Adam Dunn
in [Cincinnati Reds]
|
Next: Matt Maloney
From: Dan Szymborski on 11 Jun 2007 22:29 In article <466df460$0$30655$4c368faf(a)roadrunner.com>, rja(a)nospam.cinci.rr.com says... > "Kevin McClave" <kmcclaveSPAM(a)SUCKStwcny.rr.com> wrote in message > news:t2sr63h53bh3v3o7ucc7cb203qaq5gbrc3(a)4ax.com... > > On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 18:12:54 -0400, "RJA" <rja(a)nospam.cinci.rr.com> wrote: > > I agree, and I pointed that out, but I don't think they're this bad. I > would, however, be interested in those numbers throwing out hitters under 25 > years old who have the tendency to skew those averages due to their newness > in the league. Dunn is supposed to be peaking at this age. There's no age-related split - younger players don't have a bigger dropoff on pitcher's counts than older players (this came up a couple of years ago someplace I don't remember). MLB Averages, 2007: After 0-2: 175/208/256 After 1-2: 186/239/285 After 2-2: 202/305/316 After 3-2: 225/467/371 -- 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: Kevin McClave on 11 Jun 2007 22:57 On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 22:22:39 -0400, "RJA" <rja(a)nospam.cinci.rr.com> wrote: >As you can see below, he's already as bad as it gets with 2 strikes. When >something is terrible and can't get any worse, you can either continue to do >what you're doing (and be a fool), or you can try to make an adjustment. >I'm for the latter. I copied and pasted below the 2007 MLB averages Dan provided for a side by side look with the numbers Rich posted. Clipped the % of out as K number Rich originally provided and added OPS: >Count : avg/obp/slg (OPS) MLB Avg After 0-2: 175/208/256 (.464) Adam Dunn After 0-2 : .204/.246/.426 (.672) MLB Avg After 1-2: 186/239/285 (.524) Adam Dun After 1-2 : .125/.195/.250 (.445) MLB Avg After 2-2: 202/305/316 (.621) Adam Dunn After 2-2 : .129/.250/.194 (.444) MLB Avg After 3-2: 225/467/371 (.838) Adam Dunn After 3-2 : .172/.500/.345 (.845) So he does worse than average after 1-2 and 2-2, better than average after 0-2 and 3-2. Looks like the main thing missing for a clearer picture would be opportunities in each situation. Obviously if Dunn had three times as many 0-2 counts than 2-2 counts it looks different than if it is the other way around. ****************************************************************** Kevin McClave "To justify himself, each relies on the other's crime." ~Albert Camus ******************************************************************
From: coachrose13 on 12 Jun 2007 03:29 On Jun 10, 6:07 am, "C'Pi" <nos...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > coachros...(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 When the manager of the Cincinnati Reds is making his lineup out for TODAYS game, he cant "take all of his at bats as a whole" he has to look at what is likely to happen TODAY, which, unfortunantly, means a fair likely-hood of MULTIPLUDE STRIKE OUTS, regardless of whatever else positive he does offensively. > 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? I dont think that Dunn's hitting the ball more often would mean a reduction in his home runs, and certainly not in his number of BB's which his supporters seem to really use to argue his value to the team. 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.- Hide quoted text - > My point all along is that if all things considered, if Dunn is going to hit 45 home runs, but stirke out 210 times a season, then let him do it in the six hole, where his 45 home runs will still help the Reds, and his 210 strikeouts wont hurt them quite so much! > - Show quoted text -
From: coachrose13 on 12 Jun 2007 03:33 On Jun 10, 7:00 am, Kevin McClave <kmcclaveS...(a)SUCKStwcny.rr.com> wrote: > On Sat, 09 Jun 2007 23:42:41 -0700, coachros...(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. > No,give me a seasons worth of expamples. The other day, when the Reds left 15 runners on base, a couple of routline ground outs, would have made the difference in wether the Reds won or lost the game. No stats to prove me right or wrong here, you just had to watch the game to know I am right. > ****************************************************************** > Kevin McClave > > "To justify himself, each relies on > the other's crime." ~Albert Camus > ******************************************************************- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: coachrose13 on 12 Jun 2007 03:38
On Jun 10, 7:04 am, Kevin McClave <kmcclaveS...(a)SUCKStwcny.rr.com> wrote: > On Sat, 09 Jun 2007 23:48:02 -0700, coachros...(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? > My, we are being picky arent we?? Glad you are closely profreading my posts, but I think you know where I am coming from. > >> >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... > It is hard to reason with common sense sometimes when you want to use Bill James as your quide! > ****************************************************************** > Kevin McClave > > "To justify himself, each relies on > the other's crime." ~Albert Camus > ******************************************************************- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |