Adam Dunn
in [Cincinnati Reds]
|
Next: Matt Maloney
From: Kevin McClave on 6 Jun 2007 07:37 On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 00:51:01 -0700, Ron Johnson <johnson(a)ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> wrote: >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. A couple of things that jumped out at me: The list is outdated, as Palmeiro and Bagwell aren't active (is Olerud still playing?). Pujols and Dunn are the only players in the top 40 who are under 30. Both are 27. The next "youngster" is Eric Chavez at 47th, who is 29. Is there any significance to that? >Good but not great. Given how a player with Dunn's skills (and he is fairly unique in the combination he brings, no?) normally ages, how would you expect that to change in, say, the next three or four years? Do you expect it to change at all? ****************************************************************** Kevin McClave "To justify himself, each relies on the other's crime." ~Albert Camus ******************************************************************
From: Ron Johnson on 6 Jun 2007 11:53 On Jun 6, 7:37 am, Kevin McClave <kmcclaveS...(a)SUCKStwcny.rr.com> wrote: > On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 00:51:01 -0700, Ron Johnson <john...(a)ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> > wrote: > > > > >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. > > A couple of things that jumped out at me: > > The list is outdated, as Palmeiro and Bagwell aren't active (is Olerud > still playing?). Yeah, but still ative at the end of last year is a reasonable definition. Sean builds most of the site via scripts and I'm more than willing to cut him a little slack for simplicity. > Pujols and Dunn are the only players in the top 40 who are under 30. Both > are 27. The next "youngster" is Eric Chavez at 47th, who is 29. Is there > any significance to that? I doubt it. I'm pretty sure that at any point in history you'll find the list full of players working their way down the list as it were. > >Good but not great. > > Given how a player with Dunn's skills (and he is fairly unique in the > combination he brings, no?) Rob Deer's the only moderately decent comp I can think of. And if Dunn had to play in the lower offensive contexts of the 80s, he'd have probably bounced through several organizations and might well be getting his first serious shot at the majors now. Probably not. Dunn's at least a cut better than Deer and raw power has always fascinated people in baseball. > normally ages, how would you expect that to > change in, say, the next three or four years? It's always safest to bet against short term changes. >From what I can tell, guys who take a lot of pitches are actually unusually sensitive to loss of bat speed, but I wouldn't worry about that until he hits 32 or 33. > Do you expect it to change at all? Not really. However I do see it as substantially more likely that he'll significantly decline than that he'll significantly improve. As I said someplace else, improvement's only likely if he has a very specific weakness. Unless there's a specific pitch/location he isn't handling, he's more likely to face issues of holding what he has than he is to get better.
From: Ron Johnson on 6 Jun 2007 12:41 On Jun 5, 11:55 pm, Kevin McClave <kmcclaveS...(a)SUCKStwcny.rr.com> wrote: > On Tue, 5 Jun 2007 22:11:03 -0400, "Chuck" <chuckw...(a)bellsouth.net> > wrote: > > > >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. "Long hits are showy, but they do not pay in the long run. Sharp grounders insuring first-base certain, and sometime second-base easily, are worth all the hits made for home-runs which players strive for." Henry Chadwick, 1868 Chadwick came to baseball via cricket which helps explain his attitude. Really sharp guy, but formative influences are tough to shake. You'll find similar things written of Babe Ruth around 1919. One of the official reasons for Ruth's sale was that he wouldn't listen to his coaches. Probably not true -- Ed Barrow was one of the few people who grasped what Ruth was capable of and didn't seem to care about Ruth's frequent strikeouts or his hitting the ball in the air a distinct no-no in the dead ball era. Flyballs were a pitcher's friend). Barrow and Ruth would have plenty of clashes but their relationship was pretty much like Weaver and Palmer. > > No, no good at all. He only leads the team in runs scored and runs batted > in. Again. And while I'd caution against evaluating players by runs and rbi, my rbi estimator is working unusually well for the Reds this year. Only one guy coming up significantly short of his expected rbi (given his overall batting stats and AB with runners on) -- Gonzalez A guy with a .255 BA, a .525 SLG and 90 AB with runners on would be expected to drive in about 36 runs -- as Dunn has to date. (actual RBI first, estimated second. In general the main source of error in the estimates is the actual distribution of the baserunners) Ross 17 17 Hatteburg 18 19 Phillips 32 32 Encarnacion 23 17 Gonzalez 26 37 Dunn 36 36 Freel 12 12 Griffey 32 29 Hamilton 18 17
From: RJA on 6 Jun 2007 19:12 "Ron Johnson" <johnson(a)ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> wrote in message news:1181145233.964023.164210(a)n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com... > On Jun 6, 7:37 am, Kevin McClave <kmcclaveS...(a)SUCKStwcny.rr.com> > wrote: >> On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 00:51:01 -0700, Ron Johnson >> <john...(a)ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >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. >> >> A couple of things that jumped out at me: >> >> The list is outdated, as Palmeiro and Bagwell aren't active (is Olerud >> still playing?). > > Yeah, but still ative at the end of last year is a reasonable > definition. Sean builds most of the site via scripts and > I'm more than willing to cut him a little slack for > simplicity. > >> Pujols and Dunn are the only players in the top 40 who are under 30. Both >> are 27. The next "youngster" is Eric Chavez at 47th, who is 29. Is there >> any significance to that? > > I doubt it. I'm pretty sure that at any point in history you'll > find the list full of players working their way down the list > as it were. > >> >Good but not great. >> >> Given how a player with Dunn's skills (and he is fairly unique in the >> combination he brings, no?) > > Rob Deer's the only moderately decent comp I can think of. And > if Dunn had to play in the lower offensive contexts of the > 80s, he'd have probably bounced through several organizations > and might well be getting his first serious shot at the > majors now. > > Probably not. Dunn's at least a cut better than Deer > and raw power has always fascinated people in > baseball. > >> normally ages, how would you expect that to >> change in, say, the next three or four years? > > It's always safest to bet against short term changes. > >>From what I can tell, guys who take a lot of pitches > are actually unusually sensitive to loss of bat speed, > but I wouldn't worry about that until he hits 32 or 33. > >> Do you expect it to change at all? > > Not really. However I do see it as substantially > more likely that he'll significantly decline than > that he'll significantly improve. > > As I said someplace else, improvement's only > likely if he has a very specific weakness. > > Unless there's a specific pitch/location he > isn't handling, he's more likely to face > issues of holding what he has than he is > to get better. He doesn't handle the breaking ball down and in or down and away.
From: coachrose13 on 8 Jun 2007 00:57
On Jun 5, 9:17 am, Kevin McClave <kmccl...(a)SPAM666twcny.rr.com> wrote: > On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 23:14:10 -0700, coachros...(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." > Not really much of a difference in the wording, even less in the meaning, is there? > >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!" > Yeah, but I use a whole lot less math than the stat heads do, dont I? My math is that for unforseen reason, the Reds usually score more runs than their opponents do when Harang pitches. > 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. > When the stat heads can convince me that all their calculations can somehow determine whether the Reds will win tomorrow, I'll take them more seriously. All their calculations tell you is how a player played in the past, not how they are going to play in the future. The "traditional" stats do excactly the same thing. > ********************************************************************* > 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 > *********************************************************************- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |