OBI%-Today's Article

[Sea Ray]

At the risk of starting a potential 500 post thread I'm going to throw this out anyway. Up for discussion is Erardi's article today on Adam Dunn and the stat OBI%. For those that don't get the local paper it can be found here:

http://news.cincinnati.com/apps/pbcs...808170435/1071

What I object to in these stat heavy articles is how misleading they can be based upon which stats the author decides to omit. The article centers around the OBI % stat which I actually think is a very useful one. It shows the percentage of runners on base that a hitter drives in. It correctly states that league average is about 14% from year to year.

The first problem I have with Erardi is he lists the following:

So, how does Dunn compare to the league leaders in RBI this year?

Player ROB OBI OBI% HR-RBI
Ryan Howard 373 70 18.8 33-103
Carlos Lee 358 72 20.1 28-100
David Wright 394 71 18.0 23-94
Ryan Ludwick 326 60 18.4 30-90
Adrian Gonzalez 361 61 16.9 28 -89
Adam Dunn* 269 42 15.6 32-74

* with Reds

To me this gives the impression that Dunn is among the league leaders in OBI%, maybe even 6th. I think it would have been much more useful if he'd labeled the league rankings of these players. If so I believe Dunn would have been ranked about 28th in the league (assuming a min of 400 PAs), not 6th as can be implied from that table.

He begins the article with this:

How can one hit 40 home runs for four straight years and never drive in more than 106 runs?

Yet he doesn't mention Dunn's OBI% stats for the past four years. In fact he only refers to 2007 and 2008 which happen to be much higher than any other year in Dunn's career. In fact if you take 14% as a league average then Dunn has been below the league average for most of his career here in Cincinnati.

In 2006 there were 6 Reds starters with OBI% higher than Dunn's. In 2005 every Reds starter except for Sean Casey (and Ryan Freel is you want to count him as a starter) was above him in OBI%. During Wily Mo Pena's days with the Reds he continually had a higher OBI% than Dunn.

This article doesn't mention any of that yet it's very pertinent to Dunn's overall career as a Red.

The gist of the article should have been that Dunn has traditionally been very poor at OBI% but to his credit he has improved his game in 2007-08 to be above league average.

So Mr Erardi there are OBI% reasons why some Cincinnati fans have issues with Dunn's ability to drive in runs.

It seems to me that Erardi is not interested in e-mails due to the fact his e-mail address is not listed in the paper not is it easily found on their website. When I have attempted to e-mail him in the past he's not returned them.

Bear in mind folks my problem is not with Dunn here. I'm going to miss him. It's with Erardi and his stat cronies who chose to cherrypick their stats to come to a preconceived conclusion and I think that's disingenuous. This is not about OBPs, defense or salary or anything other than analyzing OBI% as it relates to Adam Dunn as a Red. I'll also go on record as saying kudos to Dunn for his current OBI% above 15. That's very good and shows improvement on his part.

[cincrazy]

Nice job. Way to look deeper into the article, something the writer himself couldn't even do, apparently.

[RedsManRick]

The first problem I have with Erardi is he lists the following:

To me this gives the impression that Dunn is among the league leaders in OBI%, maybe even 6th. I think it would have been much more useful if he'd labeled the league rankings of these players. If so I believe Dunn would have been ranked about 28th in the league (assuming a min of 400 PAs), not 6th as can be implied from that table.

You have a few fair points here Sea Ray, particularly regarding Dunn's full historical track record of OBI%, but this isn't one of them. The purpose of showing the people in this table was explicitly stated -- you even quoted it: how does Dunn compare to the league leaders in RBI this year?

Thus, the table is of league leaders in RBI, not of OBI%. If this confused you, that's on you. Perhaps Erardi could have been slighly better with the graphic, putting a line under the top 5 so that we would not see Dunn as #6 -- but the ranking is still clearly by RBI, with OBI opportunities and conversion as the point of comparison from that RBI leader basis.

There are always ways analysis can be more clearly presented and this article is no different. But it's important for the reader not to assume his/her own confusion is shared. And it's even more important not to discount the message because you don't like the author.

My critique of this article is that Erardi did not clearly enough differentiate two very different issues, the amount of opportunities a player has and the rate of conversion. Adam Dunn is not particularly good at converting RBI opportunities. Had Erardi shown Dunn's track record over the past 4 years, that would have been evident and it's fair to call out Erardi for this omission. But it's a bit of a red herring, because he's not particularly bad at it either and his overall value is buoyed by his strong OBP. It's true, Dunn isn't an elite "RBI guy". But the larger cause of Dunn's low RBI totals is the lack of runners on base for him, as Erardi correctly points out. Erardi could have done better at drawing this distinction, further developing the 2nd half of his article.

What's unfortunate is that many people seem more interested in discounting Erardi and his message due to the flaws in its presentation rather than examine the nature and validity of the argument being made. The irony is that Erardi's conclusion, though weakly argued here, is spot on. You seem too busy deriding him and his "stat cronies" to do the math your self and realize it.

Perhaps this was added after you posted, but Mr. Erardi's email is in his byline, right next to his name. jerardi@enquirer.com

[Sea Ray]

You have a few fair points here Sea Ray, particularly regarding Dunn's full historical track record of OBI%, but this isn't one of them. The purpose of showing the people in this table was explicitly stated -- you even quoted it: how does Dunn compare to the league leaders in RBI this year?

Thus, the table is of league leaders in RBI, not of OBI%. If this confused you, that's on you. Perhaps Erardi could have been slighly better with the graphic, putting a line under the top 5 so that we would not see Dunn as #6 -- but the ranking is still clearly by RBI, with OBI opportunities and conversion as the point of comparison from that RBI leader basis.

There are always ways analysis can be more clearly presented and this article is no different. But it's important for the reader not to assume his/her own confusion is shared. And it's even more important not to discount the message because you don't like the author.

My critique of this article is that Erardi did not clearly enough differentiate two very different issues, the amount of opportunities a player has and the rate of conversion. Adam Dunn is not particularly good at converting RBI opportunities. Had Erardi shown Dunn's track record over the past 4 years, that would have been evident and it's fair to call out Erardi for this omission. But it's a bit of a red herring, because he's not particularly bad at it either and his overall value is buoyed by his strong OBP. It's true, Dunn isn't an elite "RBI guy". But the larger cause of Dunn's low RBI totals is the lack of runners on base for him, as Erardi correctly points out. Erardi could have done better at drawing this distinction, further developing the 2nd half of his article.

What's unfortunate is that many people seem more interested in discounting Erardi and his message due to the flaws in its presentation rather than examine the nature and validity of the argument being made. The irony is that Erardi's conclusion, though weakly argued here, is spot on. You seem too busy deriding him and his "stat cronies" to do the math your self and realize it.

Perhaps this was added after you posted, but Mr. Erardi's email is in his byline, right next to his name. jerardi@enquirer.com

Well we don't disagree on much here Rick.

I have no problem with him comparing Dunn to the top RBI guys in the league but he needed differential where Dunn fell as you noted above. Good point

Erardi clearly was obligated to show Dunn's OBI for 4 years and that's not a red herring as it relates to this article This column was solely on OBI%. It had nothing to do with OBP as you try to throw in above.
If he'd included 4 years his conclusion that Dunn's OBI% is above league average would have fallen to pieces.

You acknowledge that Dunn is not an elite RBI guy but I didn't get that impression from Erardi's article

I did do the math. I researched his OBI% over a 4 yr span and I reached a different conclusion than Erardi's cherrypicked year.

I don't dislike Erardi as a writer and it's improper for you to infer it from this statement:

And it's even more important not to discount the message because you don't like the author.

I don't like what he's written. It's nothing personal about him. Not that it matters but he's one of the few Reds writers I've met and I really liked him as a person. But just because I like you as a person doesn't mean you get a pass when I see holes in your article.

[RedsManRick]

Well we don't disagree on much here Rick.

I have no problem with him comparing Dunn to the top RBI guys in the league but he needed differential where Dunn fell as you noted above. Good point

Erardi clearly was obligated to show Dunn's OBI for 4 years and that's not a red herring as it relates to this article This column was solely on OBI%. It had nothing to do with OBP as you try to throw in above.
If he'd included 4 years his conclusion that Dunn's OBI% is above league average would have fallen to pieces.

You acknowledge that Dunn is not an elite RBI guy but I didn't get that impression from Erardi's article.

