PDA

View Full Version : Kenny Get Your Dunn


OzzieBall2004
02-24-2010, 01:20 PM
Assuming the Nationals don't extend him and he gets dealt this year, what kind of package do you think it would take to get him?

ewokpelts
02-24-2010, 01:40 PM
just say no to dumm dunn.

if people dont want konerko past 2010, why would dunn be better?

soltrain21
02-24-2010, 01:44 PM
just say no to dumm dunn.

if people dont want konerko past 2010, why would dunn be better?

Uh...because Adam Dunn is a monster and a half?

hi im skot
02-24-2010, 01:46 PM
just say no to dumm dunn.

I hope to god this saying doesn't take off.

TheOldRoman
02-24-2010, 01:48 PM
just say no to dumm dunn.

if people dont want konerko past 2010, why would dunn be better?He isn't obscenely slow, he is younger, bats left handed, he hits many more homers and draws many more walks. I am not saying the Sox should break the bank (or farm) to bring him in, but he would be a much more productive hitter over the next few years than Konerko.

ewokpelts
02-24-2010, 01:48 PM
Uh...because Adam Dunn is a monster and a half?
for strikeouts

DirtySox
02-24-2010, 01:49 PM
just say no to dumm dunn.

if people dont want konerko past 2010, why would dunn be better?

Seriously?

The .400 OBP?

The 900 OPS?

The 40 HRs?

ewokpelts
02-24-2010, 01:49 PM
If it came to konerko or dunn, I'll take konerko. And I pretty much want konerko off the sox as soon as humanly possible.

soltrain21
02-24-2010, 01:50 PM
for strikeouts

And...? He also gets on base at .400 clip, hits 40 homeruns a year and has a career OPS of 903.

You are nuts.

Mod edit: This part is making it personal. Don't.

DirtySox
02-24-2010, 01:52 PM
If it came to konerko or dunn, I'll take konerko. And I pretty much want konerko off the sox as soon as humanly possible.

I wish Craig was here. He would have a field day with this post.

Sad
02-24-2010, 02:04 PM
for strikeouts

no different than alot of other power hitters :rolleyes:

Thatguyoverthere
02-24-2010, 02:05 PM
for strikeouts:rolleyes: You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Adam Dunn fits exactly what we need. We get him, and we're instantly serious World Series contenders. The guy can mash, and is probably as close to the ideal DH for us as you can get.

Rohan
02-24-2010, 02:43 PM
I hope to god this saying doesn't take off.

Agreed!

If it came to konerko or dunn, I'll take konerko. And I pretty much want konerko off the sox as soon as humanly possible.

Statistically, I'd take Dunn over Konerko pretty damn quickly... And as a leader & team player I LOVE Konerko...

Adam Dunn would be a perfect DH -- Even better than Thome. That being said... I'm pretty sure Dunn is on track for 12 million in 2010, I don't think we can afford him.

kittle42
02-24-2010, 02:48 PM
If it came to konerko or dunn, I'll take konerko. And I pretty much want konerko off the sox as soon as humanly possible.

Gene - if you can't see how flawed your comparison of the two is, I don't know if I can help! :D:

jabrch
02-24-2010, 04:14 PM
He's a better fit for us than Thome/Dye. He's better than Kotsay/Jones. But I wouldn't give up any of the top 4 in our farm for him at that price tag. If it comes to the trade deadline, and he can be had for cheap, I wouldn't be opposed to it.

We might be able to get Lowell a bit more reasonably - and get the Red Sox to pick up most of his contract. Lowell then gives us another backup @ 3B/1B.

munchman33
02-24-2010, 06:49 PM
I'm not even sure Paul Konerko in his prime was better than Adam Dunn is now. Why is this even up for debate?

OzzieBall2004
02-24-2010, 07:00 PM
No one wants to acknowledge my awesome thread title?

guillensdisciple
02-24-2010, 07:11 PM
I'm not even sure Paul Konerko in his prime was better than Adam Dunn is now. Why is this even up for debate?

This is 100 percent correct.

No one wants to acknowledge my awesome thread title?


hahahahahaah,that's hilarious

Frater Perdurabo
02-24-2010, 08:57 PM
I'm pretty sure Dunn is on track for 12 million in 2010, I don't think we can afford him.

They ought to be able to afford $6 million for July, August, September and October.

They can even save travel costs by picking up Dunn on the way back from Washington in June.

guillen4life13
02-24-2010, 09:50 PM
Lineup:
LF Juan Pierre (LH)
2B Gordon Beckham (RH)
DH/1B/LF Adam Dunn (LH)
RF/LF Carlos Quentin (RH)
1B/DH Paul Konerko (RH)
C A.J. Pierzynski (LH)
CF Alex Rios (RH)
3B Mark Teahen (LH)
SS Alexei Ramirez (RH)

Bench:
IF Omar Vizquel
1B/OF Mark Kotsay
OF Andruw Jones
UT Jayson Nix
C Ramon Castro

Starting Rotation:
LH Mark Buehrle
RH Jake Peavy
LH John Danks
RH Gavin Floyd
RH Freddy Garcia or Dan Hudson

Bullpen:
LH Randy Williams
RH Tony Pena
RH Scott Linebrink
RH J.J. Putz
LH Matt Thornton
CL Bobby Jenks


The 25 man roster above would murder the AL Central, and have a good chance to embarrass its playoff foes. But who would be the piece(s) sent away to get Dunn? That's my biggest question. I'm sure that, if he's available, there will be a bidding war for his services. And would the Sox re-sign him?

soxinem1
02-24-2010, 11:08 PM
just say no to dumm dunn.

if people dont want konerko past 2010, why would dunn be better?

I would say KW going after him is not a Dunn deal.....:D:

Taliesinrk
02-24-2010, 11:37 PM
I would say KW going after him is not a Dunn deal.....:D:

What are the odds Kenny tried for Dumm-Dunn in early May or so?

Rohan
02-24-2010, 11:39 PM
What are the odds Kenny tried for Dumm-Dunn in early May or so?

:facepalm:
Why???

hi im skot
02-24-2010, 11:50 PM
And...? He also gets on base at .400 clip, hits 40 homeruns a year and has a career OPS of 903.

You are nuts.

Mod edit: This part is making it personal. Don't.


Uh oh...ESPN's management has joined WSI.

soltrain21
02-24-2010, 11:55 PM
uh oh...espn's management has joined wsi.

I walk that line.

Rocky Soprano
02-25-2010, 12:28 AM
No one wants to acknowledge my awesome thread title?

Should read: Kenny Git R Dunn.

SephClone89
02-25-2010, 12:40 AM
Should read: Kenny Git R Dunn.

Nah, I like the classic reference of the current thread title.

Taliesinrk
02-25-2010, 12:41 AM
Should read: Kenny Git R Dunn.

I'd be a huge fan of the filters working so that every time "Dunn" is typed in, "Dumm-Dunn" is inserted in its place.

BadBobbyJenks
02-25-2010, 01:00 AM
Lol where did this thought that Adam Dunn isn't a great fit for anyone come from?

Especially considering our alternative of the monstrous duo of Adam ERRRRRRRRRRRRR Andruw Jones and Mark Kotsay.

A. Cavatica
02-25-2010, 01:02 AM
Lineup:
LF Juan Pierre (LH)
2B Gordon Beckham (RH)
DH/1B/LF Adam Dunn (LH)
RF/LF Carlos Quentin (RH)
1B/DH Paul Konerko (RH)
C A.J. Pierzynski (LH)
CF Alex Rios (RH)
3B Mark Teahen (LH)
SS Alexei Ramirez (RH)

Bench:
IF Omar Vizquel
1B/OF Mark Kotsay
OF Andruw Jones
UT Jayson Nix
C Ramon Castro

Starting Rotation:
LH Mark Buehrle
RH Jake Peavy
LH John Danks
RH Gavin Floyd
RH Freddy Garcia or Dan Hudson

Bullpen:
LH Randy Williams
RH Tony Pena
RH Scott Linebrink
RH J.J. Putz
LH Matt Thornton
CL Bobby Jenks


The 25 man roster above would murder the AL Central, and have a good chance to embarrass its playoff foes. But who would be the piece(s) sent away to get Dunn? That's my biggest question. I'm sure that, if he's available, there will be a bidding war for his services. And would the Sox re-sign him?

Send Randy Williams. And then you don't even need to get Dunn in return.

A. Cavatica
02-25-2010, 01:03 AM
Lol where did this thought that Adam Dunn isn't a great fit for anyone come from?

Haven't you heard? We're a National League team now. Dunn would just take at-bats away from Vizquel.

OzzieBall2004
02-25-2010, 01:11 AM
Lol where did this thought that Adam Dunn isn't a great fit for anyone come from?

Especially considering our alternative of the monstrous duo of Adam Jones and Mark Kotsay.

I wish we had Adam Jones....

BadBobbyJenks
02-25-2010, 01:31 AM
I wish we had Adam Jones....

Me too, fixed.

white sox bill
02-25-2010, 07:58 AM
Bringing Adam to the South side....hell I DUNN no. :scratch:

kittle42
02-25-2010, 10:17 AM
Haven't you heard? We're a National League team now. Dunn would just take at-bats away from Vizquel.

Ha. Definitely no teal needed here.

Hitmen77
02-25-2010, 10:22 AM
Haven't you heard? We're a National League team now. Dunn would just take at-bats away from Vizquel.

Hey, if you don't like it then you must be an Ozzie-hating dark cloud who thinks he can predict the future. Haven't you heard? Since we can't predict the future, we're not allowed to question this move in any way.

hi im skot
02-25-2010, 10:29 AM
:threadrules:

Hitmen77
02-25-2010, 10:40 AM
They ought to be able to afford $6 million for July, August, September and October.

They can even save travel costs by picking up Dunn on the way back from Washington in June.

I agree. The Sox could probably fit his salary into their budget if he was a mid-season pickup and they were only paying ~$6 million.

But, that's assuming the Sox can outbid other interested teams. In this wild card era, there are always plenty of teams still in the race mid-season and looking to pick up another bat.

Another question is whether Dunn would be a 2-3 month rental. He's already making $12 million/year. Would the Sox pay that much or more to extend him. If not, then how much would the Sox have to give up just to get him for a few months?

asindc
02-25-2010, 11:29 AM
Hey, if you don't like it then you must be an Ozzie-hating dark cloud who thinks he can predict the future. Haven't you heard? Since we can't predict the future, we're not allowed to question this move in any way.

What move are you questioning?

Nellie_Fox
02-25-2010, 11:39 AM
Haven't you heard? Since we can't predict the future, we're not allowed to question this move in any way.Who's stopping you? There's a difference between people disagreeing with you and someone prohibiting you from questioning. A big difference.

I'm tired of people saying "oh, we're not allowed to..." just because someone disagrees with them.

spawn
02-25-2010, 12:11 PM
What move are you questioning?
The move to a more balanced offense instead of one waiting for the 3-run homer. I find his post odd considering I don't think there is anyone here overly enthusiastic about the offense. I see a lot of people waiting for the results instead of jumping off of cliffs before a pitch is thrown, but that's just me. :shrug: On the other hand, I see quite a few people disagreeing with the move, and not one poster has been banned for it.

FarmerAndy
02-25-2010, 01:29 PM
I agree. The Sox could probably fit his salary into their budget if he was a mid-season pickup and they were only paying ~$6 million.

But, that's assuming the Sox can outbid other interested teams. In this wild card era, there are always plenty of teams still in the race mid-season and looking to pick up another bat.

Another question is whether Dunn would be a 2-3 month rental. He's already making $12 million/year. Would the Sox pay that much or more to extend him. If not, then how much would the Sox have to give up just to get him for a few months?

Konerko will be off the books after this year, and there's a pretty big free-agent class of 1B/DH types in line for next off-season. So I don't know that it would be that hard to sign him to an extension.

doublem23
02-25-2010, 01:29 PM
Haven't you heard? We're a National League team now. Dunn would just take at-bats away from Vizquel.

:rolling:

Harry Chappas
02-25-2010, 02:32 PM
The move to a more balanced offense instead of one waiting for the 3-run homer. I find his post odd considering I don't think there is anyone here overly enthusiastic about the offense. I see a lot of people waiting for the results instead of jumping off of cliffs before a pitch is thrown, but that's just me. :shrug: On the other hand, I see quite a few people disagreeing with the move, and not one poster has been banned for it.

It's the usual suspects that employ straw men arguments and hyperbole to play the victim card and bolster their argument. No one, not even the most ardent Guillen/KW supporters, has argued that the DH-by-committee approach was ideal nor has anyone told those that oppose of the plan that they weren't entitled to their opinion.

It's a potentially risky move but I'm going to take a 'wait and see' approach. If it proves to be disastrous after a month or so, I'm sure I'll be pissed.

Slappy
02-25-2010, 03:04 PM
I can't wait until we sign Dunn so I can sing 'Kenny got a Dunn' all Aerosmith-like.

TheOldRoman
02-25-2010, 04:17 PM
I can't wait until we sign Dunn so I can sing 'Kenny got a Dunn' all Aerosmith-like.It would be Kenny got A. Dunn

FarmerAndy
02-25-2010, 04:33 PM
for strikeouts

So what if a ton of the outs he makes come via the strikeout? In most cases, an out is an out no matter how you make it. The fact is that Adam Dunn is less likely to make an out than most other players.

Don't know how real of a possibility it is. But I would love to have Dunn as the DH on the Southside. And I can't really see why anyone wouldn't.

spawn
02-25-2010, 05:05 PM
I can't wait until we sign Dunn so I can sing 'Kenny got a Dunn' all Aerosmith-like.

It would be Kenny got A. Dunn
You guys are killing me...and not in a good way. :tongue:

Zisk77
02-25-2010, 05:09 PM
I'd be for it if a deal can be Dunn dirt cheap. :D:

WhiffleBall
02-25-2010, 05:14 PM
I think Dunn is a very realistic option and definitely up there on Kenny's "list".

Some thoughts regarding Dunn:

- The Nationals will more than likely be out of it by the trade deadline and could save $6 million by trading Dunn for half the season.
- We were going to spend $6 million on Damon, albeit for a full season, but it does show the money is available.
- Even if Paulie does come back next year it will be for a much reduced amount allowing for more money to be spent on the younger and more productive Dunn.
- The Angels have Matsui and the Red Sox will probably focus on getting Adrian Gonzalez with Victor Martinez then moving to DH next year.
- We have a bunch of one year contracts and AJ and Paulie might be coming off the books ($15-20 million?) which means we can offer a competitive 3-4 year contract.

Of course all of the above will not matter if they sign him long term, we pull off a trade for Gonzalez, or even if Matsui gets injured to the point where the Angels need a DH (they will offer more money than us). It also might not happen if...and it's a big "if"...the rotating DH strategy is successfull.

thomas35forever
02-25-2010, 05:14 PM
I like his power numbers and initially thought he'd a good fit for our team, but there's no room in an outfield already built with power hitters minus Pierre. I'd take Konerko over him because of positions alone.

Thatguyoverthere
02-25-2010, 05:17 PM
I like his power numbers and initially thought he'd a good fit for our team, but there's no room in an outfield already built with power hitters minus Pierre. I'd take Konerko over him because of positions alone.:scratch: No room? Seriously? You can't possibly be saying that we couldn't find room on this team for Adam Dunn, especially with the DH situation.

mzh
02-25-2010, 05:51 PM
I like his power numbers and initially thought he'd a good fit for our team, but there's no room in an outfield already built with power hitters minus Pierre. I'd take Konerko over him because of positions alone.
So despite the fact Andruw Jones and Mark Kotsay are our DHs there is no space for Adam Dunn? Have him join the platoon with Quentin and Paulie.

doublem23
02-25-2010, 06:03 PM
I like his power numbers and initially thought he'd a good fit for our team, but there's no room in an outfield already built with power hitters minus Pierre. I'd take Konerko over him because of positions alone.

Uh... We don't have a DH.

DirtySox
02-25-2010, 06:13 PM
but there's no room in an outfield already built with power hitters minus Pierre. I'd take Konerko over him because of positions alone.

The one position Dunn has the most value is the position we have a huge gaping hole.

I don't see a fit either.

Rohan
02-25-2010, 06:55 PM
The one position Dunn has the most value is the position we have a huge gaping hole.

I don't see a fit either.

:rolling:

I just wish we could acquire him before the All Star break so that we're in the best situation possible.

asindc
02-25-2010, 07:16 PM
I like his power numbers and initially thought he'd a good fit for our team, but there's no room in an outfield already built with power hitters minus Pierre. I'd take Konerko over him because of positions alone.

So despite the fact Andruw Jones and Mark Kotsay are our DHs there is no space for Adam Dunn? Have him join the platoon with Quentin and Paulie.

Uh... We don't have a DH.

While I have sparred with doublem23 and others about the state of the DH position, and I don't like Dunn's high strikeout rate, I find it incomprehensible that anyone cannot see that Dunn is a significant upgrade from Jones/Kotsay. Having too many good players is not a problem we would have if Dunn was added to our present roster.

Rdy2PlayBall
02-25-2010, 07:41 PM
Ok, I don't get the thread title at all. Can someone explain?

