Adam Dunn
in [Cincinnati Reds]
|
Next: Matt Maloney
From: Ron Johnson on 20 Jun 2007 02:50 On Jun 19, 12:59 pm, Ron Johnson <john...(a)ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> wrote: > > And McGwire did something quite unusual for power hitters > with good plate discipline. He swung at the first pitch > a lot. You could have won almost anything off of me if you'd offered to bet me that McGwire swung at the first pitch more frequently than Juan Gonzalez. (Or about 50% more often than Tony Gwynn) You think of guys with walk totals like Joe Carter when you think of guys swinging at the first pitch. And Carter did in fact swing at the first pitch slightly more often than McGwire. So does Ivan Rodriguez. But not many do, and most of the guys who did were notorious for chasing stuff they should have laid off. Highest percentage I've found so far is Bo Jackson. Jackson also had by far the worst contact percentage I've seen. He missed 38% of the time he swung at the ball. Dunn misses 28% of the time. High, but not absurd. Average is 20%. (Thome and McGwire are within noise. Ryan Howard swings and misses 33% of the time. I've only found Jackson and Rob Deer with worse contact percentages -- though I've just been poking around rather than looking systematically)
From: coachrose13 on 21 Jun 2007 01:03 On Jun 19, 8:47 pm, Dan Szymborski <d...(a)baseballprimer.com> wrote: > In article <46786d44$0$3184$4c368...(a)roadrunner.com>, > r...(a)nospam.cinci.rr.com says... > > > > > > > <coachros...(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. > I guess If I am as stupid as you and a couple of others say I am, and are as smart(or at the very least skilled in the art of undestanding stats) as you seem to think you are, then what's that old saying about arguing with an idiot? (Not trying to flame or anything of course). I mean, think about it. What could possible be more stupid than CONTINUALLING arguing with someone about wether to bat a ballplayer in the 4, 5, or 6 hole on a team that is 20 games below .500 in JUNE! For my part, I plead guilty. Do you? > 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. > Doesnt really have a whole lot to do with this thread, now, does it? > -- > 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 21 Jun 2007 02:13 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.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Yeah, just get rid of Casey and replace him with..........???? Who is this first baseman they now have that is driving in a hundred runs a year, and hitting 40 home runs??
From: coachrose13 on 21 Jun 2007 02:22 On Jun 20, 2:22 am, Ron Johnson <john...(a)ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> wrote: > 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 about it is that when your winning, you dont really have to explain "perfectly" or not, while you are doing so. Its just when you are losing that you gotta come up with answers. Lot of stats out there to help you, then. > 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 cant explain why Cox wins so many games, maybe the "little things" are a big reason why. And I certainly dont think that on July 16th, with the Braves tied with whomever they are playing in the 8th inning, Cox is not worried about outscoring his opposition by 12%. He'll take one run, regardless of the percentage. > 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.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: Ron Johnson on 21 Jun 2007 12:47
On Jun 21, 2:22 am, coachros...(a)hotmail.com wrote: > On Jun 20, 2:22 am, Ron Johnson <john...(a)ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> wrote: > > > 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 about it is that when your winning, you dont really have to > explain "perfectly" or not, while you are doing so. Its just when you > are losing that you gotta come up with answers. Lot of stats out there > to help you, then. > > > 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 cant explain why Cox wins so many games, maybe the "little >things" are a big reason why. We can't explain *perfectly*, but we also don't miss him by much. His teams have won 36 more games than you'd expect over 25 year and it's not skewed by one big miss. I'm comfortable with that level of precision and have no real problem with the notion that the little things could be worth a game or so a year. (Though he generally either builds a good bullpen or an unbalanced one and we know that partially explains misses in team winning percentage. In other words, in Cox's case the little things probably explain less than a win a year -- and Cox is right at the extreme) > And I certainly dont think that on July > 16th, with the Braves tied with whomever they are playing in the 8th > inning, Cox is not worried about outscoring his opposition by 12%. > He'll take one run, regardless of the percentage. Yup. And you'll never hear a stathead argue otherwise. Hell, Pete Palmer wrote a chapter discussing break even points of various strategies. In general the break even point for stealing second was around 63% (he was writing in the 80s. These days you need better) But: "As you would expect, the break-even point declines as time grows short for the team trailing by one or tied. In the last of the ninth, if the score is tied. two men are out, and you've got a runner on first faster than Cliff Johnson, then send him." And in the same chapter he also shows that not you need over 80% (varies with number of outs) to steal third, but only 35% to steal home with two out. Put it all together and -- well assuming a break even point of 2/3 get you close in the long run. There's only one player whose value in terms of base stealing comes out substantially different depending on whether you use simplifying assumptions or detailed analysis based on game situations -- Rickey Henderson. He clearly padded his stolen base totals. When you take game situations into account, Henderson's base stealing wasn't much more valuable than Tim Raines' despite the fairly large difference in raw numbers) (And just to show you why I personally don't bother much with game situation analysis, Henderson actually adds more value than anybody else in base running and reaching on error. Basically it all comes out in the wash after a honking lot of extra work. Which is what happens with pretty much everybody) |