PDA

View Full Version : Interesting Enquirer Article about Dunn



nate
07-29-2007, 11:09 AM
This (http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070729/SPT04/707290355/1071/SPT) article sums up exactly how I feel about Dunn. Key graphs:


The math: To get into contention next year, the Reds must score at least 50 more runs than they allow. The runs scored/runs allowed stat can predict to within five victories either way how many games a team is going to win. The very best teams (95-plus wins) will score 100 more runs than they allow.

Given everybody's present pace, the Reds will score about 770 runs this season. The problem is that at the current rate, the Reds will allow about 815 runs. That ratio projects to a 77-85 win-loss record. The team needs to flip that ratio to make things interesting next season.

As we say in traditional counterpoint class, IV-I (a plagal cadence indicating the part of hymn where everyone sings "A-men!"


If they trade Dunn, they will need considerably more output from guys like Hamilton, Ryan Freel, Norris Hopper, Edwin Encarnacion and Brandon Phillips. If the Reds get that output, they barely will be able to make up for the loss of Dunn's offense.

Then - and here's the point - the pitching staff and defense would have to allow 130 fewer runs to have a shot at 90 wins, which is a reasonable number for winning the National League Central Division.

However, if the Reds keep Dunn and the other players improve as much as hoped (Freel and Hopper wouldn't get as much playing time as they would if Dunn weren't here), then the Reds would need to reduce their runs allowed by only 60 to reach 90 wins.

That's really the whole point. Dunn has been pretty instrumental in keeping us from constantly seeing the Pirates derriere in the standings.

Always Red
07-29-2007, 11:38 AM
I really enjoyed reading this in today's Enquirer. It's the first time, in a very long time, that I've seen this much thought and intelligence there, rather than just reading about fan favorites and the "scrappiness factor."

I would love to see more of this in the main stream media!

There's also this, by John Erardi:


Why batting average with RISP is meaningless:

Citing hitters' batting averages with runners in scoring position (RISP) is an oft-quoted thing around Major League Baseball.


Turns out, it means almost nothing.

For a career, most batters hit within a few points of their overall average with RISP. Even Hall of Famer Tony Perez, known as a great clutch hitter, hit only five points higher with RISP (.284) than his overall average (.279).

The fifth-place Reds are hitting better with RISP than the first-place New York Mets.

The Los Angeles Dodgers are hitting a whopping .291 with RISP (13 points higher than their overall average) yet have scored fewer runs than the Reds.

And don't suggest that it's harder to hit with RISP. The NL overall batting average is .261; with RISP, it's .260.

What does matter is how many opportunities a team gets with RISP. That is a result of on-base average, which includes walks. The Reds are second-to-last in the league, with 754 at-bats with RISP. The Phillies, who are hitting nine points lower with RISP than they are hitting overall, lead the league in runs scored because they have good hitters and also are tops with 921 at-bats with RISP. If the Reds had as many opportunities as the Phillies, they would have 37 more runs, even if they hit only .220 with RISP. And that would be good for four more wins.

Conclusion? When the Reds consider trades and other acquisitions, they should take a hard look at the new guy's on-base average.

What's hurting the Reds isn't all those home runs and strikeouts; it's all those low OBAs (David Ross, Alex Gonzalez, Ryan Freel, Brandon Phillips and Jeff Conine).

And, of course, poor pitching and defense and a weak bench.

coachw513
07-29-2007, 12:00 PM
I sleepily thought for a minute my browser had landed at RZ instead of the Enquirer...really well laid out statistical argument for keeping Dunn here...does anyone here actually know if John Erardi actually exists???...maybe he's just a moniker used by an ORG poster, cause that article is straight from "Dunn Should be Valued More Around here!" :D

Ron Madden
07-29-2007, 12:05 PM
About time!!!

:clap::clap::clap: John Erardi

BCubb2003
07-29-2007, 12:27 PM
I sleepily thought for a minute my browser had landed at RZ instead of the Enquirer...really well laid out statistical argument for keeping Dunn here...does anyone here actually know if John Erardi actually exists???...maybe he's just a moniker used by an ORG poster, cause that article is straight from "Dunn Should be Valued More Around here!" :D

I have met him in person and he signed a copy of "Opening Day," so I'm pretty confident he exists. Although he could still be a member of RedsZone with a secret identity.

osuceltic
07-29-2007, 12:54 PM
It's just going to start another stats debate, but let me say the problem is, as it almost always is in these debates, the difference between looking at how to score the most runs in a season and how to score one more run than your opponent in a given game. Those are two different things.

MWM
07-29-2007, 01:03 PM
It's just going to start another stats debate, but let me say the problem is, as it almost always is in these debates, the difference between looking at how to score the most runs in a season and how to score one more run than your opponent in a given game. Those are two different things.

If that made a significant difference, Pythagorus wouldn't work. But it does work at a frighteningly accurate rate, which basically means that overall runs scored verus overall runs against is what matters. "How and when" runs scored is always brought up as an argument against it, but if there were teams that somehow managed to score fewer runs, but score them at the right times, they would consistently have more wins thatn Pythagorus predicted. The reverse is true as well. If there were teams that scored a lot of runs, but at the wrong time, you'd see teams consistently underperforming Pythagorus. This just doesn't happen enough or with any predictability or consistency to validate that assertion.

westofyou
07-29-2007, 01:23 PM
I have met him in person and he signed a copy of "Opening Day," so I'm pretty confident he exists. Although he could still be a member of RedsZone with a secret identity.

He signed mine as well.

O'Toole too.

jojo
07-29-2007, 03:14 PM
I enjoyed the article. The basic premise was that trading Dunn would create a void that would make achieving the run differential necessary to win at least 90 games in '08 much more difficult than if the Reds kept him. I don't necessarily agree with this premise.

First, basically the Reds probably need to score between 50 and 100 runs more than they allow in order to be considered contenders in their division. There are many ways to get there. Erardi basically assumed the offense would be static and the difference would have to be made up on the RA side. Why is it impossible to increase the RS side while decreasing the RA simultaneously? The Reds might be expected to gain 30 runs next season just by having EE improve, Hamilton getting more PA's and Votto being promoted to at least a platoon situation. If Bruce earns a roster spot, he gives the defense probably another 10 runs (as Dunn's replacement his glove would be significant enough to basically ignore his bat if he struggles). Also, there is the possibility that Homer solidifies the back end of the rotation and Cueto explodes onto the scene as a high leverage bullpen arm.

Second, another thing the article seems to ignore is that someone will indeed be in left field if the Reds trade Dunn. Here's what I mean.

By trading Dunn, it's actually the difference between Dunn's overall value relative to the overall value of a replacement level left fielder that would need to replaced (defined as basically freely available talent that any major league team could basically stick out there). For a left fielder, that player would be expected to have a bat that produced at 80% of league average while playing at least league average defense.

Pecota thinks Dunn will be roughly a four win bat relative to replacement in '08 (VORP=42). That's a pretty tall order to replace tit for tat. But play-by-play based metrics think Dunn is likely a -15 to -25 defender. Other metrics like him a little better so conservatively Dunn might be a -10 to -20 defender depending upon whether he's having a good year or a bad one. So his overall effect on the Reds RS/RA equation might be expected to really be something like 20 to 30 runs in the Reds favor. That's really the amount of production the Reds would have to figure out a way to replace to fill the void left by Dunn's departure because, in reality, someone will be in left field.

Now consider that the Reds would get production back in trade for Dunn and presumably will be able to buy additional production with his saved salary on admittedly what probably is a thin FA market. While it's impossible to analyze specifics given all of the possibilities, scenarios where the Reds could make headway on the RS/RA equation by trading Dunn can be envisioned. Certainly, an overwhelming case can't be made that Dunn is irreplaceable. Given Dunn's salary, a smart FO could be expected to flip Dunn and come out ahead. Note, I'm not arguing that this FO has that talent and also note that I'm on record as thinking Dunn's '08 at $13M is less risky that trusting this FO to turnover the roster.

That said, trading Dunn doesn't have to doom the immediate hopes of the Reds IMHO. It's just something you do with forethought and preferably a plan.

harangatang
07-29-2007, 03:52 PM
An intelligent article. :shocked:

Kc61
07-29-2007, 04:48 PM
This (http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070729/SPT04/707290355/1071/SPT) article sums up exactly how I feel about Dunn. Key graphs



That's really the whole point. Dunn has been pretty instrumental in keeping us from constantly seeing the Pirates derriere in the standings.

Article seems to assume Reds won't add any significant offensive players. Reds have Jay Bruce coming up. Reds could acquire other offensive players in trades and free agency. Reds could completely change the offensive team so many of the guys mentioned in the article would be replaced.

Nobody says that the Reds should just dump Adam Dunn and never worry about offense again. The question is whether it make sense to devote 13 plus million for one more year of Dunn, then followed by free agency, or whether Reds are better off getting some players in return now and redeploying the money.

Article is certainly correct that Dunn would leave an offensive void. Question is whether Reds can get better pitching and still be able to fill Dunn's void, at least partially, using his salary slot and through trades.

OnBaseMachine
07-29-2007, 05:05 PM
John Erardi is one smart fella.

dougdirt
07-29-2007, 05:07 PM
John Erardi is one smart fella.

He had plenty of help writing that article.

Ron Madden
07-29-2007, 05:10 PM
He had plenty of help writing that article.

He was smart enough to do the research and not to lazy to just believe everything he hears on radio like some writers do.

;)

dougdirt
07-29-2007, 05:16 PM
He was smart enough to do the research and not to lazy to just believe everything he hears on radio like some writers do.

;)

Very true. He took plenty of initiative to do his job. Something I wish more beat writers would go in Cincinnati (Dayton too) at times.

Falls City Beer
07-29-2007, 05:18 PM
I enjoyed the article. The basic premise was that trading Dunn would create a void that would make achieving the run differential necessary to win at least 90 games in '08 much more difficult than if the Reds kept him. I don't necessarily agree with this premise.

First, basically the Reds probably need to score between 50 and 100 runs more than they allow in order to be considered contenders in their division. There are many ways to get there. Erardi basically assumed the offense would be static and the difference would have to be made up on the RA side. Why is it impossible to increase the RS side while decreasing the RA simultaneously? The Reds might be expected to gain 30 runs next season just by having EE improve, Hamilton getting more PA's and Votto being promoted to at least a platoon situation. If Bruce earns a roster spot, he gives the defense probably another 10 runs (as Dunn's replacement his glove would be significant enough to basically ignore his bat if he struggles). Also, there is the possibility that Homer solidifies the back end of the rotation and Cueto explodes onto the scene as a high leverage bullpen arm.

Second, another thing the article seems to ignore is that someone will indeed be in left field if the Reds trade Dunn. Here's what I mean.

By trading Dunn, it's actually the difference between Dunn's overall value relative to the overall value of a replacement level left fielder that would need to replaced (defined as basically freely available talent that any major league team could basically stick out there). For a left fielder, that player would be expected to have a bat that produced at 80% of league average while playing at least league average defense.

Pecota thinks Dunn will be roughly a four win bat relative to replacement in '08 (VORP=42). That's a pretty tall order to replace tit for tat. But play-by-play based metrics think Dunn is likely a -15 to -25 defender. Other metrics like him a little better so conservatively Dunn might be a -10 to -20 defender depending upon whether he's having a good year or a bad one. So his overall effect on the Reds RS/RA equation might be expected to really be something like 20 to 30 runs in the Reds favor. That's really the amount of production the Reds would have to figure out a way to replace to fill the void left by Dunn's departure because, in reality, someone will be in left field.

Now consider that the Reds would get production back in trade for Dunn and presumably will be able to buy additional production with his saved salary on admittedly what probably is a thin FA market. While it's impossible to analyze specifics given all of the possibilities, scenarios where the Reds could make headway on the RS/RA equation by trading Dunn can be envisioned. Certainly, an overwhelming case can't be made that Dunn is irreplaceable. Given Dunn's salary, a smart FO could be expected to flip Dunn and come out ahead. Note, I'm not arguing that this FO has that talent and also note that I'm on record as thinking Dunn's '08 at $13M is less risky that trusting this FO to turnover the roster.

That said, trading Dunn doesn't have to doom the immediate hopes of the Reds IMHO. It's just something you do with forethought and preferably a plan.

In other words, to make up for Dunn's loss, the Reds would have to have a big bunch of things go right. I think that's pretty much Erardi's argument. They'll have to find those runs somewhere--and the RA side of the equation isn't going to be improved any time soon. In fact, it's likely only to get worse, with Arroyo's attrition.

jojo
07-29-2007, 05:42 PM
In other words, to make up for Dunn's loss, the Reds would have to have a big bunch of things go right. I think that's pretty much Erardi's argument. They'll have to find those runs somewhere--and the RA side of the equation isn't going to be improved any time soon. In fact, it's likely only to get worse, with Arroyo's attrition.

NO. In order to make up for Dunn's loss, they'd have to make up roughly 20-30 runs of production over replacement which frankly isn't an impossible task.

In order to win 90 games in '08, the Reds would have to have a bunch of things go right. But thats true whether Dunn is on the '08 roster or not....

Falls City Beer
07-29-2007, 05:57 PM
NO. In order to make up for Dunn's loss, they'd have to make up roughly 20-30 runs of production over replacement which frankly isn't an impossible task.

In order to win 90 games in '08, the Reds would have to have a bunch of things go right. But thats true whether Dunn is on the '08 roster or not....

No, but they'll have to get it from several sources, not just one.

And relying on several of anything to go right (where one could do it sufficiently) is a risky proposition.

(And as much as I like Bruce, he's unlikely to arrive before Sept. 08, IMO--or I should say, he should stay down till Sept. 08).

toledodan
07-29-2007, 06:02 PM
the team needs a way to create runs without sitting back and waiting for a homerun. dunn could be replaced easily with a 20 homerun guy that hit for a .300 average. chances are that player would have more singles and doubles knocking in extra runs and scoring more. granted dunn walks alot but the strikeouts are gettin old.

westofyou
07-29-2007, 06:41 PM
dunn could be replaced easily with a 20 homerun guy that hit for a .300 average.
Really?

If it's so easy why were there only 13 NL players who did it last year?


NATIONAL LEAGUE
SEASON
2006
AVERAGE >= .300

HOMERUNS HR AVG
1 Ryan Howard 58 .313
2 Albert Pujols 49 .331
3 Lance Berkman 45 .315
4 Matt Holliday 34 .326
5 Chase Utley 32 .309
6 Garrett Atkins 29 .329
T7 Chipper Jones 26 .324
T7 David Wright 26 .311
T7 Miguel Cabrera 26 .339
T10 Adrian Gonzalez 24 .304
T10 Brian McCann 24 .333
12 Rich Aurilia 23 .300
13 Nomar Garciaparra 20 .303

and only ten the year before?

NATIONAL LEAGUE
SEASON
2005
AVERAGE >= .300

HOMERUNS HR AVG
1 Derrek Lee 46 .335
2 Albert Pujols 41 .330
3 Ken Griffey Jr. 35 .301
T4 Carlos Delgado 33 .301
T4 Miguel Cabrera 33 .323
6 Jason Bay 32 .306
7 Aramis Ramirez 31 .302
T8 Chad Tracy 27 .308
T8 David Wright 27 .306
10 Todd Helton 20 .320

toledodan
07-29-2007, 06:49 PM
Really?

If it's so easy why were there only 13 NL players who did it last year?


NATIONAL LEAGUE
SEASON
2006
AVERAGE >= .300

HOMERUNS HR AVG
1 Ryan Howard 58 .313
2 Albert Pujols 49 .331
3 Lance Berkman 45 .315
4 Matt Holliday 34 .326
5 Chase Utley 32 .309
6 Garrett Atkins 29 .329
T7 Chipper Jones 26 .324
T7 David Wright 26 .311
T7 Miguel Cabrera 26 .339
T10 Adrian Gonzalez 24 .304
T10 Brian McCann 24 .333
12 Rich Aurilia 23 .300
13 Nomar Garciaparra 20 .303

and only ten the year before?

NATIONAL LEAGUE
SEASON
2005
AVERAGE >= .300

HOMERUNS HR AVG
1 Derrek Lee 46 .335
2 Albert Pujols 41 .330
3 Ken Griffey Jr. 35 .301
T4 Carlos Delgado 33 .301
T4 Miguel Cabrera 33 .323
6 Jason Bay 32 .306
7 Aramis Ramirez 31 .302
T8 Chad Tracy 27 .308
T8 David Wright 27 .306
10 Todd Helton 20 .320


nice find but i think you know where i'm going with this.:beerme:

on a side note i'm shocked so few did it in the NL. what about the AL?

wheels
07-29-2007, 06:49 PM
Jorge Cantu is the answer.

pedro
07-29-2007, 06:50 PM
I think the theory that Dunn is 25 runs worse than the "average" left fielder is preposterous Jojo.

Jpup
07-29-2007, 06:57 PM
I think the theory that Dunn is 25 runs worse than the "average" left fielder is preposterous Jojo.

I agree.

westofyou
07-29-2007, 06:58 PM
nice find but i think you know where i'm going with this.:beerme:

on a side note i'm shocked so few did it in the NL. what about the AL?

nine and ten... looking harder and harder the more I dig.

westofyou
07-29-2007, 07:00 PM
Jorge Cantu is the answer.

Ten Years ago it was Stynes and Nunnelly.

Buy the brand, and learn to easily eschew the player representing the brand, they're disposable.

jojo
07-29-2007, 07:00 PM
I think the theory that Dunn is 25 runs worse than the "average" left fielder is preposterous Jojo.

I know you do-but it's not exactly pulled out of thin air and the discussion you're referring to didn't rely upon the worst case assessment.

Reds Nd2
07-29-2007, 07:12 PM
Dunn's 2007 Fielding Runs Above Average (FRAA) currently stands at -12 runs.

RedsManRick
07-29-2007, 07:41 PM
In other words, it's going to be tough, but not impossible to replace a guy who we already have under contract, in order to remain a sub-.500 team. Am I missing anything?

In my mind, this just underscores exactly how far off we really are. Spinning our wheels successfully is an accomplishment at this point.

Scrap Irony
07-29-2007, 07:46 PM
Is FRAA for all OF or just LF?

BIG distinction there, I think.

Eyeball evidence tells me Dunn is no worse than half the LF in the game. True, he's not good (in fact, he's horribly slow, gets no jump, and displays poor baseball IQ), but, as per position, he looks to be simply average.

Jojo, are your stats also from all OF or only LF? That -20 runs seems way high to me.

paintmered
07-29-2007, 07:53 PM
Is FRAA for all OF or just LF?

BIG distinction there, I think.

Eyeball evidence tells me Dunn is no worse than half the LF in the game. True, he's not good (in fact, he's horribly slow, gets no jump, and displays poor baseball IQ), but, as per position, he looks to be simply average.

Jojo, are your stats also from all OF or only LF? That -20 runs seems way high to me.

Yep. If there is any place to stash a defensive liability, it's left field. It's something that many teams across MLB do every day.

It's a simple question....does a player's positive offensive production make up for his negative defensive production? The answer usually is yes. It is so because left field is the least important defensive position and often fielded by guy who can really mash at the plate. It's not a "problem" that only the Reds have. In fact, I wouldn't call it a problem at all. Now, if this was shortstop or even center field, the answer might end up being completely different.

That said, there is room for defensive improvement from Dunn. And it's something we all would like to see happen. Shoot, there's room for defensive improvement from everyone on this team.

BTW, that was a very refreshing article.

jojo
07-29-2007, 08:08 PM
Is FRAA for all OF or just LF?

BIG distinction there, I think.

Eyeball evidence tells me Dunn is no worse than half the LF in the game. True, he's not good (in fact, he's horribly slow, gets no jump, and displays poor baseball IQ), but, as per position, he looks to be simply average.

Jojo, are your stats also from all OF or only LF? That -20 runs seems way high to me.

Those stats are from UZR and PMR and they compare Dunn only to other leftfielders. Here's (http://www.redszone.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1411432&postcount=16) a recent post that places Dunn into the context of his colleagues using PBP-based metrics. Here's (http://www.redszone.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1399640&postcount=123) a cliff notes version of how UZR works.

jojo
07-29-2007, 08:38 PM
Yep. If there is any place to stash a defensive liability, it's left field. It's something that many teams across MLB do every day.

It's a simple question....does a player's positive offensive production make up for his negative defensive production? The answer usually is yes. It is so because left field is the least important defensive position and often fielded by guy who can really mash at the plate. It's not a "problem" that only the Reds have. In fact, I wouldn't call it a problem at all. Now, if this was shortstop or even center field, the answer might end up being completely different.

That said, there is room for defensive improvement from Dunn. And it's something we all would like to see happen. Shoot, there's room for defensive improvement from everyone on this team.

BTW, that was a very refreshing article.

What's more important when determining the defensive value of an individual player, comparing defense of the player's position to that of other positions on the field or comparing the player's performance against everyone else that plays HIS position?

The useful comparison is how do individuals in this pool stack up against each other. It doesn't really matter that Carl Crawford is an average defensive centerfielder if he plays mostly in left where in fact he is an exceptional defender. It's true that left field is full of defenders who aren't good (relative to other positions) because generally the position has less demands on range and arm strength while it's associated with relatively fewer chances so teams might try to hide a bat there. That said, if Dunn is a worse defender than the majority of leftfielders on other teams (as PBP metrics indicate he clearly is), his defense mitigates the advantage his bat may give the Reds because more balls hit to left will fall for hits (presumably leading to more runs being scored) against the Reds than they will against their opponents. It's a real problem that does affect Dunn's worth.

Mario-Rijo
07-29-2007, 09:09 PM
The rest of the article......


The case for keeping Adam Dunn
BY JOHN ERARDI | JERARDI@ENQUIRER.COM


WHY IMPROVING TO 90 WINS WITHOUT ADAM DUNN WOULD BE A HUGE CHALLENGE

The Reds, statisticians say, are poised somewhere between being in contention in the next two years and being the Pittsburgh Pirates.

Blow the expected Adam Dunn trade, they say, and the Reds would be the Pirates - unless Homer Bailey and prospect Joey Votto become stars, Josh Hamilton and prospect Jay Bruce become All-Stars and Ken Griffey Jr. defies the aging/injury process.

"The Reds must pitch and defend better to win," we keep hearing.


But here are the facts: If the Reds trade Dunn, there will be only two ways they could get into contention: 1) by replacing most of his offense and pitching and defending much better, or 2) by replacing all of his offense and pitching and defending reasonably better.

The math: To get into contention next year, the Reds must score at least 50 more runs than they allow. The runs scored/runs allowed stat can predict to within five victories either way how many games a team is going to win. The very best teams (95-plus wins) will score 100 more runs than they allow.

Given everybody's present pace, the Reds will score about 770 runs this season. The problem is that at the current rate, the Reds will allow about 815 runs. That ratio projects to a 77-85 win-loss record. The team needs to flip that ratio to make things interesting next season.

So, how do the Reds do it?

If they trade Dunn, they will need considerably more output from guys like Hamilton, Ryan Freel, Norris Hopper, Edwin Encarnacion and Brandon Phillips. If the Reds get that output, they barely will be able to make up for the loss of Dunn's offense.

Then - and here's the point - the pitching staff and defense would have to allow 130 fewer runs to have a shot at 90 wins, which is a reasonable number for winning the National League Central Division.

However, if the Reds keep Dunn and the other players improve as much as hoped (Freel and Hopper wouldn't get as much playing time as they would if Dunn weren't here), then the Reds would need to reduce their runs allowed by only 60 to reach 90 wins.

That would be a much easier bill to fill via free agents and minor trades.

How hard is it to improve pitching and defense by 60 runs vs. 130 runs? Let's explain it by the commonly understood concept of earned-run average. To save 60 runs in a season, the pitching staff would have to drop its ERA by .37; to drop 130 runs, the ERA would have to drop by .80. The Reds' team ERA is currently 4.70; saving 60 additional runs (assuming all are earned) would mean the staff ERA would need to drop to about 4.33. That's a reasonable improvement to make via free agency and some better performances from individuals already on the pitching staff and/or defense.

But improving by 130 runs would require the team ERA to drop from 4.70 to 3.90. That's not impossible, but it would be an enormous improvement. The last time the Reds staff had an ERA of 4.40 or lower was 2002 - not that long ago - and they were at 4.51 just last season. But the last time they had an ERA of 3.97 or lower? The strike year of 1994, although they were close in 1999. (Is it any surprise that only a strike and one loss to the New York Mets, respectively, kept the 1994 and 1999 Reds out of the postseason?)

To understand how much individual pitching will be required to reduce the runs-allowed by 60 vs. 130, one must understand a sabermetric principle called VORP (value over replacement player). Replacement players are defined as the expected performance of a journeyman "scrub" pitcher - say, a waiver-wire claim or a non-prospect called up from Triple-A - so VORP describes the improvement in runs saved over what that the journeyman pitcher should save.

Even adding the best pitcher in baseball last year - Johan Santana of the Twins - to the Reds staff would save the Reds just fewer than 80 runs; Santana had a VORP of 79.6 runs in 2006.

Here are the top pitchers, as measured by VORP, in 2006:

79.6 VORP - Santana, 233.7 IP, 2.77 ERA.

72.4 VORP - Roy Oswalt, 220.7 IP, 2.98 ERA.

68.9 VORP - Brandon Webb, 235 IP, 3.10 ERA.

68.0 VORP - Roy Halladay, 220 IP, 3.19 ERA.

Mario-Rijo
07-29-2007, 09:12 PM
And another piece from the same guy about whom to deal and not!


Stats: Trade Arroyo, keep Dunn
BY JOHN ERARDI | JERARDI@ENQUIRER.COM


So, you think straightening out the Reds is a daunting task? Let's try the same method as the extreme makeovers you see on TV - by using the opinions of our three stat gurus to sort players into lists of whom to keep, whom to jettison and whom to target:

TRADE NOW

1B: Scott Hatteberg: His value never has been higher, so unload him now.

RP: David Weathers: Trade him. Yes, trade him, even though he has saved 20 games this season. He has saved the total implosion of the bullpen. For that, Stormy is our favorite Red. But at 37, he's not going to be around for the Reds' next good team. His batting average on balls in play (BABIP) is much lower the past two seasons - .227 and .255, respectively - than the standard .280-.300 in MLB, indicating he's probably been a little lucky in that regard. Lucky for two years ? Maybe so. Consider: In two years, he has worked only about 130 innings.


C: David Ross: He's good defensively, throwing out a top-3-in-MLB 43 percent of would-be basestealers. But his lame on-base average (.245) should make the Reds at least listen to the Adam Dunn and Ken Griffey suitors if they dangle a catcher. Maybe there are greater needs, but you fill what you can.

SP: Bronson Arroyo: Might sound crazy, but trade him if he can bring two major-league-ready prospects to fill needs. He's a league-average or slightly-better-than-league-average pitcher signed to a long-term, under-market contract. In terms of trade value, that makes him as valuable as Griffey and more valuable than Dunn.

SP: Kyle Lohse: Trade him. He's not coming back here next year, anyway.

KEEP

LF: Adam Dunn: The Reds seem hell-bent to trade this guy, regardless of return. If that's true, then it's disingenuous because it would mean the Reds care more about getting his $13 million contract off the books than getting better. Suggestion: Don't trade him unless you can get two major-league-ready prospects - one a center fielder with excellent OPS and defensive ability and the other a kid who is either a starter or a reliever with a strikeout-producing arm. Don't believe the Reds should keep Dunn? Check out the story on that topic on the next page (C9).

CF: Josh Hamilton: It's impossible to project whether he's a long-term answer in the outfield, due to his injuries this season. But he's one of the big reasons this Reds season has been worth watching. Ultimately, what he is - if he's as good as he's shown - is a right fielder with leadoff capability. He looks better than he is in center field because of his powerful arm. Fielding services rank him average in center, mainly because his range is somewhat limited. Suggestion: He's worth the risks to pencil him in as a starting outfielder.

2B: Brandon Phillips: One of only two Reds players significantly better than the major-league average at their position. Suggestion: Lock him up with a long-term contract.

3B: Edwin Encarnacion: Is he Willie Greene or Chris Sabo? Nobody knows for sure, but there seems to be little question that Encarnacion can hit. And since May, he is rated defensively to have saved more runs than any other Reds position player. Suggestion: Low-ball him and lock him up long-term.

Suggestion: Low-ball him and lock him up long-term.

KEEP, FOR NOW

RF: Ken Griffey Jr.: Not as bad defensively as he was in center field, but he still is in the lower quartile of major-league right fielders. He mostly makes up for it with his bat, and his lack of range in right field isn't nearly as costly as it was in center. Suggestion: Don't trade him during the season unless you're bowled over by the return, but trade him after the season because by then he will have hit home run No. 600.

SS: Alex Gonzalez: Overrated defensively, and not just because he's booting balls hit right at him. He also is not getting to balls that most other shortstops reach. Suggestion: Get by with him at this position, but don't rule out getting a shortstop prospect with some pop if one is offered in a deal.

ADD VIA TRADE

Chicago Cubs: Felix Pie (right), Carlos Marmol, Ronny Cedeno

Cleveland Indians: Rafael Perez, Rafael Betancourt

Los Angeles Angels: Brandon Wood, Scot Shields, Justin Speier

Arizona Diamondbacks: Chris Young, Justin Upton

Atlanta Braves: Jarrod Saltalamacchia

New York Mets: Lastings Milledge,

Carlos Gomez, Joe Smith, Aaron Heilman

Los Angeles Dodgers: Matt Kemp, Jonathan Broxton

Minnesota Twins: Matt Garza, Pat Neshek

ADD VIA TRADE

Eric Byrnes (Arizona Diamondbacks)

Ron Madden
07-29-2007, 10:12 PM
I have met him in person and he signed a copy of "Opening Day," so I'm pretty confident he exists. Although he could still be a member of RedsZone with a secret identity.

It seems to me that Eradi was the Reds Beat Writer from the Enquirer at one time. I could be wrong.

GAC
07-29-2007, 10:27 PM
I predicted last month that at the current pace they were going, the '07 squad would produce 751 runs, allow 840, and win 65 games. I hope I'm wrong, but this pitching staff (overall) is slightly worse then last year's, inwhich we allowed 801 runs. The '06 squad scored 742 runs (that secind half swoon by several key players didn't help us much).

BoydsOfSummer
07-29-2007, 10:44 PM
In one day Erardi provided more quality baseball writing than has been in that rag in the previous 1000 days combined (roughly). Nice job, John.

Sad thing is, 90% of Reds fans reading the paper dismissed it because stuff like VORP and BABIP are foreign to them and probably didn't read it all.

Reds Nd2
07-29-2007, 11:55 PM
Is FRAA for all OF or just LF?

BIG distinction there, I think.
IIRC, yes FRAA is calculated based on each individual position while Fielding Runs Above Replacement (FRAR) considers LF/RF to be equal, but seperate from CF.

You are correct. There is a big distinction. Fielding metrics are what they are, but it does no one any good to compare, say a SS to a LF.

From looking at some numbers at Baseball Prospectus (http://http://www.baseballprospectus.com/), it appears that of the sixteen LF's with a minimum of 350 AB's this season, that Dunn is tied for last with Josh Willingham for the worst FRAA. While Dunn's -12 is bad, it is a three run improvement over last season. Perhaps the Reds should consider hiding him someplace else?

Reds Nd2
07-30-2007, 12:10 AM
I predicted last month that at the current pace they were going, the '07 squad would produce 751 runs, allow 840, and win 65 games.
Last month? Both MWM and mth123 predicted 69 wins for this team back in March. Myself, I got in just under the wire and predicted an optimistic 77 wins. Never forget, gonelong is always watching. Although it's never been confirmed, he may even know when you are sleeping. I'm pretty sure sure he know's whether you've been bad or good though. :)

GAC
07-30-2007, 09:37 AM
Last month? Both MWM and mth123 predicted 69 wins for this team back in March.

My prediction centered more on the runs and runs allowed numbers at the end of the year, and not wins so much.

My point? While it's a good article, I think the guy is being a little over-optimistic with the numbers. ;)

gonelong
07-30-2007, 11:52 PM
Last month? Both MWM and mth123 predicted 69 wins for this team back in March. Myself, I got in just under the wire and predicted an optimistic 77 wins. Never forget, gonelong is always watching. Although it's never been confirmed, he may even know when you are sleeping. I'm pretty sure sure he know's whether you've been bad or good though. :)

I am not sure about all that, but I do know that GAC asked for a First Aid Kit last Christmas. :p:

GL