PDA

View Full Version : Dunn traded to D-Backs Part II



Pages : 1 2 [3]

TeamBoone
09-03-2008, 12:42 AM
It remains to be see how he's treated elsewhere when he slumps, but we can already see that he's treated better when he's going good.

Or.... perhaps when he's treated better, he plays "gooder"... maybe he tried too hard in Cincy due to all the media sniping about how bad/worthless he was.

Ron Madden
09-03-2008, 03:21 AM
:(
It's a little early for the D-Backs folks to be saying that. Sept has just begun.

If they don't win the West and Dunn has a Sept swoon the last time he had the pressure of a pennant race (2006) then I guarantee they will be blaming him.

In Sept 2006 when the Reds needed him more than ever he hit .161, slugged .264 and had 37 Ks in 87 ABs. He knocked in 5 runs for the entire month. That's enough to get any fanbase a little testy. If he has that sort of Sept swoon, let's see what they say about him then.

Fortunately Dunn has performed very well for Az thus far and that's the reason they're enjoying him so much.


Adam Dunn is doing his job. He's doing the same thing for the D-Backs as he always did for the Reds. He's avoiding outs by getting on base and increasing his teams chances of scoring runs. D-Backs announcers and fans understand that. Reds announcers and most Reds fans never did.

edabbs44
09-03-2008, 05:20 AM
Didn't mean it as bait, I just stick by my stance that AB's with less pressure early in the season mean as much as the AB's late in the season with pressure...

Not necessarily. Games down the stretch when you are in the race have more pressure than those in April.

Ltlabner
09-03-2008, 06:44 AM
I'm actually surprised that no one's brought up the fact that the 2006 Reds weren't actually legitimate players in a "pennant race". They limped into September with a negative Run Differential and had produced a record above .440 in exactly one month (June) of the four prior. While it's certainly appropriate to note that any number of Reds' offensive players had poor Septembers that year, it sure as heck didn't happen while in a real honest-to-goodness "pennant race".

Actually, as I read the last page this morning that's exactly what I was thinking.

It was said over and over that the whole race was an illusion (mostly because the Cards refused to seal the deal until the last minute). So this whole fabrication based around Dunn slumping (the implication clearly being that if he didn't slump we'd have made it) being the cause for us being "knocked out of playoff contention" is patently silly.

And whether it's implied, hinted at or generally tip-toed around, that's *exactly* what some folks are getting at.

The whole damn team sucked in September, but it was all Dunn's fault. :explode:

Ltlabner
09-03-2008, 06:45 AM
Not necessarily. Games down the stretch when you are in the race have more pressure than those in April.

Whoptie doo.

If you don't perform in those low-pressure April games, you'll never have to worry about those high-pressure September games.

One game does not mean more than another.

edabbs44
09-03-2008, 07:13 AM
Whoptie doo.

If you don't perform in those low-pressure April games, you'll never have to worry about those high-pressure September games.

One game does not mean more than another.

Kind of true, but you are spinning the discussion away from where it was headed.

Do you think that the NYY have been feeling a considerable amt more pressure these last few weeks than they did in the same situations in April? Do you think Adam Dunn should be feeling a little more pressure than he did in May?

Ltlabner
09-03-2008, 07:21 AM
Kind of true, but you are spinning the discussion away from where it was headed.

Do you think that the NYY have been feeling a considerable amt more pressure these last few weeks than they did in the same situations in April? Do you think Adam Dunn should be feeling a little more pressure than he did in May?

Beats me, I'm not inside their heads or in their clubhouses.

Who's to say they aren't fealing excited? Or exhilerated? Or verklempt? Or morose? Or vexed?

edabbs44
09-03-2008, 07:30 AM
Beats me, I'm not inside their heads or in their clubhouses.

Who's to say they aren't fealing excited? Or exhilerated? Or verklempt? Or morose? Or vexed?

You're right. Let's rip the human element out of the game and go with this version. These guys are just numbers anyway.

Ltlabner
09-03-2008, 07:33 AM
You're right. Let's rip the human element out of the game and go with this version. These guys are just numbers anyway.

Obviously there's a human element, and some guys respond to pressure better than others.

But you are *assuming* these guys feel pressure when there's no evidence to support it. And that imaginary pressure will effect their game in some fashion.

Maybe Gerardi pushes them hard out of the gate in April in hopes of getting a good lead? Maybe Dunn feels more relaxed now that he has a real team, with real hitters around him?

Because you think they should be fealing X doesn't mean it's true.

jojo
09-03-2008, 07:53 AM
That 2006 Reds team had played nine games under .500 from May through August after a miraculous defeat of the gods of luck in April. Especially in this case, we can completely ignore the GB column, as we often should, because the quality of a team speaks to it's ability to overcome deficits in the standings. That 2006 Reds team? No. No way.

As far as "pressure", that's a neat construct but unless we were inside each player's head, we have no idea whether or not it means anything at all- especially on a team that had been playing sub-.500 baseball for months.

September 2006 was something, but it certainly wasn't a "pennant race".

You're absolutely right. April through August clearly forecast September.

That doesn't mean April through August predicted the exact route the Reds actually took, but the most likely endpoint was clearly written on the wall.

Then factor in "the trade".....

nate
09-03-2008, 08:31 AM
I'm actually surprised that no one's brought up the fact that the 2006 Reds weren't actually legitimate players in a "pennant race". They limped into September with a negative Run Differential and had produced a record above .440 in exactly one month (June) of the four prior. While it's certainly appropriate to note that any number of Reds' offensive players had poor Septembers that year, it sure as heck didn't happen while in a real honest-to-goodness "pennant race".

Exactly. That 2006 season was pretty much lost from the middle of June to the days leading up to "the trade." The rest of the NL Central being bad simply let the Reds hang out with the cool kids for an extra period before going to marching band practice.

Disclosure, I was in marching band

PuffyPig
09-03-2008, 08:34 AM
:(


D-Backs announcers and fans understand that. Reds announcers and most Reds fans never did.

What are you basing your statement that D-Backs fans appreciate OBA guys vs. Red's fans?

Sea Ray
09-03-2008, 09:18 AM
The 2006 Reds were w/i 5 games of 1st place for most of the month and weren't mathematically eliminated until game # 161. That's the definition of being in a pennant race. By Steel's definition the D-Backs aren't in a race either because they're struggling to play .500 ball.

Only on RZ can we argue for pages and pages who's in a pennant race...

flyer85
09-03-2008, 09:30 AM
:deadhorse

Matt700wlw
09-03-2008, 09:30 AM
Dunn on playing first, which he has the past couple of days

http://www.azstarnet.com/allheadlines/255799



This organization has no stones.

flyer85
09-03-2008, 09:37 AM
This organization has no stones.my thought at the time was the Reds really weren't all that interested in moving him to 1st ... but who knows.

The organization has been mismanaged from top to bottom for years so there is nothing surprising about their failure where others succeed.

edabbs44
09-03-2008, 09:41 AM
Dunn on playing first, which he has the past couple of days

http://www.azstarnet.com/allheadlines/255799



This organization has no stones.

While I agree with your closing statement, I also believe that many on here thought that he would end up being a fiasco at first base.

GoReds
09-03-2008, 09:45 AM
Dunn needed to get out of Cincy.

There's been some discussion that Clemens would not have been the pitcher he was in the second half of his career had he stayed with the Red Sox. It's unfortunate, but I think Dunn's potential would not have been met had he stayed in Cincy.

It very well could be that Dunn expressed a lack of interest in playing first for the Reds. Apparently, the Diamondbacks have given him new perspective.

Whatever. He's no longer here. Bashing the org and/or Dunn isn't going to change that.

RedsManRick
09-03-2008, 10:18 AM
It very well could be that Dunn expressed a lack of interest in playing first for the Reds. Apparently, the Diamondbacks have given him new perspective.

Who knows what was actually said. But he could very well prefer LF and still having no "problem" playing 1B. Dunn seems very much like a go-along, get-along type of guy. I'm sure he feels more comfortable in LF, but he's not going to go in to operation shut-down in asked to play elsewhere.

I'm sure the Junior batting 3rd situation was comparable.

flyer85
09-03-2008, 10:22 AM
Hopefully the trading of Dunn was an early step on the path to rebuilding. There is no one left that profiles to be above average offensively at their position. This is a team that needs to be stripped down and rebuilt to compete starting in 2011 ... I have no confidence that this is the current objective and that they could get it done even if it was their goal.

