Don't look now - Dunn having year we always hoped for

[RedsManRick]

You can throw out statistics as complicated and/or bogus as you want. The only ones that count are RUNS. The Reds have scored fewer RUNS than their opponents! I would say it's not because of the pitching or defense. What does that leave? Take your time, don't answer too quick....ahhhh, it's the weak-ass offense that has let the Reds down. Y'all don't like Dunn, we get it...Dunn provides the offense the Reds don't have whether you like it or not. Go ahead and throw out the bogus defense metrics and the non-counting stats; they are meaningless. RUNS: how many did the Reds score and how many did they give up? Actual RUNS not some scewed (spelled wrong) number from convenient defense metrics, just RUNS!

Bum

So acquire Dunn and make defense the problem again? This is the entire point. Unless you figure out a way to measure the RA side of things, you can't intelligently make the type of decisions you want to make. Dunn isn't the solution precisely because of what Jojo just showed us. With Dunn on board, this team scored a ton more runs and allowed even more. We need to improve on run scoring AND run prevention --- and Dunn does not help us get there. Solving one problem by causing another is precisely the quandary we need to resolve.

[Bumstead]

So acquire Dunn and make defense the problem again? This is the entire point. Unless you figure out a way to measure the RA side of things, you can't intelligently make the type of decisions you want to make. Dunn isn't the solution precisely because of what Jojo just showed us. With Dunn on board, this team scored a ton more runs and allowed even more. We need to improve on run scoring AND run prevention --- and Dunn does not help us get there. Solving one problem by causing another is precisely the quandary we need to resolve.

That's if you "buy" the defensive metrics used. I don't. You don't like Dunn, I know. Fine, use the non-counting geek created stats to over-ride 'real' stats to prove your point. It's fine with me, it's all smoke and mirrors; it's not real.

Bum

[dougdirt]

That's if you "buy" the defensive metrics used. I don't. You don't like Dunn, I know. Fine, use the non-counting geek created stats to over-ride 'real' stats to prove your point. It's fine with me, it's all shadows and mirrors; it's not real.

Bum

You continue to miss the point of this. RMR, Jojo, myself and Brutus all like Dunn. We just don't think he is as valuable as some. There is a huge difference between not liking someone and suggesting they aren't as 'valuable' as some may believe.

You however can continue to use your non-counting unsubstantiated stats to 'prove' your point too. But it won't because you can't back up a single thing you are suggesting other than 'it looks that way to my eyes'. You haven't used a single 'real' stat to back up any point you have made about Dunn that solely involves Dunn. Team RS doesn't back you up at all because there are 5000 other plate appearances per year involved that you are ignoring.

[jojo]

I think this year Dunn would've made a great DH.

For what it's worth, his BABIP is .345 this season which reminded me of the Dunn-ticking time bomb thread:

Here's an article about Dunn written by Eric Seidman at fangraphs that basically illustrates the uniqueness of Dunn.

For Reds fans that frequent RedsZone, the uniqueness of Dunn is not exactly a novel concept.

That said, Seidman frames the issue in the context of Dunn's '08 very low BA and high OPS and points out that Dunn's low BA has been driven by an abnormally low BABIP. This suggests that Dunn has had a monster first half of the season that has been masked by some unfortunate luck.

BABIP will tend to regress to the mean over time (i.e. it's most likely that his next 300 PA will be characterized by his career norm BABIP of .290 rather than his pre-ASB BABIP of .245). If indeed Dunn maintains his performance level of the first half and his BABIP simply regresses to his norm, we could be treated to one of the more spectacular second halves in recent Reds history. If for some crazy reason he maintained his performance but his BABIP did a wild swing to say .340 during the second half, we'd be watching a historic explosion for a Reds slugger.

The Reds would have no choice but to try and resign him. I'm not suggesting that such a turn of events would mean resigning him would be wise (my argument against resigning him would largely be unchanged), but rather, such a second half would basically force the Reds hand. It might also make it impossible for them to resign him.

Now BABIP isn't the end all prism for interpreting Dunn's '08 performance so far (it's really a pretty shallow, rough justice look that doesn't explore other possible reasons for the unique nature of his first half or differences in his performance), but maybe it's the perfect springboard for starting an interesting discussion that asks:

Is Dunn a ticking bomb that is about to explode?????????

Here's to hoping he'll kick a hole in the post-ASB sky....

Debate/discuss?

