Adam Dunn
in [Cincinnati Reds]
|
Next: Matt Maloney
From: coachrose13 on 12 Jun 2007 03:40 On Jun 10, 10:14 am, John Kasupski <kc2...(a)wzrd.com> wrote: > On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 18:07:12 +0800, "C'Pi" <nos...(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'shttp://www.kc2hmz.net Gee, John, I love you, I really do!!!!!
From: coachrose13 on 12 Jun 2007 04:02 On Jun 10, 10:14 am, John Kasupski <kc2...(a)wzrd.com> wrote: > On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 18:07:12 +0800, "C'Pi" <nos...(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? > A more important question I have, is that ignoring how "infrequent" this happens, accorrding to those who post here, what it the "stat" the Bill James can come up with to give a "value" to THIS at-bat by Hafner???? > >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. > Yeah, the Reds tried to work with Dunn in spring training to cut down his strikeouts. At this time, if his rate continues, he will still hit 45 home runs, but will srike out 215 times instead of his usual 200. Wonder how much that imporves his value to the team???? > Or it might make him Albert Pujols. > > John D, Kasupski, Tonawanda, NY > Reds Fan Since The 1960'shttp://www.kc2hmz.net
From: coachrose13 on 12 Jun 2007 04:07 On Jun 10, 10:36 am, Kevin McClave <kmcclaveS...(a)SUCKStwcny.rr.com> wrote: > On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 10:14:25 -0400, John Kasupski <kc2...(a)wzrd.com> wrote: > >On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 18:07:12 +0800, "C'Pi" <nos...(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 > rsults > When the Reds, actually improve their over-all defense, BULLPEN, add another quality starting pitcher, get a good right-handed hitter with some pop in the lineup, then the position where Dunn bat's will become important. > >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 > ******************************************************************- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: coachrose13 on 12 Jun 2007 04:13 On Jun 10, 10:55 am, "RJA" <r...(a)nospam.cinci.rr.com> wrote: > <coachros...(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? > Well, let me see. Gonzalez, who regardless of what others say here, has been productive this year for Cincinnati, would bat in the 7 hole, Ross, or whoever you want to catch, would bat 8th, and the pitcher would bat 9th. So, yes, Id still say, take Dunn's 215 strikeouts, and bat him the the 6 hole. > If that's your argument then you're sadly mistaken anyway.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: coachrose13 on 12 Jun 2007 04:43
On Jun 11, 9:02 pm, Kevin McClave <kmcclaveS...(a)SUCKStwcny.rr.com> wrote: > On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 18:12:54 -0400, "RJA" <r...(a)nospam.cinci.rr.com> wrote: > >"C'Pi" <nos...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > >news:466d3f99$0$97252$892e7fe2(a)authen.yellow.readfreenews.net... > >> RJA 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. > > >>> Count : avg/obp/slg/% of out as K > > >>> After 0-2 : .204/.246/.426/.592 > >>> After 1-2 : .125/.195/.250/.675 > >>> After 2-2 : .129/.250/.194/.742 > >>> After 3-2 : .172/.500/.345/.620 > > >> But he still ends up with a third of his home runs with 2 strikes on him. > >> I thought that was pretty significant when I saw the stats. > > >But look at those slugging averages and OBPs above. The home runs aren't > >doing squat for those (ok they are, but they're still terrible). All we do > >around here is negate counting stats like HR, RBI, Runs scored and defer to > >OBP and SLG. So we don't get to do the opposite when we want to hang onto > >home runs in the presence of abysmal percentages. > > >Like I said, it can't get any worse, so let's give a different 2 strike > >approach a shot and not assume that it comes at a cost of all these home > >runs because assumptions aren't allowed around here. ;) > > I think most players are bad with two strikes. I'd be interested to know > what the average output is in those situations. > My guess is that, if Dunn strikes out more often on the average than anyone who has ever played the game (if I'm wrong on this it cant be by much), and if 'most players are bad with two strikes", then Dunn is pretty bad with two strikes on him. > ****************************************************************** > Kevin McClave > > "To justify himself, each relies on > the other's crime." ~Albert Camus > ******************************************************************- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |