PDA

View Full Version : Dunn's lowered stock...



Matt700wlw
08-09-2007, 02:37 PM
CNNSI

The Reds would have liked to find a taker for Adam Dunn. And considering the lack of power around the majors, it's hard to believe there weren't great offers. But apparently that is the case. According to sources, it isn't so much Dunn's indifferent defense that has lowered his stock with his employers but his struggles in the clutch.

KronoRed
08-09-2007, 02:40 PM
Better pick up that option then if other GM's base their player evaluation on one a rare occurrence

HumnHilghtFreel
08-09-2007, 02:49 PM
I for some reason doubt that it has as much to do with his hitting abilities as it does his contract situation. At least I would hope so.

Cyclone792
08-09-2007, 02:53 PM
If this is the case and Dunn's demand is much lower than it should be, then get him inked to a below market long-term deal.

redsmetz
08-09-2007, 03:01 PM
It astounds me sometimes that these folks get paid to write this dreck.

RedsManRick
08-09-2007, 03:04 PM
It astounds me sometimes that these folks get paid to write this dreck.

What's sad is that I don't think the writer is to blame. It's quite possible that what he's saying is completely accurate. Dunn's value in the trade market was lowered by the perception that he isn't clutch. Whether or not he is or isn't clutch and how much that should affect his value is another conversation entirely.

Danny Serafini
08-09-2007, 03:24 PM
Dunn's market value is always going to be lowered because of stats like strikeouts and batting average. Bad for him, but good for the Reds because they can use that to their advantage and sign him for less than a lesser offensive player whose older traditional stats look better.

RedsManRick
08-09-2007, 03:53 PM
With Hamilton and Bruce both nearly ready and with Junior coming off the payroll (well, not technically, but accounting wise), it would be a real shame if we wasted the opportunity we have with Dunn. Because of this problem, we should be offering him a 2 year, $30M extension, get his peak years without the risk of his decline phase, and have the offense basically locked in for the next 3 years.

I would not be surprised at all to see him get Carlos Lee money in FA.

dougdirt
08-09-2007, 04:20 PM
With Hamilton and Bruce both nearly ready and with Junior coming off the payroll (well, not technically, but accounting wise), it would be a real shame if we wasted the opportunity we have with Dunn. Because of this problem, we should be offering him a 2 year, $30M extension, get his peak years without the risk of his decline phase, and have the offense basically locked in for the next 3 years.

I would not be surprised at all to see him get Carlos Lee money in FA.

If Dunn would take 2 years, 15 million in addition to us picking up his option next year, I would be stoked to sign him to that deal. Problem is, I don't think he would take that kind of deal when he could make that kind of money, for more years going somewhere else. And as our moronic owner said, if momma aint happy, aint nobody happy. Well as we know, Dunns momma aint too happy in Cincinnati.

savafan
08-09-2007, 04:26 PM
but how does one gauge clutch? Isn't it more random chance than anything else?

BRM
08-09-2007, 04:26 PM
but how does one gauge clutch? Isn't it more random chance than anything else?

I have a feeling they are defining clutch as BARISP.

osuceltic
08-09-2007, 04:33 PM
but how does one gauge clutch?

I think they're scouting him.

NJReds
08-09-2007, 04:37 PM
but how does one gauge clutch? Isn't it more random chance than anything else?

One word: KRISP ;)

savafan
08-09-2007, 04:44 PM
One word: KRISP ;)

Okay...I don't even know what that means! :lol:

dougdirt
08-09-2007, 04:47 PM
Probably Ks with RISP.

KronoRed
08-09-2007, 04:49 PM
I have a feeling they are defining clutch as BARISP.

The only true stat

Ltlabner
08-09-2007, 04:50 PM
Has GIK and Boss paid the bill for server space...this is going to be a long thread.

RichRed
08-09-2007, 04:58 PM
Has GIK and Boss paid the bill for server space...this is going to be a long thread.

If it gets out of hand, I'll throw in a comment about religion or politics. That should get it shut down pretty quick.:evil:

Caveat Emperor
08-09-2007, 05:22 PM
If this is the case and Dunn's demand is much lower than it should be, then get him inked to a below market long-term deal.

I imagine there is a vast difference in Dunn's market value in dollars vs. Dunn's market value in talent. I could see teams being much more willing to toss a big-dollar contract a Dunn than they would be to give the Reds any top prospects for him.

Many of the teams lowballing the Reds right now would be pleased as punch to offer Dunn a multi-year deal to play ball for them -- they just wouldn't be as eager to offer the multi-year deal AND lose players to make it happen.

Once again, showing the overvaluation of prospects in the current marketplace.

NJReds
08-09-2007, 05:23 PM
Probably Ks with RISP.

That was DunnHater/BadFundamentals/Prose14's made up stat to show Adam's worthlessness.

smith288
08-09-2007, 05:42 PM
I calculated that if 22 of Dunn's 62 walks were singles, he would be hitting .300

He would then be demanding #1's from any minor league system during the deadline most likely... Shows how much a misleading stat like AVG is.

edabbs44
08-09-2007, 05:47 PM
I calculated that if 22 of Dunn's 62 walks were singles, he would be hitting .300

He would then be demanding #1's from any minor league system during the deadline most likely... Shows how much a misleading stat like AVG is.

I calculated that if 10 of Dunn's walks with RISP were singles, the Reds would probably have scored more runs this season.

Heath
08-09-2007, 05:48 PM
If it gets out of hand, I'll throw in a comment about religion or politics. That should get it shut down pretty quick.:evil:

Are you saying Jesus Christ can't hit a curve ball?

savafan
08-09-2007, 06:40 PM
I calculated that if 10 of Dunn's walks with RISP were singles, the Reds would probably have scored more runs this season.

I calculated that we shouldn't complain if Dunn walks with RISP, it's batter than a K, and if pitchers won't throw to him with RISP, I'd prefer he walks.

Chip R
08-09-2007, 07:35 PM
If Dunn would take 2 years, 15 million in addition to us picking up his option next year, I would be stoked to sign him to that deal. Problem is, I don't think he would take that kind of deal when he could make that kind of money, for more years going somewhere else. And as our moronic owner said, if momma aint happy, aint nobody happy. Well as we know, Dunns momma aint too happy in Cincinnati.


But will he get that kind of a deal elsewhere? If the scouting reports are to be believed, I can hardly see them recommending their team pay $15M plus for a guy who "can't hit in the clutch."

deltachi8
08-09-2007, 08:04 PM
If this is the case and Dunn's demand is much lower than it should be, then get him inked to a below market long-term deal.

B-I-N-G-O

flyer85
08-09-2007, 08:06 PM
Seems likely the FO has no idea what to do about Dunn.

paintmered
08-09-2007, 08:10 PM
What's sad is that I don't think the writer is to blame. It's quite possible that what he's saying is completely accurate. Dunn's value in the trade market was lowered by the perception that he isn't clutch. Whether or not he is or isn't clutch and how much that should affect his value is another conversation entirely.

It's to our benefit that the market undervalues Dunn. I'd prefer to keep all of our undervalued players. There's way too many overvalued players out there, that's for sure. Let the other clubs pay for them.

REDREAD
08-09-2007, 08:10 PM
I really think a big problem is that Dunn clearly does not want to move to 1b. I think that statement will cost him millions over his career, and is one reason why Texeria was more sought after in July.

I love Dunn, don't get me wrong, but he's a defensive liablity in LF and has clearly resisted a move to 1b. An AL team probably would be less hot for him, because they'd fear that he'd complain if moved to DH.

I realize that there's some lead gloves in LF on other teams. I also agree that Dunn is undervalued. However, I think if Dunn had happily moved to 1b when asked, his market value would be much greater.

REDREAD
08-09-2007, 08:12 PM
I imagine there is a vast difference in Dunn's market value in dollars vs. Dunn's market value in talent. I could see teams being much more willing to toss a big-dollar contract a Dunn than they would be to give the Reds any top prospects for him.
.


And I agree with this as well. Other teams are probably wondering why they should pay a kings ransom for a 1/2 season of Dunn when the Reds might end up declining his option.

I'm betting Washington would much rather wait things out and try to sign Dunn as a FA either after this season or next.

REDREAD
08-09-2007, 08:14 PM
But will he get that kind of a deal elsewhere? If the scouting reports are to be believed, I can hardly see them recommending their team pay $15M plus for a guy who "can't hit in the clutch."

I see no reason why Dunn wouldn't be offered a deal similiar to what Carlos Lee got from the Astros. Maybe even more money than that, especially if he's willing to move to 1b/DH occasionally.

flyer85
08-09-2007, 08:15 PM
And I agree with this as well. Other teams are probably wondering why they should pay a kings ransom for a 1/2 season of Dunn when the Reds might end up declining his option.in season it is often difficult to find the right match to get a good return. A lot more teams are likely interested in the off-season because they have the flexibility of doing a lot of things in building their team. Of course, Dunn won't be traded in the off-season.

flyer85
08-09-2007, 08:17 PM
I see no reason why Dunn wouldn't be offered a deal similiar to what Carlos Lee got from the Astros. Maybe even more money than that, especially if he's willing to move to 1b/DH occasionally.Dunn would really be a perfect fit for the Rangers, and they are not shy about spending money as they threw a lot of it(even though the Stros offered more) at Lee after last year. I think there is no doubt Adam would like to go back to Texas.

savafan
08-09-2007, 08:17 PM
I really think a big problem is that Dunn clearly does not want to move to 1b. I think that statement will cost him millions over his career, and is one reason why Texeria was more sought after in July.

I love Dunn, don't get me wrong, but he's a defensive liablity in LF and has clearly resisted a move to 1b. An AL team probably would be less hot for him, because they'd fear that he'd complain if moved to DH.

I realize that there's some lead gloves in LF on other teams. I also agree that Dunn is undervalued. However, I think if Dunn had happily moved to 1b when asked, his market value would be much greater.


I agree, but I feel that eventually there will come a time where some team's manager will tell Dunn that he is playing first base, and it's not his choice. He'll either have to accept it or go take up professional fishing.

The Cincinnati Reds Baseball Club has to stop letting the players tell the management where they are going to play. That's gone on for far too long.

flyer85
08-09-2007, 08:18 PM
I agree, but I feel that eventually there will come a time where some team's manager will tell Dunn that he is playing first base, and it's not his choice. He'll either have to accept it or go take up professional fishing.

The Cincinnati Reds Baseball Club has to stop letting the players tell the management where they are going to play. That's gone on for far too long.a bad 1B can do more damage than a bad LF.

Chip R
08-09-2007, 08:19 PM
I really think a big problem is that Dunn clearly does not want to move to 1b. I think that statement will cost him millions over his career, and is one reason why Texeria was more sought after in July.

I love Dunn, don't get me wrong, but he's a defensive liablity in LF and has clearly resisted a move to 1b. An AL team probably would be less hot for him, because they'd fear that he'd complain if moved to DH.

I realize that there's some lead gloves in LF on other teams. I also agree that Dunn is undervalued. However, I think if Dunn had happily moved to 1b when asked, his market value would be much greater.


That's possible. But no one is going to sign Adam Dunn because of his defense whether he plays LF or 1B. If Dunn struck out less and was better "in the cluch" and had a higher batting average while retaining his power, no one would care if he was playing with a pizza pan in the field. His worth is based on what he does at the plate. Would it be easier for some teams if he wanted to play 1B and was OK with DH? Absolutely. But if they think he fits their needs offensively, they aren't going to care where and how he plays.

Personally, I think he would play 1st or DH if it was presented to him the right way. After all, no one thought Jr. would even consider playing RF until he did it in the 1st exhibiion game he played in this year. I'll bet Dunn would be an easier nut to crack than Jr.

savafan
08-09-2007, 08:53 PM
a bad 1B can do more damage than a bad LF.

I didn't think Dunn was overtly bad at first base when he played there.

flyer85
08-09-2007, 08:57 PM
I didn't think Dunn was overtly bad at first base when he played there.neither did I but the Reds really pulled the plug on the Dunn to 1B move very quickly last year.

GAC
08-09-2007, 09:27 PM
What's sad is that I don't think the writer is to blame. It's quite possible that what he's saying is completely accurate. Dunn's value in the trade market was lowered by the perception that he isn't clutch. Whether or not he is or isn't clutch and how much that should affect his value is another conversation entirely.


If this is the case and Dunn's demand is much lower than it should be, then get him inked to a below market long-term deal.

Exactly. Sounds to me like those promoting that perception, and it may be teams that are interested in Adam, are doing so in order to drive his price down and maybe get Krivsky to take less in return.

This is what GM's do. ;)

KronoRed
08-09-2007, 09:36 PM
If this is the case and Dunn's demand is much lower than it should be, then get him inked to a below market long-term deal.

Cyclone for GM

He's a consistent winner on POTD :D

Eric_Davis
08-09-2007, 11:11 PM
What a bunch of crap.

The market won't undervalue Dunn.

Dunn's market-value is what it is, and it will surely be high as he enters 5 prime years of play.

I seriously doubt if Dunn will sign a contract for less than 5 years @ a total of $75M.

edabbs44
08-09-2007, 11:14 PM
What a bunch of crap.

The market won't undervalue Dunn.

Dunn's market-value is what it is, and it will surely be high as he enters 5 prime years of play.

I seriously doubt if Dunn will sign a contract for less than 5 years @ a total of $75M.

Not for nothing, but with Bruce knocking on the door of the big club, this is where Cincy should be maximizing the opportunity.

Dunn gets dealt (I guess in June/July) for young pitching and payroll relief. The following year, the money saved on Dunn goes right to the staff along with the pitching received in the trade and Bruce is in the OF for Adam.

No brainer.

RFS62
08-09-2007, 11:22 PM
I didn't think Dunn was overtly bad at first base when he played there.



I did. There were times when he looked completely lost.

You can't just phone it in at first base. I don't know why so many people think you can.

It takes hard work to make the anticipation and footwork automatic.

I had the impression from the first time it was mentioned that he didn't want to do it, and the Reds just dropped it because he wasn't committed to pay the dues necessary.

That's just my impression, of course, and I'm sure there are plenty of people who may disagree.

But if I was making a position switch, I'd be working my rear end off in the off season to get ready.

SteelSD
08-09-2007, 11:23 PM
And I agree with this as well. Other teams are probably wondering why they should pay a kings ransom for a 1/2 season of Dunn when the Reds might end up declining his option.

While I don't disagree with your point, I think that might be more of an indictment about what the market thinks about Wayne Krivsky rather that what it thinks about Adam Dunn.

If there's a percentage of the market that honestly thinks Dunn isn't valuable due to a perception of not being "clutch", then I can guarantee that there's another segment of the market just lying in wait to grab an incredibly productive player like Dunn should Krivsky decline his option (which would be insanity).

My perception is that the market smells a GM who they think can be had so they're trying to lower the perception of the most productive offensive player on his team. The market is playing chess and now Krivsky has to demonstrate that he's not just playing checkers.

SteelSD
08-09-2007, 11:26 PM
Not for nothing, but with Bruce knocking on the door of the big club, this is where Cincy should be maximizing the opportunity.

Dunn gets dealt (I guess in June/July) for young pitching and payroll relief. The following year, the money saved on Dunn goes right to the staff along with the pitching received in the trade and Bruce is in the OF for Adam.

No brainer.

The "no brainer" is that Bruce replaces Griffey, not Dunn. For the Reds to maximize any kind of window with the current batch of prospects, that's how it has to play out.

SteelSD
08-09-2007, 11:27 PM
But if I was making a position switch, I'd be working my rear end off in the off season to get ready.

Dunn did, but was then told to get back to LF.

flyer85
08-09-2007, 11:29 PM
The "no brainer" is that Bruce replaces Griffey, not Dunn. For the Reds to maximize any kind of window with the current batch of prospects, that's how it has to play out.I am pretty sure the FO doesn't see it that way. Dunn is likely reliable production over the next few years, Jr not so much.

edabbs44
08-09-2007, 11:31 PM
The "no brainer" is that Bruce replaces Griffey, not Dunn. For the Reds to maximize any kind of window with the current batch of prospects, that's how it has to play out.

Deal Griffey and I'll be happy as a clam. But that seems impossible, as the window has opened and closed multiple times during his tenure here. He will retire a Red.

Caveat Emperor
08-09-2007, 11:38 PM
My perception is that the market smells a GM who they think can be had so they're trying to lower the perception of the most productive offensive player on his team. The market is playing chess and now Krivsky has to demonstrate that he's not just playing checkers.

There's an element of that present -- I think the market saw Krivsky get made a fool by Bowden last year (perception being 9/10 reality, seeing as neither team "won" that deal) and tried to see if they could get him to deal out of desperation (this time to shed payroll and get younger) again this year. He didn't blink, which I'm not sure is strategy or "deer in headlights," but I guess I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.

I think the bigger element that is present now is that teams just aren't willing to sell the farm to rent a player anymore. I think the Reds might find more willing trading partners if they exercised Dunn's option, got him to waive his no-trade, and then worked out a deal with a team in the offseason. There'll be more bidders for his service then, and it'll afford the opportunity for the buying team to work out a deal to extend Dunn prior to a trade (presumably the team he's being traded to would be one he'd be willing to take an extension from since he was waiving his no-trade to go there).

Dunn isn't a good mid-season mover. He's the type of player you build an offense around, and you build an offense in the offseason.

KronoRed
08-09-2007, 11:41 PM
Deal Griffey and I'll be happy as a clam. But that seems impossible, as the window has opened and closed multiple times during his tenure here. He will retire a Red.

No need to even worry about dealing JR, he's out of here after next season so a spot will be open for Bruce.

SteelSD
08-09-2007, 11:41 PM
I am pretty sure the FO doesn't see it that way. Dunn is likely reliable production over the next few years, Jr not so much.

Well, that's what you'd hope. After 100 games, anything Griffey is able to provide is a bonus. Hamilton hasn't taken an AB since July 7th and we've got to consider him a volatile commodity at this point regardless of his first 240 MLB PA. The current 1B platoon of Hatteberg and Conine has produced exactly 0.1 Runs Above Position. Brandon Phillips is basically an average offensive Second Baseman. Encarnacion should improve, but nowhere else is this team anything but volatile and unpredictible.

You'd think that the Reds would know how incredibly valuable a consistent 100+ RC player (Dunn) is. That being said, I'm not sure the current regime truly understands much of anything. They certainly don't understand Run Differential. They definitely don't understand how to project pitching at anything more than a scouting "looks good in jeans" level.

So yeah, at this point I'm entirely worried about what Krivsky might do. Call me cynical, but considering the complete lack of progress in the areas Krivsky claims to care about, I'm not at all blind to the idea that he can still entirely mess this team up.

LoganBuck
08-10-2007, 12:16 AM
Well, that's what you'd hope. After 100 games, anything Griffey is able to provide is a bonus. Hamilton hasn't taken an AB since July 7th and we've got to consider him a volatile commodity at this point regardless of his first 240 MLB PA. The current 1B platoon of Hatteberg and Conine has produced exactly 0.1 Runs Above Position. Brandon Phillips is basically an average offensive Second Baseman. Encarnacion should improve, but nowhere else is this team anything but volatile and unpredictible.

You'd think that the Reds would know how incredibly valuable a consistent 100+ RC player (Dunn) is. That being said, I'm not sure the current regime truly understands much of anything. They certainly don't understand Run Differential. They definitely don't understand how to project pitching at anything more than a scouting "looks good in jeans" level.

So yeah, at this point I'm entirely worried about what Krivsky might do. Call me cynical, but considering the complete lack of progress in the areas Krivsky claims to care about, I'm not at all blind to the idea that he can still entirely mess this team up.

While I very much share your distrust of Krivsky, I am at least encouraged that he stood firm on asking for "too much"(at least according to the know it all pundits in the local media) for Adam Dunn. If he was inclined to follow "MartyBall", he would have dealt him for the best available crappy offer.

I grow frustrated with the parade of worthless moves, that do nothing to move the overall talent pool forward. The obsession with diminished OBP, and the buffer of players at the end of the bench and bullpen, that qualify for the bottom 5% of all players in the game. I guess I just want to see a competent GM brought in.

I am more disturbed by the occasional comments that drift in from Castellini. His initial press conference offered hope, his recent statements offer despair. Lindner, Allen, Obrien and Bowden did things on the cheap on purpose trying to balance account statements.

Castellini and Krivsky, appear to be much worse in the fact that they are supposedly trying, and making such obvious mistakes. I consider some of their sins to be much more grievous than those of previous administrations, because I believe the other guys knew better, but were more interested in breaking even financially. I don't know if Krivsky understands why this team has issues and what to do to fix it.

flyer85
08-10-2007, 12:19 AM
I grow frustrated with the parade of worthless moves, Krivsky's primary goal for August should be to find a taker for Stanton. My guess is that Stanton is not available.

LoganBuck
08-10-2007, 12:32 AM
Krivsky's primary goal for August should be to find a taker for Stanton. My guess is that Stanton is not available.

We don't have a emoticon that truly expresses despair and depression do we? This is as close as it gets. :explode:

Eric_Davis
08-10-2007, 01:26 AM
While I don't disagree with your point, I think that might be more of an indictment about what the market thinks about Wayne Krivsky rather that what it thinks about Adam Dunn.

If there's a percentage of the market that honestly thinks Dunn isn't valuable due to a perception of not being "clutch", then I can guarantee that there's another segment of the market just lying in wait to grab an incredibly productive player like Dunn should Krivsky decline his option (which would be insanity).

My perception is that the market smells a GM who they think can be had so they're trying to lower the perception of the most productive offensive player on his team. The market is playing chess and now Krivsky has to demonstrate that he's not just playing checkers.

Hogwash!

Yeah, right!

They're just waiting in a long-line to take advantage of the guy who obtained Bronson Arroyo, Brandon Phillips and Josh Hamilton, each of them for peanuts.

Eric_Davis
08-10-2007, 01:29 AM
The "no brainer" is that Bruce replaces Griffey, not Dunn. For the Reds to maximize any kind of window with the current batch of prospects, that's how it has to play out.

Why would you have Bruce replace Dunn? Griffey is a better player than Dunn and he puts people in the stands. People don't say to themselves, "Dunn is playing today. I think I'll go to the ballpark." But, they do about Junior.

Keeping Dunn is financial suicide, and Allen will surely not retain Dunn beyond 2008.

Eric_Davis
08-10-2007, 01:30 AM
Well, that's what you'd hope. After 100 games, anything Griffey is able to provide is a bonus. Hamilton hasn't taken an AB since July 7th and we've got to consider him a volatile commodity at this point regardless of his first 240 MLB PA. The current 1B platoon of Hatteberg and Conine has produced exactly 0.1 Runs Above Position. Brandon Phillips is basically an average offensive Second Baseman. Encarnacion should improve, but nowhere else is this team anything but volatile and unpredictible.

You'd think that the Reds would know how incredibly valuable a consistent 100+ RC player (Dunn) is. That being said, I'm not sure the current regime truly understands much of anything. They certainly don't understand Run Differential. They definitely don't understand how to project pitching at anything more than a scouting "looks good in jeans" level.

So yeah, at this point I'm entirely worried about what Krivsky might do. Call me cynical, but considering the complete lack of progress in the areas Krivsky claims to care about, I'm not at all blind to the idea that he can still entirely mess this team up.

I'm just glad you're not the G.M.

Ron Madden
08-10-2007, 02:10 AM
I'm just glad you're not the G.M.

Well.. I and I'm sure many others are glad that you're not the G.M. :D

I wish I had your faith in WK, I just don't trust him with the future of this franchise.

KronoRed
08-10-2007, 02:23 AM
I don't think any more then a hand full of fans come to the park just to see JR anymore, sad but true, people will come see a winning team, before JR got here the Reds were back of the pack in the NL in attendance, since JR got here other then a small spike in 2000 and 2003 they are still back of the pack in the NL.

cincrazy
08-10-2007, 03:00 AM
I don't trust WK at this point, but I surely don't think that Brandon Phillips is an "average" second baseman. That man will appear in multiple All Star games and win multiple GG's in my opinion, and I don't think that's average.

Guacarock
08-10-2007, 04:32 AM
Why would you have Bruce replace Dunn? Griffey is a better player than Dunn and he puts people in the stands. People don't say to themselves, "Dunn is playing today. I think I'll go to the ballpark." But, they do about Junior.

Keeping Dunn is financial suicide, and Allen will surely not retain Dunn beyond 2008.

Griffey in his heyday was a far better and more well-rounded star than Dunn, but you've got blinders on if you think that's the case in '07.

Consider the facts: In roughly the same number of at-bats, Dunn this season has outpaced Griffey in runs scored (70 vs. 58), doubles (20 vs. 14), triples (2 vs. 0), home runs (30 vs. 26), stolen bases (8 vs. 6) and RBI (74 vs. 71). How many categories of offense does Dunn have to outperform Griffey before folks give him due respect?

Dunn has accomplished all this while often batting way down in the batting order, with no one but such titans as Ross or Gonzalez to provide him any protection. Some say Dunn's not clutch, but if that's the case, how come he is outproducing Griffey late in games, with a .758 OPS from the 7th inning on, vs. Griffey's late-game .633 OPS, based in part on a robust batting average of .198?

Yes, Dunn's defense can be clumsy, but anyone with their eyes half-open can see: Griffey is no longer the svelte Kid, but more of a statue out in rightfield. He still has impeccable tracking instincts, but not necessarily the legs to reach balls hits his direction.

For all his warts, Dunn is improving and still at an age where his prime lies ahead. Not so with Griffey, who is rounding the final lap of his career.

Heaven help this franchise if folks can't tell the difference between nostalgia and the here-and-now, or if they sip from the rancid Kool-Aid spewed from the broadcast booth by Marty Brennamen. It's not Dunn who should go, but Marty who should be forced to retire. He's really become a pathetic windbag, ill-informed, biased, always pushing his agendas and grudges with players, a chronic crank and a turn-off to fans. Muzzle that buzzard, I say.

mth123
08-10-2007, 07:32 AM
Griffey in his heyday was a far better and more well-rounded star than Dunn, but you've got blinders on if you think that's the case in '07.

Consider the facts: In roughly the same number of at-bats, Dunn this season has outpaced Griffey in runs scored (70 vs. 58), doubles (20 vs. 14), triples (2 vs. 0), home runs (30 vs. 26), stolen bases (8 vs. 6) and RBI (74 vs. 71). How many categories of offense does Dunn have to outperform Griffey before folks give him due respect?

Dunn has accomplished all this while often batting way down in the batting order, with no one but such titans as Ross or Gonzalez to provide him any protection. Some say Dunn's not clutch, but if that's the case, how come he is outproducing Griffey late in games, with a .758 OPS from the 7th inning on, vs. Griffey's late-game .633 OPS, based in part on a robust batting average of .198?

Yes, Dunn's defense can be clumsy, but anyone with their eyes half-open can see: Griffey is no longer the svelte Kid, but more of a statue out in rightfield. He still has impeccable tracking instincts, but not necessarily the legs to reach balls hits his direction.

For all his warts, Dunn is improving and still at an age where his prime lies ahead. Not so with Griffey, who is rounding the final lap of his career.

Heaven help this franchise if folks can't tell the difference between nostalgia and the here-and-now, or if they sip from the rancid Kool-Aid spewed from the broadcast booth by Marty Brennamen. It's not Dunn who should go, but Marty who should be forced to retire. He's really become a pathetic windbag, ill-informed, biased, always pushing his agendas and grudges with players, a chronic crank and a turn-off to fans. Muzzle that buzzard, I say.

Agree on all counts. :clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:

nate
08-10-2007, 08:17 AM
Can we trade Marty for a relief pitcher?

Ltlabner
08-10-2007, 08:24 AM
Listend to the Whitesox TV crew last night on mlb.tv.

Spent an almost an entire inning explaining that when a pitcher runs to 1B to cover it, it's hard for him to stop his forward motion when he gets to the bag.

Spellbinding.

edabbs44
08-10-2007, 08:52 AM
Well, that's what you'd hope. After 100 games, anything Griffey is able to provide is a bonus. Hamilton hasn't taken an AB since July 7th and we've got to consider him a volatile commodity at this point regardless of his first 240 MLB PA. The current 1B platoon of Hatteberg and Conine has produced exactly 0.1 Runs Above Position. Brandon Phillips is basically an average offensive Second Baseman. Encarnacion should improve, but nowhere else is this team anything but volatile and unpredictible.

You'd think that the Reds would know how incredibly valuable a consistent 100+ RC player (Dunn) is. That being said, I'm not sure the current regime truly understands much of anything. They certainly don't understand Run Differential. They definitely don't understand how to project pitching at anything more than a scouting "looks good in jeans" level.

So yeah, at this point I'm entirely worried about what Krivsky might do. Call me cynical, but considering the complete lack of progress in the areas Krivsky claims to care about, I'm not at all blind to the idea that he can still entirely mess this team up.

I think the whole statistical analysis hoopla is starting to get a little out of control.


Brandon Phillips is basically an average offensive Second Baseman.

Not sure what that means, because even in stat land he is 7th among 2nd baseman in RC this season. Average would be about 15th or so, IMO.


They certainly don't understand Run Differential.
That cracks me up. Are you saying they don't understand that scoring more runs than the opposition is a good thing?


You'd think that the Reds would know how incredibly valuable a consistent 100+ RC player (Dunn) is.
Right now (according to THT), Adam Dunn is 24th in RC in the NL, and 45th in the majors, behind such luminaries as Kelly Johnson and Placido Polanco.

WVRedsFan
08-10-2007, 09:11 AM
Griffey in his heyday was a far better and more well-rounded star than Dunn, but you've got blinders on if you think that's the case in '07.

Consider the facts: In roughly the same number of at-bats, Dunn this season has outpaced Griffey in runs scored (70 vs. 58), doubles (20 vs. 14), triples (2 vs. 0), home runs (30 vs. 26), stolen bases (8 vs. 6) and RBI (74 vs. 71). How many categories of offense does Dunn have to outperform Griffey before folks give him due respect?

I don't think you intended to belittle Junior in your post, but many will take it that way. Their statistics are very similar considering that Dunn plays every day and Griffey does not, but that doesn't diminish what Dunn has accomplished despite being placed in the wrong position on the lineup (most of the time in the 5 hole with no protection behind him) and constantly being told by the media that he strikes out too much--it must drive him crazy (and not his mama as he stated).

Someday, AD will be appreciated, but it won't be in Cincinnati. He makes too much money. I watched as folks slowly turned on Barry Larkin when they thought he was getting rich. It confused me then and confuses me now. Why should I care how much money a player makes? My only concern is performance. The salary paid him is the owner's problem and concern.

Ltlabner
08-10-2007, 09:19 AM
Brandon Phillips is basically an average offensive Second Baseman.

I agree with the rest of your post, but not this statement. When compared to other NL secondbasemen he's consistnatly near the top of the list.


Brandon Phillips


NL 2b with at least 200PA ranked by VORP. 21 players total.

# YEAR NAME PA EqA SLG VORP RAP RBI
6. 2007 Brandon Phillips 495 .264 .465 18.3 1.7 66


NL 2b with at least 200PA ranked by RAP. 21 players total.


# YEAR NAME PA EqA SLG VORP RAP RBI
7. 2007 Brandon Phillips 495 .264 .465 18.3 1.7 66


NL 2b with at least 200PA ranked by SLG. 21 players total.


# YEAR NAME PA EqA SLG VORP RAP RBI
5. 2007 Brandon Phillips 495 .264 .465 18.3 1.7 66

NL 2b with at least 200PA ranked by RBI. 21 players total.

# YEAR NAME PA EqA SLG VORP RAP RBI
3. 2007 Brandon Phillips 495 .264 .465 18.3 1.7 66

flyer85
08-10-2007, 09:55 AM
Right now (according to THT), Adam Dunn is 24th in RC in the NL, and 45th in the majors, behind such luminaries as Kelly Johnson and Placido Polanco.... and the rest of the Reds are lower than that. :eek:

SteelSD
08-10-2007, 10:22 AM
I agree with the rest of your post, but not this statement. When compared to other NL secondbasemen he's consistnatly near the top of the list.


Brandon Phillips


NL 2b with at least 200PA ranked by VORP. 21 players total.

# YEAR NAME PA EqA SLG VORP RAP RBI
6. 2007 Brandon Phillips 495 .264 .465 18.3 1.7 66


NL 2b with at least 200PA ranked by RAP. 21 players total.


# YEAR NAME PA EqA SLG VORP RAP RBI
7. 2007 Brandon Phillips 495 .264 .465 18.3 1.7 66


NL 2b with at least 200PA ranked by SLG. 21 players total.


# YEAR NAME PA EqA SLG VORP RAP RBI
5. 2007 Brandon Phillips 495 .264 .465 18.3 1.7 66

NL 2b with at least 200PA ranked by RBI. 21 players total.

# YEAR NAME PA EqA SLG VORP RAP RBI
3. 2007 Brandon Phillips 495 .264 .465 18.3 1.7 66

MLB average 2B EQA is .261. As your post notes, Phillips is currently worth 1.7 Runs Above Position. That means he's been worth 1.7 Runs above what an average offensive 2B would have produced given the same number of Outs.

SteelSD
08-10-2007, 10:53 AM
I think the whole statistical analysis hoopla is starting to get a little out of control.

:dunno:


Not sure what that means, because even in stat land he is 7th among 2nd baseman in RC this season. Average would be about 15th or so, IMO.

Ah, "stat land". If that's a real place shouldn't it be capitalized?


That cracks me up. Are you saying they don't understand that scoring more runs than the opposition is a good thing?

That comment cracks you up, yet you're watching a team whose GM has demonstrably hurt his team's Run Differential over the past two seasons in an effort to build a winning team. If a GM actually understands Run Diff and how to positively affect it, it's nearly impossible for that GM to produce the kind of negative impact shown by Krivsky. In fact, a GM who understands how to impact Run Diff would almost need to be trying to hurt his club to do what Krivsky's done.


Right now (according to THT), Adam Dunn is 24th in RC in the NL, and 45th in the majors, behind such luminaries as Kelly Johnson and Placido Polanco.

From 2004 to current, only five NL players project to finish 2007 with a streak of four consecutive 100+ RC seasons. Their names are Albert Pujols, Adam Dunn, Jimmy Rollins, Miguel Cabrera, and Todd Helton. When Dunn finishes the season with 100+ RC, he'll be the first Red since Joe Morgan to accomplish that feat and the first Red since Frank Robinson to do it prior to his 30th birthday.

Hopefully, that puts a random Kelly Johnson or Placido Polanco entry into the RC leaderboard into perspective.

BRM
08-10-2007, 11:07 AM
Is housing reasonable in Stat Land? Sounds like a nice place.

Chip R
08-10-2007, 11:11 AM
Is housing reasonable in Stat Land? Sounds like a nice place.


It is because most people prefer to live across the border in the Land of Chocolate.

http://www.hom.com.ru/video/land_of_chocolate.gif

edabbs44
08-10-2007, 11:12 AM
:dunno:



Ah, "stat land". If that's a real place shouldn't it be capitalized?
My bad...Stat Land.



That comment cracks you up, yet you're watching a team whose GM has demonstrably hurt his team's Run Differential over the past two seasons in an effort to build a winning team. If a GM actually understands Run Diff and how to positively affect it, it's nearly impossible for that GM to produce the kind of negative impact shown by Krivsky. In fact, a GM who understands how to impact Run Diff would almost need to be trying to hurt his club to do what Krivsky's done.
You don't have to sell me on why Krivsky is a stiff of a GM...I've been leading the charge for over a year now. But I think he understands that scoring more than the other team is required to win. I just don't think he makes good decisions on how that will be best accomplished.


From 2004 to current, only five NL players project to finish 2007 with a streak of four consecutive 100+ RC seasons. Their names are Albert Pujols, Adam Dunn, Jimmy Rollins, Miguel Cabrera, and Todd Helton. When Dunn finishes the season with 100+ RC, he'll be the first Red since Joe Morgan to accomplish that feat and the first Red since Frank Robinson to do it prior to his 30th birthday.

Hopefully, that puts a random Kelly Johnson or Placido Polanco entry into the RC leaderboard into perspective.

That's a loaded statement, since:

1) RC is a cumulative stat, which penalizes injuries. Berkman would be on that list if he wasn't such a church league flag football star. Potentially Derrek Lee and others as well.

2) You forgot Carlos Lee.

3) When you look at RC leaders for this season, you can see the young influx of talent that has come along over the past few years. While Dunn might be part of that elite 5 since 2004, he's not anywhere near top 5 in production in those seasons.

4) Dunn had 98 RCs in 2006, according to THT.

BRM
08-10-2007, 11:15 AM
It is because most people prefer to live across the border in the Land of Chocolate.

http://www.hom.com.ru/video/land_of_chocolate.gif

Stat Land is bordered by the Land of Chocolate? Man, this place just keeps getting better. If the Land of Lagers and Ales is on the other border, I'm there!

Guacarock
08-10-2007, 11:34 AM
I don't think you intended to belittle Junior in your post, but many will take it that way. Their statistics are very similar considering that Dunn plays every day and Griffey does not, but that doesn't diminish what Dunn has accomplished despite being placed in the wrong position on the lineup (most of the time in the 5 hole with no protection behind him) and constantly being told by the media that he strikes out too much--it must drive him crazy (and not his mama as he stated).

Someday, AD will be appreciated, but it won't be in Cincinnati. He makes too much money. I watched as folks slowly turned on Barry Larkin when they thought he was getting rich. It confused me then and confuses me now. Why should I care how much money a player makes? My only concern is performance. The salary paid him is the owner's problem and concern.

My post wasn't at all intended as a slam against Griffey, but rather as a defense of Dunn, who has gone grossly under-appreciated in Cincy.

Yes, you are absolutely right. The town has a horrid track record as far as fans turning against the team's most productive icons and stars. This goes way back earlier than Larkin. Remember the slings and slurs against Eric Davis and Frank Robinson.

I used to think it was racism, but now, seeing the same pattern occurring in Dunn's case, I'm more inclined to attribute the lack of appreciation to plain and simple yahooism and backwater, blue-collar jealousy. You've seen these blowhards: the guys who never apply themselves, never get an education, never work too hard, never have a chance of earning more than $10 an hour, so they will naturally attack anyone and everyone who makes $10 million a year.

In Cincy, these bleacher bums have their own cheerleader: Marty. Now there's one bum who is overpaid and ought to go. Any belittling he receives is warranted.

RedsManRick
08-10-2007, 11:54 AM
I think the whole statistical analysis hoopla is starting to get a little out of control.

At the risk of picking a fight, can you elaborate on what you meant here?

The great thing about stats is that if you want to tear them down, it's easy to do. The assumptions are stated. The formulas and underlying data are publicly available. If you think a stat, or stats, are misrepresenting reality, you can point out where and how.

Absent that, a statement such as the one above reads like this: I don't feel comfortable with those sorts of stats and don't know how to interpret them. I do know that the argument(s) you make using them run counter to my opinion. Due to my lack of understanding, I cannot disagree with you on the merits of your argument, and therefore request that we stick to terms and measurements with which I am more comfortable.

The point that Dunn is one of the most consistently productive players in MLB is hard to refute by nearly any non-aesthetic measurement, especially those which measure overall performance and aren't limited to an opportunity based counting stat. Jeff Conine and Scott Hatteberg have combined to be as effective as Ryan Klesko. Brandon Phillips has been solid, but even now he's behind Ultey, Kelly Johnson, Jeff Kent, Dan Uggla, and Mark DeRosa in terms of OPS. Given that there are only 16 NL teams, I'd say 7th place is closer to average than elite in terms offensive production.

I'm completely cool with anybody disagreeing over the measurements being used if they provide a real basis for their disagreement. But "hoola" and "out of control"? What's out of control is the reliance on statistics that don't actually measure the things which we're trying to measure and qualitative assessments of quantitative measures such as "Giving Adam Dunn an extension would cripple us financially" without providing any supporting evidence.

edabbs44
08-10-2007, 12:15 PM
At the risk of picking a fight, can you elaborate on what you meant here?

The great thing about stats is that if you want to tear them down, it's easy to do. The assumptions are stated. The formulas and underlying data are publicly available. If you think a stat, or stats, are misrepresenting reality, you can point out where and how.

Absent that, a statement such as the one above reads like this: I don't feel comfortable with those sorts of stats and don't know how to interpret them. I do know that the argument(s) you make using them run counter to my opinion. Due to my lack of understanding, I cannot disagree with you on the merits of your argument, and therefore request that we stick to terms and measurements with which I am more comfortable.

The point that Dunn is one of the most consistently productive players in MLB is hard to refute by nearly any non-aesthetic measurement, especially those which measure overall performance and aren't limited to an opportunity based counting stat. Jeff Conine and Scott Hatteberg have combined to be as effective as Ryan Klesko. Brandon Phillips has been solid, but even now he's behind Ultey, Kelly Johnson, Jeff Kent, Dan Uggla, and Mark DeRosa in terms of OPS. Given that there are only 16 NL teams, I'd say 7th place is closer to average than elite in terms offensive production.

I'm completely cool with anybody disagreeing over the measurements being used. But "hoola" and "out of control"? What's out of control is the reliance on statistics that don't actually measure the things which we're trying to measure and qualitative assessments of quantitative measures.

I guess I should have elaborated on that statement..my bad.

When I read things like "They certainly don't understand Run Differential", it kind of cracks me up. What does that even mean? Should GMs and managers play for a pythagorean record and not care about the game-to-game managing? Like, "Hey we destroyed them 15-2 last night, so tonight doesn't really matter too much since Pythagrous still likes where we are."

All of a sudden, everything has to be defined by a stat. RC is fine and dandy but it isn't 100% accurate. Everyone treats it like it is the be-all, end-all stat of which all players should be judged. Contrary to popular belief, all arguments don't end with RC.

Question...if a QB at the end of the year threw for 4500 yds and 30 TDs on a 4-12 team, would you believe an equation which said that the QB on that team was the most effective offensive player in the league? What about if that QB racked up much of those stats in garbage, or "non-clutch" time?

What about a shooting guard in the same scenario?

This whole thread started with how GMs have potentially downgraded the value of Dunn due to his struggles in the clutch. The popular response was "Doesn't everyone know that clutch doesn't exist?" or "Due to Dunn's perceived struggles in the clutch....", blah blah blah. Maybe there is such a thing as clutch. Maybe your BA with RISP does matter. It appears that it matters to the GMs of the world, which is a whole lot more real world than RC.

edabbs44
08-10-2007, 12:19 PM
Absent that, a statement such as the one above reads like this: I don't feel comfortable with those sorts of stats and don't know how to interpret them. I do know that the argument(s) you make using them run counter to my opinion. Due to my lack of understanding, I cannot disagree with you on the merits of your argument, and therefore request that we stick to terms and measurements with which I am more comfortable.


Not for nothing, that quote is such BS I find it hard to respond to.

It is equal to me telling someone something like "I really have no clue about how the game of baseball is played, so I hide behind stats which were probably invented by guys who couldn't hit a baseball if it was placed on a tee in front of them. Due to my lack of understanding of how baseball is played, I will just go to a wesbite which calculates stats and robotically say 'If a player has a higher RC than another player, they are automatically better.'"

But I would never say that, since it is rude and disrespectful.

Redsland
08-10-2007, 12:24 PM
When I read things like "They certainly don't understand Run Differential", it kind of cracks me up. What does that even mean?
I can't speak for anyone else, but I interpret it to mean that this FO doesn't appear to be trying to find a way to score 100 more runs per season than it allows.

Josh Hamilton, Brandon Phillips, and Bronson Arroyo, meet Rheal Cormier, Chad Moeller, and Mike Stanton, et. al.

SteelSD
08-10-2007, 12:25 PM
My bad...Stat Land.

Better.


You don't have to sell me on why Krivsky is a stiff of a GM...I've been leading the charge for over a year now. But I think he understands that scoring more than the other team is required to win. I just don't think he makes good decisions on how that will be best accomplished.

If Krivsky doesn't understand how to produce a positive Run Differential, then his potential understanding of Run Differential is moot. But let's remember that "the trade" last season was geared toward affecting only WHEN Runs were allowed.

In short, that trade demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of Run Diff because Krivsky chose to sacrifice Run Differential in order to only affect timing.


That's a loaded statement, since:

1) RC is a cumulative stat, which penalizes injuries. Berkman would be on that list if he wasn't such a church league flag football star. Potentially Derrek Lee and others as well.

RC doesn't "penalize" anything. If a player can't be on the field enough to produce a high RC total, that's a player issue.


2) You forgot Carlos Lee.

Has he been playing in the NL since 2004?


3) When you look at RC leaders for this season, you can see the young influx of talent that has come along over the past few years. While Dunn might be part of that elite 5 since 2004, he's not anywhere near top 5 in production in those seasons.

You might want to note the word "consistently" in my initial post. That matters.


4) Dunn had 98 RCs in 2006, according to THT.

That's because THT uses a formula adjusting RC for RISP hitting. You'll have to excuse me for not paying much attention to a formula involving the presence of scenarios outside the player's control (i.e. teammates on base).

SteelSD
08-10-2007, 12:31 PM
Not for nothing, that quote is such BS I find it hard to respond to.

It is equal to me telling someone something like "I really have no clue about how the game of baseball is played, so I hide behind stats which were probably invented by guys who couldn't hit a baseball if it was placed on a tee in front of them. Due to my lack of understanding of how baseball is played, I will just go to a wesbite which calculates stats and robotically say 'If a player has a higher RC than another player, they are automatically better.'"

But I would never say that, since it is rude and disrespectful.

Yet stating that one poster's comment "cracks you up" and that another's is "BS" is a very respectful and constructive method of carrying on a debate.

Steel from "Stat Land" out.

edabbs44
08-10-2007, 12:47 PM
RC doesn't "penalize" anything. If a player can't be on the field enough to produce a high RC total, that's a player issue.

Bottom line is you are trying to prove that Dunn is one of the best offensive players in the NL by using stats and criteria which show him in that light. Adam Dunn isn't as good of an offensive player as Lance Berkman, no matter what your filtered stats say. Same with Miguel Cabrera, Chase Utley and a host of other players. But why stop there? Cherry pick some more criteria to run some stats through to make Dunn the #1 offensive player in the majors.


Has he been playing in the NL since 2004?

You didn't say that ("From 2004 to current, only five NL players project to finish 2007 with a streak of four consecutive 100+ RC seasons."), but again what does that have to do with offensive performance? Just a useless filter to weed out players and to make Dunn look better.



That's because THT uses a formula adjusting RC for RISP hitting. You'll have to excuse me for not paying much attention to a formula involving the presence of scenarios outside the player's control (i.e. teammates on base).

If I'm not mistaken, this formula for RC was proved as being more accurate since the old formula didn't include such stats. You are excused, but again cherrypicking stats which make Dunn look better doesn't make it the truth.

edabbs44
08-10-2007, 12:49 PM
Yet stating that one poster's comment "cracks you up" and that another's is "BS" is a very respectful and constructive method of carrying on a debate.

Steel from "Stat Land" out.

Taking board ethics advice from you is like taking marriage advice from Ike Turner.

But thanks for letting me know.

Chip R
08-10-2007, 12:50 PM
Let's keep the personal stuff private, folks.

nate
08-10-2007, 01:02 PM
Bottom line is you are trying to prove that Dunn is one of the best offensive players in the NL by using stats and criteria which show him in that light.

Dastardly!


Adam Dunn isn't as good of an offensive player as Lance Berkman, no matter what your filtered stats say.

He is this year and at this point in their respective careers, I know which one I'd depend on to be out there day after day.


Same with Miguel Cabrera, Chase Utley and a host of other players. But why stop there? Cherry pick some more criteria to run some stats through to make Dunn the #1 offensive player in the majors.

That's not what he's saying. He's saying Dunn is consistently amongst the top performers in the NL. And he is.


You didn't say that ("From 2004 to current, only five NL players project to finish 2007 with a streak of four consecutive 100+ RC seasons."), but again what does that have to do with offensive performance? Just a useless filter to weed out players and to make Dunn look better.

To answer the one question contained in that quote, everything.


If I'm not mistaken, this formula for RC was proved as being more accurate since the old formula didn't include such stats. You are excused, but again cherrypicking stats which make Dunn look better doesn't make it the truth.

Do you even like kittens?

RedsManRick
08-10-2007, 01:06 PM
Adam Dunn isn't as good of an offensive player as Lance Berkman, no matter what your filtered stats say.

Ok, I'll keep it simple. You clearly don't like our "robotic" terms of measurement. What are yours for making this claim? I'm not even saying I disagree with you. I'm only asking you to provide some explanation of how you come to a position such as this. If you thinking anybody on this board thinks that any one stat is the final, absolute measurement, then you clearly don't understand where we're coming from.

The whole "I really have no clue about how the game of baseball is played, so I hide behind stats which were probably invented by guys who couldn't hit a baseball if it was placed on a tee in front of them." argument is a hilarious strawman.

If I was using stats to tell a guy HOW to hit a curveball, that argument would have some merit. But playing baseball, and measuring the events of baseball are two very different things. Somebody with a stats background is much more experienced in measuring and valuing things than the guy doing the things being measured. The ability to play baseball and the ability to analyze baseball are not directly related. Birds are much better than people at actually flying, but I don't think you're going to ask an eagle to build you an airplane.

edabbs44
08-10-2007, 01:07 PM
That's not what he's saying. He's saying Dunn is consistently amongst the top performers in the NL. And he is.

No, he's saying that Dunn is among the top offensive performers for players who have played in the NL from 2004 until the present.

Adding the caveat of playing in the NL from 2004 to the present really doesn't do anything except make Dunn look better in that light. If you want to use the NL filter on a single year basis, it would mean a lot more. But if Helton, Rollins, Pujols and Cabrera got traded to the Yankees this off-season (not completely out of the realm of possibility) and Vlad, Ortiz and Manny got dealt to the NL and next year the argument was "Adam Dunn is the ONLY player in the NL to have done 'x'.", what validity would that statement have?

nate
08-10-2007, 01:27 PM
No, he's saying that Dunn is among the top offensive performers for players who have played in the NL from 2004 until the present.

So?


Adding the caveat of playing in the NL from 2004 to the present really doesn't do anything except make Dunn look better in that light. If you want to use the NL filter on a single year basis, it would mean a lot more. But if Helton, Rollins, Pujols and Cabrera got traded to the Yankees this off-season (not completely out of the realm of possibility) and Vlad, Ortiz and Manny got dealt to the NL and next year the argument was "Adam Dunn is the ONLY player in the NL to have done 'x'.", what validity would that statement have?

Fade to black...

Evil alien robot wizards invade the Earth and resurrect Ted Williams, Honus Wagner, Lou Gehrig, Babe Ruth and Ty Cobb. The five become fast friends even though Williams didn't include Cobb on his all-time greatest player team. They sign with the New York Mets and lead the league in every offensive category for the next 20 years for the sole purpose of pushing Adam Dunn out of any potential "top 5" lists using "narrow" criteria on Redszone.com.

(not completely out of the realm of possibility)

SteelSD
08-10-2007, 01:28 PM
No, he's saying that Dunn is among the top offensive performers for players who have played in the NL from 2004 until the present.

Here's the initial point you decided to challenge:


You'd think that the Reds would know how incredibly valuable a consistent 100+ RC player (Dunn) is.

To that, you responded by noting a couple guys who aren't anywhere near consistent 100+ RC players. Unfortunately, that doesn't minimize Dunn's consistent performance or the value of said performance. My response to you was then to contextualize Dunn's performance versus recent NL history as well as Reds history. I shouldn't have to further clarify this, but here I am.

My motivation was to demonstrate consistent performance to you in support of my initial point and it's quite clear that Dunn is among a handful of the most consistent recent run producers in the National League. From there, you've demonstrated that either you completely misunderstood my initial point or that you're willfully attempting to pull it out of context.

dougdirt
08-10-2007, 01:30 PM
Steel from "Stat Land" out.

Steel = http://content.answers.com/main/content/img/webpics/ryan_seacrest.jpg?

edabbs44
08-10-2007, 01:31 PM
Ok, you don't like our terms of measurement. What are yours for making this claim?

I can use your terms of measurement for this one. Berkman has out RC'ed Dunn in that time frame in less games. But he only had 90 in 2005.

edabbs44
08-10-2007, 01:33 PM
Here's the initial point you decided to challenge:



To that, you responded by noting a couple guys who aren't anywhere near consistent 100+ RC players. Unfortunately, that doesn't minimize Dunn's consistent performance or the value of said performance. My response to you was then to contextualize Dunn's performance versus recent NL history as well as Reds history. I shouldn't have to further clarify this, but here I am.

My motivation was to demonstrate consistent performance to you in support of my initial point and it's quite clear that Dunn is among a handful of the most consistent recent run producers in the National League. From there, you've demonstrated that either you completely misunderstood my initial point or that you're willfully attempting to pull it out of context.

So Carlos Lee is inconsistent because he was traded from one league to another?

RedsManRick
08-10-2007, 01:50 PM
No, he's saying that Dunn is among the top offensive performers for players who have played in the NL from 2004 until the present.

Adding the caveat of playing in the NL from 2004 to the present really doesn't do anything except make Dunn look better in that light. If you want to use the NL filter on a single year basis, it would mean a lot more. But if Helton, Rollins, Pujols and Cabrera got traded to the Yankees this off-season (not completely out of the realm of possibility) and Vlad, Ortiz and Manny got dealt to the NL and next year the argument was "Adam Dunn is the ONLY player in the NL to have done 'x'.", what validity would that statement have?

How much validity, complete. How much value as measurement of performance? Not much.

I'm not quite clear on your point here edabbs. You're right, the measurements that Steel are citing aren't perfect. So are you saying Dunn isn't one of the most consistent, top end run producers in the NL? If you are disagreeing with Steel's fundamental assertion, perhaps you can provide something to back up your claims.

What measurement would you like to use to show Adam Dunn's production, or lack thereof?

edabbs44
08-10-2007, 01:54 PM
How much validity, complete. How much value as measurement of performance? Not much.

Not sure what you are saying here. My comment was that measuring consistency of performance by narrowing a field down to people who played in the NL from 2004-present didn't make much sense.

westofyou
08-10-2007, 01:55 PM
Originally Posted by edabbs44
I think the whole statistical analysis hoopla is starting to get a little out of control.
http://www.baseball-analysis.com/article.php?articleid=2740

April 05, 2004
You Could Look It Up
Backlash


by Steven Goldman



1: WHO WROTE SHAKESPEARE'S PLAYS?

In 1937, George and Ira Gershwin wrote a song for the Fred Astaire-Ginger Rogers picture Shall We Dance that was an instant classic satire of the human need to scoff at the merest hint of progress:

They all laughed at Christopher Columbus
When he said the world was round;
They all laughed when Edison recorded sound…

They all laughed at Rockefeller Center
Now they're fighting to get in;
They all laughed at Whitney and his cotton gin.

Just as Terry Cashman rewrote the lyrics of "Talkin' Baseball: Willie, Mickey, and the Duke" for just about every franchise in the game (right down to the Rangers version, "Talkin' Baseball: Buddy, Sunny, and the Scoop"--my cat's favorite version because he loves Texas and a clean litter box), there should be an edition of the Gershwin song for baseball, one of the most reactionary of institutions. As a culture, as an institution, from the inside of the commissioner's office to the lowliest beat writer, baseball fears change and always has. "Fear springs always," said Ralph Waldo Emerson, "from ignorance." Actually, fear sometimes springs from being chased by an enraged grizzly bear, but in general Emerson's point stands.

Night baseball was a travesty. "High-class baseball cannot be played under artificial lights," said ossified Senators owner Clark Griffith in the 1930s. The farm system was "raping the minors." Radio broadcasts were thought to be a threat to attendance, so the American League banned them for a while, and even after the league relented, the three New York City teams actually signed a five-year ban. Integration would not work for a million and a half reasons too disgusting to relate here--the most repulsive of them, probably also the most seductive to the pasty white magnates of the 1940s, was Yankees front man Larry MacPhail's formulation that African-American stars would equal more African-Americans in the stands which would cause fewer Caucasians to come to the games which would mean decreasing franchise values.

The list goes on: The Pacific Coast League had to evolve into a de facto major league before there was a franchise west of the Mississippi. Free agency would destroy the game. "Without a reserve system," former commissioner Bowie Kuhn wrote in his autobiography, "our vast array of minor leagues would hardly survive… It was not hard to imagine that we could even lose a major league."

Nowhere has the baseball establishment's ostrich-like qualities been more evident than in the continued reaction to the now year-old book Moneyball, Michael Lewis' look at the operations of the Oakland A's front office under the management of Billy Beane. The reception to the book has at times been downright bizarre, including the confused dismissals like those of ESPN's Joe Morgan, who repeatedly insisted that Billy Beane should not have written a book extolling his own genius despite the fact Beane was neither the book's author nor its instigator. Beane cannot be found within its pages cackling like Lex Luthor about how he's smarter than the entire Detroit Tigers organization put together and Dusty Baker too. Yet as recently as this February, a columnist with the Long Beach Press-Telegram perpetuated the myth, writing: "Oakland's Billy Beane has done a terrific job with modest funds with the A's, but he's also a shameless self-promoter who wrote a book about his imagined genius and is despised by scouts around baseball."

2: KULTURKAMPF

Many of those critics who actually read the book--or seem to have read it--have frothed as if they were members of some baseball version of HUAC circa 1950. The book has given birth to a retrograde, reactionary movement, all of it provoked by its important but less than revolutionary point: In a money-scarce environment, a business must maximize its chances. A good way to do this is to improve your intelligence-gathering operation, then start looking for opportunities the well-heeled operations might have missed.

Moneyball is not Thomas Paine's Common Sense, inciting a people to rebellion. It isn't Harriet Beecher Stowe's Uncle Tom's Cabin or Charles Darwin's Origin of Species; yet we have our own counterrevolution promoted by the establishment. Recent favorites: In mid-March, New York Times columnist Selena Roberts hacked and mocked her way through a piece on Beane and Moneyball, including this car accident of a paragraph:

At 42, Beane didn't invent sabermetrics, a sci-fi word formed from S.A.B.R., the Society of American Baseball Research [sic] (a k a The No-Life Institute). But with its philosophy filtered through his Ivy League predecessor in Oakland, Sandy Alderson, Beane applies the tenets of numeric efficiency found in the stapled baseball abstracts of the 70's fringe writer Bill James.
We'll skip the enumeration of the flaws in the above--"fringe writer" James has sold an awful lot of books, for one--and move right to the easy anti-intellectualism of that "No-Life Institute" crack. Think back to grade school. What's the first thing the dumb kids say to the smart kids to belittle them? They call them geeks, nerds, freaks. Anti-intellectualism is the last P.C. prejudice--certainly the Times would not allow one of its writers to refer to "The Urban League (aka The No-Whites Institute)"--and it's an easy way of mocking an idea without really addressing it.

ESPN.com's Rob Neyer pointed out another example just a few days ago, a St. Louis columnist who appealed to the sentimentalists among us to pity the now-endangered scouts, as if they were some tribe of pygmies being relocated to make way for a new Wal-Mart:

But this awkward adaptation to "Moneyball" is foolishly compromising these men and dissolving this time-honored culture. The new trend in baseball is to trim scouting staff while making room for the technical operatives. That is cause for alarm.
When said columnist responded to Neyer, he suggested that Neyer put away the "Beane/Bill James badge" and, rising to a crescendo of bad taste, thanked Neyer for "all the e-mail from the stats Nazis."

Finally, there is this passage from a Publisher's Weekly article from last week, in which a book editor hyped his new offering on the New York Mets with an allusion to the sabermetric/Moneyball culture:

The '86 Mets are arguably the last of the great hell-raisers. They stand as a rambunctious reminder that baseball was a lot more fun before the SABR-metrics [sic] freaks took over.
We're back on the playground.

3: ANY SUFFICIENTLY ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY IS INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM MAGIC.

"Sabermetrics" applies to a wide area of study, a good deal of which has nothing to do with Billy Beane and Moneyball. Some of the hostility the book has received is due to misreading; if not read closely it can easily be misconstrued as a Beane hagiography. The source for the anti-intellectual sentiment cited above is harder to pin down, but is ultimately traceable to a knee-jerk reaction by the mainstream baseball press to being deprived of their "expertise" by the smartypants sabermetricians. Despite years of following the game, they were being told, in effect, that they didn't know enough, or that what they knew--about RBI, stolen bases, about the very qualities that made good ballplayers--was just plain wrong.

Feeling threatened, they struck back. Tragically, the counterrevolution is based on a misunderstanding. The A's' focus on on-base percentage is entirely compatible with old-school subjective observation. Each method of inquiry informs the other, providing team decision-makers with a more complete picture of a player. Statistics are an objective record of a ballplayer's performances. Interpreted adroitly, statistics can provide an informative, sight-unseen picture of a player; a young pitcher's strikeout rate, for instance, is a powerful indicator of his future prospects. There is a great deal, though, that numbers cannot tell you, which is where subjective, first-hand observation comes in.

Numbers may tell you that a pitcher had a 1.50 ERA last year, but they don't tell you that he throws across his body, his neck may snap with every pitch, he's aroused by underage livestock, his personal habits are so bad that like the colonial terrorist Nathaniel Bacon he may be devoured from within by his own body lice, and whenever a runner reaches third his he loses control of his curve and his bladder. You need an experienced scout to tell you that, and you always will.

Moneyball gives the 2002 amateur draft as an example of these two forms of analysis in conflict, but in reality their complementary relationship goes back to the beginning of time. Due to an ill-timed injury in 1934, some scouts advised their teams to take a pass on Joe DiMaggio. Here were the two competing inputs teams faced when the Clipper was a 20-year-old with the San Francisco Seals:

Performance analysis: "He's hitting .350 with a ton of doubles and homers."
Scouting: "Forget it. He's got a bad knee."

That's where the discussion ended for a lot of teams, but the Yankees continued the conversation.

Performance analysis: "Yeah, but even with the bad knee he's hitting like crazy. There must be more to this story. Go get a second opinion."
Scouting [after heading out to the coast for another look]: "Forget the bleeping knee and sign this guy in a hurry."

Statistics are a tool, not unlike a microscope. Statistics are a hammer, a speculum, a thermometer. A statistics-based approach to understanding of baseball is one of many paths to knowledge of the game. Calling those who take that path "freaks" or "Nazis" makes as much sense as calling a Ph.D. chemist a wimp because he tests the qualities of his cyanide compound by means of Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy rather than just drinking the thing.

4: LIES, DAMNED LIES, WITHOUT STATISTICS

Unfortunately, the reaction has put many baseball writers in the untenable position of denying facts that are probably true. The vastly overstated Beane/Moneyball/sabermetric bias against scouting is a red herring, as is the macho derision of sabermetricians. The truth is, while statistics provide the evidence for most of the new theories of the game, most of the ideas advocated by the so-called statheads can be explained by plain old common sense. Over in the Pinstriped Bible about a year and a half ago, I attempted to summarize what I had learned in 20 years of following baseball in the form of 19 "commandments." Let's revisit a few of those now and see if we can justify them in the most simplistic way possible, without resorting to "freaky" sabermetric weirdness--that is, no "advanced" stats, no math, which I can't do anyway:

It's how often a player reaches base that's important, not batting average, not RBI.
Baseball doesn't have a clock in the sense that football or basketball does, but it has outs, 27 of them, and each one an offense spends brings the game closer to extinction. The players who reach base most often are the ones most likely to put off the inevitable death of the offensive effort. The more your players get on base, the more your players get a chance to hit, meaning you score more runs.

Remember league and position averages: numbers have meaning only in context.
Hypothetical season: the Anaheim Angels' first baseman hit .275 and slugged .440. That seems pretty good, until you realize that the American League as a whole hit .277 and slugged .445, and that American League first basemen in particular hit .295 and slugged. 500. The Yankees often endured this problem with Tino Martinez. Baseball is, among other things, a game of matchups, of 'my first baseman is better than your first baseman.' It's not enough that your first baseman answers to an amorphous definition of "good"; where he ranks in the class is most important.

RBI are opportunistic; RBI are a team stat and are not indicative of a player's ability.
In 1985 Don Mattingly had a great year. The Yankees often batted Rickey Henderson first and Mattingly second. Henderson was having an even better year than Mattingly, reaching base 42% of the time and putting himself in scoring position constantly thanks to his 28 doubles, five triples, and 80 stolen bases--the last of which cost the Yankees only 10 caught stealing. At his peak, Henderson was the rare player where the rewards of stealing handily outweighed the risks. Hitting .324/.371/.567 behind this on-base dynamo, Mattingly drove in 145 runs and won the MVP award.

The next year, Mattingly was even better, improving his numbers to .352/.394/.573. Oddly, he drove in 32 fewer runs. The problem was Henderson, who saw his OBP drop to .358 in 1986, meaning he was on base less often. Better Mattingly + Worse Henderson = fewer RBI opportunities for Mattingly. If RBI were an expression of a player's ability, we should hold the shortfall against Mattingly despite his being better than the year before. That doesn't make much sense.

Stolen bases don't matter all that much.
Wade Boggs was a terrific leadoff hitter stealing two bases a year. Vince Coleman, a contemporary, was nearly useless stealing 100 a year. Rickey Henderson and Tim Raines would have been among the best players in baseball had they never stolen a base in their careers. Boggs, Henderson, and Raines all "manufactured" runs, to use a term favored by the conservatives, by finding ways to get to first base. Coleman couldn't get to first base at the Annual Cotillion for Semi-Inebriated Cheerleaders Who Are Really, Really Turned On By Ballplayers. Speed is value-added in a player, but not in and of itself a reason to put someone in the lineup (see Endy Chavez).

Then there's the home-run era that we've been living in more or less continuously since 1920. Say your team has a runner on first base in a game at Coors Field. Most often, there is really very little to be gained by having your runner attempt to move up one base, at the possible cost of a caught stealing, when the next hitter has every chance to hit the next pitch out of the ballpark.

If you're playing at Pac Bell, where everyone except Barry Bonds has trouble hitting for power, then the stolen base becomes more valuable--but that's what pinch-runners are for.

The main function of the batting order is to distribute plate appearances.
Over the course of a season, the leadoff hitter is going to bat more often than the number-two hitter, the number-two hitter is going to bat more often than the number-three hitter, and so on, and the leadoff hitter is going to bat a lot more often than the number-nine hitter. If you make Neifi Perez your everyday leadoff hitter, he is going to play more than any other player on your roster, including Barry Bonds. We leave the question as to whether that's a good idea or not up to you.

A strikeout is just another out.
Each batter is presented with fewer opportunities to advance a runner from second to third with a grounder than you might think. Each hitter gets fewer chances to hit a sac fly than it appears. There are, however, quite a lot of opportunities to hit into a double play. These things tend to come out in the wash. In any case, strikeouts correlate with power. That's your trade-off for home runs. Mickey Mantle used to regret the number of times he struck out, but he also said that if he hit like Pete Rose he would wear a dress. That's a pretty good summary of the trade-off inherent in cutting strikeouts.

Placing good bats on the right side of the defensive spectrum is one of the keys to winning.
It's that 'my shortstop is better than your shortstop' thing again. It's harder to find a good hitter that can play up the middle than it is, say, a right fielder. Take two teams at random, both run competently. Both are going to have right fielders and first basemen that are roughly comparable, but only one is going to have Derek Jeter at short. At the tail end of their championship run, the Yankees were getting relatively poor production from all four corners. They so outdistanced the competition at catcher, short, center field, and (sometimes) second base that they won anyway.

The 27 outs of a ballgame are precious. Managers should not give them away lightly.
Again, each ballgame has a life of exactly 27 outs. Bunting away outs is a bit like smoking cigarettes--you're hastening the end. The sacrifice bunt is a tactical tool. You deploy it when it's obvious that it will win you a ballgame. Some managers make a fetish of it, failing to recognize that even their worst hitter--Einar Diaz, say--has a 30% chance of reaching base, thus prolonging an inning long enough for a real hitter to come to the plate. When the bunt sign is on, that chance drops from 30 to zero.

A player's offensive and defensive contributions must be in balance.
Over the course of the season, your great defensive shortstop saves 10 more runs that the average shortstop would have missed but creates 15 fewer runs with the bat than that same average shortstop does. You're down five runs.

The odds are on the closer's side.
In most cases, the difference between the best and worst closers in terms of save percentage is quite small. That's because with only three outs to get, a closer has a tremendous advantage. Tony Gwynn comes to bat against Dickie Noles. Against the league, Tony is hitting .350. Against Dickie, he's a .450 hitter, which is to say that Dickie still gets him out 55% of the time.

5: DON'T SMOKE A HUNGRY TIGER AND OTHER OBVIOUS SURVIVAL TIPS

There's nothing complicated in the passages above. It's simple, common-sense stuff like, "don't have a picnic in a war zone" or "the polar bear at the zoo is not gesturing for you to climb into his cage." This is the great secret of Moneyball and of sabermetrics: Keep your eyes open and see the obvious. When gathering intelligence, shelve your biases, forget your inherited wisdom, and listen without prejudice.

If you can do it with a flashlight, great. If you can do it with the Hubbell space telescope, swell. If you do it with statistics you're going to be mocked, but the ideas are still valid. The cosmic joke of the backlash is that no one has yet attacked sabermetrics on its merits. Those of us who work with performance analysis tools know that we rule the stats, the stats don't rule us. The same cannot be said for our critics.

RedsManRick
08-10-2007, 02:37 PM
Not sure what you are saying here. My comment was that measuring consistency of performance by narrowing a field down to people who played in the NL from 2004-present didn't make much sense.

I was agreeing with you. When you put in the caveat of "Of players who played full time in the NL from 2004 through current..." the field is narrowed the value of the analysis being performed is lessened.

However, pointing out the weakness of a given metric does not mean the conclusion reached is necessarily false -- it just asks for a better metric that doesn't have those limitations. It seems you are content to merely be disagreeable, claiming "well, that measurement isn't perfect", rather than arguing any substantive way that Steel's claims are not true.

edabbs44
08-10-2007, 02:38 PM
I was agreeing with you. When you put in the caveat of "Of players who played full time in the NL from 2004 through current..." the field is narrowed the value of the analysis being performed is lessened. However, pointing out the weakness of a given metric does not mean the conclusion reached is necessarily false -- it just asks for a better metric that doesn't have those limitations.

Agreed 100%.

RedsManRick
08-10-2007, 02:43 PM
Agreed 100%.

Well, I would argue that if you look at RC alone, admittedly not the be-all, end-all stat, and you find other players who have put up similar RC numbers -- be it by whatever slices you like, RC/AB, a minimum threshold by year, etc. Dunn does pretty well for himself. Nitpicking over the slices used ignores the fundamental point and fails to alter the conclusion being made.

fearofpopvol1
08-10-2007, 02:50 PM
I think the bottom line for me (re: Dunn long-term or beyond his option) is would I rather pay Dunn 15 million a year or a starting pitcher 15 million a year. You'd have to think for 15 million a year (even with the inflated market) that you're still going to land a pretty good arm. I'd take the pitcher any day of the week. It will no doubt be a blow to the offense, but if you look at our starting pitching, we desperately need another good pitcher. I will take a dip in offense as a result. That's just me though.

Chip R
08-10-2007, 03:03 PM
I think the bottom line for me (re: Dunn long-term or beyond his option) is would I rather pay Dunn 15 million a year or a starting pitcher 15 million a year. You'd have to think for 15 million a year (even with the inflated market) that you're still going to land a pretty good arm. I'd take the pitcher any day of the week. It will no doubt be a blow to the offense, but if you look at our starting pitching, we desperately need another good pitcher. I will take a dip in offense as a result. That's just me though.


I think a lot of people would be on board with that proposition. Problem is $15M pitchers don't grow on trees. Sure, you could bring Eric Milton back and pay him $15M but then you're worse off than you were before.

Everybody is looking for pitching - especially starting pitching. Just throwing $13M or $15M out there isn't going to necessarily get the Reds a great starting pitcher. Do you think Barry Zito would have signed here if the Reds had matched or surpassed the Giants' offer? Most likely not since Barry is a west coast guy and probably preferred pitching in SF, LA, and SD - all pitcher's parks - rather than GAB, Minute Maid and Wrigley - not pitcher's parks. Carlos Zambrano is going to be the hot name on the market after the season is over. Should the Reds go after him? Probably. But it doesn't mean they are going to sign him. You think the Yankees wouldn't like Zambrano in their rotation? I'm sure the Sox would too. The Angels have developed an affinity for Latin American players so he might go there. He could stay in Chicago if they get the team sold and everything taken care of. The Mets might make a run at him too, He could stay in the NL and be on the same pitching staff as Pedro. Maybe even the Cards make a run at him. And, who knows, maybe the Reds would win that battle. But it's far from a sure thing.

You can't just say, "Let's plug Pitcher X in here and pay him what Dunn would make." if you don't know if you can sign Pitcher X. Because if you don't, you don't have Pitcher X or Dunn.

M2
08-10-2007, 03:07 PM
Nothing freaks the establishment out more than people independently making up their own minds. Lit professors went haywire early in the 20th century when writers and their works were being awarded canonical status by the masses.

The problem the baseball establishment, both the media and baseball insiders, has with statistical analysis is you don't need them to tell you what's what. It basically exposes that they aren't in possession of some secret knowledge the rest of us lack. They don't watch the game any better than you or I and now you can give their statements a thorough B.S. check if you so desire.

M2
08-10-2007, 03:08 PM
You can't just say, "Let's plug Pitcher X in here and pay him what Dunn would make." if you don't know if you can sign Pitcher X. Because if you don't, you don't have Pitcher X or Dunn.

It's the classic dog with a bone in his mouth barking at his reflection in the river.

flyer85
08-10-2007, 03:23 PM
The problem the baseball establishment, both the media and baseball insiders, has with statistical analysis is you don't need them to tell you what's what. It basically exposes that they aren't in possession of some secret knowledge the rest of us lack. at a micro level on how to do fundamental things properly, they do have a lot of "secret knowledge" about how to do things correctly when hitting, throwing and fielding. However, at a macro level, they don't when evaluating the effectiveness of individual players. We have the data and it ain't a lyin'.

fearofpopvol1
08-10-2007, 03:24 PM
I think a lot of people would be on board with that proposition. Problem is $15M pitchers don't grow on trees. Sure, you could bring Eric Milton back and pay him $15M but then you're worse off than you were before.

Everybody is looking for pitching - especially starting pitching. Just throwing $13M or $15M out there isn't going to necessarily get the Reds a great starting pitcher. Do you think Barry Zito would have signed here if the Reds had matched or surpassed the Giants' offer? Most likely not since Barry is a west coast guy and probably preferred pitching in SF, LA, and SD - all pitcher's parks - rather than GAB, Minute Maid and Wrigley - not pitcher's parks. Carlos Zambrano is going to be the hot name on the market after the season is over. Should the Reds go after him? Probably. But it doesn't mean they are going to sign him. You think the Yankees wouldn't like Zambrano in their rotation? I'm sure the Sox would too. The Angels have developed an affinity for Latin American players so he might go there. He could stay in Chicago if they get the team sold and everything taken care of. The Mets might make a run at him too, He could stay in the NL and be on the same pitching staff as Pedro. Maybe even the Cards make a run at him. And, who knows, maybe the Reds would win that battle. But it's far from a sure thing.

You can't just say, "Let's plug Pitcher X in here and pay him what Dunn would make." if you don't know if you can sign Pitcher X. Because if you don't, you don't have Pitcher X or Dunn.

I understand that, but 15 million should be able to land a good arm even with inflation (or certainly something better than what the Reds currently have). It's very clear to all of us that the current staff of players we have is not getting it done and a large part of that can be contributed that to our pitching. I'm certainly not advocating giving up Dunn for peanuts or saying we should just sign pitcher X because of the 15 million dollar pricetag.

gonelong
08-10-2007, 03:26 PM
It's the classic dog with a bone in his mouth barking at his reflection in the river.

You got that right.



A Dog, to whom the butcher had thrown a bone, was hurrying home with his prize as fast as he could go. As he crossed a narrow footbridge, he happened to look down and saw himself reflected in the quiet water as if in a mirror. But the greedy Dog thought he saw a real Dog carrying a bone much bigger than his own.

If he had stopped to think he would have known better. But instead of thinking, he dropped his bone and sprang at the Dog in the river, only to find himself swimming for dear life to reach the shore. At last he managed to scramble out, and as he stood sadly thinking about the good bone he had lost, he realized what a stupid Dog he had been.

dougdirt
08-10-2007, 03:30 PM
It's the classic dog with a bone in his mouth barking at his reflection in the river.

Well now you are only looking at it from the perspective that the Reds want Dunn on their team. Sure, he is a very nice peice of the team, but do we all honestly believe that the people making the baseball decisions truly want Adam Dunn on the team?

flyer85
08-10-2007, 03:30 PM
I understand that, but 15 million should be able to land a good arm ... like Barry Zito. :rolleyes:

The really goods are not going to see the free agent market. There is a reason the A's let Zito walk and he certainly has struggled even why pitching in one of the most pitcher friendly parks in all of baseball.

For a team like the Reds the free agent market for starting pitching is fools gold.

flyer85
08-10-2007, 03:34 PM
do we all honestly believe that the people making the baseball decisions truly want Adam Dunn on the team?Nope, then again as Steel has demonstrated, they pretty much have a tin ear when it comes to knowing how to assemble a team that projects to improve their run differential.

dougdirt
08-10-2007, 03:35 PM
... like Barry Zito. :rolleyes:

The really goods are not going to see the free agent market. There is a reason the A's let Zito walk and he certainly has struggled even why pitching in one of the most pitcher friendly parks in all of baseball.

For a team like the Reds the free agent market for starting pitching is fools gold.
Most people knew what to expect from Barry Zito coming into this season and a lot of people knew it was not going to be pretty. The A's knew exactly what they were doing and so did a lot of other people.

fearofpopvol1
08-10-2007, 03:35 PM
... like Barry Zito. :rolleyes:

The really goods are not going to see the free agent market. There is a reason the A's let Zito walk and he certainly has struggled even why pitching in one of the most pitcher friendly parks in all of baseball.

For a team like the Reds the free agent market for starting pitching is fools gold.

Or like Ted Lilly (who signed a deal that was cheaper than what it would cost for Dunn and has put up numbers almost as good as Harang's this year). Even Gil Meche (who signed a similar deal to Lilly) has pretty decent numbers this season (would be even better if he wern't on the Royals). My original statements took into account that good scouting would take place.

dougdirt
08-10-2007, 03:37 PM
Nope, then again as Steel has demonstrated, they pretty much have a tin ear when it comes to knowing how to assemble a team that projects to improve their run differential.

Without getting into the Adam Dunn and his run differential, I can certainly see both sides of the fence on the Adam Dunn signing or not signing him. I just think the Reds see 1 side.

nate
08-10-2007, 03:38 PM
I understand that, but 15 million should be able to land a good arm even with inflation (or certainly something better than what the Reds currently have). It's very clear to all of us that the current staff of players we have is not getting it done and a large part of that can be contributed that to our pitching. I'm certainly not advocating giving up Dunn for peanuts or saying we should just sign pitcher X because of the 15 million dollar pricetag.

I know what you mean in theory, but that list (http://www.mlb4u.com/freeagency.php) is pretty ugly this year.

I don't think we'll be able to land Zambrano (as much as I'd love to) so we're going to have to get a pitcher via trade rather than free agency. I think, due to contract situations, that Griffey is actually more tradable than Dunn.

RedsManRick
08-10-2007, 03:39 PM
at a micro level on how to do fundamental things properly, they do have a lot of "secret knowledge" about how to do things correctly when hitting, throwing and fielding. However, at a macro level, they don't when evaluating the effectiveness of individual players. We have the data and it ain't a lyin'.

Exactly, I would love it if Joe Morgan would tell me how lay down a bunt the right way, or the proper footwork for turning a double play. He's certainly an expert at those things. But when it comes to judging the overall productivity of a player, he's out of his depth.

It's not that the establishment doesn't have expertise. It certainly does. It's that it's expertise is limited and those limitations are increasingly clear. They are used to having carte' blanche. They aren't used to a motivated amateur being able to have more expertise on certain aspects of the game than they do. They've been working from a relatively unchallenged position that in terms of knowledge about the entire game there was a hierarchy of Players/Managers > Media > the masses and find difficulty accepting that portions of that knowledge are now accessible.

They're losing intellectual territory and they don't like it. Responding rationally only means admitting limitations that they either don't realize they have, or simply don't want to admit. Nobody wants to feel devalued. Throughout their careers they've been working on the premise that they are the experts. Now they're not only being told their wrong, but their being told their wrong in a way that they often don't quite understand. It's Newton saying that based on his new theories of physics, things are different. Not only does the conclusion scare everybody, but so do the methods. The way everybody finally accepted things such as "the world is round" is when they had such evidence that they had no choice. As more and more "new school" led organizations find success, opinion will come around. It will be slow and painful, but it will happen.

As for the Dunn isn't worth $15M argument, there's on a thread on the Sundeck which basically asks: With only ~$10M to spend in 2008 beyond our current commitments, how can we feasibly fix our pitching problems. The conclusion of course is that Dunn's money should be spent on pitching. I would ask the question, if you don't resign Dunn, how do you spend $25M to fix our pitching AND our hitting problems. Dunn is not the problem.

Getting rid of Dunn to free up salary is like opening up a new credit card to pay off an existing one. Unless the rate on the new card is significantly lower, you're just spinning your wheels. Unfortunately, not only is the rate on the new card not lower, it's variable, and quite likely to be higher. You free up money by getting rid of investments that aren't paying off, not by getting rid of the ones that do.

BRM
08-10-2007, 03:40 PM
I know what you mean in theory, but that list (http://www.mlb4u.com/freeagency.php) is pretty ugly this year.


That is an ugly list overall.

flyer85
08-10-2007, 03:44 PM
He's certainly an expert at those things. But when it comes to judging the overall productivity of a player, he's out of his depth.That's because you can sit and watch all the baseball you want and you can't tell the difference without stats between a .280 and .260 hitter (it is an extra hit every two weeks). In addition, there is a lot of randomness at work in baseball and a lot of statistics that have popular support have entirely too much noise in them, that is where statistical analysis comes into play. Sabermetricians have attempted to eliminate as much noise as possible from their statistics.

BRM
08-10-2007, 03:46 PM
That's because you can sit and watch all the baseball you want and you can't tell the difference without stats between a .280 and .260 hitter (it is an extra hit every two weeks). In addition, there is a lot of randomness at work in baseball and a lot of statistics that have popular support have entirely too much noise in them, that is where statistical analysis comes into play. Sabermetricians have attempted to eliminate as much noise as possible from their statistics.

On the other hand, you don't need to watch many games at all to see a guy like Juan Castro's worth, or lack thereof.

M2
08-10-2007, 03:47 PM
Well now you are only looking at it from the perspective that the Reds want Dunn on their team. Sure, he is a very nice peice of the team, but do we all honestly believe that the people making the baseball decisions truly want Adam Dunn on the team?

Even if the folks in charge don't want Dunn on the team I'd like to think they'd have the survival instincts to understand the necessity of getting a good return on him.

Yet obviously you can't assume a wounded and disoriented front office is thinking clearly.

dougdirt
08-10-2007, 03:50 PM
Even if the folks in charge don't want Dunn on the team I'd like to think they'd have the survival instincts to understand the necessity of getting a good return on him.

Yet obviously you can't assume a wounded and disoriented front office is thinking clearly.

I think that they may be going with the good return of draft picks. I think they have found out that they are not going to get any kind of good trade value for him, but still don't see him with a future on the Reds.

I could be reading into this completely the wrong way, but its how I see the Reds viewing of Adam Dunn.

bucksfan2
08-10-2007, 03:51 PM
The problem the baseball establishment, both the media and baseball insiders, has with statistical analysis is you don't need them to tell you what's what. It basically exposes that they aren't in possession of some secret knowledge the rest of us lack. They don't watch the game any better than you or I and now you can give their statements a thorough B.S. check if you so desire.


M2 I think that the problem with a lot of writers now days is that the access to the game has changed significantly over the past 5 years. You can look at this city an see how Trent, who is younger and more technological inclined is a better beat writer than the older reds writers. I also think that the local writers are a little adgitated by the national media members and their access to local teams. There is still the fact that some of these reporters have seen so much baseball over their careers and have a very good understand of the game but with the wealth of information out there with the click of a mouse their information is downgraded.

Ltlabner
08-10-2007, 04:06 PM
Steel from "Stat Land" out.

:laugh:

Is Stat Land anywhere near that "filet mignon on a strippers cleavage" place VP mentioned yesterday?

M2
08-10-2007, 04:12 PM
I think that they may be going with the good return of draft picks. I think they have found out that they are not going to get any kind of good trade value for him, but still don't see him with a future on the Reds.

I could be reading into this completely the wrong way, but its how I see the Reds viewing of Adam Dunn.

If I'm Dunn's agent I make it quite clear that the raise Adam would get via arbitration would be rather attractive in that it would help inflate his market for a long-term deal the following year. It's extra money today and an even bigger payday next season.

Aside from that, Dunn's market would also be larger if he didn't have draft pick compensation attached to him.

Basically I'd make it known that if the Reds were going to back out of the deal they'd already struck with Dunn that they'd better expect him to work the situation to his advantage.

In the end, I don't think the Reds will be hard to scare away when it comes to the arbitration offer. If they don't pick up Dunn's option in a season where they literally have something like $20M already coming off the books then I've got to figure that cash will be the priority and they'll be so in love with saving another $13M they won't jeopardize it for the draft picks (which would cost money anyway).

Chip R
08-10-2007, 04:40 PM
I understand that, but 15 million should be able to land a good arm even with inflation (or certainly something better than what the Reds currently have). It's very clear to all of us that the current staff of players we have is not getting it done and a large part of that can be contributed that to our pitching. I'm certainly not advocating giving up Dunn for peanuts or saying we should just sign pitcher X because of the 15 million dollar pricetag.


Should is not a guarantee. Don't get me wrong, I'm all in favor of improving the pitching and defense. Even at the expense of the offense. But if you are gutting the offense and not improving the pitching (either by signing a hack or getting outbid) then you are worse off than you were before. If you let Dunn go for draft choices, you are giving him up for peanuts. Or rather for seeds that with the right care and a little luck can turn into something great. But more than likely you're not going to wind up with anything great.

Also, if Pitcher X doesn't live up to expectations, then we're going to hear the same thing about how the Reds can't afford him.

And it's not like you have to have one or the other. If you sign everybody who is arbitration eligible next year (including Saarloos, Ellison and Santos) you are looking at a $2.5M increase in payroll give or take a half million or so. Players who are getting raises (not including Dunn) are going to increase the payroll $8.5M. So far that's $11M in raises. Getting rid of guys you don't owe beyond this year (Hatteberg, Lohse, Milton, etc.) are going to save you about $24M not counting Dunn. So if you figure up the savings minus the increases, you still have $13M lower payroll than you had last year.

Now, let's say you are going to pick up Dunn's option at $13M for 2008. You still will have your $2.5M in arbitration raises. Dunn is going to add $3M (not $13M) to the others who are getting raises. So instead of $8.5M, you have $11.5M in raises for a total of $14M in raises. Salary decreases are going to remain the same so instead of a $13M lower payroll, you have a $10M lower payroll. Get rid of Santos, Saarloos and Ellison and you have another $1M to work with. If you want that $15M pitcher, you have to increase payroll by another $4M. I think increasing payroll $4M for a market the size of Cincinnati is quite doable. Raising ticket prices another $2 on average would give you that extra $4M if you even came close to drawing 2M people. So you can have your cake and eat it too.

Cyclone792
08-10-2007, 04:49 PM
I think the bottom line for me (re: Dunn long-term or beyond his option) is would I rather pay Dunn 15 million a year or a starting pitcher 15 million a year. You'd have to think for 15 million a year (even with the inflated market) that you're still going to land a pretty good arm. I'd take the pitcher any day of the week. It will no doubt be a blow to the offense, but if you look at our starting pitching, we desperately need another good pitcher. I will take a dip in offense as a result. That's just me though.

Somebody remind me again who the last starting pitcher the Reds acquired via FA that was A) paid decent money, and B) worth a crap on the mound.

Baseball fans - Reds fans in particular - have this fallacy that if they have $15 million laying around that they can snap their fingers and automatically turn it into a solid starting pitcher. I hate to burst everyone's bubble, but it just doesn't work that way.

flyer85
08-10-2007, 05:01 PM
Somebody remind me again who the last starting pitcher the Reds acquired via FA that was A) paid decent money, and B) worth a crap on the mound.

Baseball fans - Reds fans in particular - have this fallacy that if they have $15 million laying around that they can snap their fingers and automatically turn it into a solid starting pitcher. I hate to burst everyone's bubble, but it just doesn't work that way.... and the commitment wouldn't be $15M for one year, it would likely be $75M for 5 years. That has huge risk when it is a pitcher.

fearofpopvol1
08-10-2007, 05:10 PM
Somebody remind me again who the last starting pitcher the Reds acquired via FA that was A) paid decent money, and B) worth a crap on the mound.

Baseball fans - Reds fans in particular - have this fallacy that if they have $15 million laying around that they can snap their fingers and automatically turn it into a solid starting pitcher. I hate to burst everyone's bubble, but it just doesn't work that way.

Well, it's not due to a lack of talent being out there. :rolleyes: It's due to the fact that the Reds have failed to be opportunistic when the pitchers are available. Big difference.

I stand by my earlier example of Ted Lilly's deal which is 66% of that $15 million and is putting up numbers almost as good as Harang for this year.

RedsManRick
08-10-2007, 05:10 PM
Somebody remind me again who the last starting pitcher the Reds acquired via FA that was A) paid decent money, and B) worth a crap on the mound.

Pete Harnisch in 1998. Before that? John Smiley in 93.

And yes, the Lilly argument. What about these deals from last offseason: http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/features/freeagents?positionId=15

Good: (better than market if this level of performance was expected)
Orlando Hernandez: 2/$12,000,000
Ted Lilly: 4/$40,000,000

Fair: (at market value if this level of performance was expected)
Miguel Batista: 3/$25,000,000
Randy Wolf: 1/$8,000,000
Tom Glavine: 1/$10,500,000
Jason Marquis: 3/$21,000,000
Greg Maddux: 1/$10,000,000
Gil Meche: 5/$55,000,000

Bad: (below market value if this level of performance was expected)
Vicente Padilla: 3/$33,750,000
Jeff Suppan: 4/$42,000,000
Woody Williams: 2/$12,500,000
Mike Mussina: 2/$23,000,000
Kip Wells: 1/$4,000,000
Steve Traschel: 1/$3,100,000

Ugly: (way below market value if this level of performance was expected)
Adam Eaton: 3/$24,500,000
Jason Schmidt: 3/$47,000,000
Jeff Weaver: 1/$8,325,000
Barry Zito: 7/$126,000,000
Mark Mulder: 2/$13,000,000
David Wells: 1/$3,000,000

Kyle Lohse suddenly isn't looking so bad. If you can be sure to get Ted Lilly, you're right, you might break even or even gain a little ground. But if you miss, and the numbers so you are very likely to miss, you're set back a ways. Keep the sure thing. The Reds cannot afford a $10,000,000 miss. Period. That doesn't even touch the fact that most of these guys would not have signed these same contracts with the Reds.

fearofpopvol1
08-10-2007, 05:15 PM
Should is not a guarantee. Don't get me wrong, I'm all in favor of improving the pitching and defense. Even at the expense of the offense. But if you are gutting the offense and not improving the pitching (either by signing a hack or getting outbid) then you are worse off than you were before. If you let Dunn go for draft choices, you are giving him up for peanuts. Or rather for seeds that with the right care and a little luck can turn into something great. But more than likely you're not going to wind up with anything great.

Also, if Pitcher X doesn't live up to expectations, then we're going to hear the same thing about how the Reds can't afford him.

And it's not like you have to have one or the other. If you sign everybody who is arbitration eligible next year (including Saarloos, Ellison and Santos) you are looking at a $2.5M increase in payroll give or take a half million or so. Players who are getting raises (not including Dunn) are going to increase the payroll $8.5M. So far that's $11M in raises. Getting rid of guys you don't owe beyond this year (Hatteberg, Lohse, Milton, etc.) are going to save you about $24M not counting Dunn. So if you figure up the savings minus the increases, you still have $13M lower payroll than you had last year.

Now, let's say you are going to pick up Dunn's option at $13M for 2008. You still will have your $2.5M in arbitration raises. Dunn is going to add $3M (not $13M) to the others who are getting raises. So instead of $8.5M, you have $11.5M in raises for a total of $14M in raises. Salary decreases are going to remain the same so instead of a $13M lower payroll, you have a $10M lower payroll. Get rid of Santos, Saarloos and Ellison and you have another $1M to work with. If you want that $15M pitcher, you have to increase payroll by another $4M. I think increasing payroll $4M for a market the size of Cincinnati is quite doable. Raising ticket prices another $2 on average would give you that extra $4M if you even came close to drawing 2M people. So you can have your cake and eat it too.

I still think 13 million for a position player in the Reds market is too much money. And that's just next year. I don't think there is a chance that beyond next year, Dunn settles for a ltc at 13 million a year. So if he gets 14 or 15 a year, it's just too difficult to justify. I like Dunn, but it's just too much money for 1 player in our market.

Chip R
08-10-2007, 05:17 PM
I still think 13 million for a position player in the Reds market is too much money. And that's just next year. I don't think there is a chance that beyond next year, Dunn settles for a ltc at 13 million a year. So if he gets 14 or 15 a year, it's just too difficult to justify. I like Dunn, but it's just too much money for 1 player in our market.


Would you think it's too much for A-Rod? For Pujols?

flyer85
08-10-2007, 05:17 PM
I stand by my earlier example of Ted Lilly's deal which is 66% of that $15 million and is putting up numbers almost as good as Harang for this year.Lilly has no track record of success. It that the kind of pitcher the Reds should commit $40M+ to?

fearofpopvol1
08-10-2007, 05:21 PM
Would you think it's too much for A-Rod? For Pujols?

For Cincinnati, I still think it would be tough to justify. Doesn't mean I wouldn't be in favor of it. With that said, I also wouldn't put Dunn in the same category as either of those players as both have better career numbers in most categories (most importantly, RISP, BA & Fielding %).

Cyclone792
08-10-2007, 05:22 PM
Pete Harnisch in 1998. Before that? John Smiley in 93.

Actually Harnisch was a low risk retread when the Reds signed him. He didn't even pitch 40 innings in 1997, and the Reds paid him exactly $300k to pitch for them in 1998. When he proved in 1998 that he was healthy and effective, he got a little bit of a raise to come back for a few more seasons (which other than 1999, that decision blew up in the Reds' faces).

John Smiley, signed on December 1st, 1992, would qualify. And he's the last. As of this offseason it will be 15 years since the Reds shelled out solid money via FA to a solid starting pitcher.

fearofpopvol1
08-10-2007, 05:24 PM
Lilly has no track record of success. It that the kind of pitcher the Reds should commit $40M+ to?

A career 4.44 ERA, which isn't stellar, but you have to take a risk to get a reward. Milton's career ERA is over 5 and his first season with the Reds was almost 6.5. He wasn't that far off in terms of money made and that was several years ago when pitching wasn't at the same premium.

remdog
08-10-2007, 05:28 PM
I still think 13 million for a position player in the Reds market is too much money. And that's just next year. I don't think there is a chance that beyond next year, Dunn settles for a ltc at 13 million a year. So if he gets 14 or 15 a year, it's just too difficult to justify. I like Dunn, but it's just too much money for 1 player in our market.

Ahhh,.....'our market'. I'm not disagreeing with things you've said but 'our market' is where the Reds have to decide whether they are going to be garbage pickers and beg for handouts or they're going to pony up to play with the big boys. This is where Bob Castellini comes in. With Lindner, he clearly stated that he simply wanted to 'break even' and everyone knew where the emphasis was. In Castellini's case, he's stated that he wants to 'win now'. If that's truly the case it's gonna' take some investment spending and possibly a few years of monitary loses. Is Big Bob, with all his talk, willing to open his wallet? So far we've seen a little spending but this winter is either rollout the money Mr. Castellini or I'll personally conclude that Mr Vegatable peddler isn't ready to put any steak on the table of Reds fans. (shrug)

Rem

edabbs44
08-10-2007, 05:28 PM
Somebody remind me again who the last starting pitcher the Reds acquired via FA that was A) paid decent money, and B) worth a crap on the mound.

Baseball fans - Reds fans in particular - have this fallacy that if they have $15 million laying around that they can snap their fingers and automatically turn it into a solid starting pitcher. I hate to burst everyone's bubble, but it just doesn't work that way.

Through the first 2 drafts, it doesn't seem like pitching is of the highest priority when it comes to early draft picks.

It's just scary as hell thinking about where they will be getting pitching for the next few years, if they don't draft a lot of it early and don't want to spend the money in FA.

flyer85
08-10-2007, 05:29 PM
A career 4.44 ERA, which isn't stellar, but you have to take a risk to get a reward. Milton's career ERA is over 5 and his first season with the Reds was almost 6.5. ... and it demosnstrates the insanity of the free agent starters market. You have to way overpay for the level of performance you are likley to get. The teams that come out ahead are few and far between.

The Reds throwing money into that market is a losing proposition unless they have knowledge and insight that others do not.

They are things that you can purchase at value or get a possible discount in the free agent market. Starting pitching is decidedly not one of them.

Chip R
08-10-2007, 05:29 PM
For Cincinnati, I still think it would be tough to justify. Doesn't mean I wouldn't be in favor of it. With that said, I also wouldn't put Dunn in the same category as either of those players as both have better career numbers in most categories (most importantly, RISP, BA & Fielding %).


That's fine. But you're going to have to realize that salaries aren't about to come down any time soon and eventually guys below the elite level are going to be earning $13M a year sooner than later. Ticket prices aren't going to go down either. I think $40 is too much to pay for seat behind 1st base in this market but if they are going to charge that much, I'd like to see that money going towards payroll and not standing around with their head in the sand saying, "Woe is me, we can't afford these expensive players."

fearofpopvol1
08-10-2007, 05:31 PM
Ahhh,.....'our market'. I'm not disagreeing with things you've said but 'our market' is where the Reds have to decide whether they are going to be garbage pickers and beg for handouts or they're going to pony up to play with the big boys. This is where Bob Castellini comes in. With Lindner, he clearly stated that he simply wanted to 'break even' and everyone knew where the emphasis was. In Castellini's case, he's stated that he wants to 'win now'. If that's truly the case it's gonna' take some investment spending and possibly a few years of monitary loses. Is Big Bob, with all his talk, willing to open his wallet? So far we've seen a little spending but this winter is either rollout the money Mr. Castellini or I'll personally conclude that Mr Vegatable peddler isn't ready to put any steak on the table of Reds fans. (shrug)

Rem

That's a fair point.

fearofpopvol1
08-10-2007, 05:33 PM
... and it demosnstrates the insanity of the free agent starters market. You have to way overpay for the level of performance you are likley to get. The teams that come out ahead are few and far between.

The Reds throwing money into that market is a losing proposition unless they have knowledge and insight that others do not.

They are things that you can purchase at value or get a possible discount in the free agent market. Starting pitching is decidedly not one of them.

That's where good scouting comes into play (which is something the Reds seemingly have not had a great track record of for quite sometime). I still stand by my point that you have to take a risk to get a reward.

fearofpopvol1
08-10-2007, 05:36 PM
That's fine. But you're going to have to realize that salaries aren't about to come down any time soon and eventually guys below the elite level are going to be earning $13M a year sooner than later. Ticket prices aren't going to go down either. I think $40 is too much to pay for seat behind 1st base in this market but if they are going to charge that much, I'd like to see that money going towards payroll and not standing around with their head in the sand saying, "Woe is me, we can't afford these expensive players."

That's a fair statement and I don't disagree with you. If nothing else, it just emphasizes the importance of a great farm system and great scouts. If you can homegrow talent and have a consistent cycle of it, you can keep your payroll on the lower side of things until you're ready to go for the gold and then you can justify using your financial resources a bit more.

I guess for me, Dunn is just not the player I would build around and sink a lot of financial resources into. That's my personal preference. I'm not saying there are currently better options and that some level of risk may not be involved with that line of thinking, but that's my personal preference.

flyer85
08-10-2007, 05:39 PM
That's where good scouting comes into play (which is something the Reds seemingly have not had a great track record of for quite sometime). I still stand by my point that you have to take a risk to get a reward.it is all about risk assessment.

I would say the likelihood of the Cubs getting value on the Lilly contract is small. That is maybe an acceptable risk for the Cubs, for the Reds it is likely not.

PECOTA also sees an attrition rate of over 40% for Lilly by 2009 and 2010.

With starting pitching you have a real likelihood of spending a lot of money and getting zero value or worse in the out years of a contract.

bucksfan2
08-10-2007, 05:43 PM
it is all about risk assessment.

I would say the likelihood of the Cubs getting value on the Lilly contract is small. That is maybe an acceptable risk for the Cubs, for the Reds it is likely not.

PECOTA also sees an attrition rate of over 40% for Lilly by 2009 and 2010.

With starting pitching you have a real likelihood of spending a lot of money and getting zero value or worse in the out years of a contract.

Look for what the Giants are paying Zito. That is absolutly robbery on Zito's behalf.

Chip R
08-10-2007, 05:44 PM
That's a fair statement and I don't disagree with you. If nothing else, it just emphasizes the importance of a great farm system and great scouts. If you can homegrow talent and have a consistent cycle of it, you can keep your payroll on the lower side of things until you're ready to go for the gold and then you can justify using your financial resources a bit more.

I guess for me, Dunn is just not the player I would build around and sink a lot of financial resources into. That's my personal preference. I'm not saying there are currently better options and that some level of risk may not be involved with that line of thinking, but that's my personal preference.


You are exactly right.

I'm not saying Dunn is the greatest thing since sliced bread or even on the level of a Pujols or an ARod. Are there better options than Dunn out there? Of course but they aren't under contract to the Reds. All I am saying is the Reds have him in the fold and can afford him and a big money pitcher too.

dougdirt
08-10-2007, 05:50 PM
You are exactly right.

I'm not saying Dunn is the greatest thing since sliced bread or even on the level of a Pujols or an ARod. Are there better options than Dunn out there? Of course but they aren't under contract to the Reds. All I am saying is the Reds have him in the fold and can afford him and a big money pitcher too.

But there lies the problem, they cant. By the time 2010 rolls around, if the Reds keep Dunn, they would have 40-43 Million into Arroyo, Harang and Dunn. If they get another big name pitcher like you suggest, thats another 13-15 million. You are now talking 55-60 million dollars into 4 players where a payroll is probably 75 million tops. Goodluck fielding any type of team where you are spending just 15-20 million dollars on 21 players.

Chip R
08-10-2007, 06:05 PM
But there lies the problem, they cant. By the time 2010 rolls around, if the Reds keep Dunn, they would have 40-43 Million into Arroyo, Harang and Dunn. If they get another big name pitcher like you suggest, thats another 13-15 million. You are now talking 55-60 million dollars into 4 players where a payroll is probably 75 million tops. Goodluck fielding any type of team where you are spending just 15-20 million dollars on 21 players.


And you're getting rid of Jr. after 2008. You think payroll is going down or staying the same every year? Revenues going down?

dougdirt
08-10-2007, 06:16 PM
And you're getting rid of Jr. after 2008. You think payroll is going down or staying the same every year? Revenues going down?

I don't see the Reds adding 10 million dollars in payroll by 2010. Having 55-60 million, or roughly 70-75% of your payroll in 4 players just won't work.

RedsManRick
08-10-2007, 06:18 PM
In fantasy baseball, there is a growing trend towards picking hitters early and filling out your staff late, on the cheap? Why? Reliability.

1.) Pitchers have more yearly variance in their level of performance
2.) Pitchers are more prone to catastrophic injury

Every year, a few SP come out of nowhere and win 15 games with a mid 3's ERA. The same can't be said for .900 OPS bats.

The other aspect is that position players can have an effect on both the RS and RA part of the equation. Pitchers can only have only affect the RA part. Let's do some math.

Assumptions:
- A team has 6300 PA in a year
- A team has 1,450 IP in a year
- Winning is 50% RS and 50% RA. RS is 100% offense (50% overall). RA is 70% pitching (35%), 30% defense (15%).
- A top offensive player will get about 630 PA, or 10% of his team's total.
- A top starter will get about 220 IP, or about 15% of his team's total. He will get 90 PA (1.5%)
- The P accounts for 3% of the defense. The C accounts for 6%. The other 7 players account for 13% each. Yes, I made this up. I would love real numbers.


So:

Position player's influence:
Offense (50%): 10% -- 5% overall
Defense (15%): 13% -- 2% overall
Pitching (35%): 0% -- 0% overall
Total: 7% influence on team's performance

Starting Pitcher's Influence:
Offense (50%): 1.5% -- .8% overall
Defense (15%): .5% (15% of IP * 3% influence while playing) -- .1% overall
Pitching (35%): 15% -- 5.3%
Total: 6.4%

Ok, maybe the difference isn't as much as I anticpated, but hopefully the exercise wasn't completely in vain. In any case, I think I've made the point that a SP doesn't have MORE influence than a regular position player. If you are getting an up the middle defender, their contribution to the defense is likely bigger, and lesser at the corners. But in any case, I think it's clear that their ability to influence the overall production of the team is not vastly different, so it's fair to make it a dollar to dollar comparison.

Anyways, Given that they are more likely to suffer serious injury, there is more risk in a large investment, and more value in getting that production at a low cost. It would be interesting to look at the FA signings from 3 years ago, and do the Good/Fair/Bad/Ugly analysis position by position. It would be interesting to see the value of relievers too. If a reliever goes 1/3 of the IP of a starter, are they getting 1/3 of the cash for comprable performance?

Anyways, I'm asking more questions than I'm answering, but the real point is simple. Pitchers are riskier investments than position players. If you have a very productive position player, who isn't a great injury risk, and you can control him without a long term commitment, by all means, DO IT!

RedsManRick
08-10-2007, 06:49 PM
But there lies the problem, they cant. By the time 2010 rolls around, if the Reds keep Dunn, they would have 40-43 Million into Arroyo, Harang and Dunn. If they get another big name pitcher like you suggest, thats another 13-15 million. You are now talking 55-60 million dollars into 4 players where a payroll is probably 75 million tops. Goodluck fielding any type of team where you are spending just 15-20 million dollars on 21 players.

For what's it worth:



Magglio Ordonez $ 16,200,000
Ivan Rodriguez $ 10,616,410
Kenny Rogers $ 8,000,000
Dmitri Young $ 8,000,000
Todd Jones $ 5,792,956
Carlos Guillen $ 5,000,000
Placido Polanco $ 4,600,000
Brandon Inge $ 3,000,000
Craig Monroe $ 2,800,000
Jeremy Bonderman $ 2,300,000
Mike Maroth $ 2,300,000
Matt Stairs $ 1,350,000
Jamie Walker $ 1,250,000
Justin Verlander $ 980,000
Vance Wilson $ 750,000
Chris Spurling $ 725,000
Nate Robertson $ 402,500
Omar Infante $ 385,000
Fernando Rodney $ 385,000
Ramon Santiago $ 375,000
Bobby Seay $ 375,000
Chris Shelton $ 365,000
Jason Grilli $ 350,000
Marcus Thames $ 342,000
Curtis Granderson $ 335,000
Jordan Tata $ 327,000
Joel Zumaya $ 327,000

That's $43M committed to the top 4 and $35M committed to the rest.


Albert Pujols $ 14,000,000
Scott Rolen $ 12,456,336
Jim Edmonds $ 12,074,702
Jason Isringhausen $ 8,750,000
Mark Mulder $ 7,750,000
Jason Marquis $ 5,150,000
Chris Carpenter $ 5,000,000
Jeff Suppan $ 4,000,000
Preston Wilson $ 4,000,000
Juan Encarnacion $ 3,500,000
Braden Looper $ 3,500,000
David Eckstein $ 3,333,333
Jorge Sosa $ 2,200,000
Jose Vizcaino $ 1,226,158
Ricardo Rincon $ 1,200,000
Sidney Ponson $ 1,000,000
Larry Bigbie $ 900,000
So Taguchi $ 825,000
Gary Bennett $ 800,000
Yadier Molina $ 400,000
Josh Hancock $ 355,000
Randy Flores $ 350,000
Aaron Miles $ 350,000
Hector Luna $ 340,000
Brad Thompson $ 334,000
John Rodriguez $ 332,000
Skip Schumaker $ 329,000
Adam Wainwright $ 327,000

That's $47.2M committed to the top 4 and $47.5 committed to the rest.

By 2010, it will have been 4 years, and with the inflation rate in baseball salaries of ~10% that's over 45% growth. If the Reds spent $60M in 2006, they should be spending more like $85-$90 by 2010 to keep up.

I do agree with your premise though. Given our payroll, we've already committed to 2 SP of our 4 big investments in this system. If Dunn is one of them, that doesn't leave us much room. With Junior leaving town soon, and Phillips the only offensive contributor likely to be drawing a high salary in 3 years, I make a run at Dunn and pray to God we get good player development. I certainly would NOT invest in another pitcher at the expense of losing Dunn, as we wouldn't be able to afford to sign an impact bat.

IslandRed
08-10-2007, 06:52 PM
In any case, I think I've made the point that a SP doesn't have MORE influence than a regular position player. ... Given that they are more likely to suffer serious injury, there is more risk in a large investment, and more value in getting that production at a low cost.

Snipping a couple of sentences out of a long and well-thought-out post...

Let me add to that with another angle. Just as the difference between good and bad hitters is larger than the difference between good and bad fielders, run-wise, I'd argue (off the top of my head, not having attempted to quantify it) that there's an even bigger difference between good and bad starting pitchers. Having a replacement-level bat or two in the lineup can sink a team, but having more than one gas can in the rotation is a waterline hit. I think that's why starting pitchers with a good track record tend to be overpaid relative to position players on a dollars-per-run basis -- and why an "innings eater," a term usually used as a backhanded compliment, is more valuable than we usually give credit for.

fearofpopvol1
08-10-2007, 06:56 PM
Snipping a couple of sentences out of a long and well-thought-out post...

Let me add to that with another angle. Just as the difference between good and bad hitters is larger than the difference between good and bad fielders, run-wise, I'd argue (off the top of my head, not having attempted to quantify it) that there's an even bigger difference between good and bad starting pitchers. Having a replacement-level bat or two in the lineup can sink a team, but having more than one gas can in the rotation is a waterline hit. I think that's why starting pitchers with a good track record tend to be overpaid relative to position players on a dollars-per-run basis -- and why an "innings eater," a term usually used as a backhanded compliment, is more valuable than we usually give credit for.

That's a great point and one that I wish I had been able to previously communicate the way that you did.

M2
08-10-2007, 07:01 PM
I don't see the Reds adding 10 million dollars in payroll by 2010. Having 55-60 million, or roughly 70-75% of your payroll in 4 players just won't work.

Given the current market inflation, I'd say the Reds pretty much better be up around $10M extra in payroll in three years. That's something like a 4% a year increase. Heck, $10M would probably be a case of falling behind the curve.

As for keeping Dunn, my take is the Reds need to get something well beyond draft picks for him (especially since I think it's highly possible the team won't even get draft picks for him if they don't exercise his option). I'm all for getting a different mix of talent in exchange for Dunn, but the notion of losing him for nothing, for me, means the Reds will have accomplished little other than hitting the bad pitching/defense/offense trifecta.

RedsManRick
08-10-2007, 07:17 PM
Snipping a couple of sentences out of a long and well-thought-out post...

Let me add to that with another angle. Just as the difference between good and bad hitters is larger than the difference between good and bad fielders, run-wise, I'd argue (off the top of my head, not having attempted to quantify it) that there's an even bigger difference between good and bad starting pitchers. Having a replacement-level bat or two in the lineup can sink a team, but having more than one gas can in the rotation is a waterline hit. I think that's why starting pitchers with a good track record tend to be overpaid relative to position players on a dollars-per-run basis -- and why an "innings eater," a term usually used as a backhanded compliment, is more valuable than we usually give credit for.

This is an interesting, idea. I want to agree with you, but think it's more of a perception because it's easier, psychologically to assign full blame once every 5 days than it is 1/5 of blame every day. It's why people will spend 3 bucks a day on coffee that they could easily live without but won't pay $1,000 for a yearly vacation that would greatly improve their quality of life.

If we assume the SP and regular position player have equal influence over the course of the year, the SP influence is 5x more concentrated in the games in which they participate. Thus, a significantly good or bad performance has a much greater influence over the outcome of a given game. A starter doing poorly can basically guarantee you losses, but only infrequently. The poor performance of the position player is more easily masked. When he does well and you win, woohoo. When he does poorly and you lose, there are 7 other position players and a pitcher to share the blame with. That is, it's never really his fault.

Interestingly, I bet you that if we were to randomly ask the question "who won/lost this game" for you. Pitchers would get more than their shares of the loss blame, and less than there share of the wins. Once the winning team scores at least 4 runs, the pitcher takes the blame for a loss and the hitters take the credit for a win.

The other side of this coin has to do with defense. Very rarely does a position player suck both offensively and defensively. Basically, they can hedge their value. On the other hand, a pitcher's value is virtually all in his pitching. A guy can be replacement level offensively and still contribute offensively. If a pitcher sucks, he sucks. I wonder what the WARP variation by position looks like.... I'm guessing that a higher percentage of pitchers are significantly below replacement at any given time.

SteelSD
08-10-2007, 08:11 PM
I don't see the Reds adding 10 million dollars in payroll by 2010.

The Reds upped their 2007 payroll by 8 million bucks versus 2006, but can't afford to add 10 million over the next three seasons?

edabbs44
08-10-2007, 08:17 PM
In fantasy baseball, there is a growing trend towards picking hitters early and filling out your staff late, on the cheap? Why? Reliability.

1.) Pitchers have more yearly variance in their level of performance
2.) Pitchers are more prone to catastrophic injury

Every year, a few SP come out of nowhere and win 15 games with a mid 3's ERA. The same can't be said for .900 OPS bats.

The sad thing is that "nowhere" is never Cincy.

RedsManRick
08-10-2007, 08:20 PM
The sad thing is that "nowhere" is never Cincy.

Elmer Dessens says hi. So do Steve Paris and Ron Villone. The trick is that you can't count on them or build around them. You build a 90 win team and hope a few of those guys show up to help you over the top.

dougdirt
08-10-2007, 09:04 PM
The Reds upped their 2007 payroll by 8 million bucks versus 2006, but can't afford to add 10 million over the next three seasons?

Cant afford and wont pony it up are different things. Time will tell I guess. I sure hope for it.... but I am not counting on it at all.

mth123
08-11-2007, 12:54 AM
I think the bottom line for me (re: Dunn long-term or beyond his option) is would I rather pay Dunn 15 million a year or a starting pitcher 15 million a year. You'd have to think for 15 million a year (even with the inflated market) that you're still going to land a pretty good arm. I'd take the pitcher any day of the week. It will no doubt be a blow to the offense, but if you look at our starting pitching, we desperately need another good pitcher. I will take a dip in offense as a result. That's just me though.

Why not have both? The Reds could easily make room on the payroll for the pitcher by jettisonong the likes of Freel, Stanton and Gonzalez and still keep Dunn.

The problem with these arguments IMO is that it assumes the Reds have to be a team with pitching and defense or a team that hits HRs. I think Earl Weaver won with Pitching, Defense and 3 run Homers. I don't think a team with good defenders up the middle (and one at 3B and RF would be a plus) and 3 Good starters to go with a competent bullpen precludes you from having a subpar defender who slugs .500 and gets on base at a .375 clip in the least important defensive spot on the field. I agree that pitching and defense haven't been enough of a priority around here, but you still have to score runs to win.

M2
08-11-2007, 02:46 AM
Why not have both? The Reds could easily make room on the payroll for the pitcher by jettisonong the likes of Freel, Stanton and Gonzalez and still keep Dunn.

The problem with these arguments IMO is that it assumes the Reds have to be a team with pitching and defense or a team that hits HRs. I think Earl Weaver won with Pitching, Defense and 3 run Homers.

Perfectly stated. It's a game of triangulation.

fearofpopvol1
08-11-2007, 03:13 AM
An interesting stat. The Padres are 1st in the NL in starting pitching ERA and bullpen ERA and are dead last in offense. Their record is 62-53. It just goes to show you that pitching is more of an asset than offense. Obviously, the ideal situation is to have both or the best balance possible, but the Reds are definitely more lopsided with offense than pitching which is why I'm such a huge advocate of trying to move Dunn in favor of pitching.

I'm not going to pretend to have the answers because I know all teams would love to have better pitching and the market for it continues to skyrocket in price, but the Padres stat goes to show you what great pitching can do. I think with moving Dunn and even the huge decline in power and numbers that would cause, the Reds are still not even close to last in offense.

Cyclone792
08-11-2007, 03:23 AM
An interesting stat. The Padres are 1st in the NL in starting pitching ERA and bullpen ERA and are dead last in offense. Their record is 62-53. It just goes to show you that pitching is more of an asset than offense.

By what measure are the Padres "dead last" in offense? Batting average? Even without adjusting for park, the Washington Nationals are dead last in runs per game, not the Padres.

The Padres play in what's likely the best pitcher's park in all of baseball. Their offense - while likely below average - isn't really "bad" as some suggest. In fact, their road runs per game of 4.63 is 5th in the National League and substantially higher than the Reds' road runs per game of 4.43.

The Padres are a pretty good team because they're projected to score 74 more runs than they allow over the course of the season. Any team that scores 74 more runs than it allows will be a pretty good team. It doesn't matter if the team scores 1,000 runs and gives up 926 runs, or if they score 700 runs while giving up 626 runs.

Hell, the Detroit Tigers are 63-52. They're 2nd in the American League in runs per game and 11th in the American League in runs allowed. The Tigers have a great offense and subpar pitching; that's the polar opposite of the Padres. Yet they're separated in the standings by merely one game, and not surprisingly the Tigers are projected to score 87 more runs than they've allowed this season.

Ron Madden
08-11-2007, 03:28 AM
The Padres play in what's likely the best pitcher's park in all of baseball. Their offense - while likely below average - isn't really "bad" as some suggest. In fact, their road runs per game of 4.63 is 5th in the National League and substantially higher than the Reds' road runs per game of 4.43.

The Padres are a pretty good team because they're projected to score 74 more runs than they allow over the course of the season. Any team that scores 74 more runs than it allows will be a pretty good team. It doesn't matter if the team scores 1,000 runs and gives up 926 runs, or if they score 700 runs while giving up 626 runs.

That makes too much sense. :)

RedsBaron
08-11-2007, 08:07 AM
By what measure are the Padres "dead last" in offense? Batting average? Even without adjusting for park, the Washington Nationals are dead last in runs per game, not the Padres.

The Padres play in what's likely the best pitcher's park in all of baseball. Their offense - while likely below average - isn't really "bad" as some suggest. In fact, their road runs per game of 4.63 is 5th in the National League and substantially higher than the Reds' road runs per game of 4.43.

The Padres are a pretty good team because they're projected to score 74 more runs than they allow over the course of the season. Any team that scores 74 more runs than it allows will be a pretty good team. It doesn't matter if the team scores 1,000 runs and gives up 926 runs, or if they score 700 runs while giving up 626 runs.

Hell, the Detroit Tigers are 63-52. They're 2nd in the American League in runs per game and 11th in the American League in runs allowed. The Tigers have a great offense and subpar pitching; that's the polar opposite of the Padres. Yet they're separated in the standings by merely one game, and not surprisingly the Tigers are projected to score 87 more runs than they've allowed this season.

There you go again, bringing facts up in response to someone else's argument. That is totally unfair. ;)

fearofpopvol1
08-11-2007, 01:54 PM
By what measure are the Padres "dead last" in offense? Batting average? Even without adjusting for park, the Washington Nationals are dead last in runs per game, not the Padres.

The Padres play in what's likely the best pitcher's park in all of baseball. Their offense - while likely below average - isn't really "bad" as some suggest. In fact, their road runs per game of 4.63 is 5th in the National League and substantially higher than the Reds' road runs per game of 4.43.

The Padres are a pretty good team because they're projected to score 74 more runs than they allow over the course of the season. Any team that scores 74 more runs than it allows will be a pretty good team. It doesn't matter if the team scores 1,000 runs and gives up 926 runs, or if they score 700 runs while giving up 626 runs.

Hell, the Detroit Tigers are 63-52. They're 2nd in the American League in runs per game and 11th in the American League in runs allowed. The Tigers have a great offense and subpar pitching; that's the polar opposite of the Padres. Yet they're separated in the standings by merely one game, and not surprisingly the Tigers are projected to score 87 more runs than they've allowed this season.

Yes, dead last in batting average. And if you want to go runs scored, they're 12/16. They're 2nd to last in OPS and have the 2nd most strikes out of any team in the NL. Their offense is BAD, regardless of the fact that they play in a pitchers park.

The bottom line of what I was trying to communicate was the importance of having a superior pitching staff to a superior offense. The Pads are getting it done with just that.

KronoRed
08-11-2007, 02:09 PM
There you go again, bringing facts up in response to someone else's argument. That is totally unfair. ;)

Facts aren't a RZ favorite :D

SteelSD
08-11-2007, 02:49 PM
Yes, dead last in batting average. And if you want to go runs scored, they're 12/16. They're 2nd to last in OPS and have the 2nd most strikes out of any team in the NL. Their offense is BAD, regardless of the fact that they play in a pitchers park.

Even if team BA or K rates correlated with Run scoring (they don't), you can't just discount the Padres' ballpark and just call it even. Petco Park suppresses Run scoring by about 17.2% versus an average ballpark. Adjust for that and what you end up with is a team that's basically NL average (4.51 R/G) at home and that's actually above-average (4.75 R/G) on the road. That's not a great offense, but it's certainly not a "bad" offense either.


The bottom line of what I was trying to communicate was the importance of having a superior pitching staff to a superior offense. The Pads are getting it done with just that.

The Padres are getting it done by having a decent offense and a good pitching staff. That pitching staff is, BTW, also prone to the same park effect as the Padres' offense (3.17 ERA at Home, 3.91 ERA on the Road). But that's not the only way to produce the kind of Run Differential needed to win ballgames. The 1976 Big Red Machine (near league average pitching, excellent offense) was basically a reverse negative of the current version of the Padres. It doesn't matter how a team creates the kind of Run Diff necessary to win a bunch of ballgames. It only matters that they do.

fearofpopvol1
08-11-2007, 03:15 PM
Even if team BA or K rates correlated with Run scoring (they don't), you can't just discount the Padres' ballpark and just call it even. Petco Park suppresses Run scoring by about 17.2% versus an average ballpark. Adjust for that and what you end up with is a team that's basically NL average (4.51 R/G) at home and that's actually above-average (4.75 R/G) on the road. That's not a great offense, but it's certainly not a "bad" offense either.



The Padres are getting it done by having a decent offense and a good pitching staff. That pitching staff is, BTW, also prone to the same park effect as the Padres' offense (3.17 ERA at Home, 3.91 ERA on the Road). But that's not the only way to produce the kind of Run Differential needed to win ballgames. The 1976 Big Red Machine (near league average pitching, excellent offense) was basically a reverse negative of the current version of the Padres. It doesn't matter how a team creates the kind of Run Diff necessary to win a bunch of ballgames. It only matters that they do.

We can agree to disagree, but the Pads offense is not "decent." The batting average speaks for itself. Not to mention the fact that 81 of their games are played on the road. And if run differential is as important as you say it is, how did the White Sox when the World Series in 2005 with such a poor run differential? How are the Dbacks in first place in the NL West with a negative run differential? The answer is simple...great pitching.

RedsBaron
08-11-2007, 03:28 PM
Batting average speaks for itself, but unfortunately it says little about scoring runs. On base percentage and slugging percentage speak much more eloquently about scoring runs.
Based upon their road performance, when the effect of their pitching favorable park is eliminated, the Padres have an offense above the league average, making it by definition "decent."
Simple answers are also often wrong answers.

fearofpopvol1
08-11-2007, 03:32 PM
12/16 in the NL in runs scored is not "decent" to me, but to each his own.

RedsBaron
08-11-2007, 05:04 PM
12/16 in the NL in runs scored is not "decent" to me, but to each his own.

You really do not understand park effects, do you?
Cyclone has already pointed out that the Padres rank 5th in a 16 team NL in runs per game on the road, at 4.63 per game, well ahead of the Reds 4.43 per game road average.

fearofpopvol1
08-11-2007, 05:14 PM
You really do not understand park effects, do you?
Cyclone has already pointed out that the Padres rank 5th in a 16 team NL in runs per game on the road, at 4.63 per game, well ahead of the Reds 4.43 per game road average.

I think too much emphasis is put on park effects, but again, that's just my opinion.

RedsManRick
08-11-2007, 06:03 PM
I think too much emphasis is put on park effects, but again, that's just my opinion.

What do you mean by emphasis? It's not opinion. If the Padres offense is so poor, then how do you explain for the fact that they score nearly .2 more runs than the Reds when they're on the road? Do you think it's random chance that they score, and allow, 15-20% more runs on the road. If it's not, then it's not a function of emphasis.

The Padres score fewer runs not because of the quality of their offense but because of a quality of the place in which their offense operates 50% of the time. If you took the Reds and made PECTO their park instead of GABP, we'd suddenly have a league average or better pitching staff and a below average offense. The players could stay the exact same.

You're absolutely right in saying that the Padres have allowed and scored fewer runs. But they aren't a great team specifically because preventing runs is more important than scoring runs. It's the ratio of the two that counts.

The reason certain teams excel in the playoffs is because in a short series, random variation largely takes over and teams are able to utilize only their best pitchers, rather than their full staff. It has relatively little bearing with the team's record over a 162 game season.

SteelSD
08-11-2007, 09:01 PM
We can agree to disagree, but the Pads offense is not "decent." The batting average speaks for itself. Not to mention the fact that 81 of their games are played on the road. And if run differential is as important as you say it is, how did the White Sox when the World Series in 2005 with such a poor run differential? How are the Dbacks in first place in the NL West with a negative run differential? The answer is simple...great pitching.

The 2005 Chicago White Sox scored 96 more Runs than they allowed. That's "poor" in your mind?

The 2007 Diamondbacks are playing well above their Pythag right now. Every season we see a couple of teams play above (and below) their Pythag. It's random and we've yet to find any correlation between anything (including pitching) and Pythag over or under-performance. The D'Backs really needed to add offense at the deadline, but didn't. Let's check back at the end of the season to see how that misfire treats them.

fearofpopvol1
08-11-2007, 09:26 PM
The 2005 Chicago White Sox scored 96 more Runs than they allowed. That's "poor" in your mind?

The 2007 Diamondbacks are playing well above their Pythag right now. Every season we see a couple of teams play above (and below) their Pythag. It's random and we've yet to find any correlation between anything (including pitching) and Pythag over or under-performance. The D'Backs really needed to add offense at the deadline, but didn't. Let's check back at the end of the season to see how that misfire treats them.

It must not be the White Sox I'm thinking of then. There was a team over the last 2 years I believe that allowed more than they scored.

SteelSD
08-12-2007, 02:01 AM
It must not be the White Sox I'm thinking of then. There was a team over the last 2 years I believe that allowed more than they scored.

No. There's no World Series winner in the last couple of seasons that allowed more Runs than they scored. The team you're thinking of doesn't exist and fact checking would be of value to you.

However, the Minnesota Twins did win the World Series in 1987 while producing a Run Diff of -20. Problem is that the Twins did that with basically a league average offense and a league average pitching staff while playing in a poor division. There's something to be said about getting hot at the right time. The Twins did. But there's no earthy way a team should go into a season projecting a .500 or worse team and then hope they can carry Pythag luck all the way to the playoffs.

Krivsky thought he had something like that prior to this season, but he was way way wrong.

fearofpopvol1
08-12-2007, 02:44 AM
No. There's no World Series winner in the last couple of seasons that allowed more Runs than they scored. The team you're thinking of doesn't exist and fact checking would be of value to you.

However, the Minnesota Twins did win the World Series in 1987 while producing a Run Diff of -20. Problem is that the Twins did that with basically a league average offense and a league average pitching staff while playing in a poor division. There's something to be said about getting hot at the right time. The Twins did. But there's no earthy way a team should go into a season projecting a .500 or worse team and then hope they can carry Pythag luck all the way to the playoffs.

Krivsky thought he had something like that prior to this season, but he was way way wrong.

It wasn't a World Series team, but a playoff team.

Cyclone792
08-12-2007, 03:19 AM
It must not be the White Sox I'm thinking of then. There was a team over the last 2 years I believe that allowed more than they scored.

You mean the 2005 San Diego Padres? Sure, they scored 684 runs while allowing 726 runs and still managed to win the NL West with an incredible record of 82-80. Then they proceeded to get swept in three games by the Cardinals during the LDS.

What's ironic about the 2005 San Diego Padres, however, is that their team ERA+ for the season was a whopping 93. Their OPS+, on the other hand, was a respectable 104. Those 2005 Padres sported an above average offense and a below average pitching staff while playing in arguably the best pitching park in the majors that season, and that kind of shoots holes in the flawed theory you're trumpeting about the answer simply being "great pitching".

Since the wild card era began in 1995, there have been 96 different teams reach the playoffs. Exactly two of those teams - the aforementioned 2005 Padres, and the 1997 San Francisco Giants - managed to make the playoffs with a negative run differential. That's two teams out of 96. That's 2.08 percent of all playoff teams since the wild card era began. That fact alone should tell you everything you need to know about the importance of run differential.

And while we're at it, let's talk about those 1997 San Francisco Giants. The Giants won the NL West that season with a 90-72 record by scoring 784 runs and allowing 793 runs. Lucky for them, they finished a whopping 10 games over their pythag record. But what was the strength of that Giants team? They put up a 105 OPS+ and finished 4th in the NL in runs, but they also posted a lousy 93 ERA+ and finished 13th in the NL in runs allowed. Once again, that's another team that blows a hole in your theory about the answer simply being "good pitching".

fearofpopvol1
08-12-2007, 04:04 AM
You mean the 2005 San Diego Padres? Sure, they scored 684 runs while allowing 726 runs and still managed to win the NL West with an incredible record of 82-80. Then they proceeded to get swept in three games by the Cardinals during the LDS.

What's ironic about the 2005 San Diego Padres, however, is that their team ERA+ for the season was a whopping 93. Their OPS+, on the other hand, was a respectable 104. Those 2005 Padres sported an above average offense and a below average pitching staff while playing in arguably the best pitching park in the majors that season, and that kind of shoots holes in the flawed theory you're trumpeting about the answer simply being "great pitching".

Since the wild card era began in 1995, there have been 96 different teams reach the playoffs. Exactly two of those teams - the aforementioned 2005 Padres, and the 1997 San Francisco Giants - managed to make the playoffs with a negative run differential. That's two teams out of 96. That's 2.08 percent of all playoff teams since the wild card era began. That fact alone should tell you everything you need to know about the importance of run differential.

And while we're at it, let's talk about those 1997 San Francisco Giants. The Giants won the NL West that season with a 90-72 record by scoring 784 runs and allowing 793 runs. Lucky for them, they finished a whopping 10 games over their pythag record. But what was the strength of that Giants team? They put up a 105 OPS+ and finished 4th in the NL in runs, but they also posted a lousy 93 ERA+ and finished 13th in the NL in runs allowed. Once again, that's another team that blows a hole in your theory about the answer simply being "good pitching".

The Pads are who I was thinking of. And I never said just "good pitching" gets it done.

What I was trying to convey in this mess is I would rather build a team around good pitching than a good offense. The Reds have done the latter for quite some time and we all know how it's turned out.

If that means not signing Adam Dunn to a long term deal and trading him away for some prospects (hopefully very good ones) or getting draft picks in compensation, than so be it. Since many think trading Dunn won't land the right starter or won't allow the Reds to sign a good FA starter in the offseason, I'd rather overhaul the bullpen and get some very good arms in with the money saved (and $15 million will buy some bullpen arms and/or a legitimate closer). While losing Dunn will undeniably change the offense and not for the better, I would take a decrease in the production of the offense for an increase in the production by the way of pitching. And I like Dunn and I think he's slowly but surely becoming a better hitter (at least we've seen signs of it this year). However, IN MY OPINION, it's just too much money for 1 position player in a smaller market.

Blitz Dorsey
08-12-2007, 09:25 PM
CNNSI

The Reds would have liked to find a taker for Adam Dunn. And considering the lack of power around the majors, it's hard to believe there weren't great offers. But apparently that is the case. According to sources, it isn't so much Dunn's indifferent defense that has lowered his stock with his employers but his struggles in the clutch.

That's it... Mrs. Dunn is going to quit reading CNNSI.

"That evil Thom Brennaman doesn't write for them, does he?"

membengal
08-13-2007, 06:37 AM
So, the team and its announcers run Adam Dunn down for years for "clutch" issues, and then are surprised that they have helped create the perception that Dunn isn't a valuable commodity? Shocked. Shocked I am.

BRM
08-13-2007, 12:26 PM
From MLBTradeRumors.



Graziano says "it's hard to see" the Reds picking up Adam Dunn's $13MM option. This would just be plain dumb on Wayne Krivsky's part. Given the $0.5MM buyout, it's basically like signing Dunn to a one-year, $12.5MM deal. How many teams would pass on a huge power bat on a no-risk one-year commitment? If the Reds don't exercise the option, it will be change for change's sake. And a bad decision.

KronoRed
08-13-2007, 12:47 PM
Well the Reds do enjoy doing the unexpected

westofyou
08-14-2007, 12:43 PM
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=6582


One area where we often hear that players can learn is in the area of plate judgment. You probably hear it at least once a game from your local broadcaster. “If only Denny Baszinski could learn to lay off the high fastball,” the play-by-play man might say. “Randy Russell has to make up his mind that he’s going to take a pitch or two instead of hacking at everything.” Yet, these expressions might be wholly unfair. They presume that an Alfredo Griffin, Shawon Dunston, or Rob Picciolo has made a conscious decision to be a hacker, and that with a different attitude they could be, if not as selective as Williams or Frank Thomas, at least 50 times per year. Bill James has often used the word “intelligence” as a synonym for good plate judgment. This may be presumptuous. It might not be that these players are too “baseball stupid” to walk, but instead a case that they just can’t, in the same way that most of us cannot hit a major league fastball, or a minor league fastball. Or a fastball.