Adam Dunn
in [Cincinnati Reds]
|
Next: Matt Maloney
From: Kevin McClave on 12 Jun 2007 06:37 On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 00:38:16 -0700, coachrose13(a)hotmail.com wrote: >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. Another example of why it is frustrating trying to discuss anything with you. Picky? LOL. ****************************************************************** Kevin McClave "To justify himself, each relies on the other's crime." ~Albert Camus ******************************************************************
From: Kevin McClave on 12 Jun 2007 09:15 On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 22:29:01 -0400, Dan Szymborski <dan(a)baseballprimer.com> wrote: >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 I copied these in to a reply to Rich's post last night, but didn't say thanks for the info, Dan. So, thanks for the info, Dan. Is there anything to be learned from the fact that he does better than average on both 0-2 counts and on 3-2 counts? I assume it is just mainly small sample size, but it seems if there is any consistency to that trend over his career, it might be an indication of *something* though I don't know what exactly. My knee jerk thought would be that he does better than average in the more extreme "payoff" situations (one more strike and you're out on 0-2, a strike or a ball and the at bat is finished at 3-2). Of course, 1-2 and 2-2 are also potential "payoff" situations if a strike is called or swung on and missed. Just seems like there might be something suggested there, though... ****************************************************************** Kevin McClave "To justify himself, each relies on the other's crime." ~Albert Camus ******************************************************************
From: John Kasupski on 12 Jun 2007 13:07 On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 14:59:43 -0400, "RJA" <rja(a)nospam.cinci.rr.com> wrote: >"John Kasupski" <kc2hmz(a)wzrd.com> wrote in message >> In the game of baseball, putting the ball in play wins games, striking >> out does not. Why do people have such a hard time understanding this >> simple, elementary fact about what is in essence a kid's game? > >Because everyone gets confused and some are arguing that the K would be an >out anyway (which I have shown is not the case), some of which would be >double plays, while others are arguing that increased contact means >increased offensive numbers. Nobody ever got a base hit by striking out, that's all I'm arguing, and based on common sense, it's such an obvious fact that nobody should need to be arguing it. Yes, the majority of balls put into play are outs also. That's the nature of the game. However, the only time anything good for the offensive team can happen on a K is if the ball gets by the catcher and the batter makes it to 1B safely. That does happen on occasion (witness the incident with Pierzynski in game 2 of the 2005 ALCS), but that's far from being the result of the majority of strikeouts. Other than that, a HBP, or a BB, everything else that happens in baseball that is a positive result for the offense - the overwhelming majority of things that happen in baseball that are a positive result for the offense - happen when somebody puts the ball in play. This, to me, is what matters. >I'm somewhere in the middle. Keep your current approach until you're down 2 >strikes and then protect the plate. As my numbers show, he simply can't be >any worse with 2 strikes, so try something else. I think this is at least in part where Bob (as in Mike/Bob/Danny) was coming from with his comments about selfishness on the part of today's players. Protecting the plate with two strikes used to be a matter of course in baseball. Nowadays guys are coming out of their shoes on 3-2 same as if it was 3-0. That's just infuriating to me, and probably even moreso to Bob. Dunn himself did a pretty good job of doing this in the fourth inning of the game on Sunday, fouling off several Sabathia pitches before lining one to center for a double, so we know he's capable of it. >> In fact, let's go out and get seven more guys just like him, Rob Deer >> with less defensive skills (There's a reason why the Rob Deer Fan Club >> sponsors the Adam Dunn page on Baseball Reference), just so our >> winning ways can continue and we can defend all those division titles >> we've won since 2001 when Dunn came up from the minors. > >I think the argument here is that Dunn can improve, but he's not the problem >on this team as much as perhaps the bullpen. You should try to fix that >first. Thing is, if you're going to make a move to fix the pen, trading Dunn to an AL team that needs a lefty DH (or to a team that thinks that they can turn him into a first baseman) has to be considered; this is likely to bring a decent return, and (to borrow a phrase from David) gets an elephant out of left field, which also helps the pitching. Not that this is their only option, but I think I'd rather see that than have them start dealing off top prospects like Bailey or Votto, and I'm not sure they get as good a return dealing off veteran spare parts such as Hatteberg, Conine, Stanton, one of the catchers, or guys like Bellhorn/Keppinger/Wise from the minor leagues. FWIW, I think the bullpen problem may work itself out eventually, by the addition of a healthy Bray and a healthy Guardado to Coutlangus, Weathers, and McBeth. Just by having Guardado back, just having a closer gives the pen an entirely different look. Of course, two weeks ago I'd have thought that getting a healthy Majewski would have helped too, but he's looked more like a righthanded Stanton than a righthanded Charlton since returning. :-( John D, Kasupski, Tonawanda, NY Reds Fan Since The 1960's http://www.kc2hmz.net