If nothing else it is a fun read and there is some neat stuff hidden in there like RMR's "Should I Swing" calculator (post 96) among other comments.

[Brutus]

If pitchers feared Votto more than Dunn, then pitchers were wrong to do so. I'm as big a Votto fan as anyone, but Adam Dunn is FAR superior offensively. Votto was an unknown to pitcher for the most part, just one season under his belt. Dunn is a force. Yeah, he K's a lot, his power more than allows for it, as do his annual 100+ BB's

FWIW, even with the season Dunn is having, and the slump Votto is in, he's still got a better WPA (Win Probability Added) than Dunn. Votto's production in high-leverage situations is something that really has paid dividends.

The following is not a knock on Dunn, but my only pet peeve about sabermetrics (to which I'm an avid fan):

It has taken on a form that ignores all skills beyond discipline and power.

I respect the heck out of a guy that can hit 40 home runs. Power is a skill. Drawing walks is a skill. It requires patience and a good eye.

However, anyone without a ton of talent can go up and draw a walk. Granted, if you're not feared, pitchers won't need to nibble and you won't likely draw many walks. So walks can be and are a reflection, to some extent, of a player's ability. But home runs are something that, even the best of players, only do 5-7% of the time. If you're big and strong, by default you're going to hit home runs at least half this rate when you connect with a baseball coming at you at 90+ MPH. It's simply physics. You can leverage additional chances by having a balanced step, compact swing, etc. But first and foremost your size and the velocity of the oncoming object already supplies some pretty good power.

Now, the reason I say this is not to diminish home runs. But it's to point out that I think the value of a home run or walk has diminished some other real important skills.

Bat control. Bat speed. The ability to make contact, usually manifesting itself through great hand-eye coordination. These are all skills that players who have them are labeled as lacking 'talent' unless they feature the above skills.

It seems, sometimes, that the only 'talented' players are the ones that possess the ability to show the three true outcomes. This is a big pet peeve for me. Though striking out is not in itself a big deal, I've never understood labeling a guy as uber talented because they swing and miss a bunch, but connect 6% of the time they are at a plate appearance with a 450-bomb - even if they do hit the ball.

Power is a skill. Power is important to a ball club. Don't misunderstand what I'm saying. But there are a lot of other 'skills' that get players to the big leagues that require talent. Those skills, though, are cast away as secondary if they lack padded HR or Walk totals.

I guess Sabermetrics are a catch-22. They've corrected some wives tails passed down from generation to generation about the importance of certain elements in a baseball game. Unfortunately, though, they've also created an all-or-nothing perception of what true talent and true skill levels actually are.

Truth be told, I think many of the true outcome players thrive in spite of their skill level, rather than because of it. These players do show some important traits. But it takes extreme walk and power production to make these characteristics worthwhile when lacking in some of the traditional secondary skills that are typically prerequisites of becoming a professional ball player to begin with.

But hey, that's juts me thinking outside the box. Doesn't diminish my respect for someone like Dunn, who does get on base an awful lot. And he sure does hit a lot of homers. I just require more than that from my players. Not just for aesthetic reasons. I just don't think those two traits should define talent and skill. I don't think it's that cozy.

[Bumstead]

I could compare Dunn's OPS to the OPS of LF for the season, but that's already been Dunn (done)...Otherwise, I could make up some defensive metrics of my own that show that Dunn's defense + Dunn's offense is better than the 7 LF's that the Red's have used. Why do I need to restate numbers that have already been posted and ignored? I'm not going to make up any defensive metrics, but I don't believe the numbers used in these posts regarding defense are valid or reasonable, but they are convenient for the argument that you are making. How would Nix/Gomes compare to Bonds his last 3-4 years? Do you think their numbers would be insignificantly less than Bonds too? I will admit that Mr.Cream&Clear was better than Dunn offensively but defensively late in his career he was miserable (should also have been a DH). My points are valid and I do take a different approach but I just can't buy into what y'all are selling.

Bum

[Brutus]

I could compare Dunn's OPS to the OPS of LF for the season, but that's already been Dunn (done)...Otherwise, I could make up some defensive metrics of my own that show that Dunn's defense + Dunn's offense is better than the 7 LF's that the Red's have used. Why do I need to restate numbers that have already been posted and ignored? I'm not going to make up any defensive metrics, but I don't believe the numbers used in these posts regarding defense are valid or reasonable, but they are convenient for the argument that you are making. How would Nix/Gomes compare to Bonds his last 3-4 years? Do you think their numbers would be insignificantly less than Bonds too? I will admit that Mr.Cream&Clear was better than Dunn offensively but defensively late in his career he was miserable (should also have been a DH). My points are valid and I do take a different approach but I just can't buy into what y'all are selling.

Bum

I don't understand the insinuation that people are making up defensive metrics. Even if there are still legitimate issues that might question the accuracy to a run here or a run there, they're on pretty solid foundation.

If they were so questionable, why would teams be investing millions of dollars in software, data engineers and consultants to see what they have to offer? Some of the best defensive teams - the Cardinals, Rays and Mariners all value these metrics quite a bit. Correlation or Causation?

I bring up the Cardinals in particular because so often on this board, I see the Reds compared to the Cardinals. So many people laud the Cardinals for their success. "Why can't the Reds be like the Cardinals? Why do the Cardinals always get it done?" Well, the Cardinals are big believers in these same metrics.

I don't think anyone is suggesting they are a finished product. But despite not yet being able to parse them from pitching to the point we can pinpoint accuracy within 'x' amount of runs, there's already been enough trial & error and corresponding success in the majors to suggest there's an awful lot of truth to them.

[TRF]

I remember when I took you under my wing like it was yesterday.

heh. I worship at your feet, oh winner of Nobels

[Bumstead]

I don't understand the insinuation that people are making up defensive metrics. Even if there are still legitimate issues that might question the accuracy to a run here or a run there, they're on pretty solid foundation.

If they were so questionable, why would teams be investing millions of dollars in software, data engineers and consultants to see what they have to offer? Some of the best defensive teams - the Cardinals, Rays and Mariners all value these metrics quite a bit. Correlation or Causation?

I bring up the Cardinals in particular because so often on this board, I see the Reds compared to the Cardinals. So many people laud the Cardinals for their success. "Why can't the Reds be like the Cardinals? Why do the Cardinals always get it done?" Well, the Cardinals are big believers in these same metrics.

I don't think anyone is suggesting they are a finished product. But despite not yet being able to parse them from pitching to the point we can pinpoint accuracy within 'x' amount of runs, there's already been enough trial & error and corresponding success in the majors to suggest there's an awful lot of truth to them.

Brutus, I agree that this is your opinion. But that is all it is, an opinion. I never suggested that anyone on here made up the metrics. I said, I don't find them to be valid or reasonable (the defensive ones). I don't like creation stats. You can. In the end, only Runs count; period. I will tell you that you made me laugh in your last post with WPA...always a new 'created' stat. I don't like them. I like baseball; baseball is about stats and I like stats. The stats you all are using to defend your stance aren't real they are created. Can they be useful in a vacuum? Sure. Can you compare UZR for various players and get an idea of a players defensive capabilities? Sure. Can you combine that with offensive stats to decide how many runs he adds to the team? No, I don't believe you can. I think the defensive metrics are exaggerated in relation to the offensive metrics.

In the end, it comes down to runs and I will go to my grave knowing the Dunn adds more runs for the Reds than Nix/Gomes. I really am astonished that people disagree with this. Warning: I'm going to use 'real' stats the whole time I post on this forum; they are useful and should not be cast aside because they didn't take decades to create. They didn't take any time to create, they are what makes up baseball games!

Carry on.

Bum

[Highlifeman21]

heh. I worship at your feet, oh winner of Nobels

Pretty sure one of his Nobel Prizes deals with why defensive metrics aren't yet 100% reliable.

[dougdirt]

I could compare Dunn's OPS to the OPS of LF for the season, but that's already been Dunn (done)...Otherwise, I could make up some defensive metrics of my own that show that Dunn's defense + Dunn's offense is better than the 7 LF's that the Red's have used.

If you make up a metric that can be backed up, then go for it. I am all for improving statistical analysis in the game. Until then, you should provide some evidence to suggest why the defensive stats being used here aren't viable options to use when determining a players value.

Why do I need to restate numbers that have already been posted and ignored? I'm not going to make up any defensive metrics, but I don't believe the numbers used in these posts regarding defense are valid or reasonable, but they are convenient for the argument that you are making.

Which numbers are you referring to? And its not convenient for the argument, it is what it is... and thats based on what has happened in baseball. You can make your arguments as to why you don't think they are valid or reasonable and we can talk that one out. Simply stating they aren't isn't really going to get you anywhere around here though when there is plenty of evidence suggesting they are in touch with reality.