Slappy
02-25-2010, 07:47 PM
Annie Get Your Gun is a musical. That's about all I know.

cards press box
02-25-2010, 08:21 PM
"Johnny, get your gun, get your gun" is a line from the George M. Cohan song Over There, which Mr. Cohan wrote during WWI. Johnny Got His Gun is also 1938 novel by Dalton Trumbo about an American soldier in WWI who is profoundly wounded (having lost his arms, legs, and face, but with a perfectly functioning mind). The novel covers his attempts to stay sane, to remember his past and to attempt to communicate with the outside world through a form of Morse Code.

Rdy2PlayBall
02-25-2010, 08:33 PM
Oh... well I don't see how I could have ever gotten that. xD
I'm too young... =(

Zisk77
02-25-2010, 10:22 PM
"Johnny, get your gun, get your gun" is a line from the George M. Cohan song Over There, which Mr. Cohan wrote during WWI. Johnny Got His Gun is also 1938 novel by Dalton Trumbo about an American soldier in WWI who is profoundly wounded (having lost his arms, legs, and face, but with a perfectly functioning mind). The novel covers his attempts to stay sane, to remember his past and to attempt to communicate with the outside world through a form of Morse Code.


And was the inspiration for the Metallica songe "one".

mzh
02-25-2010, 10:36 PM
"Johnny, get your gun, get your gun" is a line from the George M. Cohan song Over There, which Mr. Cohan wrote during WWI. Johnny Got His Gun is also 1938 novel by Dalton Trumbo about an American soldier in WWI who is profoundly wounded (having lost his arms, legs, and face, but with a perfectly functioning mind). The novel covers his attempts to stay sane, to remember his past and to attempt to communicate with the outside world through a form of Morse Code.


And was the inspiration for the Metallica songe "one".
Really? I didn't know that.

Zisk77
02-26-2010, 10:18 AM
Really? I didn't know that.

Yep, metallica even uses clips from the movie (that was made from the book) in their music video. Especially the morse code scene.

Ranger
03-01-2010, 05:45 PM
for strikeouts

If his OPS is better than .900, who cares about strikeouts?

SephClone89
03-01-2010, 05:50 PM
Oh... well I don't see how I could have ever gotten that. xD
I'm too young... =(

By being cultured...:cool:

Thome_Fan
03-01-2010, 06:02 PM
By being cultured...:cool:

Yeah, man. I'm 20 and I got it haha.

jabrch
03-01-2010, 06:28 PM
If his OPS is better than .900, who cares about strikeouts?

OPS alone is not a good metric. While an OPS of .900 clearly is good, I'd rather not see .233/.373/.528/.901 if we are going to give up top tier prospects and pay through the nose for a guy. And I'd really rather not see .195/.351/.422/.773 vs LHP.

That's not to say I wouldn't take Dunn and that he isn't productive in many ways, but a guy who is a sure bet (if he plays every day) to be amongst those who lead the league in Ks is likely to have a bunch of issues that enable him to be exploited. The .900+ OPS alone is not a good judge of a ball player.

I'd rather have a guy with a lower OPS, a higher batting average, slightly less power and slightly fewer walks.

Again - please nobody start saying that anyone is saying Kotsay/Jones are better than Dunn - that's not the point. The point is that the cost of an Adam Dunn will be high. For that price (or much much much less), we will have a lot of options, including Gonzalez, Derek Lee, Crawford, etc. Oh yeah, and Mauer is a FA that offseason too...

If we were offered Dunn at a low cost, I'd love to have him. But what's wrong with the strikeouts? A lot of things - and it shows when you analyze the player a bit deeper than just a few statistics. Much of it is the same reason I assume why managment decided not to go back again with Thome - his OBP is hollow. Walks (how many intentional or unintentional/intentional) are nice if your team capitalizes on them. But being able to get hits is much better. Dunn is a bad hitter. He's a good slugger and a good walker, but the part of being a hitter that involves hitting is not his strength.

DSpivack
03-01-2010, 07:03 PM
Yeah, man. I'm 20 and I got it haha.

I thought of it as a play on Annie Get Your Gun. :redneck

Ranger
03-01-2010, 09:50 PM
OPS alone is not a good metric. While an OPS of .900 clearly is good, I'd rather not see .233/.373/.528/.901 if we are going to give up top tier prospects and pay through the nose for a guy. And I'd really rather not see .195/.351/.422/.773 vs LHP.

That's not to say I wouldn't take Dunn and that he isn't productive in many ways, but a guy who is a sure bet (if he plays every day) to be amongst those who lead the league in Ks is likely to have a bunch of issues that enable him to be exploited. The .900+ OPS alone is not a good judge of a ball player.

I'd rather have a guy with a lower OPS, a higher batting average, slightly less power and slightly fewer walks.

Again - please nobody start saying that anyone is saying Kotsay/Jones are better than Dunn - that's not the point. The point is that the cost of an Adam Dunn will be high. For that price (or much much much less), we will have a lot of options, including Gonzalez, Derek Lee, Crawford, etc. Oh yeah, and Mauer is a FA that offseason too...

If we were offered Dunn at a low cost, I'd love to have him. But what's wrong with the strikeouts? A lot of things - and it shows when you analyze the player a bit deeper than just a few statistics. Much of it is the same reason I assume why managment decided not to go back again with Thome - his OBP is hollow. Walks (how many intentional or unintentional/intentional) are nice if your team capitalizes on them. But being able to get hits is much better. Dunn is a bad hitter. He's a good slugger and a good walker, but the part of being a hitter that involves hitting is not his strength.


OPS isn't the only indication of a good hitter, but it is most definitely a good indication of a good hitter. If the OPS is that high, chances are the hitter is productive.

There are all sorts of different types of productive hitters. Therefore, if he's productive in some significant way (a combination of power, walks, AVG, and OBP), I'm not going to complain about strikeouts.

OPS actually has a stronger positive correlation to runs scored than does batting average.

I disagree that OBP is hollow. While, of course, getting hits are better (hits lead to driving in runs), having runners on base is never, ever a bad thing. The Sox concern with Thome isn't so much the type of hitter he is, it's with the concern over continued decline. Dude's gonna be 40 during the season and his bat isn't getting any quicker.

kittle42
03-01-2010, 09:52 PM
having runners on base is never, ever a bad thing.

Don't tell that to some of the folks here who were espousing Dusty's "baseclogging" theory the last few months.

Rdy2PlayBall
03-01-2010, 09:53 PM
Yeah, man. I'm 20 and I got it haha.You've got 3 LONG years on me. I'm still into Rugrats and Hannah Montana.

DirtySox
03-01-2010, 10:13 PM
I disagree that OBP is hollow.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v691/DertyFoot/frenchy2.png

jabrch
03-01-2010, 10:28 PM
I disagree that OBP is hollow.

I wasn't saying ALL obp is hollow...But if he isn't scoring runs, it sure as hell is. There is no value to an IBB followed by a third out.

doublem23
03-01-2010, 10:31 PM
I wasn't saying ALL obp is hollow...But if he isn't scoring runs, it sure as hell is.

How is it his fault if no one behind him is driving him in?

jabrch
03-01-2010, 10:37 PM
How is it his fault if no one behind him is driving him in?

I didn't say it is his fault - did I? But they walk him or throw LH pitchers at him. If they walk him, then he's a non factor unless he scores - because someone else did something - or he's an out vs a LHP. Either way, he's not getting a base hit (except for the 40 HRs and a few accidents) so why not get a guy more likely to have impact on more ABs if you are going to give up a top prospect or two and pay him 13mm+ per year?

DirtySox
03-01-2010, 10:38 PM
How is it his fault if no one behind him is driving him in?

I think he is inferring that high OBP, low speed players are worthless. Lousy basecloggers.

doublem23
03-01-2010, 11:19 PM
I didn't say it is his fault - did I? But they walk him or throw LH pitchers at him. If they walk him, then he's a non factor unless he scores - because someone else did something - or he's an out vs a LHP. Either way, he's not getting a base hit (except for the 40 HRs and a few accidents) so why not get a guy more likely to have impact on more ABs if you are going to give up a top prospect or two and pay him 13mm+ per year?

I guess not, but its inferred that when you say a guy who gets on base 40% of the time isn't valuable because he doesn't score enough runs, I think that's messed up logic.

Dude's doing his job. It's not his responsibility to hit behind himself.

SephClone89
03-01-2010, 11:39 PM
You've got 3 LONG years on me. I'm still into Rugrats and Hannah Montana.


Don't you ever put Rugrats and Hannah Montana in the same sentence again.

Ever.

jabrch
03-02-2010, 12:29 AM
I guess not, but its inferred that when you say a guy who gets on base 40% of the time isn't valuable because he doesn't score enough runs, I think that's messed up logic.

Dude's doing his job. It's not his responsibility to hit behind himself.


His job is not to walk and get stranded on the basepaths. His job is to score runs. If he takes 3 hits to score, and the guys behind him hit about .280/.340, and you need three of them to get hits/walks...and lets say he averages 1 out when he gets on base - so he needs 2-3 hits before 2 outs...

Do the math...the value of a walk from Dunn or Thome is not great. If he hits .300, then the walks are gravy. If he hits .275, you can live with it. But when a hitter is so flawed that he can't his LHP and vs RHP he either hits a HR (~40 times) or walks (~110 times) or gets a hit (~100 times)...and the remaining PAs are 200Ks and 150 other outs, that's just not what I am willing to give up top prospects and big $ for.

munchman33
03-02-2010, 12:37 AM
His job is not to walk and get stranded on the basepaths. His job is to score runs. If he takes 3 hits to score, and the guys behind him hit about .280/.340, and you need three of them to get hits/walks...and lets say he averages 1 out when he gets on base - so he needs 2-3 hits before 2 outs...

Do the math...the value of a walk from Dunn or Thome is not great. If he hits .300, then the walks are gravy. If he hits .275, you can live with it. But when a hitter is so flawed that he can't his LHP and vs RHP he either hits a HR (~40 times) or walks (~110 times) or gets a hit (~100 times)...and the remaining PAs are 200Ks and 150 other outs, that's just not what I am willing to give up top prospects and big $ for.

Adam Dunn is no where near as slow as Thome, and can go first to third and second to home on base hits. He hasn't scored 100 runs the last few years because the lineups he was in were god awful, plain and simple.

Ranger
03-02-2010, 12:57 AM
I wasn't saying ALL obp is hollow...But if he isn't scoring runs, it sure as hell is. There is no value to an IBB followed by a third out.

How is it his fault if no one behind him is driving him in?

His job is not to walk and get stranded on the basepaths. His job is to score runs. If he takes 3 hits to score, and the guys behind him hit about .280/.340, and you need three of them to get hits/walks...and lets say he averages 1 out when he gets on base - so he needs 2-3 hits before 2 outs...

Do the math...the value of a walk from Dunn or Thome is not great. If he hits .300, then the walks are gravy. If he hits .275, you can live with it. But when a hitter is so flawed that he can't his LHP and vs RHP he either hits a HR (~40 times) or walks (~110 times) or gets a hit (~100 times)...and the remaining PAs are 200Ks and 150 other outs, that's just not what I am willing to give up top prospects and big $ for.

Well, that's just wrong. The job of a hitter is to get hits to drive in runs or to get on base to give other guys a chance to drive you in. There is all sorts of value in both. Like munch and doublem said, it's kind of tough to be driven in when guys behind you aren't hitting. Plus, runs scored is kind of a poor stat to judge a hitter (especially a heart of the order guy).

In fact, Manny Ramirez hasn't been all that far off of Dunn in terms of runs scored in the last 6 years, but you wouldn't say Manny isn't valuable because his runs scored is low.

Now, I never said they should give up top prospects for him, because I don't think they should. But, I am saying that you can't call him an unproductive hitter and you can't say OBP is hollow. And am also saying that OPS has a positve, direct, and strong correlation to runs scored. That is not really debatable.

Tragg
03-02-2010, 01:03 AM
The value of a walk in many cases is not as great as the stats make it seem.
If you're a 5 hole slugger, and the 6-9 batters are medicore, grabbing that walk isn't necessarily a positive, especially if runners are in scoring position. Some really good hitters, for that reason, have better OBPs out of the 3 hole than the 5 or 6 hole.

Now if you bat 8, 9, 1 or 2, take your walks.

munchman33
03-02-2010, 01:58 AM
The value of a walk in many cases is not as great as the stats make it seem.
If you're a 5 hole slugger, and the 6-9 batters are medicore, grabbing that walk isn't necessarily a positive, especially if runners are in scoring position. Some really good hitters, for that reason, have better OBPs out of the 3 hole than the 5 or 6 hole.

Now if you bat 8, 9, 1 or 2, take your walks.

It's all relative. If you're the 5 hole slugger and a lefty power guy, you might try to draw a walk against a lefty pitcher.

And you should always "take" a walk when that's what you're dealt. No one should be swinging out of the zone not to walk. Take the walk, just be a productive base runner. That's what guys like Thome, Dye, and Konerko haven't been the last few years, and that's a large part as to why we weren't scoring runs. As I said before, Adam Dunn does not fall into that category. Other circumstances caused his runs scored to plummet outside of what he can control.

chunk
03-02-2010, 02:19 AM
The value of a walk in many cases is not as great as the stats make it seem.
If you're a 5 hole slugger, and the 6-9 batters are medicore, grabbing that walk isn't necessarily a positive, especially if runners are in scoring position. Some really good hitters, for that reason, have better OBPs out of the 3 hole than the 5 or 6 hole.

Now if you bat 8, 9, 1 or 2, take your walks.

A BB is always a positive. That's pretty much not debatable.

WhiteSoxFan84
03-02-2010, 02:59 AM
Oh Kenny, you Dunn did it now.

jabrch
03-02-2010, 08:19 AM
In fact, Manny Ramirez hasn't been all that far off of Dunn in terms of runs scored in the last 6 years, but you wouldn't say Manny isn't valuable because his runs scored is low.


Manny is a career .313 hitter. He has nothing to do with Dunn. Ranger - read my entire post - not just the one line. I don't like .230 hitters who walk to get .370 OBPs and are limited as middle of the order hitters. I want my middle of the order guys to HIT. Adam Dunn walks INSTEAD of hitting. Manny walks in addition to hitting. Other than being "Manny", I'd take that guy in a heartbeat - hell, even being Manny I'd take him. He is a true "hitter". (even better if we find a way to keep a glove off his hand)


Now, I never said they should give up top prospects for him, because I don't think they should. But, I am saying that you can't call him an unproductive hitter and you can't say OBP is hollow.

A guy who hits .230 and has terrible L/R splits, who walks a lot is not nearly as productive as a guy who hits .300 and walks less, but gets to a similar OBP, and who isn't easily marginalized by a LHP. Yes Ranger, his OBP is hollow. It's not worthless, but it is not worth as much as if he were able to hit LHP and able to get a few base hits every now and then.

His 40 HRs are nice. But like Thome, he's not an idea middle of the order hitter because he doesn't...well...HIT.

jabrch
03-02-2010, 08:23 AM
A BB is always a positive. That's pretty much not debatable.


A walk is always better than an out - but never better than a hit.

A walk is something you get when a pitcher fails. (generally speaking). A hit is something you get when you succeed.

Walks move only forced runners one base. Hits can have greater impact.

Walks, vs a strikeout, are great. But if you aren't swinging at pitches, and are hoping to walk, then you may pass up opportunities to produce runs in the middle of the order.

Nobody says walks are bad - they just aren't worth as much as many want you to believe.

Tragg
03-02-2010, 10:28 AM
A BB is always a positive. That's pretty much not debatable.
Not really.
Down 3 9th inning, 2 on, 2 out, Thomas up and he walks.
Next up, Royce Clayton.
The walk wasn't a positive event.

voodoochile
03-02-2010, 10:30 AM
Not really.
Down 3 9th inning, 2 on, 2 out, Thomas up and he walks.
Next up, Royce Clayton.
The walk wasn't a positive event.

Depends. In isolation it might not be. However there are plenty of situations when it might turn out to be (advances the lead runner from second to third and then the pitcher throws a wild pitch).

Besides, when would Royce Clayton ever be batting behind Frank? If he's pinch hitting for someone, you'd think they'd wait and pinch hit for Royce...:tongue:

eriqjaffe
03-02-2010, 10:38 AM
Not really.
Down 3 9th inning, 2 on, 2 out, Thomas up and he walks.
Next up, Royce Clayton.
The walk wasn't a positive event.More positive than Thomas grounding out to short, though, and I think that's the point.

jabrch
03-02-2010, 10:54 AM
More positive than Thomas grounding out to short, though, and I think that's the point.


And less positive than Thomas hitting a HR, doubling into the gap, or singling two home.

Thomas was a .300+ hitter. He walked, in addition to hitting. That's great. He walked when he didn't see pitches to hit. When he did, he hit them and got himself hits at a very high rate, against both LHP and RHP. That's the difference. We aren't talking about Frank here.

Adam Dunn gets very few hits. His avg is very low. So his walks, while they definitely extend innings and are better than outs, are still not hits. He still has nearly 200 ABs where he strikes out - and accomplishes nothing. He still can't hit LHP at all.

Dunn is an ok player. He has some strengths and weaknesses. 40 HRs and 110 walks are nice. But 200 Ks and a batting average of .230 is not. For the price the Nats will want, and for what it would cost to extend him out, I'm just not a fan. I know there is a good chance that they guys we have at DH will be less effective - but there is also a good chance that they combine to have a high batting average than Dunn and that, while they won't produce as many runs as Dunn, they will still make a positive contribution for almost no cost.

If we are going to upgrade from our current DH spot, let's do it - but let's make sure we get a complete player. Dunn can't hit LHP and doesn't hit RHP for average. That's not a great combination.

jabrch
03-02-2010, 10:58 AM
Depends. In isolation it might not be. However there are plenty of situations when it might turn out to be (advances the lead runner from second to third and then the pitcher throws a wild pitch).

How many times does that happen?

I'd much rather have a guy who has a good chance of getting a hit (~30%) than having to bank on Dunn walking (~40% of the time) and then betting on the wild pitch (sub 1%?) or another guy getting a hit (~30%)

I like guys walking if they aren't seeing strikes. But when they see strikes, they need to hit. Dunn doesn't do that as well as a 10+mm player should. Middle of the order guys shouldn't hit .230

voodoochile
03-02-2010, 11:01 AM
How many times does that happen?

I'd much rather have a guy who has a good chance of getting a hit (~30%) than having to bank on Dunn walking (~40% of the time) and then betting on the wild pitch (sub 1%?) or another guy getting a hit (~30%)

I like guys walking if they aren't seeing strikes. But when they see strikes, they need to hit. Dunn doesn't do that as well as a 10+mm player should. Middle of the order guys shouldn't hit .230

I agree, that a hit is always better, but you can't force baseballs to stay fair nor can you control what the pitcher is throwing. Better to take the walk then swing at a crappy pitch and make an out.

And the point was that things like that can happen. No they aren't common, but they do occur.

asindc
03-02-2010, 11:09 AM
While OBP is not a "hollow" stat, it does not come close to telling the whole story about a player. Some hypothetical numbers...

Player A has the following:
500 PAs
.400 OBP

Player B has:
500 PAs
.350 OBP

No one can say which player is more productive without knowing more. That is, of course, where OPS comes into play. So let's go back to the players:

Player A has:

125 OPS+
120 OPS+ for three guys following him in lineup

Player B has

115 OPS+
110 OPS+ for three guys following him in lineup

Player B scored 20 more runs for the entire season. How is that? He got on base fewer times, was slightly less productive, and the three guys behind him were slightly less productive than their counterparts. How could he possibly score more runs that Player A? Is it even plausible?

Of course, it is plausible for an obvious reason. This crude example is why citing OPS+ or OBP by itself to compare players many times results in incomplete analysis. Context is always needed. Getting on base is a mean, not the end.

jabrch
03-02-2010, 11:12 AM
Better to take the walk then swing at a crappy pitch and make an out.

Nobody disagrees with that. But the problem with Dunn is that he doesn't swing at good pitches, or doesn't make good contact when he does enough. His walks don't offset his .230 average in my eyes.

The difference is easily illustrated with guys like Manny or Frank. A .300+ hitter with a .400 OBP is much more valuable than a .230 hitter with a .370 obp or even a .400 obp.

Tell me how many of Dunn's walks end up in him being stranded, and nothing positive happening? I know it isn't his fault, but that's not the point. He's a middle of the order hitter - not being the problem is not enough. He needs to be the solution. Manny is. Frank was. Dunn...not so much. I know that is a VERY high bar to set. But if we are going to give up top prospects and a 13+mm a year deal for a middle of the order hitter I want an impact bat, not one of the league's best walkers.

DirtySox
03-02-2010, 11:14 AM
Nobody disagrees with that. But the problem with Dunn is that he doesn't swing at good pitches, or doesn't make good contact when he does enough. His walks don't offset his .230 average in my eyes.


His career BA is actually about .250. He also hit .267 last year.

jabrch
03-02-2010, 11:16 AM
While OBP is not a "hollow" stat, it does not come close to telling the whole story about a player. Some hypothetical numbers...


Holy crap....GUYS - PLEASE GO BACK AND READ MY POST. I DID NOT SAY OBP IS HOLLOW.

For ****s sake....

I said
HIS OBP IS HOLLOW and I was referring specifically to why management chose to not bring back Thome....

OBP is hollow if the player does not score. A walk, with 2 on and 2 out, followed by the third out that doesn't score a run, has very little value. It is hollow.

NOBODY IS BESMEARCHING THE GOOD NAME OF WALKS.

Walks are great. They are better than outs 100% of the time. But they are not as good as hits. And a walk, followed by a few outs, is of very little value. For my middle of the order hitter, I want him hitting- not pushing that responsibility on to the bottom 1/3 of my order.

jabrch
03-02-2010, 11:17 AM
His career BA is actually about .250. He also hit .267 last year.

I know - but we were talking earlier about his .900 OPS and I was using his real .900 OPS/.230 avg season to illustrate.

balke
03-02-2010, 11:19 AM
His career BA is actually about .250. He also hit .267 last year.



Nick Swisher. I hate Dunn type players. Yes the HR's and RBI are there with OBP. Doesn't mean he was fully effective. I want a 1Bman who can hit for avg. with Hr's. It means runners are being moved along and that he's always a threat at the plate. An easy strikeout in a big game situation is not what the Sox need.

balke
03-02-2010, 11:22 AM
Besides, when would Royce Clayton ever be batting behind Frank? If he's pinch hitting for someone, you'd think they'd wait and pinch hit for Royce...:tongue:


PK behind is even worse. Dunn is good, but I hope the Sox can do better long term. Walks are boring, and K's are frustrating.

jabrch
03-02-2010, 11:22 AM
Nick Swisher. I hate Dunn type players. Yes the HR's and RBI are there with OBP. Doesn't mean he was fully effective. I want a 1Bman who can hit for avg. with Hr's. It means runners are being moved along and that he's always a threat at the plate. An easy strikeout in a big game situation is not what the Sox need.

