Adam Dunn
in [Cincinnati Reds]
|
Next: Matt Maloney
From: C'Pi on 10 Jun 2007 06:07 coachrose13(a)hotmail.com wrote: > 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: > >>> 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, Of course in any single at bat it would be nice if Dunn didn't strike out. But you have to take all of his at bats as a whole. If ensuring that Dunn put wood on the ball instead of striking out meant that Dunn would end up hitting less home runs and taking less walks, would you still be in favor of changing the way he makes an out? Would hitting the ball for an out instead of striking out make up for the loss of home runs and walks? Personally I think the statistics are wrong. They seem to show that in the long run it wouldn't really matter how Dunn makes an out. I think trying to have Dunn make more contact with the ball would screw him up as a hitter and make him a lot less productive.
From: Kevin McClave on 10 Jun 2007 07:00 On Sat, 09 Jun 2007 23:42:41 -0700, coachrose13(a)hotmail.com wrote: >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: >> >> >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. > >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. It's not an argument, it's been proven and replicated. I guess we're done here. ****************************************************************** Kevin McClave "To justify himself, each relies on the other's crime." ~Albert Camus ******************************************************************
From: Kevin McClave on 10 Jun 2007 07:04 On Sat, 09 Jun 2007 23:48:02 -0700, coachrose13(a)hotmail.com wrote: >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? Yes...and no, since now you are saying "more often than not" and you were saying "always." Which is it? >> >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, Man, you are frustrating to try and discuss things with... ****************************************************************** Kevin McClave "To justify himself, each relies on the other's crime." ~Albert Camus ******************************************************************
From: John Kasupski on 10 Jun 2007 10:14 On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 18:07:12 +0800, "C'Pi" <nospam(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >Of course in any single at bat it would be nice if Dunn didn't strike out. >But you have to take all of his at bats as a whole. Why's that? At any given time that Dunn (or anybody else for that matter) steps to the plate, the results of past plate appearances have absolutely no effect on what's going to happen during his current plate appearances. Doesn't matter if he's just struck out ten times in a row, he has the same opportunity on his next plate appearance that he has on any other. >If ensuring that Dunn >put wood on the ball instead of striking out meant that Dunn would end up >hitting less home runs and taking less walks, would you still be in favor of >changing the way he makes an out? Would hitting the ball for an out instead >of striking out make up for the loss of home runs and walks? That isn't the point. If you stand there and watch strike three go by, you're guaranteed of one and only one result for that plate appearance, a K. If you swing and miss, same thing. If you actually hit the ball, which is what the game's all about, you could make an out...or you could get a single, double, triple, home run, reach base on a fielding error, or depending on the situation, hit a sacrifice fly (no such thing as a productive out, eh?) or otherwise contribute to the team scoring. >Personally I >think the statistics are wrong. They seem to show that in the long run it >wouldn't really matter how Dunn makes an out. The winning run for the Indians last night scored on a fielder's choice grounder off the bat of Hafner. Gee, I wonder how many runs they score on that play if Hafner strikes out instead? >I think trying to have Dunn >make more contact with the ball would screw him up as a hitter and make him >a lot less productive. Or it might make him Albert Pujols. John D, Kasupski, Tonawanda, NY Reds Fan Since The 1960's http://www.kc2hmz.net
From: Kevin McClave on 10 Jun 2007 10:36
On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 10:14:25 -0400, John Kasupski <kc2hmz(a)wzrd.com> wrote: >On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 18:07:12 +0800, "C'Pi" <nospam(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >>Of course in any single at bat it would be nice if Dunn didn't strike out. >>But you have to take all of his at bats as a whole. > >Why's that? Because when talking about a player's value (which is essentially what started all of this...where he should bat,. how much he Ks, how those Ks supposedly hurt the team), you don't grade him on a single PA. If you do, then as has been said a few times already, there are also times when he doesn't ground in to a DP, or when he pops up and that's the same overall result as a K. >At any given time that Dunn (or anybody else for that >matter) steps to the plate, the results of past plate appearances have >absolutely no effect on what's going to happen during his current >plate appearances. Doesn't matter if he's just struck out ten times in >a row, he has the same opportunity on his next plate appearance that >he has on any other. And that's called a strawman. What does that have to do with anything at all? >>If ensuring that Dunn >>put wood on the ball instead of striking out meant that Dunn would end up >>hitting less home runs and taking less walks, would you still be in favor of >>changing the way he makes an out? Would hitting the ball for an out instead >>of striking out make up for the loss of home runs and walks? > >That isn't the point. It is entirely the point. >If you stand there and watch strike three go by, you're guaranteed of >one and only one result for that plate appearance, a K. > >If you swing and miss, same thing. > >If you actually hit the ball, which is what the game's all about, you >could make an out...or you could get a single, double, triple, home >run, reach base on a fielding error, or depending on the situation, >hit a sacrifice fly (no such thing as a productive out, eh?) or >otherwise contribute to the team scoring. > >>Personally I >>think the statistics are wrong. They seem to show that in the long run it >>wouldn't really matter how Dunn makes an out. > >The winning run for the Indians last night scored on a fielder's >choice grounder off the bat of Hafner. Gee, I wonder how many runs >they score on that play if Hafner strikes out instead? I could go and point out to you anecdotal instances of anything I wanted to "prove." That's a fool's game, though, John. >>I think trying to have Dunn >>make more contact with the ball would screw him up as a hitter and make him >>a lot less productive. > >Or it might make him Albert Pujols. Instead of wishing he was the best hitter in the game, we might be better served realizing how valuable Adam Dunn is, and understand how his weaknesses aren't really as bad as that supposed "conventional wisdom" says they are. You can have the last word. ****************************************************************** Kevin McClave "To justify himself, each relies on the other's crime." ~Albert Camus ****************************************************************** |