My points are valid and I do take a different approach but I just can't buy into what y'all are selling.

Bum

You can take a different approach if you want, but I surely won't buy into what you are selling if you can't show me something when I have already been shown something. Why would I buy a mop that you won't show me when the other guy is selling me one I have already tried and it works great?

[Brutus]

Brutus, I agree that this is your opinion. But that is all it is, an opinion. I never suggested that anyone on here made up the metrics. I said, I don't find them to be valid or reasonable (the defensive ones). I don't like creation stats. You can. In the end, only Runs count; period. I will tell you that you made me laugh in your last post with WPA...always a new 'created' stat. I don't like them. I like baseball; baseball is about stats and I like stats. The stats you all are using to defend your stance aren't real they are created. Can they be useful in a vacuum? Sure. Can you compare UZR for various players and get an idea of a players defensive capabilities? Sure. Can you combine that with offensive stats to decide how many runs he adds to the team? No, I don't believe you can. I think the defensive metrics are exaggerated in relation to the offensive metrics.

In the end, it comes down to runs and I will go to my grave knowing the Dunn adds more runs for the Reds than Nix/Gomes. I really am astonished that people disagree with this. Warning: I'm going to use 'real' stats the whole time I post on this forum; they are useful and should not be cast aside because they didn't take decades to create. They didn't take any time to create, they are what makes up baseball games!

Carry on.

Bum

Well, I see what you're saying, and I think sometimes the stats go overboard. But people 'knew' the Earth was flat at one point. That turned out to be wrong too. Humans are constantly learning. Constantly evolving. Baseball is no different. I love the game too. So much to the point that I think sometimes stats become a crutch for people to quantify things so they feel 'in the know' for lack of a better description.

But that doesn't mean the stats don't have validity to them.

On a side note, I actually like WPA a lot. It's just not really caught on as much as far as stats go. I think it's the ultimate measure of a player offensively, because it incorporates a player's production of 'what' but also 'when.' It tells a player's ultimate contribution to a team's chances of winning. Because it's not a shorthand metric, and not a stat that can easily be thrown together in a spreadsheet with readily available information, it has not really taken off. But I do like it a lot.

[Bumstead]

You can take a different approach if you want, but I surely won't buy into what you are selling if you can't show me something when I have already been shown something. Why would I buy a mop that you won't show me when the other guy is selling me one I have already tried and it works great?[/QUOTE]

What have you shown me that is real? Do you really want me to put out the OPS of Dunn this year vs the OPS of the 7 LF's the Reds have used this year? It has already been done. I would suggest using your mop analogy (geez, it feels like my spelling is bad), that you are over-glorifying the handle of your mop and ignoring the part that does the actual cleaning. And, can you honestly tell me that you, Doug, would rather have Nix/Gomes than Adam Dunn? Really? Is that the position you would really take?

Bum

[SMcGavin]

Those runs aren't there because of what the Reds have gotten from CF/SS and 3B.... not because of what they have gotten from LF.

They've gotten a .725 OPS from left field after 5+ years of consistently being in the .850-.900 range from that position. Those other positions are helping too, but LF has been one of the biggest reasons the Reds offense is so bad this year.

If I have to get to work and I get there in a variety of ways, in different vehicles and most of them are inconsistent, non efficient, or breakdown then I have a problem getting to work.

Sure I get there, but i have a problem getting there.

Exactly.

[dougdirt]

What have you shown me that is real? Do you really want me to put out the OPS of Dunn this year vs the OPS of the 7 LF's the Reds have used this year? It has already been done. I would suggest using your mop analogy (geez, it feels like my spelling is bad), that you are over-glorifying the handle of your mop and ignoring the part that does the actual cleaning. And, can you honestly tell me that you, Doug, would rather have Nix/Gomes than Adam Dunn? Really? Is that the position you would really take?

Bum

I think jojo provided plenty of evidence that suggests the Reds problem isn't left field at all. I can't say I would rather have had them coming into the season because I didn't expect to two of them would hit for a combined .840 OPS. However since they have had a combined .840 OPS for next to nothing in money and better defense, I surely won't complain about the Reds having them on their team instead of Adam Dunn. Even if you don't buy into their defense being a lot better than Dunn, those two guys are not the problem.