From: Bob Braun on 12 Jun 2007 13:19 -- "John Kasupski" <kc2hmz(a)wzrd.com> wrote in message news:1qht635uu1aeoeh960n61kje3ad9cftnrl(a)4ax.com... > On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 14:59:43 -0400, "RJA" <rja(a)nospam.cinci.rr.com> > wrote: > >>"John Kasupski" <kc2hmz(a)wzrd.com> wrote in message >>> In the game of baseball, putting the ball in play wins games, striking >>> out does not. Why do people have such a hard time understanding this >>> simple, elementary fact about what is in essence a kid's game? >> >>Because everyone gets confused and some are arguing that the K would be an >>out anyway (which I have shown is not the case), some of which would be >>double plays, while others are arguing that increased contact means >>increased offensive numbers. > > Nobody ever got a base hit by striking out, that's all I'm arguing, > and based on common sense, it's such an obvious fact that nobody > should need to be arguing it. > > Yes, the majority of balls put into play are outs also. That's the > nature of the game. However, the only time anything good for the > offensive team can happen on a K is if the ball gets by the catcher > and the batter makes it to 1B safely. That does happen on occasion > (witness the incident with Pierzynski in game 2 of the 2005 ALCS), but > that's far from being the result of the majority of strikeouts. Other > than that, a HBP, or a BB, everything else that happens in baseball > that is a positive result for the offense - the overwhelming majority > of things that happen in baseball that are a positive result for the > offense - happen when somebody puts the ball in play. This, to me, is > what matters. > >>I'm somewhere in the middle. Keep your current approach until you're down >>2 >>strikes and then protect the plate. As my numbers show, he simply can't >>be >>any worse with 2 strikes, so try something else. > > I think this is at least in part where Bob (as in Mike/Bob/Danny) was > coming from with his comments about selfishness on the part of today's > players. Protecting the plate with two strikes used to be a matter of > course in baseball. Nowadays guys are coming out of their shoes on 3-2 > same as if it was 3-0. That's just infuriating to me, and probably > even moreso to Bob. Dunn himself did a pretty good job of doing this > in the fourth inning of the game on Sunday, fouling off several > Sabathia pitches before lining one to center for a double, so we know > he's capable of it. You nailed it! It is very frustrating to me. But as I pointed out, on Sunday, Dunn had two strikes and tried to slap a pitch into left field to score the winning run. The way I watch a ball game, that really impressed me. You don't get big contracts by grounding out to second and moving a runner to third. I'm not a big subscriber to small ball. But as you get down in the count, you need to step out and ask yourself, what is the bare minimum that I need to do here. Whether it's to push the ball to the right side, hit a fly ball, stay away from the middle etc., it's a thinking man's game. With two strikes, your hitting window is strike zone plus! Getting caught looking was $20 when I played. When you make $314 a month, you didn't get caught looking a whole lot.
From: Ron Johnson on 12 Jun 2007 16:38
On Jun 12, 4:02 am, coachros...(a)hotmail.com wrote: > 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???? First, have you read anything written by Bill James? I really doubt it. But if you want a stat that takes the results of every plate appearance into account you want "win probability added" Which James has never had anything to do with. (He did publish work done by somebody else on a similar concept -- run probability added -- in one of his abstracts) The concept goes back to work done before James was involved in Sabremetrics (Percentage baseball by Earnshaw Cook. Rather than explain in any great detail, see) http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?ttype=2&tid=9875 Includes a sample chapter. You can get WPA (and an explanation of their methods, slightly different than Cook's) at fangraphs.com. Only goes back to 2002. Here's the 2005 list: http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=all&stats=bat&lg=all&qual=y&type=0&season=2005 And here's the 2007 Reds: http://www.fangraphs.com/winss.aspx?team=Reds&season=2007 As it stands right now, Dunn's 2nd on the team in net runs created but 5th in WPA. (Still, we're talking fractions of a win, and he's still a net positive on a team that's well below average. Freel, Gonzalez[!] and [of course] Ross are the major problems by this method) The guys at baseballprospectus went back through all of the retrosheet data and did WPA analysis back to the mid 50s. Pubished an article in their other book last year. Quick summary. Mark Grace (!) is the king of win probability added. He's the only player whose value when calculated by WPA substantially exceeded his value when calculated by more conventional sabremetric means. By about a win a year. Though in any given year there are a handful of players who do very well by WPA. To answer the specific question though: It was followed up by a wild pitch. Seems likely that in this case Hafner's productive out produced no extra runs. That said, here's how the inning looks by win probability added: Micahaels K -.26 runs Sizemore single .29 runs Blake single .40 runs (giving Blake full credit for Sizemore going to third. Sizemore should in fact get part credit) Hafner FC .03 runs Martinez LO -.33 runs (Yeah, I know it doesn't add up to 1. There's a wild pitch for which nobody gets credit, creating a higher value PA for Martinez. Plus, the baseline's not zero -- that is to say that you start with the expectation of scoring a fractional number of runs) Now if Hafner had struck out (or made any kind of non-productive out.) He'd have been credited with -.72 runs. So in this particular case a productive out is .75 runs more than a non productive one. And if the Reds had turned two, Hafner would have been credited with -1.24 runs. WPA does the same type of analysis but deals with the probability of winning rather than with runs. Hafner's productive out will do slightly less well in this type of analysis because he changed a first and third, one out, down by two in the 7th to one down, runner on first, two out. (Some place around here I've got some win probability tables, but I can't lay my hands on them) |