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

[TheNext44]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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/pl...jo01-bat.shtml
http://www.baseball-reference.com/pl...ad01-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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.