Of course, but that does not answer the question. With that, I must drop off of this monthly thread. When it comes up again in May, we'll do it again.Originally Posted by Johnny Footstool
Of course, but that does not answer the question. With that, I must drop off of this monthly thread. When it comes up again in May, we'll do it again.
Sounds like a plan... when he gets 40 HR/100Runs/100RBI for the 3rd year in a row, he'll be the 7th player ever to do that, and the only Red.
We can do it then too.
Code:NATIONAL LEAGUE ALL YEARS ALL POSITIONS RUNS >= 100 RBI >= 100 HOMERUNS >= 40 T1 Ralph Kiner 1947-51 5 T1 Sammy Sosa 1998-02 5 3 Duke Snider 1953-56 4 T4 Andres Galarraga 1996-98 3 T4 Barry Bonds 2000-02 3 T4 Albert Pujols 2003-05 3 T7 Chuck Klein 1929-30 2 T7 Johnny Mize 1947-48 2 T7 Willie Mays 1954-55 2 T7 Ted Kluszewski 1954-55 2 T7 Ernie Banks 1957-58 2 T7 Willie Mays 1961-62 2 T7 Hank Aaron 1962-63 2 T7 Willie Mays 1964-65 2 T7 Mike Schmidt 1979-80 2 T7 Barry Bonds 1996-97 2 T7 Greg Vaughn 1998-99 2 T7 Mark McGwire 1998-99 2 T7 Jeff Bagwell 1999-00 2 T7 Vladimir Guerrero 1999-00 2 T7 Todd Helton 2000-01 2 T7 Shawn Green 2001-02 2 T7 Adam Dunn 2004-05 2
Wow. I didn't realize only seven players had ever accomplished that. Quite a feat. How many players have had 100 walks, 100 runs, and 100 RBI in three consecutive seasons? I'd imagine more than seven.
Absolutely it can be disputed because RBI acquisition is not driven by simple Base Hit volume.
First, not all Hits with Runners in Scoring Position result in Runs. That's very simple and cannot be disputed. If Rich Aurilia had one fewer Base Hit this season, he would have exactly the same RBI total.
Secondly, RBI acquisition is driven by opportunity and distance (SLG) rather than Base Hit volume or Base Hit rate. It appears that your position is based on the faulty assumption that Base Hit rate would rise while everything else would remain constant- including distance. Alas, that's an assumption based in fallacy.
That has nothing to do with Adam Dunn and everything to do with the next hitter. Players can't magically turn balls into strikes. Either you think they can or you think that Adam Dunn should be swinging at balls in your "scenario" in an effort to acquire a Base Hit rather than rightly taking what he's being given (the BB). Unfortunately, the former behavior results in Outs rather than Hits; rendering your point entirely moot.Secondly, if Dunner takes a walk with runners on 2nd and 3rd (thus loading the bases) and the next guy grounds into an inning ending double play, the Reds score no runs. On the other hand, if Dunner gets a single and the next hitter grounds into an inning ending double play, one run is scored. Please prove statistically how the team scores more runs in my first scenario than in the second.
"The problem with strikeouts isn't that they hurt your team, it's that they hurt your feelings..." --Rob Neyer
"The single most important thing for a hitter is to get a good pitch to hit. A good hitter can hit a pitch that’s over the plate three times better than a great hitter with a ball in a tough spot.”
--Ted Williams
This thread is like my Swiss Army knife.
Marty, Dunn, and Casey, all in one.
She used to wake me up with coffee ever morning
There's nothing to prove, teams with higher OBs score more than teams with higher BAs. If you don't understand that then you're hopelessly lost. For instance, the 2005 Cubs hit .270 while the 2005 Reds hit .261. Yet the Reds outscored them by 117 runs. The Reds had a .446-.440 SLG advantage (making the Reds the more dangerous team), but the real differentiator was a .339-.324 OB advantage.
So you can have your BA. I'll take the OB and 117 extra runs thank you.
I'm not a system player. I am a system.
I am trying to test my theory that all the answers to life are in 80's movies:
Dear Mr. Vernon, we accept the fact that we had to sacrifice a whole saturday in detention for whatever it is we did wrong, but we think you're crazy for making us write an essay telling you who we think we are. You see us as you want to see us, in the simplest terms, in the most convenient definitions. But what we found out, is that each one of us is a brain, and an athlete, and a basketcase, a princess, and a criminal. Does that answer your question? Sincerely yours, The Breakfast Club.
GL
Last edited by gonelong; 04-19-2006 at 11:01 AM.
Which goes more to his health than his power or lack of. Had he been healthy in 2001, 2002, and 2003, He'd have likley had 3 more 20+ HR seasons. And yes, 20+ is power for a guy that when healthy also supplies 30+ doubles.
It has always been about Casey's health. He can't stay healthy. In fact, his style of play is similar to Ryan Freel's in that he a maximum effort guy. Casey's body cannot take that kind of effort.
Dubito Ergo Cogito Ergo Sum.
Perhaps that email did the trick... I forgot who sent it.
"Enjoy this Reds fans, you are watching a legend grow up before your very eyes" ... DoogMinAmo on Adam Dunn
If's and's and but's do not equal results. You either do it or you don't.
"If" has to do with his "health" and lack thereof.
"If" Jr. had been healthy the last 5 year he would have 620+ hR's, "but" he wasn't.
Health was all Casey has ever needed. He's rarely had it.
Dubito Ergo Cogito Ergo Sum.
Maybe it wasn't offered. Maybe its a bad opinion that his defense was better, I have no clue. I'm not going to pretend to have seen players play that were retired when I was born. I will say that a team is a team. There are 9 individuals as well as a bench full of players that are working together to attempt to score more RUNS than the other team. Each member has their role. Ryan Freels roll is not to hit HR's and drive in runs, his roll is to get on base, steal bases, and score runs quite similar to Pete Rose on the BRM. Adam Dunn's job is to knock in runs plain and simple knock them in doesn't matter how this is accomplished. Not work hard and get a walk with runners in scoring position.
Very true but having the ability to do it and actually doing it are two different things. Waiting for it to happen is one of the reasons the Reds are in the shape they are in. Maybe he could do it he was healthy for a full season but he hasn't yet and waiting too long for players to develop and do what they are capable of doing is one of the reasons the Reds haven't done well in a long time.
But that wasn't the arguement. It was whether or not Casey has power. He does when he's healthy. Now Tony Womack can be healthy and never have power. Freel too.
The Reds never had to wait for Casey to develop. '99 was his first full season and he hit the ground running.
He just couldn't stay healthy.
I'm becoming a stats guy, but when people look at the stats alone and make proclamations about a player without looking at why the numbers are the way they are it irks me. Kinda like "Dunn hit's too many solo HR's. He doesn't hit the when runners are on base. he sux." Never mind asking how many were leadoff HR's, or that he's pitched around with runners on, or that for much of his career he's been buried in the lineup.
Dubito Ergo Cogito Ergo Sum.
Pete had 0 steals in 1975 and 9 in 1976.his roll is to get on base, steal bases, and score runs quite similar to Pete Rose on the BRM.
The "little guy" whose job was to steal bases had more HR's, RBI and scored as many Runs as Pete.
Because he avoided outs.
Last edited by westofyou; 04-19-2006 at 02:35 PM.
Posting Permissions
|
Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please. |
