PDA

View Full Version : More kind words from Dunn as he makes his return to Cincy



OnBaseMachine
08-13-2009, 07:19 PM
The uniform was obviously different and a different color but Adam Dunn hadn't changed a bit. Dunn,the former Reds star and current Nationals first baseman/outfielder, met with the media in the visitor's dugout for a few minutes on Thursday. He teased a couple of people including Ken Broo and Seg Dennison and checked out Great American Ball Park from his new perspective.

"This is the first time I've stepped out here and looked and it looks red," Dunn said. "It's really red out here. It's what I remember."

Although fans often had a love-hate relationship with Dunn (loved the homers, hated the strikeouts, fielding and the team's losing) -- but he harbored zero ill will towards anything or anyone in Cincinnati.

"I'm not bitter at all," Dunn said. "I got an opportunity to play here since 2001. I enjoyed my time here. I met some great people. It's a business. I understand that. I don't hold grudges against anything. It worked out for a reason."

There was a time when Dunn and owner/CEO Bob Castellini were looking to extend Dunn's stay with the Reds but that obviously changed when Dunn was traded to the Diamondbacks just over one year ago. In the off-season, he signed as a free agent with Washington.

"I understand this is a business and that's how it goes," Dunn said of his end with the Reds. "They obviously did what was best for the organization and I still think Mr. Castellini is one of the best people I've met in my life. They'll definitely turn this thing around here. I met a lot of great people here that are hard to replace because you're with them day in and day out for x-amount of years. That's the main thing I miss about it."

http://marksheldon.mlblogs.com/

OnBaseMachine
08-13-2009, 07:22 PM
Dunner is a class act. He will always be one of my favorite Reds players off all-time. He's my favorite non-Reds player in the game today. I love that guy. I'm leaving for Cincy in the morning and will be attending the games on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday and I'll be giving Dunn a standing ovation. Hopefully Reds fans give him a warm welcome. He put up some big numbers with the Reds and has never said a bad word about the organization. I hope that someday he returns to Cincy and finishes his career where he started it.

Brutus
08-13-2009, 07:35 PM
I harbor no ill-will toward the guy. He's a good player. For me, it was time to move on. I'm glad the Reds traded him. He was not going to stay anyhow, so they did what they needed to do.

I like him. I respect him. I will always think it was time to turn the chapter.

GAC
08-13-2009, 07:42 PM
I wish he was still in a Red's uni. it's obvious, looking at this '09 team, that he wasn't the problem. How anyone could think he was simply baffles me.

I've got a couple guys at work that have always hated Adam, for the obvious stereotypical (and illogical) reasons, yet lament the loss of players like Freel, and love players like Rosales. They seem to think hustle is a viable stat.


You trade the caliber of a player like Dunn, then you replace it. This FO didn't.

Highlifeman21
08-13-2009, 08:59 PM
Definitely curious as to the ovation he'll receive the first time his name's announced.

Joseph
08-13-2009, 09:01 PM
Definitely curious as to the ovation he'll receive the first time his name's announced.

Didn't seem like there was all that much of one did it?

Then again there are like 5 people there.

WMR
08-13-2009, 09:03 PM
I harbor no ill-will toward the guy. He's a good player. For me, it was time to move on. I'm glad the Reds traded him. He was not going to stay anyhow, so they did what they needed to do.

I like him. I respect him. I will always think it was time to turn the chapter.

Did Dunn tell you that himself?

Highlifeman21
08-13-2009, 09:04 PM
Didn't seem like there was all that much of one did it?

Then again there are like 5 people there.

I'm not listening or watching, so I have no idea.

But, with low attendance, it doesn't surprise me if those 5 people don't care that his name was announced.

OnBaseMachine
08-16-2009, 11:04 PM
I was at the last three games, and while there wasn't any huge crowds, Dunn did receive a decent ovation when his name was announced. It was fun watching him play again. The home run he hit off Cueto was probably the shortest HR he's hit in his career. It cleared the wall in left by maybe a foot. It couldn't have traveled more than 332 feet. He looked great is just about every atbat. I think he walked like five or six times, was HBP twice, and he hit a couple bullets for doubles today. His OPS is up to .997. Zimmerman/Dunn/Willingham is a dangerous middle of the order. The Nats ripped the Marlins off in that deal. Too bad the Reds didn't get him.

Joseph
08-16-2009, 11:09 PM
I was there last night and I don't think he got much of an ovation at all to be honest. Certainly nothing compared to other returning 'heroes' in the past like Casey. Hell LaRue got a better hand than the one I heard for Dunn in his 1st AB last night. Granted that was the third game of the series.

OnBaseMachine
08-16-2009, 11:14 PM
I was there last night and I don't think he got much of an ovation at all to be honest. Certainly nothing compared to other returning 'heroes' in the past like Casey. Hell LaRue got a better hand than the one I heard for Dunn in his 1st AB last night. Granted that was the third game of the series.

All the people around me in the Moon Deck gave him a decent ovation. I thought there would be quite a few knuckleheads boo him but there really wasn't. I was pleasantly surprised.

Brutus
08-16-2009, 11:25 PM
Did Dunn tell you that himself?

Three different players made remarks to that affect. Bronson Arroyo said "everyone knew he was probably going to ask for $100 million."

I know it's not popular around these parts to say, but Dunn was not going to be an option no matter how it was sliced.

Johnny Footstool
08-17-2009, 02:13 AM
I'll never get the "it was time to move on" perspective. Why on earth would it be time to move on from a .900 OPS player?

Emin3mShady07
08-17-2009, 02:36 AM
Dunn's a good guy and a heckuva player. I think the reds really could have used his bat this year, but oh well, what can you do?

icehole3
08-17-2009, 05:33 AM
I'll never get the "it was time to move on" perspective. Why on earth would it be time to move on from a .900 OPS player?

Because both sides werent going to agree, so it was time, we need to accept it, file it and move on, it's down the Ohio now.

NJReds
08-17-2009, 01:54 PM
I'm still a fan of Dunn, and I'm glad he's doing well in Washington.

Johnny Footstool
08-17-2009, 02:02 PM
Because both sides werent going to agree, so it was time, we need to accept it, file it and move on, it's down the Ohio now.

It seems like one side (management) had made up it's mind, but rather than giving logical reasons, they just used the "it's time to move on" cop-out excuse.

RedEye
08-17-2009, 05:54 PM
It seems like one side (management) had made up it's mind, but rather than giving logical reasons, they just used the "it's time to move on" cop-out excuse.

Exactly my thoughts. I think it is a shame they didn't work to re-sign him--especially since his contract ended up being way below the price people like Arroyo originally predicted.

westofyou
08-17-2009, 06:00 PM
It seems like one side (management) had made up it's mind, but rather than giving logical reasons, they just used the "it's time to move on" cop-out excuse.
It's to bad that he left, it's too bad that he still gets crap for his game from guys (who think they represent the Reds more than the all time Reds leader in games played in LF and that I wish would leave (like Brantley))

In fact there's a ton of too bads in this equation, as it's too bad that they haven't replaced his bat, that it's too bad that the team still sucks without his K's and awesome power and that most of all this team is too bad without him as they were with him.

cincrazy
08-17-2009, 07:30 PM
It's to bad that he left, it's too bad that he still gets crap for his game from guys (who think they represent the Reds more than the all time Reds leader in games played in LF and that I wish would leave (like Brantley))

In fact there's a ton of too bads in this equation, as it's too bad that they haven't replaced his bat, that it's too bad that the team still sucks without his K's and awesome power and that most of all this team is too bad without him as they were with him.

For a long time, I was of the opinion that the Reds should part ways with Dunn. That it would be hard to replace his production, but not impossible.

But as I have watched the offense go from merely bad to horribly unbelievably historically horrific, I realize how horribly wrong I was. This team wasn't going to win with Dunn on this team or not this year. But it would have come a hell of a lot closer.

Brutus
08-17-2009, 07:54 PM
For a long time, I was of the opinion that the Reds should part ways with Dunn. That it would be hard to replace his production, but not impossible.

But as I have watched the offense go from merely bad to horribly unbelievably historically horrific, I realize how horribly wrong I was. This team wasn't going to win with Dunn on this team or not this year. But it would have come a hell of a lot closer.

Except, they've got a LF right now OPS'ing 900 in 200 PA's. While that player is not Adam Dunn, nor would he produce consistently at Adam Dunn's level, that position has been producing at a similar level.

So really, the offense is not in much of a different situation than if it still had Dunn, but it would be even more strapped for cash and have even less financial flexibility than before.

Hence, I'm fine with it.

cincrazy
08-17-2009, 08:01 PM
Except, they've got a LF right now OPS'ing 900 in 200 PA's. While that player is not Adam Dunn, nor would he produce consistently at Adam Dunn's level, that position has been producing at a similar level.

So really, the offense is not in much of a different situation than if it still had Dunn, but it would be even more strapped for cash and have even less financial flexibility than before.

Hence, I'm fine with it.

Well, I see your point. But I highly doubt Gomes puts up an OPS around .900 as an every day player. I very well could be wrong about that, but we'll see.

You KNOW going into a year Dunn is going to get you 40 home runs. With Gomes, it's a toss up. He could hit 25-30, or he could bat .200 and get cut as he did in Tampa.

But you're right to factor in the cash difference, it is significant. But the Reds never actually spend the cash on anything worthwhile, so I've tired of talking about money they can save.

nate
08-17-2009, 08:25 PM
Except, they've got a LF right now OPS'ing 900 in 200 PA's. While that player is not Adam Dunn, nor would he produce consistently at Adam Dunn's level, that position has been producing at a similar level.

Reds LF OPS: .694.

Yeah, Gomes has played nice in <200 PA. But that "position" has absolutely NOT been producing at a similar level.


So really, the offense is not in much of a different situation than if it still had Dunn, but it would be even more strapped for cash and have even less financial flexibility than before.

Maybe. Or maybe not. There's no telling what other moves might've been made.

Brutus
08-17-2009, 09:35 PM
Reds LF OPS: .694.

Yeah, Gomes has played nice in <200 PA. But that "position" has absolutely NOT been producing at a similar level.



Maybe. Or maybe not. There's no telling what other moves might've been made.

Between Laynce Nix and Jonny Gomes, in about 470 plate appearances, their combined OPS right now is around 825.

If it was truly just a platoon between those two, that OPS is one of the most productive on the team. The 694 number you're citing is a combination of McDonald, Dickerson, Balentien and Hairston. It's not indicative of how the main two (Gomes and Nix) have played.

Baker's misuse of the personnel is responsible for the overall OPS you cite, not organizational philosophy. The main two LF guys on the roster HAVE been producing as a whole (though Nix has tailed off).

nate
08-17-2009, 10:00 PM
Between Laynce Nix and Jonny Gomes, in about 470 plate appearances, their combined OPS right now is around 825.

If it was truly just a platoon between those two, that OPS is one of the most productive on the team. The 694 number you're citing is a combination of McDonald, Dickerson, Balentien and Hairston. It's not indicative of how the main two (Gomes and Nix) have played.

Baker's misuse of the personnel is responsible for the overall OPS you cite, not organizational philosophy. The main two LF guys on the roster HAVE been producing as a whole (though Nix has tailed off).

I was going off of:


While that player is not Adam Dunn, nor would he produce consistently at Adam Dunn's level, that position has been producing at a similar level.

Brutus
08-18-2009, 12:24 AM
I was going off of:

I realize that. But I consider those two the LF position. Anyone else that has played there has been due to managerial incompetence. It's not fair to say the Reds have not found suitable replacement for the position, because clearly they have - at least to this point. Usage of such replacement(s) is another issue altogether.

Highlifeman21
08-18-2009, 01:18 AM
I realize that. But I consider those two the LF position. Anyone else that has played there has been due to managerial incompetence. It's not fair to say the Reds have not found suitable replacement for the position, because clearly they have - at least to this point. Usage of such replacement(s) is another issue altogether.

Cherry-picking stats and you know it.

Dunn's averaged what, 155+ games a season, so he's the LF position for the Reds' past.

Therefore, you need to consider all the personnel that's played in LF this year for the Reds, rather than just Gomes and Nix.

That being said, those who have played LF not named Gomes or Nix has put up some awesome numbers, wouldn't you say?

It's plenty fair to say the Reds haven't found a suitable replacement for Adam Dunn in LF, due to the fact the players not named Gomes or Nix that have played LF for the Reds in 2009.

Brutus
08-18-2009, 01:22 AM
Cherry-picking stats and you know it.

Dunn's averaged what, 155+ games a season, so he's the LF position for the Reds' past.

Therefore, you need to consider all the personnel that's played in LF this year for the Reds, rather than just Gomes and Nix.

That being said, those who have played LF not named Gomes or Nix has put up some awesome numbers, wouldn't you say?

It's plenty fair to say the Reds haven't found a suitable replacement for Adam Dunn in LF, due to the fact the players not named Gomes or Nix that have played LF for the Reds in 2009.

It's not cherry-picking anything.

True or false. The combination of Gomes-Nix has produced an OPS of 825? Look it up. It's true. And it's a sample of well over 400 plate appearances.

That's above-average production at the position. That's not cherry-picking anything. If Jay Bruce had not been hurt, the Nix-Gomes combination would be doing just fine all to themselves in left. There's nothing selective about that statement.

Highlifeman21
08-18-2009, 01:29 AM
It's not cherry-picking anything.

True or false. The combination of Gomes-Nix has produced an OPS of 825? Look it up. It's true. And it's a sample of well over 400 plate appearances.

That's above-average production at the position. That's not cherry-picking anything. If Jay Bruce had not been hurt, the Nix-Gomes combination would be doing just fine all to themselves in left. There's nothing selective about that statement.

So what about the guys not named Gomes or Nix that have played LF for the Reds in 2009?

How have they fared?

Are you just going to ignore them?

westofyou
08-18-2009, 01:37 AM
So what about the guys not named Gomes or Nix that have played LF for the Reds in 2009?

How have they fared?

Are you just going to ignore them?
Reds LF

.233/.299/.395/.694


http://espn.go.com/mlb/stats/team/_/stat/batting/split/83/league/nl

Brutus
08-18-2009, 01:46 AM
So what about the guys not named Gomes or Nix that have played LF for the Reds in 2009?

How have they fared?

Are you just going to ignore them?

There's no room to include them. People are saying "the Reds have not found suitable replacements." Actually, in terms of production, they have.

In other terms...

I am so tired of hearing, "The Reds have not replaced Adam Dunn." "Woe is us." "Oh how I wish the Reds had not traded Dunn." "We took such a hit to the offense."

All the while, here you have a guy ripping the cover off the ball, who by coincidence, plays the same position. It's a slap in the face to him to say the Reds have not found anyone to replace Dunn. They may have, but people are ignoring him.

Let me put it this way:

Say you are told you have two options. One is 29 years old, the other is 28 years old (both getting into the peak years of their career, obviously). Both are poor defenders.

Player A has a consistent, proven track record. His 3-year averages with the club:

.379 / .520 / 899 OPS (6.4% HR rate)

Player B has not been consistent, though has shown upside before. His current production in a couple hundred plate appearances:

.357 / .584 / 941 OPS (7.9% HR rate)

Taking away the names. Only knowing that Player A clearly has a proven track record, but Player B is slightly younger and just now hitting his peak, you're still probably inclined to go with Player A. Right? That's safe and clearly logical.

But throw in this:

Player A is going to make $10 mil for your team
Player B can probably be had for around $2 mil or one-fifth of the cost.

I'm no economics major, but what's the better value? I know it's easy to see which one has less risk.

Gomes is no Adam Dunn. But for crying out loud the dude is carrying the Reds offense right now, and people want to continue to cry over spilled milk about how the Reds didn't keep/replace Dunn. Gomes might not be able to continue this. That's still up in the air. But he's just now hitting his prime, where players tend to break out, and he's carrying the offense.

