Adam Dunn
in [Cincinnati Reds]
|
Next: Matt Maloney
From: tom dunne on 5 Jun 2007 22:24 Chuck wrote: > "John Kasupski" <kc2hmz(a)wzrd.com> wrote in message > news:nhq663h7ibu052nclq6cga2mpebcknffer(a)4ax.com... >> On Sun, 3 Jun 2007 20:56:03 -0400, "RJA" <rja(a)nospam.cinci.rr.com> >> wrote: >> >>> 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? >> Even if there is a runner on first, while a walk might be as good as a >> single, nobody ever hit a two-run dinger by standing there watching >> the ball smack into the catcher's mitt. Same goes for doubles and >> triples. The only way to do that is to swing the bat. Which, if you're >> not going to do that, why bother carrying it up there with you? >> >> John D, Kasupski, Tonawanda, NY >> Reds Fan Since The 1960's >> http://www.kc2hmz.net >> > > Got that one right. He hits monster HRs but I would rather have somebody > that puts the ball in play, sure as hell not doing us any good this year. Don't you look at *any* stats beyond strikeouts and batting average?
From: Chuck on 5 Jun 2007 22:26 "Chuck" <chuckw417(a)bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:ZIo9i.14489$%T3.2702(a)bignews8.bellsouth.net... > > "John Kasupski" <kc2hmz(a)wzrd.com> wrote in message > news:nhq663h7ibu052nclq6cga2mpebcknffer(a)4ax.com... >> On Sun, 3 Jun 2007 20:56:03 -0400, "RJA" <rja(a)nospam.cinci.rr.com> >> wrote: >> >>>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? >> >> Even if there is a runner on first, while a walk might be as good as a >> single, nobody ever hit a two-run dinger by standing there watching >> the ball smack into the catcher's mitt. Same goes for doubles and >> triples. The only way to do that is to swing the bat. Which, if you're >> not going to do that, why bother carrying it up there with you? >> >> John D, Kasupski, Tonawanda, NY >> Reds Fan Since The 1960's >> http://www.kc2hmz.net >> > > Got that one right. He hits monster HRs but I would rather have somebody > that puts the ball in play, sure as hell not doing us any good this year. > Opps I just spoke too soon and he got a pop single to score the tying run.
From: Kevin McClave on 5 Jun 2007 23:55 On Tue, 5 Jun 2007 22:11:03 -0400, "Chuck" <chuckw417(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > >"John Kasupski" <kc2hmz(a)wzrd.com> wrote in message >news:nhq663h7ibu052nclq6cga2mpebcknffer(a)4ax.com... >> On Sun, 3 Jun 2007 20:56:03 -0400, "RJA" <rja(a)nospam.cinci.rr.com> >> wrote: >> >>>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? >> >> Even if there is a runner on first, while a walk might be as good as a >> single, nobody ever hit a two-run dinger by standing there watching >> the ball smack into the catcher's mitt. Same goes for doubles and >> triples. The only way to do that is to swing the bat. Which, if you're >> not going to do that, why bother carrying it up there with you? >> >> John D, Kasupski, Tonawanda, NY >> Reds Fan Since The 1960's >> http://www.kc2hmz.net > >Got that one right. He hits monster HRs but I would rather have somebody >that puts the ball in play, sure as hell not doing us any good this year. No, no good at all. He only leads the team in runs scored and runs batted in. Again. ****************************************************************** Kevin McClave "To justify himself, each relies on the other's crime." ~Albert Camus ******************************************************************
From: Ron Johnson on 6 Jun 2007 03:33 On Jun 2, 2:49 am, John Kasupski <kc2...(a)wzrd.com> wrote: > On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 20:57:50 -0700, Ron Johnson > > > > <john...(a)ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> wrote: > >On Jun 1, 6:24 pm, John Kasupski <kc2...(a)wzrd.com> wrote: > >> On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 17:04:17 -0400, David Short > > >> Look at it this way: If you win a game, you have to have scored at > >> least one run. Score only that one run and you win as long as the > >> other team scores zero runs. If the other team scores a run, you now > >> need to score two to win. It really makes no difference if you win the > >> game by 1-0 or 13-2 except you pad your total runs scored for the > >> season with those 11 additional runs (that you will eventually wish > >> you'd saved for another night when you lose 2-1). You still only get > >> one W in the standings. > > >Interestingly though teams one of the signs of a really good > >team is their record in blowouts. Dominant teams play > >better than .700 ball in blowouts and something like .520 > >ball in one run games (yes there are any number of great > >teams with excellent records in close games -- there are also > >great teams with poor records in close games. The defining > >characteristic of excellent teams is not their record > >in close games but the fact that they play fewer > >close -- relatively random -- games) > > One thing that's occurred to me in this area is the quality of the > opposition. Last time I sniffed around the concept, somebody told me > the scores of individual baseball games during a season meant nothing, > which surprised me coming from a guy who I know is a football fan, > because the NFL watchers pay very much attention to the quality of the > opposition when looking at a team's W/L record. That's a much more significant isue in the NFL. Range of team quality is far greater. That said, I did a study a few years back which indicated that if MLB practiced schedule rigging in the same way the NFL used to, it could influence your W/L totals by as much as 8-9 games. There's another issue too. Luck of the draw with opposition starting pitching and opposition injuries. Even if teams are nominally facing the same schedule, this kind of luck is always worth a couple of games a year. > But if I look a a > team's game logs, I'm going to be less impressed by a winning record > produced by a team that went 10-3 against the cellar-dwelling teams on > their schedule and 6-7 against teams that were legitimate contenders > for postseason play, as opposed to a team that has a winning record > against almost every opponent regardless. Can't say I've ever looked at this. I doubt it's significant though. Takes an awful lot of games for true talent levels to manifest themselves. Single season splits rate to be random. (Though occasionally team construction issues make it ... not totally random. A team with a lot of left-handed regulars might well struggle against a team that features a couple of good left-handed starters for instance) > > >> Similarly, it really makes no difference if you lose by 1-0 or 15-14, > >> you get one L in the standings either way. So it seems to me that at > >> some point, no matter how many runs you've scored, the number of runs > >> you *allow* starts looking maybe even more important because that's > >> what dictates how many runs you need to score in order to win. > > >That's all true. And every now and then a team will manage to > >do this with a fair degree of consistency. > > >However, teams which win substantially more games than you'd > >expect given their runs scored and allowed are a *very* > >strong bet to decline. > > >In other words, whatever magic they had working in a > >given year does not appear to carry forward to the > >next year. > > I guess what I'm looking for here is this: You've explained how there > is a correlation between runs scored and wins, but is there a similar > correlation between runs allowed and wins, and if not, how is this > explained? Yeah it's the same. And when you regress wins against runs scored and allowed they're equally important. > To me, if one team scores 800 runs and allows 850, while > another team scores 800 runs and allows only 750, I'd expect more wins > from the team that allows the fewer number of runs? > > I guess I'm looking at the flip side of the same coin. This is an argument that Chris Dial's made. Pete Palmer wrote a chapter on the subject in his book The Hidden Game of Baseball. Here's an example of serendipity in action. Palmer spent the better part of a couple of years coming up with a formula that involves figuring out how many net runs (runs scored - runs allowed) Turns out to be a predictable function of the number of runs scored in an average game. Meantime Bill James came up with the formula David mentioned earlier because he mis-remembered something from a stats class and it seemed like it might work. And it actually works better than what Palmer spent all of that time working on. What it boils down to is what actually matters is the ratio of runs scored to runs allowed. 50 net runs will go a little further if you're allowing 50 fewer runs than the other team. Hence Chris' argument that pitching (or pitching and defence) is (slightly) more important than hitting. Using logic that infuriated Dan, Bill James has chosen to weight his new system (win shares) 52-48 in favor of defense. The logic boils down to this. He couldn't make the system work at a 50-50 split. (Because each win share is meant to come out to 1/3 of a win. And since he simply adjusts all method errors to zero, they do) The precision (or error bars if you prefer) is such that it really doesn't matter. (I have some sympathy for this logic) And nobody can prove he's wrong. (He's wrong. A 52/48 weight doesn't model team wins as well as 50/50) > > > > >Standard error is just short of 4 wins. And we've found a couple of > >things that explain some of the error. > > >Teams with an excellent bullpen tend to ot-perform their > >pythags (expected wins) by just under two wins. > > >Teams with unbalanced bullpens (a few bad pitchers, a few > >good ones) can also slightly over-perform _provided they > >do a good job of identifying which group the pitchers fall > >in._ > > >Logic is easy to understand, with relief pitcher you can > >decide who pitches by game situation. By contrast, > >starter pretty much pitch until they have to come out. > >Meaning that you can end up with your ace pitching > >with a big lead. > > ...which is more likely to happen with your ace out there presumably > giving up fewer runs than your #5? Or not? Yup.
From: Ron Johnson on 6 Jun 2007 03:51
On Jun 5, 10:26 pm, "RJA" <r...(a)nospam.cinci.rr.com> wrote: > "Chuck" <chuckw...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote in message > > news:ZIo9i.14489$%T3.2702(a)bignews8.bellsouth.net... > > > > > > > "John Kasupski" <kc2...(a)wzrd.com> wrote in message > >news:nhq663h7ibu052nclq6cga2mpebcknffer(a)4ax.com... > >> On Sun, 3 Jun 2007 20:56:03 -0400, "RJA" <r...(a)nospam.cinci.rr.com> > >> wrote: > > >>>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? > > >> Even if there is a runner on first, while a walk might be as good as a > >> single, nobody ever hit a two-run dinger by standing there watching > >> the ball smack into the catcher's mitt. Same goes for doubles and > >> triples. The only way to do that is to swing the bat. Which, if you're > >> not going to do that, why bother carrying it up there with you? > > >> John D, Kasupski, Tonawanda, NY > >> Reds Fan Since The 1960's > >>http://www.kc2hmz.net > > > Got that one right. He hits monster HRs but I would rather have somebody > > that puts the ball in play, sure as hell not doing us any good this year. > > But he has more Runs or RBI than anyone else. How can that be the case and > he's not helping the team? > > Stat geeks, who's got the numbers on guys who score 100 and drive in 100 > year in and year out? How many are there? Alber Pujols has never not done this. Aside from that, if the guy's listed on the active OPS+ leaderboard and is healthy, he's a good bet. Nobody else is: http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/OPSplus_active.shtml Since it's pretty much the topic at hand, Dunn's at #32 and is within spitting distance of his career average. 125 OPS+ last time I checked this year. Good but not great. And for any of you who are Jim Rice for the Hall of Fame, Rice's career OPS+ was 128. |