yes I watch Real Reds from time to time - if you are out of the market its a cheesy 1/2 before game show that often has the Creeper in uniform showing how players turn a double play, defend a bunt, slide, hold their fastball, etc. Its probably meant for the 12 year old crowd or so.)

GL

Gainesville Red
01-31-2007, 11:57 PM
He gets into uniform to do Real Reds?

Wow.

gonelong
02-01-2007, 12:19 AM
He gets into uniform to do Real Reds?

Wow.

Yeah. In his defense (not that I want to be the guy defending him on this count) he is often on the field demonstrating things such as sliding, fielding, getting a lead, hitting the cutoff man, etc.

GL

Reds1
02-01-2007, 12:49 AM
Leaving aside for the moment the fact that you call that "truth", you apparently don't listen to Marty's game calls. At all. There is no "finally" about this. It is part of a systemic and on-going campaign of obfuscation from Brennamen about Dunn.


You did cut off my quote, but to point out no I don't listen to many games on the radio as they are mostly all on tv these days. However, that being said yes, he makes no bones of his frustration about Dunn, which many of my friends who are Reds fans agree with. The lack of clutch hitting, etc. That kind of thing. I saw the walk off grand slam by Dunn on utube a couple days ago and Marty was very excited and it was an excellent call so it's not all the time.

Reds1
02-01-2007, 12:51 AM
a lot of the same things being said about Dunn were being said about Lee until he had the breakout 2005 season with the Cubs. The reason you keep hoping because if and when they put it together the potential upside exceeds that of all but a handful of players.

I think the large majority who criticize(who would K every single AB) have no clue about how exceedingly difficult it is to hit major league pitching or play in 162 games in a season.

Will Dunn have a breakout year and put it altogether or is he doomed to be a 40HR 250AVG 170K guy for the neat future?

Nobody knows the answer and people like to make suppositions like, "the reason he hasn't is because he is fat and lazy". He is simply a catalyst for criticism because of the fact that he doesn't measure up to preconceived notions of what he should be.


all very true. sure 40 HRS, 100 RBIs, 100 Walks, 100 Runs is excellent, but fans see the potential for more. He is much needed and the reds can't take many more Sept/Oct like he has last season.

Ron Madden
02-01-2007, 04:34 AM
all very true. sure 40 HRS, 100 RBIs, 100 Walks, 100 Runs is excellent, but fans see the potential for more. He is much needed and the reds can't take many more Sept/Oct like he has last season.

I believe Adam Dunn was on Fire in April, May and July.

If not for Dunn's early run production Sept/Oct doesnt matter at all.

Ron Madden
02-01-2007, 05:07 AM
Marty was one of the best PBP voices I've ever heard. Although he is still THE BEST when calling a game winning hit, Marty isn't near as good as he was before his induction to the Hall Of Fame.

His reputation for "Telling it like it is" is just bullspit.

Whenever he interviewed Barry Larkin, Jim Bowden, or Dan O'Brien he kissed their arse. As soon as Larkin, Bowden and O'Brien left the organization he decides to Tell it like it is" :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Marty has every right to his opinion. I have that same right to disagree.

Just because he is Marty dose Not make him right. No matter how many Idiots agree with him. :evil:

Ltlabner
02-01-2007, 07:53 AM
Long before these debates on Redszone I used to tell people my only wish was to get a penny for every time I heard "Marty said".

On other things I don't buy it. Who works hard and who doesn't? Marty is gospel to a good sized segment of fans on that subject. What do the Reds need to add player-wise? If Marty thought a bullpen catcher would be a key ingredient to a better team, you'd get an earful about how bad our bull-pen catcher is from joe-casual-fan the next day. I am in no way joking about that in the least. Its unbelivable. GL

I don't know what crowd you run with that is constantly saying, "Marty said". Are they 12 years old or something? I'm known somewhat as a baseball guy so the topic often comes up on my sales calls. Now I'm talking to huge numbers of people, day after day, across a three state region (and this is in addition to my circle of friends and family). And I've been travleing the area for 12 years now. I've NEVER heard anyone say, "Marty said.......".

I know this post will engender a bunch of "marty-sux" folks to post a bunch of "Marty said...." stories. Maybe it's all a mater of perception. Folks who don't care for Marty's antics "hear" him skipping over several batters as he tells Elvis stories. Folks who like Marty "hear" him giving out play-by-play data in the midst of the story. Folks who don't like Marty see an army of mind-numbed robots who get their marching orders from Marty. The pro-Marty camp sees a sea of causal baseball fans who don't know much more about the game, and who's views are conicidental to, not caused by Marty.

It's a never ending debate I suppose. Since much of it is a matter of taste than there will be no convincing either one of us.

The "who works hard" issue is universal. Fans everywhere have tbe perception that the guys making really big bucks are lazy if they don't do certian things, have an off year or have a glaring weakness in their game. They also usually have some "underdog" hero. This is neither new to Cincinnati or a plot conspired by the great poofy-haired one.

Ltlabner
02-01-2007, 08:31 AM
I got to thinking....I don't like Jeff Conine no matter how "young" his body may be. I think Steve Finley is a horrible idea and am pro-Dunner. Somehow I've been able to resist Marty's evil "brain control waves" and fend off his attempts to control my thinking.

Then I remembered what it was....

http://www.gamepolitics.com/images/tinfoil-hat.jpg

edabbs44
02-01-2007, 09:03 AM
I believe Adam Dunn was on Fire in April, May and July.

If not for Dunn's early run production Sept/Oct doesnt matter at all.

April and July...yes. May...not so much.

Dunn definitely had a hand in the early success of the team. But so did Arroyo (probably more than Dunn) and Phillips.

jojo
02-01-2007, 10:02 AM
To me it's pretty simple. Dunn is a lousy defender. Given the drag his defense and base running are on his total ability to effect RS/RA, he needs to be a 5 win bat to be worthy of the status of "irreplaceable". Last year, in fact, his overall production (VORP= 23; most defensive metrics suggest he was a -10 to -20 defender) would've been easy to replace.

Now consider this. One of the hardest things in baseball for a team is to make the transition from being an ordinary run of the mill 80 win team to one that can perennially win 90 games. Usually 90 wins is a good estimate for what it would take to have a shot at the playoffs. Last season the Reds had a golden opportunity handed to them....win 83 games and you're in the playoffs. As St Louis proved, once there, anything can happen. Unfortunately the Reds came up 3 games short ultimately casting the 2006 as one of the biggest missed opportunities of this Reds fan's lifetime.

Interestingly, Dunn and Griffey missed their projections in '06 by about 3.5 games. If those two had simply met their weighted mean forecasts, the Reds would've won the division despite the bullpen, the back end of the rotation or all of the moves by Krivsky that so many blame for the failure that was last season.

That's just food for thought.

gonelong
02-01-2007, 10:17 AM
I don't know what crowd you run with that is constantly saying, "Marty said". Are they 12 years old or something? I'm known somewhat as a baseball guy so the topic often comes up on my sales calls. Now I'm talking to huge numbers of people, day after day, across a three state region (and this is in addition to my circle of friends and family). And I've been travleing the area for 12 years now. I've NEVER heard anyone say, "Marty said.......".

I don't know where you live, but it sounds alot like heaven. :)

Since you frequent Redszone I know you are up on your Reds info and have opinions about what is going on. I am sure that you get lots of questions from casual fans that know you follow the Reds closely. I get the same. How are the Reds going to do this year? What did you think about that trade/signing? When will Homer be ready?

I grew up in a itty-bitty little burg and live about 45 miles away from it now (near Dayton). My friends, neighbors, and acquantances come from quite a variety of professions: garbage men, janitors, welders, farmers, teachers, business owners, laywers, accountants, firemen, doctors, chioropractors, factory workers, financial consultants, military, supervisors, managers, architects, clergy, physical therapists, scientists, engineers, software developers etc.

