Adam Dunn
in [Cincinnati Reds]
|
Next: Matt Maloney
From: Kevin McClave on 3 Jun 2007 06:53 On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 00:22:48 -0700, coachrose13(a)hotmail.com wrote: >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! Do you think it was a good idea for the Reds to re-sign Aaron Harang to a long term deal, avoiding arbitration last off-season? If you do, why? ****************************************************************** Kevin McClave "To justify himself, each relies on the other's crime." ~Albert Camus ******************************************************************
From: Kevin McClave on 3 Jun 2007 06:54 On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 00:10:28 -0700, coachrose13(a)hotmail.com wrote: >traditional wisdom is almost always correct. That's simply not true. ****************************************************************** Kevin McClave "To justify himself, each relies on the other's crime." ~Albert Camus ******************************************************************
From: Kevin McClave on 3 Jun 2007 07:06 On Thu, 31 May 2007 23:50:07 -0700, coachrose13(a)hotmail.com wrote: >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" The fact of the matter is that even the *best* players make an out of some sort *60%* of the time. What I think has been trying to be explained in this thread is that the effect of the way in which those outs are made (K vs. flyout vs. groundout) is *so* small as to be almost insignificant. It doesn't matter to any large degree if someone Ks or grounds out or flies out in their 60% (or higher for most players) of outs. Are there individual instances where a certain type of out is preferable? Sure, but what's been trying to be articulated here is that it balances out over the long haul...for every K with a runner on third, there a grounder to 2B with a runner on 1B for a tailor made DP...as someone pointed out, man on first is a much more common occurrences. ****************************************************************** Kevin McClave "To justify himself, each relies on the other's crime." ~Albert Camus ******************************************************************
From: John Kasupski on 3 Jun 2007 11:32 On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 07:06:52 -0400, Kevin McClave <kmcclaveSPAM(a)SUCKStwcny.rr.com> wrote: >The fact of the matter is that even the *best* players make an out of some >sort *60%* of the time. > >What I think has been trying to be explained in this thread is that the >effect of the way in which those outs are made (K vs. flyout vs. >groundout) is *so* small as to be almost insignificant. That's what one side is trying to explain. What I think the other side is trying to explain is that when the ball is actually put into play, there is the possibility of a base hit, and there is also the possibility of an error by the defense - either of which generally benefits the team that is batting. When there is a K there is basically no chance at all for anything good happening (for the offense), unless the third strike gets by the catcher, which is relatively rare. IOW, we're saying we'd rather see the ball put into play because more good things can happen (from the offensive team's standpoint) when the ball is in play as opposed to when it isn't. We do understand that we're dealing with a game of negative stats to begin with - as you pointed out, seven times out of ten the result of an at-bat is an out to begin with - but consider that all the runs that score in baseball, that produce all the wonderful projections that have been discussed (runs scored and the projected win totals for teams based on that) are basically all produced during those other three at-bats. Most of them anyway. Some obviously occur as the result of defensive miscues, where the result of the at-bat is statistically an out but the guy who made that "out" often ends up scoring a run in that inning despite having made an "out" and sometimes you'll see a runner score from third on a groundout because the team that's in the field elects to take the sure out at first rather than attempt the play at the plate - which also doesn't happen if the guy batting Ks instead of putting the ball in play - AND... >It doesn't matter to any large degree if someone Ks or grounds out or >flies out in their 60% (or higher for most players) of outs. > >Are there individual instances where a certain type of out is preferable? >Sure, but what's been trying to be articulated here is that it balances >out over the long haul...for every K with a runner on third, there a >grounder to 2B with a runner on 1B for a tailor made DP...as someone >pointed out, man on first is a much more common occurrences. ....AND unless that guy on first walked or was HBP, he presumably got there because (altogether now, class) he put the ball in play! :-) John D, Kasupski, Tonawanda, NY Reds Fan Since The 1960's http://www.kc2hmz.net
From: John Kasupski on 3 Jun 2007 11:44
On Sat, 02 Jun 2007 14:04:11 -0500, Lance Freezeland <freezelandlaw.nospam(a)consolidated.net> wrote: >No, fantasy baseball is guys like you and me drafting teams of players >to compete in specified stat categories. ....as opposed to the real world, where guys like you and me draft teams of players to compete in ONE specified stat category - that being the number under the W column in the standings that appear in the paper every morning. >Have you ever played fantasy baseball? No. I've never owned a rubber love doll, either. In both cases, the real thing is sufficient for me. And I don't mean that as an insult. >>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. > >Nobody has suggested to the contrary. However, these things tend to >even out over the long run. Probably. But what is going to happen in the long run doesn't change what applies to any one individual game - score the run and it increases your chances of winning that particular game, and adding to the team's win total (the stat that means the most in the long run). John D, Kasupski, Tonawanda, NY Reds Fan Since The 1960's http://www.kc2hmz.net |