Erardi was not trying to establish that Dunn has an RBI conversion ability of a certain level, elite, average, or otherwise. He was showing that RBI totals in and of themselves are not evidence of an RBI conversion problem. Thus, while a historical look at Dunn's OBI% would be interesting, it would be somewhat beside the point.

I agree, looking at Dunn's history of OBI% would have been interesting. I've also done so and you're right, Dunn's track record shows he's not a great OBI% guy. But at no point has Erardi suggested Dunn is great at converting RBI, nor even inferred it as far as I can tell. He's just attacking the idea that RBI totals are worthy evidence to suggest Dunn is bad at converting base runners in to RBI.

I did do the math. I researched his OBI% over a 4 yr span and I reached a different conclusion than Erardi's cherrypicked year.

To what conclusions are you referring? Here are the ones I could find:

1. "The evidence shows that the problem with Dunn's RBI count wasn't as much Dunn as it was his teammates." The bolding is mine.

This is the one conclusion which implicitly refers to years past. The use of "as much", to me, clearly shows that Erardi's aware that RBI totals are the combined result of a team and a player and that the critiques of Dunn misappropriate blame for Dunn's totals being less than elite. He's critiquing the commonly held belief that the reason Dunn's totals are low are primarily due to his inability to convert his opportunities.

2. "True, Lee has had a great year, driving in 20 percent of the 358 runners on base in front of him (20 percent will always place a hitter among the leaders in this category).

But if Dunn had Lee's opportunities, even with Dunn's OBI, Dunn would have 13 more RBI."

I quote this whole passage because I think it shows Erardi's nuance. He's admitting that Lee's totals are supported by an elite OBI% in addition to his opportunities. He then makes light of Dunn's comparatively lower OBI% as the method of illustrating the impact of opportunity on both Dunn's RBI total and our inclination to judge him for something which is not his fault. Erardi is not asserting that Dunn is particularly great at converting RBI. He's stating that Dunn's comparatively fewer opportunities has had a significant impact on his RBI totals and implying that if Dunn had more opportunities, fans may not be calling his conversion rate in to question in the first place.

3. "RBI totals are as much a function of opportunities as they are a function of a player's slugging percentage."

Erardi explicitly states what I presumed he was getting at with his first conclusion. This is the simple thesis of the article, with the Dunn example serving as illustration.

The idea that Erardi is suggesting Dunn is a good "RBI guy" seems to be in your head -- not in the article. Erardi should not have to state explicitly that Dunn isn't great to offset your unfounded interpretation.

I don't dislike Erardi as a writer and it's improper for you to infer it from this statement:

I don't like what he's written. It's nothing personal about him. Not that it matters but he's one of the few Reds writers I've met and I really liked him as a person. But just because I like you as a person doesn't mean you get a pass when I see holes in your article.

That's fair. I wasn't clear. I didn't mean you disliked the author himself on a personal level, but rather his chosen subject matter. You've been regularly hostile to sabermetric analysis on RedsZone and seem to have a desire to discredit it as a matter of course, rather than merely take a critical eye for the purpose of furthering our understand of what's going on.

[Sea Ray]

Rick, you may be right about Erardi's objectives in writing this article. I can't be sure since I'm not in his head. My purpose was not to question his conclusions or guess his objectives. It was soley to evaluate the stats he used to make his point and say that his stats do not prove his point. I'm looking as this totally from a numbers standpoint and I think that's fair since Erardi credits numbers hacks as contributing to the article. I wouldn't hold Hal McCoy to this standard.

Erardi's numbers are entirely based on 2007-08 OBI% and I'm saying he cannot come to any fair conclusions on Adam Dunn as a Red if he soley cherrypicks those 1.5 yrs. It doesn't go any deeper than that Rick.

Many have taken a defensive stance to my opinions on sabermetrics because I have shown many instances where they're weak due to their misuse. But it doesn't mean I'm hostile to them or that I don't think they're useful. You did see where I said that OBI% is a good stat, right?

What I'm hostile to if anything, is how they're being used. If he'd given a more representative OBI % of Dunn's career the article would have read much differently. I'm more of the school stats don't lie but liars can figure.

In conclusion my point is Erardi's method of using Dunn's OBI% was flawed. You can't start off the article talking about Dunn's last four years as a Red and then only use stats from less than half of those.

[Sea Ray]

Erardi begins his article like this:

How can one hit 40 home runs for four straight years and never drive in more than 106 runs?

That means he's looking at Dunn's years from 2004-2007. By using his stat of OBI% I could show that a major reason for those lack of RBIs came from a poor OBI% from Dunn. I'd point out his OBI% of 12.2 in 2004, 12.7 in 2006 and 13.5 in 2005 and how they were all under league average let alone elite. I could show that most other Reds were more productive at knocking in available runners.

So here we're using the same saber stats and making different points. I'm not opposed to sabermetrics. It's that you can cherrypick which ones you use depending on what point you want to make and that's what Erardi is guilty of here. Thus my point in this:

It's not the sabermetrics that are at fault. It's all depends on how you use them.

[jojo]

It's not the sabermetrics that are at fault. It's all depends on how you use them.

Errardi didn't abuse sabermetrics. He just didn't write the article that you wanted him too.

[Sea Ray]

Errardi didn't abuse sabermetrics.

So you think it was best not to include Dunn's stats from 2004-07?

[jojo]

So you think it was best not to include Dunn's stats from 2004-07?

He asked how can a guy hit 40 hrs and only drive in 106 rbis. Then he used '07 to illustrate how that's possible.

It's pretty clear that Erardi is indicating Dunn's OBI% are basically average compared to rbi leaders. He also points out that Dunn's rbi totals have been impacted by his number of chances.

Erardi's article just doesn't contain a grossly incorrect conclusion based upon stat-abuse (manipulated stat usage) IMHO.

[RedsManRick]

Erardi begins his article like this:



That means he's looking at Dunn's years from 2004-2007. By using his stat of OBI% I could show that a major reason for those lack of RBIs came from a poor OBI% from Dunn. I'd point out his OBI% of 12.2 in 2004, 12.7 in 2006 and 13.5 in 2005 and how they were all under league average let alone elite. I could show that most other Reds were more productive at knocking in available runners.

So here we're using the same saber stats and making different points. I'm not opposed to sabermetrics. It's that you can cherrypick which ones you use depending on what point you want to make and that's what Erardi is guilty of here. Thus my point in this:

It's not the sabermetrics that are at fault. It's all depends on how you use them.

The article was NOT an assessment of Dunn himself, which would surely require a more in depth examination of his track record.

As Jojo has already succinctly pointed out, Erardi was examining the nature of RBI production, using Dunn's four year track record as background for his purpose of examining the topic, and using Dunn's more recent numbers as specific illustration of how it works. That's it.

A full examination of Dunn's ability to collect RBI would be a very interesting article -- and a completely different one than Erardi wrote. He didn't use OBI% in a flawed way, he merely did not use it to address the question you want answered.

[Ltlabner]

Dunn is no longer on the team.

Edison pitched a nice game and Javy made a nice diving stop during todays game.

The team won.

Could the conclusion that Dunn isn't good with RISP be any clearer?

[GAC]

The article states very plainly what the "problem" is....

The evidence shows that the problem with Dunn's RBI count wasn't as much Dunn as it was his teammates.

Baseball Prospectus tracks OBI percentage, "Others Batted In." In OBI, a hitter gets credit only for the teammates he drives in

That's like a guy at work always says that Dunn's home runs seem to always be solo shots.

And that is somehow Adam's fault because the guys ahead of him aren't getting on base?

[cincrazy]

[QUOTE=Ltlabner;1725162]Dunn is no longer on the team.

Javy made a nice diving stop during todays game.
QUOTE]

That's an oxymoron

[Sea Ray]

As Jojo has already succinctly pointed out, Erardi was examining the nature of RBI production, using Dunn's four year track record as background for his purpose of examining the topic, and using Dunn's more recent numbers as specific illustration of how it works. That's it.

It was more than that. He was also trying to show that Dunn is better than average at driving in the runners available to him. If that was not the case then what was the purpose of showing this:

The major league average in 2007 was 14.4 percent, about what it usually is. (The figure so far for 2008 is 14.0 percent; Dunn is 15.6 percent).

It brings me back to my original point. I could use his stats over a 4 yr range to show that his RBIs would have been better given his existing opportunities if his OBI% had been better.