PDA

View Full Version : Keep Dunn?



Raisor
05-09-2008, 10:55 PM
New poll time. Hasn't been polled in awhile.

Answer or your ORG status expires.


Ok, I can't back that up.

Raisor
05-09-2008, 10:59 PM
So far, 100% of ORGers think he should be kept.

Spring~Fields
05-09-2008, 11:06 PM
Answer or your ORG status expires.





I recuse myself on the grounds that I have long held beliefs that might bias my opinion, that hits are actually better than strikeouts. :p:

marcshoe
05-09-2008, 11:11 PM
Although sometimes I wish they'd trade him just so the noise will stop....

If he weren't a Red, I'd want the Reds to get him.

fearofpopvol1
05-09-2008, 11:14 PM
I don't really like the options presented. I think there's a big difference between trading him and just letting him go.

AmarilloRed
05-09-2008, 11:29 PM
I voted for keeping him. Bruce will be coming up soon, but I expect he will be replacing Griffey in right after this year. We have some promising prospects in AA, but I expect they are several years away. We will need Dunn's offense in the meantime.

edabbs44
05-09-2008, 11:30 PM
Yeah, not a big fan of the choices.

Depends on the contract or who he would get dealt for.

guttle11
05-09-2008, 11:50 PM
Yeah, I definitely think there's a lot more to the story than just the two options. If he hits the market (I'd be shocked if an LTC is done before he hits the open market at this point) and gives the Reds a shot to resign him, what will the market dictate? If a bidding war starts and it gets more than, say, $15 mil a year...I don't think I'd do that.

I don't trade him just to trade him. If you get an offer of, let's say, an above average pitching prospect and an above average RH bat...I'd pull the trigger. If his trade market is underwhelming, I do not advocate trading him. If worse comes to worse, the extra draft pick(s) received if he leaves via FA would probably have more value than some moderate or below prospects or crafty veterans.

First choice is a 4 or 5 year deal in the $60-$70 million range. If that can't or doesn't happen, then you have to play it by ear, IMO.

jojo
05-09-2008, 11:53 PM
So far, 100% of ORGers think he should be kept.

I think you intimidated them.

KronoRed
05-10-2008, 12:42 AM
Of course they should, I like Jay Bruce but we're throwing a ton of eggs in the basket of someone who has yet to swing a bat in a major league game.

*BaseClogger*
05-10-2008, 01:15 AM
I voted LTC on the grounds that I could dictate it be a 3 or 4 year deal, which in hindsight is pretty unrealistic IMO...

Highlifeman21
05-10-2008, 09:17 AM
Picking up his option for 2008 was a no brainer.

Signing him to a LTC is the same animal.

oneupper
05-10-2008, 09:23 AM
I voted to let him go. It's all about the money. REDS can't afford him at this point anymore and I'm not sure he'd be worth that big a percentage of payroll.

The offense might stink w/o him, but it stinks with him also. It'll be better for Dunn too..he can DH in the AL and won't have Dusty batting him 5th for the next three years.

You have to be realistic. Dunn is not going to fetch much in a trade, so the draft pick may be the best alternative.
As for an LTC, he's going to want at least 5 yrs and will probably get it somewhere.
5 yrs -$85 mm is my prediction. HRs are falling in the AL (down substantiall this year), so the price of slugging just got dearer.

BuckeyeRedleg
05-10-2008, 09:35 AM
I say sign him, but only if they can do a three year deal. 3 yrs/45M is fine with me.

kbrake
05-10-2008, 10:16 AM
I would do 4 years 60M but I'm really not sure why Dunn would want to stay in Cincinnati.

mth123
05-10-2008, 10:17 AM
I vote sign him. The team needs his bat and there is no one else to spend the money on. Dunn, Bruce, EdE, Votto should make an ample 2 - 5 portion of the line-up if a manager uses them wisely.

mth123
05-10-2008, 10:21 AM
I would do 4 years 60M but I'm really not sure why Dunn would want to stay in Cincinnati.

That sounds about right. I'd propose more up-front money ($3 or $4 Million Signing Bonus with say a lower salary in the $10 to $12 Million range in year 4). Hopefully the up-front money could help entice him.

flyer85
05-10-2008, 10:39 AM
It depends on contract length ... I would not go past a 4 year deal if I was the Reds. Which may not be an issue because Dunn is young enough that if he signed a 3-4 year deal he would likely get a 2nd sizable deal after his age 31-32 season.

I think the odds of Dunn being a Reds in 2009 are rather low, certainly in Krivsky's plan Dunn was not part of the future.

sonny
05-10-2008, 10:44 AM
Trade him. More for the sake of Redszone. He's tearing us apart!

KronoRed
05-11-2008, 02:54 AM
Trade him. More for the sake of Redszone. He's tearing us apart!

He does and EE, Votto or Bruce become the new whipping boy, Reds fans love having someone to blame for all ills.;)

Caveat Emperor
05-11-2008, 04:19 AM
One thing is for certain -- he isn't winning himself any money with the start he's off to this season.

Now, I'm fairly certain he'll come around to his 40 HR ~100RBI norm, but as of right now he isn't playing like a player who is due a huge payday in the offseason.

GAC
05-11-2008, 06:56 AM
I didn't vote because if Dusty Baker is going to continually miscast him in this batter order (6th) because he doesn't fit into his perverted idea of a lineup construction then why pay the guy millions more for multiple years? It's a waste IMO.

WebScorpion
05-11-2008, 07:06 AM
It's just not that simple. IMHO, it's not a yes or no question. If he'll sign an LTC at an extremely reasonable price, I'd jump at the chance to lock him up...but I don't think he will. If he's going to be A-Rod priced (or anything close), it would be stupid to sign him and give up any hope for future additions. Also, part of the problem is that we have him AND Griffey...without Griffey, Dunn becomes less of a burden. I think we must shed ONE of them. I'm actually leaning toward shedding Dunn and keeping Griffey...Griffey is winding down, so I think he's more likely to give us a reasonable price and he won't be expecting 5 years or anything close. Just my 2 cents. :D

jojo
05-11-2008, 08:50 AM
Just say no.

PuffyPig
05-11-2008, 11:57 AM
Unless you know the contract terms, how can anyone make the decision to keep him?

3 years @$12M is a lot different than 5 years @ $15M. Which is it?

REDREAD
05-12-2008, 06:26 PM
I said "keep him". I'm under the assumption that the LTC will be reasonable.

I don't think anyone would agree to giving Dunn a 10 year deal for example.. I think it's a given that the contract is reasonable at 3-5 years.. I don't want to name a $$ figure, but let's assume it's one that Cast is ok with.

IMO, letting Dunn walk blows a huge hole in an already weak offense. Jr is probably leaving too.. I'm not too pumped about having EdE, Bruce, Votto, and Phillips being the entire offense next year.

Sure, we could always trade for another bat, but that would involve giving up prospects. If most posters on this board did not want to give up prospects for Haren, I can't imagine they'd want to give up prospects for an OF bat.

OnBaseMachine
05-12-2008, 06:32 PM
Three years at $12M? Yes.

Four+ years at $65M+? No.

Matt700wlw
05-12-2008, 06:34 PM
Time to move on...

Will M
05-12-2008, 07:11 PM
I realize what Dunn brings offensively.
His defense is awful. I am sick of watching the Reds play crappy defense.
I also dislike his lazy approach to the game. Not a big Dunn fan here. I voted let him go and would stuff the ballot box if I could.

Spring~Fields
05-12-2008, 07:17 PM
Unless you know the contract terms, how can anyone make the decision to keep him?

3 years @$12M is a lot different than 5 years @ $15M. Which is it?

Good business, yes, we don't have the important facts to make a major decision like that.

Besides I suspect Raisor has been voting ten to our one. :)

deltachi8
05-12-2008, 08:38 PM
I voted keep, but I have long believed for Adam's sake, he should be traded to a team and fan base that appreciates his talents.

Benihana
05-12-2008, 08:55 PM
Keep him for $55 MM or less. Anything more, bye bye.

Strikes Out Looking
05-12-2008, 08:59 PM
Let another team's fan be frustrated.

Spring~Fields
05-12-2008, 11:53 PM
Looking at the poll this board really is divided over Dunn, I had read that before but I did not realize that it was true.

WVPacman
05-13-2008, 01:22 AM
I voted to keep him b/c even thow he strikes out alot he still hits 40 homeruns and knocks in close or over 100 rbi ever year.Thats something we can't let go!!

GAC
05-13-2008, 09:28 PM
I voted to keep him b/c even thow he strikes out alot he still hits 40 homeruns and knocks in close or over 100 rbi ever year.Thats something we can't let go!!

Very true. But will he reach that this year the way Dusty is utilizing him in the batting order?

Blitz Dorsey
05-13-2008, 11:11 PM
Wow, 100 votes so far and we're split exactly down the middle 50/50. Wow.

I voted no, but they better find a way to trade him and not just get draft picks for him.

Raisor
05-13-2008, 11:56 PM
All I know is half of ORG is wrong.

;)

WVPacman
05-14-2008, 12:37 AM
Very true. But will he reach that this year the way Dusty is utilizing him in the batting order?

To be honest I don't think he will get those numbers b/c he can't get comfortable the lineup.One day he bats 5th,the next day 6th,then the next day 7th.If Baker keeps this up then I don't see Dunn hitting 35 homers with 85 rbi.

AtomicDumpling
05-14-2008, 07:33 PM
I think this poll is a bit of an IQ test.

Another way of asking the same question is:

"Should the Reds keep the player that has been the most productive member of the team every single year since 2004, or should they replace him with an inferior player?"

Will M
05-14-2008, 08:15 PM
I think this poll is a bit of an IQ test.

Another way of asking the same question is:

"Should the Reds keep the player that has been the most productive member of the team every single year since 2004, or should they replace him with an inferior player?"

bull.

Should the Reds keep the player that has been the worst defensive member of the team every single year since 2004, or should they replace him with an superior player?

Should the Reds keep a player with zero work ethic, or should they replace him with an player who will work hard?

*BaseClogger*
05-14-2008, 08:16 PM
should the Reds keep their tallest player? :cool:

Raisor
05-14-2008, 08:34 PM
Should the Reds keep a player with zero work ethic, or should they replace him with an player who will work hard?




bull.

RFS62
05-14-2008, 08:40 PM
I don't think he'll ever be used here the way his biggest fans want him to be used.

I'm worried about his size and age for a long term deal, too.

I will be surprised if Jocketty keeps him.

Highlifeman21
05-14-2008, 08:43 PM
bull.

Should the Reds keep the player that has been the worst defensive member of the team every single year since 2004, or should they replace him with an superior player?

Should the Reds keep a player with zero work ethic, or should they replace him with an player who will work hard?

Right question, wrong answer. The worst defensive member of the team every single eyar since 2004 has been Ken Griffey, Jr, and they should replace him with a superior player: Jay Bruce.

And as for Dunn having zero work ethic, being lazy, call it what you will, where in the blue Hell is all of this coming from? It's finally to the point for me with all that garbage where it's comical. Cincy "fans" are now to the point of rivaling Phillies "fans". I'm seriously convinced we want to run Dunn out of town, much like they ran Abreu out of town, and have been in the process of running Burrell out of town.

Don't be surprised when we get the same foam finger and box of Cracker Jacks for Dunn when we run him out of town as the Phillies did when they ran Abreu out of town.

I thought Cincy "fans" were better than Phillies "fans", but I guess some aren't, and will never be. I guess we might as well light the torches and grab the pitchforks and run this monster out of town, eh?

Highlifeman21
05-14-2008, 08:44 PM
should the Reds keep their tallest player? :cool:

I hope they keep Harang.

He's got Dunn by at least an inch.

Raisor
05-14-2008, 08:50 PM
I thought Cincy "fans" were better than Phillies "fans", but I guess some aren't, and will never be. I guess we might as well light the torches and grab the pitchforks and run this monster out of town, eh?

http://wiki.urbandead.com/images/thumb/d/df/Mob.jpg/125px-Mob.jpg

Heath
05-14-2008, 09:00 PM
I voted to keep him.

Guys with a .900+ OPS aren't just lying around. Plus, Griffey'll be gone and Bruce should increase the defense in the OF.

jojo
05-14-2008, 09:16 PM
I think this poll is a bit of an IQ test.

Another way of asking the same question is:

"Should the Reds keep the player that has been the most productive member of the team every single year since 2004, or should they replace him with an inferior player?"

The appropriate question is: "what should the Reds expect from Dunn going forward?" Another way of asking the same question is:

"While Dunn has been productive as a Red during the last 5 years, will he be equally productive over the next five years?"

His slump in '06 essentially rendered that season as below average given his defense. His slow start with the bat this year is threatening to make his '08 a below average one as well.

Given his defense, there is tremendous pressure on Dunn's bat to be 40-50 runs above replacement in order for his overall value to be above average for a left fielder. So really the relevant question one might ask could be: "what are the odds he can consistently VORP around 45 over the course of his next contract?"

Since true three outcome players tend to age poorly, I'd suggest his next contract is likely to represent a very big risk. Smart teams can find solutions that don't have such associated risk.

It might be obvious from my reservations, but I voted no.

AtomicDumpling
05-14-2008, 10:15 PM
The appropriate question is: "what should the Reds expect from Dunn going forward?" Another way of asking the same question is:

"While Dunn has been productive as a Red during the last 5 years, will he be equally productive over the next five years?"

His slump in '06 essentially rendered that season as below average given his defense. His slow start with the bat this year is threatening to make his '08 a below average one as well.

Given his defense, there is tremendous pressure on Dunn's bat to be 40-50 runs above replacement in order for his overall value to be above average for a left fielder. So really the relevant question one might ask could be: "what are the odds he can consistently VORP around 45 over the course of his next contract?"

Since true three outcome players tend to age poorly, I'd suggest his next contract is likely to represent a very big risk. Smart teams can find solutions that don't have such associated risk.

It might be obvious from my reservations, but I voted no.

This argument would make sense if the Reds actually had the option to replace Dunn with an average left fielder, but they don't have that option.

Their options to replace Dunn are the guys already on the team that obviously aren't as good as Dunn (Freel, Hopper etc.). If they were as good as Dunn or better then they would be playing instead of him right now -- and they aren't.

The next option is to bring in a free agent left fielder that is better than Dunn, and there aren't any available -- especially at a cost savings.

Another option is to trade a good player(s) to bring in a good left fielder, which would weaken the team at the traded player's position.

So your argument for getting rid of Dunn inevitably makes the team worse. I would rather make a move that improves the team.

Getting rid of your most productive player doesn't improve the team. The Reds would be better served to replace their worst players rather than their best players. The logical approach is to obtain good players via any possible means, and have them replace the bad players like Freel, Patterson, Hopper, Valentin, Ross and the like.

Ditching Dunn is a headline-grabbing move that would make the fans feel the team is doing something, but in the end it makes the team worse rather than better.

GAC
05-14-2008, 10:32 PM
Right question, wrong answer. The worst defensive member of the team every single eyar since 2004 has been Ken Griffey, Jr, and they should replace him with a superior player: Jay Bruce.

And that is going to happen no later then 4+ months from now. Unless a trade is worked out somehow. It's inevitable.

Regardless of what many may feel about Jr - his diminishing skills due to age/injury - this organization is not going to just callously cut ties (release) him like that. Not when he has given so much to this game, and is 3 Hrs away from one huge milestone (600 hrs).

They'd be nailed from every side if they'd do so.

What this FO needs to do is sit Jr down and if he doesn't already see the "writing on the wall", or refuses to accept it, let him know (he deserves that much) that they are not going to exercise his option next year, which may influence him enough to accept a trade somewhere and speed his exit, are going to call Bruce up, and want him to work with him (mentor him), like Larkin did with with Lopez. Give him the opportunity to exit gracefully, and with dignity from Cincy.

If he fights that, then that makes him look bad (selfish, in denial), not this organization. You can then cut ties with him because you tried to work with him.

NC Reds
05-14-2008, 10:46 PM
Keep Dunn. He gets on base even when he slumps. I blame Dusty and Jacoby for his slow start.

Bruce and Dunn back to back would be potent.

jojo
05-14-2008, 10:50 PM
This argument would make sense if the Reds actually had the option to replace Dunn with an average left fielder, but they don't have that option.

Of course they have that option....


So your argument for getting rid of Dunn inevitably makes the team worse.

Sure, if you assume Dunn will continue being "Dunn" (i.e you completely discount my argument), it's impossible to find average players at a position with one of the largest pools of available talent on the field, and the Reds FO is devoid of talent.


Getting rid of your most productive player doesn't improve the team.

Oakland, Florida, and Baltimore say hi.......

A 79 win Mariner team jettisoned Jr in 1999 and won 91 games the next season. Then they let AROD walk during the following off season and won 116 games in '01....


The Reds would be better served to replace their worst players rather than their best players.

Keeping Dunn, if it's even possible, is going to require a very large commitment. When facing that, it's prudent to pause to consider if such a commitment has a reasonable chance of being justified by his future production.


The logical approach is to obtain good players via any possible means, and have them replace the bad players like Freel, Patterson, Hopper, Valentin, Ross and the like.

Trading Dunn or letting him walk while collecting supplemental picks and your statement are not mutually exclusive actions, unless the Reds FO is hopelessly feckless.


Ditching Dunn is a headline-grabbing move that would make the fans feel the team is doing something, but in the end it makes the team worse rather than better.

This, as I hope was successfully argued, is begging the question.

fearofpopvol1
05-14-2008, 10:56 PM
I think anything more than 4 years would be an enormous risk and I wouldn't want to see the Reds paying more than $60 million. That may (or may not) be realistic, I don't know.

15fan
05-14-2008, 11:21 PM
Buy low, sell high.

Now's the perfect time to talk multi-year deal with Dunn. He's about as low as you can get.

And once the ink on the deal was dry, you know what my next move would be?

Put out feelers on Edinson Volquez. Give some GM the opportunity to plug him into his rotation this year, right now. EV could be had for the low, low, low price of another organization's top 4 minor leaguers.

Highlifeman21
05-15-2008, 12:12 AM
Buy low, sell high.

Now's the perfect time to talk multi-year deal with Dunn. He's about as low as you can get.

And once the ink on the deal was dry, you know what my next move would be?

Put out feelers on Edinson Volquez. Give some GM the opportunity to plug him into his rotation this year, right now. EV could be had for the low, low, low price of another organization's top 4 minor leaguers.

Interesting chain of events.

Change the name of step 2 to Homer Bailey, and I'm 100% onboard.

OnBaseMachine
05-15-2008, 12:17 AM
Buy low, sell high.

Now's the perfect time to talk multi-year deal with Dunn. He's about as low as you can get.

And once the ink on the deal was dry, you know what my next move would be?

Put out feelers on Edinson Volquez. Give some GM the opportunity to plug him into his rotation this year, right now. EV could be had for the low, low, low price of another organization's top 4 minor leaguers.

No way I trade Volquez.

15fan
05-15-2008, 09:11 AM
No way I trade Volquez.

Don't get me wrong - I'm in no rush to give away Volquez.

But his trade value right now is likely as high as it will ever be.

(I said the same thing about Brandon Phillips after the 2007 season, and Homer Bailey after the 2006 season, BTW.)

What makes Volquez attractive to the Reds - he's good AND cheap - also makes him attractive to the other 29 teams in MLB. With a bigger pool of potential trade partners, the Reds would have the leverage to work a better deal.

And let's face it - the Reds have multiple holes not only on the 25 man roster, but throughout the entire system. If you can fill 3 or 4 holes by creating 1, that's something you at least have to think about.

15fan
05-20-2008, 09:35 AM
Buy low, sell high.

Now's the perfect time to talk multi-year deal with Dunn. He's about as low as you can get.

How quickly the worm turns.

Since posting the above, Dunn has gone 6-13 with 4 HRs and 9 RBI in 4 games.

Spring~Fields
05-20-2008, 11:26 AM
How quickly the worm turns.

Since posting the above, Dunn has gone 6-13 with 4 HRs and 9 RBI in 4 games.

Yes that is the way it is in baseball, highs, lows, and in betweens.

bucksfan2
05-20-2008, 11:36 AM
Yes that is the way it is in baseball, highs, lows, and in betweens.

Doesn't it seem as if Dunn is hot or cold without much in between? IMO Dunn is either seing dead red or couldnt hit water if he fell out of a boat.

Spring~Fields
05-20-2008, 11:44 AM
Doesn't it seem as if Dunn is hot or cold without much in between? IMO Dunn is either seing dead red or couldnt hit water if he fell out of a boat.

I can't single out Dunn, as it seesm to me that Griffey, Encarcion, and Freel run hot or cold. I have never seen Dunn play with a solid core of players around him, I think that could cause us to see more from Dunn if the Reds had good players in front and in back of Dunn. Plus I count working a walk as if it was a single performance wise.

BRM
05-20-2008, 11:52 AM
Doesn't it seem as if Dunn is hot or cold without much in between? IMO Dunn is either seing dead red or couldnt hit water if he fell out of a boat.

The nice thing about Dunn though is that even when he isn't swinging well, he still gets on base.

OnBaseMachine
05-20-2008, 01:56 PM
After thinking it through, IMO the Reds should keep Dunn unless his asking price is outrageous and/or another team knocks Jocketty down with a trade offer that he can't refuse. Dunn has constantly said he wants to remain in Cincy. He's been here through all the bad years and it finally appears things are making a turn for the better and he wants to be here for that. Maybe he'll give the Reds a bit of a discount. It's never been about the money for him. A three or four year deal at $12 or $13 million a year would be ideal.

BuckeyeRedleg
05-20-2008, 01:59 PM
After thinking it through, IMO the Reds should keep Dunn unless his asking price is outrageous and/or another team knocks Jocketty down with a trade offer that he can't refuse. Dunn has constantly said he wants to remain in Cincy. He's been here through all the bad years and it finally appears things are making a turn for the better and he wants to be here for that. Maybe he'll give the Reds a bit of a discount. It's never been about the money for him. A three or four year deal at $12 or $13 million a year would be ideal.


He will want more than that per year. I'm thinking more like 3 years/50M might be the lowest they can re-sign him for.

And I would do it. I agree with many others that anything over 3 years might be pushing it. If he were solidly entrenched at 1B, I would have no problem with 4 or 5 years.

dougdirt
05-20-2008, 02:01 PM
Adam Dunn for 50 million over 3 years?

I would pass on that quicker than a lapdance from Seabiscuit.

Adam Dunn is a good player, but good players aren't worth that much money....

WMR
05-20-2008, 02:04 PM
I think 4 years at 64 million would be where'd you hafta begin to make the conversation a serious one, and I'd be okay with that. I don't see Dunn settling for a 3 year contract. I know if I was representing him I wouldn't accept it. Four would be the absolute minimum, and I'd likely seek a fifth year with an option to buy it out for say, 4 million that would then bring the aggregate value of the deal to 17 million per. Less years should garner more money, and do not be mistaken, 4 years of Dunn from ages 28-32 will definitely be considered "less years" once compared to what he can likely get on the open market.

BuckeyeRedleg
05-20-2008, 02:04 PM
Adam Dunn for 50 million over 3 years?

I would pass on that quicker than a lapdance from Seabiscuit.

Adam Dunn is a good player, but good players aren't worth that much money....



He is getting 13M right now. The 3 or so extra million is that big a deal?

BuckeyeRedleg
05-20-2008, 02:08 PM
Adam Dunn is a good player, but good players aren't worth that much money....


He has averaged 40 HR, 100 RBI over the past 4 years and is on pace for that or better again.

40 HR, 100 RBI and .920 OPS is worth that much money in today's market.

Jpup
05-20-2008, 02:09 PM
After thinking it through, IMO the Reds should keep Dunn unless his asking price is outrageous and/or another team knocks Jocketty down with a trade offer that he can't refuse. Dunn has constantly said he wants to remain in Cincy. He's been here through all the bad years and it finally appears things are making a turn for the better and he wants to be here for that. Maybe he'll give the Reds a bit of a discount. It's never been about the money for him. A three or four year deal at $12 or $13 million a year would be ideal.

It's always about the money.

WMR
05-20-2008, 02:10 PM
He has averaged 40 HR, 100 RBI over the past 4 years and is on pace for that or better again.

40 HR, 100 RBI and .920 OPS is worth that much money in today's market.

The Skankees would love to add that kind of firepower to their team for that kind of cash. They wouldn't blink twice, I'm guessing.

Jpup
05-20-2008, 02:13 PM
The Skankees would love to add that kind of firepower to their team for that kind of cash. They wouldn't blink twice, I'm guessing.

I'm not sure the Yankees would be in on Dunn. I expect them to make a run at Texeira though. They will need a 1st baseman. If Dunn does leave Cincy, I would love him to be a Yankee.

jojo
05-20-2008, 02:29 PM
I'm betting Seattle would be in on it and they won't necessarily pay attention to the market.

dougdirt
05-20-2008, 02:46 PM
He is getting 13M right now. The 3 or so extra million is that big a deal?

On this team, absolutely it is.

dougdirt
05-20-2008, 02:49 PM
He has averaged 40 HR, 100 RBI over the past 4 years and is on pace for that or better again.

40 HR, 100 RBI and .920 OPS is worth that much money in today's market.

And how about poor defense added in with that? He is on pace for a lower OPS this year by far than he had last year. He isn't getting younger and has a body that doesn't project to staying in shape. If he wants to move to first base, I am willing to pay him 48 million over 3 years. If he wants to play outfield, I don't want to pay him more than 12 million a year. Market says he is worth it or not doesn't mean the market isn't out of whack. Just because someone else is willing to pay something doesn't mean thats ones true value. Heck, look at all of the horrible contracts around baseball.... those guys aren't worth it, but they are getting paid it.

RedsManRick
05-20-2008, 03:13 PM
Doesn't it seem as if Dunn is hot or cold without much in between? IMO Dunn is either seing dead red or couldnt hit water if he fell out of a boat.

Depends on your attitude towards walks. When it comes to hit, that's a pretty fair statement.

Phillips has failed to reach base in 10 games this year. Dunn only has 9. A 1-4 certain looks more productive in the box score but often is the same as a 0-3 w/ 1 BB.

But here's where I think the real story is...

I have a theory which basically says that fans equate watching a player doing athletic things with being an impressive player. What's important to fans from a real fandom perspective, more than anything else, is how often the player does something athletic. At heart, the game is merely the context in which we watch people do things we find physically impressive.

That gets combined with the basic reality that we (people) have a real hard time ascribing value -- we are much better with basic counts/frequency. A corollary of this is that we're so not good at balancing out positive things with negative things. We tend to treat negatives and zeros as both being zero. For example, a hit and caught stealing is much better than no hit at all. Two singles are more impressive than a homer and a strikeout. (strikeouts being the worst because they represent a failed opportunity for a positive outcome -- where as a batted ball out is a positive outcome (ball is put in play) with a negative outcome (ball is turned in to an out).

It's just the way we're wired to understand the world. We can get past it of course, but this is where out instinct starts us.

The outcome of a walk is both non-athletic on the face of it (it's hard to observe the skill of plate discipline) and seen as a negative failing of the pitcher rather than a positive accomplishment of the hitter.

You can see this in metric form. It's clearly not perfect, but it's interesting in illustrating the basic concept -- to me at least. I've played around with it a bit and come up with a few variants, the simplest being (H+SB)/PA. Of the 210 players with at least 400 plate appearances in 2007, Phillips placed 22nd, Dunn placed 175th. It certainly paints a picture.

Dunn just doesn't register on the fans radar as doing something athletically impressive as often as just about anybody else in the game. Walks count and his homers are big, but fans don't value walks and the boom of the homer fades quickly.

BuckeyeRedleg
05-20-2008, 03:23 PM
And how about poor defense added in with that? He is on pace for a lower OPS this year by far than he had last year.

His OPS is .880 and it was .940 last year and he's averaged .920 over the last four years, but that .880 could be .940 in one day this early in the season. Just look at 7 days ago. It was .739. It's pretty early in the year to be coming to the conclusion that Dunn is regressing. I'll take four years of data and assume he's somewhere around .920 or better when this season is complete.


He isn't getting younger and has a body that doesn't project to staying in shape.

At 28, he is in his prime. By 31 or 32 he may start to go downhill, but not at 28-30. That's why I'll take him for 3 years.



If he wants to move to first base, I am willing to pay him 48 million over 3 years. If he wants to play outfield, I don't want to pay him more than 12 million a year.

I agree he should have moved to 1B years ago, but he's not that bad of a fielder for LF. His bat makes up for any deficiency out there and then some. Besides, LF is not a defense-oriented position. It's the least important position out there. I read earlier about his arm being bad, but what leftfielder has a cannon?

bucksfan2
05-20-2008, 05:29 PM
Depends on your attitude towards walks. When it comes to hit, that's a pretty fair statement.

Phillips has failed to reach base in 10 games this year. Dunn only has 9. A 1-4 certain looks more productive in the box score but often is the same as a 0-3 w/ 1 BB.

But here's where I think the real story is...

I have a theory which basically says that fans equate watching a player doing athletic things with being an impressive player. What's important to fans from a real fandom perspective, more than anything else, is how often the player does something athletic. At heart, the game is merely the context in which we watch people do things we find physically impressive.

That gets combined with the basic reality that we (people) have a real hard time ascribing value -- we are much better with basic counts/frequency. A corollary of this is that we're so not good at balancing out positive things with negative things. We tend to treat negatives and zeros as both being zero. For example, a hit and caught stealing is much better than no hit at all. Two singles are more impressive than a homer and a strikeout. (strikeouts being the worst because they represent a failed opportunity for a positive outcome -- where as a batted ball out is a positive outcome (ball is put in play) with a negative outcome (ball is turned in to an out).

It's just the way we're wired to understand the world. We can get past it of course, but this is where out instinct starts us.

The outcome of a walk is both non-athletic on the face of it (it's hard to observe the skill of plate discipline) and seen as a negative failing of the pitcher rather than a positive accomplishment of the hitter.

You can see this in metric form. It's clearly not perfect, but it's interesting in illustrating the basic concept -- to me at least. I've played around with it a bit and come up with a few variants, the simplest being (H+SB)/PA. Of the 210 players with at least 400 plate appearances in 2007, Phillips placed 22nd, Dunn placed 175th. It certainly paints a picture.

Dunn just doesn't register on the fans radar as doing something athletically impressive as often as just about anybody else in the game. Walks count and his homers are big, but fans don't value walks and the boom of the homer fades quickly.

RMR I really do appreciate your analytical side to most post. I think what we have is trying to find the right mixture of perception vs reality. I think the answer lies in the middle. IMO the biggest problem with Dunn is his perception. I think what most Reds fans have a tough time is when we see Dunn hot we wonder why he can't take what he is doing now and apply that same thought process to when he is struggling.

The most frustrating thing for me with Dunn is his lack of contact and his strikeouts with RISP. It may be one of my flaws but I like to look at the context of a given at bat. I do realize that when you take into consideration the entire season Dunn is probably going to be the most productive Red as a whole. However anyone who watches the Reds day in day out has to admit the absolute frustrating nature of Dunn's inabilities from time to time.

When Dunn is hot there are very few players I would take over him. The way he is playing right now you just wish he could harness and carry that through the entire season. The problem arises when he starts to struggle his ability to make contact regresses substantially. I find myself thinking when he is off "why can't you just bunt the ball down the 3rd base line and take your hit?".

As for your theory about hits vs walks I agree. A 2-4 day looks a whole lot better than an 0-2 w/ 2BB but in all reality they could be equal and inversly they could be drastically different.

BuckeyeRedleg
05-20-2008, 05:33 PM
The way he is playing right now you just wish he could harness and carry that through the entire season.

That would be great because then we'd have Babe Ruth.

All players have down periods. All players have hot streaks. Over 4 years, he is one of the most productive offensive forces in the game and that's with the cold streaks that he (and everyone else) goes through.

WMR
05-20-2008, 05:37 PM
That would be great because then we'd have Babe Ruth.

All players have down periods. All players have hot streaks. Over 4 years, he is one of the most productive offensive forces in the game and that's with the cold streaks that he (and everyone else) goes through.

Made me LOL.

His best attribute is his OBP, which never sleeps.

bucksfan2: You talk about wishing he'd lay a bunt down the first base line and take the hit... that's exactly what he gets out of a base on ball, and he gets those even when he's "slumping."

redsrule2500
05-20-2008, 06:04 PM
So, if this poll was taken today instead, what would the results have read?

Spring~Fields
05-20-2008, 06:08 PM
I wish that Raisor would have been fair to Dunn and polled the entire 13 position players. I say that because I think that we would read a lot of results with no as the leading vote in the polls.

Kc61
05-20-2008, 06:21 PM
The key question is this. "Are the Reds better off paying Dunn $60 million for four years or using that money for other players?"

Debating whether Dunn is good, or great, or bad, or mixed, really doesn't answer this question. I think it is a tough question to answer.

The issue isn't even whether Dunn is "worth" $60 million for four years. Even if the answer to that is yes, it still begs the question of whether the Reds -- with its resources -- should devote so much to this player. If we were discussing the Yankees, the answer is likely affirmative. But the Reds have a tighter budget so the issue becomes harder.

I voted no because with Bruce and Votto, I think the Reds are reasonably ok in the lefty power department and need other things. If you were to tell me money is no object, then yes, sure, sign Dunn and then spend for the other needs. I'm sure many "no" voters would say yes if Dunn would sign for, say, $7 million a year, which would leave more room for other acquisitions (but obviously is not realistic).

To make the judgment the Reds must consider what comparable players are paid; what other alternative uses they have for the money; and whether it is likely the Reds will be better with this alternative use of the money.

Close question, if you ask me.

RedsManRick
05-20-2008, 06:47 PM
Kc, I agree in principal that the money could likely be better spent. My concern is that absent a big trade, I don't really see those better options in this year's FA crop. That leaves us with a big production gap and money burning a hole in our pocket (or worse, given to mediocre players for multiple years).

I'm all for having payflex, but having salary cap and but not enough talent doesn't really help. When you look at the Reds areas of need, they aren't ones we can fix effectively by throwing money at it. You don't want to be buying middle relief. There aren't any catcher upgrades. If you want an OF, Dunn or Pat Burrell are as good as it gets. The Reds IF is pretty well set and you know we're not chasing a $10M/year stater.

I've come to the conclusion that Dunn really is the best use of our money, at least for 2009. I could almost see us going 1 year and $15M with him, with some mutual options. Or something to that effect. I'd rather let him walk than give him Carlos Lee money. But if he can be had for 3-4 years at $13M or less, I'd hang on to him. Even if you overpay by a few million, who cares about saving the money if you can't use it to replace that production.

Bruce might "replace" his production. But the reality is that the Reds need to add production, not tread water. Losing Dunn would be a big step back production-wise, one which ultimately might be the difference between taking advantage of the cheap years of EE, Bruce, and Votto and not doing so.

dougdirt
05-20-2008, 07:31 PM
I agree he should have moved to 1B years ago, but he's not that bad of a fielder for LF. His bat makes up for any deficiency out there and then some. Besides, LF is not a defense-oriented position. It's the least important position out there. I read earlier about his arm being bad, but what leftfielder has a cannon?

He is a bad left fielder, even compared to his peers. Dunn was -29 plays last year versus the average left fielder according to The Fielding Bible (http://www.billjamesonline.net/fieldingbible/charts/sm2-leaders07.gif). That is ~15 runs worse than AVERAGE. That means a positive defender over there is starting out with a 2 win lead on Adam Dunn before they even step to the plate. Justin Inaz developed a defensive rating system that put Dunn at -19 runs versus the AVERAGE left fielder. That would put Dunn at about 2.5 wins behind a positive defender in left field before either guy stepped to the plate. Left field is a position for horrible fielders, but that doesn't mean Adam Dunn doesn't suck a whole lot more than other horrible fielders, because he does. Adam Dunn's -29 plays (and when you play the outfield that equates to a lot of extra base hits) ranks him as the 5th worst defensive player in baseball (and Ryan Braun moved off his position this year). So regardless of the fact that Dunn plays a position full of loafs in the field, he is just that much worse than they all are and it really puts him behind the 8 ball when trying to make up his issues with the bat. Fortunately that bat is very good, but it still makes a huge dent in his overall value.

BuckeyeRedleg
05-20-2008, 07:39 PM
Have defensive rating systems measured 2008 yet?

Because the Adam Dunn I see, THIS YEAR, in LF is not that bad.

dougdirt
05-20-2008, 07:42 PM
Have defensive rating systems measured 2008 yet?

Because the Adam Dunn I see, THIS YEAR, in LF is not that bad.

Nothing too big, but Dunn does appear to be better than last year. It is very early though. As the season goes on its worth tracking. Dunn however has been among the worst defenders in baseball for 3 years running.

RedsManRick
05-20-2008, 07:49 PM
Doug, using the WARP framework, do you know how many collective wins you would expect from a replacement level team? I'm not familiar enough with the origin of the WARP model.

jojo
05-20-2008, 10:05 PM
Doug, using the WARP framework, do you know how many collective wins you would expect from a replacement level team? I'm not familiar enough with the origin of the WARP model.

WARP (BP) is pretty flawed based upon where it sets replacement level. I'd pretty much ignore it.

*BaseClogger*
05-20-2008, 10:13 PM
Doug, using the WARP framework, do you know how many collective wins you would expect from a replacement level team? I'm not familiar enough with the origin of the WARP model.

edit: oops!

*BaseClogger*
05-20-2008, 10:38 PM
Doug, using the WARP framework, do you know how many collective wins you would expect from a replacement level team? I'm not familiar enough with the origin of the WARP model.

BP's WARP set replacement level at 24 wins (.148 winning percentage) in 2005 by subtracting team's WARP from actual win total. THT's WSAB (Win Shares Above Bench) at 53 wins (.327 winning percentage) in 2005 by subtracting team's WSAB from actual win total.

BP likely sets replacement level too low. Their replacement level is more of an "immediate need/short term fix." Some say BP overstates the gap in defense between regulars and replacements. THT's replacement level is probably too high, representing a off-season need/full-season replacement." The best metric would likely be somewhere in-between.

Kc61
05-20-2008, 10:51 PM
Kc, I agree in principal that the money could likely be better spent. My concern is that absent a big trade, I don't really see those better options in this year's FA crop. That leaves us with a big production gap and money burning a hole in our pocket (or worse, given to mediocre players for multiple years).

I'm all for having payflex, but having salary cap and but not enough talent doesn't really help. When you look at the Reds areas of need, they aren't ones we can fix effectively by throwing money at it. You don't want to be buying middle relief.

Bruce might "replace" his production. But the reality is that the Reds need to add production, not tread water. Losing Dunn would be a big step back production-wise, one which ultimately might be the difference between taking advantage of the cheap years of EE, Bruce, and Votto and not doing so.

I think a decision of this magnitude shouldn't focus only on this year's free agent class. With money to spend, the Reds could trade, could target top free agents longer term, could draft Boras-client types, could do a lot of different things. A Dunn LTC would span four or five years and the team has to look at this longer-term horizon in making a decision.

Again, I think it's a close call. In the case of this particular player, I think his 2008 numbers will heavily influence his market value and the Reds level of interest. If he has a big time year, he likely will be priced out of this market and go to the AL as a DH for a big market team.

AtomicDumpling
05-21-2008, 12:05 AM
Depends on your attitude towards walks. When it comes to hit, that's a pretty fair statement.

Phillips has failed to reach base in 10 games this year. Dunn only has 9. A 1-4 certain looks more productive in the box score but often is the same as a 0-3 w/ 1 BB.

But here's where I think the real story is...

I have a theory which basically says that fans equate watching a player doing athletic things with being an impressive player. What's important to fans from a real fandom perspective, more than anything else, is how often the player does something athletic. At heart, the game is merely the context in which we watch people do things we find physically impressive.

That gets combined with the basic reality that we (people) have a real hard time ascribing value -- we are much better with basic counts/frequency. A corollary of this is that we're so not good at balancing out positive things with negative things. We tend to treat negatives and zeros as both being zero. For example, a hit and caught stealing is much better than no hit at all. Two singles are more impressive than a homer and a strikeout. (strikeouts being the worst because they represent a failed opportunity for a positive outcome -- where as a batted ball out is a positive outcome (ball is put in play) with a negative outcome (ball is turned in to an out).

It's just the way we're wired to understand the world. We can get past it of course, but this is where out instinct starts us.

The outcome of a walk is both non-athletic on the face of it (it's hard to observe the skill of plate discipline) and seen as a negative failing of the pitcher rather than a positive accomplishment of the hitter.

You can see this in metric form. It's clearly not perfect, but it's interesting in illustrating the basic concept -- to me at least. I've played around with it a bit and come up with a few variants, the simplest being (H+SB)/PA. Of the 210 players with at least 400 plate appearances in 2007, Phillips placed 22nd, Dunn placed 175th. It certainly paints a picture.

Dunn just doesn't register on the fans radar as doing something athletically impressive as often as just about anybody else in the game. Walks count and his homers are big, but fans don't value walks and the boom of the homer fades quickly.

I think this hits the nail on the head. Excellent post.

Much of the casual fans' beliefs are based on faulty preconceptions. Ever since we were kids we were told that batting average is the best measure of a player's performance. So when we see a player's stats flashed on the screen during a game we make a quick measure of that player based on his batting average. When you look at the Reds' team stats published in the newspaper they are always sorted top to bottom by batting average. Why? Is the object of the game to get as many hits as possible? I thought the goal was to score runs.

It is ingrained in our minds to judge Adam Dunn as a poor hitter because of his poor batting average. We automatically assume that someone like Ichiro Suzuki is a great player (and much better than Dunn) because he hits for a high average and has blazing speed. The only problem with this is it is totally misleading.

Ichiro has a great batting average every year and is one of the fastest players in the game. Dunn is big and slow and has a poor batting average. In the four seasons from 2004-2007 Ichiro has a combined BA of .337 and 151 stolen bases. Dunn in those years has a batting average of only .253 and just 26 stolen bases. So Ichiro is a better hitter right? Nope.

Ichiro generated a total of 678 runs created in those seasons. Adam Dunn generated 813 runs created -- even though Ichiro had 322 more plate appearances (half a season's worth of extra opportunities)! Clearly batting average and speed are very poor indicators of a player's offensive prowess.

Ichiro is widely considered one of the elite players in all of baseball, while Dunn is considered pretty good but nothing special. Dunn is actually reviled by some or even most fans right here in Cincinatti -- especially Marty Brennaman. Yet Dunn produces more runs created than Ichiro and most of the other top players too.

When you look at the stats at the end of a game what column is most important? Is it Hits? No, it is Runs. The object of the game is to put runs on the scoreboard, not hits. Adam Dunn is by far the Reds' best run producer every year. In fact Dunn is one of the best run producers in the entire league. Over the last 4 seasons Adam Dunn ranks #5 in the major leagues for runs created. Wow. Yet so many people want to get rid of him? :rolleyes:

Top 20 run producers 2004-2007:
1. Alex Rodriguez 1005
2. David Ortiz 985
3. Albert Pujols 960
4. Manny Ramirez 847
5. Adam Dunn 813
6. Andruw Jones 812
7. Travis Hafner 804
8. Miguel Tejada 796
9. Michael Young 788
10. Mark Teixeira 775
11. Derek Jeter 771
12. Paul Konerko 770
13. Matt Holliday 767
14. Aramis Ramirez 751
15. Todd Helton 734
16. Chase Utley 731
17. Jason Bay 726
18. David Wright 714
19. Hideki Matsui 705
19. Victor Martinez 705

Where is the great Ichiro Suzuki? Ichiro is of course a player we would all want on our team, but he doesn't produce as much as Adam Dunn.

Of course defense factors into the mix as well, and Dunn is a below average left fielder (though certainly not the world's worst as some would have you believe). Ichiro is an excellent fielder with strong arm. In a perfect world the Reds would move Dunn to first base, but since we already have an immobile 1st baseman and another inferior outfielder (Griffey), Dunn will have to stay in left field. Since the Reds are lacking a player that can both play Gold Glove caliber outfield and produce runs at the plate it would be a huge mistake to ditch Dunn's outstanding offense to save a few runs on defense.

BuckeyeRedleg
05-21-2008, 12:23 AM
I heart AtomicDumpling.

jojo
05-21-2008, 01:07 AM
I think this hits the nail on the head. Excellent post.

Much of the casual fans' beliefs are based on faulty preconceptions. Ever since we were kids we were told that batting average is the best measure of a player's performance. So when we see a player's stats flashed on the screen during a game we make a quick measure of that player based on his batting average. When you look at the Reds' team stats published in the newspaper they are always sorted top to bottom by batting average. Why? Is the object of the game to get as many hits as possible? I thought the goal was to score runs.

It is ingrained in our minds to judge Adam Dunn as a poor hitter because of his poor batting average. We automatically assume that someone like Ichiro Suzuki is a great player (and much better than Dunn) because he hits for a high average and has blazing speed. The only problem with this is it is totally misleading.

Ichiro has a great batting average every year and is one of the fastest players in the game. Dunn is big and slow and has a poor batting average. In the four seasons from 2004-2007 Ichiro has a combined BA of .337 and 151 stolen bases. Dunn in those years has a batting average of only .253 and just 26 stolen bases. So Ichiro is a better hitter right? Nope.

Ichiro generated a total of 678 runs created in those seasons. Adam Dunn generated 813 runs created -- even though Ichiro had 322 more plate appearances (half a season's worth of extra opportunities)! Clearly batting average and speed are very poor indicators of a player's offensive prowess.

Ichiro is widely considered one of the elite players in all of baseball, while Dunn is considered pretty good but nothing special. Dunn is actually reviled by some or even most fans right here in Cincinatti -- especially Marty Brennaman. Yet Dunn produces more runs created than Ichiro and most of the other top players too.

When you look at the stats at the end of a game what column is most important? Is it Hits? No, it is Runs. The object of the game is to put runs on the scoreboard, not hits. Adam Dunn is by far the Reds' best run producer every year. In fact Dunn is one of the best run producers in the entire league. Over the last 4 seasons Adam Dunn ranks #5 in the major leagues for runs created. Wow. Yet so many people want to get rid of him? :rolleyes:

Top 20 run producers 2004-2007:
1. Alex Rodriguez 1005
2. David Ortiz 985
3. Albert Pujols 960
4. Manny Ramirez 847
5. Adam Dunn 813
6. Andruw Jones 812
7. Travis Hafner 804
8. Miguel Tejada 796
9. Michael Young 788
10. Mark Teixeira 775
11. Derek Jeter 771
12. Paul Konerko 770
13. Matt Holliday 767
14. Aramis Ramirez 751
15. Todd Helton 734
16. Chase Utley 731
17. Jason Bay 726
18. David Wright 714
19. Hideki Matsui 705
19. Victor Martinez 705

Where is the great Ichiro Suzuki? Ichiro is of course a player we would all want on our team, but he doesn't produce as much as Adam Dunn.

Of course defense factors into the mix as well, and Dunn is a below average left fielder (though certainly not the world's worst as some would have you believe). Ichiro is an excellent fielder with strong arm. In a perfect world the Reds would move Dunn to first base, but since we already have an immobile 1st baseman and another inferior outfielder (Griffey), Dunn will have to stay in left field. Since the Reds are lacking a player that can both play Gold Glove caliber outfield and produce runs at the plate it would be a huge mistake to ditch Dunn's outstanding offense to save a few runs on defense.

Where's Ichiro? He was busy being a much more valuable player than Dunn. When factoring in their bats and gloves, it's not even close either.

AtomicDumpling
05-21-2008, 01:33 AM
Where's Ichiro? He was busy being a much more valuable player than Dunn. When factoring in their bats and gloves, it's not even close either.

I know you are a Mariners fan, and your previous posts have indicated you don't much like Adam Dunn. When it comes to putting runs on the scoreboard Dunn has proven to be much more effective than Ichiro.

Ichiro has a much better batting average from 2004-2007.
BA:
.337 Ichiro
.253 Dunn

However Dunn and Ichiro are equally likely to get on base every time they come to the plate. It may surprise most folks to learn that Dunn is no more likely to make an out than Ichiro, but here is the proof.
OBP:
.383 Ichiro
.381 Dunn

Here is where Dunn sets himself above Ichiro -- extra base hits. While Dunn is able to cancel out Ichiro's batting average advantage by taking lots of walks, Ichiro has been unable to compensate for Dunn's huge advantage in doubles and home runs.
SLG:
.434 Ichiro
.538 Dunn

This gives Dunn a huge advantage in the statistic that provides the best prediction of a hitter's ability to produce runs:
OPS:
.817 Ichiro
.919 Dunn

And that is why Dunn has been a much more prolific run producer since becoming a full-time player than has Ichiro over the same period:
Runs Produced:
678 Ichiro
813 Dunn

Ichiro mitigates some of that production by excelling with his glove and arm defensively. Defensive metrics are all over the map on how much a player's fielding skills affect the opponent's run production. We all know Dunn is playing out of position in the outfield for the time being, and you may be able to show Ichiro's fielding helps draw him close to even with Dunn overall, but you would have to find some wildly extreme defensive stats to justify saying that Ichiro is a great team asset, while Dunn is a liability.

Ron Madden
05-21-2008, 03:34 AM
I think this hits the nail on the head. Excellent post.

Much of the casual fans' beliefs are based on faulty preconceptions. Ever since we were kids we were told that batting average is the best measure of a player's performance. So when we see a player's stats flashed on the screen during a game we make a quick measure of that player based on his batting average. When you look at the Reds' team stats published in the newspaper they are always sorted top to bottom by batting average. Why? Is the object of the game to get as many hits as possible? I thought the goal was to score runs.

It is ingrained in our minds to judge Adam Dunn as a poor hitter because of his poor batting average. We automatically assume that someone like Ichiro Suzuki is a great player (and much better than Dunn) because he hits for a high average and has blazing speed. The only problem with this is it is totally misleading.

Ichiro has a great batting average every year and is one of the fastest players in the game. Dunn is big and slow and has a poor batting average. In the four seasons from 2004-2007 Ichiro has a combined BA of .337 and 151 stolen bases. Dunn in those years has a batting average of only .253 and just 26 stolen bases. So Ichiro is a better hitter right? Nope.

Ichiro generated a total of 678 runs created in those seasons. Adam Dunn generated 813 runs created -- even though Ichiro had 322 more plate appearances (half a season's worth of extra opportunities)! Clearly batting average and speed are very poor indicators of a player's offensive prowess.

Ichiro is widely considered one of the elite players in all of baseball, while Dunn is considered pretty good but nothing special. Dunn is actually reviled by some or even most fans right here in Cincinatti -- especially Marty Brennaman. Yet Dunn produces more runs created than Ichiro and most of the other top players too.

When you look at the stats at the end of a game what column is most important? Is it Hits? No, it is Runs. The object of the game is to put runs on the scoreboard, not hits. Adam Dunn is by far the Reds' best run producer every year. In fact Dunn is one of the best run producers in the entire league. Over the last 4 seasons Adam Dunn ranks #5 in the major leagues for runs created. Wow. Yet so many people want to get rid of him? :rolleyes:

Top 20 run producers 2004-2007:
1. Alex Rodriguez 1005
2. David Ortiz 985
3. Albert Pujols 960
4. Manny Ramirez 847
5. Adam Dunn 813
6. Andruw Jones 812
7. Travis Hafner 804
8. Miguel Tejada 796
9. Michael Young 788
10. Mark Teixeira 775
11. Derek Jeter 771
12. Paul Konerko 770
13. Matt Holliday 767
14. Aramis Ramirez 751
15. Todd Helton 734
16. Chase Utley 731
17. Jason Bay 726
18. David Wright 714
19. Hideki Matsui 705
19. Victor Martinez 705

Where is the great Ichiro Suzuki? Ichiro is of course a player we would all want on our team, but he doesn't produce as much as Adam Dunn.

Of course defense factors into the mix as well, and Dunn is a below average left fielder (though certainly not the world's worst as some would have you believe). Ichiro is an excellent fielder with strong arm. In a perfect world the Reds would move Dunn to first base, but since we already have an immobile 1st baseman and another inferior outfielder (Griffey), Dunn will have to stay in left field. Since the Reds are lacking a player that can both play Gold Glove caliber outfield and produce runs at the plate it would be a huge mistake to ditch Dunn's outstanding offense to save a few runs on defense.

:clap::clap::clap:

Thank You AD, Thank You Very Much. :beerme:

Patrick Bateman
05-21-2008, 03:40 AM
While Dunn is a straight up better offensive player than Ichiro, there are many factors to consider in determining which is more valuable.

1. Ichiro is a CF, and his hitting stats relative to position become quite impressive, whereas Dunn has stronger competition in RF.

2. Ichiro plays in a run suppressing park, Dunn the opposite

3. Ichiro is a fantastic defensive CF, whereas Dunn is a below average LF.

The key point here is the collosal defensive advantage Ichiro has over Dunn. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that Ichiro is one of the better fielders in baseball. Just about any decent defensive stat will tell you that. The end result leads to Ichiro being a top notch player at a skill position, while Dunn is good, he is no superstar playing LF.

As I said, Dunn is the better hitter straight up, but that doesn't speak to their true value. Ichiro does more things to help his team win, and it's not close, as Jojo said earlier. All things considered, Ichiro is the more valuable player.

AtomicDumpling
05-21-2008, 04:15 AM
The key point here is the collosal defensive advantage Ichiro has over Dunn. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that Ichiro is one of the better fielders in baseball. Just about any decent defensive stat will tell you that. The end result leads to Ichiro being a top notch player at a skill position, while Dunn is good, he is no superstar playing LF.

As I said, Dunn is the better hitter straight up, but that doesn't speak to their true value. Ichiro does more things to help his team win, and it's not close, as Jojo said earlier. All things considered, Ichiro is the more valuable player.

I think it is a big stretch to say that Ichiro's unquestioned defensive superiority is enough to compensate for the huge offensive advantage of Adam Dunn. 135 runs produced is a mammoth deficit to overcome. Especially considering Dunn built that advantage without half a season's worth of fewer plate appearances. (Ichiro batted 322 more times than Dunn in that span.)

Even if Ichiro could overcome that deficit (which is unlikely), it is even less likely that Ichiro's total value is much higher than Dunn's. So I would say that the total overall value of the two players is roughly even.

Anyway, the point of my posts was not to convince you that Adam Dunn is a superior player to Ichiro Suzuki. The point was to show you an example of RedsManRick's theory stated in post #76 that the average, casual fan (not the same as we fellow Redszoners) believes that speedy, athletic players with high batting averages are inherently superior to big, hulking sluggers with high OBP and SLG percentages. Most fans don't ever understand that there are more important statistics than batting average. Some people care to delve deeper into the sabermetric and analytic side of baseball to develop a more sophisticated understanding. I know you do and so do most others in the ORG. My post was meant to show that players like Adam Dunn are every bit as valuable as players like Ichiro. There are different approaches to the game that are equally productive.

Patrick Bateman
05-21-2008, 05:00 AM
I think it is a big stretch to say that Ichiro's unquestioned defensive superiority is enough to compensate for the huge offensive advantage of Adam Dunn. 135 runs produced is a mammoth deficit to overcome. Especially considering Dunn built that advantage without half a season's worth of fewer plate appearances. (Ichiro batted 322 more times than Dunn in that span.)

Even if Ichiro could overcome that deficit (which is unlikely), it is even less likely that Ichiro's total value is much higher than Dunn's. So I would say that the total overall value of the two players is roughly even.


You continue to run into the same problem over and over again. You can't compare a CF/RF's value with a LF's value straight up. They need to be compared to their peers. And at the same time, ignoring substantial ballpark effects (in this case, effects that badly favour Adam Dunn) further remove the reliability of your stance. The key is deciding how much of that offensive ability is because of Adam Dunn's actual abilities, rather than because of artificial surroundings. As of now, Ichiro's value is being cut down for reasons outside of his own skillset.

A stat like VORP, while imperfect, would be more helpful in this area, normalizing for ballpark effects, while valuing player's offensive production relative to players of the same position. Here are the stats from the 2004-2007 timespan: *Note: VORP does not include a player's defensive value*

2007:
Dunn - 45.5
Ichiro - 63.5

2006:
Dunn - 23.5
Ichiro (RF)- 46.4

2005:
Dunn - 45.0
Ichiro (RF)- 34.3

2004:
Dunn - 53.8
Ichiro (RF) - 69.6

Sum:
Dunn - 167.8
Ichiro - 213.8

Even before Ichiro's postion switch, his offensive ability was more worthwhile than Dunn's. Dunn plays a position where maximum offensive production is needed. Ichiro's ability to play a skill position is more rare, and as such, doesn't need to provide as much offense to produce equitable value. Ichiro's ability to handle CF last year so well, only reinforced the point. Being able to carry a vaulable bat at an extreme skill position should not be underestimated.

This doesn't even equate for defense, where Ichiro has an obvious advantage. Not only does he play skill positions, but he plays them exceedingly well. By comparison Dunn plays a non-important position relatively poorly. If the question was, who would you rather have up at the plate at a certain point, I'd pick Dunn, as straight up, he's better at creating runs. However, the question being who is the more valuable player, that's an awfully shallow way of judging each player's entire merits. Ichiro's offensive game is still more valuable because of these other factors, and when defense is included in the conversation, Ichiro suddenly blows Dunn away in a competition of value. And that's where Jojo's "it's not even close" point ties in.

I agree with your underlying thesis that players of Dunn's ilk certainly could use their unique ways to produce as much value as a guy who uses Ichiro's technique, but in the end, Dunn simply isn't that good offensively to make up for the gap Ichiro has over Dunn's shortcomings. It's really an open and shut case in Ichiro's favour. And honestly, that's no slight at Dunn, it's more of an indication of just how valuable Ichiro Suzuki is.

jojo
05-21-2008, 07:44 AM
I know you are a Mariners fan,

yes, I am.


and your previous posts have indicated you don't much like Adam Dunn.

That mischaracterizes my position on Dunn (really to a point where I don't think you understand my position on Dunn).

In any event, bias has nothing to do with the argument which by the way has been had before:

http://www.redszone.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1417284&postcount=27


When it comes to putting runs on the scoreboard Dunn has proven to be much more effective than Ichiro.

AK did a nice job of showing their relative values with VORP but using a direct head to head comparison with RC (THT's) the assertion that Dunn is much more effective at creating runs is more hyberbole than reality. Ichiro still created more runs even when ignoring position ('04 thru '06). Their '07 seasons didn't see the gap lessen (Ichiro= 133 RC; Dunn= 101 even though these aren't normalized for PA's).


Ichiro mitigates some of that production by excelling with his glove and arm defensively. Defensive metrics are all over the map on how much a player's fielding skills affect the opponent's run production. We all know Dunn is playing out of position in the outfield for the time being, and you may be able to show Ichiro's fielding helps draw him close to even with Dunn overall, but you would have to find some wildly extreme defensive stats to justify saying that Ichiro is a great team asset, while Dunn is a liability.

Dunn is one of the worst defensive outfielders in the game. Ichiro is one of the best. It's not wild speculation to suggest Ichiro is worth 2 wins a year more than Dunn defensively.

dougdirt
05-21-2008, 02:37 PM
Dunn is one of the worst defensive outfielders in the game. Ichiro is one of the best. It's not wild speculation to suggest Ichiro is worth 2 wins a year more than Dunn defensively.

I don't think its wild speculation to suggest that a slightly above average left fielder is worth 2 more wins a season than Dunn has been the last 4 years... much less someone who is actually a very good fielder at a more difficult position.

Degenerate39
05-21-2008, 03:23 PM
Looks like I was too late to be able to vote. But I would vote yes keep him. Not only is he a good offensive player and now a better left fielder than what we have seen in the past but he's a good presence in the clubhouse.

AtomicDumpling
05-21-2008, 03:23 PM
Because the Reds insist on forcing/allowing Adam Dunn to play out of position does not detract from his value on the open market. Most run producers of Dunn's stature don't play centerfield or shortstop. Most of the highest paid and most productive position players in the game play corner outfield, 1st base or DH. That doesn't mean they aren't worth their salaries.

There are plenty of players that play easy positions poorly that made $17-$20+ million per year: Manny Ramirez, Gary Sheffield, Jason Giambi, Carlos Delgado, Mo Vaughn, Barry Bonds, Jeff Bagwell, Sammy Sosa, Shawn Green, Todd Helton and more. And the majority of them did not produce as many runs as Adam Dunn.

Dunn is one of the best run producers in the game of baseball. Ichiro is not. It is pretty hard to refute that only 4 players have produced more runs than Adam Dunn.

There are way too many people on this board and in Cincinnati that underestimate Adam Dunn's value. It will be proven when/if he hits the free agent market. Not only is he worth the $13 million he makes now -- he is worth a lot more.

If the Reds are too cheap to pay the going rate for top players then we are doomed to more decades of mediocrity. The Reds are not a small market team like the Tampa Bay Rays, Oakland A's, Kansas City Royals or the Florida Marlins. The Reds can afford to pay a player in the prime of his career the market rate for his services. Just because we have been burnt by the likes of Eric Milton and Ken Griffey doesn't mean we can never afford to pay good players in the future.

dougdirt
05-21-2008, 03:36 PM
Because the Reds insist on forcing/allowing Adam Dunn to play out of position does not detract from his value on the open market. Most run producers of Dunn's stature don't play centerfield or shortstop. Most of the highest paid and most productive position players in the game play corner outfield, 1st base or DH. That doesn't mean they aren't worth their salaries.

There are plenty of players that play easy positions poorly that made $17-$20+ million per year: Manny Ramirez, Gary Sheffield, Jason Giambi, Carlos Delgado, Mo Vaughn, Barry Bonds, Jeff Bagwell, Sammy Sosa, Shawn Green, Todd Helton and more. And the majority of them did not produce as many runs as Adam Dunn.
That doesn't mean they are worth their salaries though, it just means that someone was dumb enough to pay them that much. Producing runs is fine and dandy, but the difference of which you outproduce your positional peers is more valuable than the overall production. A second baseman producing 100 runs is far and away more valuable than a corner outfielder producing 110.



Dunn is one of the best run producers in the game of baseball. Ichiro is not. It is pretty hard to refute that only 4 players have produced more runs than Adam Dunn.
Compared to his peers, Adam Dunn was only the 6th most valuable left fielder last year when you factor in defense.



There are way too many people on this board and in Cincinnati that underestimate Adam Dunn's value. It will be proven when/if he hits the free agent market. Not only is he worth the $13 million he makes now -- he is worth a lot more.
There are also way too many people on this board that underestimate the value of defense and positional relevance. As for it being proven when he hits the market..... well yeah, if you believe every player is worth what someone is willing to pay them. I don't believe that for a second though.



If the Reds are too cheap to pay the going rate for top players then we are doomed to more decades of mediocrity. The Reds are not a small market team like the Tampa Bay Rays, Oakland A's, Kansas City Royals or the Florida Marlins. The Reds can afford to pay a player in the prime of his career the market rate for his services. Just because we have been burnt by the likes of Eric Milton and Ken Griffey doesn't mean we can never afford to pay good players in the future.
There is a difference between paying the going rate for a top player and paying the going rate for a top hitter who is among the 5 worst defensive players in baseball despite playing a cake position full of other terrible defenders. The fact of the matter is, Dunn is likely going to be getting 15-17 million a year for at least 4 years. He simply isn't worth close to that. Justin Inaz recently made a post on his blog about signing Dunn to an extension. Here is what he came up with:
http://jinaz-reds.blogspot.com/2008/05/should-reds-sign-dunn-to-extension.html


I've seen people talking again about whether the Reds should give him a contract extension.

The answer, as always, is that "it depends": How much and how many years would it take to extend him?

A nice starting point would be to figure out what a reasonable contract extension for Dunn would look like. I worked that out for someone over e-mail, so I thought I'd post this here as well. I'm using a methodology that is based largely on what folks do over at The Book Blog, though I figure replacement level a tad differently then they do. Their way may well be better, but we usually converge on the same answer, +-0.5 WAR or so.

Here we go:

Projecting Dunn into this and future seasons...

Offense: his 3-year weighted average on offense has been almost exactly 5 wins above replacement (not including 2008 stats).
Defense: last year, I had him as a -1.9 WAR fielder (including throwing arm), which I'll just assume is an accurate representation of his fielding "skill."

So, taking those numbers, and subtracting another 0.5 wins for aging, projects him as a 2.6 WAR player this season (his defense kills his value!). So, looking over the coming years, here's my projected value for him (assuming 10% inflation above this past offseason's $4.4/WAR):

2008: 2.6 WAR, $11.4 million (he actually is making $13 million)
2009: 2.1 WAR, $10.2 million
2010: 1.6 WAR, $8.5 million
2011: 1.1 WAR, $6.4 million
2012: 0.6 WAR, $3.9 million

So, in terms of extensions, I think we can reasonably value Dunn's contract extensions starting in the 2009 season as:
$10m/1yr
$19m/2yr
$25m/3yr
$29m/4yr

I have no way of knowing if he'd take any of those contracts...but my guess is no, because they'd all represent a substantial salary cut compared to what he's making this year. And they're well below the contracts that somewhat comparable players like Carlos Lee signed.

It's also worth noting that becoming a DH doesn't help Dunn. DH's get a -1.5 WAR position adjustment (in lieu of a fielding rating), which recognizes that they're usually terrible fielders. Dunn's fielding rating is -1.9 WAR, including position adjustment...but moving from the NL to the AL probably negates any of that 0.4 "bonus" he'd get by moving to DH. So these contract numbers are probably pretty reasonable.

If he won't take any of those contracts, then the Reds should either trade him or let him walk, depending on whether they can get trade value that is better than the expected value of the two draft picks I'm pretty sure he'd command. I have no way of knowing what GM's would offer for him, but that'd be the criterion I'd use.

Hopefully they'll be able to pick up some other players for more appropriate money in free agency to make up for the lost production. Maybe that'd give Encarnacion a chance to move into the outfield...

Dunn just simply isn't worth it.

Sea Ray
05-21-2008, 03:50 PM
Top 20 run producers 2004-2007:
1. Alex Rodriguez 1005
2. David Ortiz 985
3. Albert Pujols 960
4. Manny Ramirez 847
5. Adam Dunn 813
6. Andruw Jones 812
7. Travis Hafner 804
8. Miguel Tejada 796
9. Michael Young 788
10. Mark Teixeira 775
11. Derek Jeter 771
12. Paul Konerko 770
13. Matt Holliday 767
14. Aramis Ramirez 751
15. Todd Helton 734
16. Chase Utley 731
17. Jason Bay 726
18. David Wright 714
19. Hideki Matsui 705
19. Victor Martinez 705




Nice stats. Let's get the Dodgers on the phone and see if we can pry away Andruw Jones for Dunn. They're "equal" offensively and Jones is by far superior defensively. What a steal that'd be if Walt can pull it off :rolleyes:

RedsBaron
05-21-2008, 04:21 PM
Nice stats. Let's get the Dodgers on the phone and see if we can pry away Andruw Jones for Dunn. They're "equal" offensively and Jones is by far superior defensively. What a steal that'd be if Walt can pull it off :rolleyes:

Have you checked any stats on Jones lately? In 2007 Jones's production dropped off the cliff, and so far his production in 2008 has been even worse. In 2007, instead of hitting 41 or 51 HRs as he had in previous seasons, Jones hit 26 HRs with a .222 average, a .311 OBP and a .413 S. PCT. His numbers thus far in 2008 include 2 HRs, a .167 average, a .275 OBP and a .273 S.PCT.
Dunn's numbers during the same time were 40 HRs in 2007 with a line of .264 .386 .554 and 11 HRs in 2008 with a line of .234 .376 .504.

Cyclone792
05-21-2008, 04:21 PM
Defense: last year, I had him as a -1.9 WAR fielder (including throwing arm), which I'll just assume is an accurate representation of his fielding "skill."

20 runs below average defensively as a left fielder still, eh?

That's awfully funny, because when I take a quick glance as last year's zone ratings I see Adam Dunn 9th out of 17 qualifiers, in other words ... roughly average.

I guess Carl Crawford must be considered an average defensive left fielder these days for Dunn - or anybody - to land on -20 runs.

Sea Ray
05-21-2008, 04:27 PM
Have you checked any stats on Jones lately? In 2007 Jones's production dropped off the cliff, and so far his production in 2008 has been even worse. In 2007, instead of hitting 41 or 51 HRs as he had in previous seasons, Jones hit 26 HRs with a .222 average, a .311 OBP and a .413 S. PCT. His numbers thus far in 2008 include 2 HRs, a .167 average, a .275 OBP and a .273 S.PCT.
Dunn's numbers during the same time were 40 HRs in 2007 with a line of .264 .386 .554 and 11 HRs in 2008 with a line of .234 .376 .504.

No way I'd want Jones over Dunn. You make great points. Just goes to show that 5 yr RC stats can be very misleading.

RedsManRick
05-21-2008, 04:34 PM
20 runs below average defensively as a left fielder still, eh?

That's awfully funny, because when I take a quick glance as last year's zone ratings I see Adam Dunn 9th out of 17 qualifiers, in other words ... roughly average.

I guess Carl Crawford must be considered an average defensive left fielder these days for Dunn - or anybody - to land on -20 runs.

So let's give Dunn the benefit of the doubt that the fielding scales are off and put him at -1 WARP (-10 runs) defensively.

Those defensive numbers can really screw with things. And if you're an AL team, say one using Jose Vidro or a 40-year-old Matt Stairs as your DH, I can see you paying a bit of a premium because of the necessity of the upgrade.

By Justin's method, that would put Dunn at:

2008: $15.4
2009: $14.5
2010: $13.3
2011: $11.7
2012: $9.7

That would call for 3/40 or 4/50. Neither of those seems likely, but definitely more in the ballpark. I'm guessing he'll get something closer to 5/75.

I'm also curious about the .5 WARP deduction for aging. Given the standard aging curves. One would think a guy in his age 29, 30, etc. seasons wouldn't see quite so much attrition -- certainly not the same rate as applied to a 39 year old like Junior.

My gut tells me that Dunn is going to chase years and a no-trade more than the per annum; he just isn't interested in dealing with all this crap on an ongoing basis.

RedsBaron
05-21-2008, 04:51 PM
No way I'd want Jones over Dunn. You make great points. Just goes to show that 5 yr RC stats can be very misleading.

Jones has long looked like a good bet to make the Hall of Fame. He was a great fielder and he started his major league career at such a young age (19) that he appeared to have an excellent chance to compile some great counting stats. He turned 31 years old less than a month ago and already has 370 career HRs. The Hall of Fame Monitor gives him a score of 101.5, just above the average score of a member of the HOF. However, if he doesn't pull out of a terrible slump that has now lasted more than a full season, he may be out of the game in a couple of years, and he will not make the HOF.

Kc61
05-21-2008, 05:17 PM
So let's give Dunn the benefit of the doubt that the fielding scales are off and put him at -1 WARP (-10 runs) defensively.

Those defensive numbers can really screw with things. And if you're an AL team, say one using Jose Vidro or a 40-year-old Matt Stairs as your DH, I can see you paying a bit of a premium because of the necessity of the upgrade.

By Justin's method, that would put Dunn at:

2008: $15.4
2009: $14.5
2010: $13.3
2011: $11.7
2012: $9.7

That would call for 3/40 or 4/50. Neither of those seems likely, but definitely more in the ballpark. I'm guessing he'll get something closer to 5/75.

I'm also curious about the .5 WARP deduction for aging. Given the standard aging curves. One would think a guy in his age 29, 30, etc. seasons wouldn't see quite so much attrition -- certainly not the same rate as applied to a 39 year old like Junior.

My gut tells me that Dunn is going to chase years and a no-trade more than the per annum; he just isn't interested in dealing with all this crap on an ongoing basis.

Five years, $75 million, with a no-trade clause for Dunn? Who is going to give him that contract?

RedsManRick
05-21-2008, 05:19 PM
Five years, $75 million, with a no-trade clause for Dunn? Who is going to give him that contract?

Who thought Carlos Lee would get 6/100 while being 2 years older (at the time) and only a marginal better defender than Dunn?

Given inflation and the comp, it's hardly a stretch. The no-trade, yes (though it could be for the first few years only), the years and money, completely reasonable.

dougdirt
05-21-2008, 05:20 PM
20 runs below average defensively as a left fielder still, eh?

That's awfully funny, because when I take a quick glance as last year's zone ratings I see Adam Dunn 9th out of 17 qualifiers, in other words ... roughly average.

I guess Carl Crawford must be considered an average defensive left fielder these days for Dunn - or anybody - to land on -20 runs.

And how about the out of zone plays? Those don't factor into the zone rating and those are the ones that really matter (granted they all matter, but those hurt more), gap shots and doubles/triples down the line.

RedsManRick
05-21-2008, 05:27 PM
And how about the out of zone plays? Those don't factor into the zone rating and those are the ones that really matter (granted they all matter, but those hurt more), gap shots and doubles/triples down the line.

As far as I'm aware those zones are defined by the point at which 50% of the fielders would have fielded the ball. So by definition, balls out of zone are balls not expected to be fielded by an average fielder. Suggesting that Dunn truly is 20 runs below average but average range is suggesting that he has ridiculous problems with balls in range. If Dunn was truly range deficient, that 20 runs would be more palatable, for the reason you've suggested.

Caveat Emperor
05-21-2008, 05:29 PM
And how about the out of zone plays? Those don't factor into the zone rating and those are the ones that really matter (granted they all matter, but those hurt more), gap shots and doubles/triples down the line.

Many of the plays you're referring to will fix themselves when the Reds start getting competent defense in RF and allow defensive alignments in the OF that can cover for some of Dunn's deficiencies.

You can cover one below-average glove in the OF -- covering 2 is an exercise in futility.

*BaseClogger*
05-21-2008, 05:30 PM
20 runs below average defensively as a left fielder still, eh?

That's awfully funny, because when I take a quick glance as last year's zone ratings I see Adam Dunn 9th out of 17 qualifiers, in other words ... roughly average.

I guess Carl Crawford must be considered an average defensive left fielder these days for Dunn - or anybody - to land on -20 runs.

-1.9 WAR refers to below replacement, no? 20 below average is hard enough to believe, but replacement?

Kc61
05-21-2008, 05:32 PM
Who thought Carlos Lee would get 6/100 while being 2 years older (at the time) and only a marginal better defender than Dunn?

Given inflation and the comp, it's hardly a stretch. The no-trade, yes (though it could be for the first few years only), the years and money, completely reasonable.


You could be right. But Carlos Lee is a more conventional type of player than Dunn in the sense that he hits for a far better average, currently lifetime at .288. And Dunn's defensive reputation is particularly bad (I happen to think that he is better than his rep out there).

It will be interesting to see how much teams are willing to spend for a guy with a low BA, relatively few RBIs for a slugger (not entirely his fault), and a terrible defensive reputation (perhaps somewhat undeserved). There will definitely be interest, but I don't know how high the numbers will get.

Cyclone792
05-21-2008, 05:43 PM
And how about the out of zone plays? Those don't factor into the zone rating and those are the ones that really matter (granted they all matter, but those hurt more), gap shots and doubles/triples down the line.

I went and looked, and saw Dunn was roughly five out of zone plays below average for all left fielders with 1,000+ innings.

Five balls doesn't equal 20 runs. In fact, no left field defender is capable of 20 runs by himself. There aren't enough runs to go around for that to be even remotely plausible.

Johnny Footstool
05-21-2008, 05:48 PM
I went and looked, and saw Dunn was roughly five out of zone plays below average for all left fielders with 1,000+ innings.

Five balls doesn't equal 20 runs. In fact, no left field defender is capable of 20 runs by himself. There aren't enough runs to go around for that to be even remotely plausible.

That's why I have a problem with fielding metrics that try to assign run value to balls in play. The run values they use are generally skewed.

RedsManRick
05-21-2008, 05:49 PM
-1.9 WAR refers to below replacement, no? 20 below average is hard enough to believe, but replacement?

I believe when it comes to defense, average and replacement are interchangeable.

BuckeyeRedleg
05-21-2008, 05:53 PM
I went and looked, and saw Dunn was roughly five out of zone plays below average for all left fielders with 1,000+ innings.

Five balls doesn't equal 20 runs. In fact, no left field defender is capable of 20 runs by himself. There aren't enough runs to go around for that to be even remotely plausible.


I knew that number looked wacky.

Seriously, if there are any stats that I don't trust it's defensive stats. There seems to be so many interpretations of them.

I'm sure Adam Dunn is not a great leftfielder, but I cannot, for the life of me, figure how he could be responsible for so many runs. Every once in a while I see a ball that maybe a quicker guy gets to, but it's not all that often and as mentioned it's not like LF is manned by super gloves around the league. It's where the worst outfielder goes. It's where Junior SHOULD be right now.

I'm curious how many balls he even gets a game. What's the average LF contribute, 2-3 outs per game?

jojo
05-21-2008, 05:53 PM
-1.9 WAR refers to below replacement, no? 20 below average is hard enough to believe, but replacement?

Replacement level defense is considered to be average (unless it's BP who set replacement level ridiculously low).

*BaseClogger*
05-21-2008, 05:54 PM
I believe when it comes to defense, average and replacement are interchangeable.

think about it though--is an average defensive player in MLB replacement level? That doesn't make sense to me. BP (I know, I know) lists them seperately:

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/dt/dunnad01.php


Fielding Statistics as Left Fielder
YEAR TEAM POS G PO A E DP AdjG Rate RAR RAA
2001 CIN-N LF 30 50 0 0 0 25.5 96 1 -1
2002 CIN-N LF 112 192 8 8 2 100.9 94 1 -6
2003 CIN-N LF 99 205 5 9 2 93.0 103 10 3
2004 CIN-N LF 156 250 10 8 1 148.9 87 -11 -20
2005 CIN-N LF 133 246 6 5 0 124.1 90 -4 -12
2006 CIN-N LF 156 279 7 12 1 148.1 90 -6 -16
2007 CIN-N LF 144 244 4 6 0 133.0 86 -9 -19
2008 CIN-N LF 43 71 1 2 0 39.4 95 0 -2

*BaseClogger*
05-21-2008, 05:55 PM
Replacement level defense is considered to be average (unless it's BP who set replacement level ridiculously low).

OK thanks. Does anybody else find it hard to believe that average defense in MLB is replacement level?

dabvu2498
05-21-2008, 06:08 PM
OK thanks. Does anybody else find it hard to believe that average defense in MLB is replacement level?

Not really.

Thinking about it nonstatistically for a minute, defense at AAA is not that much worse (if at all) than at the Major League level. Especially now that most high minor league parks have quality playing surfaces, lighting, etc.

There are exceptions, of course.

jojo
05-21-2008, 06:17 PM
OK thanks. Does anybody else find it hard to believe that average defense in MLB is replacement level?

I think it makes perfect sense. The minors are full of guys who can play defense but can't hit well enough to make the dance. Basically if a player can hit like a major leaguer, he'll get promoted which makes the pool of freely available players (i.e. your typical waiver wire guy or AAA player) characterized by a higher mean defensively (essentially equivalent to an average major leaguer) and a lower mean offensively....

In fact, intuitively, it might be suggested that replacement level defense should be better than league average if anything.

REDREAD
05-21-2008, 06:17 PM
OK thanks. Does anybody else find it hard to believe that average defense in MLB is replacement level?

I agree with your point. Replacement level implies waiver wire fodder, does it not?

If replacement level guys had average defense, guys like Castro would not have a job. In other words, guys that hit below replacement level that were not above average defensively would not have jobs if they could easily be replaced with replacement level hitting and average defense...

There's quite a few bench players that don't particularly hit well and have below average defense.

jojo
05-21-2008, 06:19 PM
There's quite a few bench players that don't particularly hit well and have below average defense.

Admittedly, I've got a headache right now but I can't actually think of one such player.

dougdirt
05-21-2008, 06:22 PM
Many of the plays you're referring to will fix themselves when the Reds start getting competent defense in RF and allow defensive alignments in the OF that can cover for some of Dunn's deficiencies.

You can cover one below-average glove in the OF -- covering 2 is an exercise in futility.

None of which has to do with Adam Dunn sucking at defense. His centerfielder being good, bad, great, indifferent has no bearing on the fact that he sucks at defense with the worst of them.

As for Dunn not being that bad using ZR and OOZ (out of zone plays), go to Justin's blog and check the math. It works, I have done it myself numerous times. The numbers add up. Adam Dunn is indeed that bad.

http://jinaz-reds.blogspot.com/2007/10/2007-fielding-data.html

Feel free to check it out yourself before simply saying its not possible. There are roughly 300 baseballs hit toward Adam Dunn's part of the field each year, you don't think that with that many balls toward him where a good chunk of balls go for extra bases that he can't amass -20 runs defensively?

Cyclone792
05-21-2008, 06:33 PM
Feel free to check it out yourself before simply saying its not possible. There are roughly 300 baseballs hit toward Adam Dunn's part of the field each year, you don't think that with that many balls toward him where a good chunk of balls go for extra bases that he can't amass -20 runs defensively?

I did and there's zero explanation anywhere regarding how this system weights fielding defense relative to offense and pitching. In fact, with the exception of one system, I've not seen any explanation anywhere regarding how any defensive metric weights fielding defense relative to offense and pitching.

That's why these run translations are not possible, because when you weigh them relative to offense and pitching, they don't pass the sniff test.

Win shares is the only system out there that has managed to weigh defense somewhat accurately relative to offense and pitching. None of the other systems even touch the foundation, and they all fall short.

And here's what's interesting: According to win shares, Dunn is a 3.5 to 4 win player, not a 3 win player. All these other systems are docking Dunn nearly an extra win for defense, yet none of those systems know how to weigh defense accurately relative to the other components of the game.

jojo
05-21-2008, 06:43 PM
I did and there's zero explanation anywhere regarding how this system weights fielding defense relative to offense and pitching. In fact, with the exception of one system, I've not seen any explanation anywhere regarding how any defensive metric weights fielding defense relative to offense and pitching.

That's why these run translations are not possible, because when you weigh them relative to offense and pitching, they don't pass the sniff test.

Win shares is the only system out there that has managed to weigh defense somewhat accurately relative to offense and pitching. None of the other systems even touch the foundation, and they all fall short.

And here's what's interesting: According to win shares, Dunn is a 3.5 to 4 win player, not a 3 win player. All these other systems are docking Dunn nearly an extra win for defense, yet none of those systems know how to weigh defense accurately relative to the other components of the game.

Sure they do. BTW, if win shares is the penultimate, then Im going old school.

Cyclone792
05-21-2008, 06:44 PM
Sure they do. BTW, if win shares is the penultimate, then Im going old school.

No they don't. There's not enough runs to go around, unless you're suddenly draining the value of pitching. We've been over this before too.

dougdirt
05-21-2008, 06:55 PM
I did and there's zero explanation anywhere regarding how this system weights fielding defense relative to offense and pitching. In fact, with the exception of one system, I've not seen any explanation anywhere regarding how any defensive metric weights fielding defense relative to offense and pitching.

That's why these run translations are not possible, because when you weigh them relative to offense and pitching, they don't pass the sniff test.

Win shares is the only system out there that has managed to weigh defense somewhat accurately relative to offense and pitching. None of the other systems even touch the foundation, and they all fall short.

And here's what's interesting: According to win shares, Dunn is a 3.5 to 4 win player, not a 3 win player. All these other systems are docking Dunn nearly an extra win for defense, yet none of those systems know how to weigh defense accurately relative to the other components of the game.

Maybe I am misunderstanding you here.... but what does pitching or offense have to do with translating plays into runs? A missed play in the outfield is at best a single, at worst a triple, no?
Lets say that Adam Dunn is worth -25 plays (which is somewhere between what Justin and The Fielding Bible would suggest). Now, according to Justin's system 14 plays were out of the zone. Lets just go ahead and say that 8 of those were doubles and 6 were singles. Then the other 11 plays were all singles. So Adam Dunn's defense is worth negative 17 singles and 8 doubles. Lets use a simple Runs Created system now. That is a total of 33 TB. Now lets just go ahead and use a very simple RC formula of (OBP TB) = RC. Now lets go ahead and use .350 OBP and 275 TB for player 1. That would mean 96.5 RC. Now lets use .350 OBP and 243 TB for player 2 (taking away that defense). That means 84.7 RC. Thats about 12 runs right there.

Now if we use linear weights that suggest that these events are worth a specific amount of runs we get this:

Single = .498 x 17 = 8.466
Double = .821 x 8 = 6.568
Triple = 1.134 x 0 = 0.000

Total runs = 15 runs worth of defense.

Is it really that crazy to think these numbers are off that much versus just the average?

Cyclone792
05-21-2008, 07:03 PM
Maybe I am misunderstanding you here.... but what does pitching or offense have to do with translating plays into runs?

What's the defensive marginal floor these systems are using?

AtomicDumpling
05-21-2008, 07:07 PM
It seems the Dunn haters always like to use the defensive metric that paints Dunn in the worst possible light while ignoring the metrics that say Dunn is an average left fielder.

Is it Dunn's fault the Reds are so bad defensively all over the field that he is forced to play out of position?

It is clear to everyone that Dunn would be a better fit at first base. But due to the Reds having players even less qualified to play outfield he has been willing to play there without complaint, even when he was having knee problems that later required surgery. Let's face it, Sean Casey was incapable of playing outfield and so was Scott Hatteburg. Votto failed in the outfield last year at Louisville and the Reds wanted him to concentrate on hitting rather than learning a new position. Griffey is worse than Dunn in the field so he should go to 1B before Dunn. Dunn has been "taking one for the team" by playing outfield at the expense of his reputation and market value. We should give him some credit for doing what is best for the team instead of hating on him for it.

dougdirt
05-21-2008, 07:11 PM
It seems the Dunn haters always like to use the defensive metric that paints Dunn in the worst possible light while ignoring the metrics that say Dunn is an average left fielder.
You aren't looking at the entire picture then if you really think that when looking at defensive metrics.... or you are looking at the wrong ones.



Is it Dunn's fault the Reds are so bad defensively all over the field that he is forced to play out of position?
Yes, it is his fault. He wouldn't play first base, so that is 100% his fault that he is stuck playing out of position.

Also, not a Dunn hater.... just a realist. I like Dunn.... I would like him a lot more if he played first base.

jojo
05-21-2008, 07:13 PM
It seems the Dunn haters always like to use the defensive metric that paints Dunn in the worst possible light while ignoring the metrics that say Dunn is an average left fielder.

There is pretty much a consensus with Dunn concerning defensive metrics.

jojo
05-21-2008, 07:16 PM
Dunn has been "taking one for the team" by playing outfield at the expense of his reputation and market value. We should give him some credit for doing what is best for the team instead of hating on him for it.

Dunn has pretty much stunk at first and he's made it clear that he prefers left. I don't think it's accurate to suggest he's acquiesed to management and has purposely made a decision to take a value hit by playing left for the "good of the team".

Johnny Footstool
05-21-2008, 07:24 PM
Maybe I am misunderstanding you here.... but what does pitching or offense have to do with translating plays into runs? A missed play in the outfield is at best a single, at worst a triple, no?
Lets say that Adam Dunn is worth -25 plays (which is somewhere between what Justin and The Fielding Bible would suggest). Now, according to Justin's system 14 plays were out of the zone. Lets just go ahead and say that 8 of those were doubles and 6 were singles. Then the other 11 plays were all singles. So Adam Dunn's defense is worth negative 17 singles and 8 doubles. Lets use a simple Runs Created system now. That is a total of 33 TB. Now lets just go ahead and use a very simple RC formula of (OBP × TB) = RC. Now lets go ahead and use .350 OBP and 275 TB for player 1. That would mean 96.5 RC. Now lets use .350 OBP and 243 TB for player 2 (taking away that defense). That means 84.7 RC. Thats about 12 runs right there.

Now if we use linear weights that suggest that these events are worth a specific amount of runs we get this:

Single = .498 x 17 = 8.466
Double = .821 x 8 = 6.568
Triple = 1.134 x 0 = 0.000

Total runs = 15 runs worth of defense.

Is it really that crazy to think these numbers are off that much versus just the average?

I'm allergic to math, so bear with me.

Are the same linear weights being applied to each type of hit when figuring Offensive Runs Created as they are when calculating Defensive Total Bases? For example, when Adam Dunn hits a double, is it worth the same .821 of a run as when he allows a ball to get past him and the runner reaches second?

And how can a triple possibly be worth more than a run?

RedsManRick
05-21-2008, 07:32 PM
But if we then aggregate those defensive values along with a system in which pitchers receive event based runs, how are those runs distributed? Or are they being double counted?

I still don't understand how any of these systems work holistically to arrive at team level runs scored (relative to replacement or average). Is it just that pitcher run metrics assume average defense?

Chip R
05-21-2008, 07:38 PM
I agree with your point. Replacement level implies waiver wire fodder, does it not?

If replacement level guys had average defense, guys like Castro would not have a job. In other words, guys that hit below replacement level that were not above average defensively would not have jobs if they could easily be replaced with replacement level hitting and average defense...

There's quite a few bench players that don't particularly hit well and have below average defense.


I think you have hit the nail on the head here when describing the difference between replacement level and average. Matt Belisle is right about at replacement level for a starting pitcher. What I wouldn't give to have an average pitcher in there.

Cyclone792
05-21-2008, 08:08 PM
But if we then aggregate those defensive values along with a system in which pitchers receive event based runs, how are those runs distributed? Or are they being double counted?

I still don't understand how any of these systems work holistically to arrive at team level runs scored (relative to replacement or average). Is it just that pitcher run metrics assume average defense?

These systems drain the value of pitching and place too a high a value on fielding defense.

Think of it like this: in a 775 run environment - such as 2007 - the marginal defensive floor is about 400 runs.

Those 400 runs need to be distributed between pitchers and fielders though. And of those 400 runs between the average and the floor, approximately two-thirds of that chunk belongs to pitchers and one-third belongs to defensive fielders. Now you're down to around 135 runs between the average fielding defense and the floor. Then those 135 runs have to be distributed and claimed amongst all nine defensive positions (yes, even pitcher fielding has a tiny chunk too).

Once you run through all the key positions, such as catcher, shortstop, second base, center field, and then third base, to a degree, that doesn't leave too many runs for other positions such as first base and left field.

Obviously there will be some players at some positions beyond the floor, just like you've got the Juan Castros who are beyond the floor offensively. But those are rare unique outliers of just putrid defense, and while Dunn's defense is below average, it isn't so putrid as to go well beyond the defensive floor for a left fielder.

Now the marginal defensive floor percentage between pitchers and fielders will fluctuate slightly from team to team, but the problem these run translating defensive metrics run into is they're taking that fluctuation way too far over to the fielding side, so much so that they're draining the value of pitching in order to try to rationalize the defensive run values their system comes up with.

dougdirt
05-21-2008, 08:15 PM
I'm allergic to math, so bear with me.

Are the same linear weights being applied to each type of hit when figuring Offensive Runs Created as they are when calculating Defensive Total Bases? For example, when Adam Dunn hits a double, is it worth the same .821 of a run as when he allows a ball to get past him and the runner reaches second?

And how can a triple possibly be worth more than a run?

Likely because a triple with a runner on base is going to score a runner and eventually lead to the batter scoring. That is 2 runs from 1 hit.

Highlifeman21
05-21-2008, 09:25 PM
Maybe it's just my extreme skepticism regarding defensive metrics not named defensive WinShares, but I just find it hard to believe that Dunn is a guy that costs his team 20 runs a year b/c of his defense.

I might be able to wrap my head around the fact that maybe Dunn misses 20 plays over a season, but I think it's completely unfathomable that every play Dunn misses will result in the other team scoring a run when they should not have done so.

9 runs is the absolute most that I'd be able to hesitantly swallow that Dunn costs the Reds over the course of a season. KGJ is the only Red defensively that I think comes remotely close to costing the team at least 10 runs over the course of the season.

The numbers just aren't adding up for me, and it seems everyone that wants to point out Dunn's shortcomings defensively in LF cherry pick their favorite defensive metric to support their point.

My main question is, if Dunn's chalking up positive defensive WinShares, then how in the world is he costing the Reds 20+ runs a year?

AtomicDumpling
05-21-2008, 10:47 PM
These systems drain the value of pitching and place too a high a value on fielding defense.

Think of it like this: in a 775 run environment - such as 2007 - the marginal defensive floor is about 400 runs.

Those 400 runs need to be distributed between pitchers and fielders though. And of those 400 runs between the average and the floor, approximately two-thirds of that chunk belongs to pitchers and one-third belongs to defensive fielders. Now you're down to around 135 runs between the average fielding defense and the floor. Then those 135 runs have to be distributed and claimed amongst all nine defensive positions (yes, even pitcher fielding has a tiny chunk too).

Once you run through all the key positions, such as catcher, shortstop, second base, center field, and then third base, to a degree, that doesn't leave too many runs for other positions such as first base and left field.

Obviously there will be some players at some positions beyond the floor, just like you've got the Juan Castros who are beyond the floor offensively. But those are rare unique outliers of just putrid defense, and while Dunn's defense is below average, it isn't so putrid as to go well beyond the defensive floor for a left fielder.

Now the marginal defensive floor percentage between pitchers and fielders will fluctuate slightly from team to team, but the problem these run translating defensive metrics run into is they're taking that fluctuation way too far over to the fielding side, so much so that they're draining the value of pitching in order to try to rationalize the defensive run values their system comes up with.

Precisely.

To put any faith in those stats you would have to believe that pitching is a small part of run prevention.

If those fielding evaluation systems were even remotely accurate you would see hardly any variation in terms of runs allowed between all the pitchers on the team. Or to phrase it another way, all of a team's pitchers would have nearly the same ERA. Of course that doesn't happen.

jojo
05-21-2008, 10:58 PM
I think you have hit the nail on the head here when describing the difference between replacement level and average. Matt Belisle is right about at replacement level for a starting pitcher. What I wouldn't give to have an average pitcher in there.

Replacement level has a different meaning for defense, pitching, and offense because it's determined by the characteristics of the talent pool being referenced.

jojo
05-21-2008, 10:59 PM
No they don't. There's not enough runs to go around, unless you're suddenly draining the value of pitching. We've been over this before too.

We have-which is why I still don't understand why statements like "not enough runs to go around" keep being posted.

Here's an example using Justin's translations. While I'm not arguing they should be weighted equally as UZR, Dewan's +/- or PMR, Justin's translations have been mentioned in this thread and he's got a readily accessible summary for the Reds defensive value during '07 (http://jinaz-reds.blogspot.com/2007/11/player-value-part-4-position-player.html).

Keep in mind that the Reds allowed 853 runs last season. Justin's translations suggest the Reds total defensive value was -12 runs in '07 (plus defenders accounted for +39 runs and negative defenders were credited with -51 runs). Even if you simply sum the absolute value of defensive runs, Justins translations sum to only roughly 10% of the Reds runs allowed in '07.

Defensive run values aren't grossly eating up runs at the expense of other components. If anything, Justin's translations underestimated defensive runs for the Reds in '07.

AtomicDumpling
05-21-2008, 10:59 PM
Maybe it's just my extreme skepticism regarding defensive metrics not named defensive WinShares, but I just find it hard to believe that Dunn is a guy that costs his team 20 runs a year b/c of his defense.

I might be able to wrap my head around the fact that maybe Dunn misses 20 plays over a season, but I think it's completely unfathomable that every play Dunn misses will result in the other team scoring a run when they should not have done so.

9 runs is the absolute most that I'd be able to hesitantly swallow that Dunn costs the Reds over the course of a season. KGJ is the only Red defensively that I think comes remotely close to costing the team at least 10 runs over the course of the season.

The numbers just aren't adding up for me, and it seems everyone that wants to point out Dunn's shortcomings defensively in LF cherry pick their favorite defensive metric to support their point.

My main question is, if Dunn's chalking up positive defensive WinShares, then how in the world is he costing the Reds 20+ runs a year?

Agreed.

The people that have developed those systems have drastically overestimated the impact of fielding skills. I think they do so in order to garner more attention to their work.

There just are not enough balls hit to left field to justify assigning that degree of run values.

If a person wanted to fairly characterize Dunn's fielding skills they would post all of his defensive ratings, not just the ones that testify to the poster's goal.

Since the various schools of thought and defensive metrics vary all over the map it is impossible to quantify a player's defensive skill with any accuracy. Maybe someday the sabermetricians will reach a consensus, but right now there is no firm basis for making a verdict.

Offensively we can reach a much clearer conclusion. Dunn produced the 5th-most runs in the majors over the last four seasons. That has a ton of value and can not be easily replaced. The only potential free agent on the market that can generate that level of production is Mark Teixeira and he will be even more expensive than Adam Dunn (if the Braves even allow Tex to hit the open market).

jojo
05-21-2008, 11:03 PM
I'm allergic to math, so bear with me.

Are the same linear weights being applied to each type of hit when figuring Offensive Runs Created as they are when calculating Defensive Total Bases? For example, when Adam Dunn hits a double, is it worth the same .821 of a run as when he allows a ball to get past him and the runner reaches second?

And how can a triple possibly be worth more than a run?

The absolute proper method would be to use a linear weights-based run estimator when using a linear weights-based defensive metric (UZR etc).

In reality, though the difference in run estimators is not terribly dramatic so, in practice, comparing RC or VORP with UZR defensive values really isn't introducing confusion due to "different" demoninators.

jojo
05-21-2008, 11:05 PM
Precisely.

To put any faith in those stats you would have to believe that pitching is a small part of run prevention.

No you wouldn't.


If those fielding evaluation systems were even remotely accurate you would see hardly any variation in terms of runs allowed between all the pitchers on the team. Or to phrase it another way, all of a team's pitchers would have nearly the same ERA. Of course that doesn't happen.

I'm not following this argument?

jojo
05-21-2008, 11:15 PM
If a person wanted to fairly characterize Dunn's fielding skills they would post all of his defensive ratings, not just the ones that testify to the poster's goal.

Except that the majority of members here that use defensive metrics advocate taking a survey of the credible metrics before drawing a conclusion. I know I've advocated this approach many times and doing so indicates Dunn is legitimately and conservatively a -15 run defender based upon these metrics.


Since the various schools of thought and defensive metrics vary all over the map it is impossible to quantify a player's defensive skill with any accuracy. Maybe someday the sabermetricians will reach a consensus, but right now there is no firm basis for making a verdict.

This "division" among sabermatricians actively studying defense is much more imagined than reality.


Offensively we can reach a much clearer conclusion. Dunn produced the 5th-most runs in the majors over the last four seasons. That has a ton of value and can not be easily replaced. The only potential free agent on the market that can generate that level of production is Mark Teixeira and he will be even more expensive than Adam Dunn (if the Braves even allow Tex to hit the open market).

BTW, Dunn has not created >800 runs over the last four seasons.

Cyclone792
05-21-2008, 11:19 PM
We have-which is why I still don't understand why statements like "not enough runs to go around" keep being posted.

Here's an example using Justin's translations. While I'm not arguing they should be weighted equally as UZR, Dewan's +/- or PMR, Justin's translations have been mentioned in this thread and he's got a readily accessible summary for the Reds defensive value during '07 (http://jinaz-reds.blogspot.com/2007/11/player-value-part-4-position-player.html).

Keep in mind that the Reds allowed 853 runs last season. Justin's translations suggest the Reds total defensive value was -12 runs in '07 (plus defenders accounted for +39 runs and negative defenders were credited with -51 runs). Even if you simply sum the absolute value of defensive runs, Justins translations sum to only roughly 10% of the Reds runs allowed in '07.

Defensive run values aren't grossly eating up runs at the expense of other components. If anything, Justin's translations underestimated defensive runs for the Reds in '07.

I read that six months ago; it's nothing new. The data is merely an average of different metrics which actually creates more problems:

1) The metrics included show unrealistic results given the proportion of runs (i.e. the -17 RZR rating for a LF). These are the same systems which were shown to be producing figures 30 runs above/below the averages.

2) Metrics are being averaged which have an extremely high variance amongst themselves with the same players. This is a problem when two different metrics are designed to produce roughly the same results instead produce wildly different results.

I understand the premise that defensive metrics are trying to analyze, but the foundation is flawed. And until the foundation problem is solved, any defensive metric with a run translator is going to have far too much bad data for reliability.

jojo
05-21-2008, 11:23 PM
I read that six months ago; it's nothing new.

As are the same arguments against them (which have been countered in numerous threads throughout the archives).....

westofyou
05-21-2008, 11:27 PM
Defensive metrics are like owning land in the Netherlands, much of the base is a shifting mass that can't be truly measured due to the insane range of variables that effect it.

Might as well debate Roswell 1948 or the evidence concerning Big Foot,

jojo
05-21-2008, 11:33 PM
Defensive metrics are like owning land in the Netherlands, much of the base is a shifting mass that can't be truly measured due to the insane range of variables that effect it.

Might as well debate Roswell 1948 or the evidence concerning Big Foot,

Kind of like ERA?

Cyclone792
05-21-2008, 11:38 PM
Defensive metrics are like owning land in the Netherlands, much of the base is a shifting mass that can't be truly measured due to the insane range of variables that effect it.

Might as well debate Roswell 1948 or the evidence concerning Big Foot,

Yep, precisely.

Until people start attaching GPS devices to players with accuracy down to the inch and then start measuring how fast batted balls reach certain spots with accuracy down to the hundredth of a second, the effort to translate defensive statistics into legitimately accurate run translation tools will be futile.

dougdirt
05-22-2008, 12:19 AM
So basically the difference between the absolute best fielder and the absolute worst fielder at a position is probably 20 runs? I find that extremely difficult to believe.

Cyclone792
05-22-2008, 12:22 AM
So basically the difference between the absolute best fielder and the absolute worst fielder at a position is probably 20 runs? I find that extremely difficult to believe.

At most positions? No. In left field? You're getting there.

Unless, of course, pitchers have suddenly diminished value.

Johnny Footstool
05-22-2008, 12:31 AM
Likely because a triple with a runner on base is going to score a runner and eventually lead to the batter scoring. That is 2 runs from 1 hit.

So the system is including factors external to the one isolated event it's trying to quantify?

Offensive Runs Created don't include RBIs, so why should Defensive Runs Created include them?

dougdirt
05-22-2008, 12:32 AM
At most positions? No. In left field? You're getting there.

Unless, of course, pitchers have suddenly diminished value.

I just don't see how a pitchers value comes into play here. Outfielders aren't catching HR's all too often. Outfielders aren't catching strikeouts. Outfielders are there to make plays on the balls in the field. A pitcher makes his bread and butter by striking out people, not walking much and keeping the ball in the yard. Maybe I am missing something here, but I don't see where the pitcher has much to do with the outfielders defensive abilities and run prevention.

Cyclone792
05-22-2008, 12:34 AM
I just don't see how a pitchers value comes into play here. Outfielders aren't catching HR's all too often. Outfielders aren't catching strikeouts. Outfielders are there to make plays on the balls in the field. A pitcher makes his bread and butter by striking out people, not walking much and keeping the ball in the yard. Maybe I am missing something here, but I don't see where the pitcher has much to do with the outfielders defensive abilities and run prevention.

Pitchers account for two-thirds of a team's defensive value.

dougdirt
05-22-2008, 12:37 AM
So the system is including factors external to the one isolated event it's trying to quantify?

Offensive Runs Created don't include RBIs, so why should Defensive Runs Created?

That was just one example. Here is how I look at it, take those 25 hits away from Dunn and those 33 TB's from his batting line last year. Run those numbers now with his RC formula of your choosing, or any batting stat of your liking to create ones run value.

jojo
05-22-2008, 06:32 AM
So the system is including factors external to the one isolated event it's trying to quantify?

Offensive Runs Created don't include RBIs, so why should Defensive Runs Created include them?

RC acts like a player gets on base AND moves himself over....

Most defensive runs conversations are linear weights based which means the run values of events are tied to average runs scored per base/out state. It's not really including RBI anymore than it can be argued RC does....

BTW, James latest versions of RC are basically disguised linear weights.

jojo
05-22-2008, 06:36 AM
Pitchers account for two-thirds of a team's defensive value.

Lets assume this is an absolute for the sake of argument.

How many years since 2003, has a metric like UZR, Dewan's +/-, or PMR to runs suggested that a a teams "defensive runs" were actually greater than 33% of it's runs allowed?

mth123
05-22-2008, 07:39 AM
Lets assume this is an absolute for the sake of argument.

How many years since 2003, has a metric like UZR, Dewan's +/-, or PMR to runs suggested that a a teams "defensive runs" were actually greater than 33% of it's runs allowed?

I think trying to separate how much is due to defense and how much is due to pitching is a guess at best. I think all that can be done is to identify what is bad and improve it and see what overall effect it has. Replacing a pitcher who gives up rope after rope off the bat will likely lead to improved DER. Replacing a guy who concedes most of his defensive territory to the other team's offense will likely improve the pitching stats significantly.

If you evaluate each player at what they are supposed to do, I think its obvious that at this point Griffey's defense in RF is less effective than any of the pitcher's pitching or the defense at any other position. That should be the first thing fixed and re-evaluate from there. Turn those fly balls into outs in the first and second inning and the soft underbelly of the pitching staff won't enter the game as often in the 6th.

You want to improve overall team ERA? Keep the mop-up men off the mound until true mop-up situations exist. Every team has a couple of guys in the pen that are there to absorb innings when it doesn't mean much. The Reds aren't unique in the fact that they have a couple of questionable guys in the bullpen. A large part of the problem on this team from a run prevention standpoint is that those guys are being pressed into service regularly because the extra runners that the defense allows gets the serviceable or even effective starter pulled an inning or two sooner due to inflated pitch counts. Those counts are inflated due to outs not being made by the defense. Its no coincidence that this team has had a horrible overall bullpen for the last three years. The starting pitching has surely not helped anything in previous seasons, but that awful defense (primarily in the OF) has contributed to a lot of guys being out there in situations where they never should have been and the ones that are good pitchers are completely worn out.

That sounds inconsistent since I think they should sign Dunn, but fix RF and CF (and SS and C) and a team can live with a Dunn caliber defender in LF. At some point a team needs offense too.

rdiersin
05-22-2008, 01:02 PM
So the system is including factors external to the one isolated event it's trying to quantify?

Offensive Runs Created don't include RBIs, so why should Defensive Runs Created include them?

Not really, the weights come from an estimation of runs scored. You have the observable data in runs scored and then want to estimate how much a single, double, triple, homer, walk.... are worth in an estimate of runs scored. A easy estimation can be done using team offensive data from retrosheet and look at the teams'

S
2B
3B
HR
HBP
BB
IBB
SB
CS
SO
GIDP
SF
SH

and then use a linear least squares estimate based upon the runs scored. Those esimating parameters that result are the weights. The key is that you are using a observable event like a team's runs scored to obtain the weights.