PDA

View Full Version : Marty Brennaman slams Adam Dunn....again.



Pages : 1 [2]

IndyPhils
02-21-2007, 03:19 PM
This is the point M2 brought up earlier in the thread. Does anyone know of any other team's PBP guy that derides their team's players like Marty does? I haven't listened to them all so I don't know. However, the ones I have listened to certainly have not talked that way.


In Philadelphia, the on air team does the same thing "WHeels" gets fed negative talking points as if to motivate certain players during the broadcast.

It's not common to only Reds broadcasts.

pedro
02-21-2007, 03:20 PM
In Philadelphia, the on air team does the same thing "WHeels" gets fed negative talking points as if to motivate certain players during the broadcast.

It's not common to only Reds broadcasts.

Harry Calas doesn't do it does he?

westofyou
02-21-2007, 03:21 PM
This is the point M2 brought up earlier in the thread. Does anyone know of any other team's PBP guy that derides their team's players like Marty does? I haven't listened to them all so I don't know. However, the ones I have listened to certainly have not talked that way.

I have a long history with the west coast announcers, over 25 years and I can tell you none from here have done it, that includes guys like Lon Simmons, Hank Greenwald, Jon Miller, Bill King, Jerry Coleman, Dave Niehaus, Ron Fairly, Vin Scully, Charlie Steiner, Ray Fosse, Greg Papa, I also grew up on Ernie Harwell and I can attest he didn't do it either.

BRM
02-21-2007, 03:21 PM
In Philadelphia, the on air team does the same thing "WHeels" gets fed negative talking points as if to motivate certain players during the broadcast.

It's not common to only Reds broadcasts.

That's interesting to know. I assume the Phillies radio guys were pretty hard on Abreu?

dabvu2498
02-21-2007, 03:23 PM
I've heard Uecker get down, down, down on Geoff Jenkins. Perhaps not as bad as Marty, but it does happen to some extent in any locale.

IndyPhils
02-21-2007, 03:26 PM
Harry Calas doesn't do it does he?


No he only does certain innings, he's getting up there in age, and is losing it a bit.

westofyou
02-21-2007, 03:26 PM
I've heard Uecker get down, down, down on Geoff Jenkins. Perhaps not as bad as Marty, but it does happen to some extent in any locale.

I'm fairly sure Milo Hamilton has beat up a few players in his time too.

pedro
02-21-2007, 03:27 PM
No he only does certain innings, he's getting up there in age, and is losing it a bit.

Like Marty, Harry has those "golden pipes" though.

dabvu2498
02-21-2007, 03:30 PM
I'm fairly sure Milo Hamilton has beat up a few players in his time too.

He certainly beat up on his former colleague in his book. "Miserable human being" was the term he used, I believe.

BTW, no hatchet job even done by Marty on Adam Dunn compares to the slaying randolph Morris got on Kentucky's pregame show last night. But that's a topic for the other side of the board, so I digress.

Joe Castiglione has been uncomplementary of Manny Ramirez at times as well.

Ltlabner
02-21-2007, 03:30 PM
I do a lot of the time. But should Reds really want an announcer who is so divisive that he drives fans away? Because he does.

As usual the question comes back to money.

Do more people listen to him because of who he is? Or are more people driven away by his antics. If 10,000 people like him, and 1,000 hate him, those who like him will win out hands down. Same works in reverse. If the Reds/700wlw can quantify that he's driven off a large enough portion of listeners then they will force a change. Until, enjoy George Grande and the Creeper.

IndyPhils
02-21-2007, 03:31 PM
That's interesting to know. I assume the Phillies radio guys were pretty hard on Abreu?



Yes, it was mostly shock jock sports radio type shows, that got first the uneducated fan against him. Occasionaly the on air crew. The kind that need to come up with a hook to get ratings. Started turning the public against Abreu. The guy loved playing in Philly was a model teammate.

Phils TV crew was personaly responsible for the horrid Vincente Padilla Trade to Texas last spring. Phillies wanted him gone. The politiced for it all year on TV remarking how Padilla was a 'space cadet'. In the Spring they traded Padilla for a guy that didn't make the team. Padilla won 14 games for the Rangers. It's nothing new to the Reds. Management everywhere gets bad advice and assasinates theri own players in the media, or in some cases the media assasinates a player (Abreu).

pedro
02-21-2007, 03:34 PM
As usual the question comes back to money.

Do more people listen to him because of who he is? Or are more people driven away by his antics. If 10,000 people like him, and 1,000 hate him, those who like him will win out hands down. Same works in reverse. If the Reds/700wlw can quantify that he's driven off a large enough portion of listeners then they will force a change. Until, enjoy George Grande and the Creeper.

So it sounds like you agree with Marty. He is bigger than the Reds.

And please stop it with the backhanded "enjoy George Grande and the Creeper" crap. They have nothing to do with it.

IndyPhils
02-21-2007, 03:38 PM
Too much sensationalizing- not enough time spent on analyzing the details in the media. That's in all towns my freinds.

Philly print and radio media is awful on the team. It has a negative effect on who will play in the town. GRR. You've heard about the fans, the problem is the sensationalizing media. Some of the articles written, you wonder if the writer even knows baseball.


So when I see this critcism of Dunn 40HR 380 OBP. Yeah he could do better, but what if you didn't have the guy? How about a replacement sub .800 OPS. It all adds up to more losses. How do you know he's not trying his best? Grrr. Stupid.

Ltlabner
02-21-2007, 03:39 PM
So it sounds like you agree with Marty. He is bigger than the Reds.

And please stop it with the backhanded "enjoy George Grande and the Creeper" crap. They have nothing to do with it.

No, he's most definatley not bigger than the Reds. But people woln't tune in to many games if they find him boring and dull, even if the games are exciting. Do you really think Steve Stewart, for as nice of guy he was, could carry a broadcast all by himself? I doubt it. There has to be some entertainment value to his broadcast above and beyond the game to keep people listening.

There is no "backhanded crap" at all with the George and Creeper comment. Listen/watch/read/osmose whomever most entertains you durring Reds games.

pedro
02-21-2007, 03:40 PM
Too much sensationalizing- not enough time spent on analyzing the details in the media. That's in all towns my freinds.

Philly print and radio media is awful on the team. It has a negative effect on who will play in the town. GRR. You've heard about the fans, the problem is the sensationalizing media. Some of the articles written, you wonder if the writer even knows baseball.


So when I see this critcism of Dunn 40HR 380 OBP. Yeah he could do better, but what if you didn't have the guy? How about a replacement sub .800 OPS. It all adds up to more losses. How do you know he's not trying his best? Grrr. Stupid.

Now we've distilled to this. Marty is the most negative announcer this side of Philly. Quite the endorsement. :)

rdiersin
02-21-2007, 04:01 PM
Philly print and radio media is awful on the team. It has a negative effect on who will play in the town. GRR. You've heard about the fans, the problem is the sensationalizing media. Some of the articles written, you wonder if the writer even knows baseball.


So when I see this critcism of Dunn 40HR 380 OBP. Yeah he could do better, but what if you didn't have the guy? How about a replacement sub .800 OPS. It all adds up to more losses. How do you know he's not trying his best? Grrr. Stupid.

Yep, since moving to Philly it has been amusing watching the Pat Burrel "Bum!"-type comments that everyone has. As soon as I saw that, I was reminded of home and Adam Dunn.

rdiersin
02-21-2007, 04:08 PM
Then the anwer is simple my friend, turn off the radio.


But isn't that just the sad state of Reds radio? Its not just Adam Dunn. My dad, who probably agrees with Marty on Dunn, barely listens to him because of how full of himself he has become. It was sad to hear his condescending, at times, tone toward Steve Stewart. I know its made me wonder what I am going to do this year, as to whether or not get XM or the extra innings package (have dial up at home, so no gameday audio or MLBTV). Maybe I'll get extra innings and listen to Kalas on the radio, but that might be a bit confusing with two different teams.;)

M2
02-21-2007, 04:08 PM
In Philadelphia, the on air team does the same thing "WHeels" gets fed negative talking points as if to motivate certain players during the broadcast.

It's not common to only Reds broadcasts.

I'm stunned to hear that. Like you, I grew up on Kalas, Ashburn and Muser. They never trashed the players. In fact, I remember them coming to Garry Maddux's defense when he botched two plays in the final game of the '78 NLCS (due mostly to the worst weather in which I've ever seen a baseball game played). They were voices of sanity in a town that specializes in eating its own. It would be a shame if the team's game broadcasters have chucked that tradition.

Yachtzee
02-21-2007, 04:15 PM
Too much sensationalizing- not enough time spent on analyzing the details in the media. That's in all towns my freinds.

Philly print and radio media is awful on the team. It has a negative effect on who will play in the town. GRR. You've heard about the fans, the problem is the sensationalizing media. Some of the articles written, you wonder if the writer even knows baseball.


So when I see this critcism of Dunn 40HR 380 OBP. Yeah he could do better, but what if you didn't have the guy? How about a replacement sub .800 OPS. It all adds up to more losses. How do you know he's not trying his best? Grrr. Stupid.


But does this happen during the actual play-by-play of the game? We're talking about the Reds' play-by-play announcer here, not the talky-talkers before and after the game.

gonelong
02-21-2007, 04:56 PM
But the key question, central to this discussion, is whether those fans would see 3 or 4 games a year instead of 1 or 2 if Marty was less critical of Dunn, EE, and more upbeat about the Reds in general.

IMO Dunn and EE are just a part of it and are not really instrumental in the discussion as individuals.

Based on my experiences where I grew up, I really have no doubt that it has SOME effect for those people that have to take off work early for a game, drive 2 hours to Cincy, find a place to park, pick up something to eat, and then fight traffic back home. To leave work at 4:00 PM for a 7:05 game and then not get home until 12:30. Those people have 8+ hours, left work early 4 hours on the road, the expense of the game, concession, etc. wrapped up into the game. Going to a game is not something to do on Wednesday night, its a trip.

The difference in someone from Cincy going to 1-2 games vs. 3-4 game is significantly different than someone much farther away. I think we can agree on that. Its much more of a commitment to that guy farther away.

How the person perceived the front office, players, and team in general plays a much larger part in the equasion for this guy than it does for the average Joe living in Cincy. I might make the effort to come out and see 3-4 exciting up-and-coming players that are going to be the cornerstone of a really good team in a year or two (even if the team is currently not there yet) versus the 3 or 4 young guys that just can't put anything together consistently (on a team that is currently not there yet).

We disagree on how much Marty might affect that perception. I know this, he isn't helping to create the first perception but there is a possibility (IMO a high probability) that he creates/contributes to the second.


Additionally, because Marty has the most exposure via radio does not imply that he is the best means by which to market the team.

This team needs all the marketing it can get. Best means or 50th on the list, don't care. For people that grew up where I did most of the Reds info came from WLW/Marty or the Dayton Daily News (Hal McCoy, etc.).


Also, we should consider are as many kids today listening to Reds on Radio as we all seemed to do back in the 70's? Matt700wlw could help us with that one. If the majority of the listeners are Grandmas who've listend for years, they likely aren't the best "target market" for using Marty as a marketing tool.

Reds fans, regardless of age, should be the target market.

For the most part, I don't even care if Marty is used as a marketing tool, I'd be happy if he just stop being an anti-marketing tool at times.

GL

Ltlabner
02-21-2007, 07:01 PM
Reds fans, regardless of age, should be the target market.

Actually, fans who are likely to go to the baseball games and spend money on the Reds are should be the Red's target market. If someone is never going to a baseball game in 1,000,000 years than I could care less about their opinion of the Reds and it would be a waste to direct any resources at them.

People who are likely to listen to the Reds on Radio, which increases the value of the add spots should be 700wlw's target audience.

But I agree whole hartedly that the Reds need to increase their marketing efforts and regain lost ground.

I also agree that it would be nice to hear Marty sincearly tout the postive attributes of the team, even when they suck eggs. "Folks, this pitching tonight is horriffic, worst I've ever seen. But I tell you what, Arrron Harang is pitching tomorow night and you really should see his stuff. Sometime this year make it a point to come to GABP and check him out. He's a great pitcher." Something like that.

I hear him saying those positive things fairly often, ("Harrang pitched masterfully tonight", for example) but I don't think I've heard them linked to a request that the fans come down and check things out for themselves.

Yachtzee
02-21-2007, 08:00 PM
Actually, fans who are likely to go to the baseball games and spend money on the Reds are should be the Red's target market. If someone is never going to a baseball game in 1,000,000 years than I could care less about their opinion of the Reds and it would be a waste to direct any resources at them.

People who are likely to listen to the Reds on Radio, which increases the value of the add spots should be 700wlw's target audience.

But I agree whole hartedly that the Reds need to increase their marketing efforts and regain lost ground.

I also agree that it would be nice to hear Marty sincearly tout the postive attributes of the team, even when they suck eggs. "Folks, this pitching tonight is horriffic, worst I've ever seen. But I tell you what, Arrron Harang is pitching tomorow night and you really should see his stuff. Sometime this year make it a point to come to GABP and check him out. He's a great pitcher." Something like that.

I hear him saying those positive things fairly often, ("Harrang pitched masterfully tonight", for example) but I don't think I've heard them linked to a request that the fans come down and check things out for themselves.

I think the Reds need to market to all areas of their fan base. Columbus used to be solidly in Reds territory. They've lost a lot of ground to the Indians there. A lot of it happens to be younger fans too. If you've got potential young fans in Columbus who have just started getting interested in baseball, and for some reason the game isn't on TV, or they're somewhere they can't watch it, or mom wants to watch American Idol. They've got two choices when it comes to listening to the game on the radio. Do you think they're going to choose to listen to Marty put on his curmudgeon act, even when the team is still in the race for the division, or will they choose Tom Hamilton, who I personally can't stand, but at least he makes it sound like he enjoys being at the game? I have a feeling if they have the choice and they have yet to choose a favorite team, all things being equal, I think they'd choose to listen to the guy sounds like he likes baseball. Sure, a lot of the inroads the Indians have made have to do with their improved performance in the '90s. But I don't think having the curmudgeon is going to help things, even when the Reds are doing well.

TeamBoone
02-21-2007, 08:37 PM
Oh, I think he would too but he'd have to realize he isn't king of RedsZone. He'd also probably learn the hard way that he would have to change the way he disagrees with someone. If he started calling names when someone would disagree with him, he'd be out of here so quick, it'd make his head spin. But if he could control himself, he would contribute a great deal.

And he wouldn't be able to hang up if you disagreed with him...

vaticanplum
02-21-2007, 08:50 PM
I want to echo Yahtzee and CE's thoughts on the idea of Marty turning off kids to certain players on the Reds, but I want to reiterate a point I've probably made before. I don't believe that Marty's job is to sell the Reds to the fans. I think that's part of his job, yes, but his primary responsibility is to educate and entertain and I believe he should be honest in this. I don't want him to sugarcoat the ugliness. People need to understand that the Reds are bad so that they feel strongly about them becoming better. Blatant honesty is often the best way to make things better, and being honest about something doesn't mean you love it any less. (see also: criticizing co-workers' efforts, berating a family member for destroying his life, and people who hate freedom.)

My issues with Marty as regards this particular player is that the information he provides to the public is often false and almost always misleading at least. His job is to educate, and he's traditionally done it well, so what he says is both presented and accepted as fact. He tears Dunn apart for a) his weaknesses (fine), and b) things he doesn't like which don't affect Dunn's game but are presented as if they do (not fine), while almost uniformly dismissing his strengths. This neither educates nor entertains, nor does it promote the team, of course. What we end up with is people having problems with the team -- a team which has numerous serious problems -- but in all the wrong places. Which solves none of the Reds' problems and creates new ones where they don't need to exist to boot.

Yachtzee
02-21-2007, 09:20 PM
Oh, I think he would too but he'd have to realize he isn't king of RedsZone. He'd also probably learn the hard way that he would have to change the way he disagrees with someone. If he started calling names when someone would disagree with him, he'd be out of here so quick, it'd make his head spin. But if he could control himself, he would contribute a great deal.


