PDA

View Full Version : Player A and Player B



RedEye
06-28-2007, 01:38 PM
Last year, in what most considered a great year for him, Player A hit .274/.388/.569 with 41 HR, 118 RBI, and 18 SB. He was touted as one of the best all-around offensive players in the game and made $13,571,428 for his services.

This year, Player B is on pace to hit .270/.359/.569 with 45 HR, 108 RBI, and 14 SB. He makes $ 10,500,000 this year and is due $13,500,000 in 2008. He has been routinely criticized for his strikeouts, lack of effort, and underachieving.

My question is this: If Player B continues at his current level of offensive production, wouldn't he be well worth the salary he is due next year?

Discuss.

RichRed
06-28-2007, 01:45 PM
I have no idea who Player B is. Has he ever been discussed here before?

cumberlandreds
06-28-2007, 01:47 PM
Player B doesn't have enough sacrifice fly's to warrant $13 million. ;)

RedsManRick
06-28-2007, 01:52 PM
You forgot to mention that Player A was a GG CF and Player B was an iron glove LF.

RichRed
06-28-2007, 01:53 PM
My question is this: If Player B continues at his current level of offensive production, wouldn't he be well worth the salary he is due next year?

Discuss.

In all seriousness, I absolutely believe Player B would be well worth that salary.

RedEye
06-28-2007, 01:56 PM
You forgot to mention that Player A was a GG CF and Player B was an iron glove LF.

True dat. However, he's also older and more injury prone than Player B.

RedEye
06-28-2007, 01:57 PM
In all seriousness, I absolutely believe Player B would be well worth that salary.

I absolutely agree.

RedEye
06-28-2007, 01:58 PM
I have no idea who Player B is. Has he ever been discussed here before?

This is an utterly hypothetical situation. Any resemblence to real-life players is unintentional.

dabvu2498
06-28-2007, 02:01 PM
Player A's 2007 salary = 11.7% of his team's overall salary

Player B's 2007 salary = 15.1% of his team's overall salary

I bring this up because it's my way of saying "it depends."

Is Player B worth ~$13M on the open market as a free agent? Easily... Is he worth that to a team that is 20th in MLB in salary? Dunno.

If the other corresponding pieces were in place for a playoff run, then certainly it would be worth it, and thus, Player B's salary would be closer to the 11% than the 15% range.

RedLegSuperStar
06-28-2007, 02:07 PM
Andruw Jones could be compared to both player A and B.. And I know he is going to get a huge contract even though he has had a down year.

Heath
06-28-2007, 02:08 PM
Man, I loved Player A on my fantasy team last year.

This year, not so much.

NJReds
06-28-2007, 02:11 PM
Man, I loved Player A on my fantasy team last year.

This year, not so much.

He's playing on a bad quad, or so he says. He's getting some media/talk show criticism for being a 'soft' player. But it's tempered by the fact that his team is in first place.

dougdirt
06-28-2007, 02:14 PM
Positions are very key for those stats though. Player A was easily the best hitter at his position last year and probably one of the top defenders there as well. Player B was not the best hitter at his position and is at the bottom of the defensive ladder at his position. Player A plays a very important defensive position. Player B does not.

Huge difference.

redsmetz
06-28-2007, 02:20 PM
Andruw Jones could be compared to both player A and B.. And I know he is going to get a huge contract even though he has had a down year.

I think Jones' year is more than "down" - it's full blown depression and may require counseling!

Kc61
06-28-2007, 02:24 PM
I would probably support a trade of player B for a good return. But I agree that if he keeps up this rate he will be worth his 2008 salary. He is having a great offensive year.

But -- player B is prone to slumps and it is far from certain he will keep up this pace.

And even if you pay player B for next year, then what? He is a pending FA then, with trade restrictions. Unless Reds keep him just for next year's World Series run.

RedEye
06-28-2007, 02:25 PM
Positions are very key for those stats though. Player A was easily the best hitter at his position last year and probably one of the top defenders there as well. Player B was not the best hitter at his position and is at the bottom of the defensive ladder at his position. Player A plays a very important defensive position. Player B does not.

Huge difference.

Perhaps that makes Player A more of a bargain... but does it make Player B a rip off?

RedEye
06-28-2007, 02:28 PM
Andruw Jones could be compared to both player A and B.. And I know he is going to get a huge contract even though he has had a down year.

Andruw Jones (whom we might call Player C) isn't nearly the all-around offensive force that the other two are. His OBP is consistently lower and he doesn't run anymore on the bases. Of course, I'm not sure how much longer either Player A or Player B will continue running either... but it is clear that Player C has stopped.

RichRed
06-28-2007, 02:29 PM
But -- player B is prone to slumps and it is far from certain he will keep up this pace.


Is he really more prone to slumps than other players? I know it seems like it, especially at the end of '06, but I would think he might be less prone to them due to his walk rate (which is admittedly down this year).

RedLegSuperStar
06-28-2007, 02:30 PM
I think Jones' year is more than "down" - it's full blown depression and may require counseling!

True.. But he has never hit for average.. he's a career .263 hitter. His power and defense have carried him. But the thing is he is going to get a nice sized contract.. one comparable to player A and player B.

RedEye
06-28-2007, 02:31 PM
True.. But he has never hit for average.. he's a career .263 hitter. His power and defense have carried him. But the thing is he is going to get a nice sized contract.. one comparable to player A and player B.

Which just makes both Player A and B look like better bargains IMO.

dougdirt
06-28-2007, 02:32 PM
Perhaps that makes Player A more of a bargain... but does it make Player B a rip off?

Make player B a rip off? No. It doesnt make him some bargain either though.

RedEye
06-28-2007, 02:32 PM
Is he really more prone to slumps than other players? I know it seems like it, especially at the end of '06, but I would think he might be less prone to them due to his walk rate (which is admittedly down this year).

Perhaps it is more accurate to say that Player A is prone to power and average slumps, and not to OBP slumps. He gets on base and contributes consistently to the scoring potential of his team, even when he's not hitting.

RedEye
06-28-2007, 02:34 PM
Make player B a rip off? No. It doesnt make him some bargain either though.

So if he's not a rip off, that means that it's a fair price... and that there's no reason to say that "he's not worth what we're going to pay him." Right?

dougdirt
06-28-2007, 02:38 PM
So if he's not a rip off, that means that it's a fair price... and that there's no reason to say that "he's not worth what we're going to pay him." Right?
Not exactly. If we are overpaying a guy 1-2 million, its not really a rip off. What we are paying Eric Milton is a ripoff. That said, if player B continues to put up a full season at his pace this season and next season, he won't be ripping anyone off.... I question whether or not he can sustain his current level of success though.

jojo
06-28-2007, 02:38 PM
Last year, in what most considered a great year for him, Player A hit .274/.388/.569 with 41 HR, 118 RBI, and 18 SB. He was touted as one of the best all-around offensive players in the game and made $13,571,428 for his services.

This year, Player B is on pace to hit .270/.359/.569 with 45 HR, 108 RBI, and 14 SB. He makes $ 10,500,000 this year and is due $13,500,000 in 2008. He has been routinely criticized for his strikeouts, lack of effort, and underachieving.

My question is this: If Player B continues at his current level of offensive production, wouldn't he be well worth the salary he is due next year?

Discuss.

Do either players have to play the field and if so at which positions?

RedEye
06-28-2007, 02:40 PM
Do either players have to play the field and if so at which positions?

Yes, Player A is a Gold Glove CF and Player B is a below-average LF who should probably be moved to 1B or DH later on. I realize you can't pay for offense in a vacuum... but I just thought it provided some compelling arguments for Player A's value.

bucksfan2
06-28-2007, 02:42 PM
If Dunn does what he is doing for a contending team right now they go on a 10 game win streak. This streak he is on can absolutly carry a good club. Every player in a full year will hit their peaks and valleys. But there are only a handful of players who can do what Dunn has done over the past weeks. You can dislike his defense (his zone ratings aren't as bad as people think) you can dislike his strikeouts, or dislike what you think his attitude is, but when you boil it down he is a very very productive player. If he is traded they need to get a lot in return. I remember when the LAA said that Krivsky was asking for too much in the Dunn talks but ask LAA if Dunn does what he is doing now in the playoffs how a WS Title would feel.

jojo
06-28-2007, 02:42 PM
Yes, Player A is a Gold Glove CF and Player B is a below-average LF who should probably be moved to 1B or DH later on.

Ya, I figured it out from reading further.

Basically Doug makes the point in his post (http://www.redszone.com/forums/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1398017)

Player A is much more valuable than player B. In fact, player A could be worth almost twice as much.

Sea Ray
06-28-2007, 02:44 PM
In all seriousness, I absolutely believe Player B would be well worth that salary.

Well if you're right we'll be flush with offers for player B and there'll be little talk of another team insisting that we pickup some of his $$ in a deal. In fact the trading partner will gladly extend his contract before the ink is dry on the trade.

Johnny Footstool
06-28-2007, 02:44 PM
Gentlemen, I think you can end this "Player A/Player B" charade.

jojo
06-28-2007, 03:03 PM
If Dunn does what he is doing for a contending team right now they go on a 10 game win streak. This streak he is on can absolutly carry a good club. Every player in a full year will hit their peaks and valleys. But there are only a handful of players who can do what Dunn has done over the past weeks. You can dislike his defense (his zone ratings aren't as bad as people think) you can dislike his strikeouts, or dislike what you think his attitude is, but when you boil it down he is a very very productive player. If he is traded they need to get a lot in return. I remember when the LAA said that Krivsky was asking for too much in the Dunn talks but ask LAA if Dunn does what he is doing now in the playoffs how a WS Title would feel.

Minus a 4 game stretch in the middle of the month, Dunn has batted .228 (15-66) with 4 hr for June.

bucksfan2
06-28-2007, 03:11 PM
Minus a 4 game stretch in the middle of the month, Dunn has batted .228 (15-66) with 4 hr for June.

Thats kind of ironic because last time I checked if you won 4 games in a playoff seires that means you win.

dougdirt
06-28-2007, 03:14 PM
Thats kind of ironic because last time I checked if you won 4 games in a playoff seires that means you win.

What does that have to do with anything? :confused:

Cyclone792
06-28-2007, 03:23 PM
Here's a fun one ...

Adam Dunn 2007: .271/.362/.575/.937 and a 137 OPS+
Player B: .332/.380/.507/.887 and a 131 OPS+

Player B is a 27-year-old left fielder with slightly above average defense who also plays in the same league run environment as Adam Dunn.

Which do you take?

jojo
06-28-2007, 03:34 PM
Thats kind of ironic because last time I checked if you won 4 games in a playoff seires that means you win.

Right but this thread is about properly assigning player worth and context is everything.

I wasn't trying to rag on you (or Dunn for that matter) but IMHO, your post illustrated the concept that there is perception of performance and there is true performance. Dunn will have very good June numbers. But the reality is that he really only had a great 4 days and a pretty average rest of the month. It may seem like hairsplitting but when deciding how to value a player, a key part of the equation is what should you reasonably expect him to do in the future (that's what you'll be paying him for anyway). Using Dunn's June as a primary marker, it's very probable that his bat would be greatly overvalued relative to his true ability.

Context is absolutely everything when determining a player's true worth.

red-in-la
06-28-2007, 03:41 PM
No need to worry; neither player A nor player B are worth the money.

RichRed
06-28-2007, 03:44 PM
Using Dunn's June as a primary marker, it's very probable that his bat would be greatly overvalued relative to his true ability.

Context is absolutely everything when determining a player's true worth.

True, but the question in the original post was:


If Player B continues at his current level of offensive production, wouldn't he be well worth the salary he is due next year?

Now maybe he'll slump again toward the end of the season and maybe he won't but the way the question is worded, my answer is still yes.

bucksfan2
06-28-2007, 03:47 PM
Right but this thread is about properly assigning player worth and context is everything.

I wasn't trying to rag on you (or Dunn for that matter) but IMHO, your post illustrated the concept that there is perception of performance and there is true performance. Dunn will have very good June numbers. But the reality is that he really only had a great 4 days and a pretty average rest of the month. It may seem like hairsplitting but when deciding how to value a player, a key part of the equation is what should you reasonably expect him to do in the future (that's what you'll be paying him for anyway). Using Dunn's June as a primary marker, it's very probable that his bat would be greatly overvalued relative to his true ability.

Context is absolutely everything when determining a player's true worth.

Fair enough. I am just trying to say that Dunn's average June with a 4 game great stretch is enough to put a team over the hump and into the playoffs. And if Dunn gets hot in the playoffs his bat is enough to carry the team to a title. Beltran is a different type player than Dunn but his performance in the playoffs almost got the Astros to the world series. Dunn has the potential to do that same thing.

jojo
06-28-2007, 03:52 PM
True, but the question in the original post was:



Now maybe he'll slump again toward the end of the season and maybe he won't but the way the question is worded, my answer is still yes.

While not in this thread, I'm on record as suggesting that Dunn is a reasonable bet to earn his option year salary. I'm not giddy enough about the prospect that he'll be well worth his '08 salary though. I basically think if the Reds pick up Dunn's option, they'll pay him pretty much the going rate. While not a bargain or great value, I don't see the room to complain either.

If the market continues to be a player market, the price of wins could increase enough to make $13M for Dunn be a value. If the market corrects, then it's possible that Dunn could be overpaid at $13M.

KronoRed
06-28-2007, 04:08 PM
Which do you take?

Dunn.

I hate batting avg :cool:

RedsManRick
06-28-2007, 04:31 PM
Please tell me you made up player B, Cyclone -- I can figure out who it is. Thinking it's somebody from the BRM, but can't find it.

dabvu2498
06-28-2007, 04:36 PM
Please tell me you made up player B, Cyclone -- I can figure out who it is. Thinking it's somebody from the BRM, but can't find it.

I thought it might be too. But Foster had a 150 OPS+ in his age 27 season and Rose's was 152.

RedEye
06-28-2007, 04:48 PM
Right but this thread is about properly assigning player worth and context is everything.

I wasn't trying to rag on you (or Dunn for that matter) but IMHO, your post illustrated the concept that there is perception of performance and there is true performance. Dunn will have very good June numbers. But the reality is that he really only had a great 4 days and a pretty average rest of the month. It may seem like hairsplitting but when deciding how to value a player, a key part of the equation is what should you reasonably expect him to do in the future (that's what you'll be paying him for anyway). Using Dunn's June as a primary marker, it's very probable that his bat would be greatly overvalued relative to his true ability.

Context is absolutely everything when determining a player's true worth.

I see your point about how the four-day stretch skewed Dunn's overall June numbers. However, isn't this true of most players? Don't most good players have little mini-streaks that make their overall numbers look better than they otherwise would?

Take Ryan Howard for example. He's had a hot June as well, with 9 HR and 24 RBI. However, if you take out a four-game stretch where he played against KC and the White Sox, he'd only have 5 HR and 19 RBI--not nearly so gangbusters.

Good players, it seems, always have hot streaks. Are you claiming that Dunn is more streaky (and hence less valuable) than other players? Is there any way to prove this with more than just "during this 4 game stretch..." type arguments?

Cyclone792
06-28-2007, 05:07 PM
Please tell me you made up player B, Cyclone -- I can figure out who it is. Thinking it's somebody from the BRM, but can't find it.


I thought it might be too. But Foster had a 150 OPS+ in his age 27 season and Rose's was 152.

He's a real player, not fictionalized, but he never played for the Reds.

What I found interesting is the league run environment during that player's season is almost identical to the National League in 2007, and that player also played in a hitter's park for his home park, just like Dunn in 2007.

RichRed
06-28-2007, 05:20 PM
He's a real player, not fictionalized, but he never played for the Reds.

What I found interesting is the league run environment during that player's season is almost identical to the National League in 2007, and that player also played in a hitter's park for his home park, just like Dunn in 2007.

It's Hall-of-Famer Joe Medwick.

edabbs44
06-28-2007, 05:22 PM
Last year, in what most considered a great year for him, Player A hit .274/.388/.569 with 41 HR, 118 RBI, and 18 SB. He was touted as one of the best all-around offensive players in the game and made $13,571,428 for his services.

This year, Player B is on pace to hit .270/.359/.569 with 45 HR, 108 RBI, and 14 SB. He makes $ 10,500,000 this year and is due $13,500,000 in 2008. He has been routinely criticized for his strikeouts, lack of effort, and underachieving.

My question is this: If Player B continues at his current level of offensive production, wouldn't he be well worth the salary he is due next year?

Discuss.

I'm gonna say that you should ask this question again in September, since Player B has a history of slowing down as the year goes on.

Cyclone792
06-28-2007, 05:23 PM
Actually, I got that player's OPS+ wrong. It's 131, not 135. Mea culpa.

Anyway, here's some of his other full seasonal stats: 201 hits, 48 doubles, 8 triples, 14 home runs, 117 RBIs, 45 walks, 44 strikeouts, and 15 double plays. He totaled 667 plate appearances that season too.

I'm just very curious how many people would much rather have that type of hitting performance than what Dunn provides. High batting average, lots of hits, lots of doubles, and very few strikeouts.

My bet is most people who can't stand Dunn's game would gladly trade Dunn's stat line in for the above stat line, whereas in reality, they're both just about identical.

dabvu2498
06-28-2007, 05:23 PM
He's a real player, not fictionalized, but he never played for the Reds.

What I found interesting is the league run environment during that player's season is almost identical to the National League in 2007, and that player also played in a hitter's park for his home park, just like Dunn in 2007.

Ah ha! Found him.

This player B also had previous OPS years of 151, 156, 180, 140, 137, 131, and 123, had already won an MVP award and had finished in the top 5 in the voting 2 other years.

His top 10 age 27 comps include 8 Hall of Famers (Aaron, Joe D., Goslin, Kaline, Musial, Hornsby, Snider, and Simmons).

Dunn's age 26 comps include 2 (R. Jackson and Killebrew).

If you'll also notice, this player B was traded during his age 28 season and only OPSed above 140 once more during his career, despite playing against "war era" talent.

In this case, I'll take Player B...






"Ducky" Joe Medwick.

Cyclone792
06-28-2007, 05:24 PM
It's Hall-of-Famer Joe Medwick.

Correct.

Now how many people would rather have Medwick's 1939 season over Dunn's 2007 season? How many people wouldn't really care because it'd be similar production?

Cyclone792
06-28-2007, 05:25 PM
Ah ha! Found him.

This player B also had previous OPS years of 151, 156, 180, 140, 137, 131, and 123, had already won an MVP award and had finished in the top 5 in the voting 3 years.

His top 10 age 27 comps include 8 Hall of Famers (Aaron, Joe D., Goslin, Kaline, Musial, Hornsby, Snider, and Simmons).

Dunn's age 26 comps include 2 (R. Jackson and Killebrew).

If you'll also notice, this player B was traded during his age 28 season and only OPSed above 140 once more during his career, despite playing against "war era" talent.

In this case, I'll take Player B...






"Ducky" Joe Medwick.

I'm not talking about any previous seasons.

I'm talking about Medwick's 1939 vs. Dunn's 2007.

dabvu2498
06-28-2007, 05:34 PM
I'm not talking about any previous seasons.

I'm talking about Medwick's 1939 vs. Dunn's 2007.

Looks like Medwick was right at about league average defensively, based on the limited info we have, which, with offensive stuff otherwise being equal, I'll take Ducky.

Plus, it's unlikely that Dunn would ever do anything to so infuriate the fans of Detroit that they would pelt him with garbage. That's a plus in my book.

Chip R
06-28-2007, 05:36 PM
Plus, it's unlikely that Dunn would ever do anything to so infuriate the fans of Detroit that they would pelt him with garbage. That's a plus in my book.


Now, Cincinnati... that's another thing. ;)

dabvu2498
06-28-2007, 05:40 PM
For reference purposes only, some other Hall of Fame left fielders' age 27 OPS+ numbers:

Stargell - 136
Kiner - 156
B. Williams - 157
Simmons - 159
Yaz - 195
Musial - 200
T. Williams - 215 (after missing the previous 3 seasons during WWII)

Cyclone792
06-28-2007, 05:44 PM
Looks like Medwick was right at about league average defensively, based on the limited info we have, which, with offensive stuff otherwise being equal, I'll take Ducky.

Plus, it's unlikely that Dunn would ever do anything to so infuriate the fans of Detroit that they would pelt him with garbage. That's a plus in my book.

As would I for those same exact reasons. But the only difference is a slight advantage for Medwick with the glove; i.e. there is no offensive difference. On one end you have a player who hits over .330 with 201 hits and rarely strikes out and on the other end you've got a guy hitting around .270 and striking out all the time. But add it up, and they're almost equals as an offensive player. That's what's fascinating.

FWIW, Medwick had 24 win shares that season, which is actually a bit less than I figured he'd have.

RedsManRick
06-28-2007, 05:46 PM
Anybody who doesn't think a .900 OPS isn't worth 13M in market dollars hasn't seen the market recently. Is he a bargain for that price? Not at all. But in order to get the production you need to win, you sometimes have to pay market price for it. I'd much rather pay Adam Dunn 13M for 10M worth of production than pay Juan Castro 1.5M for -1.5M worth of production....

The key though, as Cyclone points out, is that there are a number of ways to get to great production. There are very few perfect players (points at Albert Pujols, mid 90's Bonds, and Ted Williams). The level of production we're getting from Dunn, project over a 15 year career, is HoF worthy. That shouldn't be overlooked just because he does it in an "ugly" way or "could be better if...".

By the way, given the choice between a Medwick style production and Dunn style production, I'd prefer Medwick's. I think it's more fun to watch and more flexible in terms of maximizing the value of it in the context of a surrounding lineup. But I'll take either 8 days a week.

dabvu2498
06-28-2007, 05:51 PM
As would I for those same exact reasons. But the only difference is a slight advantage for Medwick with the glove; i.e. there is no offensive difference. On one end you have a player who hits over .330 with 201 hits and rarely strikes out and on the other end you've got a guy hitting around .270 and striking out all the time. But add it up, and they're almost equals as an offensive player. That's what's fascinating.

FWIW, Medwick had 24 win shares that season, which is actually a bit less than I figured he'd have.

I was completely enamored by Medwick's age 27 comps (which also included Hal Trosky and Vada Pinson, BTW).

Lot's talked about Dunn's possible decline, due to "old player skills," but Medwick's a guy that doesn't fall into that category, but declined (though was still above average) anyway, despite playing what should have been 3 peak years against wartime competition.

I'd never really looked at his career before. Now I can't wait to get my Historical Abstract out and see what it says.

RedEye
06-28-2007, 05:53 PM
RedsManRick and I are on completely the same page here. Dunn... er... Player B is no bargain, but he's not exactly an albatross either. I can't understand why people complain about overpaying for Dunn by 1 or 2 million when we are currently throwing that amount at players who have little to no value at all (Cormier, Castro).

If we are going to give Player B up, GM WK better have a darn good plan in place to either replace his offensive production or compensate for it by improving other parts of the team. Right now I'm just not confident that a plan like that is in place. I hope I'm wrong.

RedEye
06-28-2007, 05:56 PM
I'm gonna say that you should ask this question again in September, since Player B has a history of slowing down as the year goes on.

That's a valid point, and I'd like to see the FO wait that long to ask the question. The only problem is that most are talking about dealing him in little over a month...

dabvu2498
06-28-2007, 05:57 PM
Anybody who doesn't think a .900 OPS isn't worth 13M in market dollars hasn't seen the market recently. Is he a bargain for that price? Not at all. But in order to get the production you need to win, you sometimes have to pay market price for it. I'd much rather pay Adam Dunn 13M for 10M worth of production than pay Juan Castro 1.5M for -1.5M worth of production....


Good points, but until management is able to put together a 25 man roster that is even close to playoff caliber, paying Dunn (or anybody else) 13M for one season (and I hate to say it, but he's gone after that) doesn't make a whole lot of sense either.

jojo
06-28-2007, 09:08 PM
Here's a point that I don't think someone directly brought up though there was a comment earlier about streakiness. This of course is a generalization (i.e. it might simply be a unsupported belief). Guys like a Dunn, Howard, or Sexson tend to be very streaky. Whereas production like Medwick's tends to be a little more even keeled.

While both types of players get the same production ultimately, I wonder if one isn't more valuable if indeed it's a more consistent, steady production (i.e. spreading it out might impact more games than bursts of production might).

One of my all time favorite players is John Olerud. I would take him over Dunn any day of the week. Interestingly, another firstbaseman beat him out in the MVP voting in 1993 and it was a complete hose job IMHO owing to the power and influence of the long ball. Factor in the defense of Olerud vs Thomas and that year Olerud was clearly superior.

RedEye
06-29-2007, 12:10 AM
Here's a point that I don't think someone directly brought up though there was a comment earlier about streakiness. This of course is a generalization (i.e. it might simply be a unsupported belief). Guys like a Dunn, Howard, or Sexson tend to be very streaky. Whereas production like Medwick's tends to be a little more even keeled.

While both types of players get the same production ultimately, I wonder if one isn't more valuable if indeed it's a more consistent, steady production (i.e. spreading it out might impact more games than bursts of production might).

One of my all time favorite players is John Olerud. I would take him over Dunn any day of the week. Interestingly, another firstbaseman beat him out in the MVP voting in 1993 and it was a complete hose job IMHO owing to the power and influence of the long ball. Factor in the defense of Olerud vs Thomas and that year Olerud was clearly superior.

It was me who brought up the concept of "streakiness." It may be because I'm not up to date on all the recent state-of-the-art stat measurements, but I feel like it is a bit disingenuous to make arguments like "If you take out x game stretch, his stats aren't very good." IMO, almost ALL players put together a few games where they produce at a higher level. It seems to me that Dunn, because he walks alot, contributes to the lineup's fire power even when he isn't hitting. In that way he is "streak proof"--and that's why you look for players with high OBP rather than high BA alone.

Are there any metrics we currently have to address "streakiness"? If not, it might be an interesting angle to look at with more fine-grained analysis. IMO, it's useless to say that Dunn is of lower value because he is streaky. It's a meaningless word that can be cherry picked and applied to the advantage of an argument.

SteelSD
06-29-2007, 01:13 AM
It was me who brought up the concept of "streakiness." It may be because I'm not up to date on all the recent state-of-the-art stat measurements, but I feel like it is a bit disingenuous to make arguments like "If you take out x game stretch, his stats aren't very good." IMO, almost ALL players put together a few games where they produce at a higher level. It seems to me that Dunn, because he walks alot, contributes to the lineup's fire power even when he isn't hitting. In that way he is "streak proof"--and that's why you look for players with high OBP rather than high BA alone.

Are there any metrics we currently have to address "streakiness"? If not, it might be an interesting angle to look at with more fine-grained analysis. IMO, it's useless to say that Dunn is of lower value because he is streaky. It's a meaningless word that can be cherry picked and applied to the advantage of an argument.

Baseball is a game of streaks and I've always considered high IsoD players like Dunn to be far more "slump-proof" than lower IsoD players. When the hits aren't falling, high IsoD players are able to provide more value than low IsoD players because they are better able to avoid Outs. Produce a team with a majority of low IsoD players and you've got a group that's primed to slump badly offensively when the hits aren't falling.

Johnny Footstool
06-29-2007, 10:30 AM
Produce a team with a majority of low IsoD players and you've got a group that's primed to slump badly offensively when the hits aren't falling.

Ladies and gentlemen, your Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim.

RedEye
06-29-2007, 11:05 AM
How is IsoD calculated?

rdiersin
06-29-2007, 11:09 AM
How is IsoD calculated?

ISOD=OBP-AVG

rdiersin
06-29-2007, 11:45 AM
Baseball is a game of streaks and I've always considered high IsoD players like Dunn to be far more "slump-proof" than lower IsoD players. When the hits aren't falling, high IsoD players are able to provide more value than low IsoD players because they are better able to avoid Outs. Produce a team with a majority of low IsoD players and you've got a group that's primed to slump badly offensively when the hits aren't falling.


Is this true? I used to think so as well. Now, I am not as positive. Consider the game log data from 2000-2006 (thanks retrosheet (http://www.retrosheet.org)). Here are the standard deviations of this data normalized to their means. (i.e. these are standard deviations about a mean of 1). I am not sure exactly what I make out of this yet, but I thought I would share it.

I think it is true to a point, as noticed by the obp. But at the extremes I am not as sure.


Normalized Std
AVG 0.3031
OBP 0.2527
SLG 0.3735
ISOP 0.6533
ISOD 0.5855
OPS 0.3003
S/AB 0.3893

The reason I have been looking at this game log data however, is this weighting on OPS. IIRC Depodesta was mentioned in Moneyball as saying OBP was more important than SLG. I thought this might be interesting, from a variance standpoint. So I looked at a OPS_adjusted=b*OBP+SLG. It seems b=1.5 or so works well. Not that it matters much as it has nothing to do with this thread, but hey, what the heck I figured I would keep going.

http://www.nd.edu/~rdiersin/corr_b.jpg

http://www.nd.edu/~rdiersin/std_b.jpg

http://www.nd.edu/~rdiersin/std_corr.jpg