It's really a shame people can't give him credit and give the organization credit for getting him. Instead, they want to continue to harp on Dunn being gone and ignore that the franchise could have potentially found themselves an excellent player for cheap that wants to play for the organization without costing a pretty penny.

Maybe that's just too simplistic. But as long as Gomes continues to mash, I refuse to toe the company line that the Reds didn't do anything to replace the Dunn production.

WMR
08-18-2009, 01:49 AM
Keep pinning your hopes on wishes and dreams rather than actual proven talent, THE CINCINNATI REDS.

WMR
08-18-2009, 01:51 AM
Three different players made remarks to that affect. Bronson Arroyo said "everyone knew he was probably going to ask for $100 million."

I know it's not popular around these parts to say, but Dunn was not going to be an option no matter how it was sliced.

You're seriously going to try and quote Bronson Arroyo as a source into Dunn's contract negotiations? :lol:

And to your 2nd comment, pure supposition on your part with no tangible proof from Dunn whatsoever.

Brutus
08-18-2009, 02:07 AM
You're seriously going to try and quote Bronson Arroyo as a source? :lol:

And to your 2nd comment, pure supposition on your part with no tangible proof whatsoever.

You can bury your head in the sand all you want, but Arroyo is far from the only one that has said it. I could sit here and go down through the many people that have made comments about Dunn or Dunn's situation with the organization. To which, you'll simply try to discredit every single person (as you just have with Arroyo).

People have been ignoring everything with Dunn for the last few years. It's an exercise in futility to have an opinion because everything gets dismissed and passed off as a strawman argument in the name of batting average and strikeouts. Nevermind that not everyone has an opinion that does not center around those two issues.

I respect Dunn. I think the guy is a good dude. And I think he's clearly an asset more so than a liability. I could sit here and go over, what I believe to be legitimate reasons to be critical of him, but it completely misses the point.

Dunn was not planning on re-signing, and if he did, the Reds were going to have to break the bank. This was echoed by so many people it's not funny. What's more is that for as enormously cherished as he is here, he had little or no market value last year during the trade season, nor this year in the offseason (though I think economy played a small part this year). But at the time, the Reds had to play the percentages and it seemed very much as if he was going to command a lot.

For a team financially strapped as it is, not good to gamble on that. The Reds instead chose to play those odds and when a small market formed for him in August, they unloaded him for a decent starting pitcher and a couple of moderate prospects. They certainly did not do a whole lot in the offseason, but they did manage to find a player at the same position that, has been producing since being given a chance A) first by upper-level management and then B) by field management.

It may seem trivial now, but if said player continues producing, and the flexibility allowed the Reds to upgrade third and possibly make one or two more transactions this offseason, it's then crazy to say the long-range affects of that decision did not pay dividends.

He's a good player. I wish him the best. I just wish people would stop holding the organization hostage over him. There's clearly plenty to be critical over without his inclusion.

Johnny Footstool
08-18-2009, 02:46 AM
Adam Dunn might have been making plans to "break the bank," but the fact is he ended up signing a very affordable, short-term contract with a lousy team. The Reds could have matched that deal, but didn't.

But I'm not as upset about that as I am about the front office's attitude about the whole affair. "It was time to move on" is basically their way of saying, "We've already decided that we don't want this particular .900 OPS player at even a reasonable price. We're closing this door and opening a new door that leads to Willy Taveras."

WMR
08-18-2009, 03:39 AM
I respect your opinion, Brutus, but I'm sorry, I simply don't accept that Dunn was looking to leave the Reds. If the Reds had tendered him an offer of 12 million per season over a span of 4-5 years I absolutely believe he would have gladly remained a Cincinnati Red. And he would be worth every penny of that contract.

I have not seen any evidence to the contrary that seems at all credible.

Ron Madden
08-18-2009, 04:03 AM
Adam Dunn might have been making plans to "break the bank," but the fact is he ended up signing a very affordable, short-term contract with a lousy team. The Reds could have matched that deal, but didn't.

But I'm not as upset about that as I am about the front office's attitude about the whole affair. "It was time to move on" is basically their way of saying, "We've already decided that we don't want this particular .900 OPS player at even a reasonable price. We're closing this door and opening a new door that leads to Willy Taveras."

I'm in 100% agreement with Johnny on this.

The main problem with this organization is their ineptitude in identifying and developing talent and the haphazard way they spend their money. There is nothing wrong with paying Productive Players.

Why do he Reds spend a boatload of cash on a roster full of Non Productive Players Every Season? Is it because they have no clue? Or is it because those non productive players might be favorites of the guys in the radio booth, the callers to 700 WLW Sportstalk, or that damned old Banana Phone?

Sometimes I wonder if that's not the case. Sorry for the rant.

AtomicDumpling
08-18-2009, 04:12 AM
I respect your opinion, Brutus, but I'm sorry, I simply don't accept that Dunn was looking to leave the Reds. If the Reds had tendered him an offer of 12 million per season over a span of 4-5 years I absolutely believe he would have gladly remained a Cincinnati Red. And he would be worth every penny of that contract.

I have not seen any evidence to the contrary that seems at all credible.

I agree.

Adam Dunn is having another great year.
The Reds offense is historically awful.
The team is worse than last year.
But the Reds saved some money.
Woohoo!

AtomicDumpling
08-18-2009, 04:18 AM
I'm in 100% agreement with Johnny on this.

The main problem with this organization is their ineptitude in identifying and developing talent and the haphazard way they spend their money. There is nothing wrong with paying Productive Players.

Why do he Reds spend a boatload of cash on a roster full of Non Productive Players Every Season? Is it because they have no clue? Or is it because those non productive players might be favorites of the guys in the radio booth, the callers to 700 WLW Sportstalk, or that damned old Banana Phone?

Sometimes I wonder if that's not the case. Sorry for the rant.

Yeah, I have never understood why people think it is smart to avoid paying good players a fair-market salary.

The Reds' problem has nothing to do with paying their good players. The problem is the money given to bad players.

Brutus
08-18-2009, 06:28 AM
I respect your opinion, Brutus, but I'm sorry, I simply don't accept that Dunn was looking to leave the Reds. If the Reds had tendered him an offer of 12 million per season over a span of 4-5 years I absolutely believe he would have gladly remained a Cincinnati Red. And he would be worth every penny of that contract.

I have not seen any evidence to the contrary that seems at all credible.

Well, I'm not suggesting he was looking for the first opportunity he had to leave town. I really don't believe that was the case.

But what I'm saying is that a lot of people made comments that he was going to ask for money he knew the Reds were not able (or at very least going) to pay. Whether he was intentionally pricing himself out of the picture or simply trying to leverage it, I don't know. But a lot of people commented that Dunn re-signing was not a realistic thing, if not in part by his expected demands, the club's expected reluctance or both.

Even in hindsight, though, he got $20 mil in a sluggish economic situation. Given when the Reds traded him the financial situation was not quite as depressed, it was perfectly reasonable at that time to assume his demands were much, much higher. Arroyo said he was talking $100 mil in a large multi-year deal. While that was not ever going to be what it wound up as, I can't say I blame the Reds for balking at figures even close to half that.

cincrazy
08-18-2009, 08:31 AM
There's no room to include them. People are saying "the Reds have not found suitable replacements." Actually, in terms of production, they have.

In other terms...

I am so tired of hearing, "The Reds have not replaced Adam Dunn." "Woe is us." "Oh how I wish the Reds had not traded Dunn." "We took such a hit to the offense."

All the while, here you have a guy ripping the cover off the ball, who by coincidence, plays the same position. It's a slap in the face to him to say the Reds have not found anyone to replace Dunn. They may have, but people are ignoring him.

Let me put it this way:

Say you are told you have two options. One is 29 years old, the other is 28 years old (both getting into the peak years of their career, obviously). Both are poor defenders.

Player A has a consistent, proven track record. His 3-year averages with the club:

.379 / .520 / 899 OPS (6.4% HR rate)

Player B has not been consistent, though has shown upside before. His current production in a couple hundred plate appearances:

.357 / .584 / 941 OPS (7.9% HR rate)

Taking away the names. Only knowing that Player A clearly has a proven track record, but Player B is slightly younger and just now hitting his peak, you're still probably inclined to go with Player A. Right? That's safe and clearly logical.

But throw in this:

Player A is going to make $10 mil for your team
Player B can probably be had for around $2 mil or one-fifth of the cost.

I'm no economics major, but what's the better value? I know it's easy to see which one has less risk.

Gomes is no Adam Dunn. But for crying out loud the dude is carrying the Reds offense right now, and people want to continue to cry over spilled milk about how the Reds didn't keep/replace Dunn. Gomes might not be able to continue this. That's still up in the air. But he's just now hitting his prime, where players tend to break out, and he's carrying the offense.

It's really a shame people can't give him credit and give the organization credit for getting him. Instead, they want to continue to harp on Dunn being gone and ignore that the franchise could have potentially found themselves an excellent player for cheap that wants to play for the organization without costing a pretty penny.

Maybe that's just too simplistic. But as long as Gomes continues to mash, I refuse to toe the company line that the Reds didn't do anything to replace the Dunn production.

Well, to play devil's advocate here, the Reds could have kept Dunn in left, stil signed Gomes, and platooned him in right with Jay Bruce. Now we have an outfield we can talk about offensively.

bucksfan2
08-18-2009, 09:38 AM
Another Dunn thread, gotta love it.

To be honest I don't follow Dunn like many on RZ do. He isn't a Red so I have very little rooting interest in him and the Nats are god awful so I really have no interest in watching their games either. In the few games I have seen them play, against the Reds, and the clips I have seen on ESPN I did notice him hitting HR's and playing 1b. Granted I like Votto at 1b and really wouldn't move him for anyone not named Pujols, but Dunn is much less of a defensive liability while playing 1b.

Dunn's last season as a Red he made $15M and put up a line of this .236/.386/.513, throw in the fact that he was one of the worst defensive outfielders in the game he wasn't worth the long term investment he was demanding. Granted the collapse in the financial market reduced his value quite a bit but that was long after the Dunn/Cincy train had taken off.

When watching a game this past weekend I saw Dunn's line flash across the screen and was shocked. He is currently at .285/.417/.580. I was shocked. He hasn't put up a line that good since the first half of his first full season as a Red. He has become a better hitter while keeping his power numbers up. He is becoming everything that I had wanted him to become. He is hitting for a better average, getting on base, and slugging the same. It left me kind of amazed that he is having such a good season, while also pissed that he is finally putting it all together the season after he gets out of Cincy. IMO if Dunn keeps playing the way he is he is worth every penny of his pretty poor contract, and should be in for a big payday in 2011. Note to Donkey, you may want to start looking for a competent agent.

Highlifeman21
08-18-2009, 09:58 AM
There's no room to include them. People are saying "the Reds have not found suitable replacements." Actually, in terms of production, they have.

In other terms...

I am so tired of hearing, "The Reds have not replaced Adam Dunn." "Woe is us." "Oh how I wish the Reds had not traded Dunn." "We took such a hit to the offense."

All the while, here you have a guy ripping the cover off the ball, who by coincidence, plays the same position. It's a slap in the face to him to say the Reds have not found anyone to replace Dunn. They may have, but people are ignoring him.

Let me put it this way:

Say you are told you have two options. One is 29 years old, the other is 28 years old (both getting into the peak years of their career, obviously). Both are poor defenders.

Player A has a consistent, proven track record. His 3-year averages with the club:

.379 / .520 / 899 OPS (6.4% HR rate)

Player B has not been consistent, though has shown upside before. His current production in a couple hundred plate appearances:

.357 / .584 / 941 OPS (7.9% HR rate)

Taking away the names. Only knowing that Player A clearly has a proven track record, but Player B is slightly younger and just now hitting his peak, you're still probably inclined to go with Player A. Right? That's safe and clearly logical.

But throw in this:

Player A is going to make $10 mil for your team
Player B can probably be had for around $2 mil or one-fifth of the cost.

I'm no economics major, but what's the better value? I know it's easy to see which one has less risk.

Gomes is no Adam Dunn. But for crying out loud the dude is carrying the Reds offense right now, and people want to continue to cry over spilled milk about how the Reds didn't keep/replace Dunn. Gomes might not be able to continue this. That's still up in the air. But he's just now hitting his prime, where players tend to break out, and he's carrying the offense.

It's really a shame people can't give him credit and give the organization credit for getting him. Instead, they want to continue to harp on Dunn being gone and ignore that the franchise could have potentially found themselves an excellent player for cheap that wants to play for the organization without costing a pretty penny.

Maybe that's just too simplistic. But as long as Gomes continues to mash, I refuse to toe the company line that the Reds didn't do anything to replace the Dunn production.

Step away from your strawman for a second.... who's not giving Gomes credit or the Reds FO credit for bringing in Gomes?

I'm still trying to understand why you refuse to include people not named Nix and Gomes in the total LF production for 2009. Those 2 aren't the only guys to play LF for the Reds this year, so why wouldn't we include everyone to get a complete picture? woy posted the LF production as a whole, and our LFers (yup, all of them) have put up the line of .233/.299/.395/.694. That's significantly less production than Dunn's done all by his lonesome this year.

Pretty sure that's why people have said we haven't replaced Dunn, b/c the truth of the matter is that we haven't replaced Dunn.

Now, Gomes is putting together a solid season, but he's a platoon player. He's had less PAs than Adam Rosales, 206 to 190 respectively. So, while Gomes is showing to be a viable platoon option, he's still only producing in limited capacity. That's not discounting what he's done so far this season, but rather putting it in context. So, I'm not sure where you're drawing the conclusion that fans aren't happy with Gomes' production, or that he's not having a good season. I'm sure as heck not ignoring him or slapping him in the face.

The conclusion you should draw is that we haven't replaced Dunn's offense, and we did take a hit to the total offense. I mean you've watched the Reds this year, and you're telling me they couldn't use Dunn's bat in the lineup, and that ALL of our LFers have equaled or surpassed Dunn's production?

I guess I just can't wrap my head around you falling in love with Gomes' limited PAs, and saying that due to the financial difference between Gomes' and Dunn's contracts that they are now somehow equal. I hope Gomes keeps doing what he's doing, but at the same time I don't honestly know what to expect from him b/c we've only seen a small sample size from him in Cincinnati, and aside from 2005, nothing in his career numbers suggest he's capable of sustaining his current lines. I root for him to succeed b/c he's a Cincinnati Red, but at the same time I need to be realistic and know that he hasn't come close to replacing Adam Dunn, even if you give it the economic financial spin.

Hell, Gomes is one of the only guys I like on this team.

Highlifeman21
08-18-2009, 09:59 AM
Keep pinning your hopes on wishes and dreams rather than actual proven talent, THE CINCINNATI REDS.

The Reds sure do love them some "what could be" rather than "what is".

How are all those prospects working out for us?

Think they couldn't net us some actual talent?

I guess the Reds value hypothetical/potential talent over proven results.

nate
08-18-2009, 10:07 AM
I realize that. But I consider those two the LF position. Anyone else that has played there has been due to managerial incompetence. It's not fair to say the Reds have not found suitable replacement for the position, because clearly they have - at least to this point. Usage of such replacement(s) is another issue altogether.

If Gomes had the number of innings and ABs that Nix has in LF, I might be more convinced.

I say, we're still on the road to figuring it out.

lollipopcurve
08-18-2009, 10:34 AM
Couple things:

Dunn has finally made the move to 1B. Long overdue. This was not going to happen with the Reds.

Dunn has improved as a hitter this year, after a several seasons of treading water as a Red. As noted on the telecasts, he's gone to a heavier bat and is using the whole field better. It is likely this would not have happened with the Reds, for whatever reason.

Fantasizing about Dunn still in a Reds uniform? Not the same guy you're looking at now....

M2
08-18-2009, 10:35 AM
Gomes had a .751 OPS from 2006-8. While he certainly can do better than that, with repeated exposure he's not going to be phenomenally better than that.

Dunn's 2006-8 OPS was .897.

It's not really too hard to spot the qualitative difference between the two. Dunn needed to get himself away from the Reds in order to get to the next level, but Gomes isn't likely to replace what Dunn delivered while he was in a Reds uniform, let alone come close to matching the kind of production we'll be seeing from Dunn in the near future.

And this is coming from someone who was high on Gomes back to when he was in A ball. Ideally, he'd be a 200-300 PA backup OF.

WMR
08-18-2009, 11:04 AM
Well, I'm not suggesting he was looking for the first opportunity he had to leave town. I really don't believe that was the case.

But what I'm saying is that a lot of people made comments that he was going to ask for money he knew the Reds were not able (or at very least going) to pay. Whether he was intentionally pricing himself out of the picture or simply trying to leverage it, I don't know. But a lot of people commented that Dunn re-signing was not a realistic thing, if not in part by his expected demands, the club's expected reluctance or both.

Even in hindsight, though, he got $20 mil in a sluggish economic situation. Given when the Reds traded him the financial situation was not quite as depressed, it was perfectly reasonable at that time to assume his demands were much, much higher. Arroyo said he was talking $100 mil in a large multi-year deal. While that was not ever going to be what it wound up as, I can't say I blame the Reds for balking at figures even close to half that.

Brutus, again, this is all supposition. You can't really know any of this, but you're pretending like these are the incontrovertible facts of the situation. That is simply not the case.

westofyou
08-18-2009, 11:22 AM
Let's cut to the chase, the Reds LF has produced a .694 OPS this season, they have not replaced Dunn's production there or anywhere else on the field. To insist that they have is a waste of zeros and ones.

If you don't like Dunn we get it it, if you do like him we get it, but if you think that the Reds LF has produced a OPS above .700 then we do not get it. Because it's simply not true.

nate
08-18-2009, 11:46 AM
Let's cut to the chase, the Reds LF has produced a .694 OPS this season, they have not replaced Dunn's production there or anywhere else on the field. To insist that they have is a waste of zeros and ones.

If you don't like Dunn we get it it, if you do like him we get it, but if you think that the Reds LF has produced a OPS above .700 then we do not get it. Because it's simply not true.

Right. It's like saying the Reds LF would've produced an OPS of .947...

...if Joey Votto had been playing LF.

M2
08-18-2009, 11:48 AM
Let's cut to the chase, the Reds LF has produced a .694 OPS this season, they have not replaced Dunn's production there or anywhere else on the field. To insist that they have is a waste of zeros and ones.

If you don't like Dunn we get it it, if you do like him we get it, but if you think that the Reds LF has produced a OPS above .700 then we do not get it. Because it's simply not true.

Remember how every year earlier in the decade the starting pitching got fixed in August and September? I suspect that will become the new cry with the offense. A Jerry Hairston Jr. or a Jonny Gomes has a hot season and suddenly he'll be declared part of the solution. All bench players will be considered starters, all rookies will be can't-miss.

Cyclone792
08-18-2009, 11:51 AM
Remember how every year earlier in the decade the starting pitching got fixed in August and September? I suspect that will become the new cry with the offense. A Jerry Hairston Jr. or a Jonny Gomes has a hot season and suddenly he'll be declared part of the solution. All bench players will be considered starters, all rookies will be can't-miss.

Too true, and I'm already considering Gomes to be the next Hairston. I mean, Hairston was the answer the masses were crying for last season. The Reds bring him back, and well, he turns back into himself for 2009.

Gomes will likely do the same thing in 2010. I'm cool with bringing him back in a platoon role against southpaws, as you suggested in a previous post, but the Reds will really need to limit his PAs vs. right-handers next season otherwise there will just be another hole left unfilled.

nate
08-18-2009, 12:08 PM
The thing the Reds keep failing at is taking a nice 200 ABs and making it the solution to the starting job when it should be the solution to the bench.

Highlifeman21
08-18-2009, 12:09 PM
Too true, and I'm already considering Gomes to be the next Hairston. I mean, Hairston was the answer the masses were crying for last season. The Reds bring him back, and well, he turns back into himself for 2009.

Gomes will likely do the same thing in 2010. I'm cool with bringing him back in a platoon role against southpaws, as you suggested in a previous post, but the Reds will really need to limit his PAs vs. right-handers next season otherwise there will just be another hole left unfilled.

Gomes just shouldn't play vs. RHP, much like Phillips shouldn't hit cleanup vs. RHP.

But, Gomes has proven valuable vs. LHP, and he's definitely 1 piece to a solid platoon. Unfortunately we haven't found a dude that can rake against RHP to pair with Gomes.

Johnny Footstool
08-18-2009, 02:30 PM
They handled Joe Randa correctly -- sign him, let him play over his head for 3/4 of a season, then ship him out for prospects. But that's the exception.

Brutus
08-18-2009, 04:06 PM
If Gomes had the number of innings and ABs that Nix has in LF, I might be more convinced.

I say, we're still on the road to figuring it out.

Gomes has only 70 plate appearances less than Nix. The LF aggregate totals for the Reds don't take a lot of his production into account because he's been logging so many innings in RF since the Bruce injury. The samples are not really far different between the two, though I understand your point.

Brutus
08-18-2009, 04:39 PM
Gomes had a .751 OPS from 2006-8. While he certainly can do better than that, with repeated exposure he's not going to be phenomenally better than that.

Dunn's 2006-8 OPS was .897.

It's not really too hard to spot the qualitative difference between the two. Dunn needed to get himself away from the Reds in order to get to the next level, but Gomes isn't likely to replace what Dunn delivered while he was in a Reds uniform, let alone come close to matching the kind of production we'll be seeing from Dunn in the near future.

And this is coming from someone who was high on Gomes back to when he was in A ball. Ideally, he'd be a 200-300 PA backup OF.

Park-adjusted, OPS+ for 3-yr average from 2005-2007:

Gomes (113)
Dunn (130)

No one would debate who the better player is. Despite the strawman accusations by some, what I'm saying is that for one fifth of the cost, the difference is negligible enough that Gomes becomes a better value on the money spent for his production.

It's not like Gomes has not done this before. His OPS+ is actually the same (139) as it was in 2005. So he's not even doing something that he has not sustained before. Unlike Jerry Hairston, and some past Reds' flash-in-the-pans, he's doing this at an age (28) that is conducive to improvement. Hairston's season came at 32 - typically the end of peak production - and had never really been replicated prior to that.

Just for some perspective, if Gomes were to finish out the season at this rate (which he's probably not likely to, but let's just use our imaginations). His two seasons of 139 OPS+ exceed all but two of Dunn's seasons playing in the same park. Dunn has been pretty consistent. And again, I'm not saying Gomes is better. I just think the guy is getting severely short-changed.

As far as the .694 in LF:

Not very relevant. The question that has been discussed is whether the Reds have a suitable replacement, not whether the scrap heap in aggregate has performed at Dunn's level. Much of the LF OPS comes from McDonald, Dickerson and Hairston as well as Nix, instead of Nix and Gomes. Most of Gomes' hot streak has been logged as 'RF' OPS due to the Bruce injury. If Gomes and Nix were in a full platoon all season, or maybe Gomes getting a majority of the at-bats, that LF OPS would actually be looking rather handsome right now.

For an organization that is strapped for cash, you bet I'll take a guy with tremendous power that is going into peak age, when he may cost only 20 cents on the dollar compared to a guy with an actually similar skillset. The guy has shown this ability before. It's not a stretch to think he can continue - especially if you consider he's not immune to improvement. I'm all for remembering 'mean' production of a player's past. But I also know that the 'mean' has been known to get bumped up at the age of 27-28.

westofyou
08-18-2009, 04:53 PM
As far as the .694 in LF:

Not very relevant.

Except for the part about that being the production the Cincinnati Reds LF's have turned in this year so far.

Other than that it means nothing.

nate
08-18-2009, 04:55 PM
Park-adjusted, OPS+ for 3-yr average from 2005-2007:

Gomes (113)
Dunn (130)

And the counting stats in those three years?

As someone else pointed out in another thread, showing up counts.

How about the last three years?

The difference in price is that Dunn showed up for the whole season and put in his work. Not to say Gomes wouldn't but he didn't.


No one would debate who the better player is. Despite the strawman accusations by some, what I'm saying is that for one fifth of the cost, the difference is negligible enough that Gomes becomes a better value on the money spent for his production.The question is, can he do it for an entire season's worth of ABs? He never has before.


It's not like Gomes has not done this before. His OPS+ is actually the same (139) as it was in 2005. But he only managed to get into 100 games that season.


Just for some perspective, if Gomes were to finish out the season at this rate (which he's probably not likely to, but let's just use our imaginations). His two seasons of 139 OPS+ exceed all but two of Dunn's seasons playing in the same park. That's awesome, but the excitement is tempered greatly by it being done four years apart and in a couple hundred ABs this season.

Can he do it for a whole baseball season? Can the Reds afford to run that experiment to see if he can?


Dunn has been pretty consistent. And again, I'm not saying Gomes is better. I just think the guy is getting severely short-changed.I don't think he's been short-changed. I think he's on the path to proving himself rather than having arrived.


It's not a stretch to think he can continue - especially if you consider he's not immune to improvement. I'm all for remembering 'mean' production of a player's past. But I also know that the 'mean' has been known to get bumped up at the age of 27-28.I'm not worried about his ability to improve. I'm worried about his ability to continue the lofty production and stay on the field.

I'm all for Gomes being on the team next year.

I'm also all for the Reds either signing another player that makes Gomes an asset coming off the bench or swings a mean stick at another position.

Highlifeman21
08-18-2009, 04:57 PM
Park-adjusted, OPS+ for 3-yr average from 2005-2007:

Gomes (113)
Dunn (130)

No one would debate who the better player is. Despite the strawman accusations by some, what I'm saying is that for one fifth of the cost, the difference is negligible enough that Gomes becomes a better value on the money spent for his production.

It's not like Gomes has not done this before. His OPS+ is actually the same (139) as it was in 2005. So he's not even doing something that he has not sustained before. Unlike Jerry Hairston, and some past Reds' flash-in-the-pans, he's doing this at an age (28) that is conducive to improvement. Hairston's season came at 32 - typically the end of peak production - and had never really been replicated prior to that.

Just for some perspective, if Gomes were to finish out the season at this rate (which he's probably not likely to, but let's just use our imaginations). His two seasons of 139 OPS+ exceed all but two of Dunn's seasons playing in the same park. Dunn has been pretty consistent. And again, I'm not saying Gomes is better. I just think the guy is getting severely short-changed.

As far as the .694 in LF:

Not very relevant. The question that has been discussed is whether the Reds have a suitable replacement, not whether the scrap heap in aggregate has performed at Dunn's level. Much of the LF OPS comes from McDonald, Dickerson and Hairston as well as Nix, instead of Nix and Gomes. Most of Gomes' hot streak has been logged as 'RF' OPS due to the Bruce injury. If Gomes and Nix were in a full platoon all season, or maybe Gomes getting a majority of the at-bats, that LF OPS would actually be looking rather handsome right now.

For an organization that is strapped for cash, you bet I'll take a guy with tremendous power that is going into peak age, when he may cost only 20 cents on the dollar compared to a guy with an actually similar skillset. The guy has shown this ability before. It's not a stretch to think he can continue - especially if you consider he's not immune to improvement. I'm all for remembering 'mean' production of a player's past. But I also know that the 'mean' has been known to get bumped up at the age of 27-28.

How is it not very relevant?

Reds LFers have OPS'd .694 combined this year, which means that the Reds haven't come remotely close to sniffing replacing Dunn's production.

The Reds might have a suitable platoon replacement with Gomes. They still need to find someone who rakes vs RHP to complete the platoon. My boy Laynce Nix sure hasn't fit that description, as much as I've wanted him to.

Until they figure out their platoon, they can't even begin to think they've replaced Dunn's production.

As for the whole finances thing, we've got plenty of deadweight in contracts on this club that if we didn't have, we could afford Dunn. But, we chose to keep bad contracts, and then sign more dreck, so Dunn wasn't an option to us. Wouldn't you like to have Dunn for the bargain of $10M per year, or would you like to think that you can get less production for less money from Gomes, and somehow it'll magically equal Dunn's production?

M2
08-18-2009, 05:02 PM
Park-adjusted, OPS+ for 3-yr average from 2005-2007:

Gomes (113)
Dunn (130)

No one would debate who the better player is. Despite the strawman accusations by some, what I'm saying is that for one fifth of the cost, the difference is negligible enough that Gomes becomes a better value on the money spent for his production.

That's a massive production gap between the two. Massive. It's the difference between Roberto Clemente/Dave Winfield and Dan Driessen/Ben Grieve. Who cares if you save money? That's not the point of playing the games.

Roy Tucker
08-18-2009, 05:06 PM
Laynce Nix looked pretty good for a spell too.

Highlifeman21
08-18-2009, 05:07 PM
Laynce Nix looked pretty good for a spell too.

Yeah, he had me at hello.

westofyou
08-18-2009, 05:10 PM
Laynce Nix looked pretty good for a spell too.
If he was an animal I think he'd be a camel... that's all I got concerning him at this point.

Bumstead
08-18-2009, 05:12 PM
uh...when comparing Gomes and Dunn can we please list HR's, RBI's, AB's...there just might be a slight difference in stats that actually count. Also, there should be a waiver that notes that Gomes played mostly against LHP's during that time period. Give me a break...not much difference...Pit Bull vs ****zu (yes I know the spelling is wrong) in a dog fight...minimal difference...

I, for another, miss Dunn. Players that produce like he does every single year are very hard to find and are worth the $$$ paid to them.

Bum

Brutus
08-18-2009, 05:30 PM
That's a massive production gap between the two. Massive. It's the difference between Roberto Clemente/Dave Winfield and Dan Driessen/Ben Grieve. Who cares if you save money? That's not the point of playing the games.

They only differ in roughly 20 runs over the course of a season during those years, adjusted for 600 PA's. However, that's before park-adjustments. After park adjustments, you're looking at around only 15 runs created difference. 1.5 wins is not massive. If that $8 mil allows another position or two to be upgraded, totaling more than 1.5 wins in aggregate, it could be a net gain for the club and done without adding another large contract.

That would cost the Reds an additional $8 mil for an extra win and a half. That's a lot to pay for a theoretical extra 1.5 wins.

I don't know that Gomes would be able to produce over 600 plate appearances. He clearly has not done so, or proven that he can. But he has 1,600 career plate appearances and an OPS+ of 110. He has a career HR% of 5 and has sustained a .470 slugging. The sample is large enough to determine that he is capable of hitting, considering those numbers even take into account his atrocious 2008 campaign where he could not lift a shoulder.

M2
08-18-2009, 05:35 PM
They only differ in roughly 20 runs over the course of a season during those years, adjusted for 600 PA's. However, that's before park-adjustments. After park adjustments, you're looking at around only 15 runs created difference. 1.5 wins is not massive. If that $8 mil allows another position or two to be upgraded, totaling more than 1.5 wins in aggregate, it could be a net gain for the club and done without adding another large contract.

That would cost the Reds an additional $8 mil for an extra win and a half. That's a lot to pay for a theoretical extra 1.5 wins.

I don't know that Gomes would be able to produce over 600 plate appearances. He clearly has not done so, or proven that he can. But he has 1,600 career plate appearances and an OPS+ of 110. He has a career HR% of 5 and has sustained a .470 slugging. The sample is large enough to determine that he is capable of hitting, considering those numbers even take into account his atrocious 2008 campaign where he could not lift a shoulder.

Allow me to state this clearly again, it's the difference between Clemente/Winfield and Driessen/Grieve. It's a gaping, yawning chasm that highlights just how silly your win calculator is. It's so wide that I don't even need to cover the fact that you cherrypicked the three-year slice in order to put Gomes in the kindest possible light.

What you have come up with is the sort of rationalization that is becoming epidemic within awful teams.

nate
08-18-2009, 05:35 PM
They only differ in roughly 20 runs over the course of a season during those years, adjusted for 600 PA's.

There's your problem.

lollipopcurve
08-18-2009, 05:37 PM
I do think it's reasonable for the team to look to replace Dunn with a cost-effective platoon. Shore up the offense in other areas, and the offense will look OK.

Bumstead
08-18-2009, 05:40 PM
There's your problem.

Exactly! And not too mention a ratio between 'vs LHP', 'vs RHP' that is weighted much heavier in 'vs LHP' than a player that actually plays and produces on a daily basis regardless of who is pitching.

Bum

Brutus
08-18-2009, 05:47 PM
Allow me to state this clearly again, it's the difference between Clemente/Winfield and Driessen/Grieve. It's a gaping, yawning chasm that highlights just how silly your win calculator is.

What you have come up with is the sort of rationalization that is becoming epidemic within awful teams.

No, what we have is a player that, for the 2nd time in his brief career, has put up an OPS+ of 140. The success of small-market teams are based on their ability to find VALUE for the money spent. However, if they spend all their resources on a couple of positions, they will suffer at other positions. Has Billy Beane taught you nothing?

This team has been strapped with too many bad contracts as it is. While Dunn produces enough that $10 mil would not be a 'bad' contract, it's still more money than the Reds can really dish out to one player without limiting themselves financially. So I'd rather be able to spend the same amount of money on three positions, and have a net gain in wins than put all my resources on one position. That's not an epidemic of anything. That's smart money management.

My 'win' calculator is from years of documented evidence that roughly 10 runs is worth a win. The difference, then, between 15 runs created given that many PA's is about 1.5 wins. If a 72-win Reds team loses Adam Dunn and replaced him with Jonny Gomes. You get a 70-win Reds team. There's nothing silly about that. Talk to the saber crowd that postulates these numbers, not me.

You can use the anecdotal player comparisons all you want. But 1.5 wins is 1.5 wins. If I can gain half a win or a win or two by spreading it out over three positions for the same money spent, that's efficient management.

VR
08-18-2009, 05:50 PM
Adam's thoughts on having a real life hitting coach. No question his approach is very different from this year to his last 3-4 w/ the Reds. I yearn for quality hitting and pitching coaches. Yearn.



Talk about what hitting coach Rick Eckstein has meant to you and the rest of the Nationals?He's the hardest working guy I've ever been around. He hits the field at about noon and he's usually the last one to leave. He watches a lot of video and baseball is his life. He's the best hitting coach I've ever had. From what I hear on the outside, a lot of guys who have had him said that he's the best hitting coach around, and I believe it.


What specifically has he done for you as a hitter?
He knows your swing, everyone's swing. He watches so much video that he can almost mimic your swing because of how much video he watches. He relates well and his terminology is really easy to catch on. He keeps it simple and he doesn't give too much information.

Johnny Footstool
08-18-2009, 05:52 PM
While Dunn produces enough that $10 mil would not be a 'bad' contract, it's still more money than the Reds can really dish out to one player without limiting themselves financially.

If this is the case, then Castellini should sell the Reds and buy a nice beet farm somewhere.

If the Reds can't/won't pay $10 million for a .900 OPS player, they need to be in a different business.

M2
08-18-2009, 05:58 PM
I do think it's reasonable for the team to look to replace Dunn with a cost-effective platoon. Shore up the offense in other areas, and the offense will look OK.

Sure, just find a CF, SS and C in addition to a quality platoon in LF (in which Gomes is only the RH hitting portion) and you might have reasonable offense.

No one's saying Dunn is irreplaceable, but there is a gulf between the production of Dunn and Gomes that in no way should be minimized. It's almost 40 RC/162. And there's a school of thought, to which I subscribe, that outstanding offensive contributors drive more actual scoring than their raw numbers indicate. The theory basically is that scoring will congeal around a guy like Lance Berkman, creating team productivity that extends beyond even the obvious gap to a guy like James Loney. Along those lines, note the Manny effect on the Dodgers.

Hardly surprising that the Reds offense is a mess while the Nats offense has improved quite a bit since Dunn arrived.

lollipopcurve
08-18-2009, 06:12 PM
Sure, just find a CF, SS and C in addition to a quality platoon in LF (in which Gomes is only the RH hitting portion) and you might have reasonable offense.

No one's saying Dunn is irreplaceable, but there is a gulf between the production of Dunn and Gomes that in no way should be minimized. It's almost 40 RC/162. And there's a school of thought, to which I subscribe, that outstanding offensive contributors drive more actual scoring than their raw numbers indicate. The theory basically is that scoring will congeal around a guy like Lance Berkman, creating team productivity that extends beyond even the obvious gap to a guy like James Loney. Along those lines, note the Manny effect on the Dodgers.

Hardly surprising that the Reds offense is a mess while the Nats offense has improved quite a bit since Dunn arrived.

Sure. I'm not arguing that the team has succeeded in helping their offense via the LF platoon here in 2009. But going forward, if they can help themselves at CF and SS (not hard to do, and why I like the notion of signing Tejada, for example), adding in the boost they'll get from Rolen, I'd think a Dickerson/Gomes or Dickerson/Wlad platoon in left, just to name the in-house options, may be enough to keep Redszone from relapsing into yet another round of UFC-style Dunn debating.

TheNext44
08-18-2009, 06:13 PM
I have not read this whole thread, I try to ignore Adam Dunn threads on the board for obvious reasons.

I hope I am not saying something someone else has said, but for me the main point about Adam Dunn has always been his defense. That is why the Reds did not sign him in the offseason (and why they didn't sign Abreu, Bradley or Burrell).

Dunn is having one of his best years offensively and he is still just a 1.7 win player the year when you factor in his defense. Chris Dickerson, the who the Reds planned to replace Dunn with this seaon, is currently a 1.4 win player when you factor in defense.

It is very simple. They get nearly the same production from Dickerson as they would get from Dunn, at 1/20th the cost.

I have no idea if Dunn wanted to be a Red, but it is a moot point, because the Reds never wanted him, and for good reason. Dunn is one of my favorite players, but even with his "bargain" contract of $20M for ywo years, he is overpriced, when you factor in his defense. That is why Dunn is not a Red.

M2
08-18-2009, 06:19 PM
No, what we have is a player that, for the 2nd time in his brief career, has put up an OPS+ of 140. The success of small-market teams are based on their ability to find VALUE for the money spent. However, if they spend all their resources on a couple of positions, they will suffer at other positions. Has Billy Beane taught you nothing?

This team has been strapped with too many bad contracts as it is. While Dunn produces enough that $10 mil would not be a 'bad' contract, it's still more money than the Reds can really dish out to one player without limiting themselves financially. So I'd rather be able to spend the same amount of money on three positions, and have a net gain in wins than put all my resources on one position. That's not an epidemic of anything. That's smart money management.

My 'win' calculator is from years of documented evidence that roughly 10 runs is worth a win. The difference, then, between 15 runs created given that many PA's is about 1.5 wins. If a 72-win Reds team loses Adam Dunn and replaced him with Jonny Gomes. You get a 70-win Reds team. There's nothing silly about that. Talk to the saber crowd that postulates these numbers, not me.

You can use the anecdotal player comparisons all you want. But 1.5 wins is 1.5 wins. If I can gain half a win or a win or two by spreading it out over three positions for the same money spent, that's efficient management.

The success of any team is built around finding quality. All you've done is buy into a system that worships at the altar of less for less. In the end, it's still less. When the A's were good, they weren't doing less. They were one of the top pitching teams in the AL from 2000-2006 while their offense got increasingly shoddy. Eventually the pitching started moving in the wrong direction too and everything went to hell.

So has Billy Beane learned anything from Billy Beane? Or is he going to keep trying to slide by with 50% solutions when it comes to scoring runs? It's not just efficiency. It's efficiency in the name of quality.

And spare me the lecture on the smart money management of a team churning headlong toward a 90+ loss season. The modern excuse for such debacles is you can't blame the team because it did everything right according to the Nu Baseball Handbook. The problem is the appendix in that handbook dictates that teams like the Reds and A's still lose in the end. That what your value engineering and bogus win calculators will get you.

It's the teams that find the good stuff, whether they steal or pay for it, that get over the hump. Adam Dunn was a chunk of the good stuff and the distance back to a Jonny Gomes is enormous. And no matter how hard you try to minimize, it's going to remain enormous.

GAC
08-18-2009, 06:25 PM
Did anyone see the Dunn interview the other night where he said he increased the weight of his bat this year by 2 ounces?

Johnny Footstool
08-18-2009, 06:26 PM
I have not read this whole thread, I try to ignore Adam Dunn threads on the board for obvious reasons.

I hope I am not saying something someone else has said, but for me the main point about Adam Dunn has always been his defense. That is why the Reds did not sign him in the offseason (and why they didn't sign Abreu, Bradley or Burrell).

Dunn is having one of his best years offensively and he is still just a 1.7 win player the year when you factor in his defense. Chris Dickerson, the who the Reds planned to replace Dunn with this seaon, is currently a 1.4 win player when you factor in defense.

It is very simple. They get nearly the same production from Dickerson as they would get from Dunn, at 1/20th the cost.

I have no idea if Dunn wanted to be a Red, but it is a moot point, because the Reds never wanted him, and for good reason. Dunn is one of my favorite players, but even with his "bargain" contract of $20M for ywo years, he is overpriced, when you factor in his defense. That is why Dunn is not a Red.

That's one reason I don't put too much stock in Defensive Win Shares.

M2
08-18-2009, 06:27 PM
Sure. I'm not arguing that the team has succeeded in helping their offense via the LF platoon here in 2009. But going forward, if they can help themselves at CF and SS (not hard to do, and why I like the notion of signing Tejada, for example), adding in the boost they'll get from Rolen, I'd think a Dickerson/Gomes or Dickerson/Wlad platoon in left, just to name the in-house options, may be enough to keep Redszone from relapsing into yet another round of UFC-style Dunn debating.

Getting offensive quality at CF and SS is exceptionally hard to do. Teams that have it will put you over the barrel to get it off of them.

Dickerson, Gomes and Balentien would make a nice bench. perhaps they could be Frankensteined into LF if the team added big time quality at CF, SS and C.

My take is that if the Reds want make Adam Dunn's formidable bat a distant memory, then they better go out and add something like Grady Sizemore and Vlad Guerrero. That would probably put Dunn in the rearview.

lollipopcurve
08-18-2009, 06:35 PM
Getting offensive quality at CF and SS is exceptionally hard to do. Teams that have it will put you over the barrel to get it off of them.

Dickerson, Gomes and Balentien would make a nice bench. perhaps they could be Frankensteined into LF if the team added big time quality at CF, SS and C.

My take is that if the Reds want make Adam Dunn's formidable bat a distant memory, then they better go out and add something like Grady Sizemore and Vlad Guerrero. That would probably put Dunn in the rearview.

I don't know, I think you may be overstating the challenge. Of course, the team desperately needs Bruce to figure out what kind of hitter he's supposed to be. Although I do agree they'll need to do something other than yawn in order to capture a SS who hits.

Brutus
08-18-2009, 06:49 PM
The success of any team is built around finding quality. All you've done is buy into a system that worships at the altar of less for less. In the end, it's still less. When the A's were good, they weren't doing less. They were one of the top pitching teams in the AL from 2000-2006 while their offense got increasingly shoddy. Eventually the pitching started moving in the wrong direction too and everything went to hell.

So has Billy Beane learned anything from Billy Beane? Or is he going to keep trying to slide by with 50% solutions when it comes to scoring runs? It's not just efficiency. It's efficiency in the name of quality.

And spare me the lecture on the smart money management of a team churning headlong toward a 90+ loss season. The modern excuse for such debacles is you can't blame the team because it did everything right according to the Nu Baseball Handbook. The problem is the appendix in that handbook dictates that teams like the Reds and A's still lose in the end. That what your value engineering and bogus win calculators will get you.

It's the teams that find the good stuff, whether they steal or pay for it, that get over the hump. Adam Dunn was a chunk of the good stuff and the distance back to a Jonny Gomes is enormous. And no matter how hard you try to minimize, it's going to remain enormous.

Bogus win calculation? Since when? Every qualified researcher I've seen on the topic says 10-11 runs scored = 1 win. Do you deny that? Can you point to someone that does not agree with that general premise?

Second. Show me a player that has produced on the Reds to the level that Gomes has done over 200 PA's of all these failed one-year wonders. Yea there's been some flashes in the pan that the Reds have jumped on. But none had a 940 OPS and even fewer (none) had shown the same ability before. There has not been a guy of his production fit this criteria that everyone is using as a failed strategy for the Reds. So the fact that the Reds are on pace for 90-plus losses is more proof in the pudding it needs to be better with their money. The Reds HAVE spent money. They've got three pitchers with a combined $35 million salary. That's half their payroll. It's that spending that has them in a flexibility issue.

Third. You are the one that used faulty calculations. According to the RC figures on baseball reference, Dunn and Gomes, in 2005-2007, produced a difference of only 20 RC per 600 PA. You are throwing a number of 40 out there for 162 games. That's nearly two times too high. The real RC number is 20 over 600, and that's before park-adjustments (which bring it closer to 15). Check out BR if you don't believe me. Add their RC, divide by PA then multiply by 600. You'll see it comes out to 85 for Gomes and 105 for Dunn.

The system I buy into is finding value adds. Our society does not buy into that enough, which is why we constantly are adding enormous debt. You can have some quality for a lot less. The Reds trying to go after an Adam Dunn when you can find a productive but much less expensive Jonny Gomes is like a family living beyond their means by purchasing a $150/mo. satellite package when basic cable will be sufficient, if it allowed them to get all the utilities paid on time and have a little extra disposable income to improve the lifestyle when a car breaks down or whatever else. So this system you mention is not just an ideal for baseball, it's something society should adapt to.

Jonny Gomes, for his career, is an above-average baseball player. In other words, he's talented. You don't win games by spending $10 on one position if it means you have little money to spend on other positions. You do win games by finding quality players of good value, giving you money to upgrade positions that are of lesser quality. Keeping an Adam Dunn but not being able to improve 2-3 other terrible positions leaves the Reds in much worse shape than if they did not keep Dunn, but found quality replacement in left, upgraded third, found another quality starting pitcher, etc.

Sacrificing a few runs at one position in lieu of upgrading a few other positions is not a system of failed ideaology. Rather, it's simple common sense. It takes efficient evaluation of the players to insert, obviously, but I see nothing about Gomes that indicates he's unable to sustain this. He has a career HR rate of over 5%. He is not a product of much 'luck' as he's very much a true-outcomes type of player. He walks better than average players. And he has always had a solid LD%. He fits the mold of a value-add.

M2
08-18-2009, 06:52 PM
I don't know, I think you may be overstating the challenge.

The Reds are on pace to score fewer than 650 runs. In modern baseball, especially in the GAB, that's all kinds of pathetic.

The problem obviously extends well beyond LF, but an extra 100 runs isn't going to materialize out of thin air. And that's what you need unless you've got exceptionally dominant pitching. In order to The three highest scoring teams in the NL are sitting in playoff spots. Three of the four highest scoring teams in the AL are sitting in playoff spots.

Apparently it pays to score like it's 1999.

M2
08-18-2009, 07:32 PM
Bogus win calculation? Since when? Every qualified researcher I've seen on the topic says 10-11 runs scored = 1 win. Do you deny that? Can you point to someone that does not agree with that general premise?

Yeah, we've been over it a thousand times on this site. Without even getting into the silliness of defensive runs adjustments, there is the mountainous question of whether run differentials have linear or logarithmic value. I know what the groupthink in the SABR community is on this issue, but that line of thinking constantly gets used to support crummy roster moves.


Second. Show me a player that has produced on the Reds to the level that Gomes has done over 200 PA's of all these failed one-year wonders. Yea there's been some flashes in the pan that the Reds have jumped on. But none had a 940 OPS and even fewer (none) had shown the same ability before. There has not been a guy of his production fit this criteria that everyone is using as a failed strategy for the Reds. So the fact that the Reds are on pace for 90-plus losses is more proof in the pudding it needs to be better with their money. The Reds HAVE spent money. They've got three pitchers with a combined $35 million salary. That's half their payroll. It's that spending that has them in a flexibility issue.

First, the Reds have a lack of quality issue that far outweighs their flexibility issue.

Second, you're the one talking about how much sense it made for the Reds to pass on Dunn's quality (and others) for all that blessed flexibility. Turned out to be a horrid idea. Seriously, you're now watching a team that elevated flexibility above all else. You like what you see? Because this is what you'll get more often than not if that's your philosophy.

Third, good luck getting anyone to buy into the argument that Gomes isn't going to play closer to his career averages as time goes on. His 2005-7 averages, a subset you introduced into the discussion, isn't even close to what he's doing now. And that's the point. Gomes is producing a small sample size anomaly and he couldn't come close to replacing Dunn's production over the course of a full season.

Fourth, Alex Ochoa 2000 - .964 OPS, 137 OPS+, 275 PA.

Fifth, Jon Nunnally 1997 - 1.002 OPS, 157 OPS+, 231 PA.

Sixth, Dave Ross 2006 - .932 OPS, 130 OPS+, 296 PA.


You are the one that used faulty calculations. According to the RC figures on baseball reference, Dunn and Gomes, in 2005-2007, produced a difference of only 20 RC per 600 PA.

I used their career RC/162 totals - 120 for Dunn, 81 for Gomes - which represents the most unbiased sample size and most relevant seeing that Dunn plays nearly 162 games every season. I understand your need to slant the numbers in order to give your case some standing, but surely you didn't think that sleight of hand was fooling anyone.

The numbers can be found here:

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/g/gomesjo01-bat.shtml
http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/d/dunnad01-bat.shtml


The system I buy into is finding value adds. Our society does not buy into that enough, which is why we constantly are adding enormous debt. You can have some quality for a lot less. The Reds trying to go after an Adam Dunn when you can find a productive but much less expensive Jonny Gomes is like a family living beyond their means by purchasing a $150/mo. satellite package when basic cable will be sufficient, if it allowed them to get all the utilities paid on time and have a little extra disposable income to improve the lifestyle when a car breaks down or whatever else. So this system you mention is not just an ideal for baseball, it's something society should adapt to.

The Reds are living in baseball's version of a cardboard box. They stopped paying for electricity to pay for a shopping cart.


Jonny Gomes, for his career, is an above-average baseball player. In other words, he's talented.

I agree. I agreed probably long before you ever knew who Gomes was (I was posting about him on this board during the 2002 season). Thing is, I'm not pretending he's more talented than he is.


You don't win games by spending $10 on one position if it means you have little money to spend on other positions. You do win games by finding quality players of good value, giving you money to upgrade positions that are of lesser quality. Keeping an Adam Dunn but not being able to improve 2-3 other terrible positions leaves the Reds in much worse shape than if they did not keep Dunn, but found quality replacement in left, upgraded third, found another quality starting pitcher, etc.

Theory, theory, theory. The Reds did exactly what you advocate. How did it work?

Let me guess, they didn't do it right. Here's the thing, almost no one ever does.


Sacrificing a few runs at one position in lieu of upgrading a few other positions is not a system of failed ideaology.

A few runs? Try a pile. In real terms the Reds are likely to be down more than 60 runs below last season's sorry offense, which was down 79 runs from the season before. The Reds have let the offense go to rot. If you can't spot that, don't tell me about how much common sense you've got.

AtomicDumpling
08-18-2009, 09:13 PM
I have not read this whole thread, I try to ignore Adam Dunn threads on the board for obvious reasons.

I hope I am not saying something someone else has said, but for me the main point about Adam Dunn has always been his defense. That is why the Reds did not sign him in the offseason (and why they didn't sign Abreu, Bradley or Burrell).

Dunn is having one of his best years offensively and he is still just a 1.7 win player the year when you factor in his defense. Chris Dickerson, the who the Reds planned to replace Dunn with this seaon, is currently a 1.4 win player when you factor in defense.

It is very simple. They get nearly the same production from Dickerson as they would get from Dunn, at 1/20th the cost.

I have no idea if Dunn wanted to be a Red, but it is a moot point, because the Reds never wanted him, and for good reason. Dunn is one of my favorite players, but even with his "bargain" contract of $20M for ywo years, he is overpriced, when you factor in his defense. That is why Dunn is not a Red.

Defense is not why the Reds jettisoned Dunn. They didn't keep him because they didn't want to pay him a fair salary. Profit was more important than winning. There is absolutely no question that Adam Dunn would be a vast improvement over the dreck playing left field this year. Everyone knew it then and everyone knows it now. The Reds just chose to go with the cheaper replacement-level players to save money. It was not a baseball decision, it was an accounting decision. Pure and simple.

And to compound that error the Reds chose to pocket the savings from ditching Dunn. They didn't use that money to replace him in the outfield nor to improve the team elsewhere on the diamond. It was just added profit.

The defense has gotten much better while the team has gotten much worse. Defense is a poor substitute for offense in baseball.

The 2009 Reds are far worse than the 2008 Reds and the biggest reason is Adam Dunn.

Chip R
08-18-2009, 09:25 PM
I hope I am not saying something someone else has said, but for me the main point about Adam Dunn has always been his defense. That is why the Reds did not sign him in the offseason (and why they didn't sign Abreu, Bradley or Burrell).


Defense is the absolute last thing people really care about no matter what they say. Look at Manny Ramirez. He may be more talented in the field than Dunn but he doesn't give a crap and screws around out there and as a result he's a worse LFer than Dunn. But you don't see L.A. fans complaining about his defense? Red Sox fans never cared until he started his campaign to be traded.

No doubt Dunn was a liability on defense. But put a stronger team around him and people are not going to worry that much about it.

AtomicDumpling
08-18-2009, 09:36 PM
Jonny Gomes, for his career, is an above-average baseball player. In other words, he's talented. You don't win games by spending $10 on one position if it means you have little money to spend on other positions. You do win games by finding quality players of good value, giving you money to upgrade positions that are of lesser quality. Keeping an Adam Dunn but not being able to improve 2-3 other terrible positions leaves the Reds in much worse shape than if they did not keep Dunn, but found quality replacement in left, upgraded third, found another quality starting pitcher, etc.

Sacrificing a few runs at one position in lieu of upgrading a few other positions is not a system of failed ideaology. Rather, it's simple common sense. It takes efficient evaluation of the players to insert, obviously, but I see nothing about Gomes that indicates he's unable to sustain this. He has a career HR rate of over 5%. He is not a product of much 'luck' as he's very much a true-outcomes type of player. He walks better than average players. And he has always had a solid LD%. He fits the mold of a value-add.

Johnny Gomes is an above average hitter vs. left handed pitching only. He is below average for a LFer against right handed pitching. He is a good option as a platoon player, which means you have to use a second valuable roster spot (and salary) to pair him with to cover just one position. Gomes is a good guy to have on the team as a situational player, but he has shown throughout his career that he is just not good enough to be an everyday player on a good team. Gomes didn't even make the team out of Spring Training, so it is a stretch to claim the Reds brought him in to replace Adam Dunn. He was merely a bargain basement, roster filling, injury replacement, insurance policy in the front office's estimation.

Secondly, your argument that the Reds were wise to jettison Dunn so they could spend his money to upgrade the team in other areas sounds logical at first glance. But when you look closer you see that is not what happened. They jettisoned Dunn purely to improve the bottom line. They did not spend those savings to improve the team. They pocketed outright about half the savings (for this year and from not having to pay him for 1/3 of the season last year). The money they did spend left the team worse than before. So it is not accurate to claim the Reds were wise to ditch Dunn because it allowed them to improve the team by reallocating his salary. History has shown quite clearly that the decision to ditch Adam Dunn has backfired big time.

jojo
08-18-2009, 09:38 PM
I have not read this whole thread, I try to ignore Adam Dunn threads on the board for obvious reasons.

I hope I am not saying something someone else has said, but for me the main point about Adam Dunn has always been his defense. That is why the Reds did not sign him in the offseason (and why they didn't sign Abreu, Bradley or Burrell).

Dunn is having one of his best years offensively and he is still just a 1.7 win player the year when you factor in his defense. Chris Dickerson, the who the Reds planned to replace Dunn with this seaon, is currently a 1.4 win player when you factor in defense.

It is very simple. They get nearly the same production from Dickerson as they would get from Dunn, at 1/20th the cost.

I have no idea if Dunn wanted to be a Red, but it is a moot point, because the Reds never wanted him, and for good reason. Dunn is one of my favorite players, but even with his "bargain" contract of $20M for ywo years, he is overpriced, when you factor in his defense. That is why Dunn is not a Red.

This is pretty much spot on.

RedsManRick
08-18-2009, 09:43 PM
I have not read this whole thread, I try to ignore Adam Dunn threads on the board for obvious reasons.

I hope I am not saying something someone else has said, but for me the main point about Adam Dunn has always been his defense. That is why the Reds did not sign him in the offseason (and why they didn't sign Abreu, Bradley or Burrell).

Dunn is having one of his best years offensively and he is still just a 1.7 win player the year when you factor in his defense. Chris Dickerson, the who the Reds planned to replace Dunn with this seaon, is currently a 1.4 win player when you factor in defense.

It is very simple. They get nearly the same production from Dickerson as they would get from Dunn, at 1/20th the cost.

I have no idea if Dunn wanted to be a Red, but it is a moot point, because the Reds never wanted him, and for good reason. Dunn is one of my favorite players, but even with his "bargain" contract of $20M for ywo years, he is overpriced, when you factor in his defense. That is why Dunn is not a Red.

Great post.

I've long defended Dunn's offensive game, but it's quite clear that his overall value is significantly harmed by his defense. It's one thing to be an average fielder and add no value; it's quite another to be a horrendous one. If Dunn played average defense and hit .260/.350/.450, would we be talking about him at all? Because that's basically the value he gives you.

Extreme talent sets are fun, interesting, and polarizing, particularly to the casual fan. But you simply cannot consider them in isolation when valuing a player. The Reds made the right decision in trading him and in not resigning him in the offseason.

AtomicDumpling
08-18-2009, 09:48 PM
This is pretty much spot on.

Only if you ignore the fact the Reds have drastically improved their defense across the board yet the team is far worse than last year. This is a textbook example of why defensive run values are rubbish.

westofyou
08-18-2009, 09:53 PM
Defense is the absolute last thing people really care about no matter what they say. Look at Manny Ramirez. He may be more talented in the field than Dunn but he doesn't give a crap and screws around out there and as a result he's a worse LFer than Dunn. But you don't see L.A. fans complaining about his defense? Red Sox fans never cared until he started his campaign to be traded.

No doubt Dunn was a liability on defense. But put a stronger team around him and people are not going to worry that much about it.

Exactly is LF the new SS?

Probably not, it's a position that you can hide guys in and it's not like the GAB is Redland Field in the 20's. You can hide guys there.

jojo
08-18-2009, 09:57 PM
Only if you ignore the fact the Reds have drastically improved their defense across the board yet the team is far worse than last year. This is a textbook example of why defensive run values are rubbish.

Not really.

They improved their run prevention .2 runs a game but downgraded their run scoring by roughly .4. Thank goodness their defense is dramatically improved.

That said, it doesn't follow that defensive run values are rubbish based upon the Reds RS/RA this season.

jojo
08-18-2009, 09:59 PM
Defense is the absolute last thing people really care about no matter what they say. Look at Manny Ramirez. He may be more talented in the field than Dunn but he doesn't give a crap and screws around out there and as a result he's a worse LFer than Dunn. But you don't see L.A. fans complaining about his defense? Red Sox fans never cared until he started his campaign to be traded.

No doubt Dunn was a liability on defense. But put a stronger team around him and people are not going to worry that much about it.

It's not a matter of what fans think. It's pythag's opinion that matters. :cool:

M2
08-18-2009, 10:29 PM
It's not a matter of what fans think. It's pythag's opinion that matters. :cool:

Exactly, and if the Reds had Dunn this season they'd be scoring a lot more while allowing pretty much the same amount of runs. Mind you, it still wouldn't be enough to bridge the gap. According to pythag the Reds were a better team with Dunn from 2005-8 than they are right now.

Defense was the Tommy Flanagan excuse to get rid of Dunn. He can't play defense, yeah, that's the ticket. Meanwhile, an extremely stats conscious organization, the Pirates, traded away supposedly the best defensive LF in baseball (I'd argue Nyjer Morgan's the best defensive OF in baseball) for Lastings Milledge, who can't field a lick.

Why it's like scoring runs is an act of commission or something.

jojo
08-18-2009, 10:40 PM
Exactly, and if the Reds had Dunn this season they'd be scoring a lot more while allowing pretty much the same amount of runs. Mind you, it still wouldn't be enough to bridge the gap. According to pythag the Reds were a better team with Dunn from 2005-8 than they are right now.

Defense was the Tommy Flanagan excuse to get rid of Dunn. He can't play defense, yeah, that's the ticket. Meanwhile, an extremely stats conscious organization, the Pirates, traded away supposedly the best defensive LF in baseball (I'd argue Nyjer Morgan's the best defensive OF in baseball) for Lastings Milledge, who can't field a lick.

Why it's like scoring runs is an act of commission or something.

Once again, it's not defensive value vs offensive value-it's the value when both are considered as a whole.

That said Dunn's offensive value is greater than his defensive value but clearly his total value is dragged down by his very poor defense. He's not the impact player that focusing simply on his counting stats might suggest.

Presumably the pirates traded for Milledge because they thought the total value of Millegde was likely to be greater than the total value of Morgan.

If anything, having an extremely stats conscious organization orchestrate such a trade suggests there isn't a slavish overvaluation/fixation on defensive value amongst saber types.

M2
08-18-2009, 10:54 PM
Once again, it's not defensive value vs offensive value-it's the value when both are considered as a whole.

No, really? Pythag involves RS and RA? Wow.

If only I had addressed that directly in my post. ... Oh wait, I did.


That said Dunn's offensive value is greater than his defensive value but clearly his total value is dragged down by his very poor defense. He's not the impact player that focusing simply on his counting stats might suggest.

He is, but some folks have bought into the hooey that catching a baseball has new and magical value. It doesn't.


Presumably the pirates traded for Milledge because they thought the total value of Millegde was likely to be greater than the total value of Morgan.

If anything, having an extremely stats conscious organization orchestrate such a trade suggests there isn't a slavish overvaluation/fixation on defensive value amongst saber types.

Well, not so slavish amongst those who want to stay employed in the game of baseball.

The new undervalued skill in baseball is OPS. Everybody's trying to figure out how to win without it, insisting it isn't worth all that and a bag of chips. It isn't working. It's the big offensive teams ruling the roost.

The Pirates gambled that Morgan's proven defense was worth losing for Milledge's potential offense. I'd still fault them for aiming small, but at least they've got an inkling.

In the meantime, some team out there surely has a defensive man-crush on Drew Stubbs.

Ron Madden
08-19-2009, 04:53 AM
I'm an old fan just trying to gain a better understanding of a game that I love.

In my time here at RedsZone I've come to a better understanding of offensive statistical metrics because I've seen for myself that they are accurate far more often than not. I admit that I've still got a lot to learn about how to analyze offensive stats but to tell ya the truth, I can't see any real proof to any of these new defensive metrics.

I do Know this... any team would benifit with offensive the production of Adam Dunn.

RichRed
08-19-2009, 10:36 AM
For those who feel that Dunn's defensive shortcomings cancel out his offensive game, does the fact that he's seeing more time at 1B change that view?

I know we have Votto at 1B now but I sure wouldn't mind having both Votto AND Dunn in the same lineup. How many wins better would the Reds be with say, Dunn at first and Votto in LF?

Honest questions.

bucksfan2
08-19-2009, 10:58 AM
I do Know this... any team would benifit with offensive the production of Adam Dunn.

At DH he would be a monster. When he has to take the field no so much.

Highlifeman21
08-19-2009, 11:23 AM
I'm an old fan just trying to gain a better understanding of a game that I love.

In my time here at RedsZone I've come to a better understanding of offensive statistical metrics because I've seen for myself that they are accurate far more often than not. I admit that I've still got a lot to learn about how to analyze offensive stats but to tell ya the truth, I can't see any real proof to any of these new defensive metrics.

I do Know this... any team would benifit with offensive the production of Adam Dunn.

I hear ya about defensive metrics.

I think bad defenders are unnecessarily penalized for whatever reason. Sure, we know Dunn's a bad defender, but I don't buy for 1 minute all that nonsense that he costs a team 20 or 30 runs or whatever. I also don't buy that his defensive woes negate and equalize his offensive contributions.

But Dunn's not the only one that gets bagged for playing bad LF. Carlos Lee, Manny Ramirez, Jason Bay, Delmon Young, Raul Ibanez, Jack Cust, Carlos Quentin, Pat Burrell, Ryan Braun, Juan Pierre. All these guys are supposedly defensive liabilities in LF. Remove Young, Cust, and Pierre, and all the other guys have plenty of bat to make up for the minimal impact their negative defense has on their team and overall value as a player.

I can understand positions where D matters, like any of the IF positions and CF, but LF, c'mon. LF D doesn't matter, which is why typically you'll find teams put a huge bat out there with suspect D.

Heck, look at the Brewers and Ryan Braun. He was a defensive liability @ 3B (where D matters), but they moved him out to LF where D doesn't matter, and it actually increased his value as a player, even though he supposedly has negative value as a defender.

On the flipside, though, I don't buy for 1 minute that great defenders playing positions where D doesn't matter are saving their teams as many runs as UZR suggests.

Franklin Gutierrez, +21 in RF? Carl Crawford, +20 in LF? Randy Winn, +16 in RF? Alex Rios, +15 in RF? Jayson Werth, +14 in RF? Willie Harris, +13 in LF? And so forth, and so on....

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. I could possibly concede that these players are saving their teams the number of OUTS, but in no way the number of RUNS as UZR suggests.

My biggest gripe with UZR is that it's constantly adjusted year by year to some average, which as a statistical metric makes me wonder why they normalize it, when that should only dilute the results.

TheNext44
08-19-2009, 12:33 PM
I hear ya about defensive metrics.

I think bad defenders are unnecessarily penalized for whatever reason. Sure, we know Dunn's a bad defender, but I don't buy for 1 minute all that nonsense that he costs a team 20 or 30 runs or whatever. I also don't buy that his defensive woes negate and equalize his offensive contributions.

But Dunn's not the only one that gets bagged for playing bad LF. Carlos Lee, Manny Ramirez, Jason Bay, Delmon Young, Raul Ibanez, Jack Cust, Carlos Quentin, Pat Burrell, Ryan Braun, Juan Pierre. All these guys are supposedly defensive liabilities in LF. Remove Young, Cust, and Pierre, and all the other guys have plenty of bat to make up for the minimal impact their negative defense has on their team and overall value as a player.

I can understand positions where D matters, like any of the IF positions and CF, but LF, c'mon. LF D doesn't matter, which is why typically you'll find teams put a huge bat out there with suspect D.

Heck, look at the Brewers and Ryan Braun. He was a defensive liability @ 3B (where D matters), but they moved him out to LF where D doesn't matter, and it actually increased his value as a player, even though he supposedly has negative value as a defender.

On the flipside, though, I don't buy for 1 minute that great defenders playing positions where D doesn't matter are saving their teams as many runs as UZR suggests.

Franklin Gutierrez, +21 in RF? Carl Crawford, +20 in LF? Randy Winn, +16 in RF? Alex Rios, +15 in RF? Jayson Werth, +14 in RF? Willie Harris, +13 in LF? And so forth, and so on....

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. I could possibly concede that these players are saving their teams the number of OUTS, but in no way the number of RUNS as UZR suggests.

My biggest gripe with UZR is that it's constantly adjusted year by year to some average, which as a statistical metric makes me wonder why they normalize it, when that should only dilute the results.

Tango claims that an out is worth .8 runs on defense. He has written a bunch on this and used a lot of math to show why he thinks it is the case.

I am not smart enough to know if he is right, or to even claim to understand why he says that is the case, but I believe that is what UZR is using to base their "runs" numbers.

The stat world is at the very beginning of understanding defense, so it is understandable, and reasonable to be skeptical of them. I know I am. But I feel that these new ones that have emerged in the last year or two are big breakthroughs in how we look at defense.

I feel like the abandonment of fielding percentage and range factors is kinda like when the medical world realized that leeches were no longer the best method. There's a long way to go before discovering Penicillin , but moving in the right direction.

M2
08-19-2009, 12:38 PM
I feel like the abandonment of fielding percentage and range factors is kinda like when the medical world realized that leeches were no longer the best method. There's a long way to go before discovering Penicillin , but moving in the right direction.

They haven't abandoned range factors. They've institutionalized them. Leeches for everyone.

Highlifeman21
08-19-2009, 12:48 PM
Tango claims that an out is worth .8 runs on defense. He has written a bunch on this and used a lot of math to show why he thinks it is the case.

I am not smart enough to know if he is right, or to even claim to understand why he says that is the case, but I believe that is what UZR is using to base their "runs" numbers.

The stat world is at the very beginning of understanding defense, so it is understandable, and reasonable to be skeptical of them. I know I am. But I feel that these new ones that have emerged in the last year or two are big breakthroughs in how we look at defense.

I feel like the abandonment of fielding percentage and range factors is kinda like when the medical world realized that leeches were no longer the best method. There's a long way to go before discovering Penicillin , but moving in the right direction.

Tango's sure done a bunch of writing and number crunching, which is an important 1st step, but as you've alluded, we've only begun the process of figuring out a legitimate and accurate defensive metric, or series of metrics.

An out being worth .8 runs seems extremely high, IMO. To me, that's saying that every time a player gets on base, they're going to score 80% of the time, or get stranded 20% of the time? I just can't buy that.

I think you'd really have to look at each player individually and see where their lack of defense allowed runs to score based on the fielder's play.

jojo
08-19-2009, 01:05 PM
The run value of an out really isn't the issue with UZR as .8 runs is on solid ground.

The biggest limitation with UZR is sampling error.

flyer85
08-19-2009, 01:11 PM
The stat world is at the very beginning of understanding defense, so it is understandable, and reasonable to be skeptical of them. I know I am. But I feel that these new ones that have emerged in the last year or two are big breakthroughs in how we look at defense.
which is why using them as gospel is absurd. Often the metrics result in wildly differing ratings of a player as well as fluctuations of a player from year to year.

IMO the best that can be done ath this point in time is to look at a number of metrics and you can get a good idea about whether a player is above average, average or below average.

Highlifeman21
08-19-2009, 01:21 PM
The run value of an out really isn't the issue with UZR as .8 runs is on solid ground.

The biggest limitation with UZR is sampling error.

I guess I'll have to read up about the whole .8 runs thing then, if it's on such solid ground.

M2
08-19-2009, 01:31 PM
An out being worth .8 runs seems extremely high, IMO. To me, that's saying that every time a player gets on base, they're going to score 80% of the time, or get stranded 20% of the time? I just can't buy that.

Good point. What Tango's been after is the value of an extra out (e.g. the out you wouldn't have had from a lesser defender). Perhaps the determination is that there's a small number of highly valuable .8-run outs (and obviously there's probably a sliding scale involved here).

Yet the overriding math in the equation is that teams average 590 runs on 1,900 baserunners (that's with HR backed out of the numbers). That fixes the scoring value of a baserunner at .31. Everything comes back to that in the end.

So if there are some outs that only the elite can deliver and those outs are more valuable, then it means other outs are less valuable. In the end, it's all got to average out to the value of a baserunner. The play that Carlos Lee doesn't make in LF might only be worth .1 runs in the grand scheme of things. In fact, higher value outs, if they really exist, probably concentrate around up-the-middle positions (and 3B because of runners go counterclockwise around the bases), leaving less value to be gained and lost in the OF corners, 1B and C.

So the 20 plays Pat Burrell didn't make in 2008, according to Dewan, might only be worth 3-5 runs. And the 23 extra plays Carl Crawford did make might be worth something like 8 runs. If that's the case, we're talking about roughly a dozen-run swing between the best and worst LF in the game. You'd have the potential for bigger gaps as you move left across the defensive spectrum (with catcher being the anomaly), but most teams don't play bad defenders in prime defensive positions. The years Ken Griffey Jr. spent butchering CF for the Reds really were a rarity (and butchering probably isn't the right term since his technique was superb, yet his range was non-existent).

But you're right that one of the great failures of defensive ratings systems has been the lack of rigor in relating the numbers to the actual scoring in the game. Dewan at least focuses on plays and steers clear of run value. IMO, that's a step in the right direction, though he came up with a cockamamie defensive run valuation idea in his latest book (one from which he's going to need to retreat with haste).

jojo
08-19-2009, 01:36 PM
Good point. What Tango's been after is the value of an extra out (e.g. the out you wouldn't have had from a lesser defender). Perhaps the determination is that there's a small number of highly valuable .8-run outs (and obviously there's probably a sliding scale involved here).

Yet the overriding math in the equation is that teams average 590 runs on 1,900 baserunners (that's with HR backed out of the numbers). That fixes the scoring value of a baserunner at .31. Everything comes back to that in the end.

So if there are some outs that only the elite can deliver and those outs are more valuable, then it means other outs are less valuable. In the end, it's all got to average out to the value of a baserunner. The play that Carlos Lee doesn't make in LF might only be worth .1 runs in the grand scheme of things. In fact, higher value outs, if they really exist, probably concentrate around up-the-middle positions (and 3B because of runners go counterclockwise around the bases), leaving less value to be gained and lost in the OF corners, 1B and C.

So the 20 plays Pat Burrell didn't make in 2008, according to Dewan, might only be worth 3-5 runs. And the 23 extra plays Carl Crawford did make might be worth something like 8 runs. If that's the case, we're talking about roughly a dozen-run swing between the best and worst LF in the game. You'd have the potential for bigger gaps as you move left across the defensive spectrum (with catcher being the anomaly), but most teams don't play bad defenders in prime defensive positions. The years Ken Griffey Jr. spent butchering CF for the Reds really were a rarity (and butchering probably isn't the right term since his technique was superb, yet his range was non-existent).

But you're right that one of the great failures of defensive ratings systems has been the lack of rigor in relating the numbers to the actual scoring in the game. Dewan at least focuses on plays and steers clear of run value. IMO, that's a step in the right direction, though he came up with a cockamamie defensive run valuation idea in his latest book.

"Tango's" number is essentially derived from run expectancy which is intimately related to actual scoring.

M2
08-19-2009, 01:55 PM
"Tango's" number is essentially derived from run expectancy which is intimately related to actual scoring.

I'm familiar with how Tango got his number and it fails the test it ultimately needs to pass.

When you fail to make an out, it allows a baserunner. And the run value of a baserunner is nowhere near .8 runs. In fact .31 was too high because I failed to take into account runners on base due to error. Runs divided by total baserunners is cruel. It encompasses all the plays that get made and not made and it is a huge, drag-everything-toward-the-mean sample size.

In the end, everything ends up on its doorstep. Tango can't even get into the same zip code. The run value of the man on base isn't theoretical and the value of an out has to peg to it.

Highlifeman21
08-19-2009, 02:25 PM
"Tango's" number is essentially derived from run expectancy which is intimately related to actual scoring.

So run expectancy tells us that base runners actually score 80% of the time they reach base?

Johnny Footstool
08-19-2009, 02:27 PM
If Tango's methodology was based more on Total Bases than on Run Expectancy, I'd be more inclined to use it along with Offensive Runs Created to calculate a player's total run value.

The value of accumulating a base on offense should not be significantly less than the value of giving up a base on defense.

Highlifeman21
08-19-2009, 02:32 PM
Good point. What Tango's been after is the value of an extra out (e.g. the out you wouldn't have had from a lesser defender). Perhaps the determination is that there's a small number of highly valuable .8-run outs (and obviously there's probably a sliding scale involved here).

Yet the overriding math in the equation is that teams average 590 runs on 1,900 baserunners (that's with HR backed out of the numbers). That fixes the scoring value of a baserunner at .31. Everything comes back to that in the end.

So if there are some outs that only the elite can deliver and those outs are more valuable, then it means other outs are less valuable. In the end, it's all got to average out to the value of a baserunner. The play that Carlos Lee doesn't make in LF might only be worth .1 runs in the grand scheme of things. In fact, higher value outs, if they really exist, probably concentrate around up-the-middle positions (and 3B because of runners go counterclockwise around the bases), leaving less value to be gained and lost in the OF corners, 1B and C.

So the 20 plays Pat Burrell didn't make in 2008, according to Dewan, might only be worth 3-5 runs. And the 23 extra plays Carl Crawford did make might be worth something like 8 runs. If that's the case, we're talking about roughly a dozen-run swing between the best and worst LF in the game. You'd have the potential for bigger gaps as you move left across the defensive spectrum (with catcher being the anomaly), but most teams don't play bad defenders in prime defensive positions. The years Ken Griffey Jr. spent butchering CF for the Reds really were a rarity (and butchering probably isn't the right term since his technique was superb, yet his range was non-existent).

But you're right that one of the great failures of defensive ratings systems has been the lack of rigor in relating the numbers to the actual scoring in the game. Dewan at least focuses on plays and steers clear of run value. IMO, that's a step in the right direction, though he came up with a cockamamie defensive run valuation idea in his latest book (one from which he's going to need to retreat with haste).

Pretty sure I've said before that 9 runs over the course of the year is the absolute most I could see a bad LF give up, but that's allotting .45 runs for each extra out created by shoddy D.

That's certainly not .8 runs for each extra out created by shoddy D.

On the plus side, Crawford making/taking away 23 outs equating to saving 8 runs is plausible, but I still question that. Just seems too high to me. If I allot .45 runs for those 23 saved outs for Crawford, that's saving 10 runs, which I can't wrap my head around either.

So, .31 is definitely where I'd start, and then as you suggested M2, slide accordingly based on position.

jojo
08-19-2009, 02:43 PM
So run expectancy tells us that base runners actually score 80% of the time they reach base?

No. You really should read up.....

jojo
08-19-2009, 02:49 PM
I'm familiar with how Tango got his number and it fails the test it ultimately needs to pass.

When you fail to make an out, it allows a baserunner. And the run value of a baserunner is nowhere near .8 runs. In fact .31 was too high because I failed to take into account runners on base due to error. Runs divided by total baserunners is cruel. It encompasses all the plays that get made and not made and it is a huge, drag-everything-toward-the-mean sample size.

In the end, everything ends up on its doorstep. Tango can't even get into the same zip code. The run value of the man on base isn't theoretical and the value of an out has to peg to it.

Truthfully I'd rather lick a cactus than pretend this hasn't already been discussed ad naseum.

M2
08-19-2009, 02:54 PM
No. You really should read up.....

Tango's also fond of claiming correlation when he's proven the opposite (e.g. .25 means that the number sets don't correlate). He's prolific. I read his stuff, but he heads down a lot of blind alleys.

Sometimes value equations shed some light on the game. Sometimes they're unfiltered nonsense.

