PDA

View Full Version : Forget about Mark Teixeira



Benihana
05-08-2008, 11:07 AM
While I would love to see him in Red, it's definitely not gonna happen:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/writers/jon_heyman/05/07/heyman.teixeira/index.html

10 years, $200 million? :eek:

I've turned my attention to Garrett Atkins, who may be on the trading block this summer and doesn't hit free agency until after 2010. The Rockies will be looking for prospects, however according to published reports, he could be had without giving up Bruce or Bailey. Valaika and Maloney is where I'd start.

flyer85
05-08-2008, 11:09 AM
was there ever any doubt. Tex was always a complete non-starter for the Reds.

Joseph
05-08-2008, 11:14 AM
I'd say there is a chance the Braves would try to keep him, but the long held rumor is Baltimore.

I wonder if the Nats might be a darkhorse option though, considering its 'home'?

Jpup
05-08-2008, 11:46 AM
I'd say there is a chance the Braves would try to keep him, but the long held rumor is Baltimore.

I wonder if the Nats might be a darkhorse option though, considering its 'home'?

I think he'll have a monster year and stay with Atlanta. I can't imagine why anyone wouldn't want to play there.

Benihana
05-08-2008, 12:01 PM
I think he'll have a monster year and stay with Atlanta. I can't imagine why anyone wouldn't want to play there.

According to the article and most recent speculation, Atlanta will most likely not re-sign him.

Raisor
05-08-2008, 12:06 PM
Tex's RC per 650 PA's for his career:
110.5

Dunn's RC per 650 PA's for his career:
110.5

Just sayin.

KronoRed
05-08-2008, 01:14 PM
Stop that Raisor, lets talk REAL stats, like batting avg with runners on 3rd on days of the week starting with T when the Reds are down by 1-3 runs.

jojo
05-08-2008, 01:16 PM
I'd say there is a chance the Braves would try to keep him, but the long held rumor is Baltimore.

I wonder if the Nats might be a darkhorse option though, considering its 'home'?

The Nats already have 2 first baseman.

dougdirt
05-08-2008, 01:32 PM
Tex's RC per 650 PA's for his career:
110.5

Dunn's RC per 650 PA's for his career:
110.5

Just sayin.

Of course that also takes no account into Dunn being one of the worst fielders in all of baseball regardless of position and that Teixeira is actually a positive defender at his position. Not that I would pay either of them 20 a year, but yeah.

Wheelhouse
05-08-2008, 01:48 PM
Tex's RC per 650 PA's for his career:
110.5

Dunn's RC per 650 PA's for his career:
110.5

Just sayin.

Superb example as to why the stat is flawed. Many more runs are scored at band-box GABP (with a ballpark factor ranked 7th in MLB in 2007) than Turner Field (ballbark factor ranked 24th in MLB). Therefore a creating a run at Turner Field is more difficult than one creating one at GABP, skewing the stat. Also, this stat is one that has been one of the most heavily criticized for a host of reasons, including that it favors high OBP/high SLG players. For me, I wouldn't use it as a meansof comparing Tex and Dunn.

flyer85
05-08-2008, 02:08 PM
Superb example as to why the stat is flawed.because it doesn't agree with your preconceptions?

RedEye
05-08-2008, 02:08 PM
Superb example as to why the stat is flawed.

Based on what? The fact that Dunn is "clearly" not as good as Tex?

Wheelhouse
05-08-2008, 02:12 PM
because it doesn't agree with your preconceptions?

Re-read post--I expanded it to explain for those not fluent in the issues.

flyer85
05-08-2008, 02:17 PM
Re-read post--I expanded it to explain for those not fluent in the issues.


Therefore a creating a run at Turner Field is more difficult than one creating one at GABP, skewing the stat.

but Tex has spent the large majority of his career in park even more friendly than GABP.

Wheelhouse
05-08-2008, 02:21 PM
Actually, no. Arlington consistently ranks below GABP in Ballpark Factor (higher ranking favors the hitter).

RichRed
05-08-2008, 02:21 PM
Also, this stat is one that has been one of the most heavily criticized for a host of reasons, including that it favors high OBP/high SLG players.

I'm not seeing why this is a bad thing. I favor high OBP/high SLG players.

Wheelhouse
05-08-2008, 02:24 PM
I'm not seeing why this is a bad thing. I favor high OBP/high SLG players.

I do too. The critics of the stat feel that it PROPORTIONATELY favors high OBP/high SLG players.

BuckeyeRedleg
05-08-2008, 02:25 PM
Superb example as to why the stat is flawed. Many more runs are scored at band-box GABP (with a ballpark factor ranked 7th in MLB in 2007) than Turner Field (ballbark factor ranked 24th in MLB). Therefore a creating a run at Turner Field is more difficult than one creating one at GABP, skewing the stat.

See Flyer's post.


Also, this stat is one that has been one of the most heavily criticized for a host of reasons, including that it favors high OBP/high SLG players.

Really? The stat does what it is supposed to. "Runs created". It's not measuring defense. It's measuring actual run production. And OBP and SLG (OPS) correlates to actual runs scored more than average or any other traditional counting stat.


For me, I wouldn't use it as a meansof comparing Tex and Dunn.

This is the perfect way of comparing the two, if it's offense you want to compare.

BuckeyeRedleg
05-08-2008, 02:27 PM
I do too. The critics of the stat feel that it PROPORTIONATELY favors high OBP/high SLG players.

And the batting average stat favors players with high batting averages.

Any stat will favor the player that leads that stat.

flyer85
05-08-2008, 02:29 PM
Arlington consistently ranks below GABP in Ballpark Factor (higher ranking favors the hitter).

Park factors since 2003

Texas for 2003-2007 = 1.1138

Cincy for 2003-2007 = 1.0432

dabvu2498
05-08-2008, 02:30 PM
Back to the issue at hand...

The Reds likely won't be able to afford Tex or Dunn after this year.

BuckeyeRedleg
05-08-2008, 02:30 PM
By the way, if it were up to me and the prices were the same, I'd take Teixeira over Dunn and not think twice about it.

Offensively, they are very similar players, however.

Wheelhouse
05-08-2008, 02:30 PM
And the batting average stat favors players with high batting averages.

Any stat will favor the player that leads that stat.

Ugh. Of course. NUMERICALLY it should favor the player with the higher stat. Not PROPORTIONATELY.

Wheelhouse
05-08-2008, 02:37 PM
Park factors since 2003

Texas for 2003-2007 = 1.1138

Cincy for 2003-2007 = 1.0432

2007= GABP #7, ARL #18

2006= GABP #1, ARL #5

2005= GABP #3, ARL #6

2004= GABP #28, ARL #2 (clearly the deviation you're getting your numbers from)

2003= GABP #13, ARL #5

Benihana
05-08-2008, 02:40 PM
Back to the issue at hand...

The Reds likely won't be able to afford Tex or Dunn after this year.

So let's trade for Garrett Atkins!

flyer85
05-08-2008, 02:43 PM
2007= GABP #7, ARL #18

2006= GABP #1, ARL #5

2005= GABP #3, ARL #6

2004= GABP #28, ARL #2 (clearly the deviation you're getting your numbers from)

2003= GABP #13, ARL #5and your point is the numbers lie? 2004 doesn't count? or your original statement is still true?

even if you remove GABP2004 the avg is still 1.092. But if 2004 is an aberration for GABP then why is 2007 not an aberration and should not be considered for Arlington?

jojo
05-08-2008, 03:12 PM
Superb example as to why the stat is flawed. Many more runs are scored at band-box GABP (with a ballpark factor ranked 7th in MLB in 2007) than Turner Field (ballbark factor ranked 24th in MLB). Therefore a creating a run at Turner Field is more difficult than one creating one at GABP, skewing the stat. Also, this stat is one that has been one of the most heavily criticized for a host of reasons, including that it favors high OBP/high SLG players. For me, I wouldn't use it as a meansof comparing Tex and Dunn.

A majority of Tex's career was spent as a Ranger in a home environment that rewards lefties. That helps him a bit and while RC from a source such as THT is park adjusted, idiosyncrasies such as that generally aren't captured well by park factors.

jojo
05-08-2008, 03:14 PM
Really? The stat does what it is supposed to. "Runs created". It's not measuring defense. It's measuring actual run production. And OBP and SLG (OPS) correlates to actual runs scored more than average or any other traditional counting stat.

On a team level.....

RC as an individual metric starts to have some issues...as a run estimator, there are better ones. RC hangs around because of it's accessibility.

Wheelhouse
05-08-2008, 03:27 PM
and your point is the numbers lie? 2004 doesn't count? or your original statement is still true?

even if you remove GABP2004 the avg is still 1.092. But if 2004 is an aberration for GABP then why is 2007 not an aberration and should not be considered for Arlington?

I don't want to get in an argument about it, but do you really feel that GABP was the third most difficult park to score runs in in 2004? I think it's a severe deviation from the norm, and yet another example of how one needs to be careful using stats. In most years since it's existence, GABP has favored hitters more than Arlington. You're welcome to interpret 2004 however you wish. For my part, I removed it from my analysis.

Wheelhouse
05-08-2008, 03:28 PM
On a team level.....

RC as an individual metric starts to have some issues...as a run estimator, there are better ones. RC hangs around because of it's accessibility.

Agreed. And this was my only point.

M2
05-08-2008, 03:47 PM
I don't want to get in an argument about it, but do you really feel that GABP was the third most difficult park to score runs in in 2004? I think it's a severe deviation from the norm, and yet another example of how one needs to be careful using stats. In most years since it's existence, GABP has favored hitters more than Arlington. You're welcome to interpret 2004 however you wish. For my part, I removed it from my analysis.

They grew the grass ridiculously high that year. I agree you can't factor that season into an estimation of how the GAB plays since the entire season was a testament to the power of groundskeeping.

flyer85
05-08-2008, 03:57 PM
Ignoring data that one doesn't agree with is a great way to validate a hypothesis. :thumbup::thumbup:

pahster
05-08-2008, 04:04 PM
Ignoring data that one doesn't agree with is a great way to validate a hypothesis. :thumbup::thumbup:

M2 is right. I remember a number of articles discussing the height that the grass was kept at that year. That year isn't representative of the way GAB plays.

M2
05-08-2008, 04:05 PM
Ignoring data that one doesn't agree with is a great way to validate a hypothesis. :thumbup::thumbup:

I'd agree with you 999 times out of 1,000, but in this specific case we know what happened - The World's Smallest Rainforest™ (Steel owns that particular piece of intellectual property) caused a one-season anomaly of good pitching at the GAB. Once the groundskeepers cut the grass back to its normal height, the scoreboard started getting lit up like a pinball machine again. The 2004 season is dirty data.

jojo
05-08-2008, 04:08 PM
Ignoring data that one doesn't agree with is a great way to validate a hypothesis. :thumbup::thumbup:

I'm not sure which post this was directed at, but while I don't think throwing data out is appropriate, weighting it based upon known mitigating factors certainly is kosher (and even desirable)....

flyer85
05-08-2008, 04:13 PM
I'm not sure which post this was directed at, but while I don't think throwing data out is appropriate, weighting it based upon known mitigating factors certainly is kosher (and even desirable)....the comment of throwing out 2004 GABP because it was an aberration. However, the 2007 season for Arlington was also an aberration, yet that data was not excluded. seems like a bit of cherry picking.

Even taking out the 2004 season and including the 2007 Arlington season GABP in the 2003-2007(minus 2004) seasons STILL has a lower PF than Arlington.

there are a number of arguments to make to show Tex is a better player than Dunn(defense, counting stats, etc), however, taking on the RC stat by saying that Dunn played in a superior run environment to Tex in the 2003 to 2007 season is a red herring.

jojo
05-08-2008, 04:16 PM
the comment of throwing out 2004 GABP because it was an aberration. However, the 2007 season for Arlington was also an aberration, yet that data was not excluded. seems like a bit of cherry picking.

Even taking out the 2004 season and including the 2007 Arlington season GABP in the 2003-2007(minus 2004) seasons STILL has a lower PF than Arlington.

Generally park factors are utilized as a three year "rolling" average so issues like this don't impact the analysis as greatly as they might otherwise.

RedsManRick
05-08-2008, 04:17 PM
No reason to get lost in the weeds here. Dunn and Teix are at least in the same ballpark when it comes to total run production contribution. Teix is a better defender relative to his position, but Dunn plays a tougher position. That math likely comes out a touch in his favor. Teix has Dunn by .009 points of OPS, but Dunn has the OBP advantage. Baseball-Reference has a stat called Batting Runs based on Pete Palmer's linear weights model which accounts for Park Effects. Teix has put up .038/PA over his carrer, Dunn .039/PA.

Teixeira will be in his age 29 season in 2009 as will Dunn (Dunn is 6 months older).

Teixeira supposedly wants 10 years at $20M each. The point isn't who is better. The point is that you can't adjust from that number in any reasonable way to make either of them a feasible signing for the Reds.

The Reds are likely going to max out at something like 5/80 for a big impact bat. Carlos Lee signed for 6/100 last year.

So, given all of that, who thinks that either Teixeira OR Dunn are a Red next year?

flyer85
05-08-2008, 04:22 PM
Generally park factors are utilized as a three year "rolling" average so issues like this don't impact the analysis as greatly as they might otherwise.understood but the park factor should be considered for every season a player played in the environment which stats were being accumulated. after all, even during an "aberrant" season a player still played half his games in the conditions of that ball park.

"that's all I have to say about that".

bucksfan2
05-08-2008, 04:26 PM
No reason to get lost in the weeds here. Dunn and Teix are at least in the same ballpark when it comes to total run production contribution. Teix is a better defender relative to his position, but Dunn plays a tougher position. That math likely comes out a touch in his favor. Teix has Dunn by .009 points of OPS, but Dunn has the OBP advantage. Baseball-Reference has a stat called Batting Runs based on Pete Palmer's linear weights model which accounts for Park Effects. Teix has put up .038/PA over his carrer, Dunn .039/PA.

Teixeira will be in his age 29 season in 2009 as will Dunn (Dunn is 6 months older).

Teixeira supposedly wants 10 years at $20M each. The point isn't who is better. The point is that you can't adjust from that number in any reasonable way to make either of them a feasible signing for the Reds.

The Reds are likely going to max out at something like 5/80 for a big impact bat. Carlos Lee signed for 6/100 last year.

So, given all of that, who thinks that either Teixeira OR Dunn are a Red next year?

My question is who is more consistant? Who has the highest batting average? We all know what Dunn can do when he is hot but we also know how bad he is when he is off. Are Tex's lows as low as Dunn's are?

jojo
05-08-2008, 04:33 PM
My question is who is more consistant? Who has the highest batting average? We all know what Dunn can do when he is hot but we also know how bad he is when he is off. Are Tex's lows as low as Dunn's are?

Factor in defense (while not forgetting a positional adjustment which would favor Dunn) and it's not even close-Tex has been a much more valuable player than Dunn. This is so even though Tex has begun regressing from a plus defender to more of a neutral one over the last two seasons....

RedsManRick
05-08-2008, 04:35 PM
My question is who is more consistant? Who has the highest batting average? We all know what Dunn can do when he is hot but we also know how bad he is when he is off. Are Tex's lows as low as Dunn's are?

I think you completely missed the point. Unless you want to argue that consistency and singles instead of walks are worth 5 years and $120M, the answer to your questions are completely irrelevant. Whether or not Teix is better than Dunn on the margins (and I agree that he is) is completely beside the point here. They're close enough for us to recognize that they aren't vastly different and are likely to be in the same contract value neighborhood if they make it to FA.

The point here is that both guys, at market price, are out of the Reds league. We're having the wrong conversation by trying to tease out an advantage of one guy over the other. Chances are that both guys can get much better deals in free agency than the Reds are prepared to offer.

I italicize prepared because the Reds theoretically could give a guy $16-20M per annum if they were so inclined. I just seriously doubt they are. Most of the money coming off the books (Griffey, Stanton, etc.) has already been spent on extensions for Harang, Arroyo, and Phillips. I don't see the Reds committing roughly 20% of the payroll on any one player moving forward.

bucksfan2
05-08-2008, 04:50 PM
I think you completely missed the point. Unless you want to argue that consistency and singles instead of walks are worth 5 years and $120M, the answer to your questions are completely irrelevant. Whether or not Teix is better than Dunn on the margins (and I agree that he is) is completely beside the point here. They're close enough for us to recognize that they aren't vastly different and are likely to be in the same contract value neighborhood if they make it to FA.

The point here is that both guys, at market price, are out of the Reds league. We're having the wrong conversation by trying to tease out an advantage of one guy over the other. Chances are that both guys can get much better deals in free agency than the Reds are prepared to offer.

I italicize prepared because the Reds theoretically could give a guy $16-20M per annum if they were so inclined. I just seriously doubt they are. Griffey's salary has already been spent on entensions for Harang, Arroyo, and Phillips. I don't see the Reds committing roughly 20% of the payroll on any one player moving forward.

To steal a line for our favorite boy Marty, but "Dunn isn't a run producer". Teixiera on the other hand is a run producer. The Reds problem isn't that Dunn has a great OBP or OPS rather their problem is that they have struggled to drive in runs. A guy like Teixiera in the middle of the order creates a different dymanic of a lineup than Dunn.

As for your assertion that the Reds can't afford to pay Dunn or Teix what the market demands I disagree. IMO you could replace Dunn and Jr for around the same price as Teixiera + Votto + Bruce as well as outproducing them. One of the biggest keys to financial flexability is to have the good cheep young players so you can entertain the idea of signing top notch free agents.

While OBP and OPS may say Dunn and Teix are equvilant players the human eye tells you that there is a world of difference between the two players. It seems to me that Dunn leaves an amazing amount of runners on the basepaths that a better hitter would drive in. .285 > .247 lifetime batting averages. Too many people become enamored by the stat sheet and ops and opb but fail to realize the means to accomplish those numbers.

I do agree with you that this all may be a moot point because the Reds aren't going to spend that kind of money in free agency.

pahster
05-08-2008, 04:57 PM
Let me preface this by saying that Teixiera's offensive game is more conducive to collecting RBI than is Dunn's because he hits for a higher average: If Teixiera is so much better at driving in runs than Dunn, why does he have only one season in which he drove in a significantly higher number?

M2
05-08-2008, 05:03 PM
there are a number of arguments to make to show Tex is a better player than Dunn(defense, counting stats, etc), however, taking on the RC stat by saying that Dunn played in a superior run environment to Tex in the 2003 to 2007 season is a red herring.

I agree with that. Both have a 129 career OPS+ and that normalizes for ballpark effects.

Raisor
05-08-2008, 05:29 PM
If Tex is looking for 20 million, I think it becomes even more important that the Reds sign Dunn. WE know that they really are essentially the same offensive players. They may get to that 110 RC in slightly different ways, but I'd say that Tex is more then likely going to get a (much) bigger contract.

The Reds can probably sign Dunn for 4-5 million a season less then Tex is going to get, for the same offense.

They need to do it.

pahster
05-08-2008, 05:30 PM
If Tex is looking for 20 million, I think it becomes even more important that the Reds sign Dunn. WE know that they really are essentially the same offensive players. They may get to that 110 RC in slightly different ways, but I'd say that Tex is more then likely going to get a (much) bigger contract.

The Reds can probably sign Dunn for 4-5 million a season less then Tex is going to get, for the same offense.

They need to do it.

Agreed.

RedsManRick
05-08-2008, 05:33 PM
To steal a line for our favorite boy Marty, but "Dunn isn't a run producer". Teixiera on the other hand is a run producer. The Reds problem isn't that Dunn has a great OBP or OPS rather their problem is that they have struggled to drive in runs. A guy like Teixiera in the middle of the order creates a different dymanic of a lineup than Dunn.

I'm sorry, but the difference between Teix and Dunn offensively amounts basically to taking about 30 walks per year from Dunn and turning them in 25 singles, and 5 outs.

Over 162 games, I'm not sure how much of a different "dymanic" that is. That's one in every 20 plate apperances. Once every 5 games a walk becomes a single. That "dynamic" as you call it exists largely in Marty Brennamen's head. He would rather Dunn ground out to third base like Mark Teixeria than strike out. That's the dymanic in a nutshell. It feels like Teix is doing more -- that there's more possibility for production, and thus more production.

Now, if you want to talk in terms of how their production actually varies in terms of the actual runs it actually produces, I'm all ears. And a quick recommendation, I'd avoid things like RBI and Runs because those are extremely context dependent (i.e. what their teammates did). Asserting a difference and backing it up with the claim of a different "dynamic" tells me a lot about the way you perceive Dunn and Teix differently and very little about what they actually do differently.

To say nothing about the scale of that difference. If Teix "produces" 3 runs more than Dunn a year, who gives a flip in the context of this conversation. It hardly justifies 10's of millions of dollars.



