Adam Dunn
in [Cincinnati Reds]
|
Next: Matt Maloney
From: David Short on 8 Jun 2007 18:50 "Ron Johnson" <johnson(a)ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> wrote in message > On Jun 8, 7:11 am, Kevin McClave <kmcclaveS...(a)SUCKStwcny.rr.com> >> 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 ....And there is the "flat" problem. Nobody is doing really great. Junior is doing well, but that's not a historic season for him, just a pretty good season for a right fielder. On the other hand....Outside the catcher, nobody is really doing poorly and the catcher is certainly capable of doing better than this. Now...think like a GM. You've got an obvious move in a young stud firstbaseman whose gonna do as well as your current guys, Who do you replace? How do you improve this lineup? There are no easy solutions. well, other than fixing the bullpen, but we can't go there today. dfs
From: coachrose13 on 10 Jun 2007 02:42 On Jun 8, 7:01 am, Kevin McClave <kmcclaveS...(a)SUCKStwcny.rr.com> wrote: > On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 21:57:57 -0700, coachros...(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 > ******************************************************************- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Opportunities are often provided by solid fundamentals, such as moving a runner up a base (and giving your teammate an oportunity to drive him in) if you yourself are unable to reach base. Of course, from an indivdual standpoint, unless you are credited with a sacrifice, there are no stats to "prove" you helped your team, in fact, statisically, you have "proven" that you did not help your team because in your individual case, your obp, slg%, and batting average were all reduced in this at bat. And I certainly dont buy the argument that it happens so infrequent that it is insignificant.. I think it happens far more than the stat heads care to believe, probably on average, several times a game. In close games this is very important. Best example I can think of is the game last weekend where the Reds stranded 15 baserunners in a one run loss in extra innings. ONE "productive out" would have won the game for Cincinnati, providing them with exactly one more win than they currently have. This seems to be a trend, (not being able to drive in runs) so, I dont think productive outs are unimportant, over-hyped, or infrequent enough to be unimportant.
From: coachrose13 on 10 Jun 2007 02:48 On Jun 8, 7:07 am, Kevin McClave <kmcclaveS...(a)SUCKStwcny.rr.com> wrote: > On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 22:54:04 -0700, coachros...(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. > Exactly what do I "think" I know, has been PROVEN not to be true? That I think striking out usually hurts a team more than not? > >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 never said they do.I know they dont. I just dont like hereing how not hitting a ball is has the same effect as hitting it does, > ****************************************************************** > Kevin McClave > > "To justify himself, each relies on > the other's crime." ~Albert Camus > ******************************************************************- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: coachrose13 on 10 Jun 2007 03:23 On Jun 8, 9:27 am, Dan Szymborski <d...(a)baseballprimer.com> wrote: > In article <iqdi635kfi367au7b5fjf3jun8vklcu...(a)4ax.com>, > kmcclaveS...(a)SUCKStwcny.rr.com says... > > > > > > > On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 22:54:04 -0700, coachros...(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. > Im not, but as an owner of certain stocks, I probably do no better, nor worse, than the average investor. I just hope that those who post here and think it is ok to bat an indivdual who doesnt put the ball in play at all in one third of his at bats and still think that it is no be deal, that he should STILL bat in a spot in the lineup where it is important to hit the ball, have no aspirations of becoming a manager in the big leagues, or even a coach at the high school level! > "All this computer stuff about economic activity is bunk since they > can't predict what a stock will do tomorrow! > And all this watching a baseball player strike out close to, or more than 200 times every season, cant tell me that he is very likely to strike out often in the future! > -- > 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- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: coachrose13 on 10 Jun 2007 03:36
On Jun 8, 9:23 am, David Short <David.no.Sh...(a)Spam.Wright.Please.edu> wrote: > Kevin McClave wrote: > > On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 22:54:04 -0700, coachros...(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. > Not trying to pick a fight, never have. In the very beginning, I tried to state an OPINION of mine that I thought Adam Dunn's offensive talents could best be utilized by batting him in the 6 hole. From that spot, his positives (long ball threat, RBI man, drawing a lot of BB's) could help his team, while his negatives(not making contact very often, going for long stretches of being inconsistant offensively) , would not hurt his team as much as if he were batting higher in the lineup. At this point, I was introduced to Bill James and his theries, and how not hittng the ball is not such a bad deal, and how I am so terribly wrong in my thinking. Of course, I cant be proven wrong, as Dunn seldom bats in the six hole, anyway! > 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 |