Next: Matt Maloney
From: C'Pi on
John Kasupski 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? 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.

That's irrelevant to what I said. Over a season you take the good, you take
the bad. Over the last few seasons no one on the Reds has produced as much
as Dunn. That's a lot of good that I wouldn't want to screw with in the
hopes of changing his bad.

>> 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.

Or you could get a walk. Something Dunn does a lot of and something that
providedes a lot of benefit to the team. You make it sould like Dunn choses
to watch strikes go buy rather than swing at them. That he is somehow
choosing to strike out instead of flying or grounding out. When Dunn
doesn't swing, I would suppose that it is becuase he thinks the pitch may be
a ball. Now if you want Dunn to go up there and try to hit every ball
thrown at him on the chance it might be a strike, then you are going to
radically change the way he bats. Dunn is too productive a player to screw
around with like that.

>> 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?

Or if he had hit a home run? Or gotten a hit? Or walked? Any of those
possibilities would have won the game also and I'm sure any one of those
possibilities is what Hafner was thinking rather than almost hitting into a
double play. (I'm speculating on the play since the best I could do was
follow the gamecast on ESPN)

Sometimes you win games and sometimes you lose games with a swing or even a
non-swing of the bat. A couple days ago I saw the Padres beat the Dodgers
by having the batter leave the bat sitting on his shoulder.

>> 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.

You don't think Adam Dunn would like to be Albert Pujols? I would. So
would probably 95% of all the other hitters in baseball. They can't because
Albert Pujols is a very rare talent and telling Adam Dunn to swing more
isn't going to turn him into Albert Pujols. I wish it would, but it won't.
Just like telling Juan Castro that all he has to do is swing harder and hit
the ball and he could be Albert Pujols won't work either.


From: RJA on
<coachrose13(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1181460991.179893.162190(a)q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> 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!

Why would you want to bat someone who gets on base a good amount 6th ahead
of Gonzalez, Ross and the pitcher?

If that's your argument then you're sadly mistaken anyway.


From: Kevin McClave on
On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 22:47:20 +0800, "C'Pi" <nospam(a)yahoo.com> wrote:

>John Kasupski 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? 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.
>
>That's irrelevant to what I said. Over a season you take the good, you take
>the bad. Over the last few seasons no one on the Reds has produced as much
>as Dunn. That's a lot of good that I wouldn't want to screw with in the
>hopes of changing his bad.

And because of his bad (the perceived negative of his Ks), people
routinely underrate the good (he'll hit a HR here and there, etc.), and
even tend to leave out half of his value (the BBs).

>>> 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.
>
>Or you could get a walk. Something Dunn does a lot of and something that
>providedes a lot of benefit to the team. You make it sould like Dunn choses
>to watch strikes go buy rather than swing at them. That he is somehow
>choosing to strike out instead of flying or grounding out. When Dunn
>doesn't swing, I would suppose that it is becuase he thinks the pitch may be
>a ball. Now if you want Dunn to go up there and try to hit every ball
>thrown at him on the chance it might be a strike, then you are going to
>radically change the way he bats. Dunn is too productive a player to screw
>around with like that.
>
>>> 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?
>
>Or if he had hit a home run? Or gotten a hit? Or walked? Any of those
>possibilities would have won the game also and I'm sure any one of those
>possibilities is what Hafner was thinking rather than almost hitting into a
>double play. (I'm speculating on the play since the best I could do was
>follow the gamecast on ESPN)
>
>Sometimes you win games and sometimes you lose games with a swing or even a
>non-swing of the bat. A couple days ago I saw the Padres beat the Dodgers
>by having the batter leave the bat sitting on his shoulder.
>
>>> 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.
>
>You don't think Adam Dunn would like to be Albert Pujols? I would. So
>would probably 95% of all the other hitters in baseball. They can't because
>Albert Pujols is a very rare talent and telling Adam Dunn to swing more
>isn't going to turn him into Albert Pujols. I wish it would, but it won't.
>Just like telling Juan Castro that all he has to do is swing harder and hit
>the ball and he could be Albert Pujols won't work either.

All of that was very well said. Thanks.

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

"For every complex problem, there is a solution
that is simple, neat, and wrong." ~H.L. Mencken
********************************************************************
From: RJA on
"C'Pi" <nospam(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:466c0eef$0$97241$892e7fe2(a)authen.yellow.readfreenews.net...
> John Kasupski 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? 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.
>
> That's irrelevant to what I said. Over a season you take the good, you
> take the bad. Over the last few seasons no one on the Reds has produced
> as much as Dunn. That's a lot of good that I wouldn't want to screw with
> in the hopes of changing his bad.

To be fair, that's more a negative about the team in general than a high
five for Dunn. Over 160 games played I expect way more than 92 RBI out of a
guy with 40 HR. In 1982 I believe, Ron Oester led the Reds with something
like 58 RBI. It didn't make him a stud.

>>> 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.

Dunn pinch hit last night and looked at 2 pitches right down the middle to
fall behind 0-2. He took a questionable strike 3. Had he swung the bat, it
could have been a different outcome. My biggest complaint is not swinging
at pitches that he could put into the river.

>> 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.
>
> Or you could get a walk. Something Dunn does a lot of and something that
> providedes a lot of benefit to the team. You make it sould like Dunn
> choses to watch strikes go buy rather than swing at them. That he is
> somehow choosing to strike out instead of flying or grounding out. When
> Dunn doesn't swing, I would suppose that it is becuase he thinks the pitch
> may be a ball.

No, it's because he's a guess hitter and he doesn't swing unless the pitch
matches what he's looking for. Deer in headlights, that sorta thing.

> Now if you want Dunn to go up there and try to hit every ball thrown at
> him on the chance it might be a strike, then you are going to radically
> change the way he bats. Dunn is too productive a player to screw around
> with like that.
>
>>> 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?
>
> Or if he had hit a home run? Or gotten a hit? Or walked? Any of those
> possibilities would have won the game also and I'm sure any one of those
> possibilities is what Hafner was thinking rather than almost hitting into
> a double play. (I'm speculating on the play since the best I could do was
> follow the gamecast on ESPN)
>
> Sometimes you win games and sometimes you lose games with a swing or even
> a non-swing of the bat. A couple days ago I saw the Padres beat the
> Dodgers by having the batter leave the bat sitting on his shoulder.
>
>>> 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.
>
> You don't think Adam Dunn would like to be Albert Pujols? I would. So
> would probably 95% of all the other hitters in baseball. They can't
> because Albert Pujols is a very rare talent and telling Adam Dunn to swing
> more isn't going to turn him into Albert Pujols. I wish it would, but it
> won't. Just like telling Juan Castro that all he has to do is swing harder
> and hit the ball and he could be Albert Pujols won't work either.

The bottom line is that you're right, but the inability to improve and the
decline at his age since 2004 says that this is all we're going to get out
of the guy and it's simply not enough for the money, especially when other
outfielders are on the horizon.


From: RJA on
"Kevin McClave" <kmcclaveSPAM(a)SUCKStwcny.rr.com> wrote in message
news:ck5o635hu0l6qcfjioqh9v1mipjishi73f(a)4ax.com...
> On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 22:47:20 +0800, "C'Pi" <nospam(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>John Kasupski 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? 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.
>>
>>That's irrelevant to what I said. Over a season you take the good, you
>>take
>>the bad. Over the last few seasons no one on the Reds has produced as
>>much
>>as Dunn. That's a lot of good that I wouldn't want to screw with in the
>>hopes of changing his bad.
>
> And because of his bad (the perceived negative of his Ks), people
> routinely underrate the good (he'll hit a HR here and there, etc.), and
> even tend to leave out half of his value (the BBs).

I account for both of those. They're just not worth 13 million bucks next
year when you look at all his other deficiencies. If the rest of his game
was decent, I'd be willing to put up with it.

And I don't care what anyone says, it is NOT ok to strike out 39% of your at
bats. That is well above his career mark and he's supposed to be improving.
I'd question if anyone else has struck out at that rate. Reducing those Ks
would result in better numbers and I don't think it comes at a cost. Be
your normal slugging self until you're down 2 strikes. When you reach that
point, make the adjustment and just put the bat on the ball instead of going
down swinging or looking. Something good could happen. Plenty of smart
players do this, yet I watch Dunn swing for the fences on 0-2. That is not
the proper approach.

>>>> 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.
>>
>>Or you could get a walk. Something Dunn does a lot of and something that
>>providedes a lot of benefit to the team. You make it sould like Dunn
>>choses
>>to watch strikes go buy rather than swing at them. That he is somehow
>>choosing to strike out instead of flying or grounding out. When Dunn
>>doesn't swing, I would suppose that it is becuase he thinks the pitch may
>>be
>>a ball. Now if you want Dunn to go up there and try to hit every ball
>>thrown at him on the chance it might be a strike, then you are going to
>>radically change the way he bats. Dunn is too productive a player to
>>screw
>>around with like that.
>>
>>>> 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?
>>
>>Or if he had hit a home run? Or gotten a hit? Or walked? Any of those
>>possibilities would have won the game also and I'm sure any one of those
>>possibilities is what Hafner was thinking rather than almost hitting into
>>a
>>double play. (I'm speculating on the play since the best I could do was
>>follow the gamecast on ESPN)
>>
>>Sometimes you win games and sometimes you lose games with a swing or even
>>a
>>non-swing of the bat. A couple days ago I saw the Padres beat the Dodgers
>>by having the batter leave the bat sitting on his shoulder.
>>
>>>> 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.
>>
>>You don't think Adam Dunn would like to be Albert Pujols? I would. So
>>would probably 95% of all the other hitters in baseball. They can't
>>because
>>Albert Pujols is a very rare talent and telling Adam Dunn to swing more
>>isn't going to turn him into Albert Pujols. I wish it would, but it
>>won't.
>>Just like telling Juan Castro that all he has to do is swing harder and
>>hit
>>the ball and he could be Albert Pujols won't work either.
>
> All of that was very well said. Thanks.
>
> ********************************************************************
> Kevin McClave
>
> "For every complex problem, there is a solution
> that is simple, neat, and wrong." ~H.L. Mencken
> ********************************************************************


First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41
Next: Matt Maloney