Matt700wlw
09-03-2008, 10:23 AM
While I agree with your closing statement, I also believe that many on here thought that he would end up being a fiasco at first base.

That's very possible....

nate
09-03-2008, 10:40 AM
While I agree with your closing statement, I also believe that many on here thought that he would end up being a fiasco at first base.

I believe the opinions on the matter were as varied and numerous as the discard prototypes for "Dusty Baker #12" sweatbands.

SteelSD
09-03-2008, 11:26 AM
The 2006 Reds were w/i 5 games of 1st place for most of the month and weren't mathematically eliminated until game # 161. That's the definition of being in a pennant race. By Steel's definition the D-Backs aren't in a race either because they're struggling to play .500 ball.

As of September 1st, 2006 the Reds had produced a -25 Run Diff and their GM had weakened the team during the course of the season. As of September 1st, 2008, the Arizona Diamondbacks had produced a +31 Run Diff and their GM had strengthened the team.

There's a significant difference between the outlook of a runner who's legitimately leading a race, albeit a slower competition, and another who faded a while back and then lost a shoe. The former can determine his own fate based on his performance to the end while the latter can only hope that the leader somehow trips over his own shoelaces.

The imaginary "pennant race" of 2006 is the worst possible thing that could have happened to that franchise at the time.

Roy Tucker
09-03-2008, 11:35 AM
Yeah, I remember the pennant race of 2006.

We used words like "sneak in", "hope someone stumbles", "what if", "by some miracle", "stranger things have happened", and "did you know they still have a chance".

IslandRed
09-03-2008, 11:48 AM
But he could very well prefer LF and still having no "problem" playing 1B. Dunn seems very much like a go-along, get-along type of guy. I'm sure he feels more comfortable in LF, but he's not going to go in to operation shut-down in asked to play elsewhere.

We have to remember the context -- at the time, Krivsky had just been named GM and he wanted to get Dunn's situation handled pronto. (At the time, they were getting ready to go into arbitration, I think, and Dunn would have been a free agent after 2007.) And he probably already had an eye towards trading an outfielder for pitching. So Krivsky was expecting to shop for either a left fielder or a first baseman anyway, while simultaneously trying to buy out Dunn's remaining arbitration and get him to accept a club option for '08. I'm sure it didn't hurt those negotiations to tell him, "whichever spot you like better, that's where you'll play."

NJReds
09-03-2008, 11:48 AM
Yeah, I remember the pennant race of 2006.

We used words like "sneak in", "hope someone stumbles", "what if", "by some miracle", "stranger things have happened", and "did you know they still have a chance".

I'll take that over this year's alternative ... "time for a firesale?" "when does football start?" "it's over before July 4" "why do I watch this team?" "corey patterson's leading off again?"

flyer85
09-03-2008, 11:50 AM
I'll take that over this year's alternative
I want neither ... I paid little attention in 2006 just as this year. When will the Reds give the fans a winner instead a load of manure?

Sea Ray
09-03-2008, 12:26 PM
As of September 1st, 2006 the Reds had produced a -25 Run Diff and their GM had weakened the team during the course of the season. As of September 1st, 2008, the Arizona Diamondbacks had produced a +31 Run Diff and their GM had strengthened the team.

There's a significant difference between the outlook of a runner who's legitimately leading a race, albeit a slower competition, and another who faded a while back and then lost a shoe. The former can determine his own fate based on his performance to the end while the latter can only hope that the leader somehow trips over his own shoelaces.

The imaginary "pennant race" of 2006 is the worst possible thing that could have happened to that franchise at the time.


Let me be the first to break it to you Steel. Division titles are based on wins, not run differential. Last year the Diamondbacks won the NL West with a -20 run differential because they had 90 wins. Run differential has absolutely nothing to do with whether you're in a pennant race. It's based solely on your record and your competition's record. Based on that criteria the Reds in 2006 were definitely in a pennant race. They were beaten out by the eventual World Champion by 3 games. We can argue stats day and night here but the only stat that matters when awarding pennants is W-L.

flyer85
09-03-2008, 12:48 PM
Let me be the first to break it to you Steel. Division titles are based on wins, not run differential. Last year the Diamondbacks won the NL West with a -20 run differential because they had 90 wins. Run differential has absolutely nothing to do with whether you're in a pennant race. It's based solely on your record and your competition's record. Based on that criteria the Reds in 2006 were definitely in a pennant race. They were beaten out by the eventual World Champion by 3 games. We can argue stats day and night here but the only stat that matters when awarding pennants is W-L.all a matter of perspective I guess. They were close in the standings but never made me think they could actually win the division. Where they close to the stumbling Birds? Yeah but I never felt they had a legit shot.

They weren't very good team before July and Krivsky's machinations had made them worse. The entire team tanked and I think most of it has to fall at the feet of a GM who orchestrated deals that made the team worse. Nothing like being a player on a team struggling to stay afloat and have the GM toss you an anchor(and Krivsky tossed a bunch of anchors).

*BaseClogger*
09-03-2008, 01:04 PM
Not necessarily. Games down the stretch when you are in the race have more pressure than those in April.

And I'm saying the pressure exerted in unnecessary; why put more pressure on a game in September?

edabbs44
09-03-2008, 01:14 PM
And I'm saying the pressure exerted in unnecessary; why put more pressure on a game in September?

Generally, do you think a basketball player taking a foul shot in the 1st quarter would feel more/less/same pressure than if he took one with 1.1 seconds on the clock and down one?

And none of the bunk about "How would I know what is going through someone else's head".

Patrick Bateman
09-03-2008, 01:31 PM
And I'm saying the pressure exerted in unnecessary; why put more pressure on a game in September?

Well think about it as a fan.

Last season for the Rockies, do you think your heart would be beating in those last few games more than the middle ones, when technically each games is just as meaningful.

Or even the '99 Reds.... technically if the Reds won just 1 more May game they wouldn't have had to win 2/3 against the Brewers, or the 1 gamer against the Mets. I can tell you, that anybody watching those games felt a more pressure filled environment than normal.

At the end, time for second chances is running out. The end result is becoming more clear, and there is no more chances to make up for bad games in the past.

Yes each game is worth the same, but I 100% believe that the tension and pressure mounts as the season goes on.

Ltlabner
09-03-2008, 01:35 PM
And none of the bunk about "How would I know what is going through someone else's head".

No, by all means, please continue to pretend you know what an individual player is thinking, that all players think the same things and that what one player is thinking effects overall team performance.

edabbs44
09-03-2008, 01:42 PM
No, by all means, please continue to pretend you know what an individual player is thinking,

I bet that all players feel something when they get drilled in the back with a 95 MPH fastball. Some might take it differently than others.

But I don't have to know exactly what they are feeling to know that they feel something.

It's called being a human being.


that all players think the same think

Never said that. But I think all players realize the importance of that moment. Some might process it better than others. That's the difference.


and that what one player is thinking effects overall team performance.

Someone drops a pop-up with the bases juiced, up one run in the 9th in the last game of the season when a win sends you to the playoffs and a loss sends you home. Do you think that might affect the team's overall performance?

Roy Tucker
09-03-2008, 01:56 PM
I'll take that over this year's alternative ... "time for a firesale?" "when does football start?" "it's over before July 4" "why do I watch this team?" "corey patterson's leading off again?"

Aww, I know. I'd take any shred of hope right now.

I've got tickets to tonight's game. When I picked out my season ticket games last spring, I was full of hope and optimism that these Sept. games would be crucial to the Reds' pennant hopes and the stadium would be thundering with pennant fever.

But judging from how the stands looked last night, it looks like it will be me and my beer vendor at GABP and that's about it.

jojo
09-03-2008, 02:11 PM
Dunn's historic slump occurred during a "pennant run". Viola, proof of the effect of pressure and proof Dunn isn't clutch (if you're head is spinning, it might be because of the circular logic).

All snark aside, the problems with "pressure" as a concept is that it is essentially 100% anecdotal and even if it weren't, sample size issues would abound given the limited number of true "pressure scenarios" (ones typical fans would point to anyway) most players get to experience during a typical career.

Ltlabner
09-03-2008, 02:18 PM
Someone drops a pop-up with the bases juiced, up one run in the 9th in the last game of the season when a win sends you to the playoffs and a loss sends you home. Do you think that might affect the team's overall performance?

You've gone from arguing that September games are more important than April games to how performance might be effected by a dropped popup in the 9th. Somewhere in there you worked in a snipe at Dunn. You really need a GPS to keep yourself on track.

Whether it's the pressure of an important game, inning or at bat, most people with a brain understand that it effects a players performance to one degree or another. That effect may be positive (clutch) or negative (choke).

The rub is pressure effects different people in different ways. Unfortunatley you can't be inside their head to hear their thoughts. You can't figure out if the pressure effected them alot or a little. You can't track how those thoughts specifically effected their performance. And you can't ascribe the peformance of an entire team to the singular emotion of one player.

You can't even tell if that dropped pop-up was because of tense nerves or a funky air current in the stadium.

But despite all of that uncertinaty you wish to ascribe the colapse of the 2006 Reds to Dunn not handling the pressure of a "close race" well?

SteelSD
09-03-2008, 06:49 PM
Let me be the first to break it to you Steel. Division titles are based on wins, not run differential.

And Run Differential drives Wins. We know this.


Last year the Diamondbacks won the NL West with a -20 run differential because they had 90 wins. Run differential has absolutely nothing to do with whether you're in a pennant race.

Pointing to one of only a handful of outliers in modern baseball history does nothing to dispute the concept that Run Differential is an exceptionally good tool in determining who's wearing racing stripes and who's wearing the emperor's new clothes. For example, if we take a quick look back from 2002 through 2007, how many MLB teams posted a negative Run Differential for the season on September 1st and then made the playoffs?

2002: None
2003: None
2004: None
2005: San Diego Padres
2006: None
2007: Arizona Diamondbacks

Now let's add some context:

How many of those two teams from 2002 through 2007 were not in first place in their division on September 1st of their respective season?

ZERO

Yes, zero teams out of 24 playoff teams had a negative Run Diff on September first and ended up making the playoffs without also leading their division on September 1st. Not a one. Five games back? Might as well be 25. Now let's add in the fact that the 2006 Reds had been playing losing baseball for months and had a GM who actually made the team worse over that time span. That wasn't a team that one could figure somehow found itself and surged to within striking distance of the mighty St. Louis Cardinals. That was a team limping along for the vast majority of the season who found itself in the position of desperately hoping the lead runner would fall over itself prior to crossing the finish line. That's not a real race and while hoping beyond hope that the Cards would wipe out prior to crossing the finish line, we saw the only other team in the NL Central with a positive Run Diff on Sept. 1st, 2006 (Houston) also pass. Are we starting to get the picture?

That "pennant race" was a figment the imagination of fans who desperately wanted to see what they wanted. The reality was entirely different and the outcome was accurately predicted by those with whom you're arguing.

OnBaseMachine
09-03-2008, 07:08 PM
Dunn hit a walk off RBI double today against the Cardinals.

TeamBoone
09-03-2008, 07:25 PM
Dunn's historic slump occurred during a "pennant run". Viola, proof of the effect of pressure and proof Dunn isn't clutch (if you're head is spinning, it might be because of the circular logic).



For those who might care, he had the game-winning RBI for the D'Backs today.

Ooops, just noticed that someone already posted this.

flyer85
09-03-2008, 07:57 PM
Dunn hit a walk off RBI double today against the Cardinals.not clutch ... there was no RISP

RedsManRick
09-03-2008, 08:26 PM
Steel, I think you're missing the point. It's not about how likely the Reds were to make the playoffs. It was about perception -- of announcers and of fans. And while we all know that the 2006 Reds weren't a great team, they WERE in the playoff race. The concept of being in the race is about where things stand as of a given moment, not how things are likely to play out. And further, it was not that Dunn's poor September was the cause of the Reds missing the playoffs. Rather it is that his slump, in the situation, changed the perception of less sophisticated observers.

This entire conversation was borne of the idea that if Dunn were to slump this September and if the Diamondbacks slump with him, it's not likely the announcers would continue to talk about him in such glowing terms. No need to make this a conversation about run differential and likely outcomes.

Sea Ray
09-03-2008, 09:29 PM
Steel, I think you're missing the point. It's not about how likely the Reds were to make the playoffs. It was about perception -- of announcers and of fans. And while we all know that the 2006 Reds weren't a great team, they WERE in the playoff race. The concept of being in the race is about where things stand as of a given moment, not how things are likely to play out. And further, it was that Dunn's poor September was the cause of the Reds missing the playoffs. Rather it is that his slump, in the situation, changed the perception of less sophisticated observers.

This entire conversation was borne of the idea that if Dunn were to slump this September and if the Diamondbacks slump with him, it's not likely the announcers would continue to talk about him in such glowing terms. No need to make this a conversation about run differential and likely outcomes.

I was getting ready to respond to Steel but after reading your post I have little to add. I guess what's amazing to me is that he'd deny what is marked in blue above by stating run differential stats. Whether you win a pennant race or not is based on only one stat: wins. What your run differential is has zilch to do with it. I'm tempted to comment on how this reflects on folks who get hung up on stats and lose the forest from the trees but I'll abstain.

Ltlabner
09-03-2008, 09:41 PM
And while we all know that the 2006 Reds weren't a great team, they WERE in the playoff race.

To me playoff race implies something different than "if the other team implodes" combined with "if we can eek out some lucky wins".

Playoff race implies your team is battling hard down to the wire to win what they can rather than relying on the other team to fall apart.

That the Reds *could* have won if the stars aligned doesn't mean they were "in a race".

But to the main point re: Dunn and slumping. Would the Arizona fans slag him if he takes a September nap? Hard to say. However, all the comentary focusing on how he's getting on base by hook or crook, how he makes the rest of the line up relax, actually valuing those icky walks, etc leads me to believe they wouldn't turn on him as the sole source of the teams woes.

edabbs44
09-03-2008, 09:45 PM
But despite all of that uncertinaty you wish to ascribe the colapse of the 2006 Reds to Dunn not handling the pressure of a "close race" well?

Let me know where that took place. Because I really haven't commented on that at all.

You must have me confused with someone else.

Ltlabner
09-03-2008, 09:46 PM
Whether you win a pennant race or not is based on only one stat: wins. What your run differential is has zilch to do with it.

But the best way to increase your number of win and odds of winning a pennant race is to have a strong run differential. So I wouldn't say that it has "zilch" to do with it. In fact, it has everything to do with it.

You are confusing the system by which success is measured (wins/losses) with the mechanics of how to achive success (RD).


I'm tempted to comment on how this reflects on folks who get hung up on stats and lose the forest from the trees but I'll abstain.

You failed.

dougdirt
09-03-2008, 09:52 PM
The Reds run differential from April 2006 through August 2006 has very little to do with their run differential in September 2006. Adam Dunn and nearly everyone else fell flat on their faces from the top of the Carew Tower that September when they were a strong month away from being in the playoffs.

Highlifeman21
09-03-2008, 10:00 PM
not clutch ... there was no RISP

many people have said it, so I feel the need to echo it once more....

anyone on base is a RISP with Dunn at the dish

heck, when Dunn's at the plate, he's a RISP himself....

Highlifeman21
09-03-2008, 10:02 PM
The Reds run differential from April 2006 through August 2006 has very little to do with their run differential in September 2006. Adam Dunn and nearly everyone else fell flat on their faces from the top of the Carew Tower that September when they were a strong month away from being in the playoffs.

But they had overachieved through August 31, so were we to expect them to continue to overachieve into October as well?

SMcGavin
09-03-2008, 10:03 PM
You failed.

Yeah. That's the thing about taking the high road, part of the deal is that you can't shout out "look at me I'm taking the high road".

deltachi8
09-03-2008, 10:03 PM
What your run differential is has zilch to do with it.

http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=37424&highlight=nationals+pythag


I'm tempted to comment on how this reflects on folks who get hung up on stats and lose the forest from the trees but I'll abstain.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/abstain

Sea Ray
09-03-2008, 10:03 PM
The Reds run differential from April 2006 through August 2006 has very little to do with their run differential in September 2006. Adam Dunn and nearly everyone else fell flat on their faces from the top of the Carew Tower that September when they were a strong month away from being in the playoffs.

That's very right and like it or not the lion's share of that burden fell on Dunn due to his talent, salary and the fact that Griffey was hurt. The Reds really needed him to come through.

Sea Ray
09-03-2008, 10:06 PM
You failed.


At what?

RedsManRick
09-03-2008, 10:15 PM
But the best way to increase your number of win and odds of winning a pennant race is to have a strong run differential. So I wouldn't say that it has "zilch" to do with it. In fact, it has everything to do with it.

You are confusing the system by which success is measured (wins/losses) with the mechanics of how to achive success (RD).


Saying that a team is in a playoff race is a point in time assessment based on the standings as they are. It is not a comment on their likelihood to succeed in that race -- merely their presence in it.

Run differential only matters if and when we were to examine the former -- which is not the point of this conversation.

Ltlabner
09-03-2008, 10:36 PM
Saying that a team is in a playoff race is a point in time assessment based on the standings as they are. It is not a comment on their likelihood to succeed in that race -- merely their presence in it..

So until a team is mathamatically eliminated they'd be in the race?

Am I understanding you correctly?

gonelong
09-03-2008, 10:36 PM
The Reds were the 60-1 longshot horse that takes the early lead in a field they are outclassed in and everybody and their brother knows they won't be able to finish. While technically that leaves them "in the race" at that point, realistically it's pretty obvious that when the favorites start pulling away from them on the backstretch they just aren't going to catch up to them.

A good portion of the team put up miserable numbers during that stretch. Does anyone think the Reds make the playoffs if Dunn puts up a .950 OPS instead?

GL

IslandRed
09-03-2008, 10:37 PM
Steel, I think you're missing the point. It's not about how likely the Reds were to make the playoffs. It was about perception -- of announcers and of fans. And while we all know that the 2006 Reds weren't a great team, they WERE in the playoff race. The concept of being in the race is about where things stand as of a given moment, not how things are likely to play out. And further, it was not that Dunn's poor September was the cause of the Reds missing the playoffs. Rather it is that his slump, in the situation, changed the perception of less sophisticated observers.

This entire conversation was borne of the idea that if Dunn were to slump this September and if the Diamondbacks slump with him, it's not likely the announcers would continue to talk about him in such glowing terms. No need to make this a conversation about run differential and likely outcomes.

Squared that one up, RMR.

When a team is tied for first on August 24, most everyone, including the guys in the clubhouse, are going to think they're in the pennant race until the door slams shut for good. The fact that they didn't deserve to be there and had little chance of closing the deal is of analytical interest, but the emotional reality of the situation was different.

Ltlabner
09-03-2008, 10:48 PM
A good portion of the team put up miserable numbers during that stretch. Does anyone think the Reds make the playoffs if Dunn puts up a .950 OPS instead?

GL

But he makes so much money!

Serriously, some Reds fans can't see past their myopic, back-woods jealousy driven ways. Those Indian Hill people suck beause I'm in a little house in Delhi.

Eric Davis, Jr and Dunn could never do enough because they 'make too much money' but Norris Hopper rules despite producing nothing while making more than most people make in 5 years.

Sometimes I wonder if Cincy will ever grow up and get past the 'Charlie Hustle/Boss Hog' mindset.

SteelSD
09-03-2008, 11:54 PM
Steel, I think you're missing the point. It's not about how likely the Reds were to make the playoffs. It was about perception -- of announcers and of fans.

Maybe we're more discussing semantics than anything else, but I sure don't see any point I've missed. While perception can certainly be changed by one's ability to understand or even define reality, that's more a reflection of the person who's perceiving the events rather than the events themselves.


And while we all know that the 2006 Reds weren't a great team, they WERE in the playoff race. The concept of being in the race is about where things stand as of a given moment, not how things are likely to play out.

I think we have a definite disagreement about that point as probability has to come into play before we can define "where things stand". I mean, when I watch poker broadcasts, I can't help but root for the affable extremely short-stacked player sitting at the final table who's been bleeding chips from the get-go, but is that guy really "in" the game? No. Oh, he may be playing but that guy knows...he KNOWS...the reality of the situation.


And further, it was not that Dunn's poor September was the cause of the Reds missing the playoffs. Rather it is that his slump, in the situation, changed the perception of less sophisticated observers.

Considering that 2006 was the sixth season in which those observers were able to watch him, I'd suggest that September of 2006 had nothing to do with how folks perceived Dunn. By that time, Dunn had set the Strikeout record, he'd already been labeled as an "all-or-nothing" player, Marty Brennaman and other media members had been at his throat for seasons, and pretty much everyone in the fan base already had their minds made up.

At this point, all we're seeing is the illusionary 2006 "pennant chase" as retroactive fodder for folks who never liked the guy in the first place.


This entire conversation was borne of the idea that if Dunn were to slump this September and if the Diamondbacks slump with him, it's not likely the announcers would continue to talk about him in such glowing terms. No need to make this a conversation about run differential and likely outcomes.

First, there's always a need to correct erroneous contentions because if they're left to stand, they start seeping into the minds of others as being real (see: Brennaman, Marty and Morgan, Joe). Secondly, I think we're severely misunderstanding the quality of the D'Backs management, team, announcers, and even fan base. Dunn didn't fly into that town as some kind of secret. Every single performance and behavioral item to which we've been privy is open for public viewing.

Had Dunn's alleged 2006 "pennant race" slump produced the kind of perception-changing effect being positioned, I'd expect that would be public knowledge across D'Backs' management, team, announcers, and fan base. Yet here was have a team that was happy to give up value to have him, a Manager (capitalized for Respect) who understands him, and a fan base that's giddy to add an alleged "pennant race" choker to strengthen the team for a real pennant race.

We now have Adam Dunn in his first real pennant race. He's been in that race for 21 Games while joining a team one game up in the Standings at the time of his acquisition and that's been tied for the Division lead four times during his tenure. This is a good team that should have actual expectations. He's been facing the kind of "pressure" folks are trying to imagine for September of 2006 for 21 Games thus far.

The result? A .995 OPS and a .495 OBP because, frankly, opponents don't want anything to do with him. But we also have a Manager (capitalized for Respect) who's had the audacity to tell Adam Dunn that he just needs to be Adam Dunn. Will he slump? Sure, as we both know all baseball players do. Might happen this September even. But when I look at how he's been treated in Arizona, I only wonder "Wow, why couldn't the Reds think of that?"

SteelSD
09-04-2008, 12:22 AM
But they had overachieved through August 31, so were we to expect them to continue to overachieve into October as well?

The Reds also overachieved in September of 2006. Their actual record was 13-14 while their Pythag record as 11-16. Even with that Pythag over-performance, the Reds would have needed about 40 more offensive Runs just to tie for the league lead even if we're using a retrospective approach based on real RS/RA. Over the 27 games in September 2006, that means Adam Dunn would have needed to produce 1.48 RC per game (not RC/27) just to give the Reds a chance to tie the Cardinals and force a playoff game ala' 1999.

There isn't an offensive player in baseball who can even approach that number. Dunn would have had to perform at a level higher than Barry Bonds' record 2001 season (.328 BA/.515 OBP/.863 SLG) for the whole month. If a fan base is demanding an OPS around 1.400 for their best player just to stay competitive, I guess there's really nothing more to say.

Ltlabner
09-04-2008, 06:49 AM
At this point, all we're seeing is the illusionary 2006 "pennant chase" as retroactive fodder for folks who never liked the guy in the first place.

That's the crux of the matter from the last few pages.

A couple of guys tried to sneek the idea that Dunn sucks because he chokes in September into the conversation via the "yea but they [Arizona fans] haven't seen him in Septmeber" comments. Thats when the goofyness about "pennant chases", the horrific pressure and how Dunn is *supposed* to carry the team because he makes a lot of money garbage was interjected as an attempted smoke-screen.

But you nailed it. A couple of guys who don't like Dunn anyway got called for "wait till he fails in Septmeber" and had to toss out their usuall chestnuts because they stubburnly refuse to explore new ideas.

I said it before, but based on the early comments from the Arizona players, FO and manager even if the team fails to make the playoffs and even if Dunn "chokes from the pressure" they woln't be so provincal and pig-headed to blame one singular player.

Ltlabner
09-04-2008, 06:57 AM
I think we have a definite disagreement about that point as probability has to come into play before we can define "where things stand". I mean, when I watch poker broadcasts, I can't help but root for the affable extremely short-stacked player sitting at the final table who's been bleeding chips from the get-go, but is that guy really "in" the game? No. Oh, he may be playing but that guy knows...he KNOWS...the reality of the situation.

Using this new technical defintion being posited, up until last night the Reds were in the thick of a playoff chase.

If they won every single game for the rest of the year, and the Cubs lost every single one (and the Brewers and Cards both imploded, and the Stros didn't do anything either) we would have ended up tied for first. Since probability is now being exluded from the equation that this scenario is farical doesn't really matter right?

Playoff fever!