Adam Dunn
in [Cincinnati Reds]
|
Next: Matt Maloney
From: coachrose13 on 3 Jun 2007 02:56 On Jun 1, 5:03 am, Ron Johnson <john...(a)ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> wrote: > On Jun 1, 3:51 am, coachros...(a)hotmail.com wrote: > > > > > > > On May 31, 6:02 pm, Ron Johnson <john...(a)ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> wrote: > > > > On May 30, 3:37 pm, Dan Szymborski <d...(a)baseballprimer.com> wrote: > > > > > In article <1180506011.874274.45...(a)k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, > > > > coachros...(a)hotmail.com says... > > > > > > On May 28, 3:09 am, Dan Szymborski <d...(a)baseballprimer.com> wrote: > > > > > > > In other words, caring about how a particular hitter moves runners over > > > > > > with outs is akin to worrying about recovering the chewed gum in your > > > > > > ashtray when you find out your car is stolen. > > > > > > Dont really understand that one at all. Of course, the ideal thing > > > > > would to move the runner along via a basehit, but if you cant, move > > > > > him along anyway you can. > > > > > Because it happens so little and it's of such little value that it's > > > > irrelevant. > > > > (I know Dan knows all of this. Just piggy-backing to his post) > > > > It helps to look at it this way. With nobody on, all outs > > > are of equal value. Ditto with two outs. > > > > That's a hefty chunk of all PAs. > > > > And with the DP in order an out on a ball in play is very much > > > a mixed bag. Don't have the numbers handy, but something like > > > 55% of ground ball outs are turned into DPs. And flyballs > > > that advance a runner from first are pretty rare. > > > > Put it all together and what you're left with is PAs with > > > runners on second, second and third or third with fewer > > > than two outs. Somewhere around 9% of all PAs. And the > > > PAs with a runner with decent speed on second with one > > > out -- well a productive out really isn't that important. > > > > Another way to look at this. We know that we can estimate > > > team runs scored to within about 20 runs most of the time > > > using the basic stats you can get from baseball-reference. > > > > The biggest source of error is unquestionably clutch/timing > > > (depending on your religious views). I mean single/home run > > > is obviously better than home run/single. > > > > Then you've got opposition errors. Scored as an 0-1 > > > but in reality a baserunner with no outs. Happened > > > 48 times to the Reds last year, and 87 times to > > > the Cubs. That's something on the order of 8 > > > runs. > > > > And you've got base running. It's no big deal, but > > > there are obviously a few runs a year at stake. > > > (I've only done a limited amount of work on this, > > > but from what I can tell the swing is about 7 runs > > > a year from best to worst. IOW somewhat similar > > > in magnitude to reached on errors) > > > > Put simply, if Ks were important in modelling team runs > > > scored, our models wouldn't work. There's no room for > > > Ks to matter more than a couple of runs per team per > > > year. > > > MODELING??? I thought teams were actually trying to score runs. > > Right. But we work backwards from the runs scored and the > obseved events (including Ks) > Observed events?? Pretty easy to tell how runs were scored AFTER The fact. Thats the trouble with stat fans. Based on these observations, they are never wrong. Whats important is how a team is going to score in the future, not how they scored them yesterday. > Any time somebody proposes a new method of ranking players, the first > thing we do is test how well they work against team > runs scored. > > > K's only cost a team a couple of runs a year, huh? > > No. In fact Ks are insignificant to team runs scored. And have > been since the end of the dead ball era. Ks were important > to team runs scored back then (and probably in every level of > baseball below AAA). Not surprising, Error rates were > substantially higher. DP rates much lower. > How about how significant are K's to runs a team DOESNT score??? Thats the big factor here. I cant understand why stat fans refuse to realize that it is ALWAYS more important to put the bat on the ball when you swing at it than not. Sure, the routine ground ball hit to the second baseman will usually become a routine out, but strike three is NEVER going to benefit the offense. > > Stay with your fanasty > > league all you want; I'll watch real baseball where it is ALWAYS more > > important to put the ball in play than not. > > How on earth would you know? Have you actually troubled to > check your assumptions? > I just watch a lot of baseball, and it does not take a genious to understand that you should bit the baseball with a bat it you want to have a chance to be sucessful/ > The data's available. Grab the Lahman database from > baseball1.com. Load it into Excel (if you don't have > Excel and don't want to pay for it, R is freely > available) and run a multiple regression -- team > runs scored against the basic offensive stats. > Who does Lahman say is going to win the 2007 World Series? Who does Lahman say is going to win the batting title in each league, or the home run title? > I'm aware of more than a few published studies. They > all yield broadly similar results. It's a decade old, but you > can find a good discussion of Guy Tyler's study by > googling for Subject of "New Runs Created Formula" > Author Guy Tyler in rec.sport.baseball.analysis > (personally I checked. So did Jim Furtado and > others)- Hide quoted text - > Im sure all major league managers read this "study" and never have their teams hit and run, steal, bunt, or move runners along because the report says three run homers are easier and more important (extreme sarcasm here, but you get the point_ > - Show quoted text -
From: coachrose13 on 3 Jun 2007 03:10 On Jun 1, 7:05 am, Kevin McClave <kmcclaveS...(a)SUCKStwcny.rr.com> wrote: > On Thu, 31 May 2007 23:50:07 -0700, coachros...(a)hotmail.com wrote: > >On May 30, 3:37 pm, Dan Szymborski <d...(a)baseballprimer.com> wrote: > >> In article <1180506011.874274.45...(a)k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, > >> coachros...(a)hotmail.com says... > > >> > On May 28, 3:09 am, Dan Szymborski <d...(a)baseballprimer.com> wrote: > >> > > In article <1180251556.994061.294...(a)h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, > >> > > coachros...(a)hotmail.com says... > > >> > > > On May 27, 3:14 am, "Thomas R. Kettler" <tkett...(a)blownfuse.net> > >> > > > wrote: > >> > > > > In article <1180246217.872889.186...(a)h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, > > >> > > > > coachros...(a)hotmail.com wrote: > >> > > > > > I dont like having a 200 a year strikeout player batting behind the > >> > > > > > leadoff batter(assuming the lead-off is doing his job and getting on > >> > > > > > base). Of course, Dunn will quite often, hit the long ball, or even > >> > > > > > draw a walk, but I think far too often will strand the baserunner by > >> > > > > > striking out or hitting a fly ball. A good #2 hitter, at the bare > >> > > > > > minimum, should at least be able to move the runners along . I still > >> > > > > > think you should bat him in the 6 hole, regardless. He can still drive > >> > > > > > in a lot of runs from that spot, and when he is not hitting will not > >> > > > > > hurt his team as much as if he were battting higher in the lineup. The > >> > > > > > number 7 hitter, under ideal circumstances ( I know, I'm setting > >> > > > > > myself up on that one!) is kind of like a lead-off hitter: his job is > >> > > > > > primarily to get on base, so if Dunn is not hitting, it is kind of > >> > > > > > like the top of the order after he hits(at least until the pitcher's > >> > > > > > spot comes along!) > > >> > > > > There's a very good statistic for measuring how a batter moves runners. > >> > > > > It is called the Slugging Average (SLG). Adam Dunn does that quite well > >> > > > > with a career SLG=.514, 68th best of anyone ever in MLB. Also, a runner > >> > > > > of 1st will advance on a walk which he draws roughly every 6th PA. > > >> > > > > Also, consider that Adam Dunn doesn't ground into many double plays. > > >> > > > Mostly because he stikes out so much, hits a lot of fly balls, and > >> > > > bats left-handed, none of which usually moves the runner into scoring > >> > > > position for the #3 hitter. > > >> > > You're overestimating how many productive outs a contact hitter makes in > >> > > a year and how valuable a productive out is over a regular out. > > >> > > In the example of Freel being on 1st with nobody out, a walk is worth > >> > > more than *5 times* that of a productive out relative to a non- > >> > > productive out. A home run is worth almost *12 times* as much. > > >> > > If the choice was between Dunn making 0 productive outs a year and a > >> > > league-leading player making in the mid-30s productive outs a year, the > >> > > most negative possible scenario (and unrealistic as Dunn's made between > >> > > 5 and 10 a year, a fairly average number), Dunn could wipe out an entire > >> > > season of league-leading productive out-making with just 3 home > >> > > runs or 7 walks. > > >> > No way of having a stat to tell how important moving runners along > >> > is.You could move a runner over 10 times in a row and the hitter > >> > behind you not drive him in a single time, or he could drive him in 10 > >> > times in a row. You would not get any stats to show you helped your > >> > team,but anyone watching the game would know it. It's called teamwork! > >> > Maybe Bill James could come up with something, but wait! He always > >> > does AFTER the fact. > > >> That's an odd argument. You're essentially saying that using your > >> mortgage payment for lottery tickets is a good idea because it COULD win > >> 100 million dollars and you totally won't know until after the fact. > > >> Well, no, thats not what I am saying at all, essentially or otherwise, but if you say so...... > > >> No, you won't know exactly what happens with any play in baseball - you > >> go with what's likely. > > >EXACTLY! When you have Dunn at the plate, either with runners on or > >not, you are far more likely to get a K than anything else, whether it > >be a home run, base hit, walk, or even the dreaded "productive out" > > > And what's likely is that the amount of runners > >> a batter advances on outs is so small and the advantage compared to a > >> good play like the ones Dunn makes so miniscule that it doesn't matter > >> in the realm of reality. > > >All I know is that when Dunn (or any at the plate) strikes out with > >runners on base (as he will do far more often than he will do than > >anything else) he has a very miniscule chance that he is going to do > >anything at all during that at-bat to help his team win. Look at it > >this way: if the Detroit TIgers could have struck out the Cardinals > >during the WS last year instead of having the ball put in play back to > >the mound and the Tiger's pitchers throwing the ball away, Detroit > >would have won the World Series. You never know what is going to > >happen when the defense has to make a play, even in the World Series. > >The only stat I know in this instance to prove my point is that St. > >Louis won the World Series. > > >> In other words, caring about how a particular hitter moves runners over > >> > > with outs is akin to worrying about recovering the chewed gum in your > >> > > ashtray when you find out your car is stolen. > > >> > Dont really understand that one at all. Of course, the ideal thing > >> > would to move the runner along via a basehit, but if you cant, move > >> > him along anyway you can. > > >> Because it happens so little and it's of such little value that it's > >> irrelevant. > > >Happens more often that you care to admit. > > Coachrose13...you're out of your league with Ron (and Dan). I say that as > someone who is in the same boat, so take it for what it's worth. > Hey! Im out of my league with a whole lot of people. Im not trying to outsmart anyone, nor do I think I need to if someone thinks a strikeout does any less harm to a team than simply putting the ball in play. Forget stats, its a pretty simple concept: strike three, return to the dugout, ball in play, you might get a basehit, or the opposing team might commit an error. If there are runners on base, strike three, return to dugout, runners do not advnce, the defense does not have to make a play; ball in play, runners have a chance to advance or even score. (Double play is also a small possibilty) Now I realize that it would be nice for the batter to get a basebit or even hit a home run. But if he does not, which gives his team a better chance with runners on base, a ball in play or a strike out> > At any rate, a friendly bit of advice, listen to what they have to say, > because you will learn something if you're open to it...and it won't > always jibe with your traditional thoughts on things. In fact, > "traditional wisdom" on a lot of baseball truisms is flat out incorrect. > traditional wisdom is almost always correct. Putting the ball in play is almost always better than not. > ****************************************************************** > Kevin McClave > > "To justify himself, each relies on > the other's crime." ~Albert Camus > ******************************************************************- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: coachrose13 on 3 Jun 2007 03:22 On Jun 1, 9:54 am, David Short <David.no.Sh...(a)Spam.Wright.Please.edu> wrote: > coachros...(a)hotmail.com wrote: > > On May 31, 6:02 pm, Ron Johnson <john...(a)ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> wrote: > >> Put simply, if Ks were important in modelling team runs > >> scored, our models wouldn't work. There's no room for > >> Ks to matter more than a couple of runs per team per > >> year. > > > MODELING??? I thought teams were actually trying to score runs. K's > > only cost a team a couple of runs a year, huh? Stay with your fanasty > > league all you want; I'll watch real baseball where it is ALWAYS more > > important to put the ball in play than not. > > This is one of the fundamental chasm's that sabremetrics cannot cross. > > There are people who do not believe in math. They do not understand it. > They don't know what it does. When the math doesn't fit what they think > they know, it MUST be the math is wrong. > > dfs I believe in math, I really do. I also believe that a baseball team hitting the ball by the defense, running the bases well, and not making three outs are what scores runs, not MATH! I believe one and one equals two. I believe Hank Aaron has 755 home runs. I believe Pete Rose hit .348 in 1969. Why? Well in the case of Rose and Aaron, they did it on the field with baseball abilities, not because math said so. All math does is tell how a team or player performed AFTER THE FACT!
From: coachrose13 on 3 Jun 2007 03:28 On Jun 1, 1:19 pm, Lance Freezeland <freezelandlaw.nos...(a)consolidated.net> wrote: > On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 00:51:49 -0700, coachros...(a)hotmail.com gave us: > > >On May 31, 6:02 pm, Ron Johnson <john...(a)ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> wrote: > >> Put simply, if Ks were important in modelling team runs > >> scored, our models wouldn't work. There's no room for > >> Ks to matter more than a couple of runs per team per > >> year. > >MODELING??? I thought teams were actually trying to score runs. K's > >only cost a team a couple of runs a year, huh? Stay with your fanasty > >league all you want; I'll watch real baseball where it is ALWAYS more > >important to put the ball in play than not. > > What's particularly amusing about this response is that fantasy > baseball generally concerns itself with the same sort of stats that > guys like "coachrose13" generally like -- runs, RBI, batting average. > > You know where it's ALWAYS important to put the ball in play? In my > son's Khoury League, where the error rate is astronomical. But in the > big leagues, that's not true -- that's what Dan and Ron are trying to > tell you, if only you'd listen. If you want to build a team which > scores more runs, you avoid guys who contribute those so-called > "productive outs". And 99% of the time, an out is an out is an out, > no matter how it's made. > Ah, but in the major leagues, where most of the teams and players are at least CLOSE to being equal talent-wise, that one per cent you leave open could make a HUGE difference! > -- > Lance > > Go St. Louis Cardinals! > 2006 WORLD SERIES CHAMPIONS > National League Central Division Champions > 1996, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2004, 2005, 2006 > > ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----http://www.newsfeeds.comThe #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups > ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
From: coachrose13 on 3 Jun 2007 03:42
On Jun 2, 11:28 am, "RJA" <r...(a)nospam.cinci.rr.com> wrote: > "John Kasupski" <kc2...(a)wzrd.com> wrote in message > > news:9ad063lmnstha69ta5v2sb02so8s1sj52k(a)4ax.com... > > > > > > > On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 09:54:49 -0400, David Short > > <David.no.Sh...(a)Spam.Wright.Please.edu> wrote: > > >>coachros...(a)hotmail.com wrote: > >>> On May 31, 6:02 pm, Ron Johnson <john...(a)ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> wrote: > >>>> Put simply, if Ks were important in modelling team runs > >>>> scored, our models wouldn't work. There's no room for > >>>> Ks to matter more than a couple of runs per team per > >>>> year. > > >>> MODELING??? I thought teams were actually trying to score runs. K's > >>> only cost a team a couple of runs a year, huh? Stay with your fanasty > >>> league all you want; I'll watch real baseball where it is ALWAYS more > >>> important to put the ball in play than not. > > >>This is one of the fundamental chasm's that sabremetrics cannot cross. > > >>There are people who do not believe in math. They do not understand it. > >>They don't know what it does. When the math doesn't fit what they think > >>they know, it MUST be the math is wrong. > > > Would you pay $250 for a seat in the Diamond section at GABP to watch > > guys in three-piece suits sit down in front of tables with computers > > on them and run numbers through Excel to determine which team wins the > > championship every year? > > > That's basically what fantasy baseball is about. > > > In the real world, that's not what baseball is about at all. > > > One of the things by which people are going to test sabermetrics is > > whether or not it agrees with reality. Which is a good test. In fact, > > Grabiner even says so in his manifesto. > > > The reality in real-world baseball is that on each and every day when > > a game is played, each team has an opportunity to win a game that day. > > There's no guarantee that he team that math determines to be the > > better team is going to win any particular game. And at the end of the > > season, the teams that have won the most games in each division make > > the playoffs, along with the non-division winning team with the most > > wins. That's the reality. Like it or not, ultimately the only thing > > that really counts is the number under W in the standings. > > > This is why I'm with coachrose13 on this one. A lot of what Saber > > works with sounds great for the fantasy baseball leagues where the > > players are just numbers on a sheet and the winners and losers are > > determined based on the math, but...well, who was it that said that > > every journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step? A team's > > journey to the playoffs begins with tonight's game. Math is simply not > > up to the task of determining who is going to win tonight and who is > > going to lose. That's going to be determined by factors that no > > equation can hope to quantify. > > > I don't know offhand what the Reds' record was in one-run ballgames > > during the 2000 season. But in any one of those games, if a guy comes > > up with a runner on third and less than two outs and instead of > > striking out, he grounds out while the runner scores and ties the > > game, then what? > > > The math that tells us the difference is only a couple of runs a year > > can be correct, but the contention that it therefore makes no > > difference whether the guy strikes out or puts the ball in play does > > not take into account the timing of WHEN that handful of runs is > > scored or not scored. > > Bingo. It's simply common sense. A ball in play at the right time instead > of a K can make a world of difference, which is why the ball in play is a > better outcome in many cases. Unless of course, the argument is made that > the same ball in play at the wrong time causes the opposite and keeps runs > off the board as with a DP but I'm not sure how you could prove the latter > because the runs that score after the DP could be the result of newly > created circumstance. > > Right on! A ball in play ALWAYS gives you a least a CHANCE of doing something productive, while a strikeout almost NEVER gives you the same chance. > > > That's where the math fails the test of whether or not the math agrees > > with reality. Perhaps the Reds win that game in extra innings. As a > > result of that one statistically insignificant play, the Reds get one > > more W and instead of finishing in a tie with the Mets, they win a > > postseason berth outright. And as we all know, once a team gets into > > the postseason the sample size for a 5-game or 7-game series is so > > small, neither sabermetrics nor anything else has any hope of > > accurately predicting the results. > > > I remember a guy who hit one HR all year long who hit two in the same > > game in a WS. Based on stats the probability was that the guy wasn't > > going to homer at all during that series. But he did, however much to > > the consternation of the mathemeticians who must explain it away as > > "small sample size" because no equation can quantify all of the > > factors that will determine the outcome of tonight's game. Which is a > > Good Thing. Otherwise there would be no point in playing the games. > > > John D, Kasupski, Tonawanda, NY > > Reds Fan Since The 1960's > >http://www.kc2hmz.net- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |