PDA

View Full Version : Dusty Quote of the Day



Pages : [1] 2

WMR
03-31-2008, 02:37 PM
"Home runs are fine, but I'd rather have RBIs and sac flies or ground balls to 2nd with the infield back."

SMcGavin
03-31-2008, 02:38 PM
Yep, just watched that too and figured a thread would be starting quickly.

WMR
03-31-2008, 02:39 PM
The 'ground balls to 2nd with the infield back' part really scratched me where I itch.

flyer85
03-31-2008, 02:40 PM
I'm all for run producing outs :thumbup:

BRM
03-31-2008, 02:41 PM
I'm all for run producing outs :thumbup:

Those are way better than run producing non-outs.

Triples
03-31-2008, 02:43 PM
Those are way better than run producing non-outs.


I think you meant they are better than non run producing outs.:confused:

WMR
03-31-2008, 02:44 PM
I think you meant they are better than non run producing outs.:confused:

No, he was pointing out the absurdity of the comment. A home-run is a non-out run producer unlike the other scenarios that Dusty actually prefers.

Raisor
03-31-2008, 02:44 PM
If the Reds win, Dusty can say whatever he wants. I am glad I live in Atlanta though, since I won't have to listen to him saying crazy things.

BRM
03-31-2008, 02:44 PM
I think you meant they are better than non run producing outs.:confused:

Actually, I didn't. I was comparing sac flies and grounders to 2nd with hitting home runs (run producing non-out).

BRM
03-31-2008, 02:45 PM
If the Reds win, Dusty can say whatever he wants. I am glad I live in Atlanta though, since I won't have to listen to him saying crazy things.

You won't have to listen but you'll get the pleasure of reading them on here. ;)

SMcGavin
03-31-2008, 02:45 PM
I think you meant they are better than non run producing outs.:confused:

Yes, but Dusty said he prefers sac flies and grounders to second with the infield back over home runs. I know he doesn't actually think that, I wish he would just take a second to think before he speaks sometimes.

RedsManRick
03-31-2008, 02:47 PM
There's Dusty's offense philosophy in a nutshell. It's now how many runs you score, it's how many outs you can make in the process.

Screwball
03-31-2008, 02:48 PM
The thing is, I actually really like Dusty. He's got a very likeable personality, and I appreciate the fact that he'll actually speak his mind on the players and other topics that past managers wouldn't touch with a ten foot clown pole.

Problem is, when he does speak his mind he inevitably says things that leave me either :confused: or :bang:.

Team Clark
03-31-2008, 02:53 PM
I have yet to see a Strikeout drive in a run... Still waiting. :D

I just had too!!!

Happy Opening Day Everyone!!:thumbup:

RANDY IN INDY
03-31-2008, 04:29 PM
Adam Dunn drove one in with a groundball to second today with nobody out. In that situation, I'll take that over a strikeout, every day of the week.

WMR
03-31-2008, 04:39 PM
Adam Dunn drove one in with a groundball to second today with nobody out. In that situation, I'll take that over a strikeout, every day of the week.

Who wouldn't?

Would you take it over a home-run?

RedsManRick
03-31-2008, 04:39 PM
Adam Dunn drove one in with a groundball to second today with nobody out. In that situation, I'll take that over a strikeout, every day of the week.

So would I, Randy. Believe or not, even I like scoring runs :beerme:

WMR
03-31-2008, 04:40 PM
Would you rather take a strike-out, or a GIDP such as the one Keppinger just hit into?

RANDY IN INDY
03-31-2008, 05:15 PM
Who wouldn't?

Would you take it over a home-run?

That is just a stupid question. Not part of the equation.

That is when all this gets really absurd.

WMR
03-31-2008, 05:16 PM
That is just a stupid question.

Ummm, not according to Dusty.

About as stupid as feeling the need to say you'd prefer a run producing out to a non-run producing out.

Raisor
03-31-2008, 05:16 PM
That is just a stupid question. Not part of the equation.

Then you admit that that Dusty quote was "stupid".

kewl.

WMR
03-31-2008, 05:17 PM
Then you admit that that Dusty quote was "stupid".

kewl.

:lol:

:clap:

:beerme:

BRM
03-31-2008, 05:24 PM
That is just a stupid question. Not part of the equation.

That is when all this gets really absurd.

What's absurd about it? This whole thread exists because of this Dusty quote:


"Home runs are fine, but I'd rather have RBIs and sac flies or ground balls to 2nd with the infield back."


He says he prefers run producing outs over homeruns. Now I'm sure Dusty doesn't really mean that but it's the cause for this thread.

klw
03-31-2008, 05:39 PM
Look his quote may not say it but we all know what he is intending to say. He is saying that he doesn't want a team full of guys swinging for the fences and trying for homers in every at bat. He wants the team to play situationally smart baseball and not try to do too much. He may not say it well but lets cut the guy some slack. No need to attack him for phrasing his thoughts poorly. If we attacked each other that way where would we be (clear set up line)

Raisor
03-31-2008, 05:41 PM
Look his quote may not say it but we all know what he is intending to say. He is saying that he doesn't want a team full of guys swinging for the fences and trying for homers in every at bat. He wants the team to play situationally smart baseball and not try to do too much. He may not say it well but lets cut the guy some slack. No need to attack him for phrasing his thoughts poorly. If we attacked each other that way where would we be (clear set up line)

Dusty can speak for himself. He's been in the game a LONG time, and knows exactly what he's saying.

BRM
03-31-2008, 05:42 PM
Look his quote may not say it but we all know what he is intending to say. He is saying that he doesn't want a team full of guys swinging for the fences and trying for homers in every at bat. He wants the team to play situationally smart baseball and not try to do too much. He may not say it well but lets cut the guy some slack. No need to attack him for phrasing his thoughts poorly. If we attacked each other that way where would we be (clear set up line)

I agree that's what he was likely saying. It's hard to tell with Dusty half the time though. FWIW, I think most in this thread are just having some fun with a typical Dusty comment and not necessarily "attacking" him. Just MO.

Raisor
03-31-2008, 05:45 PM
I agree that's what he was likely saying. It's hard to tell with Dusty half the time though. FWIW, I think most in this thread are just having some fun with a typical Dusty comment and not necessarily "attacking" him. Just MO.



We've all been told what a good communicator Dusty is. He keeps making the same kind of comment, so at this point don't we need to agree that he knows what he's saying?

camisadelgolf
03-31-2008, 05:47 PM
Dusty Baker is a good communicator . . . to a large group of jocks. Sometimes, to communicate with them, you have to speak their language (stupid).

BRM
03-31-2008, 05:47 PM
We've all been told what a good communicator Dusty is. He keeps making the same kind of comment, so at this point don't we need to agree that he knows what he's saying?

We should be able to say that, yes. I'm trying to give him the benefit of the doubt. How on earth could anyone actually prefer a run producing out over a homerun? Surely Dusty didn't mean it that way.

Raisor
03-31-2008, 05:49 PM
We should be able to say that, yes. I'm trying to give him the benefit of the doubt. How on earth could anyone actually prefer a run producing out over a homerun? Surely Dusty didn't mean it that way.

except he's been saying things like this for YEARS.

RANDY IN INDY
03-31-2008, 05:49 PM
There's a lot of stupid going around, that's for sure.

Raisor
03-31-2008, 05:51 PM
There's a lot of stupid going around, that's for sure.

I guess that means you're off the Dusty bandwagon?

RFS62
03-31-2008, 05:53 PM
Look his quote may not say it but we all know what he is intending to say. He is saying that he doesn't want a team full of guys swinging for the fences and trying for homers in every at bat. He wants the team to play situationally smart baseball and not try to do too much. He may not say it well but lets cut the guy some slack. No need to attack him for phrasing his thoughts poorly. If we attacked each other that way where would we be (clear set up line)



This is exactly what I think he was trying to say.

Dusty is going to do plenty to cause his detractors to pull their hair out.... no need to twist this one around, you've got plenty of ammo elsewhere.

Raisor
03-31-2008, 05:55 PM
This is exactly what I think he was trying to say.

Dusty is going to do plenty to cause his detractors to pull their hair out.... no need to twist this one around, you've got plenty of ammo elsewhere.

Actually, isn't it the pro Dusty-iers (new word) that need to "twist" is around for it to make sense? :thumbup:

I'd be in total agreement that he didn't mean to say what he said, except for the fact he has a LOOOOONG history of saying things exactly like this.

traderumor
03-31-2008, 05:58 PM
Some of you all will be in straitjackets before the year's over dissecting this stuff. Why let this stuff bother you? You know what he meant, it just seems like so much folks trying to make themselves sound smart by pointing out every little freaking mistake someone else makes. I guess I'll have to start getting enjoyment out of watching the freaking out over this stuff :)

BRM
03-31-2008, 06:03 PM
Like I said, I don't think people are "up in arms" or "going crazy" dissecting this statement (I know I'm not). I'm pretty sure people are having a little fun at Dusty's expense. I seriously doubt Raisor is going to lose sleep tonight over Dusty's latest dumb comment.

Raisor
03-31-2008, 06:07 PM
Like I said, I don't think people are "up in arms" or "going crazy" dissecting this statement (I know I'm not). I'm pretty sure people are having a little fun at Dusty's expense. I seriously doubt Raisor is going to lose sleep tonight over Dusty's latest dumb comment.

I'm hoping everyone agrees it was a dumb comment, at least.

traderumor
03-31-2008, 06:10 PM
I'm hoping everyone agrees it was a dumb comment, at least.I would agree that I knew what he meant, but I suppose there are some out there who enjoy picking nits every other day.

BuckeyeRedleg
03-31-2008, 06:17 PM
I would agree that I knew what he meant, but I suppose there are some out there who enjoy picking nits every other day.

And I think that also works both ways.

Picking nits about those that are picking nits.

Stormy
03-31-2008, 06:22 PM
I'm hoping everyone agrees it was a dumb comment, at least.

I agree. Frankly, given Dusty's disposition, I'm not even certain he meant the more benign interpretation being offered. Hopefully he's better at conveying his expectations to his players, than he is at espousing a viable offensive philosophy to the public.

Like tr said, it's nothing to get worked up over, but it sure is obtuse! :beerme:

Yachtzee
03-31-2008, 06:26 PM
I'm hoping everyone agrees it was a dumb comment, at least.

It's certainly dumb, but hardly his dumbest. I seem to remember a certain comment about some players of a particular ethnic background being better suited for day games at Wrigley that ranks right up there at the top. I don't think this is the last dumb thing we'll hear from "In Dusty We Trusty."

SMcGavin
03-31-2008, 06:57 PM
Dusty Baker is a good communicator . . . to a large group of jocks. Sometimes, to communicate with them, you have to speak their language (stupid).

No kidding. I think if Dusty tried to teach his team about the expected runs value of various plays, most of them would look at him like he had two heads. I don't think stupid is the right word for it, but these guys have spent their free time in the weight room and batting cage, not learning about how runs are scored. The tired cliches about "playing the game the right way" and such may be annoying to most of us, but that's what the players grew up hearing from coaches and that's what they are currently expecting to hear. I'm not a huge Dusty fan, but probably his strongest point is that his players really like him. So until Dusty starts punishing players for hitting home runs, I will do my best not to get too worked up about stupid quotes like this. Even though it's pretty annoying.

BRM
03-31-2008, 07:17 PM
I'm hoping everyone agrees it was a dumb comment, at least.

I agree it was a very dumb comment. I expect to hear more just like it from him over the next three years. Let's hope he wins a ton of games while making the dumb comments. :)

jojo
03-31-2008, 07:22 PM
Adam Dunn drove one in with a groundball to second today with nobody out. In that situation, I'll take that over a strikeout, every day of the week.

According to Brantley, Dunn grounded to the right side on purpose. If so it was patently stupid.

wheels
03-31-2008, 07:25 PM
Like tr said, it's nothing to get worked up over, but it sure is obtuse! :beerme:


And hilarious.

It deserves to be discussed and lampooned.

I can't wait for Dusty's first "dude" laced tyrade of the season. I freaking love it.

jojo
03-31-2008, 07:32 PM
Personally, I think Dusty is funnier than Bob Uecker...

traderumor
03-31-2008, 08:14 PM
And I think that also works both ways.

Picking nits about those that are picking nits.Am not, am not... :p:

Which is the level that these ongoing Dusty quote threads are. Carry on if you must.

Raisor
03-31-2008, 08:31 PM
Am not, am not... :p:

Which is the level that these ongoing Dusty quote threads are. Carry on if you must.

Seriously, when someone says something that dumb, how can we not bust him on it?

This kind of stuff is exactly why they invented the interweb.

Patrick Bateman
03-31-2008, 08:44 PM
This kind of stuff is exactly why they invented the interweb.

Al Gore is not a they. Gore is a singular, as in he.

BuckeyeRedleg
03-31-2008, 09:04 PM
Am not, am not... :p:

Which is the level that these ongoing Dusty quote threads are. Carry on if you must.


And you continue entering such threads (in which you know the topic before you enter) and waste your time reading every comment and then telling everyone that the topic is silly and they are wasting their time.

Irony.

Yes, carry on.

*BaseClogger*
03-31-2008, 09:08 PM
ahhh... this thread cracks me up! :laugh:

"Because hardly anyone notices ManBearPig before he strikes. I think it is close to 80% don't know it happened"

RANDY IN INDY
03-31-2008, 09:10 PM
According to Brantley, Dunn grounded to the right side on purpose. If so it was patently stupid.

Which is exactly what I was trying to point out with my first post in this thread. Runner on third, no outs and Dunn gets the run home with a ground ball to the right side. That was a big run at the time to cut the lead to one against a very good pitcher. There is nothing about it that I didn't appreciate.

RANDY IN INDY
03-31-2008, 09:13 PM
I guess that means you're off the Dusty bandwagon?

Nah, that quote wasn't aimed at Dusty. As far as being on the bandwagon, I've never been on it, but I am not going to "nit pick" his every comment and move in an attempt to try and impress anyone. And, by the way, it's not very impressive.

jojo
03-31-2008, 09:16 PM
Which is exactly what I was trying to point out with my first post in this thread. Runner on third, no outs and Dunn gets the run home with a ground ball to the right side. That was a big run at the time to cut the lead to one against a very good pitcher. There is nothing about it that I didn't appreciate.

Funny thing about today's game.....the Reds could've used a few more outs.

traderumor
03-31-2008, 09:17 PM
And you continue entering such threads (in which you know the topic before you enter) and waste your time reading every comment and then telling everyone that the topic is silly and they are wasting their time.

Irony.

Yes, carry on.I know, sort of like rubber-necking at a car wreck. I swear I won't slow down, but I put on the brakes and look anyways.

Probably something from my childhood.

jojo
03-31-2008, 09:20 PM
Nah, that quote wasn't aimed at Dusty. As far as being on the bandwagon, I've never been on it, but I am not going to "nit pick" his every comment and move in an attempt to try and impress anyone. And, by the way, it's not very impressive.

Is it more impressive to frame the motives of others in such a way as to make oneself appear above the fray?

BuckeyeRedleg
03-31-2008, 09:26 PM
Nah, that quote wasn't aimed at Dusty.

So who was the quote aimed at, Randy?

Were you saying that there was a lot of "stupid going around" with the comments in the first two pages of this thread?


As far as being on the bandwagon, I've never been on it, but I am not going to "nit pick" his every comment and move in an attempt to try and impress anyone. And, by the way, it's not very impressive.

I think this is a slight overreaction.

LoganBuck
03-31-2008, 09:31 PM
I think Dusty is crazy. There I said it. Those three homeruns that the Dbacks hit seem to magnify why he is so wrong.

I will probably go crazy this season. Every time he opens his mouth it is like ear acid.

*BaseClogger*
03-31-2008, 09:33 PM
Yeah, Dusty is an alien.

Yachtzee
03-31-2008, 09:41 PM
Yeah, Dusty is an alien.

Well, if he's an alien, I hope he proves to be more Yoda and less Jar Jar Binks.

jojo
03-31-2008, 10:02 PM
Look his quote may not say it but we all know what he is intending to say. He is saying that he doesn't want a team full of guys swinging for the fences and trying for homers in every at bat. He wants the team to play situationally smart baseball and not try to do too much. He may not say it well but lets cut the guy some slack. No need to attack him for phrasing his thoughts poorly. If we attacked each other that way where would we be (clear set up line)

In all seriousness for a sec.......

First, a major part of his job is being the interface between the clubhouse and the media (i.e. he's the public face of the Reds for us fans). He's paid to say it well and his comments are well within bounds of fair game for analysis/criticism/use as data reflecting his job performance.

Second, while charity (making the utmost attempt to understand the other's position) is always a key element in effective communication, he's said so many things in the past that makes one scratch their head that I'm not sure that Dusty hasn't long ago reached the threshold of patience in that regard.

*BaseClogger*
03-31-2008, 10:09 PM
Another thing to keep in mind is that while RedsZone can react to this with humor, these comments will be viewed differently by others. I consider RedsZone to be a group of the most knowledgable Reds fans; it's those guys calling into 700 that will take these quotes for reals and start buying into them. That, is scary...

RANDY IN INDY
04-01-2008, 06:50 AM
So who was the quote aimed at, Randy?

Were you saying that there was a lot of "stupid going around" with the comments in the first two pages of this thread?

Yes

I think this is a slight overreaction.

As were many of the comments that generated that reaction.

RANDY IN INDY
04-01-2008, 06:51 AM
Is it more impressive to frame the motives of others in such a way as to make oneself appear above the fray?

Read it however you want to. I know you will.

RANDY IN INDY
04-01-2008, 06:53 AM
Funny thing about today's game.....the Reds could've used a few more outs.

I can't help it if you don't get it. Keeping the game close against a pitcher like Brandon Webb is a must, and Adam Dunn driving in that run, instead of stranding it, was a big plus. Sinkerball pitcher, nasty stuff, lot of balls being pounded in the ground. I like the fact that Dunn took what was given and drove in the run. It's good baseball and helped keep the team in the game.
Everyone would rather see a home run, or a base hit for that matter, but it isn't that simple, particularly against a pitcher like Webb. Great job by Adam Dunn in that situation.

jojo
04-01-2008, 08:56 AM
I can't help it if you don't get it. Keeping the game close against a pitcher like Brandon Webb is a must, and Adam Dunn driving in that run, instead of stranding it, was a big plus. Sinkerball pitcher, nasty stuff, lot of balls being pounded in the ground. I like the fact that Dunn took what was given and drove in the run. It's good baseball and helped keep the team in the game.
Everyone would rather see a home run, or a base hit for that matter, but it isn't that simple, particularly against a pitcher like Webb. Great job by Adam Dunn in that situation.

Adam Dunn has no business giving himself up in the 4th inning as Brantley suggested he did. You know what kills rallies? Outs.

At the time Dunn grounded Phillips home, Webb had thrown as many balls as he had strikes. Dunn grounded out on the second pitch right before Webb proceeded to walk EE. It's pretty easy to envision a scenario where the Reds had bases loaded and no outs in their half of the 4th yesterday.

Purposefully grounding out in that scenario looks a lot more like run suppression than it looks heroic IMHO ....

RANDY IN INDY
04-01-2008, 09:17 AM
Yeah, they really did poor it on Webb after that, didn't they? Envision all you want.

jojo
04-01-2008, 09:29 AM
Yeah, they really did poor it on Webb after that, didn't they? Envision all you want.

It seems Webb is good enough to take advantage when teams let him off of the hook.

RANDY IN INDY
04-01-2008, 09:41 AM
"The only chance to score runs, we scored them," Dunn said. "When a guy like [Webb] is on, he's as tough as there is. He made it very tough. He's obviously one of the premier pitchers in the game. He doesn't give you much to hit. He's very good."

blumj
04-01-2008, 09:45 AM
I can't help it if you don't get it. Keeping the game close against a pitcher like Brandon Webb is a must, and Adam Dunn driving in that run, instead of stranding it, was a big plus. Sinkerball pitcher, nasty stuff, lot of balls being pounded in the ground. I like the fact that Dunn took what was given and drove in the run. It's good baseball and helped keep the team in the game.
Everyone would rather see a home run, or a base hit for that matter, but it isn't that simple, particularly against a pitcher like Webb. Great job by Adam Dunn in that situation.
I don't know how to reconcile that. How can the defense be willing to play as if getting the out is more important than saving the run if getting the run is more important to the offense than not using the out?

RANDY IN INDY
04-01-2008, 09:47 AM
Brandon Webb.

jojo
04-01-2008, 09:48 AM
I don't know how to reconcile that. How can the defense be willing to play as if getting the out is more important than saving the run if getting the run is more important to the offense than not using the out?

Yep.

blumj
04-01-2008, 09:55 AM
Brandon Webb.
They're the ones who have him, and they're choosing to play as if the out is more important to them than the run. How can the out be more important to that team while the run is more important to the team playing against them? Someone has to be wrong. How can it be right that both teams should be playing for the same goal?

edabbs44
04-01-2008, 10:04 AM
Adam Dunn has no business giving himself up in the 4th inning as Brantley suggested he did. You know what kills rallies? Outs.

In many cases it is difficult to go up to the plate, say "I'm going to purposely ground out here" and then achieve that mission.

Do you honestly believe that Adam Dunn can go up to the plate and make contact every single time he wants to?


At the time Dunn grounded Phillips home, Webb had thrown as many balls as he had strikes. Dunn grounded out on the second pitch right before Webb proceeded to walk EE. It's pretty easy to envision a scenario where the Reds had bases loaded and no outs in their half of the 4th yesterday.

Pretty easy to envision a Dunn whiff in that situation as well. Then what happens?


Purposefully grounding out in that scenario looks a lot more like run suppression than it looks heroic IMHO ....

There is no way Dunn purposely grounded out. Maybe he tried a little harder to make contact by shortening his swing, but you don't go up to the plate and groundout on command.

I'd take that result anyway, even if he did groundout. I'm a big fan of scoring runs. Moreso than creating runs.

*BaseClogger*
04-01-2008, 10:14 AM
Pretty easy to envision a Dunn whiff in that situation as well. Then what happens?

There were no outs. The next guy can ground Phillips in if you must, but Dunn is the best hitter in the lineup; he needs to be doing his thing...

westofyou
04-01-2008, 10:28 AM
There were no outs. The next guy can ground Phillips in if you must, but Dunn is the best hitter in the lineup; he needs to be doing his thing...

You mean walking and then being part of a DP when EE hits a grounder to the SS?

Because if I look at Webb's splits against RH's for his career

.211/.266/.284/.550 I'm thinking that getting the team within one run is "doing my thing"

So why I ask do we use Dunn's slugging and on base percentage to justify him not playing small ball in some instances but ignore the other part of the equation... Webb, a world class RH who's controlling the game with his impressive array of statistical arrows in his quiver as well.

edabbs44
04-01-2008, 10:29 AM
There were no outs. The next guy can ground Phillips in if you must, but Dunn is the best hitter in the lineup; he needs to be doing his thing...

Dunn makes outs at a clip of roughly 63% or so. So odds are that he was making an out. Getting a hit isn't his thing.

But what I am saying is that I doubt he purposely grounded out. Maybe he shortened his swing and tried to make contact. But that could have also resulted in a hit as well.

*BaseClogger*
04-01-2008, 10:30 AM
You mean walking and then being part of a DP when EE hits a grounder to the SS?

Yeah, I wish he would have walked...

jojo
04-01-2008, 10:30 AM
In many cases it is difficult to go up to the plate, say "I'm going to purposely ground out here" and then achieve that mission.

Do you honestly believe that Adam Dunn can go up to the plate and make contact every single time he wants to?

I've argued many times that Dunn is a contact deficient hitter. So no, I wouldn't ask Dunn to give himself up. But hey, I'm not Dusty. Also, it's Brantley's argument that Dunn changed his approach that at bat. I've suggested Brantley's praise is misguided.


Pretty easy to envision a Dunn whiff in that situation as well. Then what happens?

Webb was struggling with command. I can't think of a hitter I'd rather have up there that Dunn in that case. It's pretty easy to envision a Dunn walk in that situation.

As to what happens if Dunn Ks....worst case scenario, the Reds lose 4 to 1. Best case scenario...well some have trouble envisioning that kind of thing. :cool:

westofyou
04-01-2008, 10:31 AM
Yeah, I wish he would have walked...

Did I say you did?

I'm simply putting in a bunch of stuff you want to gloss over, so please continue with that approach if it suits you.

jojo
04-01-2008, 10:32 AM
You mean walking and then being part of a DP when EE hits a grounder to the SS?

Because if I look at Webb's splits against RH's for his career

.211/.266/.284/.550 I'm thinking that getting the team within one run is "doing my thing"

So why I ask do we use Dunn's slugging and on base percentage to justify him not playing small ball in some instances but ignore the other part of the equation... Webb, a world class RH who's controlling the game with his impressive array of statistical arrows in his quiver as well.

Because everyone is ignoring that Webb wasn't throwing strikes early on...

BTW, EE walked after Dunn grounded out....

*BaseClogger*
04-01-2008, 10:33 AM
Webb was struggling with command. I can't think of a hitter I'd rather have up there that Dunn in that case. It's pretty easy to envision a Dunn walk in that situation.

Why would the Reds want two baserunners on with no outs rather than nobody on with one out? ;)

*BaseClogger*
04-01-2008, 10:34 AM
Did I say you did?

I'm simply putting in a bunch of stuff you want to gloss over, so please continue with that approach if it suits you.

No, I seriously wish he would have walked instead of grounding out. And you are glossing over the fact that Webb wasn't throwing strikes and walked EdE...

westofyou
04-01-2008, 10:34 AM
Because everyone is ignoring that Webb wasn't throwing strikes early on...

BTW, EE walked after Dunn grounded out....

Yes.. I was watching the game.

I know you might think I wasn't but I was.

westofyou
04-01-2008, 10:36 AM
No, I seriously wish he would have walked instead of grounding out. And you are glossing over the fact that Webb wasn't throwing strikes and walked EdE...

Actually he walked Griffey for his 2nd walk.

So you guys can quit painting him as Bruce Beryni, he was hardly falling apart and he was hardly rattled.

*BaseClogger*
04-01-2008, 10:38 AM
So why I ask do we use Dunn's slugging and on base percentage to justify him not playing small ball in some instances but ignore the other part of the equation... Webb, a world class RH who's controlling the game with his impressive array of statistical arrows in his quiver as well.

I don't have the time right now, but this would be an excellent time to pull out a run expectancy table...

westofyou
04-01-2008, 10:39 AM
I don't have the time right now, but this would be an excellent time to pull out a run expectancy table...

Thanks for the offer... let me check out some of my Baseball Abstracts from the early 80's and see if I can help you out.

dabvu2498
04-01-2008, 10:42 AM
I did the win expectancy just out of curiousity.

http://winexp.walkoffbalk.com/expectancy/search

Down 2, bottom half of 4, runner on 3b, no outs -- winex=.446 (relatively small sample size with only 77 games with this circumstance)
Down 1, bottom half of 4, no runners, 1 out -- winex=.414

edabbs44
04-01-2008, 10:42 AM
Because everyone is ignoring that Webb wasn't throwing strikes early on...

BTW, EE walked after Dunn grounded out....

And Webb would have been pitching from the stretch instead of the full windup. Who knows what would have happened then? Could have been a 3 run HR or a triple play. Doesn't have to be a walk.

jojo
04-01-2008, 10:42 AM
Yes.. I was watching the game.

I know you might think I wasn't but I was.

You're intelligent and I've never implied otherwise. I was simply pointing out something that IMHO plays a big role in the discussion about strategy during the 4th inning.

Raisor
04-01-2008, 10:50 AM
If Dunn did it on purpose, I don't like it.

If it was just the way things turned out, then it's just the way it turned out, and I have no problem.

BuckeyeRedleg
04-01-2008, 10:52 AM
So who was the quote aimed at, Randy?

Were you saying that there was a lot of "stupid going around" with the comments in the first two pages of this thread?



Yes


Randy, I didn't see anything stupid with the posts in this thread (before you joined into the discussion) that would warrant you saying that. You created a strawman with your first post in the thread that had nothing to do with the thread topic (Dusty's quote) itself.



Adam Dunn drove one in with a groundball to second today with nobody out. In that situation, I'll take that over a strikeout, every day of the week.


The thread was about a quote Dusty made:

"Home runs are fine, but I'd rather have RBIs and sac flies or ground balls to 2nd with the infield back."

Of course, anyone would take a groundball to second to score a run over a strikeout. That's common sense. The issue that certain individuals had was Dusty putting his foot in his mouth saying he'd take the ground ball over the HR, even if he WAS saying something silly to make a point.

And I don't care if you think that Dunn grounding out to 2nd with a no out and a runner on third is a good thing or not, you are missing the point that others were making (in the 2nd page of this thread) that Dunn was not trying to do that. He might have been trying to hit the ball hard to the right side. If that's what you are saying, fine, but he just as easily could have flown out to RF (scoring the run), lined out to first or second, or struck trying to do that as well.

Again, I think if anyone overreacted, it was you my man.

BuckeyeRedleg
04-01-2008, 11:05 AM
If Dunn did it on purpose, I don't like it.

If it was just the way things turned out, then it's just the way it turned out, and I have no porblem.


Agree.

blumj
04-01-2008, 11:33 AM
I'd suggest you flip the scenario if you really think you'd want Dunn trying to GO to score the run. Your team's best pitcher pitching, the other team's big slugger up with a runner on 3B and no outs, how much do you really mind when he grounds out? Granted, there are scenarios you might prefer, but that one's fairly high up there on the list, isn't it?

RANDY IN INDY
04-01-2008, 11:45 AM
Randy, I didn't see anything stupid with the posts in this thread (before you joined into the discussion) that would warrant you saying that. You created a strawman with your first post in the thread that had nothing to do with the thread topic (Dusty's quote) itself.





The thread was about a quote Dusty made:

"Home runs are fine, but I'd rather have RBIs and sac flies or ground balls to 2nd with the infield back."

Of course, anyone would take a groundball to second to score a run over a strikeout. That's common sense. The issue that certain individuals had was Dusty putting his foot in his mouth saying he'd take the ground ball over the HR, even if he WAS saying something silly to make a point.

And I don't care if you think that Dunn grounding out to 2nd with a no out and a runner on third is a good thing or not, you are missing the point that others were making (in the 2nd page of this thread) that Dunn was not trying to do that. He might have been trying to hit the ball hard to the right side. If that's what you are saying, fine, but he just as easily could have flown out to RF (scoring the run), lined out to first or second, or struck trying to do that as well.

Again, I think if anyone overreacted, it was you my man.

Sorry you feel that way. I don't.

RFS62
04-01-2008, 11:45 AM
When the infield plays back as they were when Dunn grounded into an RBI, they are conceding the run if you put it on the ground.

They know it's almost impossible to stop the run from third from scoring with no outs, and they are telling you they'll take an out for the run to stay out of a big inning. If it were late and close, they'd play the infield in and take away the ground ball option.

And the reason everyone in the dugout jumped up to congratulate Dunn after he put it on the ground to the right side is that that is the style of play that Dusty expects and a vast majority of baseball teams play.

Raisor
04-01-2008, 11:48 AM
Sorry you feel that way. I don't.