M2
08-19-2009, 03:01 PM
Truthfully I'd rather lick a cactus than pretend this hasn't already been discussed ad naseum.

It has, but then people toss out whoppers that fail basic tests of logic and here we are again.

If people are going to claim Tango as an authority in yet another instance where he's clearly gone off the deep end, then others are going to call shenanigans.

bucksfan2
08-19-2009, 03:07 PM
Pretty sure I've said before that 9 runs over the course of the year is the absolute most I could see a bad LF give up, but that's allotting .45 runs for each extra out created by shoddy D.

Has anyone ever gone back and assigned runs to a particular player over the course of the season? I am just wondering because that would be the most accurate way to judge how much bad fielding effects the run output over the course of a season.

IMO I think your 9 run estimate is a low. I think errors and poor zone coverage lead to more runs out of outfielders than infielders. A poor zone coverage in most cases would result into extra base hits. While poor zone coverage in infielders more than often would lead to singles.

Poor defense in the outfield to me leads to more balls in the gaps. It means that the outfielder isn't able to get to a ball that others are able to. Errors do happen in the outfield, but every outfielder should get to and catch balls hit in their immediate area. Heck even beer league softball outfielders convert routine fly balls into outs.

traderumor
08-19-2009, 03:27 PM
Pretty sure I've said before that 9 runs over the course of the year is the absolute most I could see a bad LF give up, but that's allotting .45 runs for each extra out created by shoddy D.

I think Dunn gave that many up in one game when the wind was howling on OD a few years back ;) Sorry, couldn't resist.

Johnny Footstool
08-19-2009, 04:07 PM
Has anyone ever gone back and assigned runs to a particular player over the course of the season? I am just wondering because that would be the most accurate way to judge how much bad fielding effects the run output over the course of a season.

IMO I think your 9 run estimate is a low. I think errors and poor zone coverage lead to more runs out of outfielders than infielders. A poor zone coverage in most cases would result into extra base hits. While poor zone coverage in infielders more than often would lead to singles.

Poor defense in the outfield to me leads to more balls in the gaps. It means that the outfielder isn't able to get to a ball that others are able to. Errors do happen in the outfield, but every outfielder should get to and catch balls hit in their immediate area. Heck even beer league softball outfielders convert routine fly balls into outs.

Poor zone coverage by an outfielder can quite often lead to bloop singles. You'd have to look at each instance and judge the type of hit (line drive, blooper, etc) and the number of bases allowed per play -- which I think is being done by advanced research firms.

jojo
08-19-2009, 04:44 PM
It has, but then people toss out whoppers that fail basic tests of logic and here we are again.

If people are going to claim Tango as an authority in yet another instance where he's clearly gone off the deep end, then others are going to call shenanigans.

Bill James is comfortable with the notion that a defensive play can be worth a value approximating what Tango and many others have determined (from Bill James Online, using Dewan's +/-, James reports that Rolen has been worth +115 plays since 2004 good for 86 runs saved which is .75 run/play)........

M2
08-19-2009, 05:30 PM
Bill James is comfortable with the notion that a defensive play can be worth a value approximating what Tango and many others have determined (from Bill James Online, using Dewan's +/-, James reports that Rolen has been worth +115 plays since 2004 good for 86 runs saved which is .75 run/play)........

Good for Bill James. If I bump into him in town sometime I'll let him know he's gone mad.

Appeals to authority doesn't make sense of nonsense.

Highlifeman21
08-19-2009, 05:36 PM
No. You really should read up.....

I'm just asking questions based on your responses.

If you have any suggestions to point me in a direction, by all means.

If not, then I'll continue to ask why Tango assigns .8 as a run value for extra outs created by crappy D, and assume that it means that base runners score 80% of the time based on using .8

Highlifeman21
08-19-2009, 05:40 PM
Has anyone ever gone back and assigned runs to a particular player over the course of the season? I am just wondering because that would be the most accurate way to judge how much bad fielding effects the run output over the course of a season.

IMO I think your 9 run estimate is a low. I think errors and poor zone coverage lead to more runs out of outfielders than infielders. A poor zone coverage in most cases would result into extra base hits. While poor zone coverage in infielders more than often would lead to singles.

Poor defense in the outfield to me leads to more balls in the gaps. It means that the outfielder isn't able to get to a ball that others are able to. Errors do happen in the outfield, but every outfielder should get to and catch balls hit in their immediate area. Heck even beer league softball outfielders convert routine fly balls into outs.

I agree 100% with the bolded part.

I'd love to see some research showing the actual number of runs players give up on D by not getting to balls, misplaying balls, bad throws, etc.

That'd be a heck of a lot easier to calculate than how many runs a good defender prevents/saves, IMO.

jojo
08-19-2009, 05:40 PM
Good for Bill James. If I bump into him in town sometime I'll let him know he's gone mad.

Appeals to authority doesn't make sense of nonsense.

Pointing out that the run values being discussed are generally accepted by those in the sabermetric community who are generally considered to leaders on the issue (like Tango, MGL, James, Dewan, Studes, Jaffe etc) is hardly an appeal to authority.

These voices ARE the very experts.

All of that said, no one is arguing that UZR is absolutely perfect.... it's not. There are limitations. But systems like UZR and +/- are significant advances that inform player worth.

Highlifeman21
08-19-2009, 05:41 PM
Bill James is comfortable with the notion that a defensive play can be worth a value approximating what Tango and many others have determined (from Bill James Online, using Dewan's +/-, James reports that Rolen has been worth +115 plays since 2004 good for 86 runs saved which is .75 run/play)........

Last time I checked, .75 does not equal .8, so which is it?

Johnny Footstool
08-19-2009, 05:43 PM
Last time I checked, .75 does not equal .8, so which is it?

Neither.

jojo
08-19-2009, 05:44 PM
I'm just asking questions based on your responses.

If you have any suggestions to point me in a direction, by all means.

If not, then I'll continue to ask why Tango assigns .8 as a run value for extra outs created by crappy D, and assume that it means that base runners score 80% of the time based on using .8

If you're truly interested, you could start by reading "The Book" and both Fielding Bibles. You could also spend some time on "The Book" blog.

jojo
08-19-2009, 05:45 PM
Last time I checked, .75 does not equal .8, so which is it?

Picking at the margins.....

M2
08-19-2009, 05:45 PM
Pointing out that the run values being discussed are generally accepted by those in the sabermetric community who are generally considered to leaders on the issue (like Tango, MGL, James, Dewan, Studes, Jaffe etc) is hardly an appeal to authority.

These voices ARE the very experts.

All of that said, no one is arguing that UZR is absolutely perfect.... it's not. There are limitations. But systems like UZR and +/- are significant advances that inform player worth.

So your appeal to authority isn't an appeal to authority?

Listen, if all the cool kids want to jump off a bridge, you go ahead and jump with them. This is going the way of PAP and FIP. It's going to be the thing everybody gets a chuckle about in a few years time.

M2
08-19-2009, 05:46 PM
Neither.

Both!

jojo
08-19-2009, 05:58 PM
So your appeal to authority isn't an appeal to authority?

Listen, if all the cool kids want to jump off a bridge, you go ahead and jump with them. This is going the way of PAP and FIP. It's going to be the thing everybody gets a chuckle about in a few years time.

An appeal to authority is a specific logical fallacy where the argument rests upon citing the concurring opinion of someone who wouldn't reasonably be considered an expert in the given area being discussed.

That is clearly not the case with the individuals being discussed.

BTW, FIP isn't even close to a marginalized stat-it's clearly alive and well..... however, evoking ERA tends to break out the chuckles these days.

But again, these conversations have been had what feels like a gazillion times now.

Brutus
08-19-2009, 06:19 PM
I find the repeated hyperbole kind of disappointing. I would think instead of trying to refute someone's statistical citations with sarcasm, folks would at least try to combat it with contrary evidence to suggest otherwise.

I myself am a skeptic at the .8 run figure. However, I also have not spent much time on it, so I won't claim to be real comfortable being judgmental of it or, for that matter, too accepting of it either. However, I do recognize that a lot of trusted statistical researchers have concluded that this type of number is an accurate value in determination of defensive metrics.

My biggest complaint is that we still have not wholly been able to parse defense from pitching with regard to ability of run prevention. It has become accepted, that outside of ability to limit fly balls (reducing the sheer number of home runs possibilities), ability to avoid walks and ability to miss bats (thereby eliminating more BIP chances), a pitcher does not control much else that happens within the lines. I guess if this is true, then what does happen must be a result of defense, and we can comfortably gauge a player by what is resulted within their jurisdiction.

As far as the .8 number. Here's my understanding of it...

It does not represent each non-out as scoring 80% percent of the time. It's my understanding that it represents every non-out below (or above) average represents .8 of a run scoring (or prevented) because of such play (a combination of runners already on base or that runner eventually scoring because of not being put out). The average of such plays result in about .8 of a run.

Perhaps someone could clarify that's the case, but in my time spent on defensive metrics, that's my understanding as to its meaning.

I do know this: while I have my own opinions on Tango at times (such as I don't always care for his diminishing of philosophies that don't align with his own), his run expectancy calculator, if you've ever tried it, is pretty accurate. Plus in all the relevant events, adjust the Base-Out information and it gives you the number of expected runs scored. Using actual data from a season, you'll find, if nothing else, his numbers have some credibility to them even if they're not foolproof.

cincrazy
08-19-2009, 06:55 PM
:deadhorse

That about sums up this whole Dunn discussion.

M2
08-19-2009, 06:55 PM
As far as the .8 number. Here's my understanding of it...

It does not represent each non-out as scoring 80% percent of the time. It's my understanding that it represents every non-out below (or above) average represents .8 of a run scoring (or prevented) because of such play (a combination of runners already on base or that runner eventually scoring because of not being put out). The average of such plays result in about .8 of a run.

That's the crux of it. The problem is you have to torture the numbers to get them there and then you're left pretending that the value of the guy on or not on base was more than twice as high to the defense as it was to the offense.

The crazy thing is they use the PBP data to count the plays made and not made. That's the crux of what Dewan reports. They don't need to speculate about theoretical run value. They can simply subtract the value of the baserunners allowed from the value of the baserunners erased. We know the average run scoring value of a runner on 1st, 2nd and 3rd base (you'd normalize for outs because the fielder can't control how many there are when the ball comes his way). You just plug that into the process as you determine plays made and not made and there's your run value. You don't need to stand on your head and look through a kaleidoscope to get the run values. You could have the actual run values based on the plays that a given fielder made and didn't make that season, based on the same run values used in offensive calculations (aka the good math that's been proven out). At least that would be the reasonable thing to do if you were willing to recognize both teams are playing in the same game at the same time.

Of course the problem is the results wouldn't be that dramatic and there's people seriously invested in making these findings dramatic. They are going to find the Holy Grail and it's not going to appear unless baserunners are assigned wildly higher run scoring values.

Otherwise all they'll be given is a slap on the back while the old school guys proclaim, "Hey, looks like we've been eyeballing it pretty good all these years."

Brutus
08-19-2009, 07:05 PM
That's the crux of it. The problem is you have to torture the numbers to get them there and then you're left pretending that the value of the guy on or not on base was more than twice as high to the defense as it was to the offense.

The crazy thing is they use the PBP data to count the plays made and not made. That's the crux of what Dewan reports. They don't need to speculate about theoretical run value. They can simply subtract the value of the baserunners allowed from the value of the baserunners erased. We know the average run scoring value of a runner on 1st, 2nd and 3rd base (you'd normalize for outs because the fielder can't control how many there are when the ball comes his way). You just plug that into the process as you determine plays made and not made and there's your run value. You don't need to stand on your head and look through a kaleidoscope to get the run values. You could have the actual run values based on the plays that a given fielder made and didn't make that season, based on the same run values used in offensive calculations (aka the good math that's been proven out). At least that would be the reasonable thing to do.

Of course the problem is the results wouldn't be that dramatic and there's people seriously invested in making these findings dramatic. They are going to find the Holy Grail and it's not going to appear unless baserunners are assigned wildly higher run scoring values.

Otherwise all they'll be given is a slap on the back while the old school guys proclaim, "Hey, looks like we've been eyeballing it pretty good all these years."

I'm not saying I agree with the methodology. I've always been curious as to how the principals of run scoring are not even in the same universe as the principals behind run prevention. If baseball is an intricate sport where run scoring is described by the result of what happens in the field of play with the defense, I will admit I don't get why the defense would not be credited (or discredited) in the same fashion for what happens with run scoring.

I've always thought players should be credited defensively with the same formula as say Base Runs. If you allow a double that is considered that a play in which an average player would make, you then should be credited as the linear weight of what a double is worth in the base runs formula. If you take away a play that would be a double to an average player, you should be subtracted the same.

Using this method, and only charging pitchers with the plays that an average defense would allow (as well as K's and BB's), you also would get a dynamic that also describes run prevention credited appropriately between pitcher and his fielders.

That's always been my take on the situation. But I still am in no position to argue the .8, .75 or other numbers floated around. I can't say I've seen anything that disproves their accuracy.

Raisor
08-19-2009, 08:42 PM
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. I could possibly concede that these players are saving their teams the number of OUTS, but in no way the number of RUNS as UZR suggests.



I've said this for years too.

I'm not you am I?

That would be weird.

Highlifeman21
08-19-2009, 10:43 PM
I've said this for years too.

I'm not you am I?

That would be weird.

It'd be worse for you, better for me.

Although, I wouldn't know what to do with all the Nobel Prizes.

I would, however, know what to do with all the Playboy bunnies.

Raisor
08-20-2009, 01:36 AM
I would, however, know what to do with all the Playboy bunnies.

It's not as glamerous as I make it out to be.

AtomicDumpling
08-20-2009, 02:54 AM
That's the crux of it. The problem is you have to torture the numbers to get them there and then you're left pretending that the value of the guy on or not on base was more than twice as high to the defense as it was to the offense.

The crazy thing is they use the PBP data to count the plays made and not made. That's the crux of what Dewan reports. They don't need to speculate about theoretical run value. They can simply subtract the value of the baserunners allowed from the value of the baserunners erased. We know the average run scoring value of a runner on 1st, 2nd and 3rd base (you'd normalize for outs because the fielder can't control how many there are when the ball comes his way). You just plug that into the process as you determine plays made and not made and there's your run value. You don't need to stand on your head and look through a kaleidoscope to get the run values. You could have the actual run values based on the plays that a given fielder made and didn't make that season, based on the same run values used in offensive calculations (aka the good math that's been proven out). At least that would be the reasonable thing to do if you were willing to recognize both teams are playing in the same game at the same time.

Of course the problem is the results wouldn't be that dramatic and there's people seriously invested in making these findings dramatic. They are going to find the Holy Grail and it's not going to appear unless baserunners are assigned wildly higher run scoring values.

Otherwise all they'll be given is a slap on the back while the old school guys proclaim, "Hey, looks like we've been eyeballing it pretty good all these years."

The bolded part is the argument I have been making for a couple years now.

How many Fielding Bibles would Dewan sell if his numbers proved that defense doesn't make much difference? Not too many right?

Defensive metrics are a money maker these days. The sellers of this data have a vested interest in exaggerating the usefulness of their results.

The study of defense is important and helpful. Efforts to quantify fielding ability are a good thing. But defensive metrics are nowhere near good enough to state them as factual observations. Defensive metrics lack the solid foundation and correlation to reality enjoyed by offensive metrics. They are experimental conjecture at best.

The problem comes when people rely on these early-stage efforts to make firm statements of fact. People familiar with the metrics are well aware of the shortcomings, inadequacies and poor correlation of these measures. I believe it is dishonest to quote run-value defensive metrics side by side with offensive metrics.

Brutus
08-20-2009, 03:04 AM
The bolded part is the argument I have been making for a couple years now.

How many Fielding Bibles would Dewan sell if his numbers proved that defense doesn't make much difference? Not too many right?

