PDA

View Full Version : John Erardi Gets It -- "Who's Counting"



Pages : [1] 2

RedsManRick
05-11-2008, 01:38 PM
http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/AB/20080511/SPT04/805110428/



Hey, who's counting?
Success really doesn't hinge on 'the little things'

We keep hearing that the Reds "don't do the little things well," but did you know the average for National League teams last year was 47 sacrifice flies (or about two every seven games) and 65 sacrifice bunts (two every five games), and that the Reds were only one below the sac-fly average and plus-8 on the sac-bunt average?

There's a reason they're called "the little things." They don't affect the outcome of a team's regular season as much as the big things (getting on base, which directly affects total runs scored).


TALE OF TWO SEASONS

How about these numbers on Aaron Harang (right) through his first eight starts:

2007 - 5-1, 5.04 ERA (55 runs of support from team)

2008 - 1-5, 3.09 ERA (22 runs of support from team)

Is there anybody out there who still wants to insist that the best gauge for evaluating starting pitchers is their won-loss records?


JAY, NOT LENNY

The biggest reason 21-year-old Jay Bruce (below left) is still in Louisville is that the Reds brass - including the development people - want him to get his on-base average closer to 65-70 points above his batting average to show he has the discipline to hit in the majors. Right now, Bruce's on-base average (.343) is only 23 points higher than his batting average (.320). This isn't to say Bruce has to get his OBA into that plus-65-70 range to get called up, but he has to be moving in the right direction.

He's drawn only seven walks compared to 30 strikeouts. Roughly 5 percent of his plate appearances go for walks.

The NL average walk rate for a non-pitcher this season is 9.7 percent. If Bruce can't match that rate in Triple-A, he's going to have a hard time against quality major-league pitchers.

By the way, Brandon Phillips ' career OBA is only 44 points above his career BA. That's tolerable if you're blasting a lot of long balls, but if you're not ...


THE BATTING ORDER

Pundits (including us, in this space last week) tend to over-analyze the rationale in explaining why a specific batting order should be utilized. All you need to know is this: Bat your high on-base guys 1 through 3. We strongly recommend Jeff Keppinger, Adam Dunn and Edwin Encarnacion, respectively.

Runs come from hitters getting on base and the hitters behind them (Joey Votto, Phillips, Ken Griffey Jr. ) getting them home.

Batting Encarnacion anywhere but 1-4 is a waste of his .360 OBA, which is 102 points higher than his batting average (.258). We think his BA (and, thus, his OBA) will climb with the season.


GET 'EM ON, GET 'EM IN

Over their careers, almost everybody hits within 10 points of their batting average (either way) with runners in scoring position. With runners in scoring position, Tony Perez - regarded as one of the great clutch hitters in history - hit only five points higher than his overall batting average with RISP (.284, .279).

Did you know the 1976 Reds hold the major-league record for most runners left on base in a season - and yet they scored the second-most runs in franchise history?

Why? They also had a franchise-record .357 on-base average.


HIT DUNN NO. 2

It is simply untrue that Adam Dunn (below right) is not a good

2-hole hitter.

Though conventional wisdom says a 2-hole hitter must make contact and spray the ball around, the facts don't support it. It's more important to get on base because that's what best leads to scoring runs. Hitting behind the runner might look good and fit "the book" approach, but sac-bunting and swinging away are a break-even proposition.

Look at it this way: Whether to sac-bunt or swing away is a matter of managing risk. If you sac-bunt, you're less likely to get on base, but the outs you generate are not as bad because you advance the runner. If you swing away, you're more likely to get on base and advance the runner additional bases, but you're also more likely to generate a "bad" out that doesn't advance the runner or, even worse, results in a double play.

On balance, sac-bunting and swinging away average out, just as Dunn's approach to hitting averages out.

He makes considerably less contact than the average 2-hole hitter (he's high-risk), but he's high-reward because of all the bombs he hits - and he has an excellent on-base average, which means that even though he's whiffing a lot, he more than offsets it with his high on-base average from walking a lot.

At No. 2, a .380 OBA guy who strikes out and is slow is better than a fast .315 OBA guy. Especially if Mr. .380 OBA hits 40 bombs.

Batting Dunn No. 2 gets him to the plate 50 more times in a season than batting him No. 5.

And why is such a big deal made about the 2-hole hitter advancing the runner, anyway? Last year, the Reds' No. 2 hitter came to bat more than half the time (56 percent) with nobody on base.

Did you know that over the last two seasons Dunn has been right in line with the league average in terms of advancing runners from first base? (League average: 40 percent; Dunn, 39.7 percent)

The only Red with a comparable number of opportunities who advanced runners at a significantly higher rate was Encarnacion (45 percent), while Phillips - who might look more like a traditional 2-hole hitter to some - actually has advanced runners at a lower rate (38 percent) than Dunn.

And did you know that in only 35 more at-bats than Dunn with a runner on first, Phillips has hit into 24 more double plays?

Joel Luckhaupt, Justin Inaz and Greg Gajus contributed.

kbrake
05-11-2008, 01:53 PM
I find it refreshing to read something like this once in awhile. Certainly beats the typical Cincinnati media.

boognish
05-11-2008, 01:55 PM
Refreshing. Is it possible the Reds can "outsource" writing out the lineup card to Erardi (et al)?

I am hopeful that Reds brass and a great many "casual fans" read this and give the opinions therein some serious thought. I shall be writing Mr. Erardi and encouraging him to continue his excellent work explaining the statistics of baseball to a wide mainstream audience.

RedsManRick
05-11-2008, 02:01 PM
I love the approach. A lot the (us?) sabermetric types simply can't get out of their own way. The concepts really aren't complicated -- in fact they're almost obvious on reflection. Erardi (and his researchers, including RedsZone's Justin Inaz) deserves a lot of credit for putting the information out there in a very digestible, non-judgmental manner.

boognish
05-11-2008, 02:03 PM
I love the approach. A lot the (us?) sabermetric types simply can't get out of their own way. The concepts really aren't complicated -- in fact they're almost obvious on reflection. Erardi (and his researchers, including RedsZone's Justin Inaz) deserves a lot of credit for putting the information out there in a very digestible, non-judgmental manner.

Well-spoken.

This is a point I fully agree with, and neglected to mention in my original post.

cincinnati chili
05-11-2008, 02:06 PM
The biggest reason 21-year-old Jay Bruce (below left) is still in Louisville is that the Reds brass - including the development people - want him to get his on-base average closer to 65-70 points above his batting average to show he has the discipline to hit in the majors. Right now, Bruce's on-base average (.343) is only 23 points higher than his batting average (.320). This isn't to say Bruce has to get his OBA into that plus-65-70 range to get called up, but he has to be moving in the right direction.





Encouraging. Don't let Dusty read this. :)

Spring~Fields
05-11-2008, 02:58 PM
I thought that article was very helpful and informative. I would like to see the press do more articles like these in a timely manner.

Vada Pinson Fan
05-11-2008, 03:30 PM
I started reading the article this morning and immediately was impressed by it enough that I had to look again who had written it. John Erardi and the contibutors of Joel Luckhaupt, Justin Inaz and Greg Gajus did an outstanding job of fact-finding to support their claim for the lineup they suggested.

Can't wait to see when and if the suggestion actually makes it onto Dusty's lineup card.
Just like today, watching Keppinger have 5 straight hits yesterday and has been the Reds leading hitter most of the season and still batting 7th makes little sense when the top of the order overall hasn't produced.

Dropping Griffey to 6th was brilliant (in the article) but is Dusty afraid to hurt Jr's feelings by doing so? Griffey's days of deserving to hit 3rd or 4th in the order have long passed by.
With Dunn's relatively high OBA it makes sense to hit him second except for the fact he isn't the ideal batter to bunt the leadoff hitter along.

Kudos to Erardi & Company for the best lineup I've seen offered for the Reds to use this year!

TOBTTReds
05-11-2008, 05:54 PM
This article just frustrates me.

How can a newspaper writer understand how baseball works so much better than our vet manager??! Unreal. And I agree with everything he says.

Sea Ray
05-11-2008, 06:02 PM
I'd like to see a lineup starting with Kepp, Dunn and EE but the reason Dunn fits as a #2 is because of what he can't do as opposed to what he can do. The fact that Dunn can't drive in runs worth a darn is why they might as well try him in the 2 hole. If he knocked in 130 runs with his 40-45 HRs I'd leave him in the middle of the lineup even with a high OBP. Erardi makes it sound like a positive that over 50% of the time the #2 hitter comes up with no one on base on this team. Actually that's not a good position to put a 40 HR guy. That argument hurts Erardi's case more than it helps.

He also speaks about avg with RISP and how it rarely varies much from overall BA, well my bet is for Adam Dunn is varies a great deal. I can't find any career numbers for that stat but for the past 4 yrs his BA w/RISP is way below his overall avg.

As for his Tony Perez example, 5 pts over a long career is a lot of clutch hits.

SMcGavin
05-11-2008, 06:25 PM
As for his Tony Perez example, 5 pts over a long career is a lot of clutch hits.

Over Perez's 2800+ ABs with RISP those 5 points of average equal fifteen hits. Considering Perez played 23 years, we're talking less than one per season.

cincinnati chili
05-11-2008, 06:28 PM
Over Perez's 2800+ ABs with RISP those 5 points of average equal fifteen hits. Considering Perez played 23 years, we're talking less than one per season.

Don't bring facts or math to the table when the issue of "clutch" is raised. You might start a riot.

TOBTTReds
05-11-2008, 06:40 PM
As for his Tony Perez example, 5 pts over a long career is a lot of clutch hits.

I don't think it really is a huge difference. I don't know where Erardi got his stats, but if Perez had 1000 clutch AB's (hypothetical), then 5 points is only the difference in 5 hits over his career. Which to me, is a very small difference, IE, not too clutch.

IIRC, Dunn wasn't so bad bringing runners in last year when he had the opportunities. From 1st base, he was top 15 in MLB, I think. And not bad from 2nd either. He did a better job of bringing runners in than a lot of AL players last year that had 110+ RBI. I need to look it up when I get some time. He would bat 2nd for what he can do IMO, that is get on base. He will move plenty of runners to 2nd with a walk.

Sea Ray
05-11-2008, 11:42 PM
I don't think it really is a huge difference. I don't know where Erardi got his stats, but if Perez had 1000 clutch AB's (hypothetical), then 5 points is only the difference in 5 hits over his career. Which to me, is a very small difference, IE, not too clutch.


I guess it all depends on whether you think .284 is clutch or not. If Adam Dunn hit .284 w/RISP he'd be an MVP candidate. Which brings me back to my original point. Adam Dunn should hit 2nd because of what he can't do as opposed to what he does well. He's earned a demotion to the #2 spot in the order. It's ashame he can't knock in more runs to go with his 40 HRs but since he's very weak at that they might as well try him in the 2 hole. It's very difficult to put a guy in the heart of the lineup who hits so poorly w/ RISP. If Erardi is correct that it's very rare for a guy to hit less than 10 pts below his BA with RISP then Dunn must be a rare kind a guy. From 2004-07 he was 15 below his overall BA and this year he's hitting below .200 with RISP.

wally post
05-11-2008, 11:55 PM
This is a really good piece. And, of course, it leads to frustration given our management.

BCubb2003
05-12-2008, 12:11 AM
One thing you can say about Perez is, he failed at choking.

SteelSD
05-12-2008, 12:13 AM
I guess it all depends on whether you think .284 is clutch or not. If Adam Dunn hit .284 w/RISP he'd be an MVP candidate. Which brings me back to my original point. Adam Dunn should hit 2nd because of what he can't do as opposed to what he does well. He's earned a demotion to the #2 spot in the order. It's ashame he can't knock in more runs to go with his 40 HRs but since he's very weak at that they might as well try him in the 2 hole. It's very difficult to put a guy in the heart of the lineup who hits so poorly w/ RISP. If Erardi is correct that it's very rare for a guy to hit less than 10 pts below his BA with RISP then Dunn must be a rare kind a guy. From 2004-07 he was 15 below his overall BA and this year he's hitting below .200 with RISP.

The guy knocks in 100 runs per year. Despite not getting optimal lineup position, the guy has led the Reds in RBI for the last four years. And he's the only guy since Frank Robinson to post Runs Created numbers four years running while under the age of 30.

And if the 2-slot is a "demotion", was Joey Votto just "demoted" into the 2-slot tonight? Did Alex Rodriguez experience the same effect in his time in the 2-slot? How about Jim Edmonds?

The idea of slotting Dunn in the 2-slot has absolutely nothing to do with what he doesn't do well- like leading the Reds in RBI four seasons running. It has everything to do with slump-proofing the lineup versus good pitching rather than stupidly slotting players based on what Baker thinks their "jobs" are.

Sea Ray
05-12-2008, 12:40 AM
The idea of slotting Dunn in the 2-slot has absolutely nothing to do with what he doesn't do well- like leading the Reds in RBI four seasons running. It has everything to do with slump-proofing the lineup versus good pitching rather than stupidly slotting players based on what Baker thinks their "jobs" are.



I totally disagree. If the guy was driving in runs we wouldn't be talking about moving him up to #2. Sure he has driven 100 three times in his career. That's not a big trick when you're hitting 40+ HRs. If you think he's adept at driving in runs then we're not on the same page. Would you be in favor of Pujols, Manny Ramirez, David Ortiz or Barry Bonds (in his prime) hitting 2nd?

Dunn leading the Reds in RBIs says more about the dearth of run producers on this team than it does about Dunn.

dougdirt
05-12-2008, 12:47 AM
I totally disagree. If the guy was driving in runs we wouldn't be talking about moving him up to #2. Sure he has driven 100 three times in his career. That's not a big trick when you're hitting 40+ HRs. If you think he's adept at driving in runs then we're not on the same page. Would you be in favor of Pujols, Manny Ramirez or Barry Bonds (in his prime) hitting 2nd?

Dunn leading the Reds in RBIs says more about the dearth of run producers on this team than it does about Dunn.

Yes and no. I don't think Dunn is a very good RBI man, but the three players you brought up are among the best hitters of all time, so the comparison to them is quite rough. You could pick nearly every player in baseball and they are going to lose a comparison to Pujols, Manram or Bonds.

I think Dunn should hit second to maximize his abilities at the plate. He walks a ton, which will help him get on base and score runs. It also gets him more at bats. His lack of contact doesn't bother me in the lineup because I am against 'situational hitting' 95% of the time anyways. Stacking the lineup correctly around him would also lead to pitchers not pitching around him so much, leading to better production through the lineup.

Sea Ray
05-12-2008, 12:53 AM
Yes and no. I don't think Dunn is a very good RBI man, but the three players you brought up are among the best hitters of all time, so the comparison to them is quite rough. You could pick nearly every player in baseball and they are going to lose a comparison to Pujols, Manram or Bonds.

I think Dunn should hit second to maximize his abilities at the plate. He walks a ton, which will help him get on base and score runs. It also gets him more at bats. His lack of contact doesn't bother me in the lineup because I am against 'situational hitting' 95% of the time anyways. Stacking the lineup correctly around him would also lead to pitchers not pitching around him so much, leading to better production through the lineup.


Fair enough Doug, but answer me this. If Dunn knocked in 135 a year instead of 100 would you still advocate moving him up to #2?

Dunn and David Ortiz have identical career OBP, have similar offensive skills and they both hit for a lot of power but Ortiz knocks in a lot more runs. For that reason I don't think there's anyone in Boston clamoring for Ortiz to bat 2nd.

SteelSD
05-12-2008, 12:55 AM
I totally disagree. If the guy was driving in runs we wouldn't be talking about moving him up to #2. Sure he has driven 100 three times in his career. That's not a big trick when you're hitting 40+ HRs. If you think he's adept at driving in runs then we're not on the same page. Would you be in favor of Pujols, Manny Ramirez or Barry Bonds (in his prime) hitting 2nd?

Dunn leading the Reds in RBIs says more about the dearth of run producers on this team than it does about Dunn.

Well, if you're simply fixated on RBI production, then you're missing out on how runs are really created. Dunn has created Runs at an historical level for the franchise during his tenure.

You can disagree all you like, but you still can't find a sub-30 year old offensive player since Frank Robinson who's been more consistently valuable than has Adam Dunn. That's unfortunate, but that's the reality, and the fact that you're bringing up historically exceptional offensive players to support your point really speaks to the the real problem- that Dunn isn't Barry Bonds, Manny Ramirez, or Albert Pujols.

Your expections are way WAY too high and if an historically exceptional player is the only option for you, then you've set yourself up for the kind of dissapointment I can't even fathom.



Re: John Erardi Gets It -- "Who's Counting"
Quote:
Originally Posted by dougdirt View Post
Yes and no. I don't think Dunn is a very good RBI man, but the three players you brought up are among the best hitters of all time, so the comparison to them is quite rough. You could pick nearly every player in baseball and they are going to lose a comparison to Pujols, Manram or Bonds.

I think Dunn should hit second to maximize his abilities at the plate. He walks a ton, which will help him get on base and score runs. It also gets him more at bats. His lack of contact doesn't bother me in the lineup because I am against 'situational hitting' 95% of the time anyways. Stacking the lineup correctly around him would also lead to pitchers not pitching around him so much, leading to better production through the lineup.


Fair enough Doug, but answer me this. If Dunn knocked in 135 a year instead of 100 would you still advocate moving him up to #2?

Find me a player who actually produces 135 RBI per season. Seriously. Find that.

Sea Ray
05-12-2008, 01:04 AM
Find me a player who actually produces 135 RBI per season. Seriously. Find that.


Be happy to. I mentioned him earlier. David Ortiz has produced 135 RBI 3 out of the last 4 years which is as often as Dunn has managed 100.

Now I get back to my original point. If Dunn knocked in 135 three out of the last 4 yrs would you still be in favor of hitting him 2nd?

Ron Madden
05-12-2008, 01:24 AM
John Erardi Gets It.

The sad thing is Reds Management Doesn't Get It.

Many Reds Fans Don't Get It.

JinAZ
05-12-2008, 01:33 AM
Just wanted to say that I'm delighted to see that these articles continue to get such a warm response. Joel, Greg, and I have had a great time contributing to them over the past several weeks. And John Erardi does a fantastic job converting our (or at least my) statspeak into intelligible English. He's gradually helping us figure out how to do it, but I find it really hard to do. As Rick put it, I can't get out of my own way when it comes to explaining this stuff at times.

I should also emphasize that a lot of a creative force behind these articles comes from Joel--he has put an enormous amount of effort into this stuff. Most of my contributions to this article came after John wrote the first draft based on Joel's work.
-j

JinAZ
05-12-2008, 01:50 AM
I don't know where Erardi got his stats


When in doubt, assume baseball reference. :)

Here's Perez's career splits:
http://www.baseball-reference.com/pi/bsplit.cgi?n1=perezto01&year=00

0.279 career batting average
0.284 career AVG with RISP
-j

OldRightHander
05-12-2008, 05:00 AM
John Erardi Gets It.

The sad thing is Reds Management Doesn't Get It.

Many Reds Fans Don't Get It.

Maybe Erardi needs to be in the broadcast booth then.

RedsBaron
05-12-2008, 06:14 AM
Maybe Erardi needs to be in the broadcast booth then.

Better yet, hire him to make out the lineups.
It has been obvious for years that Dunn's high OBP made him a good candidate to bat second, yet the Reds have yet to have a competent manager who can grasp the basic concept of getting your high OBP hitters as many at bats as possible.

OldRightHander
05-12-2008, 09:33 AM
Better yet, hire him to make out the lineups.
It has been obvious for years that Dunn's high OBP made him a good candidate to bat second, yet the Reds have yet to have a competent manager who can grasp the basic concept of getting your high OBP hitters as many at bats as possible.

Yep, but having somebody in the broadcast booth would be nice as well. Having an educated fan base would be nice, and an announcer who would educate them properly would go a long way toward changing public perception. It seems that people in this town don't appreciate the skills certain players have and those attitudes are only fed by things that come out of the broadcast booth.

jojo
05-12-2008, 09:46 AM
Adam Dunn should hit 2nd because of what he can't do as opposed to what he does well.

Adam Dunn should bat second because it would maximally leverage his impact.

jojo
05-12-2008, 09:49 AM
Be happy to. I mentioned him earlier. David Ortiz has produced 135 RBI 3 out of the last 4 years which is as often as Dunn has managed 100.

Now I get back to my original point. If Dunn knocked in 135 three out of the last 4 yrs would you still be in favor of hitting him 2nd?

If Dunn knocked in 135 rbi's consistently during that period, he'd be in a lineup that wouldn't need him to bat second......

Sea Ray
05-12-2008, 10:13 AM
If Dunn knocked in 135 rbi's consistently during that period, he'd be in a lineup that wouldn't need him to bat second......

I wouldn't blame the lineup. He can't hit with RISP. His career avg of .221 in such situations has to be historically low. Even Dave Kingman bested that by 20 pts. You can't have a guy in the middle of your lineup hitting .221 w/RISP. Because of that he might as well hit 2nd.

It's tough to hit 40 HRs and only knock in 100 but that's been Dunn's pattern. That's another rare skill this guy's got.

Raisor
05-12-2008, 10:21 AM
I wouldn't blame the lineup. He can't hit with RISP. His career avg of .221 in such situations has to be historically low. Even Dave Kingman bested that by 20 pts. You can't have a guy in the middle of your lineup hitting .221 w/RISP. Because of that he might as well hit 2nd.

It's tough to hit 40 HRs and only knock in 100 but that's been Dunn's pattern. That's another rare skill this guy's got.



RBI's and now Batting average w/RISP.

It's the good old days again.

Kc61
05-12-2008, 10:23 AM
If Dunn knocked in 135 rbi's consistently during that period, he'd be in a lineup that wouldn't need him to bat second......

I think this is the whole point. Dunn's strength as a hitter is getting on base. And hopefully being knocked in by others.

For a 40 homer guy, Dunn is not especially proficient at knocking in runs. So he isn't ideal in the middle of the order.

The problem with the Reds managers is that they keep envisioning Dunn as an RBI guy. And they don't have other good RBI guys. So they keep forcing him into RBI lineup spots and everyone is disappointed.

So Dunn should hit second. The problem is economic. If the Reds are going to get better middle-of-the-order hitters than Dunn, they won't be able to afford him as the second place hitter.

Heath
05-12-2008, 10:27 AM
I think this is the whole point. Dunn's strength as a hitter is getting on base. And hopefully being knocked in by others.

For a 40 homer guy, Dunn is not especially proficient at knocking in runs. So he isn't ideal in the middle of the order.

The problem with the Reds managers is that they keep envisioning Dunn as an RBI guy. And they don't have other good RBI guys. So they keep forcing him into RBI lineup spots and everyone is disappointed.

So Dunn should hit second. The problem is economic. If the Reds are going to get better middle-of-the-order hitters than Dunn, they won't be able to afford him as the second place hitter.

Old school thinking states that HR=RBI. Obviously that's not the case.

And Sea Ray, David Ortiz better have 135 RBI's in that ball park while DH'ing.

If EdE is so good with RISP, as he once was, the Reds could be the only team with a 40/80 guy and a 15/100 guy.

:D

MWM
05-12-2008, 10:35 AM
If Dunn knocked in 135 rbi's consistently during that period, he'd be in a lineup that wouldn't need him to bat second......

Bingo! Exactly what I was thinking. I'm still amazed that so many folks look at RBIs as a comparison for two players that play on completely different teams, especially with one of those players being on the team that scored in the top few teams every year.

jojo
05-12-2008, 10:41 AM
I wouldn't blame the lineup. He can't hit with RISP. His career avg of .221 in such situations has to be historically low. Even Dave Kingman bested that by 20 pts. You can't have a guy in the middle of your lineup hitting .221 w/RISP. Because of that he might as well hit 2nd.

It's tough to hit 40 HRs and only knock in 100 but that's been Dunn's pattern. That's another rare skill this guy's got.

Since we're dusting off old arguments:



Wow......ignore a thread for a few days because it's mostly about whether announcers are too snarky or not and a sabermetric argument breaks out... This is why I LOVE redszone.

Anyway, lets put this situational hitting argument against Dunn to rest once and for all....

Dunn (career totals):
total: .245/.380/.513
Runners on: .241/.412/.501
RISP: .219/.418/.479

Here are the theoretical RC for those situations (using the simple formula: OBP*SLG*AB and assuming 600 AB)
total: 117
Runners on: 124
RISP: 120

So over his career, Dunn actually has been a slightly more effective hitter when runners are on than when the bases are empty. He just gets there a different way. Also, I think these numbers really highlight the importance of getting on base and how batting average really is a flawed metric relative to run production.

http://www.redszone.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1248453&postcount=354

Here's another argument against defining Dunn by his BA/RISP:

http://www.redszone.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1268064&postcount=381

RedlegJake
05-12-2008, 10:41 AM
I think this is the whole point. Dunn's strength as a hitter is getting on base. And hopefully being knocked in by others.

For a 40 homer guy, Dunn is not especially proficient at knocking in runs. So he isn't ideal in the middle of the order.

The problem with the Reds managers is that they keep envisioning Dunn as an RBI guy. And they don't have other good RBI guys. So they keep forcing him into RBI lineup spots and everyone is disappointed.

So Dunn should hit second. The problem is economic. If the Reds are going to get better middle-of-the-order hitters than Dunn, they won't be able to afford him as the second place hitter.

Spot on. IMO, Dunn's power has blinded many to his most obvious strength - he's an OB machine. But a #2 tablesetter earning 15 million a year? The Sox and Yanks could afford to do that but can the Reds? Will they use him correctly anyway if they do extend him? Kepp 1 Dunn 2 EE3 Votto 4. Edwin and Joey would get an enormous number of rbi situations to hit in. Add BP and Bruce (keeping pressure of Jay when he first comes up and letting him improve his OBP skills before moving him up) and the Reds might have a lineup that can consistently score runs.

I was a Dusty supporter at first but as I've read, researched and watched I've gone a 180. It's not his use of pitchers, it's his incredibly bad utilization of hitting resources, his "walking is for dogs" that has guys like BP swinging from the heels at everything (and what will that attitude do to Jay Bruce? and anyone notice CP was making strides at changing his approach until he came back to Dusty - now he's swinging at everything again and again is a K machine); and his refusal to construct a lineup based on each hitter's strengths & weaknesses rather than his preconcepotions of what each hitter should do. Now I'm convinced that when Dusty had winning teams they won despite him, with talent that could win despite mismanagement and I wonder whether the Cubs curse might be old news if Lou and not Dusty had had them two years earlier.

Yachtzee
05-12-2008, 10:49 AM
Bingo! Exactly what I was thinking. I'm still amazed that so many folks look at RBIs as a comparison for two players that play on completely different teams, especially with one of those players being on the team that scored in the top few teams every year.

No kidding. Ortiz has spent much of his career on a team where the guys who bat ahead of him get on base and he has guys batting behind him who are worth a darn. So one could argue his greater RBI count is a reflection of more guys on base in front of him and, if you are big on lineup construction, better players batting behind him so that he sees better pitches.

Dunn puts up solid RBI numbers despite the fact that he often spends the first half of every season batting low in the order because each new Reds manager has this notion that he's supposed to drive in runs. Then of course they have to bat Junior third because everyone bats Junior third. Since they're both left-handed, the manager has to put a righty between them, so that means Dunn usually bats fifth for new managers. Now, batting fifth, he has to deal with the facts that 1) he comes up less often than he would if he were batting higher in the order, 2) other players batting ahead of him aren't getting on base as often as he does, and 3) he often has guys like Phillips and Keppinger (and Sean Casey in years gone by) who are prone to hitting in double plays. He also has fewer good hitters batting behind him, which may lead to more pitches out of the zone. There are so many factors that go into RBIs. BA/RISP is one of them and just going by the raw numbers out of context doesn't quite paint the full picture. To continue the art metaphor, it's like looking at Da Vinci's "The Last Supper," but only focusing on Judas.

By the way, my art metaphor by no means implies that I believe Dunn's skills as a hitter equate to Da Vinci's skill as a painter. It's just a metaphor.

blumj
05-12-2008, 10:58 AM
Spot on. IMO, Dunn's power has blinded many to his most obvious strength - he's an OB machine. But a #2 tablesetter earning 15 million a year? The Sox and Yanks could afford to do that but can the Reds?

The Sox and Yanks wouldn't have to do it. Robinson Cano and JD Drew often bat 7th for those teams, not because their managers don't know how to put together a lineup, but because there's nowhere else to put them.

MWM
05-12-2008, 10:59 AM
Yeah, Dunn might not be Ortiz, but if you put him in Ortiz's place in that lineup, his RBI totals would go way up.

Sea Ray
05-12-2008, 11:08 AM
I think this is the whole point. Dunn's strength as a hitter is getting on base. And hopefully being knocked in by others.

For a 40 homer guy, Dunn is not especially proficient at knocking in runs. So he isn't ideal in the middle of the order.

The problem with the Reds managers is that they keep envisioning Dunn as an RBI guy. And they don't have other good RBI guys. So they keep forcing him into RBI lineup spots and everyone is disappointed.

So Dunn should hit second. The problem is economic. If the Reds are going to get better middle-of-the-order hitters than Dunn, they won't be able to afford him as the second place hitter.


Ahhh. Someone who "gets" it.

It'll be interesting to see what happens next year. If Dunn signs elsewhere for big bucks he'll likely hit in the middle of the order. I'd be very surprised if another team pays him $15mill to be a #2 hitter.

The truth is he's not worth $15 mill and he's not a middle of the order hitter

Sea Ray
05-12-2008, 11:14 AM
Since we're dusting off old arguments:



http://www.redszone.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1248453&postcount=354

Here's another argument against defining Dunn by his BA/RISP:

http://www.redszone.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1268064&postcount=381


Yeah Jojo, your stats value walks with RISP but I say that's overrated. Walks don't drive in runs with RISP. I'm fine with him drawing a lot of walks. That is good for the offense but I also want to see him hit a little better than .221 when he does not draw a walk in those situations.

Sea Ray
05-12-2008, 11:25 AM
Dunn puts up solid RBI numbers despite the fact that he often spends the first half of every season batting low in the order because each new Reds manager has this notion that he's supposed to drive in runs. Then of course they have to bat Junior third because everyone bats Junior third.

It's not a far out notion that Dunn should be a guy who drives in runs. He's 6'6" 275 lbs hits 40+HRs a year and strikes out about 200x a year. That's generally a guy you think of in the #4 or 5 hole but he is very unusual in that he hits 40-45 HRs a year yet he struggles to reach 100 RBIs. That makes him very out of the ordinary. If he's hitting 40 some HRs a year and only knocking in 100 then he's basically only driving in runs when he homers. So I disagree with you that he's putting up solid RBI numbers

SteelSD
05-12-2008, 11:27 AM
It's tough to hit 40 HRs and only knock in 100 but that's been Dunn's pattern. That's another rare skill this guy's got.

Is it really all that rare? Research tells us it's not. In 2007 Prince Fielder hit 50 HR and drove in 119 Runs. Remove 10 solo shots and you have 40 HR and 109 RBI; which would be three more RBI than Dunn posted. Others recently:

Derrek Lee 2005: 46 HR/107 RBI
Barry Bonds 2004: 45 HR/101 RBI
Jim Thome 2004: 42 HR/105 RBI
Jim Edmonds 2004: 42 HR/111 RBI
Moises Alou 2004: 39 HR/106 RBI
Barry Bonds 2003: 45 HR/90 RBI
Javy Lopez 2003: 43 HR/109 RBI
Sammy Sosa 2003: 40 HR/103 RBI
Jeff Bagwell 2003: 39 HR/100 RBI
Jim Edmonds 2003: 39 HR/89 RBI
Sammy Sosa 2002: 49 HR/108 RBI
Barry Bonds 2002: 46 HR/110 RBI
Vlad Guerrero 2002: 39 HR/111 RBI
Barry Bonds 2000: 49 HR/106 RBI
Garry Sheffield 2000: 43 HR/109 RBI
Jim Edmonds 2000: 42 HR/108 RBI

If 40 Home Runs makes you a shoe-in for the mythical annual 135 RBI plane of existence, then how'd all that happen?

Raisor
05-12-2008, 11:32 AM
Is it really all that rare? Research tells us it's not. In 2007 Prince Fielder hit 50 HR and drove in 119 Runs. Remove 10 solo shots and you have 40 HR and 109 RBI; which would be three more RBI than Dunn posted. Others recently:

Derrek Lee 2005: 46 HR/107 RBI
Barry Bonds 2004: 45 HR/101 RBI
Jim Thome 2004: 42 HR/105 RBI
Jim Edmonds 2004: 42 HR/111 RBI
Moises Alou 2004: 39 HR/106 RBI
Barry Bonds 2003: 45 HR/90 RBI
Javy Lopez 2003: 43 HR/109 RBI
Sammy Sosa 2003: 40 HR/103 RBI
Jeff Bagwell 2003: 39 HR/100 RBI
Jim Edmonds 2003: 39 HR/89 RBI
Sammy Sosa 2002: 49 HR/108 RBI
Barry Bonds 2002: 46 HR/110 RBI
Vlad Guerrero 2002: 39 HR/111 RBI
Barry Bonds 2000: 49 HR/106 RBI
Garry Sheffield 2000: 43 HR/109 RBI
Jim Edmonds 2000: 42 HR/108 RBI

If 40 Home Runs makes you a shoe-in for the mythical annual 135 RBI plane of existence, then how'd all that happen?



I think what you really meant to say was:

http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/funny-pictures-cat-pwns-dog.jpg

Kc61
05-12-2008, 11:40 AM
Dunn since 2004 --

46/102
40/101
40/92
40/106

Last year Dunn hit quite well overall, higher BA, and the RBI total was pretty good. Still has never made it to 110 or above.

Others are all over the map. Thome last year at 35/96. Holliday last year at 35/137.

Raisor
05-12-2008, 11:43 AM
Others are all over the map. .


That's because RBI is a team dependent stat.

Kc61
05-12-2008, 11:46 AM
That's because RBI is a team dependent stat.


In part, Raisor. But it is also because of production in non-home run situations. A .350 hitter typically will get a bunch of RBIs from non-home run at bats, singles and doubles. A .250 hitter, with far fewer singles and doubles, may get fewer RBIs overall.

Yes, RBI is team dependent, obviously. But Matt Holliday got more RBIs than Dunn, in part, because he hit .340 and Dunn hit .264. Holliday had 216 base hits overall, Adam had 138.

Sea Ray
05-12-2008, 11:48 AM
Is it really all that rare? Research tells us it's not. In 2007 Prince Fielder hit 50 HR and drove in 119 Runs. Remove 10 solo shots and you have 40 HR and 109 RBI; which would be three more RBI than Dunn posted. Others recently:

Derrek Lee 2005: 46 HR/107 RBI
Barry Bonds 2004: 45 HR/101 RBI
Jim Thome 2004: 42 HR/105 RBI
Jim Edmonds 2004: 42 HR/111 RBI
Moises Alou 2004: 39 HR/106 RBI
Barry Bonds 2003: 45 HR/90 RBI
Javy Lopez 2003: 43 HR/109 RBI
Sammy Sosa 2003: 40 HR/103 RBI
Jeff Bagwell 2003: 39 HR/100 RBI
Jim Edmonds 2003: 39 HR/89 RBI
Sammy Sosa 2002: 49 HR/108 RBI
Barry Bonds 2002: 46 HR/110 RBI
Vlad Guerrero 2002: 39 HR/111 RBI
Barry Bonds 2000: 49 HR/106 RBI
Garry Sheffield 2000: 43 HR/109 RBI
Jim Edmonds 2000: 42 HR/108 RBI

If 40 Home Runs makes you a shoe-in for the mythical annual 135 RBI plane of existence, then how'd all that happen?

Over the past four years Dunn has averaged 100 RBI/yr. There's only two on the your list that are under that number. One was a sub 40 HR year and the other was a year in which Bonds had only 390 ABs. Dunn's last 4 years have included well over 500 ABs. That's a lot of chances to drive in runs that Bonds didn't have. Come to think of it, Jim Edmonds also had less than 450 ABs.

If you're saying Dunn is adept at driving in runs have at it. I'm saying he's not and that's why he belongs in the #2 slot.

Highlifeman21
05-12-2008, 11:50 AM
I wouldn't blame the lineup. He can't hit with RISP. His career avg of .221 in such situations has to be historically low. Even Dave Kingman bested that by 20 pts. You can't have a guy in the middle of your lineup hitting .221 w/RISP. Because of that he might as well hit 2nd.

It's tough to hit 40 HRs and only knock in 100 but that's been Dunn's pattern. That's another rare skill this guy's got.

I was waiting for the Kingman reference, and there it is.

RedsZone wouldn't be the same without Dunn being compared to Kingman on a regular basis.

Sea Ray
05-12-2008, 11:51 AM
That's because RBI is a team dependent stat.

Doesn't seem to effect Dunn. Even in 2005 when the Reds led the league in runs scored Dunn's RBI total hovered around 100...didn't vary much from today's offensively challenged Reds team

BRM
05-12-2008, 11:52 AM
Yes, RBI is team dependent, obviously. But Matt Holliday got more RBIs than Dunn, in part, because he hit .340 and Dunn hit .264. Holliday had 216 base hits overall, Adam had 138.

Holliday hitting 3rd all year helped a bit as well.

Highlifeman21
05-12-2008, 11:53 AM
While Dunn might not be racking up the RBIs, he's certainly not lacking in creating runs.

As long as he continues to create runs, he's doing his job, wouldn't you say? Or does he have to create runs with his RBIs?

Raisor
05-12-2008, 11:55 AM
In part, Raisor. But it is also because of production in non-home run situations. A .350 hitter typically will get a bunch of RBIs from non-home run at bats, singles and doubles. A .250 hitter, with far fewer singles and doubles, may get fewer RBIs overall.

Yes, RBI is team dependent, obviously. But Matt Holliday got more RBIs than Dunn, in part, because he hit .340 and Dunn hit .264. Holliday had 216 base hits overall, Adam had 138.

Maybe it had to do with Holliday getting 50 more PA's with runners on, too.

Kc61
05-12-2008, 11:56 AM
This is where the whole Dunn/OBP stat becomes interesting. Dunn walks a lot, which helps with runs scored but doesn't help much with RBIs. Guys seldom get RBIs from walks (bases must be loaded, etc.)

But Dunn doesn't get a lot of hits. In the last three season he has had 134, 131, and 138 hits, respectively. This hurts his ability to knock in runs because, obviously, when you don't homer the way to get lots of RBIs is through timely singles and doubles.

So Dunn's strengths are homers, naturally, and walks leading sometimes to runs scored. But he gets too few base hits to be a very high RBI man. That's just his skill set, some very good strengths, but some areas not so strong.

Raisor
05-12-2008, 11:59 AM
http://www.lookatmeshirts.com/uploadedfiles/thumb/20080401031000_walksnewthumb.gif

TeamBoone
05-12-2008, 12:01 PM
I seem to remember reading an article earlier in the season (maybe ST), that Dusty doesn't have a very high regard for stats. Unfortunately, some managers think they are smarter than what the numbers suggest and/or prove.

Well, when the "smarts" start failing you, seems a smart manger would try going with what the numbers are shouting in his ear. What can it hurt? And it might even help.

RedsManRick
05-12-2008, 12:07 PM
Dusty seems to approach his roster from a fixed view of what it should look like. He then tries to map his talent to that fixed structure. That means Dunn is an "RBI guy", regardless of how his skill set may be better leveraged; In the same way, Corey Patterson is a leadoff man.

jojo
05-12-2008, 12:10 PM
I was waiting for the Kingman reference, and there it is.

RedsZone wouldn't be the same without Dunn being compared to Kingman on a regular basis.

Where's the love for Rob Deer comps?

SteelSD
05-12-2008, 12:11 PM
In part, Raisor. But it is also because of production in non-home run situations. A .350 hitter typically will get a bunch of RBIs from non-home run at bats, singles and doubles. A .250 hitter, with far fewer singles and doubles, may get fewer RBIs overall.

Yes, RBI is team dependent, obviously. But Matt Holliday got more RBIs than Dunn, in part, because he hit .340 and Dunn hit .264. Holliday had 216 base hits overall, Adam had 138.

Matt Holliday had 307 AB with Runners On in 2007. Dunn had 241. In those AB, Holliday saw 415 Runners on. Dunn saw 330 ducks on the pond during his AB. Holliday drove in 28.7% of the Runners he saw during his AB and Dunn drove in 26.4% of his Runners as a result of his AB. Apply Dunn's rate to Holliday's opportunity and you have an RBI total of 110 RBI with Runners On. Add in Dunn's solo HR and you have 129 RBI, which would certainly be enough to impress even Marty Brennaman.

Dunn isn't deficient in this area. Never has been.

SteelSD
05-12-2008, 12:26 PM
Over the past four years Dunn has averaged 100 RBI/yr. There's only two on the your list that are under that number. One was a sub 40 HR year and the other was a year in which Bonds had only 390 ABs. Dunn's last 4 years have included well over 500 ABs. That's a lot of chances to drive in runs that Bonds didn't have. Come to think of it, Jim Edmonds also had less than 450 ABs.

So you mean that suppressed opportunity could make it appear that a hitter isn't driving in a lot of Runs, but that he might actually be pretty good at it? So when Dunn's AB/BB rate w/RISP is one BB every 3.44 AB versus 6.11 with None On, that may serve to suppress true RBI opportunity?

Raisor
05-12-2008, 12:31 PM
Doesn't seem to effect Dunn. Even in 2005 when the Reds led the league in runs scored Dunn's RBI total hovered around 100...didn't vary much from today's offensively challenged Reds team

Glad you brought up 2005.

In 2005, the Reds were 11th in the NL with BA w/RISP .256. The NL average was .261. They were, however, 3rd in NL with OPS w/RISP 808 vs the league average OPS of .762.

They were third in the NL in RS w/RISP.

Funny how that works.

Sea Ray
05-12-2008, 12:33 PM
So you mean that suppressed opportunity could make it appear that a hitter isn't driving in a lot of Runs, but that he might actually be pretty good at it? So when Dunn's AB/BB rate w/RISP is one BB every 3.44 AB versus 6.11 with None On, that may serve to suppress true RBI opportunity?

No, even after he's walked all those times he still had over 550 ABs a year to drive in runs.

Do you ever watch Reds games or do you just pour over numbers all day? Those of us who actually watch Reds baseball see Dunn leaving an inordinate amount of players on base.

Let's get back to my original question which was if Dunn was more adept at driving in runs would you still be in favor of moving him up to 2nd?

Raisor
05-12-2008, 12:34 PM
Do you ever watch Reds games or do you just pour over numbers all day?




I had 12:30 in the pool, what do I win?

BRM
05-12-2008, 12:36 PM
I had 12:30 in the pool, what do I win?

A new calculator?

Raisor
05-12-2008, 12:38 PM
A new calculator?

They'll take my slide-rule out of my cold dead hands!

You can keep your newfangled "calculator".

blumj
05-12-2008, 01:06 PM
Do you ever watch Reds games or do you just pour over numbers all day? Those of us who actually watch Reds baseball see Dunn leaving an inordinate amount of players on base.

Do you ever watch baseball games in which the Reds are not a participant? Games in which you have no particular rooting interest? If you don't do it very often, I'd recommend it. It helps put what you see when you watch your own team in perspective. It's very easy to let your emotions take over when your team racks up the LOBs, or when their opponents do, just in the opposite way. But there's nothing particularly unique about the biggest power threat on a team being given very little to hit with RISP.

Roy Tucker
05-12-2008, 01:11 PM
I had 12:30 in the pool, what do I win?

http://www.presents-4-kids.co.uk/images/hibba2007/giant_abacus.jpg

RichRed
05-12-2008, 01:33 PM
Those of us who actually watch Reds baseball see Dunn leaving an inordinate amount of players on base.


Even when the historical record of those games you watch suggests otherwise?

Dunn should bat 2nd because of his high OBP skills and because when he's batted 2nd in the past, his overall offensive numbers have improved. On top of that, it seems he told Dusty he's most comfortable batting 2nd but Dusty wants his "RBI men" batting lower in the lineup.

Dusty seems to be the only one who doesn't see the benefit in Dunn batting 2nd. Too bad for us, he's the one who makes out the lineup card.

jojo
05-12-2008, 01:41 PM
Matt Holliday had 307 AB with Runners On in 2007. Dunn had 241. In those AB, Holliday saw 415 Runners on. Dunn saw 330 ducks on the pond during his AB. Holliday drove in 28.7% of the Runners he saw during his AB and Dunn drove in 26.4% of his Runners as a result of his AB. Apply Dunn's rate to Holliday's opportunity and you have an RBI total of 110 RBI with Runners On. Add in Dunn's solo HR and you have 129 RBI, which would certainly be enough to impress even Marty Brennaman.

Dunn isn't deficient in this area. Never has been.

Yep.


Lesson demonstrated: counting stats require context!

jojo
05-12-2008, 01:42 PM
Even when the historical record of those games you watch suggests otherwise?

This shouldn't be dismissed as snark.....it's a very important question IMHO.

Spring~Fields
05-12-2008, 01:54 PM
I was a Dusty supporter at first but as I've read, researched and watched I've gone a 180. It's not his use of pitchers, it's his incredibly bad utilization of hitting resources, his "walking is for dogs" that has guys like BP swinging from the heels at everything (and what will that attitude do to Jay Bruce? and anyone notice CP was making strides at changing his approach until he came back to Dusty - now he's swinging at everything again and again is a K machine); and his refusal to construct a lineup based on each hitter's strengths & weaknesses rather than his preconcepotions of what each hitter should do. Now I'm convinced that when Dusty had winning teams they won despite him, with talent that could win despite mismanagement and I wonder whether the Cubs curse might be old news if Lou and not Dusty had had them two years earlier.

:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:

MWM
05-12-2008, 02:04 PM
Matt Holliday had 307 AB with Runners On in 2007. Dunn had 241. In those AB, Holliday saw 415 Runners on. Dunn saw 330 ducks on the pond during his AB. Holliday drove in 28.7% of the Runners he saw during his AB and Dunn drove in 26.4% of his Runners as a result of his AB. Apply Dunn's rate to Holliday's opportunity and you have an RBI total of 110 RBI with Runners On. Add in Dunn's solo HR and you have 129 RBI, which would certainly be enough to impress even Marty Brennaman.

Dunn isn't deficient in this area. Never has been.

This should end the conversation. Probably won't, though.

Spring~Fields
05-12-2008, 02:05 PM
No kidding. Ortiz has spent much of his career on a team where the guys who bat ahead of him get on base and he has guys batting behind him who are worth a darn. So one could argue his greater RBI count is a reflection of more guys on base in front of him and, if you are big on lineup construction, better players batting behind him so that he sees better pitches.

Dunn puts up solid RBI numbers despite the fact that he often spends the first half of every season batting low in the order because each new Reds manager has this notion that he's supposed to drive in runs. Then of course they have to bat Junior third because everyone bats Junior third. Since they're both left-handed, the manager has to put a righty between them, so that means Dunn usually bats fifth for new managers. Now, batting fifth, he has to deal with the facts that 1) he comes up less often than he would if he were batting higher in the order, 2) other players batting ahead of him aren't getting on base as often as he does, and 3) he often has guys like Phillips and Keppinger (and Sean Casey in years gone by) who are prone to hitting in double plays. He also has fewer good hitters batting behind him, which may lead to more pitches out of the zone. There are so many factors that go into RBIs. BA/RISP is one of them and just going by the raw numbers out of context doesn't quite paint the full picture. To continue the art metaphor, it's like looking at Da Vinci's "The Last Supper," but only focusing on Judas.

By the way, my art metaphor by no means implies that I believe Dunn's skills as a hitter equate to Da Vinci's skill as a painter. It's just a metaphor.

Exactly.

Management won't even try putting Griffey behind Dunn for a significant time, let alone stacking behind Dunn a Griffey, Votto, Encarcion mix to accomplish what has worked for other teams and as you are speaking to above. We really don't know what Adam Dunn could do, we never saw him in a setting as you are speaking to. The annoying part is that there is nothing to stop them from trying now, nothing, but some old mindset that is erroneous when it comes to Dunn.

Some of Juniors best years were accomplished in Seattle in the 3 hole with a team around him like you are talking about. Reds management wants Dunn and others to do that for Griffey now, instead of Griffey doing that for the other players in the present, Griffey doesn't have it anymore to have it like he did in Seattle.

MWM
05-12-2008, 02:07 PM
Do you ever watch Reds games or do you just pour over numbers all day? Those of us who actually watch Reds baseball see Dunn leaving an inordinate amount of players on base.


This is always the first card that's played when someone's POV has overwhelmingly been show to lack merit. It's like the sun rising in the east.

RichRed
05-12-2008, 02:10 PM
The annoying part is that there nothing to stop them from trying now, nothing, but some old mindset that is erroneous when it comes to Dunn.

No kidding. With all the losing, why NOT try it just to see if something good comes of it? What's the worst that could happen - more losing?

I'm waiting for Dusty to be hit by a sudden stroke of competence but instead, I'll just look for more gems like trying Corey Patterson in the 3-spot.

Sea Ray
05-12-2008, 02:18 PM
Do you ever watch baseball games in which the Reds are not a participant? Games in which you have no particular rooting interest? If you don't do it very often, I'd recommend it. It helps put what you see when you watch your own team in perspective. It's very easy to let your emotions take over when your team racks up the LOBs, or when their opponents do, just in the opposite way. But there's nothing particularly unique about the biggest power threat on a team being given very little to hit with RISP.

Because of the Reds futility in recent years, the Extra Innings package is a must. I couldn't live without it. Again, I think the .221 lifetime avg w/ RISP is pretty low for the biggest power threat on any team.

Talk about a Mendoza line...Dunn's .221 is only 10 pts better than Mario Mendoza's RISP lifetime avg.

Sea Ray
05-12-2008, 02:23 PM
Even when the historical record of those games you watch suggests otherwise?




Yes, the historical record is that he doesn't hit well with RISP and no amount of walks will change that

pahster
05-12-2008, 02:24 PM
Because of the Reds futility in recent years, the Extra Innings package is a must. I couldn't live without it. Again, I think the .221 lifetime avg w/ RISP is pretty low for the biggest power threat on any team.

Talk about a Mendoza line...Dunn's .221 is only 10 pts better than Mario Mendoza's RISP lifetime avg.

Oh, please.

Career with RISP
Mendoza: .211/.237/.260/.497
Dunn: .221/.411/.459/.870

Career
Mendoza: .215/.245/.262/.507 OPS+ = 41
Dunn: .247/.380/.516/.896 OPS+ = 129

You'd be hard pressed to find two worse comps for one another.

Sea Ray
05-12-2008, 02:32 PM
Oh, please.

Career with RISP
Mendoza: .211/.237/.260/.497
Dunn: .221/.411/.459/.870

Career
Mendoza: .215/.245/.262/.507 OPS+ = 41
Dunn: .247/.380/.516/.896 OPS+ = 129

You'd be hard pressed to find two worse comps for one another.


Those stats show that Dunn hits for more power and that he draws more walks. No one here is denying that Dunn is one of the very best in the game at drawing walks and hitting HRs. That's not in dispute. But his skills end there.

jojo
05-12-2008, 02:32 PM
Oh, please.

Career with RISP
Mendoza: .211/.237/.260/.497
Dunn: .221/.411/.459/.870

Career
Mendoza: .215/.245/.262/.507 OPS+ = 41
Dunn: .247/.380/.516/.896 OPS+ = 129

You'd be hard pressed to find two worse comps for one another.

It really does look like a jump the shark moment for the Dunn stinks because of his BA/RISP argument......

RichRed
05-12-2008, 02:33 PM
Yes, the historical record is that he doesn't hit well with RISP and no amount of walks will change that

I was responding to this:


Those of us who actually watch Reds baseball see Dunn leaving an inordinate amount of players on base.

Steel pointed out that Dunn drives in a comparable percentage of runners to an "RBI man" like Holliday so it follows that he does NOT leave an inordinate number of players on base. So the numbers that you deride appear to flesh out the truth that you seem to be missing, despite the fact that you "actually watch baseball games."

And by the way, BA with RISP is also a number. Just so happens that it's an essentially meaningless one with regards to real run production.

bucksfan2
05-12-2008, 02:36 PM
I don't know where to find the information but I wonder how many of Dunn's RBI are a direct result of a home run? When I look at Dunn his greatest attribute is his obp. Besides that Dunn can become a liability at the plate. I don't want my RBI guy to be the guy that opposing teams walk the batter before to get to. Walks are great, but they very rarily drive in runs. IMO Dunn just doesn't put the ball in play enough to be an RBI guy. I agree with Erardi on this one, hit him second.

pahster
05-12-2008, 02:38 PM
Those stats show that Dunn hits for more power and that he draws more walks. No one here is denying that Dunn is one of the very best in the game at drawing walks and hitting HRs. That's not in dispute. But his skills end there.

Well, not making outs and hitting for power are the two most important things a hitter can do. Those are some pretty valuable skills.

I hate to tell you this Sea Ray, but RBI on aren't driven by AVG or BA w/RISP; they're driven by SLG. Players who hit for power acquire more bases and allow the runners who have reached ahead of them to move further than they would otherwise be able to. Of course, the fact that runners are present when a given hitter steps to the plate is something totally out of his or her control.

Raisor
05-12-2008, 02:47 PM
Yes, the historical record is that he doesn't hit well with RISP and no amount of walks will change that

*ahem*


Glad you brought up 2005.

In 2005, the Reds were 11th in the NL with BA w/RISP .256. The NL average was .261. They were, however, 3rd in NL with OPS w/RISP 808 vs the league average OPS of .762.

They were third in the NL in RS w/RISP.

Funny how that works.

Spring~Fields
05-12-2008, 02:48 PM
This is where the whole Dunn/OBP stat becomes interesting. Dunn walks a lot, which helps with runs scored but doesn't help much with RBIs. Guys seldom get RBIs from walks (bases must be loaded, etc.)

I have never seen Adam Dunn with a good supporting cast to hit behind him and in front of him for that matter. It seems to me that Dunn’s skill set perception and numbers that appear to be his complete history have been achieved on a bit of an illusion due to how they have pitched him and the lack of supporting cast throughout his career with the Reds.

True that Dunn walks a lot and that a guy seldom get RBI from walks. To me that statements indicates or speaks to a larger truth that the opposition fears or respects Dunn so much that they pitch around him often giving him nothing good to swing at or hit, which will naturally reduce his hit and RBI totals. Most of his walks come from unintentional intentional walks, so they are pitching around him to face who, what? A much lower risk.


But Dunn doesn't get a lot of hits. In the last three season he has had 134, 131, and 138 hits, respectively. This hurts his ability to knock in runs because, obviously, when you don't homer the way to get lots of RBIs is through timely singles and doubles.

Yes because of those walks where pitchers pitched around him and because Dunn is not positioned ahead of solid batters to push the opposition to pitch to him or risk additional runs being driven in when they walk him to face solid hitting behind him. How often will he have to swing at bad pitches in an attempt to achieve hits?


So Dunn's strengths are homers, naturally, and walks leading sometimes to runs scored. But he gets too few base hits to be a very high RBI man. That's just his skill set, some very good strengths, but some areas not so strong.

Put Dunn in the 2 or 3 slot with supporting cast behind him, and in front of him and it won’t shock me if Dunn comes up with a more complete skill set for a hitter, wouldn’t surprise me if he hit more and struck out less, scores and drives in more runs than his history to date would indicate that he is capable of.

KC and others it is not you or others that are denying anything about Dunn, it is management that won’t position him and never has to get the most out of Dunn, they have somewhat hurt his performance themselves with their preconceived notions, mindsets and paradigms in thinking. In spite of their ill conceived doings, Dunn has still produced, I don’t think anyone disputes that here.

OldRightHander
05-12-2008, 02:58 PM
I'm frankly getting tired of the phrase "in scoring position." In baseball it's not as clear cut as in other sports. Doesn't it really depend on what the batter does? I know the term really means in position to score on a single, but how many times does a guy not score from second on a single? How many times does a guy score from first on a double? Was that runner in scoring position? Since he did in fact score, how can you really say he wasn't in scoring position? It must be hard to score if you're not in position to do so. The way I see it, even the batter is in scoring position.

Cyclone792
05-12-2008, 03:00 PM
Because of the Reds futility in recent years, the Extra Innings package is a must. I couldn't live without it. Again, I think the .221 lifetime avg w/ RISP is pretty low for the biggest power threat on any team.

Talk about a Mendoza line...Dunn's .221 is only 10 pts better than Mario Mendoza's RISP lifetime avg.

Simple question requiring a simple answer:

Which do you think more closely correlates to actual runs scored, BA w/RISP or OBP w/RISP?

It's a simple question that you can answer in merely two or three letters, nothing more.

Spring~Fields
05-12-2008, 03:01 PM
Matt Holliday had 307 AB with Runners On in 2007. Dunn had 241. In those AB, Holliday saw 415 Runners on. Dunn saw 330 ducks on the pond during his AB. Holliday drove in 28.7% of the Runners he saw during his AB and Dunn drove in 26.4% of his Runners as a result of his AB. Apply Dunn's rate to Holliday's opportunity and you have an RBI total of 110 RBI with Runners On. Add in Dunn's solo HR and you have 129 RBI, which would certainly be enough to impress even Marty Brennaman.

Dunn isn't deficient in this area. Never has been.

:clap::clap:

Steel is talking to what I can't see watching TV or at the game, and then later looking at the final totals in the stats if I don't look deep enough. The other player or players are getting different opporutnity which I won't see looking just looking at Dunns numbers or the game tonight and then drawing some concluscion about Dunn as a whole. The dynamics change for Dunn batting in the 2 or 3 slot with quality hitting behind him, and increased opportunities in front of him.

Raisor
05-12-2008, 03:09 PM
Glad you brought up 2005.

In 2005, the Reds were 11th in the NL with BA w/RISP .256. The NL average was .261. They were, however, 3rd in NL with OPS w/RISP 808 vs the league average OPS of .762.

They were third in the NL in RS w/RISP.

Funny how that works.




Simple question requiring a simple answer:

Which do you think more closely correlates to actual runs scored, BA w/RISP or OBP w/RISP?

It's a simple question that you can answer in merely two or three letters, nothing more.




*crickets*

Sea Ray
05-12-2008, 03:38 PM
Simple question requiring a simple answer:

Which do you think more closely correlates to actual runs scored, BA w/RISP or OBP w/RISP?

It's a simple question that you can answer in merely two or three letters, nothing more.


To actual runs scored: OBP.

Now, here's one for you, if he were more adept at driving in runs would you still advocate hitting him 2nd?

(Talk about crickets)

jojo
05-12-2008, 03:38 PM
To actual runs scored: OBP.

Now, here's one for you, if he were more adept at driving in runs would you still advocate hitting him 2nd?

(Talk about crickets)

Given his teammates. Yes.

It's a flawed premise to view batting #2 to be a demotion from the 4 spot IMHO. It just means Dunn would be one of the top three hitters on the Reds and has the ability to walk more than whoever was batting 4th assuming the #4 guy had a roughly similar XBH% (EE in this case?).

Raisor
05-12-2008, 03:42 PM
To actual runs scored: OBP.

Now, here's one for you, if he were more adept at driving in runs would you still advocate hitting him 2nd?

(Talk about crickets)


With the current roster, yes.

Sea Ray
05-12-2008, 03:43 PM
Given his teammates. Yes.

That's where we disagree. If I've got a guy who hits 45 HRs and drives in runs I want him hitting somewhere 3-5. Since that's not in Dunn's skill set yeah, he ought to go to #2.

Cyclone792
05-12-2008, 03:43 PM
To actual runs scored: OBP.

It's amazing! See now you'll ignore your own wisdom and go back to blasting Dunn's BA!


Now, here's one for you, if he were more adept at driving in runs would you still advocate hitting him 2nd?

(Talk about crickets)

Of course.

I'd advocate hitting him second regardless of what number appears in the RBI column. When objectively judging the value of a player, that number in the RBI column is about as misleading and inaccurate as it gets.

pahster
05-12-2008, 03:44 PM
I'm of the opinion that a team's best hitter should always bat second unless there are two other OBP beasts on the team.

blumj
05-12-2008, 03:49 PM
To actual runs scored: OBP.

Now, here's one for you, if he were more adept at driving in runs would you still advocate hitting him 2nd?

(Talk about crickets)
Why not? He'd get more ABs, the team would get more runners on base, and score more runs.

Raisor
05-12-2008, 03:55 PM
I'm confused now.

If OBP is more accurate then batting average, why the love for BA w/RISP?

RichRed
05-12-2008, 03:59 PM
This discussion is moot. We should all bow down to Dusty's superior intellect. Not only should Dunn not be moved up in the lineup, he should be moved down (see tonight's lineup - hitting 7th).

Sea Ray
05-12-2008, 04:14 PM
Steel pointed out that Dunn drives in a comparable percentage of runners to an "RBI man" like Holliday so it follows that he does NOT leave an inordinate number of players on base. So the numbers that you deride appear to flesh out the truth that you seem to be missing, despite the fact that you "actually watch baseball games."

And by the way, BA with RISP is also a number. Just so happens that it's an essentially meaningless one with regards to real run production.


I'm not so sure that Holliday leaves runners on like Dunn does.

Dunn is one of the worst if not the worst of all middle of the lineup hitters in his percentage of driving in a runner in scoring position. He does it around 16% of the time. Nearly every other middle of the lineup hitter in the majors is over 20%, most close to 25%.

Here are just a few to give you perspective.


Code:
Dunn 16%
Morneau 24%
Teahan 28%
Fielder 21%
Arod 25%
Holliday 26%

I don't consider BA w/ RISP to be a meaningless stat. Walks w/ RISP don't drive in runs.

MWM
05-12-2008, 04:16 PM
I don't consider BA w/ RISP to be a meaningless stat. Walks w/ RISP don't drive in runs.

Then explain why OBP w/ RISP correlates better with actual runs scored than BA w/ RISP?

Sea Ray
05-12-2008, 04:16 PM
I'm confused now.

If OBP is more accurate then batting average, why the love for BA w/RISP?

Because hits drive in runs. Walks rarely do

Raisor
05-12-2008, 04:18 PM
Because hits drive in runs. Walks rarely do

yet....

In 2005, the Reds were 11th in the NL with BA w/RISP .256. The NL average was .261. They were, however, 3rd in NL with OPS w/RISP 808 vs the league average OPS of .762.

They were third in the NL in RS w/RISP.

Funny how that works

BRM
05-12-2008, 04:20 PM
yet....

In 2005, the Reds were 11th in the NL with BA w/RISP .256. The NL average was .261. They were, however, 3rd in NL with OPS w/RISP 808 vs the league average OPS of .762.

They were third in the NL in RS w/RISP.

Funny how that works

They led the league in SLG w/RISP and were 3rd in OBP w/RISP.

Sea Ray
05-12-2008, 04:20 PM
Then explain why OBP w/ RISP correlates better with actual runs scored than BA w/ RISP?

I was limited to just a few letters in my answer...

MWM
05-12-2008, 04:26 PM
I was limited to just a few letters in my answer...

I'll give an unlimited amount of space. Whether you know or not, you're posing a theory that BA with RISP is more important that OBP with RISP. That theory can be tested very easily by correlating each of the two to actual runs scored. The results are in. They disprove your theory and they disprove it over the 100+ years of baseball. This is the basic scientific method.

If the results contradict your theory, then you ought to be able to explain why your theory is still true.

Ltlabner
05-12-2008, 04:28 PM
I'm lost.

The CF still has to bat leadoff right?

Raisor
05-12-2008, 04:29 PM
I have a feeling, we'll be seeing this soon.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/08/0330chewbacca.jpg

RFS62
05-12-2008, 04:45 PM
http://www.brokenwire.net/bw/images/45.jpg

http://bestyardsaleever.files.wordpress.com/2007/06/blue-lava-lamp.jpg


Any questions?

Sea Ray
05-12-2008, 05:11 PM
I'll give an unlimited amount of space.

I think most of us have had enough of this so I'll wind down with the following. Taken as a league-wide stat OBP is most important with regards to runs scored. It is particularly important with your #1 and #2 hitters. However in my cleanup hitter I'd rather have a guy who can bang hits and drive in runs with RISP. A ton of walks does not make up for an abysmal BA. A walk is not equal to a hit. It goes like this hit>walk>out. Because Dunn has shown over and over again that he can't do that he ought to hit #2.

OldRightHander
05-12-2008, 05:17 PM
It all comes down to round pegs and square holes. The Reds have just had managers with big hammers who are always trying to pound pegs into the wrong holes.

Raisor
05-12-2008, 05:21 PM
Walks w/ RISP don't drive in runs.

They do, however, CREATE runs.

Raisor
05-12-2008, 05:22 PM
I think most of us have had enough of this so I'll wind down with the following. Taken as a league-wide stat OBP is most important with regards to runs scored. It is particularly important with your #1 and #2 hitters. However in my cleanup hitter I'd rather have a guy who can bang hits and drive in runs with RISP. A ton of walks does not make up for an abysmal BA. A walk is not equal to a hit. It goes like this hit>walk>out. Because Dunn has shown over and over again that he can't do that he ought to hit #2.

You understand that batting average is included in OBP, right?

Sea Ray
05-12-2008, 05:23 PM
They do, however, CREATE runs.

True but hits do both...

Kc61
05-12-2008, 05:24 PM
They do, however, CREATE runs.

How does a walk create a run?

You mean because if on base, a guy can possibly score?

Just asking what the reasoning is. Never has been clear to me.

jojo
05-12-2008, 05:27 PM
However in my cleanup hitter I'd rather have a guy who can bang hits and drive in runs with RISP. A ton of walks does not make up for an abysmal BA. A walk is not equal to a hit. It goes like this hit>walk>out. Because Dunn has shown over and over again that he can't do that he ought to hit #2.

Yet Dunn compared very favorably to others in Steel's earlier post. I'm not sure why this isn't being considered in your context.

wheels
05-12-2008, 05:28 PM
How does a walk create a run?

You mean because if on base, a guy can possibly score?

Just asking what the reasoning is. Never has been clear to me.

The more baserunners you have, the more runs you score.

It really makes sense if you can believe it's actually that simple.

Kc61
05-12-2008, 05:33 PM
The more baserunners you have, the more runs you score.

It really makes sense if you can believe it's actually that simple.


OK. So tonight, let's say Patterson strikes out. Keppinger walks. Griffey hits a 400 foot double off the centerfield fence that takes a tricky hop off the fence. Keppinger scores.

So Kepp created a run? Not very compelling to me. Yes, he got on base. Give him OBP credit. And he scored a run. Good for him.

Don't see how he "created" anything.

Not buying it.

jojo
05-12-2008, 05:34 PM
OK. So tonight, let's say Patterson strikes out. Keppinger walks. Griffey hits a 400 foot double off the centerfield fence that takes a tricky hop off the fence. Keppinger scores.

So Kepp created a run? Not very compelling to me. Yes, he got on base. Give him OBP credit. And he scored a run. Good for him.

Don't see how he "created" anything.

Not buying it.

If Keppy doesn't get on base in that scenario, nobody scores.

Raisor
05-12-2008, 05:34 PM
OK. So tonight, let's say Patterson strikes out. Keppinger walks. Griffey hits a 400 foot double off the centerfield fence that takes a tricky hop off the fence. Keppinger scores.

So Kepp created a run? Not very compelling to me. Yes, he got on base. Give him OBP credit. And he scored a run. Good for him.

Don't see how he "created" anything.

Not buying it.

Would Kepp have scored if he didn't get on base?

jojo
05-12-2008, 05:36 PM
Would Kepp have scored if he didn't get on base?

To be fair, we really have no idea what goes on in the tunnel leading to the clubhouse...... :cool:

Kc61
05-12-2008, 05:38 PM
Would Kepp have scored if he didn't get on base?

No. But saying somebody "created" a run because he got on base and somebody else got a long hit is, well, rather high praise.

This statistic considers scoring a run and driving in a run two equivalent events. That is a gross oversimplification.

If Kepp triples and Griff hits a sac fly, then ok say Kepp "created" the run.

If Kepp walks and Griff (somehow) triples him home, I can't say Kepp "created" the run.

Like many stats, this one just oversimplifies things. Doesn't tell the story well.

RedsBaron
05-12-2008, 05:38 PM
OK. So tonight, let's say Patterson strikes out. Keppinger walks. Griffey hits a 400 foot double off the centerfield fence that takes a tricky hop off the fence. Keppinger scores.

So Kepp created a run? Not very compelling to me. Yes, he got on base. Give him OBP credit. And he scored a run. Good for him.

Don't see how he "created" anything.

Not buying it.

Without Keppinger's walk, Griffey's double didn't produce a run, either. Other than hitting a home run, no batter creates a run solely by himself.

Raisor
05-12-2008, 05:41 PM
No. But saying somebody "created" a run because he got on base and somebody else got a long hit is, well, rather high praise.

This statistic considers scoring a run and driving in a run two equivalent events. That is a gross oversimplification.

If Kepp triples and Griff hits a sac fly, then ok say Kepp "created" the run.

If Kepp walks and Griff (somehow) triples him home, I can't say Kepp "created" the run.

Like many stats, this one just oversimplifies things. Doesn't tell the story well.

He didn't create a full run, he was, however responsible for part of a run for sure.

Every non-out event helps in creating runs.

Kc61
05-12-2008, 05:42 PM
He didn't create a full run, he was, however responsible for part of a run for sure.

Every non-out event helps in creating runs.


Then the stat is merely a proxy for "got on base, happened to score." Fine but it doesn't say very much.

Cyclone792
05-12-2008, 05:43 PM
No. But saying somebody "created" a run because he got on base and somebody else got a long hit is, well, rather high praise.

This statistic considers scoring a run and driving in a run two equivalent events. That is a gross oversimplification.

If Kepp triples and Griff hits a sac fly, then ok say Kepp "created" the run.

If Kepp walks and Griff (somehow) triples him home, I can't say Kepp "created" the run.

Like many stats, this one just oversimplifies things. Doesn't tell the story well.

Actually it tells the story perfectly well. It just takes actually sitting down and looking at it with more than a brief skim to understand it.

The foundation of run creation is avoiding outs and acquiring bases. The more outs you avoid (the more times you reach base safely) and the more bases you acquire, the more runs you'll create.

BRM
05-12-2008, 05:44 PM
Then the stat is merely a proxy for "got on base, happened to score." Fine but it doesn't say very much.

Does that mean the RBI stat simply states "got a hit, someone happened to be at 2B"?

Sea Ray
05-12-2008, 05:44 PM
If Keppy doesn't get on base in that scenario, nobody scores.

He wouldn't have scored if Griffey walked either. Griffey's extra base hit was the "heavy lifting" in that scenario

RedsManRick
05-12-2008, 05:46 PM
After reading the thread, I'm still not clear. Are you guys talking about the Runs stat or "Runs Created". Because the former is pretty straight forward (a combination of getting on base, moving yourself around the bases, and having teammates move you around the bases -- with the first and last being by far the biggest components) and the latter is meant to combine the elements of run production into a single run production metric. Where's the confusion here?

Here's a link to the RC stat explanation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runs_created

If Jeff Keppinger hits a triple, he gets more credit for run creation than if he hits a single. The reason stats like Runs and RBI are borderline useless is because of how terribly dependent they are on things outside for the control of the player receiving credit for the event. If Keppinger his that triple and scores a run he gets an entire Run Scored and somebody else gets an entire Run Batted In. In reality, only one run was produced, and both players deserve some credit for it.

If Dunn hits a homer with Keppinger on base, he deserves all the credit for his run and a tiny bit for his contribution to Keppinger's run scored. Runs Created is hardly a perfect stat either of course, but it's better than Runs or RBI.

Kc61
05-12-2008, 05:46 PM
Actually it tells the story perfectly well. It just takes actually sitting down and looking at it with more than a brief skim to understand it.

The foundation of run creation is avoiding outs and acquiring bases. The more outs you avoid (the more times you reach base safely) and the more bases you acquire, the more runs you'll create.

If Kepp walks and Griff triples him home, how much "runs created" credit does each get? The same number or different?

Cyclone792
05-12-2008, 05:47 PM
If Kepp walks and Griff triples him home, how much "runs created" credit does each get? The same number or different?

Different.

Can you tell me how many?

RedsBaron
05-12-2008, 05:48 PM
He wouldn't have scored if Griffey walked either. Griffey's extra base hit was the "heavy lifting" in that scenario

If Kepp hits a triple and then scores on a Griffey sac fly, Kepp did the "heavy lifting," but Griffey still gets an RBI. Those fans and members of the media who worship the RBI stat will not devalue Griffey's RBI because Griffey didn't do any "heavy lifting."

blumj
05-12-2008, 05:49 PM
Heck, you get an RBI for getting HBP with the bases loaded. Even if you tried to get out of the way.

RedsBaron
05-12-2008, 05:54 PM
It's funny, but if you check MVP voting over the years I am certain a lot more league leaders in RBI have been voted MVP than have league leaders in runs scored. There is this old fashioned perception that "driving in a run" is of more value than is getting on base to be available to be driven in.

MWM
05-12-2008, 05:58 PM
Kc, you're thinking of things in term of one run, not the process. So trying to apply something to that single run scored doesn't work (i.e Kepp created that run). Walks create runs through putting guys on base. I certainly don't think you'd disagree with that.

Afterall, based on your ideology, hits with RISP create runs. Yet, a hit with a guy on second fails to score the run quit a bit of the time. But you're a believer that hits with RISP creates runs.

I wish I could go back in time and stop the person who invented the term "runners in scoring position." It's like wins with pitchers. It's conditioned people to think that it matters simply because it's been published for a long time. If no one would have designated any baserunner on 2nd or 3rd as "in scoring position" would people really think of it in these terms as often as they do? I'm guessing no. My guess is people would look more at performance with guys on base.

MWM
05-12-2008, 06:00 PM
Heck, you get an RBI for getting HBP with the bases loaded. Even if you tried to get out of the way.

:laugh::laugh:

RedsManRick
05-12-2008, 06:04 PM
It's funny, but if you check MVP voting over the years I am certain a lot more league leaders in RBI have been voted MVP than have league leaders in runs scored. There is this old fashioned perception that "driving in a run" is of more value than is getting on base to be available to be driven in.

The perception is that an RBI is something a player does, a Run is something that happens to a player. This bias towards supposed "positive" activity is pervasive in old school stats. It's why batting average took hold and not on base percentage. It's why we distinguish between "at bats" and "plate appearances". In their attempts to limit credit to those things a player actually did, and not for things that happen to him, some very odd choices were made.

If you started from scratch, wanting to come up with an accounting system for the game, it's quite likely that many, if not most of today's stats would never come up.

RedsManRick
05-12-2008, 06:06 PM
I agree MWM. To me, "scoring position" is on base. Looking at a guy's production with runners on base would be more informative as a measure of his ability to drive runners in, placing a greater weight on the "RBI value" of slugging.

Raisor
05-12-2008, 06:08 PM
I agree MWM. To me, "scoring position" is on base. Looking at a guy's production with runners on base would be more informative as a measure of his ability to drive runners in, placing a greater weight on the "RBI value" of slugging.

Plus, it's a bigger sample size.

RedsBaron
05-12-2008, 06:09 PM
The perception is that an RBI is something a player does, a Run is something that happens to a player. This bias towards supposed "positive" activity is pervasive in old school stats. It's why batting average took hold and not on base percentage. It's why we distinguish between "at bats" and "plate appearances". In their attempts to limit credit to those things a player actually did, and not for things that happen to him, some very odd choices were made.

If you started from scratch, wanting to come up with an accounting system for the game, it's quite likely that many, if not most of today's stats would never come up.

Decades ago some people argued that it was pointless to even keep track of walks because no batter had the "ability" to draw walks--walks just "happened" without any skill on the part of the batter.

Raisor
05-12-2008, 06:13 PM
Decades ago some people argued that it was pointless to even keep track of walks because no batter had the "ability" to draw walks--walks just "happened" without any skill on the part of the batter.

Those people still exist.

blumj
05-12-2008, 06:15 PM
Decades ago some people argued that it was pointless to even keep track of walks because no batter had the "ability" to draw walks--walks just "happened" without any skill on the part of the batter.

Well, even Vlad draws the occasional unintentional walk. But it's not like you can't occasionally luck into a hit by accident, too.

RedsManRick
05-12-2008, 06:20 PM
Those people still exist in the Reds dugout.

Fixed.

RedsBaron
05-12-2008, 06:25 PM
Fixed.

:laugh:

RedsManRick
05-12-2008, 06:34 PM
Well, even Vlad draws the occasional unintentional walk. But it's not like you can't occasionally luck into a hit by accident, too.

Every pitch thrown is a chance to swing. Choosing not to swing is still a choice, even when it's obvious. Pudge Rodriguez walked 9 times in 515 PA last year. If pitchers know you can't hit, or if you refuse to take pitches, you won't walk very much at all. When Vlad walks, it is very much a reflection of his hitting skill. Otherwise, it's not likely that the pitcher would be throwing the balls so far away from the plate.

You simply cannot luck your way in to a good walk total. But it's human bias - if a guy succeeds by not doing something, it looks like luck.

Sea Ray
05-12-2008, 06:46 PM
My point is that hits and walks are not equal so they should not be treated as such. Hits are more beneficial than walks. Does anyone disagree with me?

Yachtzee
05-12-2008, 06:48 PM
Every pitch thrown is a chance to swing. Choosing not to swing is still a choice, even when it's obvious. Pudge Rodriguez walked 9 times in 515 PA last year. If pitchers know you can't hit, or if you refuse to take pitches, you won't walk very much at all. When Vlad walks, it is very much a reflection of his hitting skill. Otherwise, it's not likely that the pitcher would be throwing the balls so far away from the plate.

You simply cannot luck your way in to a good walk total. But it's human bias - if a guy succeeds by not doing something, it looks like luck.

Freedom of choice. . . is what you got.

http://www.cosmicgiggle.net/2004/devo%20full%20energy%20dome_std.jpg

Cyclone792
05-12-2008, 06:50 PM
My point is that hits and walks are not equal so they should not be treated as such. Hits are more beneficial than walks. Does anyone disagree with me?

Runs created doesn't treat hits and walks equal. Far from it, actually.

Raisor
05-12-2008, 06:54 PM
My point is that hits and walks are not equal so they should not be treated as such. Hits are more beneficial than walks. Does anyone disagree with me?

What corresponds with runs more?

BA w/RIPS
OPS w/RISP

Yachtzee
05-12-2008, 06:59 PM
My point is that hits and walks are not equal so they should not be treated as such. Hits are more beneficial than walks. Does anyone disagree with me?

In most situations yes. But the problem with a BA/RISP as opposed to an OBP/RISP is that a guy with a solid BA with RISP can actually have a higher propensity to make outs with RISP than a player with a high OBP with RISP. The guy with a high OBP/RISP does something that is undervalued: he keeps the inning going by not making an out. It was once said by an esteemed announcer for the Reds that Home Runs are "rally killers." On the contrary, outs are rally killers. Players that can keep innings going by not making outs increase the chance that the team will score not just one, but multiple runs. While a walk in a micro situation might not be the most optimal outcome, it is still a positive outcome and still better than making an out. With RISP, a walk now means one more guy with a potential to score. If those guys fail to score, who should take the bigger blame? The player who took a walk with one guy on or the guy who swung away and made an out? I would say the guy who made an out. If that guy had more discipline at the plate, he could have kept the rally going by either driving a pitch he could handle or taking a walk, putting yet another man on.

Rather than focusing on Dunn's abilities or lack thereof in certain aspects, I think it's better if we look at what Dunn's skills do, create runs, and place the blame on the Reds failure to score runs on the out machines the FO and manager surround him with.

SteelSD
05-12-2008, 07:23 PM
No, even after he's walked all those times he still had over 550 ABs a year to drive in runs.

You can't have it both ways. You can't look at another player and claim that his RBI are suppressed because of suppressed AB and then flip around and ignore the AB suppression, leading to RBI suppression, that goes on with Dunn due to him being pitched around constantly with ducks on the pond.


Do you ever watch Reds games or do you just pour over numbers all day?

I don't know. Let me check with my pocket protector after I charge my PDA and clean my slide rule. I'll get back to you.


Let's get back to my original question which was if Dunn was more adept at driving in runs would you still be in favor of moving him up to 2nd?

It's a silly question. As the Reds' most productive hitter, Adam Dunn would be the best hitter on the team in any lineup slot on the team. He'd be the best leadoff hitter, the best #2 hitter, #3 hitter and so on. I've already shown you that Dunn is adept at driving in Runs, but that ability is being suppressed by pitchers who want nothing to do with him with Runners On. That's not some kind of Adam Dunn "issue". It is what it is and acting like moving Dunn to the 2-slot is some kind of "demotion" is completely backwards.

Yachtzee
05-12-2008, 07:28 PM
My point is that hits and walks are not equal so they should not be treated as such. Hits are more beneficial than walks. Does anyone disagree with me?

I don't think many would disagree with you on that basic statement. In many situations hits are better than walks. An extra base hit is always better than a walk. In some situations, a single and a walk are equal. However, both are positive outcomes in that they do not involve making an out. However, you have been focusing on BA. The problem with BA in general and BA/RISP is that 1) BA treats all hits, singles through home runs, as equal, even though they clearly are not; and 2) it does not take into account walks. OBP takes hits and walks into account. SLG looks at hits, but gives greater value to hits that accumulate more bases. Both OBP and SLG have been determined to correlate more strongly with actually scoring runs than BA. So-called "stat geeks" look to OPS (OBP + SLG) as a means of trying to come up with a stat that takes not making outs and accumulating lots of bases parts of hitting into account.

The problem with BA is that it can make a player who is otherwise prone to making outs look better than he is.

jojo
05-12-2008, 08:36 PM
He wouldn't have scored if Griffey walked either. Griffey's extra base hit was the "heavy lifting" in that scenario

The two components are related as their values are dependent upon each other.

Mario-Rijo
05-12-2008, 09:14 PM
Rather than focusing on Dunn's abilities or lack thereof in certain aspects, I think it's better if we look at what Dunn's skills do, create runs, and place the blame on the Reds failure to score runs on the out machines the FO and manager surround him with.

I think the problem is that Dunn is given somewhat too much credit for his ability to draw a walk. Yes he definitely has a pretty good eye and he's patient. But if you are the guy on the mound it's just playing the odds/damage control to unintentionally intentionally walk the guy who if he makes contact is the guy most likely to blow the game open with men on base. Why is his ability to take a BB with the bases loaded so much different and yet his OBP avg is not only not as good but worse. He is being pitched too in those cases and he isn't getting the job done, which tells me that even if he had a big bat behind him all it would do is uncover what some already know he isn't capable of making consistent contact. And for a long time I have stated that he needs to shorten his swing to the utmost to maximize his potential. He did so and has improved some (although it's not yet showing this season) but he could do more.

Dunn Career:
Men on 2nd & 3rd - 92 PA - 32 BB's - 19 IBB's - .522 OBP -.235 BA & .993 OPS
Bases loaded - 96 PA - 12 BB's - 0 IBB's - .323 OBP - .257 BA & .931 OPS

For comparisons sake:

Sexson Career:
Men on 2nd & 3rd - 110 PA - 22 BB's - 9 IBB's - .418 OBP - .272 BA & .949 OPS
Bases loaded - 155 PA's - 14 BB's - 0 IBB - .413 OBP -.356 BA & 1.193 OPS

Just as a point of reference these are their career norms
Dunn - .247 BA - .380 OBP - .516 Slg. - .896 OPS
Sexson - .262 BA - .344 OBP - .512 Slg - .856 OPS

So what do all these #'s mean? It tells me that Sexson who has a lifetime OBP% 36 pts less than Dunn's is actually harder to get out when it's crunch time and by a landslide of 90 pts. Why you say, oh it's because he can make contact when he has too. So although Dunn is a good player he ain't Richie Sexson and that my friends is pretty freaking laughable when you think about it. Now don't get me wrong I do actually like Dunn but he get's way too much manlove as if he is somehow irreplaceable which is the furthest thing from the truth. Oh and it doesn't much matter who is hitting behind you when the bases are jacked, the opposition cannot afford to give up a run thus the 0 IBB's for both.

RedsManRick
05-12-2008, 09:23 PM
To me, MR, that's the whole point. On a per/PA basis, Dunn isn't as good as his OPS would suggest at advancing runners. So why do the Reds insist, across multiple managers, to wedge Dunn in to a batting order spot which leverages a players ability to put the ball in play with runners on base? It's by the book insanity. This is going to sound harsh, but when it comes to lineup order, most managers are sheep.

Dunn hits homers and is therefore an RBI guy. It's simplistic and it's stupid. Put him in a spot in the lineup which takes advantage of BOTH his excellent skills -- OBP and power. 2, 3, 4th are all pretty decent ideas. 7th is criminal. It's almost as stupid as batting a fast guy with power who can't get on base at the top of the lineup.

Adam Dunn is a great run producer being used in a way that minimizes his run production. Good going, Dusty. You could flip the 7th and leadoff guys and drastically improve the lineup. That's a pretty sad commentary.

Mario-Rijo
05-12-2008, 09:28 PM
To me, MR, that's the whole point. On a per/PA basis, Dunn isn't as good as his OPS would suggest at advancing runners. So why do the Reds insist, across multiple managers, to wedge Dunn in to a batting order spot which leverages a players ability to put the ball in play with runners on base? It's by the book insanity. This is going to sound harsh, but when it comes to lineup order, most managers are sheep.

Dunn hits homers and is therefore an RBI guy. It's simplistic and it's stupid. Put him in a spot in the lineup which takes advantage of BOTH his excellent skills -- OBP and power. 2, 3, 4th are all pretty decent ideas. 7th is criminal. It's almost as stupid as batting a fast guy with power who can't get on base at the top of the lineup.

Adam Dunn is a great run producer being used in a way that minimizes his run production. Good going, Dusty. You could flip Dunn and Patterson and drastically improve the lineup. That's a pretty sad commentary.

I agree with that I have stated many times he should be #3 in the order given the current group which would be ideal to take advantage of both traits. #2 too me though isn't getting maximum value out of his SLG% with only the 8,9 & 1 spots in front of him. My only beef is that it is thought that he would improve if given a big bat behind him and he may but people make it seem like it would be a night & day difference and I don't agree.

Maybe Bob Boone wasn't so nuts afterall, huh? LOL

RedsManRick
05-12-2008, 09:39 PM
I agree with that I have stated many times he should be #3 in the order given the current group which would be ideal to take advantage of both traits. #2 too me though isn't getting maximum value out of his SLG% with only the 8,9 & 1 spots in front of him. My only beef is that it is thought that he would improve if given a big bat behind him and he may but people make it seem like it would be a night & day difference and I don't agree.

Maybe Bob Boone wasn't so nuts afterall, huh? LOL

But given that he gets pitched around and is a poor contact hitter, if you have to choose to take most advantage of his OBP (2nd) or his SLG (7th), clearly the OBP is the better option -- at least that gets him an extra 50 PA.

Mario-Rijo
05-12-2008, 09:46 PM
But given that he gets pitched around and is a poor contact hitter, if you have to choose to take most advantage of his OBP (2nd) or his SLG (7th), clearly the OBP is the better option -- at least that gets him an extra 50 PA.

True but unfortunately he is still probably the best #3 hitter we've got overall.

Sea Ray
05-12-2008, 10:53 PM
But given that he gets pitched around and is a poor contact hitter, if you have to choose to take most advantage of his OBP (2nd) or his SLG (7th), clearly the OBP is the better option -- at least that gets him an extra 50 PA.

I think we can all agree that Dusty's decision tonight to put him in the 7 hole is one of the dumbest moves a Reds manager has ever done with this guy and that's saying a lot. Having him up there with 2 on in the 6th with Bako and Harang hitting behind him was looking like a disaster. I applaud Adam for an excellent AB and for driving in the run.

SteelSD
05-12-2008, 11:50 PM
So although Dunn is a good player he ain't Richie Sexson and that my friends is pretty freaking laughable when you think about it.

Over his career, Dunn has produced an average of 7.2 RC per 27 Outs. In a full season, Richie Sexson has reached that mark exactly once (2003) at an age-prime 28 years old. He's never topped it. Think about that for a moment. Sexson, at his best, simply matched Dunn's average seasonal offensive output. And at their respective worsts, Adam Dunn trumps Sexson due to his ability to avoid outs. That's slump-proofing in a nutshell and it's why one guy trumps the other- but in the opposite direction.

And considering that three-year splits are far more representative of who the player is now, let's take a look at Dunn's situational splits over the last three seasons:

Runner on 1st only (306 AB): .370 OBP/.563 SLG
Runner on 2nd only (127 AB): .448 OBP/.512 SLG
Runner on 3rd only (38 AB): .490 OBP/.763 SLG
Runners on 1st and 2nd (130 AB): .403 OBP/.531 SLG
Runners on 1st and 3rd (46 AB): .317 OBP/.196 SLG
Runners on 2nd and 3rd (33 AB): .473 OBP/.273 SLG
Bases Loaded (32 AB): .396 OBP/.719 SLG

The composite behavior of Adam Dunn in the situations is a .401 OBP and a .523 SLG. He's been a productivity angel with ducks on the pond. The real RBI driver is SLG and his .528 SLG w/Runners on has been a match with his none-on SLG (.526). The real bonus is that no one really wants to pitch to him with runners on (.401 OBP/.162 IsoD), which provides additional opportunity to his team beyond that offered by a low-OBP .520-ish SLG player. A team capable of leveraging that would have Dunn in the 2 or 3 slot (see: Edmonds, Jim) rather than at 5, 6, or (for goodness sake) 7th.

You also should note that the "established" version of Dunn has received one BB every 3.2 AB with the Bases Loaded over the last three years. That treatment from opposing hurlers began immediately after Dunn's first 40 HR season (2004). That was a respect factor Dunn created due to his performance.

MWM
05-13-2008, 12:07 AM
MR, Adam Dunn has stepped up to the plate over 4,000 times in his career, and you're conclusions are being drawn over a bout 200 of them. That's a bout 5% of his overall plate appearances. Surely you have to realize the folly in that.

Ron Madden
05-13-2008, 02:55 AM
It's very difficult for most Fans to understand that the stats they hold most dear (BA, HR, RBI, W-L record, ERA) are imperfect.

We all grew up believing these stats could tell us everything we needed to know. (we were wrong)

Sometimes we must open our minds to new ideas.

Many of us refuse to let go of our life long beliefs long enough to even try to understand new ideas. (that's very sad)

If we love something, we should indeed try to learn everything we can about it in order to understand and love it that much more.

Mario-Rijo
05-13-2008, 03:03 AM
MR, Adam Dunn has stepped up to the plate over 4,000 times in his career, and you're conclusions are being drawn over a bout 200 of them. That's a bout 5% of his overall plate appearances. Surely you have to realize the folly in that.

Certainly I recognize that it's a small sample, but it's all we have at least with concern to when the opposition cannot effectively pitch around Dunn. When the bases are loaded it's mano e mano and may the best man win. It's important because it reveals alot about who the players really are, i.e. there is no where to hide.

Mario-Rijo
05-13-2008, 04:49 AM
It's very difficult for most Fans to understand that the stats they hold most dear (BA, HR, RBI, W-L record, ERA) are imperfect.

We all grew up believing these stats could tell us everything we needed to know. (we were wrong)

Sometimes we must open our minds to new ideas.

Many of us refuse to let go of our life long beliefs long enough to even try to understand new ideas. (that's very sad)

If we love something, we should indeed try to learn everything we can about it in order to understand and love it that much more.

I truly hope that you are not suggesting that is what I am doing RM, I have opened my mind and have learned quite a bit.

Ron Madden
05-13-2008, 04:54 AM
I truly hope that you are not suggesting that is what I am doing RM, I have opened my mind and have learned quite a bit.

No, I wasn't pointing a finger at anyone in particular. :)

RedsBaron
05-13-2008, 06:31 AM
If I was in charge of the Reds, this would have been last night's lineup:
Keppinger-SS
Dunn-LF
Votto-1B
Encarnacion-3B
Bruce-CF
Phillips-2B
Griffey-RF
Bako-C
Harang-P

mth123
05-13-2008, 06:45 AM
If I was in charge of the Reds, this would have been last night's lineup:
Keppinger-SS
Dunn-LF
Votto-1B
Encarnacion-3B
Bruce-CF
Phillips-2B
Griffey-RF
Bako-C
Harang-P

Just a small change.

Keppinger-SS
Dunn-LF
Votto-1B
Encarnacion-3B
Bruce-RF
Phillips-2B
Patterson-CF
Bako-C
Harang-P

Against a lefty?

Freel CF
Keppinger SS
Dunn LF
EdE 3B
B. Phillips 2B
Andy Phillips 1B
Bruce RF
Ross (grudgingly) C
Pitcher

I could be persuaded to keep Votto in there but he looked pretty bad Sunday against a lefty.

jojo
05-13-2008, 08:34 AM
It's important because it reveals alot about who the players really are, i.e. there is no where to hide.

It's not really important because due to sample size, it's tough to reliably make conclusions about a player.

bucksfan2
05-13-2008, 09:36 AM
It's very difficult for most Fans to understand that the stats they hold most dear (BA, HR, RBI, W-L record, ERA) are imperfect.

We all grew up believing these stats could tell us everything we needed to know. (we were wrong)

Sometimes we must open our minds to new ideas.

Many of us refuse to let go of our life long beliefs long enough to even try to understand new ideas. (that's very sad)

If we love something, we should indeed try to learn everything we can about it in order to understand and love it that much more.

I will throw this back at you. I think too often some of the new age thinking totally disregards the basic baseball stats. Granted every stat has its warts but they also have their benefits. We can debate all we want about which stat is better BA vs OBP but both have their uses. There will be people that say the goal of every at bat is to not make an out while others will tell you the purpose is to drive in a run. There are times when not making an out put the team at a disadvantage where making a "productive" out would put the team in better shape. The key to every baseball game is to score more runs than the opponent. It doesn't matter how that happens, what method is used, or who does what. The basic principle of baseball hasn't changed since it was first played. There have been different tools added that are now at the disposal of managers and players but you still have to score more runs than the opponent.

Ron Madden
05-13-2008, 03:04 PM
True, every stat does have it's warts.

I believe that not making an out and getting on base is better than making a productive out.

JMHO.

bucksfan2
05-13-2008, 03:22 PM
True, every stat does have it's warts.

I believe that not making an out and getting on base is better than making a productive out.

JMHO.

IMO last night Reds game showed the importance of productive outs. The Reds had second and third with none or one out. Dunn reached out and lifted a fly ball to the LF. It enabled Votto to tag and score Edwin to tag up to thrid. A wild pitch later Edwin scored. If Dunn walks he doesn't make an out but he also doesn't score any runs. With a walk he may make the defensive situation a little easier with a force at any base.

pahster
05-13-2008, 03:26 PM
IMO last night Reds game showed the importance of productive outs. The Reds had second and third with none or one out. Dunn reached out and lifted a fly ball to the LF. It enabled Votto to tag and score Edwin to tag up to thrid. A wild pitch later Edwin scored. If Dunn walks he doesn't make an out but he also doesn't score any runs. With a walk he may make the defensive situation a little easier with a force at any base.

This is true in the micro. Imagine Bako hits a home run; the walk would have been better, wouldn't it? This would be so even with a walk, HBP, or non-HR hit. From a macro perspective, the walk is far more valuable than the out (sac fly) because it will lead to more runs scoring in the long run.

bucksfan2
05-13-2008, 03:28 PM
This is true in the micro. Imagine Bako hits a home run; the walk would have been better, wouldn't it? This would be so even with a walk, HBP, or non-HR hit. From a macro perspective, the walk is far more valuable than the out (sac fly) because it will lead to more runs scoring in the long run.

But games are played in the micro. Each individual game is decided sometimes amongs one play or two. When you take an aggregate sum of the games it may say one thing, but when you look at each individual games it says something completely different.

Mario-Rijo
05-13-2008, 03:30 PM
Over his career, Dunn has produced an average of 7.2 RC per 27 Outs. In a full season, Richie Sexson has reached that mark exactly once (2003) at an age-prime 28 years old. He's never topped it. Think about that for a moment. Sexson, at his best, simply matched Dunn's average seasonal offensive output. And at their respective worsts, Adam Dunn trumps Sexson due to his ability to avoid outs. That's slump-proofing in a nutshell and it's why one guy trumps the other- but in the opposite direction.

And considering that three-year splits are far more representative of who the player is now, let's take a look at Dunn's situational splits over the last three seasons:

Runner on 1st only (306 AB): .370 OBP/.563 SLG
Runner on 2nd only (127 AB): .448 OBP/.512 SLG
Runner on 3rd only (38 AB): .490 OBP/.763 SLG
Runners on 1st and 2nd (130 AB): .403 OBP/.531 SLG
Runners on 1st and 3rd (46 AB): .317 OBP/.196 SLG
Runners on 2nd and 3rd (33 AB): .473 OBP/.273 SLG
Bases Loaded (32 AB): .396 OBP/.719 SLG

The composite behavior of Adam Dunn in the situations is a .401 OBP and a .523 SLG. He's been a productivity angel with ducks on the pond. The real RBI driver is SLG and his .528 SLG w/Runners on has been a match with his none-on SLG (.526). The real bonus is that no one really wants to pitch to him with runners on (.401 OBP/.162 IsoD), which provides additional opportunity to his team beyond that offered by a low-OBP .520-ish SLG player. A team capable of leveraging that would have Dunn in the 2 or 3 slot (see: Edmonds, Jim) rather than at 5, 6, or (for goodness sake) 7th.

You also should note that the "established" version of Dunn has received one BB every 3.2 AB with the Bases Loaded over the last three years. That treatment from opposing hurlers began immediately after Dunn's first 40 HR season (2004). That was a respect factor Dunn created due to his performance.

Very well I have learned yet again, this time that 3 yr splits are what matters most because it indicates what the current product is on the field. I will be sure to remember that lesson.

That said you make an extremely good argument but I still feel it's neccessary to know what Dunn's succesful rate of contact is in those situations. I know people must be frustrated with BA but it still tells me how often he is getting on base when he cannot draw a BB. So how well is he getting on base when he isn't getting any free passes in those situations Steel?

SMcGavin
05-13-2008, 03:31 PM
IMO last night Reds game showed the importance of productive outs. The Reds had second and third with none or one out. Dunn reached out and lifted a fly ball to the LF. It enabled Votto to tag and score Edwin to tag up to thrid. A wild pitch later Edwin scored. If Dunn walks he doesn't make an out but he also doesn't score any runs. With a walk he may make the defensive situation a little easier with a force at any base.

So you'd rather have had Dunn get the sac fly than walk there? With nobody out and down two, I'd take the walk. The sac fly increases your chances of getting at least one run (obviously), but the walk gives you the best chance to score the most runs. That's an important distinction. I'm not saying productive outs don't have their uses. If it's 4-4 with one out in the eighth inning, I'd rather have Dunn hit the sac fly than walk. But in the situation from last night, and most situations for that matter, I'll take the walk.

Kc61
05-13-2008, 03:32 PM
True, every stat does have it's warts.

I believe that not making an out and getting on base is better than making a productive out.

JMHO.

Always? In every situation?

Of course not. Bottom of the ninth, man on third, tie game, one out. Obviously the sacrifice fly is better than a walk. The fly ball wins the game, the walk doesn't. Or is it preferable not to win?

I know that many folks have strong views of certain statistical theories of baseball. Ok, but baseball is situational and all stats are imperfect. And whatever stats about past performance can show, none can perfectly predict the future. That's why they still play the games.

OBP is a great stat. Avoiding outs is a great objective. It is usually the best objective. But not always.

osuceltic
05-13-2008, 03:38 PM
For me, it boils down to this: When Dunn was making reasonable money, the team could afford to accept all his imperfections (basically the fact that he only provides any value at all while he is in the batter's box, and that value is good but not great).

But if I'm going to pay the guy $15 million a year, I better not be saying "what he really needs is some protection behind him." For a team like the Reds, if they invest $15 million in any single position player, that guy better be providing the protection for inferior hitters.

pahster
05-13-2008, 03:38 PM
Always? In every situation?

Of course not. Bottom of the ninth, man on third, tie game, one out. Obviously the sacrifice fly is better than a walk. The fly ball wins the game, the walk doesn't. Or is it preferable not to win?

I know that many folks have strong views of certain statistical theories of baseball. Ok, but baseball is situational and all stats are imperfect. And whatever stats about past performance can show, none can perfectly predict the future. That's why they still play the games.

OBP is a great stat. Avoiding outs is a great objective. It is usually the best objective. But not always.

You're right, but that's a very specific situation that's not going to happen all that often. The vast majority of the time, a walk is preferable to a sac fly. Dunn hit the ball well yesterday, but how often is that going to happen? The pitch wasn't exactly close to the zone and he's not Vlad.

My only complaint about Dunn's sac fly is that it came on a pitch that was way out of the strikezone. Maybe he got fooled, I dunno. I'm surprised he was able to drive it because he seems to have a very small zone in which he can do so with any regularity. The SF is certainly preferable to a K or a weak grounder that fails to get the run in, but, given the location of the pitch, the optimal outcome would normally be to take the walk.

bucksfan2
05-13-2008, 03:39 PM
So you'd rather have had Dunn get the sac fly than walk there? With nobody out and down two, I'd take the walk. The sac fly increases your chances of getting at least one run (obviously), but the walk gives you the best chance to score the most runs. That's an important distinction. I'm not saying productive outs don't have their uses. If it's 4-4 with one out in the eighth inning, I'd rather have Dunn hit the sac fly than walk. But in the situation from last night, and most situations for that matter, I'll take the walk.

Absolutly. You give me one run scored and a runner on third with out out and I would take that over a walk in that situation. I agree with you that in theory a walk would lead to a bigger inning but you also Bako, Harang, and Patterson coming up. If Dunn is walked and loads the bases up you have a force at any base along with the "worst" two hitters coming up.

Mario-Rijo
05-13-2008, 03:40 PM
So you'd rather have had Dunn get the sac fly than walk there? With nobody out and down two, I'd take the walk. The sac fly increases your chances of getting at least one run (obviously), but the walk gives you the best chance to score the most runs. That's an important distinction. I'm not saying productive outs don't have their uses. If it's 4-4 with one out in the eighth inning, I'd rather have Dunn hit the sac fly than walk. But in the situation from last night, and most situations for that matter, I'll take the walk.

But the assumption is that any offensive player is somehow solely responsible for the walk. There are plenty of major league pitchers quite capable of not walking a guy if they so choose. If he is determined to pitch to the batter to gain an out (obviously his intent) and he has the ability to do so, then he is more likely than not, to strike out the batter or force him to hit a given pitch. More times than not you are gonna have to find a good pitch in there somewhere that you can drive.

SMcGavin
05-13-2008, 03:47 PM
But the assumption is that any offensive player is somehow solely responsible for the walk. There are plenty of major league pitchers quite capable of not walking a guy if they so choose. If he is determined to pitch to the batter to gain an out (obviously his intent) and he has the ability to do so, then he is more likely than not, to strike out the batter or force him to hit a given pitch. More times than not you are gonna have to find a good pitch in there somewhere that you can drive.

I don't really understand the argument you're making. Why does it matter who is "responsible" for the walk? The question is which outcome will on average lead to more runs in the innings - the walk or the sac fly. In the situation from last night, I believe the walk will usually lead to more runs. Why does it matter if Dunn is solely responsible for taking the walk?

SMcGavin
05-13-2008, 04:04 PM
Absolutly. You give me one run scored and a runner on third with out out and I would take that over a walk in that situation. I agree with you that in theory a walk would lead to a bigger inning but you also Bako, Harang, and Patterson coming up. If Dunn is walked and loads the bases up you have a force at any base along with the "worst" two hitters coming up.

I see your point, but in either scenario you are relying on Bako and Harang to knock people in. The question is really which is better: bases loaded with no outs, or a man on third with one out and a run already in? I decided to look at a run expectancy matrix and here are the numbers:

Dunn hits a Sac Fly:
Odds of scoring at least one run = 100%
Average additional number of runs scored in the inning = 0.983 (plus the one you already have)
Average total runs = 1.983

Dunn walks:
Odds of scoring at least one run = less than 100%, but still pretty high
Average additional number of runs scored in the inning = 2.417
Average total runs = 2.417

For me to take the sac fly and lower my expected run total, it'd have to be a situation where the first run is much more important than the second run (e.g. tied in late innings). Since we were down two last night I don't think you can throw away the chance at a huge inning just to ensure you get that first run in. Just my opinion of course.

Mario-Rijo
05-13-2008, 04:05 PM
I don't really understand the argument you're making. Why does it matter who is "responsible" for the walk? The question is which outcome will on average lead to more runs in the innings - the walk or the sac fly. In the situation from last night, I believe the walk will usually lead to more runs. Why does it matter if Dunn is solely responsible for taking the walk?

My argument is that you are assuming he will work a walk in that situation when he is actually more likely to strikeout which is that more unproductive of an out. A bird in the hand.....

Mario-Rijo
05-13-2008, 04:15 PM
It's not really important because due to sample size, it's tough to reliably make conclusions about a player.

It's not that tough when your eyes tell you the same as the stats do.

MWM
05-13-2008, 04:39 PM
It's not that tough when your eyes tell you the same as the stats do.

But his point is the stats AREN'T telling you anything with those samples.

RedsManRick
05-13-2008, 05:12 PM
You're right, but that's a very specific situation that's not going to happen all that often. The vast majority of the time, a walk is preferable to a sac fly. Dunn hit the ball well yesterday, but how often is that going to happen? The pitch wasn't exactly close to the zone and he's not Vlad.

My only complaint about Dunn's sac fly is that it came on a pitch that was way out of the strikezone. Maybe he got fooled, I dunno. I'm surprised he was able to drive it because he seems to have a very small zone in which he can do so with any regularity. The SF is certainly preferable to a K or a weak grounder that fails to get the run in, but, given the location of the pitch, the optimal outcome would normally be to take the walk.

The trick is to judge the decision rather than the outcome. How often does Dunn make contact on that pitch? What if he had struck out swinging in an attempt to expand his zone beyond his reliable range? Would those cheering the sac fly still be cheering his swing?

Maybe if he takes that ball for Ball 3, he gets a fat pitch on 3-2 and lines it in to the gap. We'll never know because Dunn chased a minimally rewarding outcome of merely putting the ball in play. Maybe that was the right call in that situation, but by in large, given his skill set, I want Dunn trying to punish the ball or get on base, not trying to make productive outs with contact oriented swings at balls 3 inches off the plate. Dusty wouldn't ask Freel or Keppinger to go up there trying to hit for power, he wouldn't ask Scott Hatteberg to steal a base, why ask Dunn to slap a ball to LF (or EE to bunt, for that matter)?

RedsManRick
05-13-2008, 05:19 PM
Absolutly. You give me one run scored and a runner on third with out out and I would take that over a walk in that situation. I agree with you that in theory a walk would lead to a bigger inning but you also Bako, Harang, and Patterson coming up. If Dunn is walked and loads the bases up you have a force at any base along with the "worst" two hitters coming up.

Hence the idiocy of batting Dunn towards the bottom of the lineup. Force pitchers in to either pitching to Dunn or putting him on base for Votto, Junior, BP, and/or EE. Putting Dunn in a "you've got to put the ball in play to have value" role is a really dumb misuse of his talent.

If you want to put a guy in a position that rewards a high contact rate, maybe you should use a guy who's good at making contact. Just a thought.

Sea Ray
05-13-2008, 05:57 PM
Maybe that was the right call in that situation, but by in large, given his skill set, I want Dunn trying to punish the ball or get on base, not trying to make productive outs with contact oriented swings at balls 3 inches off the plate.

I appreciate the walks but I'd like for Dunn to hit a little better than the lower .200s especially when there are ducks on the pond. I'd like for him to be the guy to drive in runs, not leave it to Bako and Harang or whoever happens to be hitting behind him and for that reason I liked his AB in the 6th inning last night. Kudos to him. I don't look at it as a walk or a sac fly. The way I see it he was protecting the plate rather than take the chance he'd be called out on strikes.

He is the highest paid player on this team and it's a shame he's not better at driving in runs but that's where we are. I don't think it's right to blame his teammates or his manager for his shortcomings.

Mario-Rijo
05-13-2008, 06:01 PM
But his point is the stats AREN'T telling you anything with those samples.

It may be a small sample size but it's over his career so therefore it will have to do because it's the only stats available in those situations. And yes they do tell the tale IMO. When he is forced to swing the bat, meaning he is getting strikes thrown up there so he must swing to avoid K'ing without swinging he is a well below avg contact hitter.

I mean what good is Slg% if the guy isn't making contact? Sure he is tearing the cover off it when he makes contact. But if you aren't afraid of him as a pitcher and pitch to him he will make you pay quite a bit less often than your avg big leaguer. The downside is if you make a mistake and if he takes advantage of said mistake (which is still more unlikely than not) he blows the game wide open. When the pitcher cannot pitch around him he rarely talks a BB and although he does make a little more contact than his norm (to be expected) it doesn't go up nearly as much as other hitters.

Sure you can put a batter bat behind him to force the pitcher to pitch to him more often but as the eye and statistics back up it has little effect on his ability to make contact. You call it small sample size I call it half or more of a full major league career.

That said I don't want him swinging at pitches out of the zone either at any time unless it's close enough to be called a strike and he already has 2 of them on him.

MWM
05-13-2008, 06:23 PM
It may be a small sample size but it's over his career so therefore it will have to do because it's the only stats available in those situations. And yes they do tell the tale IMO.

That's not the way stats work. If you don't have sufficient coverage, you don't draw conclusions. You can't say, "well, it's the best we have". That's a sure way to poor decision making. In my career we do a lot of consumer research. If the stas aren't conclusive, we're not using them to make decisions. If you try to draw something out of them that isn't there, that's a recipe for disaster.


[b]I mean what good is Slg% if the guy isn't making contact?

SLG% measures how many bases he acquires per every time he steps to the plate (not including walks and sacrifices). If you acquire a lot of bases, you acquire a lot bases. It's not a measure of the manner in which the hitter makes out. I don't see how that's germaine to this conversation.

Besides, I think your entire argument rests on a faulty assumption that the "only time they have to pitch to him" is when the bases are loaded. If you've got a guy on your team that other pitches will pitch around in all situations but that, then that by itself props him up quite a bit in value. So looking at only that situation (~5% of his ABs) to draw conculsions and comparing him to other players in that situation is comparing apples to oranges.

Mario-Rijo
05-13-2008, 07:01 PM
That's not the way stats work. If you don't have sufficient coverage, you don't draw conclusions. You can't say, "well, it's the best we have". That's a sure way to poor decision making. In my career we do a lot of consumer research. If the stas aren't conclusive, we're not using them to make decisions. If you try to draw something out of them that isn't there, that's a recipe for disaster.



SLG% measures how many bases he acquires per every time he steps to the plate (not including walks and sacrifices). If you acquire a lot of bases, you acquire a lot bases. It's not a measure of the manner in which the hitter makes out. I don't see how that's germaine to this conversation.

Besides, I think your entire argument rests on a faulty assumption that the "only time they have to pitch to him" is when the bases are loaded. If you've got a guy on your team that other pitches will pitch around in all situations but that, then that by itself props him up quite a bit in value. So looking at only that situation (~5% of his ABs) to draw conculsions and comparing him to other players in that situation is comparing apples to oranges.

Understand your point, so what's enough? I mean how many PA's does it take to show that he is a well below avg contact hitter? Like you stated he has over 4000 career PA's, is that not enough to tell you he's not an elite level player, a perrennial All-Star, a semi-perennial AS even? He's a pretty good player but he is treated like he is almost elite around here because he is capable of avoiding outs at a higher rate than most. That's good but the cold hard truth is even the elite lineups will inevitably make 3 outs in an inning and runs aren't easy to come by even for a high OPS% team.

BTW just let me add that although I understand your point I don't agree. A "Sample" is not determined strictly by volume but also by length of time. So although it's not a large volume the span of time should also be included as relevant.

RedsManRick
05-13-2008, 07:04 PM
I appreciate the walks but I'd like for Dunn to hit a little better than the lower .200s especially when there are ducks on the pond.
I think we'd all like Dunn to hit better than the low .200s. I'd like a lot people to perform better than they've performed so far in 2008. Dunn's track record suggests he'll move that number north.



I'd like for him to be the guy to drive in runs, not leave it to Bako and Harang or whoever happens to be hitting behind him and for that reason I liked his AB in the 6th inning last night. Kudos to him. I don't look at it as a walk or a sac fly. The way I see it he was protecting the plate rather than take the chance he'd be called out on strikes.

Given the situation in which he was placed, swinging at that pitch may have been the right choice. I don't deny that. My question is why was he placed in that situation to begin with. He is not a good contact hitter. He never will be. If possible, he should not be placed in situations which only reward contact and which minimize the benefit of walks.



He is the highest paid player on this team and it's a shame he's not better at driving in runs but that's where we are. I don't think it's right to blame his teammates or his manager for his shortcomings.

Adam Dunn is not paid to drive in runs. He's paid to do the things offensively that create them. That means getting himself on base, moving himself around the bases, and moving his teammates around the bases. A focus on the latter is short-sighted. If runs come from putting teh ball in play, then why isn't Jeff Keppinger making $13M? He's one of the best in baseball at putting the ball in play.

What's a shame is that people want to focus on a stat which capture only a portion of overall offensive production. The ability to drive players around the bases with your bat is a great skill. But it's only part of the run production equation. Dunn does a ton of things that lead to his team scoring runs -- and team runs are what count. In fact, over his career, he has done more to help his team create runs than any other Red.

Focusing on his RBI totals is like complaining that a pitcher with a 2.50 ERA because he rarely gives up a homer and doesn't walk anybody doesn't strike out enough guys. It's completely missing the point. Complaining that "Because he's paid well, he should strike more guys out" would just miss the point. Complaining about Dunn's RBI is similar. That Dunn is being placed in situations which minimize his strengths (reaching base, hitting for power) and highlight his weakness (putting the ball in play on demand) is a sad comment on our manager.

MWM
05-13-2008, 07:24 PM
how many PA's does it take to show that he is a well below avg contact hitter?

You're being coy now and changing what was being debated. No one is arguing that he's not a below average contact hitter. I think we've seen enough to know that. I don't think "contact hitter" is any great thing to aspire to. I surely wouldn't want Adam Dunn to worry about becoming a "contact hitter." A lot of the great hitters in the game aren't contact hitter. I'm more concerned about someone being productive.



Like you stated he has over 4000 career PA's, is that not enough to tell you he's not an elite level player, a perrennial All-Star, a semi-perennial AS even?

Again, you're completely changing the point that was being debated. If you re-read your posts, you weren't trying to dispute someone else's assertion that he's an elite player. I don't know of many people who believe he is. People don't treat him like he's "elite'. They simply are defending against those who are constantly saying he pretty much stinks. No, Adam Dunn is not Pujols, Ramirez, or Ortiz. There's a reason why these guys are in a class by themselves. Just because Dunn isn't in heir league does not mean he's not a good and productive major league hitter.

Mario-Rijo
05-13-2008, 07:40 PM
You're being coy now and changing what was being debated. No one is arguing that he's not a below average contact hitter. I think we've seen enough to know that. I don't think "contact hitter" is any great thing to aspire to. I surely wouldn't want Adam Dunn to worry about becoming a "contact hitter." A lot of the great hitters in the game aren't contact hitter. I'm more concerned about someone being productive.




Again, you're completely changing the point that was being debated. If you re-read your posts, you weren't trying to dispute someone else's assertion that he's an elite player. I don't know of many people who believe he is. People don't treat him like he's "elite'. They simply are defending against those who are constantly saying he pretty much stinks. No, Adam Dunn is not Pujols, Ramirez, or Ortiz. There's a reason why these guys are in a class by themselves. Just because Dunn isn't in heir league does not mean he's not a good and productive major league hitter.

The point that was being debated originally was that Dunn is a better fit in the 2 hole than anywhere else in the lineup. I think he's slightly better in the 3 given this current team but I wouldn't complain if he were in the 2 hole. But I believe Yachtzee stated that we should focus on what he can do rather than what he can't do. My response to that was that I feel he get's too much credit for what he can do, as in drawing a BB. Sure his power forces pitchers to sometimes need to pitch around him. But I feel if they just pitched to him they would find his OBP% would drop and perhaps significantly.

I used the one logical situation I could think of (bases loaded) where pitchers would have little choice but to pitch to him to illustrate just how inept he can be at getting on base when he isn't being pitched around. You said that's not enough of a sample size to be meaningful, I disagreed but then asked you what is enough. Yes I was being a bit coy, but I felt you were arguing that he is indeed all he is cracked up to be instead of realizing that you were simply arguing against my method.

jojo
05-13-2008, 08:54 PM
It's not that tough when your eyes tell you the same as the stats do.


If the eyes can't be trusted because of sample size issues, using a small sample to verify them really isn't the smoking gun it might seem to be...

jojo
05-13-2008, 09:04 PM
That's not the way stats work. If you don't have sufficient coverage, you don't draw conclusions. You can't say, "well, it's the best we have". That's a sure way to poor decision making. In my career we do a lot of consumer research. If the stas aren't conclusive, we're not using them to make decisions. If you try to draw something out of them that isn't there, that's a recipe for disaster.

:thumbup:

MWM
05-13-2008, 09:12 PM
The point that was being debated originally was that Dunn is a better fit in the 2 hole than anywhere else in the lineup. I think he's slightly better in the 3 given this current team but I wouldn't complain if he were in the 2 hole. But I believe Yachtzee stated that we should focus on what he can do rather than what he can't do. My response to that was that I feel he get's too much credit for what he can do, as in drawing a BB. Sure his power forces pitchers to sometimes need to pitch around him. But I feel if they just pitched to him they would find his OBP% would drop and perhaps significantly.

I used the one logical situation I could think of (bases loaded) where pitchers would have little choice but to pitch to him to illustrate just how inept he can be at getting on base when he isn't being pitched around. You said that's not enough of a sample size to be meaningful, I disagreed but then asked you what is enough. Yes I was being a bit coy, but I felt you were arguing that he is indeed all he is cracked up to be instead of realizing that you were simply arguing against my method.

Something doesn't make sense to me. If when pitchers "have to pitch to him", they can get him out fairly easily, or he's "inept at getting on base"; then, why don't they just putch to him like that all the time? There's a hole in your logic. If Dunn is inept at getting on base when he's not being pitched around, why would a pitcher ever pitch around him?

jojo
05-13-2008, 09:13 PM
Like you stated he has over 4000 career PA's, is that not enough to tell you he's not an elite level player, a perrennial All-Star, a semi-perennial AS even?

If Dunn could actually catch, he'd be in HOF discussions.


He's a pretty good player but he is treated like he is almost elite around here because he is capable of avoiding outs at a higher rate than most. That's good but the cold hard truth is even the elite lineups will inevitably make 3 outs in an inning and runs aren't easy to come by even for a high OPS% team.

I'm not sure I understand your argument here.


BTW just let me add that although I understand your point I don't agree. A "Sample" is not determined strictly by volume but also by length of time. So although it's not a large volume the span of time should also be included as relevant.

Are you arguing 100 at bats spread over ten years is more meaningful than 100 at bats spread over several weeks?

Sea Ray
05-13-2008, 09:39 PM
I don't know. Let me check with my pocket protector after I charge my PDA and clean my slide rule. I'll get back to you.



I'll take that to mean no, you don't often see them play

Sea Ray
05-13-2008, 09:41 PM
If Dunn could actually catch, he'd be in HOF discussions.



I don't know. That's quite a leap. He'd have to be in All Star game discussions first.

Sea Ray
05-13-2008, 09:48 PM
Dunn does a ton of things that lead to his team scoring runs -- and team runs are what count. In fact, over his career, he has done more to help his team create runs than any other Red.




He does two things to help his team score runs. He hits HRs and he walks. He does those two things better than any other Red. That makes him an above avg player and a nice guy to have around but let's not overblow his talent. He has one All Star appearance in his career. One. There are a lot of outfielders who are better.

jojo
05-13-2008, 09:48 PM
I don't know. That's quite a leap. He'd have to be in All Star game discussions first.

If he could catch, he would be.

Sea Ray
05-13-2008, 09:50 PM
If he could catch, he would be.

You might be right but being an outstanding fielder hasn't helped Andrew Jones too much. He's catching a lot of heat this year in So Cal

Cyclone792
05-13-2008, 09:51 PM
NM

jojo
05-13-2008, 09:56 PM
I had 12:30 in the pool, what do I win?

The clippings from Arroyo's next haircut...... I'd suggest you donate them to "Locks of Love". :cool:

jojo
05-13-2008, 09:58 PM
You might be right but being an outstanding fielder hasn't helped Andrew Jones too much. He's catching a lot of heat this year in So Cal

He's not hitting though.

If Dunn could simply add "neutral defender" to his resume, he'd be a perennial all-star to this point in his career.

RedsManRick
05-13-2008, 10:16 PM
He does two things to help his team score runs. He hits HRs and he walks. He does those two things better than any other Red. That makes him an above avg player and a nice guy to have around but let's not overblow his talent. He has one All Star appearance in his career. One. There are a lot of outfielders who are better.

Dunn is one of the 15 most productive OF. That's impressive. All-Star appearances are just about as relevant as gold gloves. Put Dunn in New York and he's a 5 time All-Star.

BuckeyeRedleg
05-13-2008, 10:48 PM
Understand your point, so what's enough? I mean how many PA's does it take to show that he is a well below avg contact hitter? Like you stated he has over 4000 career PA's, is that not enough to tell you he's not an elite level player, a perrennial All-Star, a semi-perennial AS even?

There are only 65 players to ever play the game (with 3000 or more plate appearances) that have a higher career OPS than Adam Dunn.

SteelSD
05-13-2008, 11:03 PM
I'll take that to mean no, you don't often see them play

Well, I guess I'll just have to call MasterCard to dispute those mlb.tv charges over the past few years then, eh?

I'll sort through my 1,000-odd Excel spreadsheets to find their number (color-coded of course) and then ask my wife to translate for me on the call because I only speak in binary code. Here's how every one of your posts in this thread reads in my native language:

01000100
01110101
01101110
01101110

01010011
01110101
01100011
01101011
01110011

Caveat Emperor
05-13-2008, 11:05 PM
01000100
01110101
01101110
01101110

01010011
01110101
01100011
01101011
01110011

How dare you say that about his mother! ;)

Raisor
05-13-2008, 11:09 PM
How dare you say that about his mother! ;)

I think you missed a "1".

jojo
05-13-2008, 11:13 PM
Well, I guess I'll just have to call MasterCard to dispute those mlb.tv charges over the past few years then, eh?

I'll sort through my 1,000-odd Excel spreadsheets to find their number (color-coded of course) and then ask my wife to translate for me on the call because I only speak in binary code. Here's how every one of your posts in this thread reads in my native language:

01000100
01110101
01101110
01101110

01010011
01110101
01100011
01101011
01110011

I am the eggman, they are the eggmen, I am the walrus,
Coo coo kachoo ka coo coo kachoo??????????????

Boss-Hog
05-13-2008, 11:14 PM
Please leave the personal stuff out of the debate.

westofyou
05-14-2008, 12:52 AM
There are only 65 players to ever play the game (with 3000 or more plate appearances) that have a higher career OPS than Adam Dunn.

Since 1876, 1679 men have had at least 3000 PA's in MLB

Adam Dunn has a better OPS than 1617 of them.

That's good

But the real test is vs the league average (minus the pitchers)

In that category he's at + 125 and places #125 tied with Rocky Colavito and Joe Harris.

And smack in between Jim Gentile and Orlando Cepeda.

Only better than 1554 of he guys with 3000 PA's...Shame on him for not being better.

BTW Junior is at #59

Sea Ray
05-14-2008, 09:21 AM
Dunn is one of the 15 most productive OF. That's impressive. All-Star appearances are just about as relevant as gold gloves. Put Dunn in New York and he's a 5 time All-Star.

We'll add the place he plays to the list of things pulling him down. Every manager he's ever had, his teammates and his hitting coaches head the list. And look at all the people who underappreciate him: many Reds fans, Marty Brennaman, opposing managers (who choose All Star backups), and the fans who vote. I'd put his abilities higher on that first list but that's just me. I am sick of all the excuses thrown out for this guy and you just added one more

Yachtzee
05-14-2008, 10:11 AM
We'll add the place he plays to the list of things pulling him down. Every manager he's ever had, his teammates and his hitting coaches head the list. And look at all the people who underappreciate him: many Reds fans, Marty Brennaman, opposing managers (who choose All Star backups), and the fans who vote. I'd put his abilities higher on that first list but that's just me. I am sick of all the excuses thrown out for this guy and you just added one more

All Stars are a popularity contest players have no control over. If you're going to judge a man, judge him on things he can control and not those he can't.

RedsManRick
05-14-2008, 10:14 AM
We'll add the place he plays to the list of things pulling him down. Every manager he's ever had, his teammates and his hitting coaches head the list. And look at all the people who underappreciate him: many Reds fans, Marty Brennaman, opposing managers (who choose All Star backups), and the fans who vote. I'd put his abilities higher on that first list but that's just me. I am sick of all the excuses thrown out for this guy and you just added one more

I think the vast majority of the people you've listed there over-value batting average and the importance of strikeouts. Just because a sentiment is popular doesn't mean it's right.

gonelong
05-14-2008, 10:19 AM
Is there anyplace that keeps track of how many times a guy is the first batter facing a pitcher? Its seems to me that Dunn leads the Reds, by a large margin, of being the guy that an opposing manager will bring in a new reliever to face.

I am really hoping that Dunn moves on after this season. The organization has no idea how to use the guy so I'd just as soon they get someone they understand what to do with. From a pure baseball fan standpoint it'd also be interesting if Dunn would move to a team that would be able to place him in a lineup as a complimentary player, and not "the guy".

GL

Sea Ray
05-14-2008, 11:02 AM
All Stars are a popularity contest players have no control over. If you're going to judge a man, judge him on things he can control and not those he can't.

All Star appearances are a measure of how you are judged by your peers and by fans like us who vote. When you get right down to it he has no control over almost everything. He can't control how many runners are on base when he hits, where he hits in the lineup, whether the pitcher throws him strikes, whether the ump calls them strikes...the list goes on and on.

If you think he's deserving of more All Star appearances let's hear it. If you agree with his one and only appearance then what's your point? My point is the All Star appearances illustrate that he's not revered throughout the league like he is around here.

Sea Ray
05-14-2008, 11:05 AM
I think the vast majority of the people you've listed there over-value batting average and the importance of strikeouts. Just because a sentiment is popular doesn't mean it's right.

Nobody's right or wrong. It's all opinion. Some value batting avg like you say and others will counter that with the statement "some overvalue OBP."

Sea Ray
05-14-2008, 11:08 AM
I am really hoping that Dunn moves on after this season. The organization has no idea how to use the guy so I'd just as soon they get someone they understand what to do with. From a pure baseball fan standpoint it'd also be interesting if Dunn would move to a team that would be able to place him in a lineup as a complimentary player, and not "the guy".

GL


I wonder if he's steaming that he's been put in the 7th hole? He has good reason to. With the Kepp injury you'd think Dusty will have to move Dunn up in the order but who knows with Dusty...

RedsManRick
05-14-2008, 11:29 AM
Nobody's right or wrong. It's all opinion. Some value batting avg like you say and others will counter that with the statement "some overvalue OBP."

Some things, like All-Star votes and what stats people like to use are opinion. People are free to use Batting Average if they like to in order form their opinions.

But if you are measuring something tangible, like run production, there are rights and wrongs. The impact of certain at bat events on run production is not an exercise of opinion. Batting average and strikeouts are not a good indicator of run production -- at least not compared to other easily accessible metrics. That's not a matter of opinion, it's one of fact.

That many people have an opinion of Dunn that differs from the value he actually provides says more about those people than of Dunn. "All-Star" is a self-defining label. You become an all-star by receiving the most votes, not being one of the best players. It's a popularity contest, not a thorough measurement of performance. It's subject to all the same biases as personal opinion. If people, generally speaking, think that batting average is a great indicator of performance (the lay fan tends to), then batting average will play a prominent role in All-Star voting. That just makes All-Star voting a codified version of the problems people already have when doing gut-based performance analysis, be it using stats that only weakly correlate to run production, being biased to their home team, or what have you.

Sea Ray
05-14-2008, 11:59 AM
But if you are measuring something tangible, like run production, there are rights and wrongs. The impact of certain at bat events on run production is not an exercise of opinion. Batting average and strikeouts are not a good indicator of run production -- at least not compared to other easily accessible metrics. That's not a matter of opinion, it's one of fact.




This is where we part ways. You are in the crowd of "my stats are facts yours are opinions. My stats are better than your stats. I know better than Marty Brennaman, Dusty Baker, Jerry Narron..."

They're all just statistics. We all know about the Mark Twain comment and others regarding stats and figures. When you think your stats are superior to others you've lost all objectivity. Research comes to faulty conclusions all the time in the medical field and other areas.

MWM
05-14-2008, 12:07 PM
This is where we part ways. You are in the crowd of "my stats are facts yours are opinions. My stats are better than your stats. I know better than Marty Brennaman, Dusty Baker, Jerry Narron..."

They're all just statistics.

That is so incredibly false and anyone with any knowledge of statistical analysis would know that. Not all stats are created equal. Then you could just make up stats and say "it's just another statistic and my opinion is that it's just as reliable as yours." It doesn't work that way.

Raisor
05-14-2008, 12:28 PM
So did we ever agree if it was BA or OPS w/RISP that was better?\

RedsManRick
05-14-2008, 12:31 PM
So did we ever agree if it was BA or OPS w/RISP that was better?\

What outcome are we trying to measure? I think often we get lost in the weeds in this debates because all we end up doing is trying to find what stats, none of which is terribly meaningful in and of itself, correlate with each other.

For example, if RBI is a poor measure of run creation/production, then what do we care about what correlates with it most?

bucksfan2
05-14-2008, 12:33 PM
That is so incredibly false and anyone with any knowledge of statistical analysis would know that.

Really?

I agree with Sea Ray about this. There is use for stats in sports. A very important one. However when when basing arguments solely using statistical information you are using flawed logic. IMO BA has been devaluaed while OBP has been over valued. I want hitters who have BA driven OBP versus players who have BB driven OBP. There are very few situations in which a walk drives in a run. There are many situations that I would rather have a player make a productive or run producing out than take a walk.

Every situation in baseball is different. Every situation is unique. In all reality one run can change the entire complexion of a game. Too often what is "supposed" to happen outweighs what is beneficial in a given situation.

Raisor
05-14-2008, 12:45 PM
Really?

I agree with Sea Ray about this. There is use for stats in sports. A very important one. However when when basing arguments solely using statistical information you are using flawed logic. IMO BA has been devaluaed while OBP has been over valued. I want hitters who have BA driven OBP versus players who have BB driven OBP. .


2004 Reds

Sean Casey 324/381/534 24-99
Adam Dunn 266/388/569 46-102

Who had the better year?

Cyclone792
05-14-2008, 12:52 PM
I want ...

So let's see here ... you would actually base decisions on misinformation and flawed data that agrees with what you want rather than accurate information that may not agree with what you want?

Boy I wish the industry I worked in operated that way. It'd be so much easier for me to distribute information based on what people want to hear rather than actually analyzing it and determining what is the most accurate and objective.

MWM
05-14-2008, 01:03 PM
However when when basing arguments solely using statistical information you are using flawed logic.

Once again, no one has ever said decisions should be made solely on stats. That's something you're implying.

I was responding to the notion that which stats are more reliable is a matter of opinion. That's just flat wrong and Stats 101 in any high school or university will teach you that. You don't need a PhD to know that.

If you're trying to measure an output and one input correlates at 90% versus another at 30%, don't try to tell me that it's a matter of opinon on which one should be used here. It's not. That's the argument Sea Ray is making, which is just ludicrous and you don't have to knwo the first thing about baseball to know that. This has nothing to do with Adam Dunn.


I want hitters who have BA driven OBP versus players who have BB driven OBP.

This is a false choice. It's rarely a case where you're deciding between the two. All things being equal, the higher BA is better. But all things are rarely equal. Would you rather have a .300 hitter with a .330 OBP or a .260 hitter with a ..380 OBP. I'll take the latter any day of the week. But if both guys had a .380 OBO, I'd probably take the .300 hitter unless there is a HUGE gap in their power.

westofyou
05-14-2008, 01:05 PM
I want everyone to hit like Ted Williams


"I want" is the beginning of path down faulty logic in the game of baseball, because wanting ain't having and as grandma said.... if wishes were horses we'd all be out riding them now.

Highlifeman21
05-14-2008, 01:11 PM
Really?

I agree with Sea Ray about this. There is use for stats in sports. A very important one. However when when basing arguments solely using statistical information you are using flawed logic. IMO BA has been devaluaed while OBP has been over valued. I want hitters who have BA driven OBP versus players who have BB driven OBP. There are very few situations in which a walk drives in a run. There are many situations that I would rather have a player make a productive or run producing out than take a walk.

Every situation in baseball is different. Every situation is unique. In all reality one run can change the entire complexion of a game. Too often what is "supposed" to happen outweighs what is beneficial in a given situation.

So Norris Hopper and Brandon Phillips are your two favorite Reds?

jojo
05-14-2008, 01:13 PM
If you're going to judge a man, judge him on things he can control and not those he can't.

That's a pretty fair shake IMHO.

jojo
05-14-2008, 01:16 PM
Nobody's right or wrong. It's all opinion. Some value batting avg like you say and others will counter that with the statement "some overvalue OBP."

I don't think all opinions are equal. They have to be judged based upon the strength of the argument underpinning them...

jojo
05-14-2008, 01:25 PM
So did we ever agree if it was BA or OPS w/RISP that was better?\

my vote is for the number of productive outs made in those situations.... :cool:

Actually here's the ultimate metric:

PAs-((k/productive outs)+BBwRISP*(1/BAwRISP))

Clearly, this metric provides the ultimate proof that Dunn is overrated.

registerthis
05-14-2008, 01:27 PM
I don't think all opinions are equal. They have to be judged based upon the strength of the argument underpinning them...

Ain't that the truth.

Raisor
05-14-2008, 01:27 PM
my vote is for the number of productive outs made in those situations.... :cool:

Actually here's the ultimate metric:

PAs-((k/productive outs)+BBwRISP*(1/BAwRISP))

Clearly, this metric provides the ultimate proof that Dunn is overrated.


That's like KRISPy to the 10th power.

RedlegJake
05-14-2008, 01:43 PM
MWM is right, imo. You can't use just one stat isolated to itself but a number of factors.
OBP is maybe the supreme offensive attribute but within groups of good, average and poor OBPs are other factors. Is it hit driven alone? Is it balanced well with a strong BA but a healthy pct of BBs? What is the Slugging Pct? A player pegged as a tablesetter can have values different than a 3-4-5 RBI producer and still be a valued contributor. I think you only over value OBP, or OPS, or ERA, or any stat if you look at it in a vacuum and expect an accurate answer from that single stat alone.

Mario-Rijo
05-14-2008, 02:17 PM
My whole thing with Dunn is that he get's treated as though he is a borderline HOF'er. I just don't see how anyone with as big a flaw as he has at making contact is treated as such. To me those who feel that way are being way too bias to one philosophy. That philosophy is IMO flawed if it says that a guy who cannot make better consistent contact than that is a HOF'er if his defense were marginally better.

Just so I'm understood I don't have a major problem with Adam Dunn, but obviously with this philosophy. I do have a small problem with Dunn at times because I wonder if he is really serious about improving because I feel he can still improve on some aspects but he never really does. My vision for him would be about a consistent .270 Hitter w/o giving up any power by "sewing up" that hole in his swing all the way (or at least most of the way) and moving to 1st base. If he removed the obvious major issues I would be happy to keep him and plant him squarely in the #3 or 4 holes for the next 5-6 yrs, otherwise I will not feel bad if he moves on.

Sea Ray
05-14-2008, 02:31 PM
MWM is right, imo. You can't use just one stat isolated to itself but a number of factors.
OBP is maybe the supreme offensive attribute but within groups of good, average and poor OBPs are other factors. Is it hit driven alone? Is it balanced well with a strong BA but a healthy pct of BBs? What is the Slugging Pct? A player pegged as a tablesetter can have values different than a 3-4-5 RBI producer and still be a valued contributor. I think you only over value OBP, or OPS, or ERA, or any stat if you look at it in a vacuum and expect an accurate answer from that single stat alone.

Excellent points. Stats are just part of the puzzle and those that overvalue them are lost. Have an open mind. OBP may be more important in a leadoff hitter than a cleanup hitter whereas BA w/ RISP may be more valuable for a #5 hitter. I'm just lovin' the responses I'm getting to "superior stats". I couldn't have proved my point any better if I'd written a book on it:)

Cyclone792
05-14-2008, 02:35 PM
My whole thing with Dunn is that he get's treated as though he is a borderline HOF'er. I just don't see how anyone with as big a flaw as he has at making contact is treated as such. To me those who feel that way are being way too bias to one philosophy. That philosophy is IMO flawed if it says that a guy who cannot make better consistent contact than that is a HOF'er if his defense were marginally better.

Mario, I'm sorry but Adam Dunn's production has nothing to do with philosophy here; it's all about run production. I don't care how Adam Dunn or any other Reds players create runs; I just care that they create runs.

It doesn't matter to me if a player hits .350 with few walks, few homers, few strikeouts, or if they hit .250 with lots of walks, lots of homers, and lots of strikeouts. Really it doesn't matter. All that matters is the actual run creation. Just because somebody doesn't like the philosophy or method behind how Dunn or any other hitter like him creates runs doesn't mean he's not creating runs.

Reggie Jackson had a pretty lousy batting average, high strikeout totals (149 strikeouts per 162 games), and a pretty significant "contact" problem throughout his entire career. He created runs largely via the same methods that Dunn creates runs, power and walks.

And you know what? Big deal about how Jackson created those runs. Jackson is still one of the 10 or 12 greatest right fielders in the history of the game because of the runs he actually did create. Really what you're arguing above is that a player like Reggie Jackson shouldn't even be considered a Hall of Famer simply because he had a contact problem, and I hate to say it, but that notion is silly.

pahster
05-14-2008, 02:49 PM
Excellent points. Stats are just part of the puzzle and those that overvalue them are lost. Have an open mind. OBP may be more important in a leadoff hitter than a cleanup hitter whereas BA w/ RISP may be more valuable for a #5 hitter. I'm just lovin' the responses I'm getting to "superior stats". I couldn't have proved my point any better if I'd written a book on it:)

I can tell you if it were an academic book, it'd be ripped to shreds in peer review.

dabvu2498
05-14-2008, 02:51 PM
This is virtually unrelated, but I wanted to throw it out there, because I discovered it because of reading this thread and found it interesting.

Number of times Adam Dunn has finished in the top 10 in the National League in OBP: 0

Number of times Adam Dunn has finished in the top 10 in the National League in SLG: 1 (2004 -.569-10th)

Number of times Adam Dunn has finished in the top 10 in the National League in OPS: 1 (2005 -.927-10th)

Number of times Adam Dunn has finished in the top 10 in the National League in Runs Created: 2 (2004 -132-9th, 2005 -122-7th)

And yet, among active players, Dunn ranks 21st, 25th, 22nd, and 77th (counting stat warning), respectively, in the above categories.

To me, that says something that is both good and bad. The good -- he's reasonably consistent -- there's not one breakout, "Holy crap!" year there where he does something phenominal like have over 350 total bases or get on base 350 times to "pump up" his stats. The bad -- there's not one breakout, "Holy crap!" year there where he does something phenominal like have over 350 total bases or get on base 350 times to "pump up" his stats.

I just found that interesting.

Back to your previously scheduled stat geek v. non-stat geek argument. ;)

Caveat Emperor
05-14-2008, 02:52 PM
Excellent points. Stats are just part of the puzzle and those that overvalue them are lost. Have an open mind. OBP may be more important in a leadoff hitter than a cleanup hitter whereas BA w/ RISP may be more valuable for a #5 hitter. I'm just lovin' the responses I'm getting to "superior stats". I couldn't have proved my point any better if I'd written a book on it:)

I'd argue OBP is important in EVERY spot in the lineup, from cleanup hitter to #8 slot.

Steel said it best a long time ago -- a hitter has two jobs: avoid making an out, acquire as many bases as possible. Everything else will sort itself out when you've got players that are successful at those two tasks.

kaldaniels
05-14-2008, 02:55 PM
I'd argue OBP is important in EVERY spot in the lineup, from cleanup hitter to #8 slot.

Steel said it best a long time ago -- a hitter has two jobs: avoid making an out, acquire as many bases as possible. Everything else will sort itself out when you've got players that are successful at those two tasks.

I don't think SeaRay meant nor did he say OBP is not important in each spot...just that it is more important in some spots than others. I'd say that is fair.

bucksfan2
05-14-2008, 03:03 PM
I'd argue OBP is important in EVERY spot in the lineup, from cleanup hitter to #8 slot.

Steel said it best a long time ago -- a hitter has two jobs: avoid making an out, acquire as many bases as possible. Everything else will sort itself out when you've got players that are successful at those two tasks.

I don't agree with that assessment. When you look at it a hitter is failing to do his job 60-70% of the time. A hitter's job is to maximize the amount of runs scored in a given game, however possible. It that means making one of the 27 outs in a game then so be it.

Cyclone792
05-14-2008, 03:05 PM
A hitter's job is to maximize the amount of runs scored in a given game, however possible. It that means making one of the 27 outs in a game then so be it.

What you're failing to understand is those two points above contradict each other. In order to maximize the amount of runs scored in a given game, it means making as few outs as possible.

Kc61
05-14-2008, 03:08 PM
I'd argue OBP is important in EVERY spot in the lineup, from cleanup hitter to #8 slot.

Steel said it best a long time ago -- a hitter has two jobs: avoid making an out, acquire as many bases as possible. Everything else will sort itself out when you've got players that are successful at those two tasks.

The suggestion in your statement is that timeliness of hitting is unimportant. That if you have a good OBP and "acquire bases" you will cause runs to score, regardless of when those bases are acquired. That's the logical extension of your point.

It's probably true for top notch hitters. If you OBP .400 and OPS 1.000 you likely will be in the middle of a lot of runs, assuming a competent supporting cast.

But what it you are a .330 OBP guy with a .780 OPS. Wouldn't you agree that timeliness of hitting is a factor that will influence the number of runs scored by your performance?

jojo
05-14-2008, 03:19 PM
I'm just lovin' the responses I'm getting to "superior stats". I couldn't have proved my point any better if I'd written a book on it:)

Those comments must be via PMs.....

The point is pretty simple. "Stats" is a term that describes a host of metrics each with their strengths and weakness with all requiring proper context and appropriate sample size. Often there is a hierarchy of metrics that measure a certain event based upon an understanding of their flaws (i.e. play by play based metrics are better than errors for defense or linear weights are better than rbis for offensive production).

Therefore all statistical arguments are not created equal. There's nothing pejorative about that statement.

bucksfan2
05-14-2008, 03:23 PM
What you're failing to understand is those two points above contradict each other. In order to maximize the amount of runs scored in a given game, it means making as few outs as possible.

How do they contradict themselves? In a vacuum sure they contradict themselves. But when you look at each individual game and each individual situation they are not contradictary.