Adam Dunn
in [Cincinnati Reds]
|
Next: Matt Maloney
From: John Kasupski on 13 Jun 2007 13:44 On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 09:14:18 -0700, Ron Johnson <johnson(a)ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> wrote: >On a somewhat related note, a study on young players >and the development of power in this year's Hardball >Times annual explicitly says that a young player's >K rate has not impact on his development of power. >Did not however address how K rate changes by age. >There was a correlation between K rate and isolated >power (SLG-BA), but as the study author noted, that >may be selection bias. IE teams may well choose to >accept high K rates more readily from players with >power. This last makes sense. For example, the Reds tolerate 190+ strikeouts a year by Dunn who is hitting 40 or more dingers, but if it were Freel whiffing that many times... John D, Kasupski, Tonawanda, NY Reds Fan Since The 1960's http://www.kc2hmz.net
From: RJA on 13 Jun 2007 19:32 "Dan Szymborski" <dan(a)baseballprimer.com> wrote in message news:MPG.20d9d3dd54ac809e9896ed(a)news-server.woh.rr.com... > In article <466f26b6$0$30663$4c368faf(a)roadrunner.com>, > rja(a)nospam.cinci.rr.com says... >> "Dan Szymborski" <dan(a)baseballprimer.com> wrote in message >> news:MPG.20d7cebdd116b2689896e8(a)news-server.woh.rr.com... >> > 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). >> >> I find that hard to believe. How can we find the under 25 numbers for >> 2007? > > Someone asked this somewhere a few years ago, so I did them by age group > for 1999-2002 (for each age, I didn't specifically do >25 and <25 > groups). If you'd like, I can try to dig the data up again - I may have > to re-do the study since it was a couple of computers ago. Eh, don't worry about it. With the exception of coachrose, we're all close enough to the same page.
From: coachrose13 on 13 Jun 2007 23:19 On Jun 12, 4:38 pm, Ron Johnson <john...(a)ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> wrote: > 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. > Been waiting for that question for a while. Red enough to understand he is not really talking about baseball than statistics and why something happened after the fact. Good old "traditional stats" pretty much tell me the same, and NO stat will ever tell the whole story in an indivdual game as to wether a team won or lost. > But if you want a stat that takes the results of every plate > appearance into account you want "win probability added" > Another great stat. Gotta love it. > 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... > > 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) > Second on a bad team. Does that neccessarly mean he is doing a GOOD job? > 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: > I'll answer my own question. Haffner got an RBI, more importantly, his team scored a run. > It was followed up by a wild pitch. Seems likely that > in this case Hafner's productive out produced no extra runs. > At that point, the wild pitch did not matter. The Run had already scored. Hafner did his job. case closed. Just like Dunn's strikeout last night after Griffey's game winning productive out didnt matter. Of course, if he had batten in front of Jr.and struck out, then Griffey's long fly ball would have only been the third out and no runs scored. > 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)- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: coachrose13 on 13 Jun 2007 23:20 On Jun 12, 5:28 pm, Dan Szymborski <d...(a)baseballprimer.com> wrote: > In article <1181680733.225714.133...(a)j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, > john...(a)ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca says... > > > > > > > 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. > > Ron, I think your effort is wasted on this doofus. > Dan, thats not very nice. > [...] > > -- > Dan Szymborski > d...(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- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: coachrose13 on 13 Jun 2007 23:26
On Jun 12, 7:18 pm, "RJA" <r...(a)nospam.cinci.rr.com> wrote: > <coachros...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:1181636033.125702.154910(a)z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > 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. > > Then you're still sadly mistaken. It's pretty clear that I'm not a huge > Dunn fan, he sucks with 2 strikes, sucks in the field and is a dumb > baserunner. But he DOES get on base and you have to find a way to take > advantage of that with your run producers knocking him in, not wasting him > on Gonzalez, Ross and the pitcher all of which who would strike out more > than 100 times in a season. In fact, Ross would strike out about 200 times > in a full year at this pace and so would a pitcher. So really, you're > arguing against your own argument.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Gonzalez is a good enough hitter to bat behind Dunn. Ross simply needs to be in Louisville, or at least on the bench. |