You might have to move a few of his threads when he keeps posting stuff about golf and tomato plants to the baseball forum.

edabbs44
02-21-2007, 11:32 PM
VP might tee off on me after this, but.....

I would take Marty's over many of the NYY homers out here. Listening to Jim Kaat is refreshing (tells it like it is, but definitely not as vicious and relentless as Marty) but some of the others are a trip.

Waldman and Sterling on the radio are nauseating.

The papers blast the YES network everyday b/c they direct the post-game interviews and lob softballs to Torre most of the time, unless George wants to get his point across. Then they rip him apart.

When Zimmer lashed out at Big Stein one time, supposedly he told booth not to show or mention Zimmer throughout the next telecast. Which was nearly impossible, since he was attached to Torre at the hip. Kaat was the only one who brought him up. Go figure.

I agree Marty sounds like a buffoon and he should definitely take it down a few notches. But at least he isn't a complete homer who brings nothing to the table except the company line.

Chip R
02-22-2007, 12:22 AM
I agree Marty sounds like a buffoon and he should definitely take it down a few notches. But at least he isn't a complete homer who brings nothing to the table except the company line.


I don't think anyone wants Marty to be a homer. But it doesn't have to be one extreme or another. There's commentary and then there's opinion. I'd like to hear more of the former and less of the latter.

Ron Madden
02-22-2007, 05:26 AM
Then the anwer is simple my friend, turn off the radio.

Some of us were Reds Fans long before Marty got here. Why should we be deprived of folowing "Our Team" on radio?

I've always listend to the game on radio even at the ballpark, most likely will 'till the day I die.

Players, Managers and Owners have been criticized by Fans for over a century and will be from now on.

Yet to disagree with or criticicize Marty is a sin punishable by forfeiture of the rights of being a Reds Fan?

I understand Marty is old school. Heck I grew up old school too.

I love the game. When we sincerely love something or someone we are always in search of more information to help us better understand and appreciate it.

I'm 53 years old have loved the game my whole life. Ive learned more the past 4 years than I ever thought existed, learn a little more all the time.

Marty has his mind made up that he already knows it all and closes his mind to everything that goes against his old school values.

I do not hate Marty just giving my humble and honest opinion.

Ltlabner
02-22-2007, 08:09 AM
Some of us were Reds Fans long before Marty got here. Why should we be deprived of folowing "Our Team" on radio?

Marty has his mind made up that he already knows it all and closes his mind to everything that goes against his old school values.

I do not hate Marty just giving my humble and honest opinion.

Why should I be deprived of the Marty I and many others find entertaining because you and an unestablished number of folks find him annoying? Serriously, why should the 15 to 20 folks on RZ who have a beef with some of his on-air traits get to rule the roost if the vast majority of folks like Marty just as he is, or at least, can live with his faults because his positives are a trade off?

I don't mean this as snarky as it sounds, but serriously, turn off the dang radio. There are many other options available these days (mlb.radio, mlb.tv, cable packages, etc). Sorry folks, I don't buy into the ultra-noble cause of "we just want Marty to educate the poor huddled masses of fans" story. Perhaps they don't want to be educacted? Who are we to dictate what they must know and not know about the game to simply enjoy it? (now, if they want to argue over the understanding of the game, that's a different story, then they have to dig deeper into new ways of thinking). Is it not the height of arrogence to dictacte that a fan must know a certian level of information to "properally" enjoy the game?

More importantly, why should 700wlw/Reds bend to the will of a few if the vast majority like Marty as he is? (I'm making the assumption that the Reds on Radio ratings are strong and listenership hasn't sagged. If data were available other than antedoctal evidence of a few people on RZ to suggest listnership has tanked I'll glady accept it and move along).

Yep, Marty is typical of a lot of people as they get older. They don't accept the new fangled way's of them whipper snappers as they see their youth fading away and retirement from what you've done all your life dead ahead. Some day many of us here on RZ will drift away from our enlighented youth when we had all the right answers and move into "old codger" stage of life. But I'm sure we'll all handle it perfectly and with grace.

No one is acusing you of hating Marty.

membengal
02-22-2007, 08:45 AM
Officious is as officious does, apparently.

TRF
02-22-2007, 10:31 AM
I want to echo Yahtzee and CE's thoughts on the idea of Marty turning off kids to certain players on the Reds, but I want to reiterate a point I've probably made before. I don't believe that Marty's job is to sell the Reds to the fans. I think that's part of his job, yes, but his primary responsibility is to educate and entertain and I believe he should be honest in this. I don't want him to sugarcoat the ugliness. People need to understand that the Reds are bad so that they feel strongly about them becoming better. Blatant honesty is often the best way to make things better, and being honest about something doesn't mean you love it any less. (see also: criticizing co-workers' efforts, berating a family member for destroying his life, and people who hate freedom.)

My issues with Marty as regards this particular player is that the information he provides to the public is often false and almost always misleading at least. His job is to educate, and he's traditionally done it well, so what he says is both presented and accepted as fact. He tears Dunn apart for a) his weaknesses (fine), and b) things he doesn't like which don't affect Dunn's game but are presented as if they do (not fine), while almost uniformly dismissing his strengths. This neither educates nor entertains, nor does it promote the team, of course. What we end up with is people having problems with the team -- a team which has numerous serious problems -- but in all the wrong places. Which solves none of the Reds' problems and creates new ones where they don't need to exist to boot.

Marty's problem stems from the fact that he doesn't understand the game. In fact, I doubt he has ever understood the game. Oh, he knows his way around BA, but really, complaining because a 270lb man isn't sprinting to his position 9 times a game? complaining about strikeouts, when a.) it's just another out, and 2.) at least he didn't ground into an inning ending DP. And since he has that lack of understanding, he cannot educate.

And really the K's are the tip of the iceberg. He never mentions how Dunn is among league leaders every year in pitches seen. He never mentions how that wears a pitcher out. No, he goes off on how Dunner didn't get 100 RBI last year while never mentioning how he was jerked up and down the lineup or how the offense was dismantled. All he does is talk about K's and BA with disgust in his voice.

Part of Marty's problem with Dunn is probably something he doesn't realize. This is Dunn's 3rd Manager. All three have had ideas of how to "fix" his swing or his approach. Marty is feeding of their poor results to make Adam "their" kind of hitter.

Dunn is what he is. A run producer. There is baggage with how he does it, but he does produce runs. He's a top 10-20 offensive player. You'd think Marty would be all over that. Instead he harps that he's not sprinting enough.

edabbs44
02-22-2007, 10:58 AM
Marty's problem stems from the fact that he doesn't understand the game. In fact, I doubt he has ever understood the game. Oh, he knows his way around BA, but really, complaining because a 270lb man isn't sprinting to his position 9 times a game? complaining about strikeouts, when a.) it's just another out, and 2.) at least he didn't ground into an inning ending DP. And since he has that lack of understanding, he cannot educate.

And really the K's are the tip of the iceberg. He never mentions how Dunn is among league leaders every year in pitches seen. He never mentions how that wears a pitcher out. No, he goes off on how Dunner didn't get 100 RBI last year while never mentioning how he was jerked up and down the lineup or how the offense was dismantled. All he does is talk about K's and BA with disgust in his voice.

Part of Marty's problem with Dunn is probably something he doesn't realize. This is Dunn's 3rd Manager. All three have had ideas of how to "fix" his swing or his approach. Marty is feeding of their poor results to make Adam "their" kind of hitter.

Dunn is what he is. A run producer. There is baggage with how he does it, but he does produce runs. He's a top 10-20 offensive player. You'd think Marty would be all over that. Instead he harps that he's not sprinting enough.

Top 10-20 offensive producer? Come on....let's get serious.

I know Dunn has value, but comments like these are what keep these threads running for weeks.

People talk about how great his OBP is and that his BA doesn't matter. Then in the same breath, people go on to say that last year his OBP was down but it was only a blip.

Here's the thing that no one wants to address...his OBP decreased last year because of his BA.

His walk rate has been pretty static for the past 3 years. But his BA has decreased from .266 in 2004 to .234 in 2006. So the problem with his OBP isn't his patience and walk ratio...it's the fact that he isn't getting as many hits as before (151 in 2004 vs 131 in 2006).

BA might not matter as much as many think, but it matters when you start hitting in the low .200s.

flyer85
02-22-2007, 11:01 AM
a question

is Dunn's drop in BA a result of
a) a loss in skills
b) random variability

gonelong
02-22-2007, 11:03 AM
Why should I be deprived of the Marty I and many others find entertaining because you and an unestablished number of folks find him annoying? Serriously, why should the 15 to 20 folks on RZ who have a beef with some of his on-air traits get to rule the roost if the vast majority of folks like Marty just as he is, or at least, can live with his faults because his positives are a trade off?

I'd argue that Marty is the one depriving you of Marty. :)

"deprived of Marty"? That's some serious man-love you've got for that fellow. :laugh: I only laugh because I had the same thing for Nuxy ... I REALLY miss having him in the booth. He was Marty's yang. Together they were like bitter/sweet chocholate. Without sweet Joe, Marty is just ... bitter. ;) I know Marty has mentioned that he really owes alot of his success to Joe. I said before they broke that team up that either of them alone was nowhere near as enjoyable as the both of them together. Joe was my favorite of the two, but he would have been unlistenable with Steve.


More importantly, why should 700wlw/Reds bend to the will of a few if the vast majority like Marty as he is? (I'm making the assumption that the Reds on Radio ratings are strong and listenership hasn't sagged. If data were available other than antedoctal evidence of a few people on RZ to suggest listnership has tanked I'll glady accept it and move along).

To your knowledge has anyone officially requested to WLW/Reds that Marty be fired? I know I don't want the guy fired, I simply want him to stop running the team down to the fanbase on a regular basis.

Every last single one of us knows that Marty isn't going anywhere unless Marty decides he is.

Every last single one of us knows that Marty isn't going to change his style.


Yep, Marty is typical of a lot of people as they get older. They don't accept the new fangled way's of them whipper snappers as they see their youth fading away and retirement from what you've done all your life dead ahead. Some day many of us here on RZ will drift away from our enlighented youth when we had all the right answers and move into "old codger" stage of life. But I'm sure we'll all handle it perfectly and with grace.

I'm not going to shed a tear if Marty never learns VORP, etc.

I don't think its too much to ask a man in his position to keep in mind that the listeners are also customers or potential customers.

GL

westofyou
02-22-2007, 11:17 AM
I don't think its too much to ask a man in his position to keep in mind that the listeners are also customers or potential customers.

Crazy idea eh?

Especially since the majority of the digs that hit the airwaves have occurred recently when Marty appears as a call in guest (XM, WLW Etc..) as opposed to those coming as the on air announcer of Reds games.

edabbs44
02-22-2007, 11:41 AM
a question

is Dunn's drop in BA a result of
a) a loss in skills
b) random variability

2004: roughly same ABs, roughly same Ks, roughly same walks, hit .266
2006: roughly same ABs, roughly same Ks, roughly same walks, hit .234

He had 20 less hits in 2006...4 less singles, 10 less doubles and 6 less HRs. I don't think BABIP plays a big factor, since 16 of those missing hits are XBH.

My personal opinion is that he's becoming more of a guess hitter (especially when he is behind) and he is guessing wrong.

flyer85
02-22-2007, 11:55 AM
2004: roughly same ABs, roughly same Ks, roughly same walks, hit .266
2006: roughly same ABs, roughly same Ks, roughly same walks, hit .234

He had 20 less hits in 2006...4 less singles, 10 less doubles and 6 less HRs. I don't think BABIP plays a big factor, since 16 of those missing hits are XBH.

My personal opinion is that he's becoming more of a guess hitter (especially when he is behind) and he is guessing wrong.
I would say you would want to look at

contact %
GB/LD/FB ratio
BB %

BABIP always plays a big factor in performance. A large dip/jump can't often explain variance without any change in the underlying skill set. If Dunns hit rate is remaining steady then the above areas should provide a clue as to what is going on. There is generally variability in a players LD%(cannot be controlled all that well), it could explain a dip.

2007 is likely be a defining year for Dunn.

Yachtzee
02-22-2007, 12:04 PM
Why should I be deprived of the Marty I and many others find entertaining because you and an unestablished number of folks find him annoying? Serriously, why should the 15 to 20 folks on RZ who have a beef with some of his on-air traits get to rule the roost if the vast majority of folks like Marty just as he is, or at least, can live with his faults because his positives are a trade off?


Is the product that is being broadcast over WLW and XM Reds Baseball, or is it "Marty and Friends?" If you're listening to the game for Marty, then maybe Marty should have his own show where he can talk about whatever he wants and callers can call in and praise him. Maybe XM or Sirius might pay him big money and he can have his own channel. But this is Reds Baseball and Marty deprives people of it when he drives them to turn off the radio.

If people are going to stop listening to Reds baseball if Marty leaves, then I question whether they're really a Reds fan or not. He's going to leave eventually. What do you think the odds are as to whether he gracefully retires or gets so fed up about a player he doesn't like that he has a complete meltdown on the air? In any case, he's going to be gone. Does he want people to remember him as a great announcer, or does he want people to remember him as a grumpy old blowhard who used his status and media access to drive people away from the game?

TRF
02-22-2007, 12:17 PM
Top 10-20 offensive producer? Come on....let's get serious.

I know Dunn has value, but comments like these are what keep these threads running for weeks.

People talk about how great his OBP is and that his BA doesn't matter. Then in the same breath, people go on to say that last year his OBP was down but it was only a blip.

Here's the thing that no one wants to address...his OBP decreased last year because of his BA.

His walk rate has been pretty static for the past 3 years. But his BA has decreased from .266 in 2004 to .234 in 2006. So the problem with his OBP isn't his patience and walk ratio...it's the fact that he isn't getting as many hits as before (151 in 2004 vs 131 in 2006).

BA might not matter as much as many think, but it matters when you start hitting in the low .200s.

In 2004 and 2005, Adam Dunn was in the top 20 in all of baseball in the following categories:

RC
RC/27
P/PA
XBH
HR's
BB's
SLG
OPS

In 2005 he was 23rd in RBI, 32 in 2004. He was 21st in OBP in '05, 24th in '04

And in 2006, Dunn had to very poor months that really messed up his year. And he was still 11th in HR's, 3rd in Walks and 11th in P/PA

Yes. Adam Dunn is a top 20 offensive player in all of MLB that happened to have two bad months last year.


Here's the thing that no one wants to address...his OBP decreased last year because of his BA.

Really?

2004 BA .266, 2004 OBP .388
2005 BA .247 2005 OBP .387

So, no. I guess his BA didn't have a lot to do with his OBP then did it? Just now it does because you want it to?

edabbs44
02-22-2007, 01:24 PM
In 2004 and 2005, Adam Dunn was in the top 20 in all of baseball in the following categories:

RC
RC/27
P/PA
XBH
HR's
BB's
SLG
OPS

In 2005 he was 23rd in RBI, 32 in 2004. He was 21st in OBP in '05, 24th in '04

Do you realize that many of these stats you threw together are related? If you are top 20 in XBH, you're going to have a good shot at being top 20 in SLG. Just saying.

Now, to get to your point:

Dunn was top 20, via stats, in 2004 and 2005. Fine. He wasn't last year, because of 2 "bad" months. That's a third of your season. I don't think that many top 20 players would tank for 2 months straight. Consistency is big. If you have a huge first half and a non-existant second half, that's a problem. If you want to be considered top shelf, play like it and don't disappear down the stretch. Find me where Pujols, Vlad or Manny have ever done something like Dunn did in the 2nd half last season after being in the league for a few years.

Also, look at these names:

Jose Reyes
Justin Morneau
Joe Mauer
Ryan Howard
David Wright
Chase Utley
Grady Sizemore
Garrett Atkins
Matt Holliday

Those are all players who have come into their own in the last year or two and had higher RC/27 than Dunn had in 2006. Add those names to the list of usual suspects (Pujols, Vlad, ARod, etc) and Dunn might have a hard time cracking the top 20. So when Dunn was top 20, these guys were in AA and AAA. Is he still?

TRF
02-22-2007, 01:44 PM
Todd Helton has been a top 20 player for a long time. He's only 32, so I doubt his career is over and yet he had a down year.

Giamb has had worse years than Dunn did last year. Rolen has too.

Adam Dunn is not Vlad Guerrero. He is not Albert Pujols.

He's a top 20 offensive player that had a bad couple of months in 2006. Frank thomas just came off 2 bad YEARS before bouncing back to being an offensive force. In 1959 Mickey Mantle only had 75 RBI in 144 games played. did that mean he wasn't a top 20 player anymore? statistically, probably, but it was a blip on his career. In 1946 Dimaggio only scored 81 runs.

Yep. top 20 players have a couple of bad months on occasion.

edabbs44
02-22-2007, 02:00 PM
Todd Helton has been a top 20 player for a long time. He's only 32, so I doubt his career is over and yet he had a down year.

Giamb has had worse years than Dunn did last year. Rolen has too.

Adam Dunn is not Vlad Guerrero. He is not Albert Pujols.

He's a top 20 offensive player that had a bad couple of months in 2006. Frank thomas just came off 2 bad YEARS before bouncing back to being an offensive force. In 1959 Mickey Mantle only had 75 RBI in 144 games played. did that mean he wasn't a top 20 player anymore? statistically, probably, but it was a blip on his career. In 1946 Dimaggio only scored 81 runs.

Yep. top 20 players have a couple of bad months on occasion.

Mantle had over a .900 OPS in 1959. Dimaggio had a .878 OPS in 1946, his first year back after missing 3 years for the war.

And offense was a lot different back then. MM had an OPS+ of 150 in 1959. Joe D in 1946, 142. Again, he had a 3 year layoff. Dunn last season, 110.

I know that Dunn isn't Vlad or Pujols. But if you want to be cream of the crop, you cannot collapse like he did in the 2nd half. You have to be consistent.

And in this era, telling me that players like Helton and Giambi have had worse years than Dunn doesn't make a bit of a difference. This is the steroid era...many players are putting up worse numbers than before.

TRF
02-22-2007, 02:03 PM
In Giambi's case it was when he was in Oakland.

He had two bad months after his best friend was traded. Half the offense was gone, and he wasn't the only player it affected. 2007 will be a defining year for him, and 2006 will either be a blip, or a continuing trend. But if AD can score 100 runs, walk 100 times ad hit 40+ HR's then I'll try to live with that meager production.

edabbs44
02-22-2007, 02:41 PM
In Giambi's case it was when he was in Oakland.

He had two bad months after his best friend was traded. Half the offense was gone, and he wasn't the only player it affected. 2007 will be a defining year for him, and 2006 will either be a blip, or a continuing trend. But if AD can score 100 runs, walk 100 times ad hit 40+ HR's then I'll try to live with that meager production.

Which 2 months were these?

I heard runs were very team dependent, so I don't know if I can live with that.

IndyPhils
02-22-2007, 02:51 PM
But does this happen during the actual play-by-play of the game? We're talking about the Reds' play-by-play announcer here, not the talky-talkers before and after the game.


Chris Wheeler- the Mouthpiece of Philllies management is Pbp guy. Harry Kalas does 3 innings a game or so. You can tell how the Phillies management feels about a player by how Wheels denigrates them during a game. Vicente Padilla was the best example of this. Abreu was run out of town by radio and print media, and yes now Burrell is the whipping boy.

Many teams would kill for a Padilla, Abreu, or Burrell.

Philly loves the guy that 'hustles', gets dirt on his uniform (Lenny Dykstra/Chase Utley), but the clean smooth consistent performer like Abreu, on of the top Phillies players of all time gets ragged on by Joe on the street because of ill informed perception(accepts walks).

In the end, what does it matter? Maybe Dykstra had to hustle to put up the numbers he did, where Abreu had more natutaral ability. If they produce the same results, how does it matter what their uniform looked like?

It happens in many cities, look at NYC and AROD. Give them David Bell and his "Hustle". I'll take Arod and his smooth results anyday.

IndyPhils
02-22-2007, 03:04 PM
Marty's problem stems from the fact that he doesn't understand the game. In fact, I doubt he has ever understood the game. Oh, he knows his way around BA, but really, complaining because a 270lb man isn't sprinting to his position 9 times a game? complaining about strikeouts, when a.) it's just another out, and 2.) at least he didn't ground into an inning ending DP. And since he has that lack of understanding, he cannot educate.

And really the K's are the tip of the iceberg. He never mentions how Dunn is among league leaders every year in pitches seen. He never mentions how that wears a pitcher out. No, he goes off on how Dunner didn't get 100 RBI last year while never mentioning how he was jerked up and down the lineup or how the offense was dismantled. All he does is talk about K's and BA with disgust in his voice.

Part of Marty's problem with Dunn is probably something he doesn't realize. This is Dunn's 3rd Manager. All three have had ideas of how to "fix" his swing or his approach. Marty is feeding of their poor results to make Adam "their" kind of hitter.

Dunn is what he is. A run producer. There is baggage with how he does it, but he does produce runs. He's a top 10-20 offensive player. You'd think Marty would be all over that. Instead he harps that he's not sprinting enough.


Well, said. The average fan doesn't think about this, but the main voice of the team should be spouting this knowledge!

Abreu and Burrell are clones of Dunn in tis matter high walk/high K players that get unfairly critized from fans. Not making an out is the best thing you can do. Getting to ball 4 means you sometimes take strike 3.

How much of Dunn, Abreu, Burrell's problems would have been solved if the Reds/Phillies pitching was half as good as their offenses have been the last few years?

Where is the outcry on the leading contributor to losses? In a down year for Dunn his runs created per 9 innnings was 6.05.

TRF
02-22-2007, 03:12 PM
Which 2 months were these?

I heard runs were very team dependent, so I don't know if I can live with that.

RBI are more team dependent. Runs is more a result of OBP (being on base) and SLG (HR's, doubles that put you in scoring position). Adam Dunn is on base a lot. He hit's a lot of HR's. 40 times, he scored himself with no help. 24 times he put himself in scoring position.

He had a down year. That's it.

Cyclone792
02-22-2007, 03:16 PM
Chris Wheeler- the Mouthpiece of Philllies management is Pbp guy. Harry Kalas does 3 innings a game or so. You can tell how the Phillies management feels about a player by how Wheels denigrates them during a game. Vicente Padilla was the best example of this. Abreu was run out of town by radio and print media, and yes now Burrell is the whipping boy.

Many teams would kill for a Padilla, Abreu, or Burrell.

Philly loves the guy that 'hustles', gets dirt on his uniform (Lenny Dykstra/Chase Utley), but the clean smooth consistent performer like Abreu, on of the top Phillies players of all time gets ragged on by Joe on the street because of ill informed perception(accepts walks).

In the end, what does it matter? Maybe Dykstra had to hustle to put up the numbers he did, where Abreu had more natutaral ability. If they produce the same results, how does it matter what their uniform looked like?

It happens in many cities, look at NYC and AROD. Give them David Bell and his "Hustle". I'll take Arod and his smooth results anyday.

This sounds exactly like Cincinnati!

M2
02-22-2007, 03:47 PM
Philly loves the guy that 'hustles', gets dirt on his uniform (Lenny Dykstra/Chase Utley), but the clean smooth consistent performer like Abreu, on of the top Phillies players of all time gets ragged on by Joe on the street because of ill informed perception(accepts walks).

In Philly's case it's a combination of hustle and skin color that makes a guy popular. If Lenny Dykstra were of a darker hue, he'd have been reviled in Philly as an oft-injured party animal who wasn't as good as he was made out to be.

edabbs44
02-22-2007, 04:32 PM
RBI are more team dependent. Runs is more a result of OBP (being on base) and SLG (HR's, doubles that put you in scoring position). Adam Dunn is on base a lot. He hit's a lot of HR's. 40 times, he scored himself with no help. 24 times he put himself in scoring position.

He had a down year. That's it.

Sorry, but that doesn't make sense.

Runs are dependent on you getting on base and people driving you in when you are on base.
RBI are dependent of you getting ABs with RISP and you performing in those situations.

Please don't twist the facts in Dunn's favor. I know it's a favorite pastime of people on here.

RichRed
02-22-2007, 04:58 PM
Philly loves the guy that 'hustles', gets dirt on his uniform (Lenny Dykstra/Chase Utley), but the clean smooth consistent performer like Abreu, on of the top Phillies players of all time gets ragged on by Joe on the street because of ill informed perception(accepts walks).



There's a Phils fan on another message board I visit who was livid that the Phillies let backup catcher Sal Fasano go to the Yankees while "bums" like Burrell and Abreu were still collecting paychecks. Sal Fasano. I'm not kidding.

(I'm sure he was ecstatic four days later when Abreu was sent to be with his old teammate in New York.)

Ltlabner
02-22-2007, 05:17 PM
"deprived of Marty"? That's some serious man-love you've got for that fellow.

Together they were like bitter/sweet chocholate. Without sweet Joe, Marty is just ... bitter. ;) I know Marty has mentioned that he really owes alot of his success to Joe. I said before they broke that team up that either of them alone was nowhere near as enjoyable as the both of them together.

I don't think its too much to ask a man in his position to keep in mind that the listeners are also customers or potential customers.

Well, I used the word deprived because that's the word Ron Madden used in the post I was responding too. And yes, I enjoy Martys broadcasts, both those from my youth and those now. I guess I have as much man-love defending Marty as some here have for defending Dunner.

I agree totally about Joe's departure effecting the team chemistry (of course we all know that team chemistry is a bunch of bunk ;) ) of the broadcasts. Marty still made snarky comments back then (he loves Shea stadium ya know) but his approach definatley changed once Joe left the booth. I wonder if he felt a sub-concious pressure to carry things by himself? He said Steve wasn't his first choice so perhaps he felt he had to "compensate" for a "light-weight"? Not saying that's acceptable, just throwing it out there.

I'm not sure Marty thinks in terms of "customers or franchise figurehead". I have no idea how the views his role, but if I had to guess he'd say "play by play guy" and think to himself, "wise jedi-master/historian who has seen all". I'd be willing to bet a small sum of money that if asked if he was a "marketing tool" of the Reds he would scoff.

Ltlabner
02-22-2007, 05:24 PM
Is the product that is being broadcast over WLW and XM Reds Baseball, or is it "Marty and Friends?" If you're listening to the game for Marty, then maybe Marty should have his own show where he can talk about whatever he wants and callers can call in and praise him.

If people are going to stop listening to Reds baseball if Marty leaves, then I question whether they're really a Reds fan or not. He's going to leave eventually.

In any case, he's going to be gone. Does he want people to remember him as a great announcer, or does he want people to remember him as a grumpy old blowhard who used his status and media access to drive people away from the game?

Personally I tune in to hear the games presented in an entertaining fashion. So for me, the answer is both. I don't listen to Grande because he gives me the game portion of the product, with zero of the entertaining delivery. I liken it to having a weatherman you enjoy. You can get the weather report anywhere, but you tune into Mr. XYZ because he presents the information in a way you find enjoyable. If all you wanted was purely the baseball game, then you could simply read a text account of what happened.

Who said anything about people not tuneing in once he retires? Speaking for myself, I'll continue to tune into some source of entertaining presentation of the games when I'm not able to attend in person. Who knows, perhaps by then they'll have an entertaining TV broadcaster and I can see and hear the game.

I would guess that Marty doesn't give a crap what some dissafected people think of his performance.

westofyou
02-22-2007, 05:26 PM
I would guess that Marty doesn't give a crap what some dissafected people think of his performance.

At last we have reached ouroboro stage of the thread.

lollipopcurve
02-22-2007, 05:37 PM
I would guess that Marty doesn't give a crap what some dissafected people think of his performance.

If you're disaffected by disaffection, are you affected?

RichRed
02-22-2007, 05:45 PM
If you're disaffected by disaffection, are you affected?

Effectively.

Yachtzee
02-22-2007, 06:01 PM
At last we have reached ouroboro stage of the thread.

And I am the snake head eating the head on the opposite side,
I Palindrome I.

TRF
02-22-2007, 06:01 PM
HR's do both and require no help.

Dunn's in scoring position when he strides to the plate.

But you make my case for me. Dunn scores 100 runs a season because he's on base a ton AND he has prolific power. Imagine how many runs he could score with a set position in the lineup and good protection too. Might do wonders for his RBI totals if he isn't batting 6th, which he has done 212 times over the last three seasons.

vaticanplum
02-22-2007, 06:30 PM
Dunn's in scoring position when he strides to the plate.

Wow, now there's a soundbyte.

edabbs44
02-22-2007, 06:48 PM
HR's do both and require no help.

Dunn's in scoring position when he strides to the plate.

But you make my case for me. Dunn scores 100 runs a season because he's on base a ton AND he has prolific power. Imagine how many runs he could score with a set position in the lineup and good protection too. Might do wonders for his RBI totals if he isn't batting 6th, which he has done 212 times over the last three seasons.

Yeah...his RBI total would skyrocket since he is a career .219 hitter with RISP. Again, I realize that average isn't everything but you get most of your RBI from hitting in RISP opportunities. Adam has shown that he doesn't exactly thrive in getting hits in those situations.

Let me break it down for you this way, all stats coming from 2006:

Dunn hits .221 in 176 PAs (40 walks) with RISP and gets 59 RBI.
Howard hits .256 in 213 PAs (49 walks) with RISP and gets 83 RBI.
Morneau hits .323 in 194 PAs (27 walks) with RISP and gets 94 RBI.
Pujols hits .397 in 167 PAs (41 walks) with RISP and gets 88 RBI.

I realize I picked some good ones there, but Dunn has no one to blame but himself for not having more RBI. Facts are facts. Produce with runners on base and you'll have a greater total of RBI. It's simple logic.

Hoosier Red
02-22-2007, 06:55 PM
Believe it or not I think TRF and edabbs agree more than they're letting on.

Dunn has been a top 20 offensive performer. He wasn't last year. His two bad months really dragged down the season.

Per TRF 2007 will be a defining season for him. Does he get back to the production level of a top tier offensive player, or does his OPS continue to slide.

The only difference is TRF believes he will, color edabbs skeptical.
There everybody happy?

Yachtzee
02-22-2007, 06:58 PM
Yeah...his RBI total would skyrocket since he is a career .219 hitter with RISP. Again, I realize that average isn't everything but you get most of your RBI from hitting in RISP opportunities. Adam has shown that he doesn't exactly thrive in getting hits in those situations.

Let me break it down for you this way, all stats coming from 2006:

Dunn hits .221 in 176 PAs (40 walks) with RISP and gets 59 RBI.
Howard hits .256 in 213 PAs (49 walks) with RISP and gets 83 RBI.
Morneau hits .323 in 194 PAs (27 walks) with RISP and gets 94 RBI.
Pujols hits .397 in 167 PAs (41 walks) with RISP and gets 88 RBI.

I realize I picked some good ones there, but Dunn has no one to blame but himself for not having more RBI. Facts are facts. Produce with runners on base and you'll have a greater total of RBI. It's simple logic.

Let's wait and see on Howard and Morneau. They had great seasons last year, but it was Howard's first full season and Morneau didn't exactly tear it up in 2005. Pujols, of course, is a rare talent indeed.

Roy Tucker
02-22-2007, 07:04 PM
At last we have reached ouroboro stage of the thread.

I had to look that one up.


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fa/Ouroboros.png/250px-Ouroboros.png

edabbs44
02-22-2007, 07:05 PM
Let's wait and see on Howard and Morneau. They had great seasons last year, but it was Howard's first full season and Morneau didn't exactly tear it up in 2005. Pujols, of course, is a rare talent indeed.

Wasn't trying to compare Dunn to those three. Just saying that if anyone wants Dunn to have more RBI, he needs to pick up his performance in those situations. Hitting in a different spot in the order won't matter.


Believe it or not I think TRF and edabbs agree more than they're letting on.

Dunn has been a top 20 offensive performer. He wasn't last year. His two bad months really dragged down the season.

Per TRF 2007 will be a defining season for him. Does he get back to the production level of a top tier offensive player, or does his OPS continue to slide.

The only difference is TRF believes he will, color edabbs skeptical.
There everybody happy?

Agreed. I'm tired.

Ltlabner
02-22-2007, 07:33 PM
Part of Marty's problem with Dunn is probably something he doesn't realize. This is Dunn's 3rd Manager. All three have had ideas of how to "fix" his swing or his approach. Marty is feeding of their poor results to make Adam "their" kind of hitter.

I can't imagine how much it would screw with your head to know you have tallent in area A, but constantly have people telling you to focus on B, C, D, E and F instead of helping you maximize area A first.

Here's a note from todays BP in an unfiltered article about BJ Upton and Gary Sheffeld.
Sheffield, in fact, was accused of tanking during his 1991 season... I don’t know whether Sheffield tanked, but here’s the parallel: when you have a young, talented baseball player who is unhappy and has some growing up to do and is being told five different things about his future from five different people, you can’t necessarily take the stats at face value.

I thought of your post TRF after reading this on BP and thought it related to the point you were making.

Grounds_Crew
02-22-2007, 07:35 PM
I haven't read this thread past page one or two....and the only reason I'm posting now is because I don't know how you guys turned this into a 16 page topic, haha.

RANDY IN INDY
02-22-2007, 07:36 PM
Dunn needs to find a hitting coach that he trusts, and stick with him. Too many cooks in the kitchen is never a good thing. Casey always went back to his high school coach when he had a problem. Jr. goes to his dad. Dunn needs to find that person and stick with him.

pedro
02-22-2007, 07:46 PM
Dunn needs to find a hitting coach that he trusts, and stick with him. Too many cooks in the kitchen is never a good thing. Casey always went back to his high school coach when he had a problem. Jr. goes to his dad. Dunn needs to find that person and stick with him.


I wish he would go back to the stance he had when he come up from the minors.

Chip R
02-22-2007, 07:49 PM
I haven't read this thread past page one or two....and the only reason I'm posting now is because I don't know how you guys turned this into a 16 page topic, haha.


That's cause you've only been here for a month.

BoydsOfSummer
02-22-2007, 08:06 PM
I haven't read this thread past page one or two....and the only reason I'm posting now is because I don't know how you guys turned this into a 16 page topic, haha.

Yer new around here aintcha?:laugh:

Ron Madden
02-23-2007, 04:23 AM
Well, I used the word deprived because that's the word Ron Madden used in the post I was responding too.

You told me to turn off the damn radio. I said why should I deprive myself of following the Reds on radio because Marty says silly things.

It's part of the game and ok to criticize Players, Managers and Owners.

Fans should Never Ever disagree with the PBP announcer though. :dunno:

Ltlabner
02-23-2007, 07:51 AM
You told me to turn off the damn radio. I said why should I deprive myself of following the Reds on radio because Marty says silly things.

It's part of the game and ok to criticize Players, Managers and Owners.

Fans should Never Ever disagree with the PBP announcer though. :dunno:

There's nothing wrong with the word "deprived" whether you used it or I did. It was a different poster that was questioning it.

Please post for me where anyone has posted that you should 'never ever' disagree with the PBP announcer. That's right....nobody has ever claimed that. Nobody. Why in fact, I've even stated that Marty's wrong about Dunn, goofy for the "young body" Conine business and is nutz about Steve Finley. It is possible to dissagree with someone (ie Marty) on various subjects and still find him entertaining since I turn on the radio I am looking for an entertaining baseball game broadcast, not how I am to think about the Reds.

mth123
02-23-2007, 08:38 AM
To me Marty is a very good Play by Play announcer, but he comes off as a classic case of a guy with little man's syndrome. He's not the game or one of its players but seems to need to hog the spotlight with his tough guy talk when it comes to critiquing players, taking calls on the hot stove league or calling home runs "Johnsons."

As an announcer it seems that Marty's job is to shine the spotlight on the game and its players and he's very good when he does that. His efforts to shine it on himself more often than he should are the core of my annoyance with him. I wish he'd cut the tough talk and call the game.

In the last 15 years or so, Marty has fallen into a trap that is common with public figures. He's let his "persona" take over and go out of control. He's evolved into a caricature of himself. Some of his traits that were so endearing at first have become so exaggerated that they are now a huge distraction.

RFS62
02-23-2007, 09:00 AM
To me Marty is a very good Play by Play announcer, but he comes off as a classic case of a guy with little man's syndrome. He's not the game or one of its players but seems to need to hog the spotlight with his tough guy talk when it comes to critiquing players, taking calls on the hot stove league or calling home runs "Johnsons."

As an announcer it seems that Marty's job is to shine the spotlight on the game and its players and he's very good when he does that. His efforts to shine it on himself more often than he should are the core of my annoyance with him. I wish he'd cut the tough talk and call the game.

In the last 15 years or so, Marty has fallen into a trap that is common with public figures. He's let his "persona" take over and go out of control. He's evolved into a caricature of himself. Some of his traits that were so endearing at first have become so exaggerated that they are now a huge distraction.


Great post.

The year he went into the HOF, he did a broadcast on ESPN.

None of his normal banter, no "quintessential ladies man", no tomato gardening, no condescension.... just straight broadcasting.

And he was awesome. Sounded like a different guy. Maybe the guy he used to be before all the Elvis stuff and local trappings he adds to the Reds games.

Ltlabner
02-23-2007, 09:31 AM
In the last 15 years or so, Marty has fallen into a trap that is common with public figures. He's let his "persona" take over and go out of control. He's evolved into a caricature of himself. Some of his traits that were so endearing at first have become so exaggerated that they are now a huge distraction.

All the aruging over Marty asside, it will be very interesting to see how the dynamics change once Thom and Brantley are in the booth. I don't know squat about Brantley, but Marty's respect of Thom is apparent and Thom's no "light weight" when it comes to broadcasting. Perhaps this will bring back ballance to the force and Marty will get his focus back on the game (the assides don't bother me, but I understand how they annoy other people).

registerthis
02-23-2007, 10:31 AM
Fans should Never Ever disagree with the PBP announcer though. :dunno:

Who is saying this? :confused:

Raisor
02-23-2007, 11:08 AM
I ask for so little from you people.

Didn't I ask to be informed when a Dunn/Marty thread was started so I could drop in and say snippy things before it petered out?

Now I have to try to get in all my usually stuff in here at the end.

For those of you that keep using batting average (and especially BARISP):

Why keep harping on a stat that treats every hit the same? Isn't a double > then a single? A triple > then a double? A homerun > then a triple?

I wish I had more time, there's lots more snarky stuff I can write, but heck, use the search function, it's all there.

Oh, and it's all about creating runs. I couldn't possibly care how many times Dunn strikes out or doesn't strike out.

That's the jibberjabber for now.

registerthis
02-23-2007, 02:10 PM
Now I have to try to get in all my usually stuff in here at the end.

What makes you think this is the end? Yours is only post #327. We could easily have another 300 on this.

edabbs44
02-23-2007, 02:45 PM
I ask for so little from you people.

Didn't I ask to be informed when a Dunn/Marty thread was started so I could drop in and say snippy things before it petered out?

Now I have to try to get in all my usually stuff in here at the end.

For those of you that keep using batting average (and especially BARISP):

Why keep harping on a stat that treats every hit the same? Isn't a double > then a single? A triple > then a double? A homerun > then a triple?

I wish I had more time, there's lots more snarky stuff I can write, but heck, use the search function, it's all there.

Oh, and it's all about creating runs. I couldn't possibly care how many times Dunn strikes out or doesn't strike out.

That's the jibberjabber for now.

Nice to have you back.

Why care about OBP then, which treats a walk like a HR?

Why care about SLG, which treats a solo HR like a grand slam? Wouldn't a GS create more runs than a solo HR? Or is a theoretical run scored through a complex equation better than an actual run that is scored?

All of these stats have value. Some might be better than others, but those who think that BA and BARISP have zero value are only kidding themselves. It's amazing how the only stats that count are the ones that Dunn is good at.

Cyclone792
02-23-2007, 02:59 PM
Nice to have you back.

Why care about OBP then, which treats a walk like a HR?

Why care about SLG, which treats a solo HR like a grand slam? Wouldn't a GS create more runs than a solo HR? Or is a theoretical run scored through a complex equation better than an actual run that is scored?

All of these stats have value. Some might be better than others, but those who think that BA and BARISP have zero value are only kidding themselves. It's amazing how the only stats that count are the ones that Dunn is good at.

If you think BA and BA w/RISP has anywhere near as much value as OBP and SLG, then perhaps you'd like to show us how well each of them correlate to actual run scoring.

Contrary to what you may believe, the "stats used" have nothing to do with Adam Dunn. Rather, they have everything to do with what best correlates to run scoring and run production.

westofyou
02-23-2007, 03:06 PM
If you think BA and BA w/RISP has anywhere near as much value as OBP and SLG, then perhaps you'd like to show us how well each of them correlate to actual run scoring.

Contrary to what you may believe, the "stats used" have nothing to do with Adam Dunn. Rather, they have everything to do with what best correlates to run scoring and run production.

Wait... Let's just throw out OB% and Slugging and go from there ok?

edabbs44
02-23-2007, 03:31 PM
If you think BA and BA w/RISP has anywhere near as much value as OBP and SLG, then perhaps you'd like to show us how well each of them correlate to actual run scoring.

Contrary to what you may believe, the "stats used" have nothing to do with Adam Dunn. Rather, they have everything to do with what best correlates to run scoring and run production.

My post was in response only to another post and that post only. Saying this:


For those of you that keep using batting average (and especially BARISP):

Why keep harping on a stat that treats every hit the same? Isn't a double > then a single? A triple > then a double? A homerun > then a triple?

makes some sense, but doesn't make total sense. That's why I responded by saying that OBP treats a walk the same as a HR. Same concept.

I believe that all of these stats have value. Comparing the BA of two players who hit .300-8-55 and .275-35-120 is ludicrous. But so is comparing two players with the same OBP when one has a BA of .325 and the other has one of .225.

We've been through this a hundred times and I know that OBP correlates to runs more than BA does, which only makes sense as people need to get on base to score and OBP shows that better than BA. But to say that BARISP doesn't have any value is outrageous. OBP doesn't matter if no one drives the person in. To say BA doesn't matter is ludicrous. BA makes up most of your OBP as you (most of the time) will have more ABs than walks.

You can't look at these stats in a vacuum. They all have value in one way or another. OBP and SLG surely correlate to runs scored, but you cannot say these are the only things that matter.

A walk when you are up 8 runs in the 9th doesn't mean the same as a walk to start a game winning rally.

A HR when you are up 8 in the 9th doesn't mean the same when you hit a game winning HR.

A single when you are down 9 with the bases empty in the 9th doesn't mean the same as a single with men on 2nd and 3rd, down one in the 9th.

You can use all the stats you want, but there are different situations in the game of baseball. The same outcome of an AB might have two very different values depending on the situation. Using a broad based value of a walk doesn't work for every situation.

I might not have the time or capacity to quantify this, but I think it's pretty indisputable. And when you say this:


If you think BA and BA w/RISP has anywhere near as much value as OBP and SLG, then perhaps you'd like to show us how well each of them correlate to actual run scoring.

it sounds kind of ridiculous. No one says that BARISP correlates to runs scored better than OBP or SLG. But if you were given a choice of how the Reds as a team performs with RISP, would you rather them hit .220 or .320? Do you think that .220 is good, or that it doesn't matter in the slightest? When that OBP gets people on base, someone has to perform when they get into scoring position.

Cyclone792
02-23-2007, 04:07 PM
I might not have the time or capacity to quantify this, but I think it's pretty indisputable. And when you say this:

Quote:
If you think BA and BA w/RISP has anywhere near as much value as OBP and SLG, then perhaps you'd like to show us how well each of them correlate to actual run scoring.

it sounds kind of ridiculous. No one says that BARISP correlates to runs scored better than OBP or SLG. But if you were given a choice of how the Reds as a team performs with RISP, would you rather them hit .220 or .320? Do you think that .220 is good, or that it doesn't matter in the slightest? When that OBP gets people on base, someone has to perform when they get into scoring position.

If it's pretty indisputable, then I'd like to see proof of it. And there's absolutely nothing ridiculous about that request either, especially when you've shown over the past nine months that you're unable to grasp the importance of certain statistics relative to other statistics.

In all your above examples, you've done nothing more than list a bunch of useless, cherry-picked examples. In fact, when discussing Adam Dunn, all you seem to do is create an agenda, then look for statistics that support that agenda while also isolating somebody else's take as some sort of extreme. This is all you've ever done on the topic.

I'm not trying to be harsh here, but if you want to understand the relative importance of each metric for run scoring, then you're going to have to lose the agendas and actually make a concerted effort to really understand how run scoring operates. If all you're ever concerned about is the agenda based on which players you like and dislike for whatever reason, then you're going to have an awfully difficult time understanding the true value of each player.

edabbs44
02-23-2007, 04:38 PM
If it's pretty indisputable, then I'd like to see proof of it. And there's absolutely nothing ridiculous about that request either, especially when you've shown over the past nine months that you're unable to grasp the importance of certain statistics relative to other statistics.

In all your above examples, you've done nothing more than list a bunch of useless, cherry-picked examples. In fact, when discussing Adam Dunn, all you seem to do is create an agenda, then look for statistics that support that agenda while also isolating somebody else's take as some sort of extreme. This is all you've ever done on the topic.

I'm not trying to be harsh here, but if you want to understand the relative importance of each metric for run scoring, then you're going to have to lose the agendas and actually make a concerted effort to really understand how run scoring operates. If all you're ever concerned about is the agenda based on which players you like and dislike for whatever reason, then you're going to have an awfully difficult time understanding the true value of each player.

I don't need to spit out charts and graphs to prove getting a hit with a man on third correlates to a run being scored.

Listen, I think what you have to say has value. When you say that OBP and SLG are valuable, I agree that they are valuable. How can someone dispute that? But when you cut other stats out by saying it doesn't matter because OBP and SLG have more value, well that's where you are wrong.

I have no agenda when it comes to talking about Adam Dunn. He is one of my favorite Reds, although a frustrating one. And I enjoy talking about how he can improve to become a better player. But the minute someone says something bad about Dunn, there are a whole host of posters here who can't wait to jam the OBP correlation down your throat.

If run scoring only depends on OBP and SLG, I guess they don't need to have outcomes of games or even count runs scored during games. Just tally up the percentage of how many people got on base during the game and run the numbers through a computer to see how many "runs" they scored. The team with the most theoretical runs wins.

And to say I am unable to grasp the importance of certain statistics relative to other statistics is comical at best. I fully understand that there are some statistics that are more "important" than others. But I am also open-minded enough to understand that there are many stats that have value and that baseball doesn't begin and end with OBP. OBP is great, but OBP without BARISP = LOB. Try listening to what people have to say once in a while before slamming them with graphs. You might learn something.

deltachi8
02-23-2007, 04:41 PM
So, can one show a correlation to wins and BARISP? Is it higher than that of OPS?

Just curious...

membengal
02-23-2007, 04:43 PM
Much like in Field of Dreams, this thread is destined to GO THE DISTANCE...

Patrick Bateman
02-23-2007, 04:52 PM
I don't need to spit out charts and graphs to prove getting a hit with a man on third correlates to a run being scored.


OBP is great, but OBP without BARISP = LOB.

Batting average with RISP only paints part of the picture.

Getting walks in those situations may not lead to runner in scoring position to scoring, but it still leads to more opportunities to score runs.

Also, a problem with batting average in that instance is that it still makes a single=double=triple=HR

It doesn't work that way. It never does. With RISP it's nice to be able to get the runner home, but that still doesn't accurately measure offensive production. There's a lot more to it then simply getting the single run home.

Examples like that show why BARISP is a poor way to jugde any ballplayer, even in the RISP situations because batting average never tells the entire story. Simply put, the BARISP will not correlate to runs scoring nearly as highly as you think.

Cyclone792
02-23-2007, 05:04 PM
Listen, I think what you have to say has value. When you say that OBP and SLG are valuable, I agree that they are valuable. How can someone dispute that? But when you cut other stats out by saying it doesn't matter because OBP and SLG have more value, well that's where you are wrong.

Back to the extremes you go. I said BA w/RISP doesn't have anywhere near as much value as OBP and SLG. That's different than me saying BA w/RISP doesn't matter at all.

What's really ironic is I've long been a win shares advocate, and BA w/RISP is actually included within win shares. In 1989, Will Clark batted .389 w/RISP, and that's a small part of the reason why he put up 44 win shares in 1989.


I have no agenda when it comes to talking about Adam Dunn. He is one of my favorite Reds, although a frustrating one. And I enjoy talking about how he can improve to become a better player. But the minute someone says something bad about Dunn, there are a whole host of posters here who can't wait to jam the OBP correlation down your throat.

Actually what I prefer is some useful critiques of Dunn rather than useless, inaccurate critiques. It's out there. In fact, there was a wonderful BP article just a few weeks ago that provided some spot on criticisms of Dunn.

Here, I'll even include the 2006 portion of that article ...



Dunn's offensive trouble in 2006 might be explained with his batted-ball data and some hit charts:


Year P/PA FB% LINERD% GB% IF/F% HR/F% BABIP eBABIP Dif.
2002 4.4 39.7% 20.9% 39.4% 17.1% 17.8% .316 .329 +0.13
2003 4.3 50.4% 18.6% 31.0% 17.7% 20.8% .241 .306 +0.65
2004 4.3 48.0% 19.8% 32.2% 11.2% 25.7% .321 .318 -0.03
2005 4.2 47.2% 17.5% 35.3% 14.0% 22.5% .281 .295 +0.14
2006 4.2 48.6% 23.5% 27.8% 8.3% 22.2% .278 .355 +0.77

Adam Dunn has two years where the difference between his BABIP and expected BABIP (eBABIP) are well past the realm of significant; eBABIP is derived from adding LINERD% to .12. Adding in the .065 points of difference from 2003 would give Dunn a line of .281/.419/.530, which fits in well with his career lines and would have in fact been his initial breakout season. For 2006, the .077 difference puts Dunn at .311/.442/.567, which would have been his most productive season so far. These figures assume all of Dunn's missing hits were singles; playing this game all the way out to its full level of detail, you could throw in a few more points of slugging to that line.

Of course, there is a little bit more at work here than fluke low BABIP seasons. Dunn is an extreme flyball hitter, which is about the last thing you want to be if you're looking to have a consistently high—or consistent at all, for that matter—BABIP. Dunn's high flyball rate, combined with a bout of poor luck on line drives, led to his second half problems:

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/news/images/5850_01.gif

As you can see in 2004, in a year where Dunn's BABIP and eBABIP basically matched up, he had hit quite a few singles to right field. The next year, he grounded out quite a bit to the right side of the infield, but he also hit a few long doubles. In 2006, we don't see any of those doubles to deep right center, and the number of singles has certainly been cut down. Dunn also grounded out in shallow right field often enough that a lot of those red "g" symbols are overlapping; this would certainly contribute to some of his loss in production. Remember that these hit charts above are only for games played at Great American Ballpark, meaning that there were plenty of these types of outs in other parks to go around.

Dunn has hit anywhere from 60 to 70 percent of his grounders to the right side since 2003, and it looks as if teams finally started to play the shift on him--hence the very deep groundball outs in right field. Add that to the increase in flyball and line drive outs Dunn experienced in 2006, and you have part of the answer for the discrepancies between BABIP and eBABIP.

Dunn has been working on trying to hit the ball to all fields to counter the shift teams are now employing to keep him in check, which caused him to hit quite a few more liners and flyballs to center field than he normally does; the results of this are seen in the hit charts above, where all those little red "f" symbols reside in Great American Ballpark's center field. Dunn should not worry about hitting the ball to all fields if it is going to sap him of his non-homer power to the degree it did in 2006. He hits groundballs at a very low rate anyway, and if it is negatively affecting his approach overall, it's probably not the best idea going forward.

The above is highly useful, and people can learn quite a bit about Adam Dunn going forward with the above information. No offense, but berating the guy due to his BA w/RISP and RBI total isn't going to provide a useful analysis.


If run scoring only depends on OBP and SLG, I guess they don't need to have outcomes of games or even count runs scored during games. Just tally up the percentage of how many people got on base during the game and run the numbers through a computer to see how many "runs" they scored. The team with the most theoretical runs wins.

Once again, back to the extremes you go.


And to say I am unable to grasp the importance of certain statistics relative to other statistics is comical at best. I fully understand that there are some statistics that are more "important" than others. But I am also open-minded enough to understand that there are many stats that have value and that baseball doesn't begin and end with OBP. OBP is great, but OBP without BARISP = LOB. Try listening to what people have to say once in a while before slamming them with graphs. You might learn something.

I've listened to a plethora of people in regards to baseball historical trends and statistics over the past decade. The arguments that make plenty of sense are the ones that enable a listener to move forward in a meaningful way in an analysis. The arguments that make little sense are the ones that prevent a listener from moving forward in a meaningful way in an analysis.

Try formulating some arguments that fit the former rather than the latter.

Cyclone792
02-23-2007, 05:12 PM
So, can one show a correlation to wins and BARISP? Is it higher than that of OPS?

Just curious...

Well, not to wins, but to runs you can (which is what I assume you meant).

In 2006, OPS to run scoring had a correlation of 93.3 percent. BA w/RISP to run scoring had a correlation of 58.4 percent.

Heath
02-23-2007, 05:40 PM
Wow - nice Emeril Lagasse post, Cyclone - BAM! on the nose.

Adam Dunn's 2006 is defined as hit-unlucky.

He's looking at a very big rebound in 2007. Enjoy it.

deltachi8
02-23-2007, 07:41 PM
Well, not to wins, but to runs you can (which is what I assume you meant).

In 2006, OPS to run scoring had a correlation of 93.3 percent. BA w/RISP to run scoring had a correlation of 58.4 percent.

Your right, Jason, thats what I was after. I knew it existed but was at work and could not look it up. Thanks.

edabbs44
02-23-2007, 08:54 PM
Batting average with RISP only paints part of the picture.

Getting walks in those situations may not lead to runner in scoring position to scoring, but it still leads to more opportunities to score runs.

Also, a problem with batting average in that instance is that it still makes a single=double=triple=HR

It doesn't work that way. It never does. With RISP it's nice to be able to get the runner home, but that still doesn't accurately measure offensive production. There's a lot more to it then simply getting the single run home.

Examples like that show why BARISP is a poor way to jugde any ballplayer, even in the RISP situations because batting average never tells the entire story. Simply put, the BARISP will not correlate to runs scoring nearly as highly as you think.

I have never said that BA with RISP correlates highly to runs. I said it matters.

The main problem is that when someone even dares to mention BA or BA with RISP, it is shot down immediately and then the whole OBP lesson starts.

So when someone dares to say that Player X (99% of the time it is Dunn) would perform better if they hit for a higher average or hit for a higher average with RISP, is that wrong?

Seriously, what is wrong with that? Some people believe that since Dunn walks a lot and hits HRs, his game is almost bulletproof.

"So what that he hit .234 last season, look at his OBP" or "Who cares that he hits .219 for his career with RISP or that he hits .208 in his career with RISP and 2 outs, did you see that he walked 100 times last season?"

These are aspects of he game. OBP correlates greatly to runs scored, that much has been established. It correlates like that partly because people perform better than Dunn when there are runners in scoring position. If the league average with RISP was .219, I'm sure there would be less runs scored.

For the last time, OBP and SLG are very important. But there are other stats that you can perform well in that would make you a better player. Just because you walk a lot doesn't mean that you don't have to do anything else well. That's the only argument here.

Please don't try and spin this post into my anti-Dunn or anti-OBP thesis. I've never said that Dunn sucks or that OBP is not important, even though popular belief on here is that my agenda includes these themes. My only position is that you can help a team out by doing more than just having a good OBP.

deltachi8
02-23-2007, 09:36 PM
I suppose the reason it gets shot down (BA RISP) is that it is an inferior method of measuring a batter's efficiency in producing runs.

Yachtzee
02-23-2007, 09:44 PM
I have never said that BA with RISP correlates highly to runs. I said it matters.

The main problem is that when someone even dares to mention BA or BA with RISP, it is shot down immediately and then the whole OBP lesson starts.

So when someone dares to say that Player X (99% of the time it is Dunn) would perform better if they hit for a higher average or hit for a higher average with RISP, is that wrong?

Seriously, what is wrong with that? Some people believe that since Dunn walks a lot and hits HRs, his game is almost bulletproof.

"So what that he hit .234 last season, look at his OBP" or "Who cares that he hits .219 for his career with RISP or that he hits .208 in his career with RISP and 2 outs, did you see that he walked 100 times last season?"

These are aspects of he game. OBP correlates greatly to runs scored, that much has been established. It correlates like that partly because people perform better than Dunn when there are runners in scoring position. If the league average with RISP was .219, I'm sure there would be less runs scored.

For the last time, OBP and SLG are very important. But there are other stats that you can perform well in that would make you a better player. Just because you walk a lot doesn't mean that you don't have to do anything else well. That's the only argument here.

Please don't try and spin this post into my anti-Dunn or anti-OBP thesis. I've never said that Dunn sucks or that OBP is not important, even though popular belief on here is that my agenda includes these themes. My only position is that you can help a team out by doing more than just having a good OBP.

I think the problem with BA and BARISP is that, because those stats don't have as high a correlation with run scoring, you can have guys with solid BA and BARISP that doesn't necessarily translate into more run scoring. I think the logical conclusion is that guys who are aggressive at the plate and don't couple that solid BA with a good walk rate can actually cancel out any good they do with hits by hitting into more outs, particularly the GIDP. A guy with a high OBP may get a hit, buy if he doesn't, he's at least taking a walk, which may move a guy over, but at least doesn't cause an out and provides an opportunity for the next guy to "bring 'em in." Guys who rely on BA without walks are also more susceptible to luck, because sometimes those seeing-eye singles get through and sometimes they don't. This isn't the "dead ball era," when guys could choke way up and try to slap one past infielders wearing rudimentary gloves and heavy wool uniforms.

Likewise, SLG correlates better with run scoring because it includes BB and gives extra value to extra base hits. My feeling is that, if people want to look at offense and don't like OBP because they don't think a walk is as good as a hit, they should at least follow Raisor's mantra by looking at SLG rather than BA in those situations. If a single with a runner on 2nd or 3rd is good, isn't a double with a runner on 2nd or 3rd better? And isn't a HR in that situation best of all?

Caveat Emperor
02-23-2007, 10:20 PM
For the last time, OBP and SLG are very important. But there are other stats that you can perform well in that would make you a better player. Just because you walk a lot doesn't mean that you don't have to do anything else well. That's the only argument here.

But it begs the question -- if OBP and SLG are shown to be exponentially more significant (statistically) with run production than any of the other stats that have been harped on (BA, RBIs, BA w/ RISP, etc.) why would you waste time trying to improve those skills when you could just work directly on being better at getting on base and selecting pitches to drive?

The argument your presenting is kind of like telling a professional gymnast that she could improve her gymnastic abilities by standing all day on one foot. Sure, that might help her balance a little bit -- but wouldn't she be better served to just practice her gymnastics all day?

edabbs44
02-23-2007, 10:50 PM
I think the problem with BA and BARISP is that, because those stats don't have as high a correlation with run scoring, you can have guys with solid BA and BARISP that doesn't necessarily translate into more run scoring. I think the logical conclusion is that guys who are aggressive at the plate and don't couple that solid BA with a good walk rate can actually cancel out any good they do with hits by hitting into more outs, particularly the GIDP. A guy with a high OBP may get a hit, buy if he doesn't, he's at least taking a walk, which may move a guy over, but at least doesn't cause an out and provides an opportunity for the next guy to "bring 'em in." Guys who rely on BA without walks are also more susceptible to luck, because sometimes those seeing-eye singles get through and sometimes they don't. This isn't the "dead ball era," when guys could choke way up and try to slap one past infielders wearing rudimentary gloves and heavy wool uniforms.

Likewise, SLG correlates better with run scoring because it includes BB and gives extra value to extra base hits. My feeling is that, if people want to look at offense and don't like OBP because they don't think a walk is as good as a hit, they should at least follow Raisor's mantra by looking at SLG rather than BA in those situations. If a single with a runner on 2nd or 3rd is good, isn't a double with a runner on 2nd or 3rd better? And isn't a HR in that situation best of all?

SLG doesn't include BBs.

Yachtzee
02-23-2007, 11:01 PM
SLG doesn't include BBs.

:doh: Nothing like mixing up your ingredients for your stats to make you feel like a dope.

edabbs44
02-23-2007, 11:35 PM
I suppose the reason it gets shot down (BA RISP) is that it is an inferior method of measuring a batter's efficiency in producing runs.

I honestly think it gets shot down here because Adam Dunn's career BA w/RISP is .219.

Even though it doesn't correlate to runs scored like OPS does, it is still beneficial to a team. If anyone can prove to me how getting a hit with RISP is not beneficial to a team, I'd enjoy hearing it.

I don't think anyone has ever said that it is a great way to measure a batter's efficiency. I think people have made that up in their heads. I believe some have only said that it is a great way for a batter to drive in a run or two.

As soon as some people see "BA RISP", I think they just hit the "quote" button and start in on the old OBP argument.

Again, if someone can tell me how getting a hit with RISP somehow hurts a team, then I would love to hear it. And to put it into real life context, if Dunn hit .251 instead of .221 with RISP last year, do you think the Reds would have scored more runs or less runs? No one is saying that, in that instance, Dunn has to "expand his zone" or "swing at non-strikes" or "change his approach." He hits .249 when the bases are empty...even hitting .249 with RISP would we a large improvement.

Yachtzee
02-24-2007, 12:16 AM
I honestly think it gets shot down here because Adam Dunn's career BA w/RISP is .219.

Even though it doesn't correlate to runs scored like OPS does, it is still beneficial to a team. If anyone can prove to me how getting a hit with RISP is not beneficial to a team, I'd enjoy hearing it.

I don't think anyone has ever said that it is a great way to measure a batter's efficiency. I think people have made that up in their heads. I believe some have only said that it is a great way for a batter to drive in a run or two.

As soon as some people see "BA RISP", I think they just hit the "quote" button and start in on the old OBP argument.

Again, if someone can tell me how getting a hit with RISP somehow hurts a team, then I would love to hear it. And to put it into real life context, if Dunn hit .251 instead of .221 with RISP last year, do you think the Reds would have scored more runs or less runs? No one is saying that, in that instance, Dunn has to "expand his zone" or "swing at non-strikes" or "change his approach." He hits .249 when the bases are empty...even hitting .249 with RISP would we a large improvement.

Well, lets see. If a player has a BA RISP of .219 but has an OBP RISP of .418 and a SLG RISP of .479, he may not be getting any dink and dunk singles squirting through, but when he does get a hit, he's also putting himself in scoring position. He's also getting enough walks to where he's "killing the rally" less that 60% of the time. Now on the other hand, if you have a guy who is hitting .280 BA RISP, but only has an OBP RISP of .310, he's getting more hits in those situations, but he's also "killing the rally" by making an out almost 70% of the time. That's 10% more rally killing power for a marginal benefit in increased RBI. Adam Dunn may not bring in the runners every time he comes up the plate with RISP, but at least his ABs in those situations have a positive outcome which has been shown to lead to more runs.

edabbs44
02-24-2007, 12:23 AM
Well, lets see. If a player has a BA RISP of .219 but has an OBP RISP of .418 and a SLG RISP of .479, he may not be getting any dink and dunk singles squirting through, but when he does get a hit, he's also putting himself in scoring position. He's also getting enough walks to where he's "killing the rally" less that 60% of the time. Now on the other hand, if you have a guy who is hitting .280 BA RISP, but only has an OBP RISP of .310, he's getting more hits in those situations, but he's also "killing the rally" by making an out almost 70% of the time. That's 10% more rally killing power for a marginal benefit in increased RBI. Adam Dunn may not bring in the runners every time he comes up the plate with RISP, but at least his ABs in those situations have a positive outcome which has been shown to lead to more runs.

