Mystery Team Claims Dunn off Waivers?

[Griffey012]

Originally Posted by GIDP

So what you are saying is 100 or so PA is more important than every other thing in baseball combined?

A double with runners on base should be more valuable than a double with nobody on. The issue with WAR is it attempts to neutralize hitters like Howard who are always up with guys on, and players on poor teams who are never up with guys on. It has given a value of expected runs created by each type of outcome. The problem is there are always going to be exceptions to the norm and you'll have guys that consistently can't hit with RISP, and their WAR's are inflated because they rack up a bunch of singles, doubles, and home runs with empty bases.

Howard has more 23 more home runs, 5 more doubles, and 4 more triples with runners on base in 50 less AB's than with nobody on. Dunn on the other hand has 43 less home runs, 56 less doubles, and 4 less triples in 500 less AB's than with nobody on. His AB/HR, AB/2b, and AB/3b ratios and BA all get worse with runners on, risp, risp 2 outs. While Howard's AB/HR, AB/3b, AB/2b ratios and BA are all better than or equal to what he does with nobody on base.

WAR does not account for the fact that Howard produces more with his hits than Adam Dunn does, because he produces more with runners on base and Dunn produces less with runners on base.

[texasdave]

Originally Posted by Griffey012

I've also never seen anywhere that Dunn was a good influence in the club house. A 10 million dollar player should be more than "just one of the guys." That's the role of the rookies and young guys.

If Griffey and Dunn were such good influences in the clubhouse then why did they clubhouse attitude have to be turned around by Rolen, Cabrera and
Baker?

[scott91575]

Originally Posted by BigJohn

RISP is more important than the made up stat called WAR!



Wins Above Replacement is a statistic that attempts to measure the "total value" of a player over a given season.

WAR calculates the total number of wins that any player adds to his team over the course of a season by comparing the player's performance with that of a fictitious replacement. A "replacement player" is assumed to be an average Triple-A callup who might appear in the majors only as replacement for an injured player, and whose hitting/fielding or pitching skills are far below league average. According to Baseball Prospectus, a team consisting entirely of replacement-level players would likely be historically bad, winning only 20-25 games over a full 162-game season.
'



Seems to me that the REDS have had a lot more wins since replacing Adam Dunn!

That is pretty spurious reasoning. It's not like the Reds are the same team since Dunn left. Just ask yourself this question....would the Reds be better with Hamilton in center? The Reds have won more since he left.

BTW....RISP over a short period of time has proven to be a rather poor predictor of a player. The vast majority of hitters over their career have RISP numbers very similar to their overall production. Hence why it is not used much in the evaluation of players. At best you may find a few anomolies over the lifetime of a player. In the case of Adam Dunn, his career OPS wRISP is .897 and overall career OPS is .907. His BA is slightly lower, but that may be due to being pitched around some w/RISP. Anyway, you will find that trend similar across the league. RISP numbers will normally end up within statistical variance of a players overall stats. Hence why it is not used as an evaluator for the majority of players.

[Griffey012]

Originally Posted by texasdave

If Griffey and Dunn were such good influences in the clubhouse then why did they clubhouse attitude have to be turned around by Rolen, Cabrera and
Baker?

I was by no means saying Dunn was a good influence in the clubhouse. Someone stated he had never seen anyone say anything negative about Dunn in the clubhouse, and I was also stating I have never heard anyone say anything good. Griffey wasn't part of the discussion but he is in the exact same boat as Dunn.

[scott91575]

Originally Posted by Griffey012

A double with runners on base should be more valuable than a double with nobody on. The issue with WAR is it attempts to neutralize hitters like Howard who are always up with guys on, and players on poor teams who are never up with guys on. It has given a value of expected runs created by each type of outcome. The problem is there are always going to be exceptions to the norm and you'll have guys that consistently can't hit with RISP, and their WAR's are inflated because they rack up a bunch of singles, doubles, and home runs with empty bases.

Howard has more 23 more home runs, 5 more doubles, and 4 more triples with runners on base in 50 less AB's than with nobody on. Dunn on the other hand has 43 less home runs, 56 less doubles, and 4 less triples in 500 less AB's than with nobody on. His AB/HR, AB/2b, and AB/3b ratios and BA all get worse with runners on, risp, risp 2 outs. While Howard's AB/HR, AB/3b, AB/2b ratios and BA are all better than or equal to what he does with nobody on base.

WAR does not account for the fact that Howard produces more with his hits than Adam Dunn does, because he produces more with runners on base and Dunn produces less with runners on base.

and for his career Howard is .987 OPS w/RISP and .951 without RISP. Not a huge difference, and over the next few years it will probably get closer as the sample sizes increase. That is why RISP is not used in Sabermetric statistics. RISP stats trend towards a players overall stats, and the overall stats have a larger sample size. So why use a smaller sample size when you have a larger one? No stats are perfect, but there is a reason RISP is ignored in Sabermetric stats. The sample sizes each year are small in comparison to the overall stats, and as historical stats have proven over a long enough time RISP stats are very similar to overall stats.

WAR is not a perfect stat, but way better than batting w/RISP for part of a year.

[GIDP]

No one really can believe that RISP is the most important part of any baseball players game.

[Griffey012]

Originally Posted by scott91575

and for his career Howard is .987 OPS w/RISP and .951 without RISP. Not a huge difference, and over the next few years it will probably get closer as the sample sizes increase. That is why RISP is not used in Sabermetric statistics. RISP stats trend towards a players overall stats, and the overall stats have a larger sample size. So why use a smaller sample size when you have a larger one? No stats are perfect, but there is a reason RISP is ignored in Sabermetric stats. The sample sizes each year are small in comparison to the overall stats, and as historical stats have proven over a long enough time RISP stats are very similar to overall stats.

WAR is not a perfect stat, but way better than batting w/RISP for part of a year.

Howard is actually only a .879 OPS with bases empty. He has a .951 OPS overall. It's pretty hard to say based on the size of the sample, about 1750 AB's with the bases empty and 1800 PA's with runners on base and 1100 with RISP, that Howard's numbers with RISP will decrease towards his numbers with nobody on base.

Dunn has an even larger sample size himself. Using RISP numbers inside of 1 season is not useful because the sample size is usually relatively small, but over the course of someone's career the sample sizes are plenty large to realize some noticable trends.

I wasn't advocating that a slash line w/RISP is more important or better than WAR. I was just using Dunn and Howard as an example to explain one of the fallacy's with WAR when comparing two players. Dunn has shown an ability to walk with runners on, but not hit. Whereas Howard as shown an ability to elevate his game which doesn't necessarily show up in WAR.

[texasdave]

Originally Posted by Griffey012

I was by no means saying Dunn was a good influence in the clubhouse. Someone stated he had never seen anyone say anything negative about Dunn in the clubhouse, and I was also stating I have never heard anyone say anything good. Griffey wasn't part of the discussion but he is in the exact same boat as Dunn.

I quoted the wrong person. My bad. I was actually agreeing with you earlier.

[scott91575]

Originally Posted by Griffey012

Howard is actually only a .879 OPS with bases empty.

You are right, I meant overall.

Anyway, I was rather simplistic in only using OPS. Big time hitters will often have a higher walk rate w/RISP and that bumps their OPS. If anything Adam Dunn, if you consider him at the same level of Ryan Howard, is a slight anomaly. His BA and slugging are a fair amount lower w/RISP than no men on, while Ryan Howard is slightly higher in those numbers. Probably better to use BA+slugging for RISP.

Anyway, it would take a lot to go into the whole RISP position thing (which if used as a major stat you essentially ignore the importance of actually getting on base when no one is on). I used a very simplistic reasoning, and it shouldn't be completely ignored when evaluating a player. Yet RISP is also very dependent on other factors (batting position, frequency of RISP, lineup protection, etc), and as stated numbers will trend towards overall stats for the career of a player. Those things will of course also affect overall stats, but to a lesser extent. Hence why overall stats are used in WAR to compare players across the league. It helps reduce the anomalies from team to team.

[Magdal]

So whom claimed Dunn?

[Hondo]

Originally Posted by Magdal

So whom claimed Dunn?

Yeah, I want an answer too! This post kinda got railed off into a "Moneyball" Billy Beane debate of massive porportions!

[scott91575]

Originally Posted by Magdal

So whom claimed Dunn?

No one knows since they are kept a secret (and it hasn't leaked yet). From the rumor mill the lowest record team was the Dodgers or the Rockies, and it is believed one of those teams did it in order to prevent the Giants from getting him (the Giants actually admitted to putting in a claim but another team with a worse record claimed him).

The Dodgers are the most popular pick from analysts as the team that did it.

[XU Lou]

Originally Posted by scott91575

No one knows since they are kept a secret (and it hasn't leaked yet). From the rumor mill the lowest record team was the Dodgers or the Rockies, and it is believed one of those teams did it in order to prevent the Giants from getting him (the Giants actually admitted to putting in a claim but another team with a worse record claimed him).

The Dodgers are the most popular pick from analysts as the team that did it.

And how long do they have to negotiate a deal, assuming the claiming team even intended on dealing?

[texasdave]

Originally Posted by XU Lou

And how long do they have to negotiate a deal, assuming the claiming team even intended on dealing?

10 days, I believe.

I have to correct this. I guess it is only 2 days.

At that point, a team has 48 hours to either try to work out a trade with the claiming club or remove the player from waivers. A player can only be pulled back from waivers once, but if he clears waivers either the first or a second time through, a team can attempt to trade him to any club.

[Vottomatic]

Yeah, I'm surprised the name of the team hasn't been leaked or the deal decided yet.