As for your assertion that the Reds can't afford to pay Dunn or Teix what the market demands I disagree. IMO you could replace Dunn and Jr for around the same price as Teixiera + Votto + Bruce as well as outproducing them. One of the biggest keys to financial flexability is to have the good cheep young players so you can entertain the idea of signing top notch free agents.[/qoute]

I agree with the premise, but this ignores the full picture of the Reds fiscal commitments. The Reds have gotten great production at a cheap price from Harang, Arroyo, Hatteberg, and Phillips the last few years. Over the next few years, that cheap production is going to turn in to expensive production (or be gone in Hat's case). Those guys now fill the properly-priced-production hole being vacated by Dunn and Junior. Bruce, Votto, et. all move in to the hole being vacated by Arroyo, Harang, and Phillips (and EE).

Any real gains of production for the price will come by getting better value from the money spent on guys like Stanton, Freel, Gonzalez. And let's not forget the $11M going to a closer who probably isn't going to be $8M more productive than the guy he's replacing.

[quote]While OBP and OPS may say Dunn and Teix are equvilant players the human eye tells you that there is a world of difference between the two players. It seems to me that Dunn leaves an amazing amount of runners on the basepaths that a better hitter would drive in. .285 > .247 lifetime batting averages. Too many people become enamored by the stat sheet and ops and opb but fail to realize the means to accomplish those numbers.

I'm sorry, but this doesn't make sense. Yes, the human eye tells us that they are very different players. It does not tell us than one of them is more productive than the other. All you've said is that you like one stat over another. Dunn leaves "an amazing amount of runners on the basepaths"? How do you measure that? What's amazing in terms of RBI that Teix gets that Dunn doesn't? 20? But even then, that's just once piece of a hitter's value. That Dunn isn't a good "RBI guy" and thus deemed significantly less value simply shows the bias of the observer. A hitter's value comes from 2 components -- moving others around the bases is one of them, moving himself around the bases is the other. Dunn is extremely good at the latter.

Dunn drives himself in more than Teixeira does. So there are some of Dunn's missing RBI. But Dunn also he gets on base more often, providing run scoring opportunities for his team while Teixeira sits in the dugout. Teixeira also grounds in to 50% more double plays than Dunn, creating extra outs. You get the idea.

You need a more complete definition of "Run Production" and citing the "human eye" doesn't get you there -- it doesn't get you close. If anything, the human eye is subject to incredible bias and has trouble properly valuing component pieces of a complex system. I don't deny that Dunn and Teix are different players with their value coming from different places. But in this case, just looking at OBP and SLG probably gets us closer to the complex reality than using our eyes.

Now, again, don't get me wrong. I think Teixeira is a more productive player than Adam Dunn. I would rather have Teixeria on my team than Adam Dunn. But both guys are likely going to get at least 5 years and $90M next year, and very possibly upwards of 7 and $120M. I wouldn't be shocked if Teix gets more than $2M/year than Dunn -- but he certainly isn't worth more than that, if that.


I do agree with you that this all may be a moot point because the Reds aren't going to spend that kind of money in free agency.

Glad we can agree on something.

Raisor
05-08-2008, 05:38 PM
. I wouldn't be shocked if Teix gets more than $2M/year than Dunn -- but he certainly isn't worth more than that, if that.



.

Personally, I think that Tex is going to make a LOT more then Dunn, maybe not per year, but I think he'll get way more years.

Dunn's going to be a bargin, especially if they can get it done before the end of the year. If he gets to the open market, he'll get priced out of town.

dougdirt
05-08-2008, 05:41 PM
If Tex is looking for 20 million, I think it becomes even more important that the Reds sign Dunn. WE know that they really are essentially the same offensive players. They may get to that 110 RC in slightly different ways, but I'd say that Tex is more then likely going to get a (much) bigger contract.

The Reds can probably sign Dunn for 4-5 million a season less then Tex is going to get, for the same offense.

They need to do it.

I still disagree with that premise. Are they nearly identical in offensive run production? yeah, they are. However defensively we are looking at a guy 0-5 runs and a guy -10 to -20 runs. That turns thats a whole lot. On top of that, we need to note that Dunn isn't likely to get better defensively, but actually get worse over that time unless he switches positions, which he has made it known he does not want to do. Defense is hardly ever talked about on this board as a means to ones actual value and production and it really ought to be talked about more.

When we are looking at contracts here, we are potentially looking at Teixeira being worth 10-25 more runs than Adam Dunn is going forward if not more. Thats a significant difference. If Adam Dunn is to sign any type of extension with the Reds, it better be at first base where he doesn't have extremely negative run value in the field. If Adam wishes to continue playing in the outfield, its negating his value with the bat quite a bit and with his body and that position its going to continue going south with the years.

Raisor
05-08-2008, 05:49 PM
I still disagree with that premise. Are they nearly identical in offensive run production? yeah, they are. However defensively we are looking at a guy 0-5 runs and a guy -10 to -20 runs. .


And I still disagree with the premise that any LFer is going to be worth up to -20 runs more then the average LFer in a season.

BuckeyeRedleg
05-08-2008, 05:55 PM
Teixeira has been a stud in his career with RISP.

His line:

.322 AVG/.439 OBP/.629 SLG/1.068 OPS (773 AB's)

Dunn's not nearly as good:

.221 AVG/.412 OBP/.460 SLG/.872 OPS (863 AB's)

RISP with 2 out:

Teixeira - .289 AVG/.413 OBP/.650 SLG/1.063 OPS (357 AB's)
Dunn---- .211 AVG/.433 OBP/.409 SLG/.841 OPS (384 AB's)

If you really want to measure a player's production by a counting stat such as RBI, Dunn and Teixeira have been close with the exception of 2006, when Texiera put up 144 to Dunn's 101 and in 2005 when he had 110 to Dunn's 92.

However, in those years Teixeira had more base runners and RISP. When he knocked in 144, he had 311 runners on and 161 RISP, to Dunn's 234 runners on and 129 RISP. In 2006 when Teixeira knocked in 110, he had 315 base runners and 166 RISP. Dunn knocked in 92, but only had 235 base runners and 136 RISP. Teixeira definitely has been more successful with runners on and RISP, but the disparity in RBI has been somewhat skewed in Texiera's favor due to his fellow teammates getting on and his spot in the lineup, where Dunn has been offered fewer opportunities.

RedsManRick
05-08-2008, 06:01 PM
[QUOTE=BuckeyeRedleg;1625249]Teixeira has been a stud in his career with RISP.

If you really want to measure a player's production by a counting stat such as RBI.../quote]

I don't! That's my whole point! Teixeira has been wonderful throughout his career at converting RBI opportunities and Dunn has been less than stellar. That's a point you didn't need to make - it was never in dispute.

But that's just it -- it's a mark, a mark among many other things. Counting stats put an inordinate amount of weight on certain outcomes while ignoring other valuable outcomes entirely. Teixeira has also done other things more than Adam Dunn. Like make outs.

Focusing on certain counting stats is a very easy way to misrepresent the big picture. Thus, if we want to get a good assessment of overall production, we should focus on other measurements that take more in to consideration.

But again, this isn't the real purpose of this thread. Three Assumptions, One Conclusion

Assumption 1: Mark Teixeira is a very very good player
Assumption 2: Mark Teixeira expects to get a crap load of money in FA
Assumption 3. Adam Dunn is in the ball park of how good Mark Teixeira is

Conclusion: Adam Dunn should expect to get in the ballpark of how much money Mark Teixeira expects to get

Further arguments about what the Reds can/should do go from there.

BuckeyeRedleg
05-08-2008, 06:06 PM
I don't! That's my whole point! Teixeira has been wonderful throughout his career at converting RBI opportunities. That's a mark in his favor. But that's just it -- it's a mark, a mark among many other things. Counting stats put an inordinate amount of weight on certain outcomes and ignore other valuable outcomes entirely.

Focusing on certain counting stats is a very easy way to misrepresent the big picture.


I know your point. I wasn't responding to you. My bad if it came across that way. My point was that for those who love the RBI, it is dependent on too many other variables, however there is no denying that Teixeira is the more successful offensive player with runners on and RISP, so I can see where someone would see him as a better run producer. He is.

Like I said, all thing being equal I would take Teixeira over Dunn, but I still think we should sign Dunn for three more years.

Raisor
05-08-2008, 06:07 PM
I know your point. I wasn't responding to you. My bad if it came across that way. My point was that for those who love the RBI, it is dependent on too many other variables, however there is no denying that Teixeira is the more successful offensive player with runners on and RISP, so I can see where someone would see him as a better run producer. He is.

.

By the way, if you change it to "runners on", the gap is alot closer.

Dunn 918 vs Tex 967.

I think we can assume with both guys that if there's a runner on, they're in "scoring position"

BuckeyeRedleg
05-08-2008, 06:11 PM
By the way, if you change it to "runners on", the gap is alot closer.

Dunn 918 vs Tex 967.

I think we can assume with both guys that if there's a runner on, they're in "scoring position"

Good point.

CaiGuy
05-08-2008, 06:37 PM
Assumption 1: Mark Teixeira is a very very good player
Assumption 2: Mark Teixeira expects to get a crap load of money in FA
Assumption 3. Adam Dunn is in the ball park of how good Mark Teixeira is

Conclusion: Adam Dunn should expect to get in the ballpark of how much money Mark Teixeira expects to get

Sometimes perception takes precedence over reality. Is Dunn perceived to have similar offensive value than Teixeira? I doubt it. The batting average, counting stats, and situational stats will prevail and change their respective values as people see it. Most, even those making decisions, will see Dunn as being more than marginally worse than Teixeira, and that will effect their values (compared to each other). I do not think that Dunn will be able to get what Tex will get. That makes me think that Dunn's deal could actually be of good value, relative to Tex's deal anyways.

Raisor
05-08-2008, 06:38 PM
Sometimes perception takes precedence over reality. Is Dunn perceived to have similar offensive value than Teixeira? I doubt it. The batting average, counting stats, and situational stats will prevail and change their respective values as people see it. Most, even those making decisions, will see Dunn as being more than marginally worse than Teixeira, and that will effect their values (compared to each other). I do not think that Dunn will be able to get what Tex will get. That makes me think that Dunn's deal could actually be of good value, relative to Tex's deal anyways.

You know, you could have just quoted me and saved yourself some time.

:thumbup:

dougdirt
05-08-2008, 06:45 PM
And I still disagree with the premise that any LFer is going to be worth up to -20 runs more then the average LFer in a season.

Well then we are going to disagree on that because I have seen enough evidence to suggest he is at least -10 to -20 runs worse than the average left fielder.

Raisor
05-08-2008, 06:53 PM
Well then we are going to disagree on that because I have seen enough evidence to suggest he is at least -10 to -20 runs worse than the average left fielder.

I just don't see how that can be physically possible. I can see 20 BASES, but for Dunn to be -20, he'd need to be pitching.

Raisor
05-08-2008, 06:56 PM
Let me ask another way, how many defensive runs is the average LFer worth?

jojo
05-08-2008, 07:27 PM
Let me ask another way, how many defensive runs is the average LFer worth?

Zero. :cool:

Highlifeman21
05-08-2008, 09:59 PM
And I still disagree with the premise that any LFer is going to be worth up to -20 runs more then the average LFer in a season.

You and me both.

There's no way any LF is going to worth up to negative double digit runs. -10 is the absolute highes that I could go "yeah, ok....". However, I'm sure -7 is feasible, and that means I'd put Dunn at about -5.

Certainly a ways away from -20.

jojo
05-08-2008, 10:09 PM
It's been discussed ad naseum....... -20 would take a little doing but certainly a bad defender in left can accomplish the goal....

Raisor
05-08-2008, 10:27 PM
It's been discussed ad naseum....... -20 would take a little doing but certainly a bad defender in left can accomplish the goal....

See, that's the point. It's not only -20 runs, it's -20 runs past the "average" lf.

LF isn't exactly the home of a bunch of (in his prime) KGj's.

I have a feeling alot of these "runs" are involve runners scoring on bobbled balls out there. Swell, they scored on a Dunn mistake. Trouble is, how did they get to third in the first place?

RedsManRick
05-08-2008, 10:39 PM
See, that's the point. It's not only -20 runs, it's -20 runs past the "average" lf.

LF isn't exactly the home of a bunch of (in his prime) KGj's.

I have a feeling alot of these "runs" are involve runners scoring on bobbled balls out there. Swell, they scored on a Dunn mistake. Trouble is, how did they get to third in the first place?

A single that dropped 10 feet in front of Junior followed by throwing error on a double play from EE.... :evil:

Raisor
05-08-2008, 10:45 PM
A single that dropped 10 feet in front of Junior followed by throwing error on a double play from EE.... :evil:

They all can't be chrages a full run for that, right?