This is where the facts get twisted.

Dunn has a career BA w/RISP of .219 and a career OBP w/RISP of .418.

You just compared him to a guy with a BA w/RISP of .280 who also has an OBP w/RISP of .310.

Nowhere was it suggested that it would be an improvement if he upped his BA by 60 points while dropping his OBP over 100 points.

Yachtzee
02-24-2007, 01:07 AM
This is where the facts get twisted.

Dunn has a career BA w/RISP of .219 and a career OBP w/RISP of .418.

You just compared him to a guy with a BA w/RISP of .280 who also has an OBP w/RISP of .310.

Nowhere was it suggested that it would be an improvement if he upped his BA by 60 points while dropping his OBP over 100 points.

I'm just trying to point out the fallacy of focusing on things like BA for scoring runs. When Dunn is criticized for his low BA RISP, a common complaint is that he takes too many walks in that situation. Yet, the walk is still a positive outcome that leads to runs. That's not to say that hits are not important. It's just that he should be doing everything he can to keep the run scoring going. If the Reds aren't scoring runs as many runs as people would like, maybe it's because the guys batting behind Dunn have been so successful at killing rallies.

Add to that the fact that BA treats all hits the same, when they clearly are not. Rather than focus on a weak part of his game that is an inferior stat when it goes to scoring runs, I choose to look at the big picture in determining the value of a player. In any case, we've gone quite far a field of the original topic, which was a certain broadcaster's dislike for a certain player and his preference for "hustle" over doing something that actually scores runs in a ballgame.

jojo
02-24-2007, 07:50 AM
Nice to have you back.

Why care about OBP then, which treats a walk like a HR?

Why care about SLG, which treats a solo HR like a grand slam? Wouldn't a GS create more runs than a solo HR? Or is a theoretical run scored through a complex equation better than an actual run that is scored?

All of these stats have value. Some might be better than others, but those who think that BA and BARISP have zero value are only kidding themselves. It's amazing how the only stats that count are the ones that Dunn is good at.

Raisor kind of already answered that with:


Oh, and it's all about creating runs.

In the most basic sense: OBP*SLG*AB=RC

Truthfully, even that standard falls short because in fact it's all about a player's total contribution to the team's total runs scored AND runs allowed...

So a player's true worth should be measured by summing his RC and defensive runs. Strikeouts don't really decrease the value of a player's bat but playing poor defense really can.

A player's final run value should then be related to his salary (via the number of wins this represents over what any Joe from the farm could've contributed) to see if his value to team wins is worth what he's being paid.... If it's not, he may be part of the problem rather than part of the solution.

jojo
02-24-2007, 07:58 AM
Wow - nice Emeril Lagasse post, Cyclone - BAM! on the nose.

Adam Dunn's 2006 is defined as hit-unlucky.

He's looking at a very big rebound in 2007. Enjoy it.


NO! It's defined as being affected by opposing strategy.

jojo
02-24-2007, 08:52 AM
I honestly think it gets shot down here because Adam Dunn's career BA w/RISP is .219.

Even though it doesn't correlate to runs scored like OPS does, it is still beneficial to a team. If anyone can prove to me how getting a hit with RISP is not beneficial to a team, I'd enjoy hearing it.

I don't think anyone has ever said that it is a great way to measure a batter's efficiency. I think people have made that up in their heads. I believe some have only said that it is a great way for a batter to drive in a run or two.

As soon as some people see "BA RISP", I think they just hit the "quote" button and start in on the old OBP argument.

Again, if someone can tell me how getting a hit with RISP somehow hurts a team, then I would love to hear it. And to put it into real life context, if Dunn hit .251 instead of .221 with RISP last year, do you think the Reds would have scored more runs or less runs? No one is saying that, in that instance, Dunn has to "expand his zone" or "swing at non-strikes" or "change his approach." He hits .249 when the bases are empty...even hitting .249 with RISP would we a large improvement.


Wow......ignore a thread for a few days because it's mostly about whether announcers are too snarky or not and a sabermetric argument breaks out... This is why I LOVE redszone.

Anyway, lets put this situational hitting argument against Dunn to rest once and for all.... :beerme:

Dunn (career totals):
total: .245/.380/.513
Runners on: .241/.412/.501
RISP: .219/.418/.479

Here are the theoretical RC for those situations (using the simple formula: OBP*SLG*AB and assuming 600 AB)
total: 117
Runners on: 124
RISP: 120

So over his career, Dunn actually has been a slightly more effective hitter when runners are on than when the bases are empty. He just gets there a different way. Also, I think these numbers really highlight the importance of getting on base and how batting average really is a flawed metric relative to run production.

The argument that somehow Dunn isn't clutch begs the question as to whether hitters can perform better in those situations than in ordinary ones. There is zero evidence that players have such an ability (don't take my word for it...a quick internet search will give you some great reading). Generally, when examining a player's career (i.e. ignoring variation from single seasons), a player's performance in clutch situations largely mirrors what he has done in all situations. There is no such thing as Mr Clutch and conversely Dunn is not the anti-Clutch.

There are valid sabermetric arguments to be made against Dunn. His batting average with RISP just isn't one of them....

I think the most accurate criticism of Dunn can be summed up this way: He is being paid like he can create runs AND prevent them when really he can just create them. Basically he's being paid like he plays defense too. At this point his salary demands he be a 5 win bat when considering he's probably a -1.5 win defender. To me the most valid argument against Dunn largely is that his salary is outgrowing his contribution to the team's run differential mostly because of his defensive deficiencies. It will be almost impossible for his bat to be good enough relative to payroll to justify his option year salary unless his defense improves. If the market corrects, then he could be dramatically overpaid. That's why his value has decreased...he's a riskier bet to be a payroll value given his leather. Basically other teams can now see ways that they can get reasonably similar production for cheaper (or perhaps I should say other teams can see ways to similary effect their RS/RA similarly for cheaper).

So back to Marty. I think I understand where Marty is coming from. Dunn has a laid back personality that Marty keys on when in fact I think it's Dunn's lack of work ethic concerning his defense that really is tweaking Marty. Plus keying on Dunn lolligagging to left plays well to the crowd in Cincy and certainly makes for better radio. It implies volumes about Dunn's deficiencies in about 2 seconds while my argument has taken about 10 minutes to write.

Anyway, that's my 2 cents for what it's worth....

RANDY IN INDY
02-24-2007, 09:43 AM
I ,personally, like simple things like the Tony Perez theory of, "See de ball, hit de ball," and Tony's wonderful knack of hitting with runners in scoring position, and driving in a ton of runs.;)

edabbs44
02-24-2007, 09:54 AM
So over his career, Dunn actually has been a slightly more effective hitter when runners are on than when the bases are empty.

The reason the stats show that is because his OBP spikes in these situations. Would it make sense to extract his 60 IBBs in these situations, since he didn't technically do much for them? You could probably take away HBPs as well. If we are measuring the effectiveness of a hitter, we should only measure what the hitter actually does. That would make his OBP in with RISP .373 and then your equations would look like this:

Dunn (career totals):
total: .245/.380/.513
Runners on: .241/.383/.501
RISP: .219/.373/.479

Here are the theoretical RC for those situations (using the simple formula: OBP*SLG*AB and assuming 600 AB)
total: 117
Runners on: 115
RISP: 107

jojo
02-24-2007, 09:56 AM
I ,personally, like simple things like the Tony Perez theory of, "See de ball, hit de ball," and Tony's wonderful knack of hitting with runners in scoring position, and driving in a ton of runs.;)

Perez career RISP: .284/.364/.469
Dunn career RISP: .219/.418/.479

That would give Dunn about a 2 win advantage over 600 at bats (keeping in mind these are unadjusted for era etc)...

I'd take ugly and more effective over pretty and less effective...

jojo
02-24-2007, 09:59 AM
Would it make sense to extract his 60 IBBs in these situations, since he didn't technically do much for them?

Actually, I don't think it would make sense because in a way he did earn them... Pitchers don't get IBB with RISP.... Basically the general argument is that opposing teams would rather face the guy behind Dunn than pitch to Dunn.

RANDY IN INDY
02-24-2007, 10:01 AM
Give me Tony with RISP, any day of the week and 4 times on Sunday.

edabbs44
02-24-2007, 10:58 AM
Actually, I don't think it would make sense because in a way he did earn them... Pitchers don't get IBB with RISP.... Basically the general argument is that opposing teams would rather face the guy behind Dunn than pitch to Dunn.

One thing I have learned on here is that stats can be picked apart and shown that they aren't foolproof. If you want to show Dunn's "effectiveness" with RISP, you should extract those IBBs and any HBPs with RISP.

And the general argument could also be that Dunn got up with 1st base open and less than two outs. The manager would rather face the next bater in a DP situation as well.

jojo
02-24-2007, 11:25 AM
One thing I have learned on here is that stats can be picked apart and shown that they aren't foolproof. If you want to show Dunn's "effectiveness" with RISP, you should extract those IBBs and any HBPs with RISP.

But you're splitting hairs and picking them apart in ways designed to support your conclusion. For instance, in your last post, you adjusted Dunn's theorectical RC for runners on and RISP by removing IBB and HBP but you did not similarly adjust his totals (which serve as the baseline for comparison). Below is the comparison with all groups similarly adjusted-lets see if the argument holds water.

Dunn (career totals with IBB and HBP removed from OBP):
total: .245/.361/.513
Runners on: .241/.383/.501
RISP: .219/.373/.479


Here are the theoretical RC for those situations (using the simple formula: OBP*SLG*AB and assuming 600 AB)
total: 111
Runners on: 115
RISP: 107

So even adjusting the numbers as you suggest, the conclusion does not change. Dunn has NOT been less effective when runners are on or when they are in RISP. The differences aren't even worth half of a win.


And the general argument could also be that Dunn got up with 1st base open and less than two outs. The manager would rather face the next bater in a DP situation as well.

Right....Dunn gets walked to set up the double play....it has nothing to do with the fact that firstbase is open. Snarkiness aside, during the course of his career, 60% of his IBB with RISP have come with two outs. That supports the assertion that it's more likely he gets IBB with RISP because the opposition is choosing to face what they consider a lesser poison...

Raisor
02-24-2007, 12:06 PM
And to put it into real life context, if Dunn hit .251 instead of .221 with RISP last year, do you think the Reds would have scored more runs or less runs? .

Well, we can take a look...

Let's look at a total season's numbers for two players (RISP is a small sample size, though we'll still look at them later if you want).

Same team, same year

2004

Sean Casey .324/.381/.534
Adam Dunn .266/.388/.569

Runs Created
Casey 114
Dunn 124

Casey had nearly 60 points of BA on Dunn, but they had essentially the same OBP/SLG, and therefore the very close RC.

OBP/SLG is what stirs the drink.

I don't care HOW a player creates runs, just that he creates them.


Edit:
By the way, Dunn was 22nd in the NL for Runs Created w/ RISP in 2006, tied for 23rd in PA's w/RISP, so that's right around where he should be.

edabbs44
02-24-2007, 04:39 PM
Well, we can take a look...

Let's look at a total season's numbers for two players (RISP is a small sample size, though we'll still look at them later if you want).

Same team, same year

2004

Sean Casey .324/.381/.534
Adam Dunn .266/.388/.569

Runs Created
Casey 114
Dunn 124

Casey had nearly 60 points of BA on Dunn, but they had essentially the same OBP/SLG, and therefore the very close RC.

OBP/SLG is what stirs the drink.

I don't care HOW a player creates runs, just that he creates them.


Edit:
By the way, Dunn was 22nd in the NL for Runs Created w/ RISP in 2006, tied for 23rd in PA's w/RISP, so that's right around where he should be.

Thanks for the info. But you didn't answer my question.

RC is an approximation, so saying that Dunn's 2004 "created" more runs than Casey's 2004 season is technically false. You can say that his 2004 season theoretically created more runs using the RC formula. That would make sense.

To reiterate my question...


And to put it into real life context, if Dunn hit .251 instead of .221 with RISP last year, do you think the Reds would have scored more runs or less runs?

That's all I asked.

hebroncougar
02-24-2007, 04:39 PM
The reason why Adam Dunn frustrates the heck out of people is there has NEVER been a player like him. Someone who doesn't put the ball in play over 50% of the time just haven't come along (counting K's, BB's and HR's). People don't know how to react. But I'll tell you this, I think there are alot of clubs, and I mean ALOT that would like to have his numbers. I hope the Reds are wise enough to keep him for a long time. And as for Marty saying he should do better than 40 hr's and 100 rbi's a season........take a look and see how many players have EVER averaged what Dunn has averaged in terms of Hr's, slg, and ops in their first 3+ years.

edabbs44
02-24-2007, 04:56 PM
Just a question for the statty guys on here..does anyone know of any sites which use the 2002 version of RC in their calculations? Since it is an "improved" version of the basic models and uses things like hits with RISP (the horror!) I was wondering how it affected certain players. :)

A quick run through the numbers showed that last year, Dunn would have lost a little under 1.5 runs due solely to the supplementary situational hitting equation and an arbitrary player I used (Carlos Lee) gained almost 3 runs. Just curious as to how much the other stuff changed.

jojo
02-24-2007, 05:09 PM
Just a question for the statty guys on here..does anyone know of any sites which use the 2002 version of RC in their calculations? Since it is an "improved" version of the basic models and uses things like hits with RISP (the horror!) I was wondering how it affected certain players. :)

A quick run through the numbers showed that last year, Dunn would have lost a little under 1.5 runs due solely to the supplementary situational hitting equation and an arbitrary player I used (Carlos Lee) gained almost 3 runs. Just curious as to how much the other stuff changed.

The Hardball Times uses performance with RISP and park adjustments etc.... it's the figure I use when not doing the back of the napkin calculation. It's much better than ESPN's RC IMHO.

Even so, for '06, THT reports 98 RC for Dunn and the OBP*SLG*AB formula gives him 100. Considering roughy 10 runs equals a win, I don't typically get too worked up over 2 runs. The difference between THT and ESPN though is significant (8 runs would is roughly a win).

edabbs44
02-24-2007, 06:13 PM
The Hardball Times uses performance with RISP and park adjustments etc.... it's the figure I use when not doing the back of the napkin calculation. It's much better than ESPN's RC IMHO.

Even so, for '06, THT reports 98 RC for Dunn and the OBP*SLG*AB formula gives him 100. Considering roughy 10 runs equals a win, I don't typically get too worked up ever 2 runs. The difference between THT and ESPN though is significant (8 runs would is roughly a win).

Thanks jojo.

You are missing something though...

Using Dunn's best season (2004), the back of the napkin shows RC as being 125. ESPN's RC shows him at 124.9, which ranks him 14th in baseball.

THT shows him at 111, which ranks him 24th.

For 2006, back of the napkin has him at 100. ESPN has him at 105, which ranks him 44th. THT has him at 98, which ranks him 54th.

My point is that it not only drops Dunn a little, but it might also boost others up. So by using this amended version of RC which takes into account things that aren't used in other calculations of RC, it appears that Dunn's value takes a bit of a hit, no?

In 2004, Dunn hit .266/.388/.569 and ESPN's RC had him as 124.9 (14th in MLB).
In 2004, Hank Blalock hit .276/.355/.500 and ESPN's RC had him as 109.5 (32nd in MLB).

THT's formula had Dunn at 111 RC (24th) and Blalock at 113 (23rd).

Blalock had a much higher BA than Dunn did with RISP in 2004. That probably had something to do with the huge difference.

jojo
02-24-2007, 06:43 PM
Thanks jojo.

You are missing something though...

Using Dunn's best season (2004), the back of the napkin shows RC as being 125. ESPN's RC shows him at 124.9, which ranks him 14th in baseball.

THT shows him at 111, which ranks him 24th.

For 2006, back of the napkin has him at 100. ESPN has him at 105, which ranks him 44th. THT has him at 98, which ranks him 54th.

My point is that it not only drops Dunn a little, but it might also boost others up. So by using this amended version of RC which takes into account things that aren't used in other calculations of RC, it appears that Dunn's value takes a bit of a hit, no?

In 2004, Dunn hit .266/.388/.569 and ESPN's RC had him as 124.9 (14th in MLB).
In 2004, Hank Blalock hit .276/.355/.500 and ESPN's RC had him as 109.5 (32nd in MLB).

THT's formula had Dunn at 111 RC (24th) and Blalock at 113 (23rd).

Blalock had a much higher BA than Dunn did with RISP in 2004. That probably had something to do with the huge difference.

Here's the difference between the two's '04 situationals:
Blalock '04 RISP: OBP: .446 SLG: .601
Dunn '04 RISP: OBP: .394 SLG: .529

That's a huge advantage for Blalock in RC for the RISP adjustments...

I'm not sure why you focused on the BA....

To me it's not a great mystery....it just illustrates why THT's RC calculations are considered more compelling by alot of people..

edabbs44
02-24-2007, 06:51 PM
Here's the difference between the two's '04 situationals:
Blalock '04 RISP: OBP: .446 SLG: .601
Dunn '04 RISP: OBP: .394 SLG: .529

That's a huge advantage for Blalock in RC for the RISP adjustments...

I'm not sure why you focused on the BA....

To me it's not a great mystery....it just illustrates why THT's RC calculations are considered more compelling by alot of people..

jojo, it's refreshing talking to you.

2 things:

1) I focused on BA since the 2002 version of RC takes hits with RISP into account, not OBP with RISP.

2) I agree it's not a mystery...but if the 2002 version of RC is "more compelling" while accounting for such things as strikeouts and performance with RISP, then maybe these things should not be dismissed when discussing them.

Using the more compelling equation dropped Dunn's RC production roughly 8-10% in some instances. That's pretty significant.

jojo
02-24-2007, 07:41 PM
jojo, it's refreshing talking to you.

2 things:

1) I focused on BA since the 2002 version of RC takes hits with RISP into account, not OBP with RISP.

2) I agree it's not a mystery...but if the 2002 version of RC is "more compelling" while accounting for such things as strikeouts and performance with RISP, then maybe these things should not be dismissed when discussing them.

Using the more compelling equation dropped Dunn's RC production roughly 8-10% in some instances. That's pretty significant.

Just to point out something that is fairly obvious....we don't really know exactly how THT calculated RC for 2004. Their glossary indicates they use the most complicated formula and then adjust for things. It's not clear exactly how they they adjust for RISP or park. I will posit this though.... I'm pretty sure they don't use the 2002 version (since the formula was been tweaked further since then) but that's supposition on my part.

Thanks for the kind words BTW....

:beerme:

gonelong
02-24-2007, 08:05 PM
And to put it into real life context, if Dunn hit .251 instead of .221 with RISP last year, do you think the Reds would have scored more runs or less runs?

It depends entirely on how he got to that .251 BARISP. I think for many players you could assume that would automatically be beneficial and be on the money most of the time. In Dunn's case I don't think that is the case. He is just an extreme case.

My guess is for Dunn to get there last year he would be cutting into his walks and his SLG. For a guy like Dunn its no slam dunk IMO that the Reds would automatically score more runs if he hit .251 than if he hit .221 in that situation.

GL

jojo
02-24-2007, 08:40 PM
It depends entirely on how he got to that .251 BARISP. I think for many players you could assume that would automatically be beneficial and be on the money most of the time. In Dunn's case I don't think that is the case. He is just an extreme case.

My guess is for Dunn to get there last year he would be cutting into his walks and his SLG. For a guy like Dunn its no slam dunk IMO that the Reds would automatically score more runs if he hit .251 than if he hit .221 in that situation.

GL

I tend to agree.

To begin with, it's a myth that Dunn isn't as effective with runners on base as he is with bases empty. It just simply isn't true.

The difference between batting .221 and .251 in '06 for Dunn with RISP was all of 4 hits. That doesn't translate into a ton of runs. Also that's basically in the territory of completely explainable by luck (or the shift or a 200 AB slump in August and September).

Dunn could do more to increase his value by simply morphing into a simply below league average defender (rather than one of the worst defensive left fielders in baseball) than he could by increasing his BA with RISP to .250. The former is a transformation that's reasonably doable and doesn't require messing with the strengths in his game.

edabbs44
02-24-2007, 10:33 PM
Just to point out something that is fairly obvious....we don't really know exactly how THT calculated RC for 2004. Their glossary indicates they use the most complicated formula and then adjust for things. It's not clear exactly how they they adjust for RISP or park. I will posit this though.... I'm pretty sure they don't use the 2002 version (since the formula was been tweaked further since then) but that's supposition on my part.

Thanks for the kind words BTW....

:beerme:

I would assume they use either the 2002 version or something later as they cite the definition below:


Runs Created. Invented by Bill James, RC is a very good measure of the number of runs a batter truly contributed to his teamís offense. The basic formula for RC is OBP*TB, but it has evolved into over fourteen different versions. We use the most complicated version, which includes the impact of hitting well with runners in scoring position, and is adjusted for ballpark impact. RC/G refers to Runs Created Per Game, which Runs Created divided by the number of outs made by the batter, times 27.


The RISP mention is why we know that they at least use the 2002 version.

edabbs44
02-24-2007, 10:35 PM
It depends entirely on how he got to that .251 BARISP. I think for many players you could assume that would automatically be beneficial and be on the money most of the time. In Dunn's case I don't think that is the case. He is just an extreme case.

My guess is for Dunn to get there last year he would be cutting into his walks and his SLG. For a guy like Dunn its no slam dunk IMO that the Reds would automatically score more runs if he hit .251 than if he hit .221 in that situation.

GL

Don't read too much into it GL...just picture Dunn replacing 4-5 of those outs with hits.

edabbs44
02-24-2007, 10:39 PM
I tend to agree.

To begin with, it's a myth that Dunn isn't as effective with runners on base as he is with bases empty. It just simply isn't true.

The difference between batting .221 and .251 in '06 for Dunn with RISP was all of 4 hits. That doesn't translate into a ton of runs. Also that's basically in the territory of completely explainable by luck (or the shift or a 200 AB slump in August and September).

Dunn could do more to increase his value by simply morphing into a simply below league average defender (rather than one of the worst defensive left fielders in baseball) than he could by increasing his BA with RISP to .250. The former is a transformation that's reasonably doable and doesn't require messing with the strengths in his game.

I used .251 as an arbitrary number...but you make a good point.

jojo
02-25-2007, 12:19 AM
I would assume they use either the 2002 version or something later as they cite the definition below:

The RISP mention is why we know that they at least use the 2002 version.

Right but what version is not clear (James' formula has been tweaked since 2002). I haven't the energy to back engineer their formula. Anyway, i've thought about the earlier comparison between '04 Dunn and Blalock...


In 2004, Dunn hit .266/.388/.569 and ESPN's RC had him as 124.9 (14th in MLB).
In 2004, Hank Blalock hit .276/.355/.500 and ESPN's RC had him as 109.5 (32nd in MLB).

THT's formula had Dunn at 111 RC (24th) and Blalock at 113 (23rd).

Blalock had a much higher BA than Dunn did with RISP in 2004. That probably had something to do with the huge difference.

There is also another very key difference....Blalock had 81 more at bats which obviously makes a huge difference.... If Dunn's THT RC were normalized to Blalock's at bats, Dunn would've had 128 RC in 2004. This is also illustrated in the significant difference in their RC/G where Dunn was 7.2 versus Blalock's 6.8.

In any event, BA really wasn't the culprit.

edabbs44
02-25-2007, 12:24 AM
Right but what version is not clear (James' formula has been tweaked since 2002). I haven't the energy to back engineer their formula. Anyway, i've thought about the earlier comparison between '04 Dunn and Blalock...



There is also another very key difference....Blalock had 81 more at bats which obviously makes a huge difference.... If Dunn's THT RC were normalized to Blalock's at bats, Dunn would've had 128 RC in 2004. This is also illustrated in the significant difference in their RC/G where Dunn was 7.2 versus Blalock's 6.8.

In any event, BA really wasn't the culprit.

Didn't Dunn have only 32 less PAs in 2004?

The reason I brought up the comparison is that Dunn and Blalock had similar RCs for that season and Dunn had a 100 point advantage in OPS.

jojo
02-25-2007, 12:27 AM
Didn't Dunn have only 24 less PAs in 2004?

Yes, but RC is calculated using ABs...

edabbs44
02-25-2007, 01:07 AM
Yes, but RC is calculated using ABs...

ABs, BBs and HBP are all included.

jojo
03-19-2007, 10:21 PM
Thanks jojo.

You are missing something though...

Using Dunn's best season (2004), the back of the napkin shows RC as being 125. ESPN's RC shows him at 124.9, which ranks him 14th in baseball.

THT shows him at 111, which ranks him 24th.

For 2006, back of the napkin has him at 100. ESPN has him at 105, which ranks him 44th. THT has him at 98, which ranks him 54th.

My point is that it not only drops Dunn a little, but it might also boost others up. So by using this amended version of RC which takes into account things that aren't used in other calculations of RC, it appears that Dunn's value takes a bit of a hit, no?

In 2004, Dunn hit .266/.388/.569 and ESPN's RC had him as 124.9 (14th in MLB).
In 2004, Hank Blalock hit .276/.355/.500 and ESPN's RC had him as 109.5 (32nd in MLB).

THT's formula had Dunn at 111 RC (24th) and Blalock at 113 (23rd).

Blalock had a much higher BA than Dunn did with RISP in 2004. That probably had something to do with the huge difference.

I was doing an unrelated search and came across this thread again and realized that I had left this point hanging. So to be absolutely clear about what I'm trying to say about RC, this is about as explicit as I know how to be.....

First here’s a quick overview of how THT calculates RC. They use the latest version of Bill James’ complicated formula to calculate initial RC. This value is then adjusted for performance with runners on base by basically summing it with James’ “clutch”. This sum is then normalized for the context of the player’s team and for park effects.

Here are the actual formulas (these are the latest as per the Bill James 2005 version):

RC = (((2.4*C+A)*(3*C+B))/(9*C))-(.9*C)

A = H+BB+HBP-CS-GIDP
B = (1B * 1.125) + (2B * 1.69) + (3B * 3.02) + (HR * 3.73) + (.29 * (BB+HBP-IBB) + (.492 * (SH+SF+SB) - (.04 * SO)
C = AB+BB+HBP+SH+SF

Clutch= (hits w/RISP- (overall BA x AB w/RISP))+ (HR w/ROB- (overall HR/overall AB x AB w/ROB)

While it looks complicated, really A= “OBP” corrected for CS and GIDP; B= weighted total bases corrected for IBB, SH,SF,SB and K’s; and C=PA. Or think of it this way: runs scored has an on-base component and advancement component. Since neither in isolation leads to runs, the on-base component and the advancement component are multiplied and divided by the opportunity component. The "performance with runners on base" adjustment (situational hitting adjustment) really is just the number of hits with RISP and the number of HR with runners on base that are above/below what would be predicted from the player's overall performance. Note that the situational adjustment is more than just a simple correction for BARISP (as we’ll see for Dunn). So really RC is essentially OBP x total bases normalized for team, park and situational performance. For a quick estimate, there is always the back of the napkin calculation: OBP x SLG x AB which is usually a close approximate of the ESPN or baseball reference RC.


So now to the question as to why THT has Blalock with 113 RC and Dunn with only 111 while ESPN has them at 110 and 125 respectively for the 2004 season. The obvious answer is that the differences lie in how THT normalizes RC. Here is a breakdown.

1. ESPN and THT use slightly different formulas to calculate non-normalized RC (everything is rounded to whole numbers):

THT RC: Dunn: 120; Blalock: 107;
ESPN RC: Dunn: 125; Blalock: 110;

2. Then THT adjusts for performance with runners on base. Blalock had 9 more hits w/RISP and 1 more HR w/ROB than would be predicted based upon his overall numbers for a +10 RC. Dunn had a little over 3 less hits w/RISP and 4.4 less HR (clutch doesn’t necessarily yield whole numbers) thus getting dinged -8 RC. So adjusted for situational performance:

Dunn: 112 RC; Blalock: 117 RC.

It’s actually interesting that you compared these two in 2004 because, from the stand point of adjusting for situational performance, they represent what is approaching the extremes for the bonus/penalty. Also, it’s important to note that this is a highly variable aspect of a players performance as evidenced by their clutch values for the next season (Dunn=2.9; Blalock= 1.6).

3. Next these values get adjusted for the context of their teams by calculating the theoretical RC for every player on the team. The team’s actual runs scored total is then divided by the theoretical RC total and the resulting value is then multiplied with the individual player’s RC. This value was .993 for Blalock and .989 for Dunn in 2004 resulting in these adjusted RC totals:

Dunn: 111 RC; Blalock: 116 RC


4. Then THT corrects for park to yield the final RC values (basically GABP was neutral from a run scoring standpoint while Arlington favored run scoring) like so:

Dunn: 111 RC; Blalock: 113 RC.


In summary: Dunn loses 14 runs compared to ESPN with 8 coming from his performance with runners on (the largest portion of the adjustment being because he didn’t hit as many HRs as expected), 5 coming from differences in the basic formula, and 1 coming from adjusting for team. Blalock gained RC over ESPN with that basically coming from his getting a bonus for having more hits with RISP than would be expected though he lost a lot of that due to park and team adjustments.

So Dunn didn’t actually lose 14 RC because of his BARISP. While his hit total with RISP was a component, the resulting ding was just a minor part of the overall adjustments. Almost half of the difference between 120 and 111 actually came from Dunn having fewer homers with runners on then expected (-4.4). The difference between Blalock’s 110 and 113 RC totals is mostly due to the number of hits he had with RISP above what would be predicted.

So even though the THT RC total is significantly different than ESPN’s for Dunn and Blalock in 2004, BARISP was only a minor influence… BARISP just isn’t that huge of an effect. Concerning Dunn, even in a year when his worst *clutch value* was recorded, it’s basically a non-issue.

jojo
03-19-2007, 10:47 PM
For what it's worth, here are some of my thoughts about this issue of Dunn's productivity and BARISP.

1. It’s a myth that Dunn isn’t as productive a situational hitter as he is with bases empty. Though Dunn’s BARISP is low for his career, Dunn’s production in those situations is no different than would be predicted by his total numbers as measured by RC (shown here (http://www.redszone.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1248453&postcount=354) and here (http://www.redszone.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1248497&postcount=361)). Using Bill James’ clutch metric to look at the issue another way, Dunn’s clutch for his career is -19.3. Averaged over 5 seasons, that is -3.86 per year which isn’t nearly as bad as those using a BARISP argument against Dunn typically imply. For instance, here are some “clutches” that are worse than Dunn’s career seasonal average: Berkman ’05: -4.5; Arod ’04: -5.3; Vlad G. ’06: -5.5; Jeter ’04: -5.5; Ortiz ’06: -6.2; Griffey ’05: -6.8; Helton ’04: -7. These were all negative clutches in the midst of excellent seasons. Simply put, Dunn’s BARISP just isn’t a huge drag on his RC. Could Dunn be more productive if his BA was higher with RISP? Of course (DUH-I don’t think anyone has ever argued otherwise). However, using BARISP as a major argument against Dunn dramatically overstates the effect his poor BARISP has had on his productivity. Frankly, BARISP is not an issue. Also as discussed below there is a potential danger in suggesting Dunn change his approach.

2. Using BA to measure a player’s productivity is flawed-even in situational hitting. Why? Because OBP and SLG are much more highly correlated to runs scored than BA is. One reason for this is that OBP and SLG contain more information than BA does. Actually, the information contained in BA is also contained in SLG and OBP. So by considering the two, BA is already implicitly considered. It stands to reason then that focusing on BA is less useful because you’re discarding information compared to OBP and SLG.

3. The problem with Dunn isn’t that his BA has decreased from .266 in 2004 to .234 in 2006, it’s that his SLG has decreased from .569 to .490. Here's my argument:

http://img126.imageshack.us/img126/6959/dunnregularbattingsummajd3.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Compare for a moment 2004 with 2006 because these years are opposite poles concerning success while Dunn had essentially the same number of plate appearances. Dunn had 20 fewer hits in ’06 than he had in ’04. Basically the batting average argument suggests his OBP and SLG decreased because he got fewer hits-it looks cut and dry. However, that argument really doesn’t offer much more than a vague, hazy understanding of what really went on. A closer look reveals it wasn’t just the number of hits that made the difference, but rather, it was the type of hits. Dunn had 4 fewer singles but 10 fewer doubles and 6 fewer HR’s in ’06 than he had in ’04. That’s a striking difference in extra base hits which is greater than can be explained by BA. Consider this:

http://img131.imageshack.us/img131/681/dunnoutcomessummary2wr8.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

If the decrease in extra base hits was simply due to a lower BA, you might expect that his 1b, 2b,3b and HR totals would all decrease relatively similarly (but perhaps not necessarily proportionally). That’s not the case though. Dunn had a similar singles rate in both of the years in question. His HR rate was down versus ’04 but really in ’05 and ’06 he had similar HR rates (most people would take Dunn’s ’05 season I think). It’s the doubles rate that jumps out. That’s actually kind of strange if BA was really the underlying cause rather than the symptom/effect.

Just to hammer home the point that those missing doubles were huge in Dunn’s season, consider what his ’06 would look like with those doubles added back into his totals:

Actual 2006: .234/.365/.490
Hypothetical 2006: .255/.384/.533

But where did those doubles go? Dunn is and always has been a pretty fascinating player from a stats point of view but this is pretty interesting. As the outcomes summary above indicates, Dunn actually increased his LD% by 6% over 2005. This normally is a great thing because typically 75% of line drives fall for hits. Based upon this, I would have predicted that his 2006 average would be improved over 2005 because just that influence alone should translate into roughly 14 more hits over 360 balls in play (roughly his number of BIP for 2006). Obviously that wasn’t the case though.

Earlier in this thread, Cyclone792 posted excerpts from a BP analysis of Dunn’s 2006 (http://www.redszone.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1248140&postcount=333) which basically concluded that Dunn was hit unlucky and might be hurting himself by changing his approach in response to the shift. I would tend to agree but would characterize Dunn’s 2006 slightly differently: the shift impacted Dunn’s numbers pre-slump, possibly messed with his psyche to the point where he reacted to it and also exacerbated his slump down the stretch (because of the reduced margin of error). Using Dan Fox’s balls in play data, 55% of Dunn’s line drives in 2006 were to dead right and 32% were to centerfield. Therefore 87% of those line drives were hit into an area of the field where the shift added two extra defenders. The shift likely ate those missing doubles-both by taking away actual hits and by making his power gaps smaller. I don’t think Dunn was hit unlucky in 2006 but rather he was hurt by the shift and by what appears to be in-season tweaking. Consider this:

http://img239.imageshack.us/img239/1342/dunn2006slumpsplits2fh2.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Before August, Dunn was on his way to perhaps the best season of his career- in spite of the shift. Even so, notice his doubles rate is down in April thru July compared to ’04 and ’05 (translating into about 5 fewer doubles over those 459 PA). The shift seems to at least somewhat blunt Dunn’s power numbers.

Then August happened. There’s no point in over analyzing this. Slumps happen. Certainly the shift itself can’t explain Dunn’s dramatic decline during the final 2 months. However, there are some interesting changes in his batted ball outcomes which suggest he might have been changing his approach at the plate. His K% climbed 25% and his FB rate increased 5% with a decreased LD%. His HR/PA decreased but that makes sense, he’s slumping. The stunning thing though is the emasculation of his power as suggested by the almost 50% decline in his HR/FB ratio. More fly balls but significantly fewer HR’s usually means lots of easy outs. Was it just a slump or did he try to change his approach? I don’t know but as the BP article cited by Cyclone ultimately concludes, Dunn is probably best served by hitting into the teeth of the shift and letting the chipped teeth fall where they may.

Though there isn’t "smoking gun" type evidence that the shift affected Dunn, there is antidotal evidence- his increased LD% didn’t translate into higher BA or BABIP, his doubles rate was down even when things were going good, and his batted ball data suggests mid-season tweaking in his approach (although you’d really have to wonder why given his April thru July).

To sum things up, this much is certain-the issue with Dunn isn’t his BA or BARISP. I think the difference between Dunn’s 2005 and 2006 can be explained primarily by the slump coupled with a much smaller but significant effect of the shift employed against him. He really wasn’t hit unlucky.

Finally, there are compelling sabermetric arguments to be made against Dunn (like here (http://www.redszone.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1248453&postcount=354)), but his BA/BARISP just isn’t one of them….

Jpup
03-20-2007, 02:18 AM
You guys should have heard Marty bashing Edwin today. He says the kid has to be moved to another spot. Thom disagrees. Thom said it was crazy and Marty said he disagreed after Edwin made an error. That's not exact, but you all have heard it before. Thom is a breathe of fresh air compared to his pops. I was never a big Thom fan, but he was doing a fine job today. He also commended Dunner on being a monster and in great shape.

Maybe Marty is right, but it's way too early to say. I believe Mike Schmidt and David Wright had the same issues that Edwin is having now.

sonny
03-20-2007, 04:26 AM
Oooooh, How 'bout Thom showing up his old man today!

If EE's defense is continued not to improve, look for him to move. where? who knows

Ltlabner
03-20-2007, 06:59 AM
For what it's worth, here are some of my thoughts about this issue of Dunn's productivity and BARISP.

That just some of your thoughts ? :eek:

creek14
03-20-2007, 07:31 AM
What's the over/under on the chances of this thread staying on the first three pages all season?

Ltlabner
03-20-2007, 08:01 AM
What's the over/under on the chances of this thread staying on the first three pages all season?

Lets see....Marty sucks, check. Dunn does/doesn't strike out too much, check. Strike outs do/don't matter, check.

All we need is to infuse , Krivsky does/doesn't suck because of the trade, Narron's an idiot and why are they playing old guys into the conversation and you'll hit all of the RZ standard tunes.

coachw513
03-20-2007, 08:37 AM
I was listening when Thom started to state why he was amazed folks wanted EE to move from 3rd base, but couldn't hear the entire dialogue...nice that Thom is willing to argue with Marty when he feels the need...

Let's see...the guy (EE) works hard (by every media report I've EVER read), he's young and improving, he ABSOLUTELY MASHES and happens to be among our best run producers (if not the best) and folks blast this guy's defense :angry:

150 starts, with some late inning defensive help from Castro and EE will give us HUGE offensive production...

I'm all for the defense that Gonzalez is going to bring, but dang :bang:

On another note:

Lets see....Marty sucks, check. Dunn does/doesn't strike out too much, check. Strike outs do/don't matter, check.

All we need is to infuse , Krivsky does/doesn't suck because of the trade, Narron's an idiot and why are they playing old guys into the conversation and you'll hit all of the RZ standard tunes.

Please remind me the moment I'm allowed to give you rep to do so...no greater truth has ever been spoken :beerme:

Cooper
03-20-2007, 09:11 AM
I apologize greatly if this has been posted --i'm sure it has.....but here goes. Why doesn't Dunn get any credit with Marty for playing alot of games the last 3 years? I think he's missed 1 in the 3 years.....is that right?

CINCYREDS#1
03-20-2007, 10:58 AM
then who is gonna step up and surpass the 92 rbis and 40 hrs that dunn had last year?

Team Clark
03-20-2007, 11:36 AM
Lets see....Marty sucks, check. Dunn does/doesn't strike out too much, check. Strike outs do/don't matter, check.

All we need is to infuse , Krivsky does/doesn't suck because of the trade, Narron's an idiot and why are they playing old guys into the conversation and you'll hit all of the RZ standard tunes.

Sounds good. So, do you want to start those other pieces of the thread or should we draw names from a hat? :laugh:

Team Clark
03-20-2007, 11:37 AM
then who is gonna step up and surpass the 92 rbis and 40 hrs that dunn had last year?

Well...Roy Hobbs of course! :laugh:

jojo
03-20-2007, 11:38 AM
then who is gonna step up and surpass the 92 rbis and 40 hrs that dunn had last year?

I dunno..... Dunn maybe? :dunno:

Ahhhorsepoo
03-20-2007, 11:49 AM
Oooooh, How 'bout Thom showing up his old man today!

If EE's defense is continued not to improve, look for him to move. where? who knows

If it doesnt improve greatly he will move to first..

But it is improving greatly.. between he, gonzalez, and phillips its going to be a fun year to watch this infield.. even if he made 25 erros last year.. I can think of about 10 of those plays where he saved the ball from going into the left field corner where the left fieldwer would surely walk over to it.. and let the runner get either a double or thriple.. but instead EE knocked it down, and tried to throw to first.. those ten I remember though, just pulled the first basemen off the bag, and only allowed a single..

Even though that is listed as a throwing error.. he made a great play to stop the ball from going to the left fielder who would surely allow 1 or 2 extra bases..

BRM
03-20-2007, 12:13 PM
I thought EE's throwing error yesterday was more the fault of Bellhorn not being able to pick it. Did I hear that correctly during the game yesterday?

Chip R
03-20-2007, 12:15 PM
I thought EE's throwing error yesterday was more the fault of Bellhorn not being able to pick it. Did I hear that correctly during the game yesterday?


Don't let the facts get in the way of a good story.

BRM
03-20-2007, 12:20 PM
Don't let the facts get in the way of a good story.

So I am remembering correctly?

Chip R
03-20-2007, 02:28 PM
So I am remembering correctly?


I'm sure you are.

I realize that EE has some problems with throwing to 1st but a good defensive 1st baseman can save some of those balls that wind up as E-5's in the box score. God love Mr. Hat, cause I think he does his best, but he's not going to make anyone forget Keith Hernandez out there. Aurilia played 1st a lot last year too but he was in ther eofr his bat, not his glove. A good 1st baseman is like a good referee or umpire. You very rarely notice them when they do well.

bucksfan2
03-20-2007, 03:04 PM
I'm sure you are.

I realize that EE has some problems with throwing to 1st but a good defensive 1st baseman can save some of those balls that wind up as E-5's in the box score. God love Mr. Hat, cause I think he does his best, but he's not going to make anyone forget Keith Hernandez out there. Aurilia played 1st a lot last year too but he was in ther eofr his bat, not his glove. A good 1st baseman is like a good referee or umpire. You very rarely notice them when they do well.

Great point. Watch Derrek Lee play 1B. That guy is amazing at scooping a ball. He saves his infielders quite a few errors over a season's time. He probably also give the infielders more confidence because if you put the ball anywhere near him he's going to catch it.

membengal
03-20-2007, 03:12 PM
BRM: Marty slagged EE as usual on the error, C. Trent was HIGHLY critical of Bellhorn in his blog, I believe, for not simply making the scoop.

dabvu2498
03-20-2007, 03:28 PM
God love Mr. Hat, cause I think he does his best, but he's not going to make anyone forget Keith Hernandez out there.

Actually, most measures defined Hatte as an above average first baseman. BBTF's defensive guy says he was the best in the NL: http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/dialed_in/discussion/2006_national_league_gold_gloves_as_i_see_it/

BRM
03-20-2007, 04:08 PM
BRM: Marty slagged EE as usual on the error, C. Trent was HIGHLY critical of Bellhorn in his blog, I believe, for not simply making the scoop.

Thanks. That's what I thought.

Ltlabner
03-20-2007, 04:34 PM
I thought EE's throwing error yesterday was more the fault of Bellhorn not being able to pick it. Did I hear that correctly during the game yesterday?

I do remember someone saying that either in the post game review or someone reporting it on the game thread after hearing it said on air durring the game.

marcshoe
03-20-2007, 05:29 PM
Someone said that the General wrote in his blog that it was a one-hop thread that Bellhorn should have fielded, iirc.

adampad
03-20-2007, 11:45 PM
I agree with Marty. Was Rob Deer a great player?

134 466 75 108 17 3 33 86 5 2 72 179 .232 .336 .494

160 561 99 131 24 0 40 92 7 0 112 194 .234 .365 .490

Yachtzee
03-21-2007, 12:41 AM
I agree with Marty. Was Rob Deer a great player?

134 466 75 108 17 3 33 86 5 2 72 179 .232 .336 .494

160 561 99 131 24 0 40 92 7 0 112 194 .234 .365 .490

Well, even when you cherry pick and compare one of Rob Deer's better seasons to one of Adam Dunn's worst, Dunn still looks better.

jojo
03-21-2007, 08:09 AM
I agree with Marty. Was Rob Deer a great player?

134 466 75 108 17 3 33 86 5 2 72 179 .232 .336 .494

160 561 99 131 24 0 40 92 7 0 112 194 .234 .365 .490

Deer's career: .220/.324/.442; OPS: .764

Dunn's career: .245/.380/.513; OPS: .893

2006 MLB average LF: .276/.348/.456 OPS: .804
2006 MLB average RF: .277/.345/.458 OPS: .803
2006 MLB average DH: .261/.356/.485 OPS: .841

(I realize these would be a little unkind to Deer's early career-but they make the point)


While Deer was actually an above average defender, I'd go with the one that was a plus bat at his position. Above average defenders who can't hit are pretty easy to find but they aren't very useful DHs. There are ways to maximize Dunn's production while minimizing his weaknesses... Deer, well, not so much.

But that's just me...

Jpup
03-21-2007, 09:14 AM
Actually, most measures defined Hatte as an above average first baseman. BBTF's defensive guy says he was the best in the NL: http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/dialed_in/discussion/2006_national_league_gold_gloves_as_i_see_it/

I agree that he's pretty good. He's not the best in the NL, but he's pretty steady over there. All I have heard since Hatteberg arrived in Cincinnati is how he just wasn't any good. He sure proved a lot of people wrong last year IMO. He was very good with the stick and the leather last year. Just because he doesn't hit homers, he must not be a good 1st baseman. I really like Sean Casey, but he couldn't couldn't touch Hatteberg on defense.

DTCromer
03-21-2007, 01:34 PM
edit: my bad

pedro
03-21-2007, 01:35 PM
Marty isn't brainwashing anyone. He's telling the freaking truth and usually tells it like it is. Unfortunately, everyone wants everything sugar coated to make it all seem better than it really is.

thanks for dropping by marty.

DTCromer
03-21-2007, 01:38 PM
BRM: Marty slagged EE as usual on the error, C. Trent was HIGHLY critical of Bellhorn in his blog, I believe, for not simply making the scoop.



I think where Marty's coming from is the lack of improvement from Dunn/EE. EE has improved. . .slightly defensively, but everyone knew he was bad. Even EE himself knew that and he's still very inconsistent at 3rd base. This is what kills me about this team. We have the most unfundamentally sound team in the league with Dunn leading the way.

DTCromer
03-21-2007, 01:40 PM
thanks for dropping by marty.

Has Marty brought up the fact that Dunn once said he was going to steal 25 bases a few seasons ago. I don't think he even had half that because of his weight problem.

TRF
03-21-2007, 01:43 PM
Has Marty brought up the fact that Dunn once said he was going to steal 25 bases a few seasons ago. I don't think he even had half that because of his weight problem.

Do you mean the year he stole 19 bases?

That year?

BRM
03-21-2007, 01:54 PM
Do you mean the year he stole 19 bases?

That year?

Is 19 more than half of 25?

pedro
03-21-2007, 01:57 PM
Has Marty brought up the fact that Dunn once said he was going to steal 25 bases a few seasons ago. I don't think he even had half that because of his weight problem.

why do you keep on talking in the third person? It's kind of creepy.

KronoRed
03-21-2007, 02:22 PM
Is 19 more than half of 25?

Get that math out of here, math has no part of baseball!