So Randy, since you still haven't commented on the origianal post. What do you feel about Dusty's comment?

dabvu2498
04-01-2008, 11:48 AM
They know it's almost impossible to stop the run from third from scoring with no outs, and they are telling you they'll take an out for the run to stay out of a big inning. If it were late and close, they'd play the infield in and take away the ground ball option.

Some managers in some circumstances will move the infield in with 1 out, as oppsoed to none, where they'd play the infield back.

Not likely with Dunn at the plate, however.

I tend to agree with raisor. If he was trying to make solid contact, I'm all for it.

Remember the football adage -- "don't take points off the scoreboard." It's hard to trade a guaranteed run for "maybe" run(s) in a tight ballgame.

edabbs44
04-01-2008, 11:50 AM
When the infield plays back as they were when Dunn grounded into an RBI, they are conceding the run if you put it on the ground.

They know it's almost impossible to stop the run from third from scoring with no outs, and they are telling you they'll take an out for the run to stay out of a big inning. If it were late and close, they'd play the infield in and take away the ground ball option.

And the reason everyone in the dugout jumped up to congratulate Dunn after he put it on the ground to the right side is that that is the style of play that Dusty expects and a vast majority of baseball teams play.

While I agree with most of your post, I think everyone in the dugout jumped up to congratulate Dunn because he drove in a run and got them closer to the lead. Not because of Dusty. Guaranteed he would have been congratulated last year as well.

RFS62
04-01-2008, 11:56 AM
While I agree with most of your post, I think everyone in the dugout jumped up to congratulate Dunn because he drove in a run and got them closer to the lead. Not because of Dusty. Guaranteed he would have been congratulated last year as well.


Yeah, they congratulated Dunn, of course.

Not because of Dusty, if it reads that way, my bad. Because it's his system, his style of play, and he did what is encouraged and expected in that style of play.

BuckeyeRedleg
04-01-2008, 12:04 PM
The thing is, in hindsight it worked out and you congratulate him. It's human nature.

Just as if he hits a flyball anywhere in the OF. That would be a run as well and he'd be congratulated.

Then we'd hear that Dunn is "playing the right way."

Dunn may have been just trying to hit the ball somewhere, but he gets credit (in hindsight) for taking one for the team and getting the runner in. He could have struck out doing the same thing. He could have homered. He could have walked. I just think it's a reach to think he was trying to ground out and score the run.

RFS62
04-01-2008, 12:13 PM
Why do you guys think they spend time doing situational drills at all levels of professional baseball, even through spring training?

Who knows if Dunn had it in his mind to shorten up and put the ball in play. Only Dunn knows that.

I do know it's what Dusty coaches, productive outs, a curse word to most sabermatricians. And every time it happens all season long this kind of discussion will fire up.

princeton
04-01-2008, 12:15 PM
If Dunn did it on purpose, I don't like it.

it's a brilliant play given the situation, so if he did it on purpose, he's brilliant.

I don't think that he did it on purpose.

Raisor
04-01-2008, 12:17 PM
And every time it happens all season long this kind of discussion will fire up.

Something everyone can agree with!

:thumbup:

edabbs44
04-01-2008, 12:17 PM
Why do you guys think they spend time doing situational drills at all levels of professional baseball, even through spring training?

Who knows if Dunn had it in his mind to shorten up and put the ball in play. Only Dunn knows that.

I do know it's what Dusty coaches, productive outs, a curse word to most sabermatricians. And every time it happens all season long this kind of discussion will fire up.

No one would be complaining if they won 5-4 on a 3 run HR in the 9th.

BuckeyeRedleg
04-01-2008, 12:20 PM
Why do you guys think they spend time doing situational drills at all levels of professional baseball, even through spring training?

Who knows if Dunn had it in his mind to shorten up and put the ball in play. Only Dunn knows that.

I do know it's what Dusty coaches, productive outs, a curse word to most sabermatricians. And every time it happens all season long this kind of discussion will fire up.


I agree there are times when situational hitting is necessary. I just don't think this was one of those times.

As you said, only Dunn knows for sure, but I don't agree he should be trying to give himself up to score the runner from 3rd in that situation.

I agree it's what Dusty coaches and whether Dunn was trying to do it or not, in hindsight it will be credited as such.

jojo
04-01-2008, 12:28 PM
it's a brilliant play given the situation, so if he did it on purpose, he's brilliant.

I don't think that he did it on purpose.

It's a play that decreased the chances that the Reds would win.

Brilliant from an Arizona fan's perspective I guess.

flyer85
04-01-2008, 12:35 PM
There is no doubt that it was an unusual swing from Dunn ... it was a down and away changeup that he really went down and got.

blumj
04-01-2008, 12:35 PM
it's a brilliant play given the situation, so if he did it on purpose, he's brilliant.

I don't think that he did it on purpose.
I still don't know how it could be "brilliant" to try to give the opposing defense what it's asking for, given the alternatives. Not that I think he was trying to do it, either.

edabbs44
04-01-2008, 12:36 PM
It's a play that decreased the chances that the Reds would win.

Brilliant from an Arizona fan's perspective I guess.

This is why this conversation is so ridiculous. Dunn didn't walk up to the box, see this menu:


1) Out which scores the run
2) Out which doesn't score the run
3) Non-out

And say "Hmmm....I'll take the #1 please."

In Dunn's case, he could have easily whiffed or popped-up. Then what would you rather have had? Would this have even been a discussion? What if he tried to put it in play and hit a HR? Or tried to hit a HR and hit a sac fly?

Or better yet...what if he watched two pitches go down the pike because Webb was "wild" and then K? At what point is Dunn allowed to swing?

The statistically inclined are all about scoring runs until it is time to score them. Then it is better to create them.

westofyou
04-01-2008, 12:38 PM
http://www.daytondailynews.com/s/content/oh/story/sports/pro/reds/2008/03/31/ddn040108redsside.html


"We had a game plan, to make (Webb) throw a few pitches. Obviously, that didn't work out so well," left fielder Adam Dunn said.

princeton
04-01-2008, 12:40 PM
It's a play that decreased the chances that the Reds would win.

your overanalysis is keeping you from the simple truths

go out and play the game ;)

blumj
04-01-2008, 12:42 PM
This is why this conversation is so ridiculous. Dunn didn't walk up to the box, see this menu:



And say "Hmmm....I'll take the #1 please."

In Dunn's case, he could have easily whiffed or popped-up. Then what would you rather have had? Would this have even been a discussion? What if he tried to put it in play and hit a HR? Or tried to hit a HR and hit a sac fly?

Or better yet...what if he watched two pitches go down the pike because Webb was "wild" and then K? At what point is Dunn allowed to swing?

The statistically inclined are all about scoring runs until it is time to score them. Then it is better to create them.
Because that specific instance isn't really what this conversation is about, at least I don't think it is. It doesn't really matter what Dunn was trying to do to discuss what you'd want him to try to do. Or, not want him to try to do.

edabbs44
04-01-2008, 12:44 PM
Because that specific instance isn't really what this conversation is about, at least I don't think it is. It doesn't really matter what Dunn was trying to do to discuss what you'd want him to try to do. Or, not want him to try to do.

:confused:

RFS62
04-01-2008, 12:47 PM
You guys would have loved Whitey Herzog.

blumj
04-01-2008, 12:53 PM
:confused:
What I mean is, if it was intentional, would you want him to do the same thing again? If it wasn't intentional, would you want him to try to do it intentionally in the future? Is that something worthy of discussion whether it was intentional this time or not?

dabvu2498
04-01-2008, 12:54 PM
You guys would have loved Whitey Herzog.

What's not to love? A World Series ring, 3 NL Pennants, 6 division championships.

30 HR seasons managed by Whitey Herzog: 2 (John Mayberry 34 in 1975 and Jack Clark 35 in 1987).

edabbs44
04-01-2008, 01:00 PM
What I mean is, if it was intentional, would you want him to do the same thing again? If it wasn't intentional, would you want him to try to do it intentionally in the future? Is that something worthy of discussion whether it was intentional this time or not?

I think it depends on the situation.


If Cincy is down 2 or 3 in the ninth, I'd like to see Dunn trying to do more.

If they are down one in the 9th with one out, I'll take it.

Down 3 in the first, no thanks.

Facing Brandon Webb in the same situation? I think I'll take it, especially with his career .296 OBP against him.

KronoRed
04-01-2008, 01:03 PM
What a hilarious quote, I going to be laughing at that one for hours.

jojo
04-01-2008, 01:19 PM
your overanalysis is keeping you from the simple truths

And I think clinging to simple truisms is a roadblock to enlightenment. :thumbup:


go out and play the game ;)

Frankly, you're unqualified to make this statement. :thumbup:

RedsManRick
04-01-2008, 01:37 PM
I think that in the general, we're drawing the line improperly, ignoring the actual merit of the sacrifice. But in this specific case, it is quite odd. The pitch Dunn hit to 2nd base was on an 0-1 count and was thigh high out over the plate. It's not as if he was defending the zone. Why was he not trying to drive it? He's Adam Dunn! A pop fly scores the run, as does an accidental grounder to the right side. If his was attempting to purposefully trade an out for a run (ie. not trying to reach base safely), then I think we have a problem. Dunn's motives aren't really known. But for those of you who watched the game, if he was changing his approach to get the run home in the 4th inning, welcome to Dusty-ball.

In general however, I don't think the strategy is to go up there trying to give up the out early in the game, down 2 runs. Rather, it's that if you are in a situation where 1 run is very valuable (down by 1 or tied) late in the game, the trade becomes reasonable. And if it's earlier in the game, you are behind in the count and not likely to get a good pitch to drive, if you get a pitch with which you are confident you can get the run home (as opposed to trying to drive it and missing it or weakly making an out), you take it.

jojo
04-01-2008, 01:43 PM
This is why this conversation is so ridiculous. Dunn didn't walk up to the box, see this menu:

Before entertaining the "what if's" about possible outcomes, lets let our eyes give the conversation accurate context.

Watch that particular at bat and tell me Dunn was trying to do anything other than just dink the ball. He didn't even follow through. His swing was just one tick above throwing his bat at the ball. He completely conceded his at bat.


In Dunn's case, he could have easily whiffed or popped-up. Then what would you rather have had? Would this have even been a discussion? What if he tried to put it in play and hit a HR? Or tried to hit a HR and hit a sac fly?

Once again, watch his swing.


Or better yet...what if he watched two pitches go down the pike because Webb was "wild" and then K? At what point is Dunn allowed to swing?

You're giving Dunn credit for swinging in the first place. He didn't "swing".


The statistically inclined are all about scoring runs until it is time to score them. Then it is better to create them.

I guess I'm statistically inclined and think that more runs are scored by not purposefully adopting strategies that suppress run scoring.

dabvu2498
04-01-2008, 01:49 PM
I guess I'm statistically inclined and think that more runs are scored by not purposefully adopting strategies that suppress run scoring.

Looking at the situation in question, more runs may have been scored by adopting said strategies.

When you have a chance to get one back in a two run game vs. Brandon Webb, I'd say you do it. Less so in the 4th than in the 6th, but still.

Point is, it's difficult to turn down a "guaranteed" run for "maybe" run(s) in a close ballgame.

princeton
04-01-2008, 01:54 PM
I think that in the general, we're drawing the line improperly, ignoring the actual merit of the sacrifice. But in this specific case, it is quite odd. The pitch Dunn hit to 2nd base was on an 0-1 count and was thigh high out over the plate. It's not as if he was defending the zone. Why was he not trying to drive it? He's Adam Dunn! A pop fly scores the run, as does an accidental grounder to the right side. If his was attempting to purposefully trade an out for a run (ie. not trying to reach base safely), then I think we have a problem. Dunn's motives aren't really known. But for those of you who watched the game, if he was changing his approach to get the run home in the 4th inning, welcome to Dusty-ball.

In general however, I don't think the strategy is to go up there trying to give up the out early in the game, down 2 runs. Rather, it's that if you are in a situation where 1 run is very valuable (down by 1 or tied) late in the game, the trade becomes reasonable. And if it's earlier in the game, you are behind in the count and not likely to get a good pitch to drive, if you get a pitch with which you are confident you can get the run home (as opposed to trying to drive it and missing it or weakly making an out), you take it.


happen to know what Dunn hits if he's down 0-1? 0-2? against Webb in general? against Webb when he's really got movement?

I like bringing a game within a run against a pitcher like that. He's a lot more beatable up 1 than up 2. He might make a mistake. He won't make two mistakes.

I also think that so-so relievers, like those of the Snakes, have a much easier time of things when up two runs as compared to up one run.

I didn't like that we had a K specialist at plate, a chaser next, and then a DP guy after that, against a groundball artist. Wouldn't have surprised if BP never scored there.

finally, I liked that after playing bad baseball for a while, the Reds got good baseball from none other than Mr Bad Baseball himself. It was a momentum-changing moment for the Reds. I like those.

traderumor
04-01-2008, 01:54 PM
Well, I guess this was about more than "lampooning" and having fun at Dusty's expense, after all. Like I said, there is going to be a floor devoted to RZers at the local mental health facility for those suffering from analyzing Dustyisms. I imagine they will be rocking back and forth chanting "he said that he likes ground outs better than home runs, he said he likes ground outs better than home runs" or some other such quote.

There will be a different ward for those distraught over managerial decisions. "Hey, buddy, which one got you?" "Actually, it was two things in the same game. He batted Patterson leadoff against a sidewinding lefty and then had Dunn trying to squeeze in the eighth. I just couldn't take it no more."

edabbs44
04-01-2008, 02:13 PM
Before entertaining the "what if's" about possible outcomes, lets let our eyes give the conversation accurate context.

Watch that particular at bat and tell me Dunn was trying to do anything other than just dink the ball. He didn't even follow through. His swing was just one tick above throwing his bat at the ball. He completely conceded his at bat.

What if he was just fooled?


Once again, watch his swing.

Same.


You're giving Dunn credit for swinging in the first place. He didn't "swing".

OK.


I guess I'm statistically inclined and think that more runs are scored by not purposefully adopting strategies that suppress run scoring.

Suppress theoretical possible run scoring. He actually stimulated real run scoring.

Because if he walked right there and then EE popped up and Hatteberg hit into a DP, Dunn would have "created" more runs than what really happened yet they would have scored less in that inning. Go figure.

*BaseClogger*
04-01-2008, 02:14 PM
Well, I guess this was about more than "lampooning" and having fun at Dusty's expense, after all. Like I said, there is going to be a floor devoted to RZers at the local mental health facility for those suffering from analyzing Dustyisms. I imagine they will be rocking back and forth chanting "he said that he likes ground outs better than home runs, he said he likes ground outs better than home runs" or some other such quote.

There will be a different ward for those distraught over managerial decisions. "Hey, buddy, which one got you?" "Actually, it was two things in the same game. He batted Patterson leadoff against a sidewinding lefty and then had Dunn trying to squeeze in the eighth. I just couldn't take it no more."

What about the floor devoted to the guys confused by BABIP? ;)

Caveat Emperor
04-01-2008, 02:16 PM
I did the win expectancy just out of curiousity.

http://winexp.walkoffbalk.com/expectancy/search

Down 2, bottom half of 4, runner on 3b, no outs -- winex=.446 (relatively small sample size with only 77 games with this circumstance)
Down 1, bottom half of 4, no runners, 1 out -- winex=.414

I have to think your Win Expectancy is significantly less, down 2, when Brandon Webb is on the hill as opposed, say, Brandon Claussen.

The name on the back of the jersey makes a lot of difference. I'm OK with Dunn doing what was necessary to get a run off the best pitcher in the NL in a close game.

RedsManRick
04-01-2008, 02:19 PM
happen to know what Dunn hits if he's down 0-1? 0-2? against Webb in general? against Webb when he's really got movement?

I like bringing a game within a run against a pitcher like that. He's a lot more beatable up 1 than up 2. He might make a mistake. He won't make two mistakes.

I also think that so-so relievers, like those of the Snakes, have a much easier time of things when up two runs as compared to up one run.

I didn't like that we had a K specialist at plate, a chaser next, and then a DP guy after that, against a groundball artist. Wouldn't have surprised if BP never scored there.

finally, I liked that after playing bad baseball for a while, the Reds got good baseball from none other than Mr Bad Baseball himself. It was a momentum-changing moment for the Reds. I like those.

The issue I have is that the specific pitch Dunn hit to 2nd base was one Dunn is very capable of driving. It was thigh high and right down the middle. With Phillips running, if Dunn puts a ball in play on the ground, Phillips scores. If he puts one in the air, Phillips probably scores. If he was already in a "I'm gonna pull one on the ground" mindset and that precluded him from attempting to drive the ball (which still may result in a grounder that scores BP), I have to take issue with that.

Sure, getting a run in against Webb is a good idea. But one could argue that Webb did make his one mistake -- and Dunn rolled over on it on purpose. I refuse to believe that giving up an out for a run in the 4th inning when you're down 2 is a good idea. I don't care if it's Sandy Koufax. You're going to have to score those tying and winning runs sometime and making outs on purpose gives you less opportunity to do it. If Dunn had done that with two strikes, defensively, as an alternative to still trying for the hit/walk while risking the strikeout, it wouldn't be as big a deal. But no, he gave up a good chance to create more runs. It might make us feel warm and fuzzy that Dunn played small ball. But winning that battle might have cost us a better chance to win the war.

dabvu2498
04-01-2008, 02:20 PM
I have to think your Win Expectancy is significantly less, down 2, when Brandon Webb is on the hill as opposed, say, Brandon Claussen.

The name on the back of the jersey makes a lot of difference. I'm OK with Dunn doing what was necessary to get a run off the best pitcher in the NL in a close game.

Agreed absolutely.

Raisor
04-01-2008, 02:24 PM
If the only thing the best offensive player on the team can do against Webb is what Dunn did, then there was no hope anyway.

How does Webb get beat, when he geats beat?

Caveat Emperor
04-01-2008, 02:26 PM
How does Webb get beat, when he geats beat?

You tell him it's opposite day and see if he becomes a flyball pitcher.

dabvu2498
04-01-2008, 02:28 PM
The issue I have is that the specific pitch Dunn hit to 2nd base was one Dunn is very capable of driving.

And in the past 7 years all of us have seen Adam Dunn swing right through alot of pitches he was capable of driving.

edabbs44
04-01-2008, 02:37 PM
The issue I have is that the specific pitch Dunn hit to 2nd base was one Dunn is very capable of driving. It was thigh high and right down the middle. With Phillips running, if Dunn puts a ball in play on the ground, Phillips scores. If he puts one in the air, Phillips probably scores. If he was already in a "I'm gonna pull one on the ground" mindset and that precluded him from attempting to drive the ball (which still may result in a grounder that scores BP), I have to take issue with that.

If Dunn flailed at a pitch that was driveable then that would be on him. I would think that, as a ballplayer, he should be able to adjust to the pitch and react to where it is. Down the middle? Drive it. On the edge and want to put the ball in play? Shorten up and make contact.

Easier said than done, but that's what hitters need to do. Going up and saying "no matter where the ball is, I'm just going to try and flail at the pitch and make weak contact" shouldn't be happening. You better off bunting if that is the case.

princeton
04-01-2008, 02:40 PM
The issue I have is that the specific pitch Dunn hit to 2nd base was one Dunn is very capable of driving. It was thigh high and right down the middle. With Phillips running, if Dunn puts a ball in play on the ground, Phillips scores. If he puts one in the air, Phillips probably scores. If he was already in a "I'm gonna pull one on the ground" mindset and that precluded him from attempting to drive the ball (which still may result in a grounder that scores BP), I have to take issue with that..

I don't take issue with it. with two good pitchers going, I like runs.

however, my guess is that he thought that he had something good, realized as he was swinging that he didn't, and instead of checking he tried to put it in play rather than go down 0-2

that's good hitting and good baseball, if true.

traderumor
04-01-2008, 02:50 PM
This is the same argument as is had over the on-purpose sac fly. I'm not sure why all of a sudden Dunn can control a groundball to second anymore than he could a sac fly.

RedsManRick
04-01-2008, 03:07 PM
I think a lot of people are underestimating that chance that Dunn drives without purposefully making an out in the process. But, I figured I'd check out my gut feeling. Granted he was batting against Brandon Webb, so I freely admit these outcomes aren't perfect, but for the sake of example using Dunn's career rates. Given that Webb was a bit wild, I think Dunn's standard K and BB rates should still apply. He would be trading a good deal of flyballs for grounders, but I think that actually increases the chance of Phillips scoring if anything. I'm happy to re-run the numbers with some different assumptions, but here's what I've got.

- Given that Dunn is a fly ball hitting lefty, he doesn't hit many balls on the ground to the left side, and the ones he does hit are hit weakly, so I'm going to assume Phillips scores on any grounder.
- On fly balls, Phillips is a pretty fast guy and unless it was an IF fly or a very shallow OF fly, I think he's tagging up successfully. I'll separate out infield flys and assume that 70% of OF flys are deep enough.
- As a major concession for the sake of simplicity, I'm going to assume an out on any FB or GB, and a hit on any LD. This also ignores HR, acting as if they come on the same distribution of batted balls, which they clearly don't. I think this extremely conservative and understates the likelihood of the run scoring, let alone the positive effect for the subsequent batters.
- Lastly, Dunn has supposedly adopted a more defensive plate approach with two strikes. These percentages are based on career numbers. It's quite possible that given a defensive two-strike approach moving, Dunn's SO numbers will drop, replaced with balls in play -- a productive change in situations such as this.

Career outcome percentages are from Fangraphs.

Out made, Run Does Not Score
SO: 31.6%
FB-IF: 2.9%
FB-OF: 6.2%
TOTAL: 40.7%

No Out, Run Does Not Score
BB: 16.8%
TOTAL: 16.8

No Out, Run Scores
LD: 10.1%
TOTAL: 10.1%

Out made, Run Scores
GB: 17.0%
FB-OF: 14.4%
TOTAL: 31.4%



So, by my count, the at bat ends in the run scoring roughly 41.5% of the time. Of the remaining 58.5%, 16.8% is still a positive PA outcome leading to a greater run expectancy for the inning, without harming the 1-run expectancy.

So, was purposefully making an out, significantly lowering the chances of 2+ runs (needed at minimum to tie the game) worth getting 1 run in? I don't think so. This goes to highlight why Dunn needs to be higher in the order. By being down in the order, the value of his ability to get on base is minimized. Because we have less faith in the guys behind him, the calculus shifts such that we (presumably) ask our very best hitter to try and make an out.

For my money, if we're down two against ANY pitcher, with our most productive hitter up -- I don't want him making an out on purpose.

RedsManRick
04-01-2008, 03:09 PM
If Dunn flailed at a pitch that was driveable then that would be on him. I would think that, as a ballplayer, he should be able to adjust to the pitch and react to where it is. Down the middle? Drive it. On the edge and want to put the ball in play? Shorten up and make contact.

Easier said than done, but that's what hitters need to do. Going up and saying "no matter where the ball is, I'm just going to try and flail at the pitch and make weak contact" shouldn't be happening. You better off bunting if that is the case.

Those who watched the game suggested that Dunn was choked up on the bat and did not take a full swing. I would think that if a guy is choked up, he has already made the decision that he's trying to maximize contact, not power.

And while Dunn has swung through many a good strike, he only had one strike on him. If he happened to swing and miss, he can take the defensive approach with two strikes on him.

jojo
04-01-2008, 03:30 PM
What if he was just fooled?

It was the strangest Dunn swing ever.


Suppress theoretical possible run scoring. He actually stimulated real run scoring.

By making it less likely additional real run scoring would occur....

It's a simple game-make more outs, generally score less runs.


Because if he walked right there and then EE popped up and Hatteberg hit into a DP, Dunn would have "created" more runs than what really happened yet they would have scored less in that inning. Go figure.

I'm assuming you're referring to the runs created metric? The runs created metric is no longer the gold standard for assessing offensive production at the level of the individual. That said, it still correlates well with runs scored. That is a speed bump in the "imaginary run" race track that you've never managed to smooth out.

Assuming Dunn simply tried to take what the defense was giving, this is basically the argument behind the strategy:

Since on average it's tough to score runs off of Webb, the best strategy is to purposefully suppress run scoring potential every chance that the Reds have (even when their most potent offensive weapon is at the plate).....

RFS62
04-01-2008, 03:36 PM
I think the idea that he was "trying to make an out" is misguided. "Trying to put the ball in play" would be more like it.

This isn't some magical event. Players have been either choking up or shortening their stroke since the game began.

I just went back and watched it again, several times. The pitch was knee high on the outside corner with movement. It was a nice piece of hitting to get a bat on it and get it to the right side. If he takes it, he's in the hole 0-2.

It wasn't a pitch he could drive, especially to the right side. I really think he was just trying to get the bat on the ball and put it in play.

I hope no one is suggesting that he didn't understand that the infield was back, conceding the run.

edabbs44
04-01-2008, 03:42 PM
It was the strangest Dunn swing ever.

There's a first time for everything.



By making it less likely additional real run scoring would occur....

It's a simple game-make more outs, generally score less runs.

Love the "generally" qualifier slipped in there.


I'm assuming you're referring to the runs created metric? The runs created metric is no longer the gold standard for assessing offensive production at the level of the individual. That said, it still correlates well with runs scored. That is a speed bump in the "imaginary run" race track that you've never managed to smooth out.

I like to see runs on the score board. If Dunn purposely threw the AB then that's totally on him. I would understand if it was a hit and run or something like that. But if he has to basically just take a dive on an AB because he just wants to put the bat on the ball, then he needs to step up and improve his game.


Assuming Dunn simply tried to take what the defense was giving, this is basically the argument behind the strategy:

Since on average it's tough to score runs off of Webb, the best strategy is to purposefully suppress run scoring potential every chance that the Reds have (even when their most potent offensive weapon is at the plate).....

Or you can state it like this:

Since on average it's tough to score runs off of Webb, the best strategy is to maximize every opportunity and try to turn those chances into runs scored.

Puffy
04-01-2008, 03:46 PM
I think the idea that he was "trying to make an out" is misguided. "Trying to put the ball in play" would be more like it.

This isn't some magical event. Players have been either choking up or shortening their stroke since the game began.

I just went back and watched it again, several times. The pitch was knee high on the outside corner with movement. It was a nice piece of hitting to get a bat on it and get it to the right side. If he takes it, he's in the hole 0-2.

It wasn't a pitch he could drive, especially to the right side. I really think he was just trying to get the bat on the ball and put it in play.

I hope no one is suggesting that he didn't understand that the infield was back, conceding the run.

If anyone is an expert at choking things and shortening strokes its you.

And your guidance counselor said you'd never amount to anything!

princeton
04-01-2008, 03:49 PM
It's a simple game make more outs, generally score less runs.



it's actually even simpler: if you score a run, you score a run.

or as Gertrude Stein said it: Pete Rose is Pete Rose is Pete Rose.

RedsManRick
04-01-2008, 03:51 PM
it's actually even simpler: if you score a run, you score a run.

or as Gertrude Stein said it: Pete Rose is Pete Rose is Pete Rose.

So by logical extension, if we're losing and the bases are empty, hitters should be instructed to try to hit home runs?

Raisor
04-01-2008, 03:52 PM
My head hurts.

Can we just go back to making fun of the original quote?

BRM
04-01-2008, 03:53 PM
My head hurts.

Can we just go back to making fun of the original quote?

I'm for it. It was certainly more entertaining.

RFS62
04-01-2008, 03:57 PM
I think we're back to micro vs. macro again.

Looking at the macro, it's easy to say not making an out was the most important thing there.

But the situational value of a run there against a fire breathing monster like Webb is not the normal scenario, it's the exception.

We had one hit against him the first time through the lineup. He was completely untouchable. A manager who doesn't factor that into his in game strategic decisions is derelict in his duties.

princeton
04-01-2008, 04:01 PM
So by logical extension, if we're losing and the bases are empty, hitters should be instructed to try to hit home runs?

logic is an overextension for you :D

RedsManRick
04-01-2008, 04:02 PM
Just a random thought and not specific to yesterday, but I wonder if great pitchers get an ironic "boost" due to opposing teams using sub-optimal run producing strategies against them more frequently.

wheels
04-01-2008, 04:04 PM
Dudes,

It's not about Baseball, it's about morality.

Homers aren't inneffective, they're just downright immoral. I don't believe in 'em.

-Dusty

westofyou
04-01-2008, 04:07 PM
"It looked like from the minute he went out there, he had his good stuff."

Bob Melvin on Brandon Webb.

Note:

No mention of sub optimal run generation vs optimal run generalization.

RedsManRick
04-01-2008, 04:12 PM
Bob Melvin on Brandon Webb.

Note:

No mention of sub optimal run generation vs optimal run generalization.

Well, I guess that's the end of the conversation then. Thanks Bob!

westofyou
04-01-2008, 04:15 PM
Well, I guess that's the end of the conversation then. Thanks Bob!

In layman's terms you can bet a pitcher gets his rocks off my making sluggers like Dunn resort to small ball. The ego is a powerful master.

And for Dunn to resort to doing it more than one way means (to me at least) that he didn't lose that ego battle either.

edabbs44
04-01-2008, 04:17 PM
So by logical extension, if we're losing and the bases are empty, hitters should be instructed to try to hit home runs?

If trying to hit HRs equaled runs being scored (like how Dunn tried to make an out and made a run score) then I think everyone would be cool with that.

blumj
04-01-2008, 04:18 PM
Just a random thought and not specific to yesterday, but I wonder if great pitchers get an ironic "boost" due to opposing teams using sub-optimal run producing strategies against them more frequently.
Maybe. If Brandon Webb inspires this much awe, I foresee an epidemic around here of everyone wanting guys trying to bunt for hits when the Reds go up against Johan.

RANDY IN INDY
04-01-2008, 04:18 PM
So Randy, since you still haven't commented on the origianal post. What do you feel about Dusty's comment?

I didn't hear him say it, nor have I heard the context of the conversation. I believe that you can make anything sound the way you want to hear it, if you pick and choose.

With that said, I like home runs. I like hits that score runs. I like disciplined hitters that can take a walk. I like mult-talented players who work on their games and learn to execute the little things to score runs when they are called upon. I like team players who aren't all about themselves. It's all a part of the game of baseball. There is no one way or style to play the game. You take what you have and you do the best you can to develop a style of play that wins ball games, combining the skills of all your players. You realize situations and you play accordingly. You put players in places where you think they can succeed. You treat players fairly. You sometimes make mistakes, but baseball is a game of failure and you come back the next day and do the best you can and work on the things that don't necessarily come easy.

As far as Dusty goes, I want him to be a "Leader." John Wooden said it best:


A leader has a difficult task. A person in a position of leadership must make decisions. Making decisions is a tough job. Nearly anyone can make suggestions. Making suggestions is an easy job.

Everybody has a suggestion. Not everybody has a decision.

There is little difference in technical knowledge about the game. Knowledge alone is not enough to get desired results. You must have the more elusive ability to teach and to motivate. This defines a leader; if you can't teach and you can't motivate, you can't lead.

Perhaps that's why there are so few leaders, at least good leaders."



I also like folks who can understand those things.

