More kind words from Dunn as he makes his return to Cincy

[westofyou]

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]

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]

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.

[M2]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.