Next: Matt Maloney
From: Kevin McClave on
On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 23:18:06 -0700, coachrose13(a)hotmail.com wrote:

>On Jun 5, 9:28 am, Kevin McClave <kmccl...(a)SPAM666twcny.rr.com> wrote:
>> > 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.

But again, the he's going to make an out 60-65% of the time regardless.
Obviously any players value comes in what he does with those plays that
are not outs. Also again, what happens in that 60-65%, how he makes those
outs, has been shown to be largely insignificant. What is your proof that
it isn't?

>> 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

No. But Adam Dunn is not the problem.

******************************************************************
Kevin McClave

"To justify himself, each relies on
the other's crime." ~Albert Camus
******************************************************************
From: David Short on
Kevin McClave wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 22:54:04 -0700, coachrose13(a)hotmail.com wrote:
>> 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.

And what is FAR more frustrating, several of the straw men you have set
up to show the limits of numeric inquiry are things that most of these
folks are painfully aware of. It's almost as if you are trying to pick a
fight or something, but not quite sure how to go about it.

Everybody who posts here really loves the game.
Most of the folks who post here are reds fans.
No reason to go looking for conflict.

dfs
From: Dan Szymborski on
In article <iqdi635kfi367au7b5fjf3jun8vklcua6r(a)4ax.com>,
kmcclaveSPAM(a)SUCKStwcny.rr.com says...
> 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.

I hope coachrose isn't a stockbroker.

"All this computer stuff about economic activity is bunk since they
can't predict what a stock will do tomorrow!

--
Dan Szymborski
dan(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
From: Ron Johnson on
On Jun 8, 9:27 am, Dan Szymborski <d...(a)baseballprimer.com> wrote:
> In article <iqdi635kfi367au7b5fjf3jun8vklcu...(a)4ax.com>,

> I hope coachrose isn't a stockbroker.
>
> "All this computer stuff about economic activity is bunk since they
> can't predict what a stock will do tomorrow!

Worth noting that John Henry has asked all of his brokers
to read Bill James. Not for the baseball specific content
but rather for his approach to arguments.

An awful lot of the best stuff James has written starts with,
if this is true what are the expected consequences.

SABREmetrics isn't about statistics, it is about the search
for new evidence." -- Bill James.





From: Ron Johnson on
On Jun 8, 7:11 am, Kevin McClave <kmcclaveS...(a)SUCKStwcny.rr.com>
wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 23:18:06 -0700, coachros...(a)hotmail.com wrote:
> >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
>
> No. But Adam Dunn is not the problem.

OPS+ by position relative to that position only (IE catchers
compared only to catchers)

C 75
1B 96
2B 119
3B 99
SS 112
LF 113
CF 96
RF 131


First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38
Next: Matt Maloney