Adam Dunn
in [Cincinnati Reds]
|
Next: Matt Maloney
From: coachrose13 on 8 Jun 2007 01:54 On Jun 5, 9:18 am, Kevin McClave <kmccl...(a)SPAM666twcny.rr.com> wrote: > On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 23:15:08 -0700, coachros...(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. > OK, I'll be stupid and bite on this one. What part (or parts) about "traditional wisdom that is wrong? Not making contact with the ball? Bunting? Hitting and running? Stealing? Throwing to the right base? Lefty against Right? Fundamentals? Hell, if you could always count on a three run homer, the game would be easy to play, and you wouldnt have to teach it at all. The world has proven to be round long ago, show me how sabermathics can predict who is going to win tomorrows game. > ********************************************************************* > 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: coachrose13 on 8 Jun 2007 02:18 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. > I believe I have said that contact "almost always" is better than not hitting the ball. Big difference. While I'am at it , I should also clarify and say that hitting the ball is RARELY worse than not hitting it. > > 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). > It's been proven that not making the defense have to make a play, nor having a ZERO per cent chance of moving a runner up a base and giving your teamate a chance to drive him him for over 200 plate appearances do what???? Not hurt his team, Have no effect at all??? Dont have to look it up. Only a handful of those at bats not doing anything at all at the plate could cost his home team several wins. No way of knowing, other that by not hitting the ball at all, there is no question as to what might happen. > 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. > You do realize that we are only talking in theory as to where Dunn should bat as to where the Reds lofty standings are at this time, I dont really think it would matter a whole lot, do you > ********************************************************************* > 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 -
From: coachrose13 on 8 Jun 2007 02:26 On Jun 5, 6:58 pm, "RJA" <r...(a)nospam.cinci.rr.com> wrote: > <coachros...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:1181024861.857624.54140(a)g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > On Jun 3, 6:29 pm, Dan Szymborski <d...(a)baseballprimer.com> wrote: > >> In article <me7563p96eetukt0eutv8147jmtqau9...(a)4ax.com>, > >> kmcclaveS...(a)SUCKStwcny.rr.com says... > > >> > 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. > > >> I totally believe that bloodletting is a great source of medicine and a > >> heavier-than-air vehicle cannot fly. > > >> -- > >> Dan Szymborski > >> d...(a)baseballprimer.REMOVE.com > > >> "A critic who refuses to attack what is bad is > >> not a whole-hearted supporter of what is good." > >> - Robert Schumann > > > And I continue to believe that hitting a baseball is better than not > > hitting it! > > Again, it depends on the situation but it evens out because most of the > on-base situations have a runner on 1st. This isn't rocket science. > \ I dont believe anything ever "evens out" Everything is a matter of timing; your two run homer does not necessarliy negate the two run throwing error you made. I agree it is not rocket science, I wish others would not try to make it as such! > On the other hand, when Dunn makes contact, he gets a hit 38% of the time. > That's not reasonable because everyone strikes out some. But I still > believe that if he could cut his Ks down from abysmally ridiculous > (currently 39% of the time) to just ridiculous (33% and also career), he > would raise his numbers significantly. Right now that would equal a .276 > average instead of .255 at a rate of 38% hits per making contact. > And if he were to start striking out a whole lot less, and still perform at least close to his levels otherwise, I would not have any problem at all moving him higher in the lineup.; > Where I disagree here is that the reduction in Ks comes at a cost. Asking > him to strike out at the career clip (which is still terrible) rather than > 39% isn't asking a whole lot.- Hide quoted text - > Agreed. > - Show quoted text -
From: Kevin McClave on 8 Jun 2007 07:01 On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 21:57:57 -0700, coachrose13(a)hotmail.com wrote: >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? There's a pretty big difference. I made no comment on your level of class. >> >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. Doubtful, certainly over the long haul...but that probably proves a point about relying on the anecdotal. >> 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. No, the traditional stats (if by traditional you mean counting numbers like runs and RBI, or batting average) don't. Runs and RBI are team stats, based too largely on opportunity and not performance. ****************************************************************** Kevin McClave "To justify himself, each relies on the other's crime." ~Albert Camus ******************************************************************
From: Kevin McClave on 8 Jun 2007 07:07
On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 22:54:04 -0700, coachrose13(a)hotmail.com wrote: >On Jun 5, 9:18 am, Kevin McClave <kmccl...(a)SPAM666twcny.rr.com> wrote: >> On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 23:15:08 -0700, coachros...(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. >> > OK, I'll be stupid and bite on this one. What part (or parts) about >"traditional wisdom that is wrong? Not making contact with the ball? >Bunting? Hitting and running? Stealing? Throwing to the right base? >Lefty against Right? Fundamentals? Hell, if you could always count on >a three run homer, the game would be easy to play, and you wouldnt >have to teach it at all. If you'd put your own biases aside and "listen" you would certainly learn something from the "statheads" here. What you think you know, in a number of cases, has been shown to not be true. >The world has proven to be round long ago, show me how sabermathics >can predict who is going to win tomorrows game. Why does that have to be the litmus test? The things you base your judgments on don't predict that either, but they also do not show the things you think they do about how a guy performed previously, either. You're being ridiculous in demanding that there be some statistical way to prove with certainty that such and such a team will win on any given day. The things you have been complaining about do not guarantee that either. ****************************************************************** Kevin McClave "To justify himself, each relies on the other's crime." ~Albert Camus ****************************************************************** |