Chip R
04-01-2008, 04:24 PM
Just a random thought and not specific to yesterday, but I wonder if great pitchers get an ironic "boost" due to opposing teams using sub-optimal run producing strategies against them more frequently.


Interesting thought. I've always thought that staff aces get terrible run support for some odd reason i.e. Soto for the Reds in the 80s.

wheels
04-01-2008, 04:25 PM
I also like folks who can understand those things.

Oh good grief.

I catch myself nodding in agreement with you, and then you have to go and proseltize and it wrecks the whole vibe.

We're the unwashed masses. I get it already.

jojo
04-01-2008, 04:26 PM
I think we're back to micro vs. macro again.

Looking at the macro, it's easy to say not making an out was the most important thing there.

But the situational value of a run there against a fire breathing monster like Webb is not the normal scenario, it's the exception.

We had one hit against him the first time through the lineup. He was completely untouchable. A manager who doesn't factor that into his in game strategic decisions is derelict in his duties.

He also was missing the strike zone left and right.

RANDY IN INDY
04-01-2008, 04:28 PM
Oh good grief.

I catch myself nodding in agreement with you, and then have to go and proseltize and it wrecks the whole vibe.

We're the unwashed masses. I get it already.

You know, that is exactly the same feeling I get when the "unwashed masses" (your words, not mine) come across the way that they do. Two wrongs don't make a right and I am guilty as charged.

wheels
04-01-2008, 04:30 PM
You know, that is exactly the same feeling I get when the "unwashed masses" (your words, not mine) come across the way that they do. Two wrongs don't make a right and I am guilty as charged.

As long as you're willing to admit it.

I'd just like to enjoy what you write as is, instead of getting left with the taste of your bitterness towards whomever.

jojo
04-01-2008, 04:31 PM
Love the "generally" qualifier slipped in there.

It was neither slipped in nor did it weaken the conclusion.


Or you can state it like this:

Since on average it's tough to score runs off of Webb, the best strategy is to maximize every opportunity

I agree 100%. Don't give outs away, especially in the 4th inning.

RedsManRick
04-01-2008, 04:34 PM
It's interesting Randy, in your quote form John Wooden, he's basing his primary point on the assumption that "There is little difference in technical knowledge about the game".

The point Wooden is making, so far as I can gather, is that given that the X's and O's aren't terribly complex, what differentiates coaches is their leadership ability. I can't help but wonder what would Wooden have to say about a great leader who doesn't seem to grasp all of the "technical knowledge about the game," such as how runs are produced?

Or is such a question just further evidence of my unwashedness?

Raisor
04-01-2008, 04:36 PM
We're the unwashed masses. I get it already.


I took a shower this morning.

I'd bet Puffy didn't. He's stinky.

jojo
04-01-2008, 04:37 PM
Or is such a question just further evidence of my unwashedness?


At least you don't have a potty mouth. :D

RANDY IN INDY
04-01-2008, 04:41 PM
As long as you're willing to admit it.

I'd just like to enjoy what you write as is, instead of getting left with the taste of your bitterness towards whomever.

And I am, and I did. Unfortunately, the majority of the board, these days, has little room for my point of view or those very few who may agree with me. I don't think my posts are the only ones that might have some bitterness in them. My thoughts are obviously not widely accepted here on Redszone.

Yeah, I'm kind of old school, but not to the point that I totally disregard the new ideas about baseball. I use a lot of those ideas, quite often, in my own coaching style. I like to win.

John Wooden also said this:


There is no progress without change but all change is not progress.

edabbs44
04-01-2008, 04:45 PM
I agree 100%. Don't give outs away, especially in the 4th inning.

Does it matter much if the odds on favorite for the AB result was an out anyway?

RANDY IN INDY
04-01-2008, 04:47 PM
It's interesting Randy, in your quote form John Wooden, he's basing his primary point on the assumption that "There is little difference in technical knowledge about the game".

The point Wooden is making, so far as I can gather, is that given that the X's and O's aren't terribly complex, what differentiates coaches is their leadership ability. I can't help but wonder what would Wooden have to say about a great leader who doesn't seem to grasp all of the "technical knowledge about the game," such as how runs are produced?

Or is such a question just further evidence of my unwashedness?

I think that you believe that your technical knowledge and the style of game that you accept is the only way to play the game and that Dusty Baker, just because he doesn't agree with you, has a lesser technical knowledge of the game. John Wooden and Bob Knight didn't go about things in the same way, yet both were great and successful coaches.

I just think that Dusty has had success in the game with his style of play, and he believes in it. While I certainly don't agree with all that he has done and everything that he believes in, I can appreciate his abilities and the fact that he has been a winner and is very much respected by his players and peers.

Raisor
04-01-2008, 04:49 PM
I think that you believe that your technical knowledge and the style of game that you accept is the only way to play the game .

I don't care how a team wins, just that they win.

The Reds have been going "old school" forever, maybe after 7 straight losing seasons it might be time to try something different.

BuckeyeRedleg
04-01-2008, 04:59 PM
And I am, and I did. Unfortunately, the majority of the board, these days, has little room for my point of view or those very few who may agree with me. I don't think my posts are the only ones that might have some bitterness in them. My thoughts are obviously not widely accepted here on Redszone.

Please.

You enter a thread and call it "stupid" when the theme runs counter to your beliefs and then when you don't like the responses you get you play the victim card.

I think both sides can be charged with having little room for the other sides point of view.

And yes. I love people who think like me. Is that what your saying, Randy?

wheels
04-01-2008, 05:04 PM
And I am, and I did. Unfortunately, the majority of the board, these days, has little room for my point of view or those very few who may agree with me. I don't think my posts are the only ones that might have some bitterness in them. My thoughts are obviously not widely accepted here on Redszone.

Yeah, I'm kind of old school, but not to the point that I totally disregard the new ideas about baseball. I use a lot of those ideas, quite often, in my own coaching style. I like to win.

John Wooden also said this:

I'm glad you didn't take what I wrote the wrong way.

I also doubt that you're the pariah that you think you are.

MWM
04-01-2008, 05:08 PM
I think that you believe that your technical knowledge and the style of game that you accept is the only way to play the game and

Nothing personal, Randy, but of all the years I've read this board and your posts, my perception is that the above statement could be applied to you as well. Again, not trying to rustle feathers, but I've always got the impression that you feel like there's no other way to play the game than the way you outline here. Again, that's just my perception. So you're accusing others of something you're guilty of yourself. And I'd venture to say a lot of people here are guilty of the same thing.

westofyou
04-01-2008, 05:12 PM
*Roy Williams always had a classic Roy Williams-like answer whenever anyone came up to him with the “Have you thought of this” type suggestion. He would say, “No offense, but believe me, we’ve thought of it. Anything you have thought of, we’ve thought of. It’s our frickin’ job.”

blumj
04-01-2008, 05:18 PM
*Roy Williams always had a classic Roy Williams-like answer whenever anyone came up to him with the “Have you thought of this” type suggestion. He would say, “No offense, but believe me, we’ve thought of it. Anything you have thought of, we’ve thought of. It’s our frickin’ job.”
I'm a chef. Amateur cooks come up with ideas I've never thought of all the time. I've even used some of them. But, I guess that's because everyone can cook some, it's not too complicated for the untrained to understand.

westofyou
04-01-2008, 05:21 PM
I'm a chef. Amateur cooks come up with ideas I've never thought of all the time. I've even used some of them. But, I guess that's because everyone can cook some, it's not too complicated for the untrained to understand.

Yep, the deep fried pickle leaps to mind.

Most of them couldn't debone 10 geese in the haze of horrible hangover either.

wheels
04-01-2008, 05:22 PM
Nothing personal, Randy, but of all the years I've read this board and your posts, my perception is that the above statement could be applied to you as well. Again, not trying to rustle feathers, but I've always got the impression that you feel like there's no other way to play the game than the way you outline here. Again, that's just my perception. So you're accusing others of something you're guilty of yourself. And I'd venture to say a lot of people here are guilty of the same thing.

Very true.

The trick is knowing that going in, and understanding that just because someone disgarees doesn't mean they think you're a total ignoramus. People have no way of knowing the depths of my stupidity.

I actually, like...Kinda learn stuff from people. It's really cool that there are some people that are willing to share knowledge with me for free, just 'cause they wanna prove that they're smarter.

I have you all fooled into thinking I'm worth wasting time on.:p:

Raisor
04-01-2008, 05:24 PM
.

I have you all fooled into thinking I'm worth wasting time on.:p:

actually we all know and are just humoring you.

RedsManRick
04-01-2008, 05:41 PM
I think that you believe that your technical knowledge and the style of game that you accept is the only way to play the game and that Dusty Baker, just because he doesn't agree with you, has a lesser technical knowledge of the game. John Wooden and Bob Knight didn't go about things in the same way, yet both were great and successful coaches.

I just think that Dusty has had success in the game with his style of play, and he believes in it. While I certainly don't agree with all that he has done and everything that he believes in, I can appreciate his abilities and the fact that he has been a winner and is very much respected by his players and peers.

I think you are conflating two very different concepts.

Concept A: How to score the most runs per 27 outs.
Concept B: How to play the game.

I do believe that I have a greater technical understanding of how to score the maximum number of runs per game than does Dusty Baker.

That does not mean it is the only way to play the game. I never said nor implied that it was. You can play the game however you'd like. If you want to bunt a guy over every time he reaches first base, by all means, have at it. If you want steal a base at any opportunity, go for it. If you want to try and walk every time up, that's certainly one way to play the game. You (or Dusty) can do what he wants. I'm not saying there is only one way to play the game. But the simple existence of those ways to play doesn't equate with the being equally effective ways to score runs. There are ways to play the game which lead to greater run production.

Dusty has had success in his career doing things a certain way. He thinks his way is the best way to do it. He also is very much respected in the game. I agree with all of those statements. And I also believe that Dusty Baker does not have a very good grasp on the mechanics of scoring the most runs per game.

What frustrates me Randy is that you seem to equate the disagreement itself over the best way to score runs with a complete lack of appreciation for somebody's right to disagree. It seems very similar to the Joe Morgan reaction -- if you disagree with my point of view, you disagree with my right to hold that view or you fail to appreciate the evidence I'm bringing to bear. They are very different things and I don't appreciate being thought of as close-minded. I'm happy to consider whatever evidence, be it quantitative, qualitative, experiential, etc. which has led you to form the views you hold.

You, Dusty, and everybody else has the right to hold whatever view you'd like. In my mind, that's a given. And while I may disagree with a particular view, sometimes strongly, and while I might (and usually do) ask for supporting evidence to back up your claim, that disagreement and request is not a personal attack on the person's character nor the validity of his/her personal experiences which have led you to your beliefs.

I can and do question Dusty's expertise on run production strategy while respecting his leadership ability and right to hold whatever views he'd like.

klw
04-01-2008, 05:41 PM
This isn't some magical event. Players have been either choking up or shortening their stroke since the game began.
.

Somebody mention choking up?

http://www.ultimatemets.com/jpeg/FelixMillan1976.jpg

traderumor
04-01-2008, 05:44 PM
Seems like a bit of ganging up on someone going on to me, with a few little collegial barbs going back and forth between the gang members. I'm not seeing where that is teaching anyone anything.

Raisor
04-01-2008, 05:49 PM
Seems like a bit of ganging up on someone going on to me, with a few little collegial barbs going back and forth between the gang members. I'm not seeing where that is teaching anyone anything.


I finally figured it, you're the play by play guy for RZ!

traderumor
04-01-2008, 06:04 PM
I finally figured it, you're the play by play guy for RZ!Uh huh, I just see this type of stuff happening more and more, someone speaks up about something and a small group gathers round and starts throwing tomatoes, then start throwing down some frat house humor amongst themselves. I'm starting to think RZ is not a place for me anymore.

Highlifeman21
04-01-2008, 06:05 PM
I finally figured it, you're the play by play guy for RZ!

If he's the PbP guy, then who's his color man?

jojo
04-01-2008, 06:43 PM
It's really cool that there are some people that are willing to share knowledge with me for free, just 'cause they wanna prove that they're smarter.

Does it have to be because someone wants to look smarter rather than someone wanting to become smarter?

Why can't it be because someone is throwing their beliefs out there and letting a community of savvy baseball fans argue them to a greater truth/deeper understanding?

Sharing your thoughts with others is about the best way I know how to broaden your own perspective....others tend to have different ways of looking at things and their questions are a gold mine for making one look deeper in a way they wouldn't have thought to before....

blumj
04-01-2008, 07:05 PM
Uh huh, I just see this type of stuff happening more and more, someone speaks up about something and a small group gathers round and starts throwing tomatoes, then start throwing down some frat house humor amongst themselves. I'm starting to think RZ is not a place for me anymore.
I'm afraid you'll have a hard time finding a baseball board that does less ganging up and throwing tomatoes than this one. Most of them throw grenades and fire machine guns.

Heath
04-01-2008, 07:50 PM
I'm afraid you'll have a hard time finding a baseball board that does less ganging up and throwing tomatoes than this one. Most of them throw grenades and fire machine guns.

Well, Krono's been away...........

KronoRed
04-01-2008, 07:55 PM
Well, Krono's been away...........

You rang?:D

Yachtzee
04-01-2008, 07:58 PM
You rang?:D

Beetlejuice, Beetlejuice, Beetlejuice. ;)

*BaseClogger*
04-01-2008, 08:01 PM
I just wanted to say that I have loved this thread... :cry:

GAC
04-01-2008, 08:05 PM
Adam Dunn drove one in with a groundball to second today with nobody out. In that situation, I'll take that over a strikeout, every day of the week.

Chip and I were at the game. Dunn lunged at that ball just trying to make contact and drive it to the right side so as to drive BP in (which he did).

If it hadn't gotten the results it had though there would have those on here who would have been all over that AB and criticizing Dunn (and probably Baker).

KronoRed
04-01-2008, 08:07 PM
Beetlejuice, Beetlejuice, Beetlejuice. ;)

Awesome movie, lets get this thread back off track ;)

Screwball
04-01-2008, 08:08 PM
If it hadn't gotten the results it had though there would have those on here who would have been all over that AB and criticizing Dunn (and probably Baker).

You mean more so than they already are?

GAC
04-01-2008, 08:10 PM
Look his quote may not say it but we all know what he is intending to say. He is saying that he doesn't want a team full of guys swinging for the fences and trying for homers in every at bat. He wants the team to play situationally smart baseball and not try to do too much. He may not say it well but lets cut the guy some slack. No need to attack him for phrasing his thoughts poorly. If we attacked each other that way where would we be (clear set up line)

I'm glad somebody on this forum gets it. Good post.

We may as well make this thread a "sticky", because I'm sure, throughout the course of the year, Dusty will make plenty of comments that will be over analyzed and critiqued.

GAC
04-01-2008, 08:15 PM
You mean more so than they already are?

:lol:

When Dunn was walking to the plate the first thing Chip said was "A sacrifice opportunity for Dunn!" :lol:

If Dunn lunging for that pitch just trying to make contact, had popped it up, made an out and not scored Phillips..... this forum would have exploded and accused Dusty of messing Dunn up.

Thank God it didn't turn out that way though.

wheels
04-01-2008, 08:16 PM
Does it have to be because someone wants to look smarter rather than someone wanting to become smarter?

Why can't it be because someone is throwing their beliefs out there and letting a community of savvy baseball fans argue them to a greater truth/deeper understanding?

Sharing your thoughts with others is about the best way I know how to broaden your own perspective....others tend to have different ways of looking at things and their questions are a gold mine for making one look deeper in a way they wouldn't have thought to before....

That's actually what I meant. I was just phrasing it in in an odd way.

remdog
04-01-2008, 08:51 PM
Chip and I were at the game. Dunn lunged at that ball just trying to make contact and drive it to the right side so as to drive BP in (which he did).

Rick has said: "It was thigh high and right down the middle." In fact he alluded to that at least twice.

I'm not sure what or where or how he was watching the game but I was watching Fox and the pitch was down and away and closer to knee high. Dunn did have to lunge at it. But what impressed me the most was that he was still able to hit the ball to the right side and get the run in rather than ground the ball to the left side and probably leave BP at third while still recording an out.

A nice piece of hitting on Adam's part IMO and one that we should all be using as an example of the fact that many of us think that he is still growing as a hitter. (I do anyway.)

As for what Dusty said: pfffttt! I couldn't care less how he says something because, if the truth be told, 99% of the people in this thread know what he ment. Those that are *****ing are just looking for something to do on a day when there is no (Reds) game. I understand. Nothing worse than a frustrating loss and not being able to get out there the next day and make up for it.

Let it go---there are 161 games left to play. At the end of the year Dusty can, and should be, judged on the results, not on his patter.

Rem

Ltlabner
04-01-2008, 09:19 PM
I finally figured it, you're the play by play guy for RZ!

Getem on, getem over and getem in!

Ltlabner
04-01-2008, 09:34 PM
I do believe that I have a greater technical understanding of how to score the maximum number of runs per game than does Dusty Baker.

I have an excellent technical understanding of what makes airplanes fly.

Not sure I could get one off the ground, much less back onto the ground, in one piece.

RedsManRick
04-01-2008, 10:00 PM
I have an excellent technical understanding of what makes airplanes fly.

Not sure I could get one off the ground, much less back onto the ground, in one piece.

I think flying a plane is more difficult than managing a baseball team. There are also a lot bigger consequences for screwing up. There is a ton of education, training, and constant testing of pilots.

If a pilot was quoted repeatedly in the media saying he's going to get his plane to fly faster by flapping the ailerons at the expense of thrust, I imagine he'd be second guessed by a few amateur pilots too.

WMR
04-01-2008, 10:01 PM
Flying the plane backwards = batting Patterson lead-off

RedsManRick
04-01-2008, 10:04 PM
Rick has said: "It was thigh high and right down the middle." In fact he alluded to that at least twice.

I'll own up to this one. I'm pretty sure I said as much, but I was getting the location data from the Pitch/Fx, not from watching. My assertion was not corrected until a few pages later, after that part of the discussion was essentially passed.

Highlifeman21
04-01-2008, 10:09 PM
I'll own up to this one. I'm pretty sure I said as much, but I was getting the location data from the Pitch/Fx, not from watching. My assertion was not corrected until a few pages later, after that part of the discussion was essentially passed.

I don't think you fall into this category (at least not that I've read), but there are certain posters around these parts that think Pitch/Fx is the end all/be all, and tells you everything you need to know about individual pitchers and their respective pitches.

I like Pitch/Fx. I like it a lot. But I think that it's velocities are higher than advertised and less than accurate. I haven't really paid much attention to the locations all that much, since rarely do I get to match the Pitch/Fx data to actual game footage.

But that's just my opinion.

Yachtzee
04-01-2008, 10:09 PM
I don't think it's too crazy to wish for a manager who emphasizes "old school" fundamentals like defense, hustle, and keeping one's head in the game. It's also fine to with for a manager who realizes that, of the many statistical tools that managers have at their disposal, there are some that better predict a team's ability to score runs and prevent runs and builds the line up accordingly. In fact, I think it's possible to find a manager who takes both views. Unfortunately, it seems like many "old schoolers" dismiss new ideas as "Moneyball BS" and "new schoolers" dismiss talk of fundamentals as a misguided emphasis on non-run-scoring events. They aren't mutually exclusive. I can remember being taught to run out pop flies and always keep my head in the game. But I can also remember that "playing the game the right way" used to also mean being patient, waiting for your pitch, and not swinging at stuff you can't handle.

The problem in listening to Dusty, for me at least, is that he sounds like the "old school" ghosts of Christmas past. Every year it seems the Reds start the season with a low OBP/high out guy batting first because he's got "hustle," a DP machine batting second because he "makes contact," and a run producing Adam Dunn batting 5th. It's like every new manager has to relearn the mistakes of past managers. It's only been one game, so I'll wait to see how things go for a few months. If Dusty does well, I'll give him the credit he is due.

BuckeyeRedleg
04-01-2008, 10:11 PM
I don't think it's too crazy to wish for a manager who emphasizes "old school" fundamentals like defense, hustle, and keeping one's head in the game. It's also fine to with for a manager who realizes that, of the many statistical tools that managers have at their disposal, there are some that better predict a team's ability to score runs and prevent runs and builds the line up accordingly. In fact, I think it's possible to find a manager who takes both views. Unfortunately, it seems like many "old schoolers" dismiss new ideas as "Moneyball BS" and "new schoolers" dismiss talk of fundamentals as a misguided emphasis on non-run-scoring events. They aren't mutually exclusive. I can remember being taught to run out pop flies and always keep my head in the game. But I can also remember that "playing the game the right way" used to also mean being patient, waiting for your pitch, and not swinging at stuff you can't handle.

The problem in listening to Dusty, for me at least, is that he sounds like the "old school" ghosts of Christmas past. Every year it seems the Reds start the season with a low OBP/high out guy batting first because he's got "hustle," a DP machine batting second because he "makes contact," and a run producing Adam Dunn batting 5th. It's like every new manager has to relearn the mistakes of past managers. It's only been one game, so I'll wait to see how things go for a few months. If Dusty does well, I'll give him the credit he is due.

Good post, Yachtzee.

Ltlabner
04-01-2008, 10:12 PM
If a pilot was quoted repeatedly in the media saying he's going to get his plane to fly faster by flapping the ailerons at the expense of thrust, I imagine he'd be second guessed by a few amateur pilots too.

But here you are making a false argument. Flapping the airleons woln't do anything to make a plane fly. To correspond to the discussion at hand, Dusty would have to create lineups and ask for players to perform tasks that actually result in zero runs created.

A better argument might be that Dusty's plane will fly, but might not use the available fuel as effeciently as another pilot would.

But his lifetime winning percentage does indicate that his plane does fly despite your best efforts to frame the argument as a choice between "the textbook way to create runs" and "anything else is useless".

remdog
04-01-2008, 10:12 PM
I'll own up to this one. I'm pretty sure I said as much, but I was getting the location data from the Pitch/Fx, not from watching. My assertion was not corrected until a few pages later, after that part of the discussion was essentially passed.

I wasn't trying to be critical of you. I was just puzzeled by the statement. Later in the thread several people made comments that reflected the way I saw the pitch.

Where I was going with this was not to be critical of you but that it was, IMO, a very good AB by Dunn since he handled a very tough pitch (one that may have even fooled him) and still managed to make something out of it.

Personally, I think that Adam is continuing to grow as a hitter and I hope the Reds do everything necessary to extend his contract long term.

Rem

RedsManRick
04-01-2008, 10:28 PM
But here you are making a false argument. Flapping the airleons woln't do anything to make a plane fly. To correspond to the discussion at hand, Dusty would have to create lineups and ask for players to perform tasks that actually result in zero runs created.

A better argument might be that Dusty's plane will fly, but might not use the available fuel as effeciently as another pilot would.

Well, let's just say he left the ailerons set in the wrong position, creating more drag and forcing him to keep pushing the nose down. The analogy was meant to be more general, though one could discuss the efficacy (or lack thereof) of sacrifice bunting and stealing bases...



But his lifetime winning percentage does indicate that his plane does fly despite your best efforts to frame the argument as a choice between "the textbook way to create runs" and "anything else is useless".

Looking at lifetime winning percentage to judge a manager is like looking at average flight speed to judge a pilot. Unless you put it in the context of what kind plane he was flying, what the weather conditions were, what his weight load was, etc. it's completely meaningless. The plane Dusty was flying for most of his career just so happened to have the best engine of the era. His next one had another awesome engine and a new sleek wing design. Not that it means he isn't a good pilot, but just that looking flight time tells us pretty much nothing, sans context.

And I maintain that baseball isn't aviation. Even then, there's a whole lot of gray area between not-crashing your plane and actually being a good pilot. The problem is that some people want to judge Dusty against a non-pilot and make the case that they'd crash it, Dusty doesn't, and that makes him good. I make the case that when it comes to making adjustments mid-flight, we'd be better off with auto-pilot. And as good as Dusty might be with the landing and keeping the passengers happy, if we're already 30 minutes behind schedule, and the engines are smoking b/c he ran them too hard trying to offset the mis-aligned ailerons, I'm not going to pat him on the back for the late, though admittedly smooth, arrival.

jojo
04-02-2008, 08:02 AM
but there are certain posters around these parts that think Pitch/Fx is the end all/be all, and tells you everything you need to know about individual pitchers and their respective pitches.

I'm not sure I've met one of those people yet.

gonelong
04-02-2008, 08:12 AM
Theoretical doesn't always equate to practical, but you'd pretty much always be better off having a solid understanding of the theory than not.

GL

Ltlabner
04-02-2008, 10:35 AM
The plane Dusty was flying for most of his career just so happened to have the best engine of the era. His next one had another awesome engine and a new sleek wing design. Not that it means he isn't a good pilot, but just that looking flight time tells us pretty much nothing, sans context.

So with a wave of the wand you negate anything Dusty did because of one player? Nice.

I don't care for him as our manager and think his hiring was a mistake. But continuing to cling to the silly notion that unless you do everything acording to what "the book says" then you stink as a manager makes no sense to me.

Can't wait until some new research comes out with some new ideas and you start hammering on people who are doing things by todays book because they arent using next weeks book.

Sorry RMR. I admire your technical grasp of the game. But your world doesn't seem to recoginize that a managers life exists outside of lineups and in-game switches. We've been around and around about it so no need to tread that ground again but life does exist outside of the spreadsheet. I don't mean this as harsh as it sounds, but you remind me of the accounting manager who can't figure out why he is hated when he eliminates the salesmans expence accounts. Yea, it makes all the financial sense in the world, but he can't see past the end of his debits & credits to realize that pissed of salespeople don't generally lead to more sales.

RedsManRick
04-02-2008, 10:41 AM
I'm not sure I've met one of those people yet.

They hang out with the closed-minded sabermetric zealots who think fundamentals aren't important and the scouting reports merely obscure the true facts.

westofyou
04-02-2008, 10:47 AM
Dusty on hitting.

It's the gift that keeps on giving... it's Pete Fountaine and a glass of water to any conversation on Redszone.

Dismissing his past experience based on limited knowledge of the exact scope of his experience and influence... intellectually unfair to any argument IMO.

Watch out for that water.

RedsManRick
04-02-2008, 11:04 AM
So with a wave of the wand you negate anything Dusty did because of one player? Nice.

I don't care for him as our manager and think his hiring was a mistake. But continuing to cling to the silly notion that unless you do everything acording to what "the book says" then you stink as a manager makes no sense to me.

Can't wait until some new research comes out with some new ideas and you start hammering on people who are doing things by todays book because they arent using next weeks book.

Sorry RMR. I admire your technical grasp of the game. But your world doesn't seem to recoginize that a managers life exists outside of lineups and in-game switches. We've been around and around about it so no need to tread that ground again but life does exist outside of the spreadsheet. I don't mean this as harsh as it sounds, but you remind me of the accounting manager who can't figure out why he is hated when he eliminates the salesmans expence accounts. Yea, it makes all the financial sense in the world, but he can't see past the end of his debits & credits to realize that pissed of salespeople don't generally lead to more sales.

My world recognizes that there are things which we do because of evidence supporting their efficacy, and there are things we do because history, tradition, intuition suggest their efficacy. I fully understand and appreciate that most knowledge comes from the latter. In the absence of evidence, the ability to draw on and apply this historical wealth of knowledge is vitally important. My problem comes when people continue to make decisions based on the latter even there is copious irrefutable evidence suggesting a change in approach would be prudent.

It's not that I don't value managerial life "outside of lineups and in-game switches". It's that if you can't get the easy things right, things in which there is hard, clear, relatively easy to understand evidence that's a big problem.
(And I'm sorry, but generally speaking, there is a right and wrong when it comes to setting a productive lineup. There is no reasonable logic which makes Corey Patterson a good choice to lead off.)

The problem isn't that Dusty isn't following my text book. It's that he's following a text book that says the primary elements are earth, wind, fire, and rock and dismisses any other text books out of hand, because he didn't go to school with their authors. I know the strategies I espouse currently are going to change as more evidence is discovered. But the basic point is that I base my opinions on evidence, where it exists. Where evidence doesn't exist, I'm happy to default to the existing body of experiential knowledge. But if and when new evidence comes along suggesting a change, I'll adjust accordingly. Dusty will simply resign Corey Patterson and stick him the leadoff spot again.

The bottom line with Dusty is that it's really hard to accurately assess the effectiveness of any manager. Some people resolve this problem by looking at winning percentage. I think that's a misguided approach that leads to nonsensical conclusions such as Joe Torre magically becoming a hall-of-fame manager upon joining the Yankees. Rather, I ask "On what things can we judge a manager -- where can we really get a sense of his work"? And on the few things where we can really get in there and understand the impact of his influence, Dusty tends to get it wrong.

I appreciate his clubhouse influence. I appreciate the up-beat, but hard-working atmosphere he creates. I appreciate that he garners respect from his players. But we just don't know how it all adds up and I'm not going to simply sit back and assume that those things offset the negatives we can identify. The reality is that none of us has any idea, with any amount of certainty, the total impact of a manager. But I do know that it isn't smart to start behind the 8-ball.

While you don't want an accounting manager who nails the bottom line calculation but pisses off the sales staff, you also don't want an accounting manager who keeps sales humming but keeps reporting the wrong numbers. You shouldn't be happy with a failure on either front. And just because the company has historically made money with a given accounting manager, that doesn't meant the accounting manager is necessarily doing a good job.

I continue to fail to understand why I'm considered some close-minded data geek who refuses to look up from his spreadsheet simply because I want a manager who doesn't screw up a significant portion of his responsibilities. That somehow I have my head buried in the sand and simply don't understand the real importance of a happy clubhouse and motivated players. I know that there's more to managing the lineups and that those unquantifiable aspects of the job are important too. Really, I do. If would be similarly unhappy with a data-geek manager who filled out a perfect lineup and pissed everybody off in the process. But there are only 30 major league manager positions. You'd think we could find one who can handle fill out a lineup card properly AND keep people happy.

Maybe my real ignorance is thinking that guy is out there. Though the hiring of a guy like Manny Acta suggests they are out there, you just have to be willing to look past career managerial winning percentage to find them.

westofyou
04-02-2008, 11:09 AM
Though the hiring of a guy like Manny Acta suggests they are out there

The same Manny Acta who led off Guzman the first two games of the season?


Maybe my real ignorance is thinking that guy is out there.

I think you're getting warm.

Highlifeman21
04-02-2008, 11:11 AM
I'm not sure I've met one of those people yet.

You've read one of those people on here.

Especially when it comes to velocities.

bucksfan2
04-02-2008, 11:15 AM
RMR just out of curosity what would be your lineup and why?

Highlifeman21
04-02-2008, 11:18 AM
My world recognizes that there are things which we do because of evidence supporting their efficacy, and there are things we do because history, tradition, intuition suggest their efficacy. I fully understand and appreciate that most knowledge comes from the latter. In the absence of evidence, the ability to draw on and apply this historical wealth of knowledge is vitally important. My problem comes when people continue to make decisions based on the latter even there is copious irrefutable evidence suggesting a change in approach would be prudent.

It's not that I don't value managerial life "outside of lineups and in-game switches". It's that if you can't get the easy things right, things in which there is hard, clear, relatively easy to understand evidence that's a big problem.
(And I'm sorry, but generally speaking, there is a right and wrong when it comes to setting a productive lineup. There is no reasonable logic which makes Corey Patterson a good choice to lead off.)

The problem isn't that Dusty isn't following my text book. It's that he's following a text book that says the primary elements are earth, wind, fire, and rock and dismisses any other text books out of hand, because he didn't go to school with their authors. I know the strategies I espouse currently are going to change as more evidence is discovered. But the basic point is that I base my opinions on evidence, where it exists. Where evidence doesn't exist, I'm happy to default to the existing body of experiential knowledge. But if and when new evidence comes along suggesting a change, I'll adjust accordingly. Dusty will simply resign Corey Patterson and stick him the leadoff spot again.

The bottom line with Dusty is that it's really hard to accurately assess the effectiveness of any manager. Some people resolve this problem by looking at winning percentage. I think that's a misguided approach that leads to nonsensical conclusions such as Joe Torre magically becoming a hall-of-fame manager upon joining the Yankees. Rather, I ask "On what things can we judge a manager -- where can we really get a sense of his work"? And on the few things where we can really get in there and understand the impact of his influence, Dusty tends to get it wrong.

I appreciate his clubhouse influence. I appreciate the up-beat, but hard-working atmosphere he creates. I appreciate that he garners respect from his players. But we just don't know how it all adds up and I'm not going to simply sit back and assume that those things offset the negatives we can identify. The reality is that none of us has any idea, with any amount of certainty, the total impact of a manager. But I do know that it isn't smart to start behind the 8-ball.

While you don't want an accounting manager who nails the bottom line calculation but pisses off the sales staff, you also don't want an accounting manager who keeps sales humming but keeps reporting the wrong numbers. You shouldn't be happy with a failure on either front.

I continue to fail to understand why I'm considered some close-minded data geek simply because I want a manager who doesn't screw up a significant portion of his responsibilities. That somehow I have my head buried in the sand and simply don't understand the real importance of a happy clubhouse. I know that there's more to managing the lineups and that those unquantifiable aspects of the job are important too. Really, I do. But there are only 30 major league manager positions. You'd think we could find one who can handle fill out a lineup card properly AND keep people happy.

Maybe my real ignorance is thinking that guy is out there. Though the hiring of a guy like Manny Acta suggests they are out there, you just have to be willing to look past career managerial winning percentage to find them.

I realize it's KC, but Hillman running that ship also supports your hope that "that guy is out there".

I hope I don't grossly incorrectly paraphrase what you've said, but it seems to me that you want a guy who learns from the wealth of historical knowledge and data and doesn't commit the same mistakes.

I don't think Dusty's blindly ignored what history has shown him, but he certainly hasn't learned from it, either.

Hopefully within the next decade, we'll see a transition from the old school managers of the world, to the Acta's and the Hillman's of the world. The game is evolving. The least we can hope is that our future managers will evolve with the game.

Ltlabner
04-02-2008, 11:40 AM
There is no reasonable logic which makes Corey Patterson a good choice to lead off.

What if your team has no other legit leadoff guys? While his OBP is lame, he does possess legit speed so in the absense of other choices there is, in fact, a reasonable logic to lead him off.

Not saying that's the case with the Reds right now, however, theres a prime example of the "this makes no sense ever" reasoning because it doesn't add up on the spreadsheet (but ignores other practical considerations) being faulty.


I continue to fail to understand why I'm considered some close-minded data geek who refuses to look up from his spreadsheet simply because I want a manager who doesn't screw up a significant portion of his responsibilities.

Well, when you sugest that you can walk in an manage the Yankees to a world series, you suggest that you can outmanage a guy who's been doing it for 25+ years simply because you grasp VORP, you suggest that data always trumps experience, should it really suprise you that people give you the sideways looks?

jojo
04-02-2008, 11:44 AM
What if your team has no other legit leadoff guys? While his OBP is lame, he does possess legit speed so in the absense of other choices there is, in fact, a reasonable logic to lead him off.

Personally, I'd go with OBP over speed.

RedsManRick
04-02-2008, 11:48 AM
RMR just out of curosity what would be your lineup and why?

The basic philosophy is pretty straight forward. OBP is the starting point. Start at the top and work your way down. The biggest impact of lineup order is who gets the most at bats. When the lineup is turning over for the last time, and you aren't guaranteed to get through it again, who do you want be sure gets at bats first?

However, readjust to put your best sluggers in the 2-4 spots. SLG in the leadoff spot is largely wasted. In the case of a mediocre OBP, low SLG guy, consider batting him 9th to maximize his OBP value by setting up the top of the lineup while minimizing his relative inability to move runners along.

Speed, in terms of stolen bases, is best utilized at the bottom of the lineup where the guys coming up have low OBP (more likely to make an out) and low SLG (less likely to advance the runner). However, it's at best a tertiary consideration.

Platoon splits matter, a lot. Brandon Phillips is an all-star against lefties. He's a replacement level hitter against righties. Ignoring this reality helps nobody.

The other thing that is important for me is the understanding that lineup construction is about maximizing the chances for good things to happen, not planning for a specific good series of events. There are all kinds of ways to score runs. The building blocks of those runs are pretty simple. First get on base. Then get moved around them. If you aren't very good at accomplishing step 1, nothing else can justify giving you lots of at bats. "Small ball" has it's place as an in-game strategy to maximize the chance of scoring one run. However, designing a lineup around an imagined small-ball series of events in the first inning maximizes that specific outcome at the cost of a host of other more productive ones.

One last philosophy -- don't bat a free swinger ahead of the pitcher. I'm not a huge proponent of the "protection" effect (it's logical, but not borne out in actual performance), but a fastball hitter will never see a fastball if he's batting 8th. Especially if you have a young guy who you expect to develop, putting him in the 8 spot is asking for him to struggle.

All that said, given the guys on the roster today, and without spending too much time doing the homework I should do before deciding... Obviously, as the young guys start to establish levels of performance -- say after 250 PA or so -- I'd start moving them around accordingly.

vR:
1. Votto
2. Dunn
3. Encarnacion
4. Griffey
5. Keppinger
6. Phillips
7. Patterson
8. Valentin
9. Harang

vL:
1. Keppinger
2. Phillips
3. Dunn
4. Encarnacion
5. Griffey
6. Votto
7. Valentin
8. Harang
9. Hopper

I expect Hopper to regress to around .300/.335/.350. If he maintained his high .300s OBP, he'd merit a spot at the leadoff spot, pushing everybody else down accordingly.

bucksfan2
04-02-2008, 11:49 AM
I realize it's KC, but Hillman running that ship also supports your hope that "that guy is out there".

I hope I don't grossly incorrectly paraphrase what you've said, but it seems to me that you want a guy who learns from the wealth of historical knowledge and data and doesn't commit the same mistakes.

I don't think Dusty's blindly ignored what history has shown him, but he certainly hasn't learned from it, either.

Hopefully within the next decade, we'll see a transition from the old school managers of the world, to the Acta's and the Hillman's of the world. The game is evolving. The least we can hope is that our future managers will evolve with the game.

Is the game really evolving? I mean the basic concept still hitting a ball with a stick. The amount of information out there has increasted tremendously but I think that is more useful to the general managers and scouts than it is to actual game management.

Look I understand that there is value in sabermetrics, but I also that it may be more valuable to the front office in player acquisitions and signings then it is to game management. I watched the 60 minutes show on Bill James to get a further understanding of his thoughts. While James is a very smart man I didn't notice anything ground breaking that he did that enabled Boston to win the world series. How much was the championship a result of better statistical analysis or a bigger pay roll? If the peak age for players is 25-29 then why trade for and then reup Lowell? I understand OBP is a very important measue but Adam Dunn's RBI groundout may have been more productive than if he walked.

The players and ball parks may be evolving or changing but the same basic game is being played now that was played in the 70's. The last great change that the game saw was the lowering of the mound and how many years ago was that? IMO too often people tend to try and overthink or over analyze thing and I really think Dusty subscribes to the K.I.S.S. method.

westofyou
04-02-2008, 11:52 AM
The last great change that the game saw was the lowering of the mound

Actually the game has changed a lot since then.

Less turf
Less multi use stadiums
Uniformity in the Umpires spread across the game
Questec
Steroids
Free agency
Arbitration
The DH
Increased batter armor


All those things effect the game and the way it's approached

Ltlabner
04-02-2008, 11:55 AM
Personally, I'd go with OBP over speed.

So would I, but again, supposing you had a team of obp challenged players putting the faster ones at the top of the order isn't all that crazy.

edabbs44
04-02-2008, 11:55 AM
Bottom line is that Dusty was hired with a pretty obvious resume. His bosses hired him under those pretenses. He really doesn't have much reason to change since he is probably doing what his bosses want him to do.

If the FO didn't want him to manage like this, they shouldn't have hired him. We can complain about his method (I guess), but we don't sign his checks.

RedsManRick
04-02-2008, 11:59 AM
What if your team has no other legit leadoff guys? While his OBP is lame, he does possess legit speed so in the absense of other choices there is, in fact, a reasonable logic to lead him off.

Not saying that's the case with the Reds right now, however, theres a prime example of the "this makes no sense ever" reasoning because it doesn't add up on the spreadsheet (but ignores other practical considerations) being faulty.

Let's attack this from the other angle. Why is speed a logical characteristic of a leadoff guy? Justify the use of speed as the characteristic of interest. So he can get an extra base ahead of the guys most likely to drive him in from first or take a walk? So he can risk outs on the base paths in front of the guys most likely to advance the him with their bats? Sure, you don't want a really slow guy leading off who would prevent guys on base behind him from advancing an extra base when they otherwise would. But the idea of a particularly fast leadoff hitter is rooted in an era in which runs were scarce and almost always were "manufactured". An era where few people walked, there were fewer extra base hits, and outs were more frequent. The value of the runner being able to advance himself in that environment was a great deal higher and the risk of making an out was lower. That simply isn't how runs tend to be created in todays game -- and specifically not with the Reds roster as currently constructed.

Give me a lineup of 9 guys who all have a .300 OBP and I'd still look at slugging before I looked at speed. And if they all had .400 SLG, then I'd put the speedy guy at the top. But that's not reality. The Reds have a number of guys better suited for the leadoff role than Corey Patterson. Votto, Hatteberg, Keppinger, Phillips, Encarnacion, Dunn, Griffey, Hopper, Freel -- all better choices than Patterson. Obviously some of those guys are even better fits in the 2-4 spots, but a few of them have a skill set quite well suited for the leadoff spot, Jeff Keppinger and Scott Hatteberg in particular.


Well, when you suggest that you can walk in an manage the Yankees to a world series, you suggest that you can outmanage a guy who's been doing it for 25+ years simply because you grasp VORP, you suggest that data always trumps experience, should it really suprise you that people give you the sideways looks?

No, I don't. That is a mischaracterization of my stance. I think Dusty Baker could manage the '98 Yankees to the World Series too. I think just about anybody could have managed that team to the World Series. That lineup was so deep that it would have scored 900 runs in any configuration. The team was full of veteran guys like Tino Martinez and Paul O'Neil who didn't need a rah-rah manager to get them motivated. People give me sideways looks because they want to reduce my point of view to a simplistic statement that goes like this "data always trumps experience" instead of the more nuanced "you want a guy who learns from the wealth of historical knowledge and data and doesn't commit the same mistakes".

Experience is a wonderful thing. The problem comes when you try to pit experience and data as these incompatible sources of knowledge. They aren't. The reality is that experience is just another data point. Data is experience codified. It's ALL data, it's ALL experience, and it all should inform knowledge. I get frustrated with people who elevate personal experience above all else; People who ignore large amounts of data because they either don't under it's source or because it suggests conclusions that run counter to the ones formed from their personal experience.

It's not about where you like to get your data from. Some people prefer the spreadsheet. Some people prefer their eyes. Both are completely valid. Both have their advantages and are suited to collecting certain kinds of data and producing certain kinds of insight. The problems come when you use one to the exclusion of the other and don't learn from the greater body of knowledge that reaches beyond your personal strengths.

Ltlabner
04-02-2008, 12:03 PM
Why is speed a logical characteristic of a leadoff guy? That simply isn't how runs tend to be created in todays game.

Here you are railing on Dusty for being stuck in the past, yet you easliy dismiss a way to score runs simply because it's not "how we do things today".

With the dirth of catchers with legit throwing arms, I think speed at the top of the line up is a hell of a way to take advantage of the competition and score some runs.

BuckeyeRedleg
04-02-2008, 12:10 PM
Let's attack this from the other angle. Why is speed a logical characteristic of a leadoff guy? Justify the use of speed as the characteristic of interest. So he can get an extra base ahead of the guys most likely to drive him in from first or take a walk? So he can risk outs on the base paths in front of the guys most likely to advance the him with their bats? Sure, you don't want a really slow guy leading off who would prevent guys on base behind him from advancing an extra base when they otherwise would. But the idea of a particularly fast leadoff hitter is rooted in an era in which runs were scarce and almost always were "manufactured". An era where few people walked, there were fewer extra base hits, and outs were more frequent. The value of the runner being able to advance himself in that environment was a great deal higher and the risk of making an out was lower. That simply isn't how runs tend to be created in todays game -- and specifically not with the Reds roster as currently constructed.

Give me a lineup of 9 guys who all have a .300 OBP and I'd still look at slugging before I looked at speed. And if they all had .400 SLG, then I'd put the speedy guy at the top. But that's not reality. The Reds have a number of guys better suited for the leadoff role than Corey Patterson. Votto, Hatteberg, Keppinger, Phillips, Encarnacion, Dunn, Griffey, Hopper, Freel -- all better choices than Patterson. Obviously some of those guys are even better fits in the 2-4 spots, but a few of them have a skill set quite well suited for the leadoff spot, Jeff Keppinger and Scott Hatteberg in particular.



No, I don't. That is a mischaracterization of my stance. I think Dusty Baker could manage the '98 Yankees to the World Series too. I think just about anybody could have managed that team to the World Series. That lineup was so deep that it would have scored 900 runs in any configuration. The team was full of veteran guys like Tino Martinez and Paul O'Neil who didn't need a rah-rah manager to get them motivated. People give me sideways looks because they want to reduce my point of view to a simplistic statement that goes like this "data always trumps experience" instead of the more nuanced "you want a guy who learns from the wealth of historical knowledge and data and doesn't commit the same mistakes".

Experience is a wonderful thing. The problem comes when you try to pit experience and data as these incompatible sources of knowledge. They aren't. The reality is that experience is just another data point. Data is experience codified. It's ALL data, it's ALL experience, and it all should inform knowledge. I get frustrated with people who elevate personal experience above all else; People who ignore large amounts of data because they either don't under it's source or because it suggests conclusions that run counter to the ones formed from their personal experience.

It's not about where you like to get your data from. Some people prefer the spreadsheet. Some people prefer their eyes. Both are completely valid. The problems come when you use one to the exclusion of the other and don't learn from the greater body of knowledge that is out there.

Post of the year.

RedsManRick
04-02-2008, 12:17 PM
Here you are railing on Dusty for being stuck in the past, yet you easliy dismiss a way to score runs simply because it's not "how we do things today".

With the dirth of catchers with legit throwing arms, I think speed at the top of the line up is a hell of a way to take advantage of the competition and score some runs.

Speed is a way to score runs. I don't deny that in the least. But it is not a method of scoring runs that is so effective that justifies batting a guy leadoff who gets on base less than 30% of the time. Again, this isn't black and white. Speed isn't bad. Small-ball methods are important and should be used at times. It just that speed isn't the most important factor about deciding who should lead off.

