Adam Dunn
in [Cincinnati Reds]
|
Next: Matt Maloney
From: Kevin McClave on 5 Jun 2007 09:17 On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 23:14:10 -0700, coachrose13(a)hotmail.com wrote: >On Jun 3, 6:53 am, Kevin McClave <kmcclaveS...(a)SUCKStwcny.rr.com> >wrote: >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 00:22:48 -0700, coachros...(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? > >My gut instinct is, yes, because for reasons this "out-classed" baseball fan cannot understand, It was "out of your league," not "out classed." >when Harang takes the mound, it seems >the Reds often win their ball games. Just to be sure, however, I'll >ask BIll James. Maybe he has invented a new stat to explain it, maybe >he'll call it the WHPTRUW (When Harang pitches, the Reds usuallly win). So, how is it you determine that it was a good signing? You wouldn't be looking at his prior performance and extrapolating that to the future would you? Even though "(a)ll math does is tell how a team or player performed AFTER THE FACT!" You had it right earlier in the thread when you wrote that "(w)hats important is how a team is going to score in the future, not how they scored them yesterday." The same could be said of keeping a team from scoring (Harang's job). What has been tried to be explained in this thread is exactly how people try to do that (gauge potential future results). The irony is that you do it, too. ********************************************************************* Kevin McClave "I believe a place and a people are judged not just by their accomplishments, but also by their compassion and sense of justice." ~Bruce Springsteen *********************************************************************
From: Kevin McClave on 5 Jun 2007 09:18 On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 23:15:08 -0700, coachrose13(a)hotmail.com wrote: >On Jun 3, 6:54 am, Kevin McClave <kmcclaveS...(a)SUCKStwcny.rr.com> >wrote: >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 00:10:28 -0700, coachros...(a)hotmail.com wrote: >> >traditional wisdom is almost always correct. >> >> That's simply not true. > >Why? Because you say so? No, because it's simply not true. The world is also not flat, and not only because I say so. ********************************************************************* Kevin McClave "I believe a place and a people are judged not just by their accomplishments, but also by their compassion and sense of justice." ~Bruce Springsteen *********************************************************************
From: Kevin McClave on 5 Jun 2007 09:28 On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 23:35:07 -0700, coachrose13(a)hotmail.com wrote: >On Jun 3, 10:16 pm, Kevin McClave <kmcclaveS...(a)SUCKStwcny.rr.com> >wrote: >> On Sun, 3 Jun 2007 20:56:03 -0400, "RJA" <r...(a)nospam.cinci.rr.com> wrote: >> >"Kevin McClave" <kmcclaveS...(a)SUCKStwcny.rr.com> wrote in message >> >news:7pj6631174r0bl1i9oe0glha2pvfas2php(a)4ax.com... >> >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 19:01:16 -0400, John Kasupski <kc2...(a)wzrd.com> wrote: >> >> >>>On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 15:16:15 -0400, Kevin McClave >> >>><kmcclaveS...(a)SUCKStwcny.rr.com> wrote: >> >> >>>>Guys are going to get on base at a 40% clip if >> >>>>they're the best. That was a given in my point. >> >> >>>They're not going to get on base at a 40% clip by keeping the bat on >> >>>their shoulders. >> >> >> Hey, think what you want. >> >> >Here's what we can agree on. Across the board, it evens out because most >> >on-base situations are runner on first situations. However, many of the >> >remaining situations dictate that contact is better than a K. Are we all on >> >the same page then? >> >> I wouldn't say that, if by the remaining situations you mean the men on >> and the number of outs (and not the result of the AB). >> >> I would say contact could be better than a K, or even should be if you >> prefer, but a popup isn't any better than a K in most situations and a >> lineout DP is worse. >> >> I can assume the response would be that a popup has the chance to drop in >> where a K does not, but therein lies the entire point of this >> discussion...that the times that happens are so infrequent that they make >> no significant difference in the long run. Could one of those drop in >> popups win a game? Sure, but so could the lack of a CS at a crucial time >> or a guy not taking an extra base because he didn't get a good secondary >> lead. However, the K stigma seems out of proportion to those other things, >> even though, as the other guys have tried to quantify here, it isn't >> anymore damaging than the any number of the other possibilities.. > >I'll agree that a pop-up has the same effect as a strikeout. Then that right there negates your earlier claim that contact is always better than a K. > If we are >continuing to talk about Adam Dunn , and in addtion to his 200-plus >strikeouts, which have a negative effect offensively on his team, Except that they don't. It's traditional wisdom that isn't true. It's been proven and the other guys have shown you numerous examples you could check (I choose not to because it makes my head hurt, but I trust what Ron and Dan say...if you don't, that's cool, you can "look it up" as they say). I'd only ask if you want to continue disagreeing with the truckload of evidence to the contrary, that you provide at least something to prove your own opinion. repeating the same old chestnuts over and over and over again doesn't prove anything, and it certainly isn't very enlightening for anyone. >as I have been trying to explain, he ALSO has a large number of pop-ups, >I admit I am WRONG in my opinion that he should bat in the 6 hole. I >change my mind. Move him into the 8 hole instead! I thought Dan's explanation of why Adam should be batting second made perfect sense and would accentuate Dunn's positives more than any other slot in the lineup...assuming we had a solid leadoff and third and fourth place hitters. There are just two few offensive weapons on this team to get the full benefit of Dunn in the 2 hole. ********************************************************************* Kevin McClave "I believe a place and a people are judged not just by their accomplishments, but also by their compassion and sense of justice." ~Bruce Springsteen *********************************************************************
From: Kevin McClave on 5 Jun 2007 10:20 On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 23:24:36 -0700, coachrose13(a)hotmail.com wrote: >On Jun 3, 7:06 am, Kevin McClave <kmcclaveS...(a)SUCKStwcny.rr.com> >wrote: >> On Thu, 31 May 2007 23:50:07 -0700, coachros...(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. > >I fully understand what is trying to be explained in this thread, and >how sabermaths are often used to prove their point. I dont have stats >to back up my assertion (other than having watched, played, and >coached 1000's of games over my lifetime) that HITTING a ball is >better than NOT HITTING IT! But you already negated that statement yourself in admitting that popups are usually the same as Ks. Hitting the ball in that case is no better than not hitting it. A BB is better than virtually any out made by contact (the exception likely being a sac fly, but even then a BB preserves the game's most precious resource, the out). A groundball DP is far worse than a K, as is the less likely lineout DP. That is an awful lot of the possible outcomes of any given AB that are at least no worse than, and in some cases worse than, a K. You're simply wrong, coach. I don't even need the sabremetrics to show that, as you've even disproved it with your own comment. Certainly there are situations where contact is better. Certainly a hit is better than an out, etc., etc., etc. The bad rap that Ks get is overblown, and you are doing the same with your absolute statements about them. >Especiallly in close games, late in the >game, and the post season. .. I doubt that there's much, if any, difference. My below comment seems to hold as much in those situations as any others: >> 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 "I believe a place and a people are judged not just by their accomplishments, but also by their compassion and sense of justice." ~Bruce Springsteen *********************************************************************
From: Ron Johnson on 5 Jun 2007 13:17
On Jun 5, 9:28 am, Kevin McClave <kmccl...(a)SPAM666twcny.rr.com> wrote: > On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 23:35:07 -0700, coachros...(a)hotmail.com wrote: > >On Jun 3, 10:16 pm, Kevin McClave <kmcclaveS...(a)SUCKStwcny.rr.com> > >wrote: > >> On Sun, 3 Jun 2007 20:56:03 -0400, "RJA" <r...(a)nospam.cinci.rr.com> wrote: > >> >"Kevin McClave" <kmcclaveS...(a)SUCKStwcny.rr.com> wrote in message > >> >news:7pj6631174r0bl1i9oe0glha2pvfas2php(a)4ax.com... > >> >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 19:01:16 -0400, John Kasupski <kc2...(a)wzrd.com> wrote: > > >> >>>On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 15:16:15 -0400, Kevin McClave > >> >>><kmcclaveS...(a)SUCKStwcny.rr.com> wrote: > > >> >>>>Guys are going to get on base at a 40% clip if > >> >>>>they're the best. That was a given in my point. > > >> >>>They're not going to get on base at a 40% clip by keeping the bat on > >> >>>their shoulders. > > >> >> Hey, think what you want. > > >> >Here's what we can agree on. Across the board, it evens out because most > >> >on-base situations are runner on first situations. However, many of the > >> >remaining situations dictate that contact is better than a K. Are we all on > >> >the same page then? > > >> I wouldn't say that, if by the remaining situations you mean the men on > >> and the number of outs (and not the result of the AB). > > >> I would say contact could be better than a K, or even should be if you > >> prefer, but a popup isn't any better than a K in most situations and a > >> lineout DP is worse. > > >> I can assume the response would be that a popup has the chance to drop in > >> where a K does not, but therein lies the entire point of this > >> discussion...that the times that happens are so infrequent that they make > >> no significant difference in the long run. Could one of those drop in > >> popups win a game? Sure, but so could the lack of a CS at a crucial time > >> or a guy not taking an extra base because he didn't get a good secondary > >> lead. However, the K stigma seems out of proportion to those other things, > >> even though, as the other guys have tried to quantify here, it isn't > >> anymore damaging than the any number of the other possibilities.. > > >I'll agree that a pop-up has the same effect as a strikeout. > > Then that right there negates your earlier claim that contact is always > better than a K. > > > If we are > >continuing to talk about Adam Dunn , and in addtion to his 200-plus > >strikeouts, which have a negative effect offensively on his team, > > Except that they don't. It's traditional wisdom that isn't true. It's > been proven and the other guys have shown you numerous examples you > could check (I choose not to because it makes my head hurt, but I trust > what Ron and Dan say...if you don't, that's cool, you can "look it up" > as they say). > > I'd only ask if you want to continue disagreeing with the truckload of > evidence to the contrary, that you provide at least something to prove > your own opinion. repeating the same old chestnuts over and over and > over again doesn't prove anything, and it certainly isn't very > enlightening for anyone. > > >as I have been trying to explain, he ALSO has a large number of pop-ups, > >I admit I am WRONG in my opinion that he should bat in the 6 hole. I > >change my mind. Move him into the 8 hole instead! > > I thought Dan's explanation of why Adam should be batting second made > perfect sense and would accentuate Dunn's positives more than any other > slot in the lineup...assuming we had a solid leadoff and third and > fourth place hitters. There are just two few offensive weapons on this > team to get the full benefit of Dunn in the 2 hole. About 30 years ago Steve Mann broke down the various offensive events into their run and rbi components. Method for the few who care. (((BB*.25)+(HBP*.29)+(1B*.51)+(2B*.82)+(3B*1.38)+(HR*2.63)+ (SB*.15)-(CS*.28))*.52)+(.008*(AB+BB+HBP))+((3*(AB+BB+HBP)/6200)* (1000*(OBP-.330))) As I said, a mess. I've probably got redundant brackets or one missing. Here's an example - Eric Davis 1987 (The second last column is run value -- IE a single is worth .28 runs scored and .23 rbi) # value total runs rbi BB 84 .25 21.00 20.16 .84 .24 .01 HB 1 .29 .29 .28 .01 .28 .01 1B 75 .51 38.25 21.00 17.25 .28 .23 2B 23 .82 18.86 8.51 10.35 .37 .45 3B 4 1.37 5.48 2.44 3.04 .61 .76 HR 37 2.63 97.31 37.00 60.31 1.00 1.63 SB 50 .15 7.50 7.50 .00 .15 .00 CS 6 -.28 -1.68 -1.68 .00 -.28 .00 OBA .399 18.76 PA 562 4.50 120.50 95.21 91.80 .51 Basicly he contributed 95 runs and 92 rbi. His excellent OBP gave other hitters a chance to contibute 19 net runs (ie runs or rbi) and 4.5 runs for general health. (Mann found that he could for a small portion of runs and used what he called a garbage constant) Roughly 51% of his value was in run scoring. Nothing terribly unusual and therfore no particular reason to think that runs created would under-value him. (A player's actual RBI total is actually a function of power and opportunity and can be radically different from the number Mann's formula predicts. Similarly a player's run total is profoundly influenced by the guys batting after him) Of the two regulars only Freel and Hatteburg rate to be substantially better at run scoring than at driving runs in. About 51% of Dunn's value comes in runs scored. I don't advocate using Mann's method. It's similar in concept to Pete Palmer's linear weights (no surprise, Palmer helped Mann solve some problems. Mann's initial efforts in addition to being a mess _didn't work_) but slightly less accurate (No surprise, Palmer adjusts after the fact for league offensive levels. Bill James calls this a cheat) or Jim Furtado's extrapolated runs (and Furtado's method is more accurate and less work) What I like about the method though is that it gives a chance to identify players who might be under-rated by more conventional metrics. In particular, high OBP guys batting leadoff are generally underrated. No biggie. 5 runs at the extreme. |