PDA

View Full Version : Things that make you go hmmmm (or Dunn is just weird)...



jojo
08-18-2007, 08:30 PM
Here's Dunn's line for August thus far (8/18/07):

.271/.410/.646; OPS: 1.056 BABIP: .206

The true three outcome prototype during a power surge...

Whether you love him or hate him, he's always good for conversation.

camisadelgolf
08-18-2007, 10:41 PM
I think the shift is killing him. Maybe that's why he was able to hit for average in the Minor Leagues.

SteelSD
08-19-2007, 01:00 AM
I think the shift is killing him. Maybe that's why he was able to hit for average in the Minor Leagues.

I'm not sure that's accurate. Dunn's BABIP this season is .309 per THT- which is what we'd expect for pretty much any hitter. And considering that Dunn produces one of the lowest Ground Ball rates in the NL consistently (lowest in 2006, 4th lowest in 2007), I'm not sure the defensive "shift" really does a lot.

The August BA versus BABIP differential is solely due to the number of Home Runs hit by Dunn this month. They count as Hits but not Balls in Play.

The real oddity is how Dunn ended up with a .281 BAPIP in 2006 while finishing fourth in the NL in Line Drive percentage (23.5%). The only other NL hitter to produce a BABIP equal to or lower than that .281 with a 20% or higher line drive rate was Adam Everett (.270). And considering that Dunn projects to consistently produce high HR per Fly Ball rates (4th in the NL in 2004, 5th in 2005, 8th in 2006, 4th in 2007) because he's so darned strong, what we most likely saw last season was a complete aberration.

RedLegSuperStar
08-19-2007, 10:47 AM
I think the shift is killing him. Maybe that's why he was able to hit for average in the Minor Leagues.

Teach the big boy how to bunt down the third base line..

RedsManRick
08-19-2007, 11:33 AM
There's an argument to be made that Dunn's BABIP will always below because when he truly hits it well, it often leaves the yard. Thus, by omitting homers, we're selecting a set of balls in play that by definition excludes many if not most of Dunn's better contacts.

CTA513
08-19-2007, 12:30 PM
Teach the big boy how to bunt down the third base line..

Teach all the players how to bunt.

RedLegSuperStar
08-19-2007, 01:00 PM
Teach all the players how to bunt.

Fair statement

BCubb2003
08-19-2007, 01:23 PM
Teach the big boy how to bunt down the third base line..

That's just what they want us to do.

KronoRed
08-19-2007, 01:27 PM
They could bring in the LF to play 3rd to prevent the bunt, go with 2 OF's

jojo
08-19-2007, 02:11 PM
There's an argument to be made that Dunn's BABIP will always below because when he truly hits it well, it often leaves the yard. Thus, by omitting homers, we're selecting a set of balls in play that by definition excludes many if not most of Dunn's better contacts.

For his career, Dunn's BABIP is .293 which is right about average for major leaguers.

If you take small samples during a power spike, I bet you could find periods where Dunn's BABIP was below the Mendoza line while his OPS was HOF-like.

I just thought Dunn's August line was an interesting curiosity that you don't see everyday so to speak....

Coffeybro
08-20-2007, 04:52 PM
Teach the big boy how to bunt down the third base line..
My dad and I have talked about this for several years now. Both him and Griffey should be doing this to get on and start to destroy the shift IMHO.

flyer85
08-20-2007, 05:00 PM
Both him and Griffey should be doing this to get on and start to destroy the shift IMHO.
why would it destroy the shift?

The point of the shift is that there are situations when they are more than happy to let them have a bunt single(same goes for guys like Howard and Ortiz who also get "the shift").

Sea Ray
08-20-2007, 05:11 PM
why would it destroy the shift?

The point of the shift is that there are situations when they are more than happy to let them have a bunt single(same goes for guys like Howard and Ortiz who also get "the shift").

I agree with Coffeybro. If he gets too many cheap hits by bunting they'll have to adjust their shift accordingly. I can remember several times that the team didn't need a HR and a bunt single would have helped the team a great deal. In fact I can recall very few instances that the shift was not used on Dunn.

Seems to me that ego is the only thing keeping Dunn from bunting.

flyer85
08-20-2007, 05:12 PM
Seems to me that ego is the only thing keeping Dunn from bunting.I guess it applies to Jr, Howard, Ortiz, Bonds, etc.

Johnny Footstool
08-20-2007, 05:18 PM
If Dunn were to bunt, he'd be nullifying all of his main strengths -- his power and his ability to work the count. He'd be giving the pitcher an easy AB, plus he'd be trading walks, extra base hits, and strikeouts for bunt singles and pop-up outs to the catcher and pitcher.

And all the Dunn haters would accuse him of selfishly padding his batting average.

Redsland
08-20-2007, 05:24 PM
Plus, he's probably too selfish and lazy to steal second base after he gets on.

SteelSD
08-20-2007, 05:25 PM
I guess it applies to Jr, Howard, Ortiz, Bonds, etc.

Nah. It applies to none of them. All are smart enough to know that the potential damage is far more severe with them hitting away. Heck, the "shift" tells them exactly that opposing teams know that's exactly the case.

Sea Ray
08-20-2007, 05:25 PM
I guess it applies to Jr, Howard, Ortiz, Bonds, etc.

And don't forget the original in all of this: Ted Williams. Ted's response to the shift was "they ought to have taller men" 'cause he was going to hit it over their heads. Ty Cobb told Ted that if they'd used that shift on him he'd bat 1.000.

There are instances that all of the players you mentioned should have laid down a bunt.

SteelSD
08-20-2007, 05:27 PM
Plus, he's probably too selfish and lazy to steal second base after he gets on.

I hear he carries a Game Boy Micro system in his back pocket to use when he gets on. He's not lazy. Just distracted.

jojo
08-20-2007, 05:27 PM
And don't forget the original in all of this: Ted Williams. Ted's response to the shift was "they ought to have taller men" 'cause he was going to hit it over their heads. Ty Cobb told Ted that if they'd used that shift on him he'd bat 1.000.

There are instances that all of the players you mentioned should have laid down a bunt.

Williams didn't beat the shift by bunting though....

SteelSD
08-20-2007, 05:36 PM
Williams didn't beat the shift by bunting though....

You are correct, sir. Here's Boudreau himself on the effectiveness of the shift he created in an effort to stop Williams:

"It didn't bother Ted at ail," the former Cleveland stalwart <Boudreau> once said. "He just kept getting his base hits. He could hit to left field and did a couple of times. The Williams shift didn't bother Ted because he had an upper-cut swing and hit those sinkers over the infield. The Williams shift was a publicity stunt. I don't think it hurt his productivity at all."

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FCI/is_3_61/ai_82472897/pg_5

RedsManRick
08-20-2007, 06:05 PM
Plus, he's probably too selfish and lazy to steal second base after he gets on.

:evil:

Spitball
08-20-2007, 10:56 PM
If Dunn were to bunt, he'd be nullifying all of his main strengths -- his power and his ability to work the count. He'd be giving the pitcher an easy AB, plus he'd be trading walks, extra base hits, and strikeouts for bunt singles and pop-up outs to the catcher and pitcher.

And all the Dunn haters would accuse him of selfishly padding his batting average.

I don't really understand the logic against him bunting to prevent the shift. We love Dunn because he can take a walk and produce a high on base percentage, so why is a strategic bunt offensive???

Razor Shines
08-20-2007, 11:28 PM
I don't really understand the logic against him bunting to prevent the shift. We love Dunn because he can take a walk and produce a high on base percentage, so why is a strategic bunt offensive???

IMHO, if it's a buntable pitch then it's a drivable pitch. Why waste a bunt on a pitch that he could drive somewhere? We like that he takes walks because those are pitches that he couldn't drive anyway. Again that's just the way I see it.

TOBTTReds
08-20-2007, 11:31 PM
Have you guys seen him try to bunt this year? He's been awful.

IslandRed
08-20-2007, 11:38 PM
The question sort of reminds me of the old hypothetical, would it make sense to walk Babe Ruth every time up? (Substitute Barry Bonds for a more recent example.) It's generally accepted statistically that it's better to go ahead and pitch to him; even in his best season, Ruth's extra-base power wasn't as beneficial to the team as his never making an out would have been.

If we make the assumption that Dunn could bunt safely against the shift any time he wants and it's simply a matter of choice, maybe he wouldn't be remiss to choose it. All that lost SLG would be nicely offset by the 1.000 OBP. Yes, the other team would gladly choose to nullify his home-run power; they might be making the wrong choice nonetheless.

In reality, getting bunts down is not quite that easy, and Dunn is not a bat-control artist. He would get his share of easy singles but it would be nowhere near automatic, changing the calculus considerably.

TeamBoone
08-20-2007, 11:58 PM
My dad and I have talked about this for several years now. Both him and Griffey should be doing this to get on and start to destroy the shift IMHO.


Should either of these power hitters be forced to bunt when their OBP is already light years higher than most others on the team?

I guess I don't see the reasoning for them to waste their practice time on it.

Johnny Footstool
08-21-2007, 09:24 AM
I don't really understand the logic against him bunting to prevent the shift. We love Dunn because he can take a walk and produce a high on base percentage, so why is a strategic bunt offensive???

Bunting wouldn't necessarily produce a higher OBP. As IslandRed stated, bunts aren't as automatic as people assume. He would still make plenty of outs (pop-up bunt attempts, strikeouts due to bad bunt attempts). In addition, he would be effectively neutralizing his main asset -- power.

Bunting would simply trade slugging for empty batting average. That's a bad trade off.

registerthis
08-21-2007, 09:47 AM
I can remember several times that the team didn't need a HR and a bunt single would have helped the team a great deal.

Ah, yes, the old rally-killing home run.

I hate those.

registerthis
08-21-2007, 09:49 AM
Asking Dunn to bunt is like owning an S-2000 and doing nothing but driving it over speed bumps in a parking lot.

osuceltic
08-21-2007, 10:32 AM
Did anyone notice Dunn's opposite-field single last night? Two strikes and he shortened his swing and just punched the ball into left for a base hit. Great piece of hitting. It's what so many of us would like to see him do more regularly. There was a time when players did this all the time -- and some still do. Look to drive the ball until you have two strikes, then shorten the swing to put the ball in play and give yourself a chance.

nate
08-21-2007, 10:35 AM
I agree with Coffeybro. If he gets too many cheap hits by bunting they'll have to adjust their shift accordingly. I can remember several times that the team didn't need a HR and a bunt single would have helped the team a great deal. In fact I can recall very few instances that the shift was not used on Dunn.

Seems to me that ego is the only thing keeping Dunn from bunting.

In what situation would a bunt have been better for the team than a home run?

Ltlabner
08-21-2007, 10:46 AM
In what situation would a bunt have been better for the team than a home run?

Well....there was that one time. Geez.

osuceltic
08-21-2007, 10:54 AM
In what situation would a bunt have been better for the team than a home run?

No one is saying that, and you know it. He's saying the bunt, which would, in theory, be more likely to be successful, would have a positive impact. Swinging away has a higher upside outcome -- a home run -- but also is a lower percentage bet.

Of course, if Dunn can't execute a bunt to the left side against the shift, the debate is over.

Sea Ray
08-21-2007, 10:59 AM
No one is saying that, and you know it. He's saying the bunt, which would, in theory, be more likely to be successful, would have a positive impact. Swinging away has a higher upside outcome -- a home run -- but also is a lower percentage bet.

Of course, if Dunn can't execute a bunt to the left side against the shift, the debate is over.

I don't know if I can add to that.

Take the following situation: Reds down by 3, bottom of the 9th, runner on 1st, Dunn is up and Griffey is on deck. I'd just as soon Dunn bunt and bring Griffey to the plate as the tying run with runners on 1st and 2nd. If Dunn swings for the fences the best thing that can happen is he hits one out and the bases are cleared allowing them to pitch around Griffey.

Sea Ray
08-21-2007, 11:02 AM
In what situation would a bunt have been better for the team than a home run?

This philosophy speaks volumes for what has been wrong with this team for years. The idea that you always swing for the fences is insane. Unfortunately, I'm afraid a lot of Reds players agree with your philosophy on baseball.

Ltlabner
08-21-2007, 11:06 AM
No one is saying that, and you know it. He's saying the bunt, which would, in theory, be more likely to be successful, would have a positive impact. Swinging away has a higher upside outcome -- a home run -- but also is a lower percentage bet..

If I'm a betting man I.d put my money on Dunn getting an EBH or drawing a walk (something hes actually acomplished a bunch of times) over him dropping a perfect bunt and beating out the throw (something he rarely if ever does) ....every time he comes to the plate in addition to the wacky concocted scenarios where a 'bunt is better than a homer'.

Sea Ray
08-21-2007, 11:11 AM
If I'm a betting man I.d put my money on Dunn getting an EBH or drawing a walk (something hes actually acomplished a bunch of times) over him dropping a perfect bunt and beating out the throw (something he rarely if ever does) ....every time he comes to the plate in addition to the wacky concocted scenarios where a 'bunt is better than a homer'.

With this shift it doesn't have to be a perfect bunt. But he would have to work on his bunting skills. If his bunting skills remain as they are, you're right, swing away.

registerthis
08-21-2007, 11:13 AM
No one is saying that, and you know it.

Actually, the quote was "I can remember several times that the team didn't need a HR and a bunt single would have helped the team a great deal."

Nate had the same question I had: when would a team *not* need a home run, but *would* need a bunt single?

registerthis
08-21-2007, 11:21 AM
With this shift it doesn't have to be a perfect bunt. But he would have to work on his bunting skills. If his bunting skills remain as they are, you're right, swing away.

Honestly, even if Dunn were to perfect his bunting skills, I don't see how that's a huge advantage--for him or the team. If I'm the opposing team, and I see Dunn bunting for base hits in lieu of swinging for the fences, I consider that a success. It's true of all power hitters: when you force them to adjust their strategy and play to something other than their strength, the strategy can be deemed successful.

Dunn's on pace to hit 42 HRs, knock in 104 and OPS .930. No way, no how do I want to see him bunting consistently, whether he becomes a good bunter or not. The shift has zero effect on his ability to hit HRs, which is exactly the reason why he is here, and the predominant way he provides value to this team. Having him bunt with any degree of regularity would be a misuse of talent of criminal proportions.

nate
08-21-2007, 11:22 AM
No one is saying that, and you know it. He's saying the bunt, which would, in theory, be more likely to be successful, would have a positive impact. Swinging away has a higher upside outcome -- a home run -- but also is a lower percentage bet.

Of course, if Dunn can't execute a bunt to the left side against the shift, the debate is over.

How have I misinterpreted this?


I can remember several times that the team didn't need a HR and a bunt single would have helped the team a great deal.

I am really genuinely curious to know under what situation should Adam Dunn trade a home run for a bunt.

nate
08-21-2007, 11:24 AM
This philosophy speaks volumes for what has been wrong with this team for years. The idea that you always swing for the fences is insane. Unfortunately, I'm afraid a lot of Reds players agree with your philosophy on baseball.

I didn't speak anything about baseball philosophy. I was asking under what conditions would it be better to trade a home run for a bunt?

Johnny Footstool
08-21-2007, 11:42 AM
I don't know if I can add to that.

Take the following situation: Reds down by 3, bottom of the 9th, runner on 1st, Dunn is up and Griffey is on deck. I'd just as soon Dunn bunt and bring Griffey to the plate as the tying run with runners on 1st and 2nd. If Dunn swings for the fences the best thing that can happen is he hits one out and the bases are cleared allowing them to pitch around Griffey.

You'd rather be down 3 runs when Griffey steps to the plate than down 1 run?

I wouldn't. Not in any situation.

Coffeybro
08-21-2007, 11:43 AM
I didn't speak anything about baseball philosophy. I was asking under what conditions would it be better to trade a home run for a bunt?

First thing that comes to mind is behind by three runs late in the game with no outs. The whole arguement hinges on the fact that you can't guarantee a home run. Even Barry Bonds during his record home run season only had a 15.3&#37; chance of hitting a home run when he had an ab. In his best home run hitting season Dunn's percentage of home runs is 8.1. Griffey had a percentage of 9 and 8.8 back in his 56 home run seasons. Say Dunn, Griffey, or any other shift afflicted batter practiced his bunting to the point he had a 50 percent chance of placing the ball where he wants it to go. I'd rather have a 50% chance of having a base runner than a 15% chance at best of getting a home run.

Falls City Beer
08-21-2007, 11:46 AM
There's about as much logic to Dunn bunting as there is never ever leaving your house because you're afraid of a terrorist attack in Joplin, Missouri.

Yeah, you'll likely not die doing it, but then it sort of smashes the raison d'etre.

nate
08-21-2007, 12:04 PM
First thing that comes to mind is behind by three runs late in the game with no outs. The whole arguement hinges on the fact that you can't guarantee a home run. Even Barry Bonds during his record home run season only had a 15.3% chance of hitting a home run when he had an ab. In his best home run hitting season Dunn's percentage of home runs is 8.1. Griffey had a percentage of 9 and 8.8 back in his 56 home run seasons. Say Dunn, Griffey, or any other shift afflicted batter practiced his bunting to the point he had a 50 percent chance of placing the ball where he wants it to go. I'd rather have a 50% chance of having a base runner than a 15% chance at best of getting a home run.

OK, I see your point. Good explanation.

It's not just a 15% (or less) chance of getting a home run. In this situation, its about not making an out so you can continue to score runs. He already has a career 38% chance of not making an out.

Also, like others have pointed out, the other team would really rather he get on base so they can face the other dudes behind him who tend to make outs at a substantially higher rate than Dunn (other than the pickin' machine, that is.)

registerthis
08-21-2007, 12:17 PM
There's about as much logic to Dunn bunting as there is never ever leaving your house because you're afraid of a terrorist attack in Joplin, Missouri.

Hey, you never know when the terrorists might want to strike the Northpark Mall. Trust me: the Joplinites would never see it coming.

Johnny Footstool
08-21-2007, 12:43 PM
There's about as much logic to Dunn bunting as there is never ever leaving your house because you're afraid of a terrorist attack in Joplin, Missouri.

Yeah, you'll likely not die doing it, but then it sort of smashes the raison d'etre.

People in Joplin have very little raison d'etre anyway.

IslandRed
08-21-2007, 12:46 PM
I don't know if I can add to that.

Take the following situation: Reds down by 3, bottom of the 9th, runner on 1st, Dunn is up and Griffey is on deck. I'd just as soon Dunn bunt and bring Griffey to the plate as the tying run with runners on 1st and 2nd. If Dunn swings for the fences the best thing that can happen is he hits one out and the bases are cleared allowing them to pitch around Griffey.


You'd rather be down 3 runs when Griffey steps to the plate than down 1 run?

I wouldn't. Not in any situation.

Yeah, it doesn't make intuitive sense.

But playing devil's advocate for a minute, I went over to the Win Expectancy Finder. For all years, bottom of the ninth, runner on first, no one out...

Hit a home run, leaving the game state as down one, bases empty: 18.8&#37; chance of winning the game

Bunt safely, leaving the game state as down three, runners first and second: 20.2% chance of winning the game

No, I didn't expect that either. I don't put any stock in the notion of homers as rally-killers, but maybe there's something to be said for making a guy pitch from the stretch when the tying run comes up. So I guess if the home run is of minimal benefit to the win expectancy in that situation, and it's not very likely to happen anyway (< 10%), there's no good reason to turn down free OBP for its sake. Assuming Dunn was a proficient-enough bunter against the shift to reach base at a significantly higher rate than he normally would, of course.

Ltlabner
08-21-2007, 12:48 PM
Say Dunn, Griffey, or any other shift afflicted batter practiced his bunting to the point he had a 50 percent chance of placing the ball where he wants it to go. I'd rather have a 50&#37; chance of having a base runner than a 15% chance at best of getting a home run.

Let's take that 50% bunting success rate at face value (it seems insanely high to me, but for the sake of argument we'll leave it alone).

So 1/2 the time Dunn puts the ball exactly where he wants it. That doesn't guarentee success by any means. The sucess rate is lowered if the pitcher falls off the mound the right way and gets to the bunt quickly. The success rate gets lowered if the ball goes exactly where Dunn wants it, takes a werid hop and ends up at the third baseman's feet. The success rate goes even lower if someone is on base infront of Dunn and is slow enough that a quick reaction by the defense results in him getting nailed. It also gets lowered if Dunn trips on the way to first and gets thrown out. Sure some of the scenarios are unlikely, but if we are playing the "what if game" they have to be considered.

Point it is, even if Dunn can bunt the ball exactly where he wants it 50% of the time, it doesn't mean he'll make it onbase 50% of the time. Considering he already gets on base 37% of the time, unless he can get on base at least 38% of the time using the bunt he really hasn't acomplished anything.

Except of course to take his most potent weapon out of his hand.

Oh yea, if he does hit a homer, there's exactly nothing the defense can do to effect the outcome. It's 100% sucessfull every time it's tried. But heck, I'll settle for an EBH or even (gasp) a walk to keep the inning going.

Ltlabner
08-21-2007, 12:48 PM
People in Joplin have very little raison d'etre anyway.

Is that the french raisn desert I've been hearing so much about?

KronoRed
08-21-2007, 01:36 PM
Hey, you never know when the terrorists might want to strike the Northpark Mall. Trust me: the Joplinites would never see it coming.

Malls are the source of all evil in the world

Sea Ray
08-21-2007, 02:26 PM
Let's take that 50% bunting success rate at face value (it seems insanely high to me, but for the sake of argument we'll leave it alone).

So 1/2 the time Dunn puts the ball exactly where he wants it. That doesn't guarentee success by any means.


Nobody's saying he should bunt everytime. Some of us are advocating an occasional bunt. Even Ted Williams bunted every now and then vs the shift. (The headline in bold print the next day was "Williams Bunts Safely").

Such a recommendation doesn't really need intense statistical analysis...

Ltlabner
08-21-2007, 02:36 PM
Nobody's saying he should bunt everytime. Some of us are advocating an occasional bunt.

Such a recommendation doesn't really need intense statistical analysis...

Well, I'd hardly call what I did an "intense statistical analysis" unless you consider fractions "intense".