Speed is a hell of a way to take advantage of bad catchers. And it can be effectively utilized in the 6th or 7th spot of the lineup without needing to give up the value your leadoff guy being on base in the first place. If you have to choose between being on base for the ability to steal a base, you don't make that trade off at the top of the lineup. The balance of value swings in the direction of being on base in the first place. However, as you move down in the lineup, that calculus starts to even out.

Ltlabner
04-02-2008, 12:21 PM
Speed is a way to score runs. I don't deny that in the least. But it is not a method of scoring runs that is so effective that justifies batting a guy leadoff who gets on base less than 30% of the time.

But we weren't talking specifically about Patterson nor were we talking about speed at the detrement of OBP. We were talking about speed at the top of the line-up in general. Your words were...


Why is speed a logical characteristic of a leadoff guy? Justify the use of speed as the characteristic of interest.

I gave you a prefectlly good reason why a speedy leadoff guy, even though it has ties to the dreaded 70's and 80's, makes lots of sense.

You have to stop being so tied to the ways "we currently do things" and be willing to explore ideas outside the norm. :p:

Kc61
04-02-2008, 12:21 PM
vR:
1. Votto
2. Dunn
3. Encarnacion
4. Griffey
5. Keppinger
6. Phillips
7. Patterson
8. Valentin
9. Harang

vL:
1. Keppinger
2. Phillips
3. Dunn
4. Encarnacion
5. Griffey
6. Votto
7. Valentin
8. Harang
9. Hopper

I expect Hopper to regress to around .300/.335/.350. If he maintained his high .300s OBP, he'd merit a spot at the leadoff spot, pushing everybody else down accordingly.

These lineups are so driven by OBP that they seem to minimize all other skills. In these lineups, it appears that the ability to draw walks is the "be all and end all" of playing baseball.

What has EE done to be a third or fourth place hitter other than his reasonable OBP largely caused by his walks? He had 42 extra base hits all season last year. To me, EE is a table setter until he proves otherwise. I would bat him second.

Similarly, I think Phillips is degraded in these lineups because of his lack of walks. The man hit 30 homers last year, hits for a good average. Yet he either hits second or sixth in these lineups.

As for Votto, it's pretty optimistic to make him the leadoff hitter. It certainly isn't based on a wealth of major league statistics. I guess it is based on a minor league OBP which is, well, minor league.

Hitting Dunn second emphasizes his ability to walk. It tells him, "Adam, the best way you can help this team is to walk." I agree he belongs up in the order, but I would bat him third on this team.

Right now, I think my lineup would be (againt righties) --

Keppinger
Encarnacion
Dunn
Griffey
Phillips
Votto/Hatteberg
Patterson
Catcher

SteelSD
04-02-2008, 12:28 PM
Here you are railing on Dusty for being stuck in the past, yet you easliy dismiss a way to score runs simply because it's not "how we do things today".

You've pulled Rick's sentence out of context. He's not stating that speed is useless. He's asking you why it should be considered as a primary characteristic of a leadoff hitter.


With the dirth of catchers with legit throwing arms, I think speed at the top of the line up is a hell of a way to take advantage of the competition and score some runs.

Only if said speed positively augments a hitter's primary skill set performance. If a hitter can't first get on base at a reasonable clip, that's a problem. Secondly, if Stolen Base attempts are only replacing a lacking power component, there's no reason to slot a fast hitter at the top of a lineup while risking outs on the basepaths if you have a another hitter who can acquire those extra bases for free via a higher SLG.

The only actual "job" that demands speed to be a primary component is that of "Pinch Runner".

*BaseClogger*
04-02-2008, 12:48 PM
These lineups are so driven by OBP that they seem to minimize all other skills. In these lineups, it appears that the ability to draw walks is the "be all and end all" of playing baseball.

That might be because it is the statistic with the highest correlation to runs scored... ;)

RedsManRick
04-02-2008, 01:05 PM
These lineups are so driven by OBP that they seem to minimize all other skills. In these lineups, it appears that the ability to draw walks is the "be all and end all" of playing baseball.

Yup. Getting on base is the #1 skill to be concerned about when it comes to lineup order. Getting on base is the #1 determinant in scoring runs. Other skills are, and should be, minimized in that context. It's not that other skills aren't important too or that they don't affect run production, they are and do. But as Steel pointed out in my defense, it's about priority. They just aren't AS important as getting on base. As for walks, guys who never walk don't tend to get on base as often as guys who do. I don't care about walks per se', Keppinger is hardly a walk machine. I'm not emphasing walks. I'm emphasizing getting on base and walks are one way to do that. If you can hit .330 and walk just a little bit, you belong at or near the top of the lineup too.

Here's a little known fact that people sometimes forget when they fawn over Brandon Phillips and rail on EE. Edwin Encarnacion hit for a higher batting average than Brandon Phillips did last year. He also got on base more often. While Brandon Phillips created more bases per plate appearance than EE, he also created more outs per plate appearance. Additional bases are good, but it takes a whole bunch of 'em to offset additional outs. Brandon Phillips also got 150 more plate appearances than EE, so the difference in counting stats is somewhat skewed.

Also, Phillips hit .262/.310/.428 against righties last year. He hit .341/.378/.606 against lefties. That hardly merits batting in the upper half of the lineup against righties. I would have no problem with batting him 3rd or 4th versus lefties, but notice I have Hopper batting 9th, which means he's functionally batting behind two OBP guys (presuming Hopper's continued bunt-for-base-hit ability vL) in subsequent times around the order -- taking advantage of his power while getting more more plate appearances given his dominance.

I agree, Edwin at the top of the lineup instead of the middle isn't a bad idea at all, particularly looking at least year's level of performance. But lineups are based on projected numbers. Sometimes last year's numbers are a pretty good indicator of next year's likely numbers, but with young guys, you expect growth. The projections I used have EE likely hitting for a good deal more power in 2008 than he did in 2007. If he continues to hit .280/.350/.435 I wouldn't have him in the 3 or 4 spot.

bucksfan2
04-02-2008, 01:47 PM
Speed is a way to score runs. I don't deny that in the least. But it is not a method of scoring runs that is so effective that justifies batting a guy leadoff who gets on base less than 30% of the time. Again, this isn't black and white. Speed isn't bad. Small-ball methods are important and should be used at times. It just that speed isn't the most important factor about deciding who should lead off.

Speed is a hell of a way to take advantage of bad catchers. And it can be effectively utilized in the 6th or 7th spot of the lineup without needing to give up the value your leadoff guy being on base in the first place. If you have to choose between being on base for the ability to steal a base, you don't make that trade off at the top of the lineup. The balance of value swings in the direction of being on base in the first place. However, as you move down in the lineup, that calculus starts to even out.

I think that speed/baserunning is undervauled in today's game. I think there is a negative effect for the pitcher when a base stealer is on base. I wonder what the fastball/breaking ball ratio is when Patterson/Freel/Hopper is on base. I wonder how much a pitcher loses on his fastball when he has to slide step. IMO a good basesteal can change the dynmic of an atbat if he is on and a threat to steal.

BuckeyeRedleg
04-02-2008, 01:55 PM
I think that speed/baserunning is undervauled in today's game. I think there is a negative effect for the pitcher when a base stealer is on base. I wonder what the fastball/breaking ball ratio is when Patterson/Freel/Hopper is on base. I wonder how much a pitcher loses on his fastball when he has to slide step. IMO a good basesteal can change the dynmic of an atbat if he is on and a threat to steal.

I don't think anyone is undervaluing speed.

You have to get on base in order to have your speed take over on the basepaths.

BuckeyeRedleg
04-02-2008, 01:56 PM
And if it were undervalued in today's game, a guy like Corey Patterson would not be leading off.

RedsManRick
04-02-2008, 02:01 PM
I think that speed/baserunning is undervauled in today's game. I think there is a negative effect for the pitcher when a base stealer is on base. I wonder what the fastball/breaking ball ratio is when Patterson/Freel/Hopper is on base. I wonder how much a pitcher loses on his fastball when he has to slide step. IMO a good basesteal can change the dynmic of an atbat if he is on and a threat to steal.

There was an analysis done on the effect of having a good/fast baserunner on base on the batter in one of the recent books -- Baseball Between the Numbers maybe -- which covered the effect you described. My memory of it is that there was either no discernible effect or that it was extremely small as not merit consideration in lineup construction. I would love it if somebody had the actual study to reference. I know I have it at home somewhere...

Even sans that analysis, the hypothesis you pose ignores 2 real considerations; 1) being on base itself has value and 2) the value of speed is only relevant when the runner is on base. So if what you're trying to get at is the answer to "What guy is best to have up ahead of somebody else", you need to factor in the rate at which he gets on base at all and then multiply that by the effect of having that speed threat.

For sake of example, let's say having a guy on base at all is worth a 10% boost. Let's then say that having speed is another 2%. In terms of who provides the most boost to the guys behind him, the .300 OBP speedy guy gives a 30% * 12% boost (3.6%) while the .375 OBP not-speedy guy gives a 37.5%*10% boost (3.75%). So, in that set of simplistic assumptions, the slower guy actually does more to boost the ability of the guy batting behind him.

And of course, the reality is much much more complex. The value of the analytical approach is that it attempts to take a statements like

I think that speed/baserunning is undervauled in today's game. I think there is a negative effect for the pitcher when a base stealer is on base.
and go out and figure out if it's true or not. What you think is likely true based on all the data and experience you have to date is a great starting point. It gives us a hypothesis to test. But we would benefit from going out and, so far as we're able, actually observing and measuring to verify whether or not our hypothesis is right. The long history of analysis, both in baseball and in general, has shown us that while a lot of things make sense, that doesn't necessarily make them true.

Back to your original point regarding value, the Angels have been very "Moneyball" about base running. It's (presumably) not properly valued in the marketplace even though it is very real in terms of added run production. The Angels saw good, smart, aggressive base running as a market inefficiency and have gone to great lengths to get value there. It's a core part of their training curriculum in the minors. However, that doesn't mean Scocia is running out a Corey Patterson or Juan Pierre, great base runners both (and not just SB), at the top of his lineup. Yes, Figgins is up there, but he's also getting on base a .350+ clip. Reggie Willits is getting on base at a .390 clip. Speed is great. Good baserunning adds runs to an offense. But it's no substitute for OBP.

RFS62
04-02-2008, 02:28 PM
One thing that is interesting to me is the idea that having a high OBP man at the top of the lineup is "new school".

It's as old school as you can get. I've been hearing that all my life. You want a guy in leadoff who gets on base and takes a lot of pitches.

Dusty is just one version of "old school", and unless he thinks he sees something different out of Patterson that will cause his OBP to increase, I can't agree with him at leadoff just because he's fast. I love his defense, but not at leadoff without a big bump in OBP.

M2
04-02-2008, 02:46 PM
Corey Patterson with a .300 OB shouldn't be hitting leadoff. Corey Patterson with a .330 OB? Well, there's a leadoff argument to be made there given the Reds current mix of talent.

Obviously he's not ideal, but the Reds lack ideal options all over the lineup. It really hinges on whether Patterson delivers his best.

westofyou
04-02-2008, 02:46 PM
The stolen base is back in baseball

http://www.sportingnews.com/yourturn/viewtopic.php?t=394699

Falls City Beer
04-02-2008, 02:51 PM
Corey Patterson with a .300 OB shouldn't be hitting leadoff. Corey Patterson with a .330 OB? Well, there's a leadoff argument to be made there given the Reds current mix of talent.

Obviously he's not ideal, but the Reds lack ideal options all over the lineup. It really hinges on whether Patterson delivers his best.

This is a lot shorter than RMR's post, but every bit as trenchant.

Me, I'll wait for something really idiotic from Dusty to blow my stack.

(Though right now he's pushing it with this bullpen).

princeton
04-02-2008, 02:53 PM
Corey Patterson with a .300 OB shouldn't be hitting leadoff. Corey Patterson with a .330 OB? Well, there's a leadoff argument to be made there given the Reds current mix of talent.

Obviously he's not ideal, but the Reds lack ideal options all over the lineup. It really hinges on whether Patterson delivers his best.

exactly. Dusty is expecting improvement. A lot of guys with this background show improvement, and his offense was topnotch this spring

But then, a lot of managers make bad decisions based on what they hope will happen or what they need to happen. The key is to pull the plug early if it does not. Not everyone is so self-disciplined or non-stubborn. To thine ownself be true.

He certainly looked good in CF. Should Gonzalez and the catcher return, this will be the best Reds' defense in years, which takes away one of the apologies for the pitching. Maybe Bruce could even sneak into LF one of these days...

BCubb2003
04-02-2008, 02:58 PM
I wonder if this helps at all. Here are the average total bases per 162 games for several Reds players (not taking into account where they now stand in their careers):

241, 243, 249, 250, 290, 333

RFS62
04-02-2008, 03:14 PM
Corey Patterson with a .300 OB shouldn't be hitting leadoff. Corey Patterson with a .330 OB? Well, there's a leadoff argument to be made there given the Reds current mix of talent.

Obviously he's not ideal, but the Reds lack ideal options all over the lineup. It really hinges on whether Patterson delivers his best.




exactly. Dusty is expecting improvement. A lot of guys with this background show improvement, and his offense was topnotch this spring

But then, a lot of managers make bad decisions based on what they hope will happen or what they need to happen. The key is to pull the plug early if it does not. Not everyone is so self-disciplined or non-stubborn. To thine ownself be true.

He certainly looked good in CF. Should Gonzalez and the catcher return, this will be the best Reds' defense in years, which takes away one of the apologies for the pitching. Maybe Bruce could even sneak into LF one of these days...



Yep, I don't think even bad Dusty will stick with Patterson if the OBP doesn't increase. He's said a few things over the spring that made me think that was what he was expecting.

How long he sticks with him if he doesn't produce? That really will be a big indicator in what kind of manager he's going to be.

BuckeyeRedleg
04-02-2008, 03:19 PM
Why not hit Patterson 7th or 8th for now and if he does improve (like Dusty thinks) move him into the leadoff position later on?

RedsManRick
04-02-2008, 03:37 PM
The stolen base is back in baseball

http://www.sportingnews.com/yourturn/viewtopic.php?t=394699

Good article. Thanks for the link WoY.

princeton
04-02-2008, 03:39 PM
Why not hit Patterson 7th or 8th for now and if he does improve (like Dusty thinks) move him into the leadoff position later on?

Dusty watched him all spring, and decided that he did improve, or at least that he's swinging the bat well enough at the present time to hit high in the lineup. To be fair, that may be a lot different. Maybe the plan is to drop him in the order once he's seeing the ball less well.

it is an important skill in baseball to know what will probably happen before numbers appear to support it. So we'll find out if, in this case, he's correct.

westofyou
04-02-2008, 03:40 PM
Why not hit Patterson 7th or 8th for now and if he does improve (like Dusty thinks) move him into the leadoff position later on?

Because they want to see how he reacts as the lead off guy?

Batting number seven would introduce different factors than leading off does, thus you don't learn about him as a lead off hitter.

Stormy
04-02-2008, 03:50 PM
Because they want to see how he reacts as the lead off guy?

Batting number seven would introduce different factors than leading off does, thus you don't learn about him as a lead off hitter.

Reacts? He has 1490 career Plate Attempts in the #1 and #2 slots, and he's posted a career 299OBP in those spots. Pretty solid precedent of how he's going to react.

BCubb2003
04-02-2008, 03:50 PM
I wonder if this helps at all. Here are the average total bases per 162 games for several Reds players (not taking into account where they now stand in their careers):

241, 243, 249, 250, 290, 333

So here are the base getters:

Keppinger, 241; Patterson, 243; Phillips, 249; Encarnacion, 250, Dunn, 290, Griffey, 333.