I hang around people that didn't finish high school and I hang around people that have multiple degrees. Given the area we live in, most of them are Reds fans to some degree. I get alot of questions or comments that start in some form or fashion get back to "I heard Marty on the radio last night and he said ...", "Marty doesn't think that <player> can't bunt very well", etc. My favorites are the parrots though. Marty will tell us on a broadcast that Aurilla is probably our MVP for the season. That will be a common theme on the radio, etc. for the next week. Heck, you'll see it posted on Redszone.

Since we aren't seeming to be influencing each other at this time, lets table it for now and pick it back up during the season.


Folks who don't like Marty see an army of mind-numbed robots who get their marching orders from Marty.

And again, I don't want to make it sound like the whole fanbase is a bunch of drooling knuckleheads without a single thought of their own. I am just saying that there is a group out there that rely on Marty for the majority of their information. I can understand why they would accept his opinion at face value, I did for a few decades.





GL

Reds1
02-01-2007, 10:25 AM
I believe Adam Dunn was on Fire in April, May and July.

If not for Dunn's early run production Sept/Oct doesnt matter at all.


Others were on fire too like Brandon Phillips, but if you can't finish then there's no reason to start. We needed Dunn as we were tied for 1st place and then went on a 9 game losing streak. Your star has to be consistant. Dunn has never really put a whole year together. He's had major slumps and then when Griffey goes down you have a huge hole in your 3-4 spot. Now he makes over 10 million. Every star is put up to a hire standard. When you take 10-15 or more of the payroll with one person you can't just fall off and die. It's baseball, we all slump, but hey he had the same hitting coach for 3 years I believe and that was supposed to help, but he really stunk and probably cost Chris Chamb his job. I hope he gets it going, but I am worried. I still think many of Marty's comments were true, cut I agree the broadcaster of the Reds shouldn't necessarily be that criticle.

Yachtzee
02-01-2007, 10:30 AM
I've never lived in the greater Cincinnati area. The closest I came was a brief stint in Tipp City as a toddler. Before the rise of the internet, just about my only sources of Reds news were the blurbs in The Sporting News (written by Hal McCoy) and Marty Brenneman over a staticky WLW that I could get after dark. Believe it or not, not everyone out there is as geeked out on baseball news over the internet as we are.

Johnny Footstool
02-01-2007, 10:39 AM
Adam Dunn could hit a 450 foot grand slam and people would complain that it didn't go 500 feet.

registerthis
02-01-2007, 10:40 AM
I don't know what crowd you run with that is constantly saying, "Marty said". Are they 12 years old or something? I'm known somewhat as a baseball guy so the topic often comes up on my sales calls. Now I'm talking to huge numbers of people, day after day, across a three state region (and this is in addition to my circle of friends and family). And I've been travleing the area for 12 years now. I've NEVER heard anyone say, "Marty said.......".

I know this post will engender a bunch of "marty-sux" folks to post a bunch of "Marty said...." stories. Maybe it's all a mater of perception. Folks who don't care for Marty's antics "hear" him skipping over several batters as he tells Elvis stories. Folks who like Marty "hear" him giving out play-by-play data in the midst of the story. Folks who don't like Marty see an army of mind-numbed robots who get their marching orders from Marty. The pro-Marty camp sees a sea of causal baseball fans who don't know much more about the game, and who's views are conicidental to, not caused by Marty.

It's a never ending debate I suppose. Since much of it is a matter of taste than there will be no convincing either one of us.

The "who works hard" issue is universal. Fans everywhere have tbe perception that the guys making really big bucks are lazy if they don't do certian things, have an off year or have a glaring weakness in their game. They also usually have some "underdog" hero. This is neither new to Cincinnati or a plot conspired by the great poofy-haired one.

Great post, Ltlabner.

RANDY IN INDY
02-01-2007, 10:41 AM
Adam Dunn could hit a 450 foot grand slam and people would complain that it didn't go 500 feet.

That's absurd, Johnny.

registerthis
02-01-2007, 10:43 AM
Adam Dunn could hit a 450 foot grand slam and people would complain that it didn't go 500 feet.

Hyperbole?

When he hit THE grand slam last year, everyone and their uncle were singing his praises. Even Mr. Brennamen.

RANDY IN INDY
02-01-2007, 10:48 AM
Hyperbole?

When he hit THE grand slam last year, everyone and their uncle were singing his praises. Even Mr. Brennamen.

Absolutely. The defense of Dunn at every turn is, every bit, as "over the top" as any criticisms that he receives.

edabbs44
02-01-2007, 11:11 AM
Adam Dunn could hit a 450 foot grand slam and people would complain that it didn't go 500 feet.

:cry:

Johnny Footstool
02-01-2007, 11:35 AM
OF COURSE it's hyperbole!

But the point stands -- people's expectations of Adam Dunn are so high that they can never be satisfied.

jojo
02-01-2007, 12:11 PM
OF COURSE it's hyperbole!

But the point stands -- people's expectations of Adam Dunn are so high that they can never be satisfied.

As I tried to point out above..... it's not so much people's expectations that dictate he have a high level of performance, it's the one dimensional nature of his game. He needs to be exceptional at the things he does well because he's so poor at all of the other things. Now that he's a >$10M/yr guy, he's got no margin or error concerning his offense if he's to be considered a value. If he's not going to be a value, it's very appropriate to reconsider whether he is as valuable as many believe. This is a big year for the Dunner.

RANDY IN INDY
02-01-2007, 12:13 PM
As I tried to point out above..... it's not so much people's expectations that dictate he have a high level of performance, it's the one dimensional nature of his game. He needs to be exceptional at the things he does well because he's so poor at all of the other things. Now that he's a >$10M/yr guy, he's got no margin or error concerning his offense if he's to be considered a value. If he's not going to be a value, it's very appropriate to reconsider whether he is as valuable as many believe. This is a big year for the Dunner.

Nice post. I, too, believe this is a huge year for Adam Dunn.

Johnny Footstool
02-01-2007, 12:53 PM
As I tried to point out above..... it's not so much people's expectations that dictate he have a high level of performance, it's the one dimensional nature of his game. He needs to be exceptional at the things he does well because he's so poor at all of the other things. Now that he's a >$10M/yr guy, he's got no margin or error concerning his offense if he's to be considered a value. If he's not going to be a value, it's very appropriate to reconsider whether he is as valuable as many believe. This is a big year for the Dunner.

I guess Dunn is one-dimensional if you consider working the pitch count, getting on base, and acquiring bases in bunches "one-dimensional." Or if you take a macro-view of offense as a single dimension.

The thing is, people can't seem to appreciate how important that so-called "one dimension" of his game is to winning baseball games.

Getting on base and acquiring bases are the two most important things a hitter can do. They far outweigh everything else -- sac flies, bunts, strikeouts, etc.

Unfortunately, in Dunn's case, people tend to say "since he earns X amount of money, he should do everything 'right'," and they ignore his *incredibly important* contributions and focus on the less significant things that he can't do. That's what wrankles me.

Yachtzee
02-01-2007, 12:53 PM
As I tried to point out above..... it's not so much people's expectations that dictate he have a high level of performance, it's the one dimensional nature of his game. He needs to be exceptional at the things he does well because he's so poor at all of the other things. Now that he's a >$10M/yr guy, he's got no margin or error concerning his offense if he's to be considered a value. If he's not going to be a value, it's very appropriate to reconsider whether he is as valuable as many believe. This is a big year for the Dunner.

