Adam Dunn
in [Cincinnati Reds]
|
Next: Matt Maloney
From: coachrose13 on 19 Jun 2007 02:12 On Jun 18, 1:22 pm, Ron Johnson <john...(a)ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> wrote: > On Jun 17, 4:20 pm, Kevin McClave <kmcclaveS...(a)SUCKStwcny.rr.com> > wrote: > > > On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 23:39:52 -0700, coachros...(a)hotmail.com wrote: > > > Cant find no one here worth arguing with who thinks striking > > > out 200 times a year is insignicant. Hell, the Reds worked with > > > Dunn all preseason to try to get him to cut down on his strikouts, > > > even Adam says he needs to reduce his strikouts. > > No surprise. I know Mike Schmidt and Gary Sheffield have said > similar things -- and meant it. Players do not like to > strike out. > WHY? Because they understand that hitting the ball is better than not hitting it? > > > I guess statheads > > > know more than the oranization or players do, huh? > > > Absolutely. That's one reason they haven't been to the playoffs in more > > than a decade. > And the teams that have made it to the playoffs refer to stats alone, and not flesh and blood ballplayers to make them successful? > Here's something I personally like to cite when somebody makes > an appeal to authority type of argument citing players. > > Babe Ruth named Hal Chase to his all-time team over Lou > Gehrig, Jimmy Foxx, hell even George Sisler. > > "[some people] will feel that I should pick Lou Gehrig > over Chase, (but Chase) was so much better than anyone > else that I ever saw on first base that - to me - it > was no contest." > Maybe that explains why Ruth never got to manage or hold a "real" job in baseball after his playing days were over. > He also managed to come up with Herb Pennock over > (among others) Lefty Grove, Ray Schalk over Cochrane, > Dickey, Hartnett (and for that matter Schang) > Further illustrates my point. > Hell, Roger Clemens went nuts when the Jays released > Ed Sprague. > Were they friends? Did Clemens think Sprague would win a pennant for the Blue Jays? Maybe Roger should try to pitch a few more years. > To get back to Dunn. As with any player there are > specific things he could stand to work on. It's > just that when I compare his results to his > reported weaknesses. > > Contrary to what most people probably believe, > he just chews up finesse pitchers while > struggling against the pure power pitchers. > > And he's been far more successful against groundball > pitchers than flyball pitchers (which surprises > the hell out of me, but it seems that he's > really good at getting the ball in the air > against people who don't normally allow it) > > All in all, seems to me that the biggest issue > is simply bat speed. He strikes out 46% more > frequently against power pitchers than finesse > pitchers. > > And if that's the case, there's no easy fix. NOTHING is easy in MLB. Reducing Dunns strikeouts from 200 to, say, maybe 140-150, is, I believe, doable, and could help the Reds win a couple more games during the season.
From: Ron Johnson on 19 Jun 2007 12:59 On Jun 18, 11:47 pm, John Kasupski <kc2...(a)wzrd.com> wrote: > On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 10:22:33 -0700, Ron Johnson > > <john...(a)ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> wrote: > >All in all, seems to me that the biggest issue > >is simply bat speed. He strikes out 46% more > >frequently against power pitchers than finesse > >pitchers. > > >And if that's the case, there's no easy fix. > > I don't think you hit balls into the Ohio River without generating > some decent bat speed first. I'm more inclined to chalk it up to the > fact that he has a long swing, which means it takes him a bit longer > to generate that bat speed. Yeah, makes sense. Now that I think about it, that worry about a long swing is part of Mark McGwire's scouting report while in university. Here's the funny thing. Dunn's actually slightly better than McGwire was at making contact with the ball, but McGwire struck out quite a bit less. (But his K rate *rose* as he got older. No big deal, but in his run of great play from 1995-200 he struck out in 22% of his PAs, for the rest of his career it was 20%) And bad as Dunn is with two strikes, well McGwire hit .143/.290/.317 (with data incomplete -- we have pitch count data for just over 88% of McGwire's PAs) So how did McGwire accomplish a manageable number of Ks? Well Dunn hits an average number of foul balls, McGwire hit a below average number of foul balls. Meaning that McGwire was actually putting a slightly higher percentage of balls in play. And McGwire did something quite unusual for power hitters with good plate discipline. He swung at the first pitch a lot. (Dun swings at the first pitch with league average frequency) and batted .357 with a .811 SLG. 14.3% of his PAs were resolved on the first pitch. Dunn hits .396 with a .836 SLG but they only make up 9.2% of his PAs. Here's something that just blows me away though: Dunn and McGwire swing at far more first pitches than Ichiro. Though since Ichiro's far better at making contact than Dunn (or McGwire) he actually resolves 12.4% of his PAs on the first pitch. Would never have believed that McGwire was something like 50% more likely to swing at the first pitch than Ichiro. Anyhow, McGwire struck out less not by making more contact than Dunn but by resolving more PAs before getting to two strikes. McGwire "only" reached two strikes in 45% of his PAs, Dunn gets to two strikes 56% of the time. McGwire struck out 47% of the time he *reached* two strikes as opposed to Dunn's 49%. No real difference. All in all if it were my call to make I wouldn't sweat the Ks -- Dunn is after all having a fine year right now. I would encourage him to swing at a few more pitches on hitter's counts. Nothing major though. Don't want him chasing. > > The fix - admittedly not as easy a fix for a hitter to regularly > accomplish as it may sound - would be to shorten up on that swing, as > he apparently has been trying to do recently, and just try to slap it > through a hole in the IF for a single to right, rather than trying to > launch the pitch into geosynchronous earth orbit. I'd think the solution is to do his best to avoid two strike counts. Without chasing. Also easier said than done.
From: RJA on 19 Jun 2007 20:03 <coachrose13(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1182233576.313164.101440(a)n60g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > On Jun 18, 1:22 pm, Ron Johnson <john...(a)ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> wrote: >> On Jun 17, 4:20 pm, Kevin McClave <kmcclaveS...(a)SUCKStwcny.rr.com> >> wrote: >> >> > On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 23:39:52 -0700, coachros...(a)hotmail.com wrote: >> > > Cant find no one here worth arguing with who thinks striking >> > > out 200 times a year is insignicant. Hell, the Reds worked with >> > > Dunn all preseason to try to get him to cut down on his strikouts, >> > > even Adam says he needs to reduce his strikouts. >> >> No surprise. I know Mike Schmidt and Gary Sheffield have said >> similar things -- and meant it. Players do not like to >> strike out. > >> WHY? Because they understand that hitting the ball is better than not >> hitting it? > >> > > I guess statheads >> > > know more than the oranization or players do, huh? >> >> > Absolutely. That's one reason they haven't been to the playoffs in more >> > than a decade. >> > And the teams that have made it to the playoffs refer to stats alone, > and not flesh and blood ballplayers to make them successful? This one of the oldest and dumbest arguments out there. That a guy has heart, therefore he has some value despite the fact that his numbers don't say so. It's like the whole "Duh...well he doesn't hit with runners in scoring position." Then you ask them where that got Sean Casey who was a "team leader" and "had a lot of heart" and who hit with RISP and has never driven in 100 runs. The numbers are everything.
From: Dan Szymborski on 19 Jun 2007 20:47 In article <46786d44$0$3184$4c368faf(a)roadrunner.com>, rja(a)nospam.cinci.rr.com says... > <coachrose13(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:1182232430.439733.92220(a)k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > > This thread is now somewhere in the neighborhood of 250 posts. I dont > > feel like going back and specifing who said what and when, check it > > out yourself. Its been sugested many times and even "proven" through > > "stats" that strikeouts are overrated. Adam Dunn I believe, holds, the > > major league record for most times having struck out in a season, and > > is pretty close to his own record at least a couple of other times. If > > that is the case, please tell me who would bat behind Dunn that would > > strike out more than HE would??? And I really tire of hearing obout > > Dunn's walks and how important they are. Are ALL, or even MOST of > > these walks intentional? I dont think so. Dunn doesnt have a whole lot > > of say so about most of these walks, it is usually up to the pitcher > > who either decides to pitch to the batter, or does not have good > > enough control to begin with. > > Oh my Lord. Just when you thought we had already hit rock bottom, we find > out that there's no such thing as a good eye. Yeah, Coachrose, while not skilled at flaming, has packed 3 or 4 years of stupid into only 3 or 4 weeks. Well, he's not quite as stupid as all those pitchers, who chose to "give" the most feared basestealer in major league history more free passes to first than all but one player ever. -- 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: Ron Johnson on 20 Jun 2007 02:22
On Jun 19, 8:03 pm, "RJA" <r...(a)nospam.cinci.rr.com> wrote: > <coachros...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:1182233576.313164.101440(a)n60g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > > > > > On Jun 18, 1:22 pm, Ron Johnson <john...(a)ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> wrote: > >> On Jun 17, 4:20 pm, Kevin McClave <kmcclaveS...(a)SUCKStwcny.rr.com> > >> wrote: > > >> > On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 23:39:52 -0700, coachros...(a)hotmail.com wrote: > >> > > Cant find no one here worth arguing with who thinks striking > >> > > out 200 times a year is insignicant. Hell, the Reds worked with > >> > > Dunn all preseason to try to get him to cut down on his strikouts, > >> > > even Adam says he needs to reduce his strikouts. > > >> No surprise. I know Mike Schmidt and Gary Sheffield have said > >> similar things -- and meant it. Players do not like to > >> strike out. > > >> WHY? Because they understand that hitting the ball is better than not > >> hitting it? > > >> > > I guess statheads > >> > > know more than the oranization or players do, huh? > > >> > Absolutely. That's one reason they haven't been to the playoffs in more > >> > than a decade. > > > And the teams that have made it to the playoffs refer to stats alone, > > and not flesh and blood ballplayers to make them successful? > > This one of the oldest and dumbest arguments out there. That a guy has > heart, therefore he has some value despite the fact that his numbers don't > say so. It's like the whole "Duh...well he doesn't hit with runners in > scoring position." Then you ask them where that got Sean Casey who was a > "team leader" and "had a lot of heart" and who hit with RISP and has never > driven in 100 runs. The numbers are everything. I'd put it slightly different. You can't *perfectly* explain wins and losses through the stats alone. As a simple example, Bobby Cox's teams have consistently won a few more games than you'd expect. Thing is that it's stupid to worry about the little things until you've got the big picture in hand. Somewhere close to 90% of a team's offense is summed up in OBP and SLG (and OBP's the more important part) If your target's 90 wins you've got to plan on outscoring the opposition by around 12%. If you've got a team that figures to do this, then you can worry about fine-tuning a couple of extra wins (though short of an excellent bullpen nobody's identified any strategy likely to work. Still, feel free to try. Can't hurt as long as you keep the basics in hard) Contrary to what you might think, I'd prefer players who have a good work ethic, and all other things being equal I'd prefer players who don't make waves. I'd honestly prefer Joe Morgan or Eddie Collins in their respective primes to Rogers Hornsby, even though as best I can tell, Hornsby was *slightly* better (once you consider the defensive differences -- he was a much better hitter, but the glove counts and Hornsby was probably a C with the glove). But the difference isn't large -- less than a game as best I can tell. But I'd take Hornsby warts and all over Gehringer, and Gehringer was a hell of a player. So what about the go-go Cardinals? They may well have been the best baserunning team of all time. And just look at the difference in team runs scored etween 1987 (led the league in OBP) and 1988 or 1986. The base stealing had value, but the OBP trumps it. And base stealing is easily the most important factor besides OBP and SLG. There are successful teams that make less than optimal choices. The Twins won two World Series with Dan Gladden in LF and leading off. But they won in spite of Gladden. (In 1991 their leadoff hitters had a .301 OBP and scored five more runs than their 7th place hitters. They were better in 1991, but that was mostly due to the leadoff hitters other than Gladden. He personally had a .313 OBP when batting 1st and the team got a .325 OBP from the leadoff spot) The Reds won in 1961 with their catchers combining for ..212/.268/.266. Doesn't make it a good idea, just means you can succeed in spite of a weak spot or two if the rest of the team does its job. |