Defensive metrics are a money maker these days. The sellers of this data have a vested interest in exaggerating the usefulness of their results.

The study of defense is important and helpful. Efforts to quantify fielding ability are a good thing. But defensive metrics are nowhere near good enough to state them as factual observations. Defensive metrics lack the solid foundation and correlation to reality enjoyed by offensive metrics. They are experimental conjecture at best. The problem comes when people rely on these early-stage efforts to make firm statements of fact. Defensive metrics lack the foundation and correlation to reality enjoyed by offensive metrics. People familiar with the metrics are well aware of the shortcomings, inadequacies and poor correlation of these measures. I believe it is dishonest to quote run-value defensive metrics side by side with offensive metrics.

Not everyone is out for money though. Tom Tango does an awful lot of work for essentially nothing. He did publish "The Book" but has done so much, especially with his recent focus on defense, without looking to make money off it. As I said, I don't know that I'm a full believer yet, but not everyone is just out to profit on a recent fad.

I will say one thing to your last point though. I'll admit I myself have not seen a lot of correlation, multiple regression and analysis work on these figures. Whereas at least offensive metrics have shown to be quantified at 90% R2 and beyond, I don't know I've seen those numbers thrown around for the defensive metrics. That's partially because of needing parsed from pitching with regard to run prevention, but it's still an issue.

Note: I'm not saying the work does not exist or it has not been shown, I just haven't seen those numbers. I still tend to think there's at least some credibility with them, though. Too many people on board with them to be too terribly problematic.

TheNext44
08-20-2009, 04:05 AM
The bolded part is the argument I have been making for a couple years now.

How many Fielding Bibles would Dewan sell if his numbers proved that defense doesn't make much difference? Not too many right?

Defensive metrics are a money maker these days. The sellers of this data have a vested interest in exaggerating the usefulness of their results.

The study of defense is important and helpful. Efforts to quantify fielding ability are a good thing. But defensive metrics are nowhere near good enough to state them as factual observations. Defensive metrics lack the solid foundation and correlation to reality enjoyed by offensive metrics. They are experimental conjecture at best.

The problem comes when people rely on these early-stage efforts to make firm statements of fact. People familiar with the metrics are well aware of the shortcomings, inadequacies and poor correlation of these measures. I believe it is dishonest to quote run-value defensive metrics side by side with offensive metrics.

All excellent points.

I agree that we need to be skeptical of all new stats, metrics or whatever you want to call them. We are in the stone age, or ice age, or the beginning of the renascence, or simply at the very beginning of understanding all baseball stats. There is more that we don't know than we do know.

This holds true for offensive and pitching stats as well. We throw RC and xFIP around like it's gospel, when it is likely that these will be replaced shortly by newer, better stats. I am confident that we will look at xFIP and RC some day the same way that we look at BA and ERA now. Some people might say that tRA already has replaced xFIP.

Just two notes about defensive stats. When the Pythag and RC were created, there was even more skepticism about them than there is now about UZR/150. But over time, we found out that they were pretty reliable, between 90-95% reliable.
This does not mean that we will find that UZR/150 is that reliable, but just that these same stat guys have a pretty good track record. They have been wrong a bit in the past, but mostly very accurate.

And Dewan might be simply trying to sell books, but nearly every team has taken this general notion that fielding matters more than we thought it did to heart. So much so, that they are betting literally millions of dollars on them. Last off-season, teams based their contract offers on these new fielding stats. That is partly why Burrell, Dunn and Abreu got much less money than they expected, but good fielders like Renteria and Rivera got decent paydays.

Ron Madden
08-20-2009, 04:25 AM
When the Pythag and RC were created, there was even more skepticism about them than there is now about UZR/150. But over time, we found out that they were pretty reliable, between 90-95% reliable.

I agree, Pythag and RC have been proven to be very accurate.

I've yet to see any defensive metric come close to the accuracy of offensive metrics, you would think if defensive metrics were reliable we would have seen the proof by now.

cincyinco
08-20-2009, 04:46 AM
Right. It's like saying the Reds LF would've produced an OPS of .947...

...if Joey Votto had been playing LF.

I know I'm late to the party, but this one got me thinking.

How much better shape would this club be in, had we retained Dunn, played him at 1b.. And had Votto in lf?

Alonso in the minors as our blue chip trade bait.

Too bad we were sold a bag of goods about needing the ever important and necessary RH bat.

Its amazing to me.. I honestly feel with the right plan and managment at the top, and some careful nurturing and a couple of shrewd moves, we could be a lot closer today than we actually are. Unfortunately, I feel the reds have fallen flat on their faces, like they have for most all of this decade and once again squandered opportunity.

And so it goes...

Raisor
08-20-2009, 09:33 AM
Not everyone is out for money though. Tom Tango does an awful lot of work for essentially nothing. .


Except he was able to use it to get a job with the Mariners.

jojo
08-20-2009, 09:40 AM
Except he was able to use it to get a job with the Mariners.

He's consulted for NHL, NBA and MLB teams..... I'd suggest authors of "The Book" were able to publish it because of their resumes and reputations gained through "open sourcing" of their work. Tango's current job with the Ms really wasn't a direct result of making a few bucks selling their book.

nate
08-20-2009, 10:37 AM
How much better shape would this club be in, had we retained Dunn, played him at 1b.. And had Votto in lf?

I know it's impossible but this linup:

hannigan
dunn
dickerson
votto
rolen
bruce
phillips
pitcher
janish

Would be projected to score 4.970 runs per game. That would've put us at 551.67 runs scored this year.

We've scored 470 runs so far this year. There's no telling what the defensive implications of this might be although with Rolen and Janish in there, the infield D is improved and I believe that Dickerson is better defender than Willy. Even with the 80 run improvement, we still probably wouldn't be at .500 (we've allowed 563 runs) although we'd be close.

I guess the skinny is, even with this lineup, we need more offense.

And pitching.

flyer85
08-20-2009, 10:48 AM
we need more offense.

And pitching.which points to the issue ... a dearth of talent

TheNext44
08-20-2009, 01:09 PM
I know I'm late to the party, but this one got me thinking.

How much better shape would this club be in, had we retained Dunn, played him at 1b.. And had Votto in lf?

Alonso in the minors as our blue chip trade bait.

Too bad we were sold a bag of goods about needing the ever important and necessary RH bat.

Its amazing to me.. I honestly feel with the right plan and managment at the top, and some careful nurturing and a couple of shrewd moves, we could be a lot closer today than we actually are. Unfortunately, I feel the reds have fallen flat on their faces, like they have for most all of this decade and once again squandered opportunity.

And so it goes...

It's a good idea, but it wouldn't have addressed the central problem with Dunn, his defense.

He has actually been worse this year at 1B than in LF. -39 UZR/150 at 1B vs. -24 UZR/150 in LF.

Even if you think that UZR/150 is not very accurate, even if it is only 50% accruate, then Dunn is still not any more valuable at 1B than Dickerson is in LF. And we have no idea how good Votto would be in LF. Maybe he would be better than Dickerson defensively, but he could easily be much worse, maybe even as bad as Dunn is in LF.

The only way you make that move is if you think that defense just doesn't matter, and clearly the Reds think that it does.

nate
08-20-2009, 01:19 PM
It's a good idea, but it wouldn't have addressed the central problem with Dunn, his defense.

He has actually been worse this year at 1B than in LF. -39 UZR/150 at 1B vs. -24 UZR/150 in LF.

Even if you think that UZR/150 is not very accurate, even if it is only 50% accruate, then Dunn is still not any more valuable at 1B than Dickerson is in LF. And we have no idea how good Votto would be in LF. Maybe he would be better than Dickerson defensively, but he could easily be much worse, maybe even as bad as Dunn is in LF.

The only way you make that move is if you think that defense just doesn't matter, and clearly the Reds think that it does.

Those defensive metrics are accurate in the 218 innings he's logged at 1B?

TheNext44
08-20-2009, 01:29 PM
Those defensive metrics are accurate in the 218 innings he's logged at 1B?

The point is that he's a bad defender, no matter what position he plays.

In 155 games and 1110 innings at 1B in his career UZR/150 is -16.9.

If you don't believe in these defensive stats, then Dunn makes sense. If you do, he doesn't.

nate
08-20-2009, 01:32 PM
The point is that he's a bad defender, no matter what position he plays.

I was asking if the defensive stats are considered to be as accurate as they can be after 218 innings, not whether Dunn was a good or bad defender.


If you don't believe in these defensive stats, then Dunn makes sense. If you do, he doesn't.

That's not what I'm talking about.

jojo
08-20-2009, 01:47 PM
220 defensive innings isn't a large enough sample given the likely error associated with the values.

It'll be surprising if Dunn doesn't continue to grade out as minus defender at first over time though IMHO.

TheNext44
08-20-2009, 01:48 PM
I was asking if the defensive stats are considered to be as accurate as they can be after 218 innings, not whether Dunn was a good or bad defender.



That's not what I'm talking about.

Sorry, I wasn't specifically addressing you. My bad.

I was using the "universal" you, due to the number of posters who have said that they don't believe in them.

And you are correct. That first number I used is pretty meaningless.

Highlifeman21
08-20-2009, 01:58 PM
Sorry, I wasn't specifically addressing you. My bad.

I was using the "universal" you, due to the number of posters who have said that they don't believe in them.

And you are correct. That first number I used is pretty meaningless.

It's not that "we" don't believe in "them"(being defensive metrics).

It's that we're being responsible in questioning them, as intelligent and engaging discourse improves methodologies, approaches, and analysis.

Eventually "we" might believe in "them", but part of the acceptance process is learning more about "them", while questioning and demanding the validity and accuracy of "them".

So, it's just a matter of time until "they"(being defensive metrics) reach the point of passing the sniff, smell, scratch, (insert test here) test. Until then, we need maintain a certain level of skepticism.

It's only the responsible thing to do.

RedsManRick
08-20-2009, 03:28 PM
It's not that "we" don't believe in "them"(being defensive metrics).

It's that we're being responsible in questioning them, as intelligent and engaging discourse improves methodologies, approaches, and analysis.

Eventually "we" might believe in "them", but part of the acceptance process is learning more about "them", while questioning and demanding the validity and accuracy of "them".

So, it's just a matter of time until "they"(being defensive metrics) reach the point of passing the sniff, smell, scratch, (insert test here) test. Until then, we need maintain a certain level of skepticism.

It's only the responsible thing to do.

I think a healthy dose of skepticism is completely reasonable. But I think it needs be applied to all approaches, not just new ones. The sniff test is absolutely useful, but not everybody's noses are well tuned. To this day, people still dismiss OBP in lieu of AVG because it doesn't pass their personal sniff test.

I'm personally much more comfortable with a method where the underlying work is shown and can be critiqued than using numbers and figures I'm pulling out of thin air

For me, the sniff test is best used as a way for teasing out the problems with and recommending improvements for the more formal approach.

AtomicDumpling
08-20-2009, 05:05 PM
I think a healthy dose of skepticism is completely reasonable. But I think it needs be applied to all approaches, not just new ones. The sniff test is absolutely useful, but not everybody's noses are well tuned. To this day, people still dismiss OBP in lieu of AVG because it doesn't pass their personal sniff test.

I'm personally much more comfortable with a method where the underlying work is shown and can be critiqued than using numbers and figures I'm pulling out of thin air

For me, the sniff test is best used as a way for teasing out the problems with and recommending improvements for the more formal approach.

True, but UZR has a long, long way to go before it deserves to be mentioned in the same sentence with OBP.

I don't think people here have a problem with the thus far rudimentary attempts to quantify fielding skill. We all want a good system to become available.

The problem we have is that people on here have used defensive run values as if they are on the same solid ground that offensive run values enjoy. That is incorrect at best, dishonest at worst.

It is inappropriate to suggest that defensive run values (especially the ones adjusted for position spectrum) can be directly subtracted from offensive run values. That is pure shenanigans and it will be called out here in the ORG. People who think they can do that don't understand the metrics very well.

Maybe 10 or 12 years in the future defensive run values will correlate to offensive run values, but right now they don't. Pure and simple.

As it stands in 2009, defensive metrics do a decent job of ranking fielders compared to each other on certain types of balls-in-play, but they can't be compared to offensive metrics.

Just because someone questions how another person has used a defensive metric doesn't mean he doesn't "believe in" defensive metrics. Just because someone "believes in" defensive metrics doesn't allow him to use them inappropriately -- and then bash those who challenge him as anti-sabermetric.

TheNext44
08-20-2009, 05:34 PM
True, but UZR has a long, long way to go before it deserves to be mentioned in the same sentence with OBP.

I don't think people here have a problem with the thus far rudimentary attempts to quantify fielding skill. We all want a good system to become available.

The problem we have is that people on here have used defensive run values as if they are on the same solid ground that offensive run values enjoy. That is incorrect at best, dishonest at worst.

It is inappropriate to suggest that defensive run values (especially the ones adjusted for position spectrum) can be directly subtracted from offensive run values. That is pure shenanigans and it will be called out here in the ORG. People who think they can do that don't understand the metrics very well.

Maybe 10 or 12 years in the future defensive run values will correlate to offensive run values, but right now they don't. Pure and simple.

As it stands in 2009, defensive metrics do a decent job of ranking fielders compared to each other on certain types of balls-in-play, but they can't be compared to offensive metrics.

Just because someone questions how another person has used a defensive metric doesn't mean he doesn't "believe in" defensive metrics. Just because someone "believes in" defensive metrics doesn't allow him to use them inappropriately -- and then bash those who challenge him as anti-sabermetric.


First, just to be clear, I never said anyone didn't believe in defensive metrics, just that many posters have said that they don't believe in these metrics that I and others have been quoting. I was just trying to be respectful of that opinion. I think it is fair to not believe in UZR/150 due to how new it is, that is why I stated that signing Dunn made sense if you believed in them, but didn't make sense if you didn't. I am sorry if I offended people, I was actually trying to be respectful of opposing positions.

On your view of UZR/150, I actually hold the opposite view of the one you stated above.

I have more faith in the view that each missed play correlates to .8 runs than I do in the actual number of missed plays assigned to each player. This latter part seems to me to be very subjective, and can vary greatly depending on who is doing the judging.

I don't pretend to be smart enough to understand the math the Tango used to get to his .8 runs per missed plays, but as I have stated before, he has been right more often than not, and has been the first one to admit mistakes and try to correct them. And he has shown his work and no one has yet called him on it. He could be way off, but I am more comfortable trusting him, than I am trusting someone who judges whether or not a play could have been made by an average fielder.

And completely sincerely, I would like to know why "It is inappropriate to suggest that defensive run values (especially the ones adjusted for position spectrum) can be directly subtracted from offensive run values... People who think they can do that don't understand the metrics very well?" It seems if one has faith in run difference as a method of determining how good a team should be, why is combining defensive and offensive run values "pure shenanigans?" Again, I don't claim to be an expert on these things, and would like to learn.

jojo
08-20-2009, 05:38 PM
A system that attempts to consider the value of both a player's glove and bat is the very thing that someone on a noble quest for the truth would embrace. Though clearly not perfect-a caveat that those who use them often remind others-defensive run values allow player worth to be to be determined more accurately than the alternative and more dramatically flawed approach of only considering the player through an offensive prism.

Right now, they (defensive run values) are clearly more accurate than an approach that eschews throwing the baby out with the bath water. Defensive run values will only get more reliable in the very near future as things like hit f/x become established.



Three or four years ago, all of a sudden, a series of different sabermetric methods for evaluating fielders all began to converge on a common set of answers. If it was a basketball game between hitting stats and fielding stats, fielding stats used to be behind like 61-13, and now they’re behind like 64-47. It may be that not everybody has figured that out yet. But it’s no longer true that our ability to evaluate hitters is dramatically better than our ability to evaluate fielders, at least at the major league level.