Well, in your post above, I think you vastly overrate the effect that a LF has on defense. LF and 1B are traditionally the places where you hide guys with bad D, right? I would say that poor D at SS, 2B and CF can have a significant effect on RA, but LF? Really? In addition, your post focuses on the subpar season by Dunn and Griffey, yet you make no mention of the poor play of the rest of the team. I would say that Krivsky's unwise trade of Kearns and Lopez for little return is what had a greater impact on the Reds fortunes last season. In that trade he gave up a significant amount of offense for a marginal improvement in defense and little to no improvement in the bullpen. Sure, Dunn's D in LF is pretty bad. But as much as I like Griffey, I think his presence in CF has a much more negative effect with regard to RA than Dunn in LF. If there's a CF with good range out there, Dunn's deficiency in LF matters a lot less. But with Griffey and his legs out there, you've got some big gaping holes in the outfield defense. I love Griffey as a person and the smile on his face is one of the things I love about baseball, but I really wish he would take one for the team and move to RF.

I'm not saying Dunn had a great year and no one is saying Dunn is perfect. He had an off year last year, but he's still only 27. I feel the reason why people like myself get defensive of Dunn is that there are a few highly vocal and highly visible people associated with the Reds who seem to feel Dunn isn't worth a darn and should have been dumped at the first opportunity. That couldn't be further from the truth. He is very valuable if he is put in a position where he can succeed. He's a high OBP guy, so he gets on base a lot. He's also a high SLG guy, so he hits the ball a ton when he hits it. He is not and never has been a great contact hitter, so why expect him to be a BARISP guy? Why not bat him up in the 2 or 3 spot all the time and use your high BA guys to protect him? Plus, with Dunn taking all those pitches, it give the rest of the team a better look at the pitcher's stuff, right?

I agree that there's a tendency for those of us who like Dunn to gloss over his weaknesses in favor of his positives, but is Dunn really the reason the Reds came up short? Or is it that the GM took a gamble in trying to shore up the bullpen and defense and lost? Has there ever been a team in MLB that has placed its fortunes on the back of one person and been successful?

RedsManRick
02-01-2007, 01:16 PM
I see three things that make the Dunn "situation" what it is.

1.) People love greatness. Why don't people complain that Scott Hatteberg doesn't hit 20 homers? Or that Brandon Phillips should walk more? Or that David Weathers should strike more people out? It's because even if they improved those areas of their game, they would merely go from decent to a little bit better. Moving from the 50th percentile to the 75th percentile simply isn't that interesting, even if it would surely help the team win more games. There's just no glamor in going from average to above average.

2.) Dunn isn't great in the conventional sense -- because convention is screwy. Human perception is incredibly biased. People remember and thus are able to value positive events (things that actually do happen), much better than negative ones (non-events). It's why when you buy a new car you suddenly realize how many cars out there look just like yours. Those cars were there before but your brain simply didn't see them as meaningful. We are calibrated to our expectation about the outcome of an event and judge the actual outcomes in a relational way.

For a plate appearance, our expectation, or comparative baseline if you will, is a hit -- or more accurately, it's the ball being put in to play. We intuitively understand that a hit vs. an out on a ball in play is somewhat random. Thus, when the batter puts the ball in play, we somewhat absolve him of responsibility for the outcome. In this way, when a player walks, our tendency is not to judge the value of that walk versus an out (the actual likely outcome of any at bat), but versus a hit. The other bias the comes in to play here is that we like to assume a favorable outcome given a different occurrence -- i.e. if he had put the ball in play... he would've gotten hit... he would've drove in the runner, etc. when in fact, he likely would've produced a non-productive out. This is why strikeouts are frowned upon. We compare the strikeout to an unrealistic assessment of the chance for a positive outcome had the ball been put in play. Similarly, a walk is viewed as a failure relative to that hit that we fool ourselves in to thinking he could have gotten, had he only put the ball in play. Lastly, in the moment, we like to think that a walk is something that happens to a player, rather than something the player does/earns. Dunn IS walked. Dunn GETS a hit. Thus, again, we don't give him as much credit for a productive outcome.

3.) We think that Dunn could be great in the conventional sense. The logic goes, if Dunn only had a skill which many lesser plays have in spades -- better bat control & contact ability, he'd be truly great. We view this skill as "common" amongst baseball players, where as things like prodigious power or speed are rare. We also categorize certain skills in to learned skills and inherent skills. So while Dunn has extremely uncommon discipline/patience (we think of it as learned) and power (inherent), it's the rarity of those skills that allows us to discount their value. It's not "fair" to expect Hatteberg to "learn" great power, for Phillips to suddenly have great discipline, or for Dave Ross to steal 50 bases because not many people do. However, lots of guys can make solid, regular contact, so why can't Dunn? Tony Womack, who even Marty will admit is a lesser player than Dunn, can hit .300 and put the ball in play regularly. So a player of Dunn's general talents should be able to as well. Of course, the problem with this logic is that, like power and plate discipline, while it can be improved through training, some of it is hard-wired. In the back of our minds, we like to think of talent as a single variable. We conflate certain skill sets that in reality simply aren't related, or aren't as directly related as we want them to be. We think that since Dunn can judge the location of the ball well, he should be able to make contact with it.

Anyways, I'm rambling as always. My real point here, is that the annoying criticisms of Dunn aren't particular to him. Rather, it is a predictable result of the nature of human perception and our struggles to properly weight given at bat outcomes in terms of real productive value and to correctly assess the difference between natural and trained skill sets and a player's ability to improve at a given skill. Just ask Bobby Abreu.

edabbs44
02-01-2007, 01:29 PM
Dunn, at age 24: .266/.388/.569
Dunn, at age 25: .247/.387/.540
Dunn, at age 26: .234/.365/.490

When you have a year like that at age 24, people expect your numbers to improve or minimally stay static, not worsen. That is the #1 reason why people are expecting more from him. When your numbers are decreasing when you are entering your prime, that shows a cause for concern. And, for whatever reason, the "Dunn does no wrong" faction of this board cannot, or refuses to, see this.

If the league is adjusting to him..then it is his job to adjust along with them. Is it the shift? Well, then it's time to figure out how to beat the shift. No matter what your OBP is...a .234 average is nothing to brag about. Dunn's bat is the biggest on the team. He needs to hit the ball to really give his greatest value to the lineup. Go get Eckstein for $3-4 million per year if you want a grinder. $10 million deserves a lot more than working the count.

RedsBaron
02-01-2007, 01:32 PM
Someone on this thread (I can't remember who now, given that the thread is 19 pages long) made a good point in my humble opinion when it was noted that Marty became the Reds announcer in 1974 when the Big Red Machine was in all its glory. The BRM was not only the greatest team in NL history--it was a team that won games "the right way," that was fundamentally sound. The 1976 Reds lead the NL in every significant offensive category--hits, runs, RBI, doubles, triples, home runs, total bases, on base percentage, slugging percentage--and with a minimum of mistakes. The BRM usually lead the NL in fielding percentage and featured four Gold Glovers. The BRM usually had a success rate of 80%+ in stolen bases.
Marty began his career as Reds announcer by watching guys such as Joe Morgan and Pete Rose play everyday. Morgan is one of the smartest players ever; Joe may now say some stupid things as an announcer, but as a player he was a genius. As we know, perhaps nobody ever brought such an unbridled joy to competition as Rose, a guy who unlike perhaps any player since Ty Cobb gave 100% of himself on every play, every game.
I wish every Reds player was as smart as Joe Morgan and had his terrific all around skills. I wish every Reds player was as competitive as Pete Rose and hustled every moment. Those players are very few and very far between.
I wonder if Marty doesn't now measure current Reds against the standard set by guys such as Morgan and Rose, finds them falling short, and reacts against it.
I believe Marty probably prefers players such as Ryan Freel, who appear to always hustle, over players such as Adam Dunn, who do not give the appearance of making as great an effort--but Dunn is a much better player than Freel.

Johnny Footstool
02-01-2007, 01:53 PM
Dunn, at age 24: .266/.388/.569
Dunn, at age 25: .247/.387/.540
Dunn, at age 26: .234/.365/.490

When you have a year like that at age 24, people expect your numbers to improve or minimally stay static, not worsen. That is the #1 reason why people are expecting more from him. When your numbers are decreasing when you are entering your prime, that shows a cause for concern.
The difference between Dunn's 2004 and 2005 was one point of OPB (insignificant) and 29 points of slugging (a dozen singles and a couple of homers -- again pretty insignificant).