If the point of the excersize is to bunt to defeat the shift and cause teams to back off of using it, how does the occasional bunt acomplish that exactly? They'll take the occasonal bunt and continue trodding right along shifting to the oldies.

jojo
08-21-2007, 03:33 PM
Why is it that every discussion about Dunn has to turn into an argument about pastries?

http://www.freesmileys.org/emo/eatdrink051.gif (http://www.freesmileys.org)

camisadelgolf
08-21-2007, 05:16 PM
Why is it that every discussion about Dunn has to turn into an argument about pastries?

http://www.freesmileys.org/emo/eatdrink051.gif (http://www.freesmileys.org)

I donut know! :doh:

mth123
08-21-2007, 08:13 PM
Some points about things stated in this thread:

1. The Reds haven't been so awful for the last ten years becasue of anything to do with offensive philosophy. Homers, Station to Station Ball, Bunting, Whiteyball, Billyball, Big Red Machine, Killer Bs, Murderers row, whatever. None of that has any effect on what happens on the mound when the Reds aren't batting and that is why the Reds haven't won anything lately. The notion that Griffey and Dunn can change any of this by bunting is wrong.

2. Bunting is primarily a percentage play that was created as a way to get something productive from a guy who was extremely likely to make an out anyway. That doesn't apply to hitters who get on base a high percentage of the time.

3. Shift or no shift, I seriously doubt there is any way to guarantee that bunting would lead to a higher success rate than the normal OBP of the team's (or game's) better hitters. At best it would be a wash (or I'll be generous and give even a slight edge) from the OBP perspective and a serious drop from the slugging side of things that wipes away all advantage and more. Bunting is for outmakers.

4. Top hitters reached their status by hitting. There was never any need for them to become accomplished bunters. Criticizing a good hitter because he can't bunt is almost as nutty as criticizing a good pitcher because he can't hit or a great defender because he can't pitch. Players like Hopper learn to bunt out of a necessity for survival. I don't think Griffey was ever faced with that.

bucksfan2
08-22-2007, 09:36 AM
Ok I may be merging some topics here but here are my thoughts.

The reds problems aren't all because of pitching. Their bullpen is bad but when they take a lead into the 8th inning they have won a lot of games in a row. One of the biggest problems I see with the reds is their poor hitting with runners in scoring position. IMO that one of the reasons for this problem is that they two most productive hitters are high obp guys but with lower averages. Both Jr. and Dunn get on base a lot but do it by walking quite a bit. They also have quite a few free swingers who don't have high averages. Phillips, Edwin, Ross, Valentine, Hamilton, etc. are all guys who are going to strike out quite a bit. There was someone who downgraded Cantu's 117 rbi season by saying he only got on base .315 of the time. Fact of the matter is he drove in 117 runs. The reds need more guys who are going to put the ball in play rather than take a walk. If I am an opposing manager and the reds have runner on second 2 outs and Dunn at bat I am going to pitch around him, nip at the corners because I know if he walks I face Edwin or Ross who are both lesser hitters than Dunn. The reds need more guys who are going to put the ball in play more often than not.

As for Dunn and Jr and the bunt. They should be able to put that ball down the line and get a single with ease when called upon. I think this should be used more in situational basis. If the reds need baserunners I would be willing to bet if practiced Dunn and Jr could be successful bunting for this 50&#37; of the time. If your down 3 in the 8th or 9th base runners are almost more important than a solo hr. I am not saying they should bunt every time up but in certain situations a bunt should be used in order to get on base.

Johnny Footstool
08-22-2007, 09:56 AM
The Reds are 7th in the NL in Runs Scored and dead last in Runs Allowed.

Worrying about whether or not your two best hitters should bunt is like worrying about a scratch on your dashboard when you're driving around on 4 flat tires.

jojo
08-22-2007, 10:20 AM
The Reds are 7th in the NL in Runs Scored and dead last in Runs Allowed.

Worrying about whether or not your two best hitters should bunt is like worrying about a scratch on your dashboard when you're driving around on 4 flat tires.

If the Reds were better defensive drivers, they might only have 1 flat tire and perhaps one that was leaky but workable.

RedsManRick
08-22-2007, 10:29 AM
Just a reminder that we do have a park effect to deal with. Over the course of the season, GABP boosts the Reds overall RS and RA totals by ~5&#37;.

Yes, we're still worse pitching wise than hitting. However, a staff full of league average pitchers would still produce worse than league average results. Our "league average" offense is actually below average and worst in the league pitching is more "among the worst in the league". Both are problems.

As for the bunting logic, I'll stick to a simple OPS comparison. A 70% success rate would leave Dunn with a .700 OPS. I'll stick to the .900 OPS version with the possible exception of the bases empty and an increased likelihood of success due to positioning. Any other time, I want him swinging.

SteelSD
08-22-2007, 10:35 AM
The reds need more guys who are going to put the ball in play rather than take a walk.

The tradeoff is not "Hits for Walks". It's "Outs for Walks". Swinging at balls out of the strike zone simply doesn't produce the effect you're looking for. Here are the 2007 NL correlations for RISP behavior and team overall Runs Scored:

BA/RISP to RS: 0.33
SLG/RISP to RS: 0.53
OBP/RISP to RS: 0.58
OPS/RISP to RS: 0.59

Now here's a doozy...

K per AB/RISP to RS: 0.26
BB per AB/RISP to RS: 0.27

If team BB and Strikeouts with RISP are supposed to suppress a team's ability to score Runs, then why do both high K and BB rates with RISP have slight positive correlations with high overall offensive Run output this season? In fact, both correlate at a rate only slightly less than Batting Average. Why is Batting Average w/RISP less related to overall Run output than things like SLG, OBP and OPS?

The answer to the first question is that high K rates correlate to high SLG rates this season at a 0.42 clip and high BB rates correlate to high OBP rates at 0.51. The answer to the second question is that Batting Average is only one component of OBP, SLG, and OPS rather than the production driver it's made out to be.

It's obvious that as it relates to overall Run Scoring simply looking for high contact rate with RISP is not the right goal. The right goal is high OBP, SLG, and OPS performance regardless of how hitters produce those results. The Reds' 2007 offensive "style" is not an issue. What has been an issue is that the team's lineup has been too consistently littered with poor hitters. And while it would help to fix that, the real issue with the Reds' record is that the pitching staff has given up more Runs than any other NL team.


If your down 3 in the 8th or 9th base runners are almost more important than a solo hr.

Never. Ask yourself whether you'd rather go into the ninth Inning down by three runs or two runs. That's what a solo Home Run represents regardless of when it's hit during said ninth Inning.

Johnny Footstool
08-22-2007, 10:39 AM
Just a reminder that we do have a park effect to deal with. Over the course of the season, GABP boosts the Reds overall RS and RA totals by ~5%.

The Reds are tied with the Braves for 7th in Runs Scored at home (the Braves have played 4 more home games than the Reds). Surprisingly, they're 4th in Runs Scored on the road.

pahster
08-22-2007, 10:43 AM
As for the bunting logic, I'll stick to a simple OPS comparison. A 70% success rate would leave Dunn with a .700 OPS. I'll stick to the .900 OPS version with the possible exception of the bases empty and an increased likelihood of success due to positioning. Any other time, I want him swinging.

Wouldn't a 70% successful bunting rate lead to a 1.400 OPS? OBP would = AVG = .700, SLG = AVG?

RedsManRick
08-22-2007, 10:56 AM
Wouldn't a 70&#37; successful bunting rate lead to a 1.400 OPS? OBP would = AVG = .700, SLG = AVG?

D'oh. Somehow thinking that they wouldn't count for SLG... My bad.

So, with bases empty Dunn has hit .252/.353/.528 for his career. The relative value of OBP and SLG shifts towards the OBP side with the bases empty. If Dunn can bunt single successfully 40-45% of the time, he'd break even with what he's doing now. If it's upwards of 50%, he should definitely go for it.

The problem, as stated earlier, is that guys like Adam Dunn don't get very much practice bunting, and for good reason. I have serious doubts that Dunn could sustain 40%+ success. Furthermore, I wouldn't want Dunn taking the possibility of extra bases away from himself when he's batting 5th and has 3 .700 OPS guys behind him who aren't likely to move him around.