No one is denying that his late-summer slump in 2006 was brutally awful. But portraying the last few seasons as some kind of prolonged downward spiral is simply inaccurate.


And, for whatever reason, the "Dunn does no wrong" faction of this board cannot, or refuses to, see this.

That's a complete misrepresentation of the pro-Dunn crowd. We know he slumped. We know it was one of the worst slumps we have seen since, well, since Dunn's 2003 (which was much, much worse).

We also know that he responded in a big way in 2004 and 2005.

He's got faults that we openly acknowledge. He's not good at hitting singles. He watches tasty pitches sail by sometimes. He takes Magellan-like routes to the ball in the outfield. We see these things. The only thing we "refuse to see" is how his batting average, strikeouts, and defense in LF somehow trump his OB skills and power.


If the league is adjusting to him..then it is his job to adjust along with them. Is it the shift? Well, then it's time to figure out how to beat the shift. No matter what your OBP is...a .234 average is nothing to brag about. Dunn's bat is the biggest on the team. He needs to hit the ball to really give his greatest value to the lineup. Go get Eckstein for $3-4 million per year if you want a grinder. $10 million deserves a lot more than working the count.

You don't understand the importance of working the count and finding your pitch? Ask Ted Williams about that.

You get so upset about a .234 batting average that you ignore a .365 OPB?

This is exactly what I was talking about earlier -- ignoring the huge positives and picking on the comparatively insignificant negatives.

BTW - RedsManRick, great post. Nicely articulated. I'd rep you if I could.

RANDY IN INDY
02-01-2007, 01:56 PM
Some of us, who may criticize Adam Dunn's game from time to time, don't have unrealistic expectations of Adam Dunn. I would simply like to see him improve "a little" in some of his area's of weakness. That's all. Improvement. It doesn't have to be a .280 batting average but it should be better than .234. I know he's going to strike out a lot, but try and cut them down a little. I know he is never going to be a Gold Glove caliber left fielder, but show some some improvement. Heck, he didn't want to be a first baseman, so I say improve your defense a little in left field. It would help the team. Personally, I don't think it is too much to ask of someone with the natural talents of Adam Dunn to show some improvement in his area's of weakness.

In any job that I have ever had, my weaknesses were pointed out when I was reviewed, as well as my strengths. I was always asked to improve in those area's where I was not as strong, and I was expected to make an effort to improve. Why in the world do some think that Adam Dunn is exempt from those type expectations? It's easy to work on those things that you do very well. Doesn't take a lot of effort. It does take some effort and committment to work on the things that you don't do very well. Goals achieved with little effort are seldom worthwhile or lasting. The best way to improve the team is to improve ourself.

A little improvement from Adam Dunn in his weak area's would definitely make the Reds a better team and would solidify Adam Dunn as a team leader. For all the monster homeruns that he hits, and man, they are impressive, I think more people would develop a greater level of respect for Adam Dunn if they saw some improvement in those area's that he lacks in. May never happen, but I don't think a little improvement is too much to expect.

RedsManRick
02-01-2007, 01:58 PM
Good points RB. I think we have to be careful about saying who Marty "prefers", because given the choice I have no doubt Marty would take Dunn over Freel if he could only have one of them. That said, where Marty gets in to trouble is where he wants to pick and choose certain attributes and create a Frakenred. Sure, any person can improve themselves by working hard at a given thing. But there's a certain amount of interdepency between some things that gets over looked.

Ryan Freel is not a hustle guy who happens get dinged up a lot. He happens to get dinged up a lot because he's constantly going 100 mph.

Dunn is not just a guy with great plate discipline who happens to be laid back in general. There's some sort of relationship there. Not to say that Dunn has to be a hyper guy to be patient -- heck, Ryan Freel has good plate discipline too. Rather, a player isn't merely a set of unrelated skills. They play off each other and you can't simply tweak one of them without potentially affecting the rest.

Marty doesn't seem to appreciate the notion that if Dunn were to be more aggressive, we may see his power decline. He might turn some strikeout in to a hit, or some walk in to a sac fly (uggh), but he might also turn an at bat in which he worked a walk in to a ground out or a 7th pitch home run in to a 3rd pitch single. He wants to keep everything else constant and simply improve 1 thing.

It just doesn't work that way. For examples of this, look no further than Dunn's numbers when Chambliss was pushing him to be more aggressive or Votto's when he was forced to take the first pitch. In essence though, I think you have Marty's psychology nailed. He was exposed to greatness early on and now struggles to appreciate lesser versions of it. When the team could benefit so much from Brandon Phillips seeing more pitches, Narron batting guys in a better order, or Griffey not playing CF, Marty focuses on the "failure" of Dunn to be even greater because he knows just how wonderful it is to see that in action. For the reasons I talked about above, Marty knows that Ryan Freel isn't Pete Rose, but he thinks he's doing every thing he can. Marty thinks that Adam Dunn should be George Foster and the only reason he isn't is that he's lazy or unwilling to adjust.

Perhaps there's some truth to his case. Maybe Dunn should be working out more/differently and should explore a less all-or-nothing plate approach. But Marty hasn't made the case clearly enough that Dunn is "failing" due to a lack of effort. The numbers simply aren't enough "proof". Randy, do you know that Dunn isn't trying to improve in LF and isn't trying to cut down his strikeouts? Why don't we complain that Ryan Freel isn't trying to hit more Home Runs and that Scott Hatteberg isn't try to steal more bases? It's because for some reason we think that Dunn is choosing not to improve his game in certain areas -- or isn't trying hard enough. Maybe he simply can't. Maybe he can't read the ball well of the bat and he's never going to get any better at it. Maybe he simply can't make contact more often because he's maximized his hand-eye cooridation. I don't KNOW this to be the case all, but why won't we admit the possibility? Just like Ryan Freel will never hit 30 homers, no matter how hard to hits the weights, and Scott Hatteberg won't steal 30 bases no matter what speed coach he has. Is it possible that Dunn IS working his tail off in those areas and he's simply not capable of improving? If so, can we handle that?

Until Marty, or anybody else, demonstrates that Dunn's failures are due to a lack of effort, or stubbornness in trying new things to imrpove his game, the complaints about his inability to reach a new level of performance are weak and unfair. If we can't establish that much, I want to hear Marty ranting every time Ryan Freel hits a double that falls 10 feet short of the wall, lamenting his inability to hit for power.

Johnny Footstool
02-01-2007, 02:03 PM
Some of us, who may criticize Adam Dunn's game from time to time, don't have unrealistic expectations of Adam Dunn. I would simply like to see him improve "a little" in some of his area's of weakness. That's all. Improvement. It doesn't have to be a .280 batting average but it should be better than .234. I know he's going to strike out a lot, but try and cut them down a little. I know he is never going to be a Gold Glove caliber left fielder, but show some some improvement. Heck, he didn't want to be a first baseman, so I say improve your defense a little in left field. It would help the team. Personally, I don't think it is too much to ask of someone with the natural talents of Adam Dunn to show some improvement in his area's of weakness.

In any job that I have ever had, my weaknesses were pointed out when I was reviewed, as well as my strengths. I was always asked to improve in those area's where I was not as strong, and I was expected to make an effort to improve. Why in the world do some think that Adam Dunn is exempt from those type expectations? It's easy to work on those things that you do very well. Doesn't take a lot of effort. It does take some effort and committment to work on the things that you don't do very well. Goals achieved with little effort are seldom worthwhile or lasting. The best way to improve the team is to improve ourself.

A little improvement from Adam Dunn in his weak area's would definitely make the Reds a better team and would solidify Adam Dunn as a team leader. For all the monster homeruns that he hits, and man, they are impressive, I think more people would develop a greater level of respect for Adam Dunn if they saw some improvement in those area's that he lacks in. May never happen, but I don't think a little improvement is too much to expect.

Understood, Randy. And I agree. I'd love to see Adam Dunn improve his batting average and reduce strikeouts without hurting his other numbers. But I'm not going to berate him if he hits .250 with a .950 OPS and 200 Ks. The good far outweighs the bad.

edabbs44
02-01-2007, 02:21 PM
The difference between Dunn's 2004 and 2005 was one point of OPB (insignificant) and 29 points of slugging (a dozen singles and a couple of homers -- again pretty insignificant).

No one is denying that his late-summer slump in 2006 was brutally awful. But portraying the last three seasons as some kind of prolonged downward spiral is simply inaccurate.

29 points of SLG is insignificant? A dozen singles and a couple of homers are insignificant? Of course they are...it's Adam we're talking about.


That's a complete misrepresentation of the pro-Dunn crowd. We know he slumped. We know it was one of the worst slumps we have seen since, well, since Dunn's 2003 (which was much, much worse).

We also know that he responded in a big way in 2004 and 2005.

He's got faults that we openly acknowledge. He's not good at hitting singles. He watches tasty pitches sail by sometimes. He takes Magellan-like routes to the ball in the outfield. We see these things. The only thing we "refuse to see" is how his batting average, strikeouts, and defense in LF somehow trump his OB skills and power.

The difference between 2003 and 2006 is that Dunn is now a veteran. When you are 23, you are a youngster and need to make adjustments to the majors. When you are 26, you are a vet and should be making those adjustments on the fly. A 2 month slump isn't a slump...it's a big problem.


You don't understand the importance of working the count and finding your pitch? Ask Ted Williams about that.

You get so upset about a .234 batting average that you ignore a .365 OPB?

This is exactly what I was talking about earlier -- ignoring the huge positives and picking on the comparatively insignificant negatives.

Since when is a .365 OBP something to brag about?

And the #1 benefit from working the count and "finding your pitch" is......finding your pitch. Hitting .234 doesn't really constitute finding your pitch. Look at Dunn's numbers when he has 2 strikes. Sometimes he works the count directly into the pitcher's favor. He is useless when he has 2 strikes on him.

When you work the count, you are looking for a pitch in your zone to drive. Which, if I am not mistaken, would increase your ability to get a hit. How come this doesn't seem to be working to his advantage?

Here's a question: Game on the line, 2 outs, tying run on 2nd in the 9th. Dunn comes up and the pitcher gets him in an 0-2 hole. Would you pinch-hit for him?

No?

How about if you knew this:

In his career:

After the count is 0-2, Dunn has a .436 OPS.
...1-2, .510 OPS.
...2-2, .663 OPS.
...3-2, .867 OPS, and that's just a fact of being one ball away from a walk since his OBP is .475 in that situation. His avg is .192.

Now, that's a rather large sample size. It's his CAREER.

The reason why I point this out is that Dunn, with all of his might, should never put himself in a position to have 2 strikes on him. He cannot hit with 2 strikes. It's a proven fact. So by working the count, he SOMETIMES kills his chances at having a successful at bat.

Dunn after the count is 0-1: .691 OPS.
After the count is 1-0: 1.027 OPS.
First pitch in play: 1.248 OPS.

I would have to say that, if the first pitch is a strike, he better swing. I realize it's easier said than "Dunn", but look at the numbers.

Now, I have no idea where to get this info, but could someone find out Dunn's splits on taking the first pitch, ball vs strike? If so, it could tell a little about his working the count and killing his ABs.

jojo
02-01-2007, 02:24 PM
The thing is, people can't seem to appreciate how important that so-called "one dimension" of his game is to winning baseball games.

I think I pretty fairly and accurately accessed the value of his offensive skills---and actually placed them within the context of his true total value. He's making $10.5M next season. He needs to to at least a 3 to 3.5 win player in '07 to justify that. Since his only value is derived from his offense-hence he's one dimensional-(and actually his defense is a drag on his worth relative to runs), he needs to be a five win bat......

Remember there are two sides to the equation...RS AND RA.


Getting on base and acquiring bases are the two most important things a hitter can do. They far outweigh everything else -- sac flies, bunts, strikeouts, etc.

Yes, nobody is denying that. The issue is whether or not he can do either of those well enough to offset his deficiencies (or to be tons better than another guy with fewer RC but who plays exceptional defense) to the point that he isn't being overpaid. He's being paid like he can hit and catch but unfortunately his defensive deficiencies probably mean he'll be overpaid for his overall contribution to wins. IMHO, some of his biggest supporters forget to account for the runs he gives up when they become fixated on the runs he creates. If Dunn doesn't at least top a VORP of 40, there are tons of cheaper reasonable facsimiles available...


Unfortunately, in Dunn's case, people tend to say "since he earns X amount of money, he should do everything 'right'," and they ignore his *incredibly important* contributions and focus on the less significant things that he can't do. That's what wrankles me.

I didn't say he needs to do everything right. I said given his deficiencies, he has to be approximately a five win bat. If you interpret that as meaning he has to do everything right, then I guess you can appreciate just how small his margin of error really is now that his salary has increased.

M2
02-01-2007, 02:30 PM
Some of us, who may criticize Adam Dunn's game from time to time, don't have unrealistic expectations of Adam Dunn. I would simply like to see him improve "a little" in some of his area's of weakness. That's all. Improvement. It doesn't have to be a .280 batting average but it should be better than .234. I know he's going to strike out a lot, but try and cut them down a little. I know he is never going to be a Gold Glove caliber left fielder, but show some some improvement. Heck, he didn't want to be a first baseman, so I say improve your defense a little in left field. It would help the team. Personally, I don't think it is too much to ask of someone with the natural talents of Adam Dunn to show some improvement in his area's of weakness.

I doubt there's a Reds fan who'd disagree with you on that. I'd add that he's going to need to be leaner in the future if he wants to avoid breaking down. IIRC, you and I pretty much agree in full on what Dunn needs to do in order to improve his game.

The real breakdown on Dunn occurs when you get the crowd that begins to rip its hair out over his BA and Ks. Dunn doesn't suck. In fact, he's a very good guy to have on your team if you'd like that team to score some runs. I wish Dunn would take the next step forward in his game and I wish the Reds would deploy him properly (Narron and Miley have wasted a lot of Dunn's OB over the past three seasons). I also hope he's matured to the point where he never gets into another slump like the one we saw to end the season.

Anyway, I think most everybody who recognizes the good Dunn does also recognizes he's got many material weaknesses. On the flip side, there seems to be a large contingent of folks who only see the weaknesses and refuse to weigh that against his strengths (btw, that does not refer to some of the above posts where posters have tried to weigh the two).

When I read a reasonable criticism of Dunn's game, like the one you posted, I nod my head in agreement. I imagine all of the "Pro-Dunn" folks (it's stunning that this would be a contingent when you think about it) do. What I can't get on board with is the oft-repeated notion that Dunn's killing the Reds.

Chip R
02-01-2007, 02:43 PM
To me it's pretty simple. Dunn is a lousy defender. Given the drag his defense and base running are on his total ability to effect RS/RA, he needs to be a 5 win bat to be worthy of the status of "irreplaceable". Last year, in fact, his overall production (VORP= 23; most defensive metrics suggest he was a -10 to -20 defender) would've been easy to replace.


But I think the defensive issue is a non-starter. Would it be nice if he were a better defensive player? Absolutely. But take Manny Ramirez in BOS. He's no better than Dunn out there but he puts up such strong offensive numbers that his defensive shortcomings have become a joke to Red Sox Nation. His poor defense is excusable because he puts up such good numbers on offense. If he were playing LF in Cincinnati, I'm sure he'd get the same reaction. And if Dunn were playing in BOS and putting up similar numbers, I'm sure his weaknesses in LF would be criticized extensively if he didn't put up Mannyesque numbers on offense.

RANDY IN INDY
02-01-2007, 02:43 PM
I doubt there's a Reds fan who'd disagree with you on that. I'd add that he's going to need to be leaner in the future if he wants to avoid breaking down. IIRC, you and I pretty much agree in full on what Dunn needs to do in order to improve his game.

The real breakdown on Dunn occurs when you get the crowd that begins to rip its hair out over his BA and Ks. Dunn doesn't suck. In fact, he's a very good guy to have on your team if you'd like that team to score some runs. I wish Dunn would take the next step forward in his game and I wish the Reds would deploy him properly (Narron and Miley have wasted a lot of Dunn's OB over the past three seasons). I also hope he's matured to the point where he never gets into another slump like the one we saw to end the season.

Anyway, I think most everybody who recognizes the good Dunn does also recognizes he's got many material weaknesses. On the flip side, there seems to be a large contingent of folks who only see the weaknesses and refuse to weigh that against his strengths.

When I read a reasonable criticism of Dunn's game, like the one you posted, I nod my head in agreement. I imagine all of the "Pro-Dunn" folks (it's stunning that this would be a contingent when you think about it) do. What I can't get on board with is the oft-repeated notion that Dunn's killing the Reds.

He's not killing the Reds. His contribution is more "key" to the success of the Reds, now, than ever before. I hope he realizes that and makes the necessary adjustments in his game to continue to be a force. You commented on his body and being "leaner," and I think that is a very astute observation. It is going to take more effort in that area, as he continues to age, to be able to put up even the same type numbers that he already has put up. The reflexes slow with age. It will take more committment on his part if he wants to be a lasting "force" in this game.

He has a great eye at the plate for drawing walks, but his eye is not always as keen in recognizing pitches that he can drive. I think he needs to really improve in this area, particularly as he ages. He also needs to realize that his future is probably going to be at first base, and he needs to make the effort, now, to start honing some of those skills. I hope he comes to camp this season in great shape, and puts some of the shine back on his value and becomes even a greater force in the Reds lineup. They definitely need him to come up big.

jojo
02-01-2007, 02:50 PM
The difference between Dunn's 2004 and 2005 was one point of OPB (insignificant) and 29 points of slugging (a dozen singles and a couple of homers -- again pretty insignificant).

Actually, the difference is meaningful.....thats about a win over 600 Abs...


No one is denying that his late-summer slump in 2006 was brutally awful. But portraying the last few seasons as some kind of prolonged downward spiral is simply inaccurate.

I dunno....the difference between '04 and '06 is about 3 wins.... I wonder why he has no trade value?


The only thing we "refuse to see" is how his batting average, strikeouts, and defense in LF somehow trump his OB skills and power.

I could care less about his batting average or strikeouts. But when the gold standard defensive metrics suggest he a -10 to -20 defender, its difficult to see why one wouldn't accept that his defense mitigates his OBP. That's a 1 to 2 win drag on his total value (or in other words that could be as much as -.060 OPS). So really defense can impact the value of OBP.


This is exactly what I was talking about earlier -- ignoring the huge positives and picking on the comparatively insignificant negatives.

See above.... I think a lot of people ignore the negatives actually. Pecota predicts he'll be a 4 win bat in '07. If he does that, you won't hear a complaint out of me.

jojo
02-01-2007, 02:56 PM
But I think the defensive issue is a non-starter. Would it be nice if he were a better defensive player? Absolutely. But take Manny Ramirez in BOS. He's no better than Dunn out there but he puts up such strong offensive numbers that his defensive shortcomings have become a joke to Red Sox Nation. His poor defense is excusable because he puts up such good numbers on offense. If he were playing LF in Cincinnati, I'm sure he'd get the same reaction. And if Dunn were playing in BOS and putting up similar numbers, I'm sure his weaknesses in LF would be criticized extensively if he didn't put up Mannyesque numbers on offense.


I agree-that's my point...there is a minimum level where Dunn's bat has to be in order for his defense not to be a gripe. Dunn's best year was in '04 when he had a VORP=52. Manny hasn't even had a VORP that LOW since 1998. Manny clearly has more margin of error when it comes to his value relative to wins and salary.

M2
02-01-2007, 02:57 PM
It is going to take more effort in that area, as he continues to age, to be able to put up even the same type numbers that he already has put up. The reflexes slow with age. It will take more committment on his part if he wants to be a lasting "force" in this game.

That's one of those great universal truths that young guys always seem to ignore when it comes from the mouths of old guys. Oh to be bulletproof again.


He has a great eye at the plate for drawing walks, but his eye is not always as keen in recognizing pitches that he can drive. I think he needs to really improve in this area, particularly as he ages. He also needs to realize that his future is probably going to be at first base, and he needs to make the effort, now, to start honing some of those skills. I hope he comes to camp this season in great shape, and puts some of the shine back on his value and becomes even a greater force in the Reds lineup. They definitely need him to come up big.

Totally agreed. Dunn's one of the two guys (along with Encarnacion) who'll need to carry the offense and your comment about recognizing pitches he can drive is spot on.

On the defense, I think you've touched upon the attitude the Reds need to take - if he wants to play LF, then he'd better play it well, otherwise he'll be at 1B so fast it will make his head spin. Tell him that and force him to practice 1B just to reinforce the impending nature of the switch if he can't deliver defensively in his preferred position.

I'll tell you what, I'd love to see the Reds pay to have Dunn spend a month with Paul O'Neill.

jojo
02-01-2007, 03:05 PM
Well, in your post above, I think you vastly overrate the effect that a LF has on defense. LF and 1B are traditionally the places where you hide guys with bad D, right? I would say that poor D at SS, 2B and CF can have a significant effect on RA, but LF?

I appreciate you bringing up the impact of defense because it is a fair point and one that is often debated. First, LF and 1b are places where poor defenders are hidden because they are the easiest positions to play relatively on the field. Also, obvisouly, a LFer will get fewer chances to touch the ball then say a ss or CFer. That being said, the non-gets by Dunn are by definition on the fringes of his range (the gap and down the line) and will tend to be more costly than say a ball not gotten by a shortstop.


but is Dunn really the reason the Reds came up short? Or is it that the GM took a gamble in trying to shore up the bullpen and defense and lost? Has there ever been a team in MLB that has placed its fortunes on the back of one person and been successful?

Perhaps I should've said it this way- despite all of the other events and issues of '06, the Reds still could've won the division if Griffey and Dunn had simply performed to their 50th percentile Pecota projections (i.e. if they would've simply done what was expected of them)...

Heath
02-01-2007, 03:18 PM
I see three things that make the Dunn "situation" what it is.

1.) People love greatness. Why don't people complain that Scott Hatteberg doesn't hit 20 homers? Or that Brandon Phillips should walk more? Or that David Weathers should strike more people out? It's because even if they improved those areas of their game, they would merely go from decent to a little bit better. Moving from the 50th percentile to the 75th percentile simply isn't that interesting, even if it would surely help the team win more games. There's just no glamor in going from average to above average.

2.) Dunn isn't great in the conventional sense -- because convention is screwy. Human perception is incredibly biased. People remember and thus are able to value positive events (things that actually do happen), much better than negative ones (non-events). It's why when you buy a new car you suddenly realize how many cars out there look just like yours. Those cars were there before but your brain simply didn't see them as meaningful. We are calibrated to our expectation about the outcome of an event and judge the actual outcomes in a relational way.

For a plate appearance, our expectation, or comparative baseline if you will, is a hit -- or more accurately, it's the ball being put in to play. We intuitively understand that a hit vs. an out on a ball in play is somewhat random. Thus, when the batter puts the ball in play, we somewhat absolve him of responsibility for the outcome. In this way, when a player walks, our tendency is not to judge the value of that walk versus an out (the actual likely outcome of any at bat), but versus a hit. The other bias the comes in to play here is that we like to assume a favorable outcome given a different occurrence -- i.e. if he had put the ball in play... he would've gotten hit... he would've drove in the runner, etc. when in fact, he likely would've produced a non-productive out. This is why strikeouts are frowned upon. We compare the strikeout to an unrealistic assessment of the chance for a positive outcome had the ball been put in play. Similarly, a walk is viewed as a failure relative to that hit that we fool ourselves in to thinking he could have gotten, had he only put the ball in play. Lastly, in the moment, we like to think that a walk is something that happens to a player, rather than something the player does/earns. Dunn IS walked. Dunn GETS a hit. Thus, again, we don't give him as much credit for a productive outcome.

3.) We think that Dunn could be great in the conventional sense. The logic goes, if Dunn only had a skill which many lesser plays have in spades -- better bat control & contact ability, he'd be truly great. We view this skill as "common" amongst baseball players, where as things like prodigious power or speed are rare. We also categorize certain skills in to learned skills and inherent skills. So while Dunn has extremely uncommon discipline/patience (we think of it as learned) and power (inherent), it's the rarity of those skills that allows us to discount their value. It's not "fair" to expect Hatteberg to "learn" great power, for Phillips to suddenly have great discipline, or for Dave Ross to steal 50 bases because not many people do. However, lots of guys can make solid, regular contact, so why can't Dunn? Tony Womack, who even Marty will admit is a lesser player than Dunn, can hit .300 and put the ball in play regularly. So a player of Dunn's general talents should be able to as well. Of course, the problem with this logic is that, like power and plate discipline, while it can be improved through training, some of it is hard-wired. In the back of our minds, we like to think of talent as a single variable. We conflate certain skill sets that in reality simply aren't related, or aren't as directly related as we want them to be. We think that since Dunn can judge the location of the ball well, he should be able to make contact with it.

Anyways, I'm rambling as always. My real point here, is that the annoying criticisms of Dunn aren't particular to him. Rather, it is a predictable result of the nature of human perception and our struggles to properly weight given at bat outcomes in terms of real productive value and to correctly assess the difference between natural and trained skill sets and a player's ability to improve at a given skill. Just ask Bobby Abreu.

Folks, that kick was right through the uprights. Good Points, RMR.

:thumbup:

RANDY IN INDY
02-01-2007, 03:22 PM
I'll tell you what, I'd love to see the Reds pay to have Dunn spend a month with Paul O'Neill.

M2, that is a fantastic idea. Right on the money.

Chip R
02-01-2007, 03:34 PM
M2, that is a fantastic idea. Right on the money.


Unfortunately, they would have to trade him to the Yankees for that to happen. :(

KronoRed
02-01-2007, 03:35 PM
Unfortunately, they would have to trade him to the Yankees for that to happen. :(

Give it time, 2 years tops ;)

M2
02-01-2007, 03:44 PM
Unfortunately, they would have to trade him to the Yankees for that to happen. :(

Does O'Neill's contract with the Yankees extend beyond broadcasting? If not then he might be available for some offseason consulting. I've always thought teams underutilize the offseason. It's nearly impossible to change a player's focus and approach during the season. There's literally too much to do, not enough time to learn anything.

During the winter is where you could hook a player like Dunn up with a coach and/or mentor and say, "For the next month you're going to work on your defense, your conditioning, your two-strike approach and nothing else."

uks2h
02-01-2007, 04:12 PM
I suppose to some degree its better than simply blowing smoke up our bums every time he gets on the radio, but at the same time Marty is a HoFer. He's been watching this game a long time and he should know how rare what his expectations are for a ball player to do even ONCE, much less EVERY YEAR.

Well I'm sure all the HoF's should go by what you say. I mean, they can't know more than you about the game, can they? ;)

Chip R
02-01-2007, 04:31 PM
Does O'Neill's contract with the Yankees extend beyond broadcasting? If not then he might be available for some offseason consulting. I've always thought teams underutilize the offseason. It's nearly impossible to change a player's focus and approach during the season. There's literally too much to do, not enough time to learn anything.

During the winter is where you could hook a player like Dunn up with a coach and/or mentor and say, "For the next month you're going to work on your defense, your conditioning, your two-strike approach and nothing else."


Don't know. Perhaps some of our new posters who are Yankee fans could answer that. If it's just a broadcasting deal, that might be something to consider. Perhaps Paul would like to spend part of the winter in Texas rather than Montgomery.

Johnny Footstool
02-01-2007, 04:33 PM
29 points of SLG is insignificant? A dozen singles and a couple of homers are insignificant? Of course they are...it's Adam we're talking about.

A dozen singles is roughly one more single every two weeks over the course of the season. Yes, that's insignificant.

A couple of homers is also insignificant. Yes, it's a dropoff from the previous season, but it's a reasonable dropoff, not a step off a cliff.


The difference between 2003 and 2006 is that Dunn is now a veteran. When you are 23, you are a youngster and need to make adjustments to the majors. When you are 26, you are a vet and should be making those adjustments on the fly. A 2 month slump isn't a slump...it's a big problem.

Derek Jeter, 2004.
April OPS: .491.
May OPS: .716.

Slumps happen.




Since when is a .365 OBP something to brag about?

When it's 130 points higher than your batting average.


And the #1 benefit from working the count and "finding your pitch" is......finding your pitch. Hitting .234 doesn't really constitute finding your pitch.


No, but slugging .500 does. Dunn does that in his non-slump years.


Look at Dunn's numbers when he has 2 strikes. Sometimes he works the count directly into the pitcher's favor. He is useless when he has 2 strikes on him.

Who isn't?


When you work the count, you are looking for a pitch in your zone to drive. Which, if I am not mistaken, would increase your ability to get a hit. How come this doesn't seem to be working to his advantage?

It is, if you look beyond the micro-view of batting average.

Working the count also involves laying off pitches that are balls or that are strikes that you can't handle. In other words, trying to avoid swinging at pitches that would generate an out.


Here's a question: Game on the line, 2 outs, tying run on 2nd in the 9th. Dunn comes up and the pitcher gets him in an 0-2 hole. Would you pinch-hit for him?

No?

Of course not. What kind of maniac would pull a hitter in the middle of an AB with an 0-2 count? Ridiculous question.


How about if you knew this:

In his career:

After the count is 0-2, Dunn has a .436 OPS.
...1-2, .344 OPS.
...2-2, .492 OPS.
...3-2, .867 OPS, and that's just a fact of being one ball away from a walk since his OBP is .475 in that situation. His avg is .192.

Now, that's a rather large sample size. It's his CAREER.

The reason why I point this out is that Dunn, with all of his might, should never put himself in a position to have 2 strikes on him. He cannot hit with 2 strikes. It's a proven fact. So by working the count, he SOMETIMES kills his chances at having a successful at bat.

So no hitter should ever put himself in a position to have 2 strikes on him? Yet it happens all the time. What's your solution? Instruct every hitter to hack at the first pitch they think is a strike? What if they miss? What if they miss twice? What if they think a pitch is a ball, but it breaks over the plate?

Pitchers actually have quite a bit to say about batters getting into 0-2 counts.


Dunn after the count is 0-1: .691 OPS.
After the count is 1-0: 1.027 OPS.
First pitch in play: 1.248 OPS.

I would have to say that, if the first pitch is a strike, he better swing. I realize it's easier said than "Dunn", but look at the numbers.

Yeah, he'd better recognize every pitch and be able to put a bat on anything in the strike zone. :laugh:
More of those unreasonable expectations I was talking about.

Dunn's OPS on the first pitch in play is so high BECAUSE he is so selective. Maybe he only swings at that first pitch when it's perfect, instead of chasing a pitch he doesn't recognize or can't get to?

edabbs44
02-01-2007, 05:10 PM
Look at Dunn's numbers when he has 2 strikes. Sometimes he works the count directly into the pitcher's favor. He is useless when he has 2 strikes on him.

Who isn't?

Morneau in 2006:

After 0-2: OPS = .715
1-2: OPS = .751
2-2: OPS = .909
3-2: OPS = 1.081

Not bad.

edabbs44
02-01-2007, 05:15 PM
Of course not. What kind of maniac would pull a hitter in the middle of an AB with an 0-2 count? Ridiculous question.

Dunn is 66-536 if the counts reaches 0-2 in his career with 39 walks. You mean to say that this should even be considered? You are pretty much conceding the game.

I know it is unorthodox, but isn't this the age of playing statistical analysis to your advantage?

edabbs44
02-01-2007, 05:16 PM
Dunn's OPS on the first pitch in play is so high BECAUSE he is so selective. Maybe he only swings at that first pitch when it's perfect, instead of chasing a pitch he doesn't recognize or can't get to?
Good point...that's why I said this:


Now, I have no idea where to get this info, but could someone find out Dunn's splits on taking the first pitch, ball vs strike? If so, it could tell a little about his working the count and killing his ABs.

Ltlabner
02-01-2007, 05:21 PM
Someone on this thread (I can't remember who now, given that the thread is 19 pages long) made a good point in my humble opinion when it was noted that Marty became the Reds announcer in 1974 when the Big Red Machine was in all its glory.

Not sure if it was my post you were refering to, but I made some comment many pages back about Marty being around the BRM in his formative years.

I agree with your well written post that being around all of that unbridled tallent, espcially in his 30's when frankly the lightbulbs about understanding life are just barely starting to go off (sorry 20-somethings), colors his thinking very much now.

As does his age AND the era in which he was raised AND having the quality of baseball go steadly down since the 70's AND having a heatlhy ego that has been stoked low these many years.

Johnny Footstool
02-01-2007, 09:54 PM
Morneau in 2006:

After 0-2: OPS = .715
1-2: OPS = .751
2-2: OPS = .909
3-2: OPS = 1.081

Not bad.

Travis Hafner was actually better than that (.789 after 0-2). Most players aren't quite that good. Here are a few more guys who were useless in 2006 after 0-2...

Derek Jeter - .502 OPS
David Ortiz - .539
Jason Bay - .543
Manny Ramirez - .569
Ryan Howard - .587

You should probably pull them for a pinch hitter if they go 0-2 in the ninth inning, too.

edabbs44
02-01-2007, 10:45 PM
Travis Hafner was actually better than that (.789 after 0-2). Most players aren't quite that good. Here are a few more guys who were useless in 2006 after 0-2...

Derek Jeter - .502 OPS
David Ortiz - .539
Jason Bay - .543
Manny Ramirez - .569
Ryan Howard - .587

You should probably pull them for a pinch hitter if they go 0-2 in the ninth inning, too.

At least these guys can get to a place they can make a difference:

Ortiz after 2-2: .812
Jeter after 2-2: .809
Manny after 2-2: .817
Howard after 2-2: .859

By the way...I screwed up Dunn's OPS after the count reaches 2-2 for his career. It is .663.

Bay is the only one of those guys who is worse. The whole point is that once that count reaches 0-2, he is done. Even if he starts the AB with an 0-1 count, his line for his career is .199/.285/.406.

Can someone explain that? He is pretty much shot when the first pitch is a strike.

For comparison, when the 1st pitch is a ball, he is .265/.461/.566 in those ABs. What could be the reason? I totally understand 0-2 counts. The pitcher is in complete control. But 0-1 and he performs that poorly? Why should that 1st pitch make such a difference in Dunn's ABs? .691 OPS (0-1 count) vs 1.027 OPS (1-0 count).

Since you brought up those names, let's check those guys after an 0-1 count in 2006.

Howard = .956 OPS
Jeter = .893
Bay = .795
Papi = .786
Manny = .950

Dunn = .691.

So what could cause this? Does anyone know of any sites which talks about batters vs certain pitches (i.e. fastballs, curves, etc.?) Since pitchers might throw more off speed and breaking stuff to Dunn when they are ahead and more fastballs when they are behind, is he more of a dead fastball hitter? I'm curious.

vaticanplum
02-02-2007, 12:16 AM
Does O'Neill's contract with the Yankees extend beyond broadcasting?

Not as far as I know. He does analysis for the YES network but nothing on the baseball side. I believe he spends most of his non-working time in Cincinnati.

TeamBoone
02-02-2007, 12:33 AM
I think he was overweight last year. He walks to his position. He walks off the field. You see no energy whatsoever and that disappoints the heck out of me."

I realize that Marty goes to a whole lot more games than I do (duh). That said, I have NEVER seen Adam Dunn walk to or from his position in the outfield.

Cedric
02-02-2007, 12:39 AM
I realize that Marty goes to a whole lot more games than I do (duh). That said, I have NEVER seen Adam Dunn walk to or from his position in the outfield.

He walks all the time to his position. I watch him and Griffey and they both walk almost every single time.

I couldn't care less though. I think that is being more than a little picky from Marty.

Raisor
02-02-2007, 09:14 PM
Someone needs to text me on my cell phone when one of these 20 page Marty/Dunn threads happen so I can get on line and say snarky things about Puffy.

RedsBaron
02-03-2007, 08:19 AM
He walks all the time to his position. I watch him and Griffey and they both walk almost every single time.

I couldn't care less though. I think that is being more than a little picky from Marty.

I'd rather see players run to their positions and run out every ball they hit, but Griffey has never done that--so what, because he is a Hall of Famer, and I'd rather have Griffey is his prime (which unfortunately was spent in Seattle) than a guy who always hustles but isn't all that good a player. Mind you, my preference would be for a Ken Griffey Junior-in his prime-who hustles like Pete Rose.

RedsBaron
02-03-2007, 08:22 AM
Not sure if it was my post you were refering to, but I made some comment many pages back about Marty being around the BRM in his formative years.

I agree with your well written post that being around all of that unbridled tallent, espcially in his 30's when frankly the lightbulbs about understanding life are just barely starting to go off (sorry 20-somethings), colors his thinking very much now.

As does his age AND the era in which he was raised AND having the quality of baseball go steadly down since the 70's AND having a heatlhy ego that has been stoked low these many years.

If at age 16 your first car is a Ferrari or Porsche or Corvette, you probably will not be all thrilled if later on all you get to drive are four cylinder econoboxes.

Yachtzee
02-03-2007, 10:05 AM
If at age 16 your first car is a Ferrari or Porsche or Corvette, you probably will not be all thrilled if later on all you get to drive are four cylinder econoboxes.

Unfortunately the economics of the game have changed to a degree where you will never see a team with the talent of the BRM again. The BRM was one of the greatest assemblies of talent in its prime in the history of baseball. With free agency, arbitration, and the disproportional growth of local revenues, there's no way you could hold a team like that together without being the NY Yankees.

To further your analogy, it can be disappointing to go from a Ferrari to a four cylinder economy car, but if they no longer make that Ferrari, maybe it's time to move on and look at the benefits of your new car.

edabbs44
02-03-2007, 10:25 AM
I'd rather see players run to their positions and run out every ball they hit, but Griffey has never done that--so what, because he is a Hall of Famer, and I'd rather have Griffey is his prime (which unfortunately was spent in Seattle) than a guy who always hustles but isn't all that good a player. Mind you, my preference would be for a Ken Griffey Junior-in his prime-who hustles like Pete Rose.

I think part of he reason Jr doesn't run out every ball he hits is because he's risking a torn hammy at any moment. Sad as this sounds, I have no problem if he doesn't run out a grounder to the 2nd baseman in the 1st inning. Game on the line? Run it out. 2 out, nobody on in the 1st? Take your time.