My sentiments exactly!!!!

asindc
03-02-2010, 11:37 AM
Holy crap....GUYS - PLEASE GO BACK AND READ MY POST. I DID NOT SAY OBP IS HOLLOW.

For ****s sake....

I said
and I was referring specifically to why management chose to not bring back Thome....

OBP is hollow if the player does not score. A walk, with 2 on and 2 out, followed by the third out that doesn't score a run, has very little value. It is hollow.

NOBODY IS BESMEARCHING THE GOOD NAME OF WALKS.

Walks are great. They are better than outs 100% of the time. But they are not as good as hits. And a walk, followed by a few outs, is of very little value. For my middle of the order hitter, I want him hitting- not pushing that responsibility on to the bottom 1/3 of my order.

I was actually agreeing with you.

jabrch
03-02-2010, 12:02 PM
I was actually agreeing with you.

Ok then!!!!

doublem23
03-02-2010, 12:15 PM
Nick Swisher. I hate Dunn type players. Yes the HR's and RBI are there with OBP. Doesn't mean he was fully effective. I want a 1Bman who can hit for avg. with Hr's. It means runners are being moved along and that he's always a threat at the plate. An easy strikeout in a big game situation is not what the Sox need.

Yeah, Dunn is there are only 19 players in MLB who are harder to get out than Adam Dunn, and he has massive power BUT HE SUCKS BECAUSE HE TAKES WALKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

jabrch
03-02-2010, 12:16 PM
Yeah, Dunn is there are only 19 players in MLB who are harder to get out than Adam Dunn, and he has massive power BUT HE SUCKS BECAUSE HE TAKES WALKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And you are the only person who said that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

TheOldRoman
03-02-2010, 12:31 PM
Yeah, Dunn is there are only 19 players in MLB who are harder to get out than Adam Dunn, and he has massive power BUT HE SUCKS BECAUSE HE TAKES WALKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And you are the only person who said that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
http://i144.photobucket.com/albums/r196/JohnathanZX4/Screencaps%20et%20al/Brick.jpg

Loud noises!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

spawn
03-02-2010, 12:51 PM
http://www.vladville.com/media/Ridethewaveordrownfightingit_13E9/MelGibsonBraveheartC10101922.jpg

FREEDOM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

balke
03-02-2010, 01:05 PM
Yeah, Dunn is there are only 19 players in MLB who are harder to get out than Adam Dunn, and he has massive power BUT HE SUCKS BECAUSE HE TAKES WALKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


I said in the VERY next post that he is a good player. When you are talking about the future of your 1B position for extended years I don't think the Sox should settle. 1B is a deep position. If Dunn is going to be expensive I'm not onboard. IF the Sox want to get great production out of 1B and DH with Dunn occupying one slot - I might listen.

Me gripes are his Ks, he's 30, and a career .219 hitter in September.

munchman33
03-02-2010, 01:25 PM
And less positive than Thomas hitting a HR, doubling into the gap, or singling two home.

Thomas was a .300+ hitter. He walked, in addition to hitting. That's great. He walked when he didn't see pitches to hit. When he did, he hit them and got himself hits at a very high rate, against both LHP and RHP. That's the difference. We aren't talking about Frank here.

Adam Dunn gets very few hits. His avg is very low. So his walks, while they definitely extend innings and are better than outs, are still not hits. He still has nearly 200 ABs where he strikes out - and accomplishes nothing. He still can't hit LHP at all.

Dunn is an ok player. He has some strengths and weaknesses. 40 HRs and 110 walks are nice. But 200 Ks and a batting average of .230 is not. For the price the Nats will want, and for what it would cost to extend him out, I'm just not a fan. I know there is a good chance that they guys we have at DH will be less effective - but there is also a good chance that they combine to have a high batting average than Dunn and that, while they won't produce as many runs as Dunn, they will still make a positive contribution for almost no cost.

If we are going to upgrade from our current DH spot, let's do it - but let's make sure we get a complete player. Dunn can't hit LHP and doesn't hit RHP for average. That's not a great combination.

I don't get how you can say that. It could happen, but it's isn't likely. In fact, it isn't close to likely either. Dunn is not only better production, but guaranteed production. That's why he costs more. Our DH monster is very likely to only match Dunn's batting average without the run production or walks.

BadBobbyJenks
03-02-2010, 02:01 PM
Only at WSI could there be a debate about if Adam Dunn is just an "ok" player. I am speechless.

sullythered
03-02-2010, 02:18 PM
Only at WSI could there be a debate about if Adam Dunn is just an "ok" player. I am speechless.
Yeah. This is pretty damn silly.

asindc
03-02-2010, 02:20 PM
Only at WSI could there be a debate about if Adam Dunn is just an "ok" player. I am speechless.

I take it that you haven't spoken to the Reds fans that I know.

kittle42
03-02-2010, 02:23 PM
Only at WSI could there be a debate about if Adam Dunn is just an "ok" player. I am speechless.

Yeah. This is pretty damn silly.

+ Infinity

jabrch
03-02-2010, 02:49 PM
+ infinity

*-1

You want to give up two + top prospects, pay him 12-14mm per for 3-5 years for a ~.250 career average and being amongst those leading the league in Ks - for 110 walks and 40 HRs?

WhiteSoxFan84
03-02-2010, 02:52 PM
Only at WSI could there be a debate about if Adam Dunn is just an "ok" player. I am speechless.

I came to the following conclusion a while back:
Some people that post here do so just to have a counterpoint. It doesn't matter what they believe, they just want to argue.

It's too bad the ultimate example of that, my "homeslice" CG, is not able to post at this time. :whiner:

WhiteSoxFan84
03-02-2010, 02:54 PM
*-1

You want to give up two + top prospects, pay him 12-14mm per for 3-5 years for a ~.250 career average and being amongst those leading the league in Ks - for 110 walks and 40 HRs?

Someone on the radio the other day said, "I don't care much for batting average because it's a stat that says a single and a home run are equal", and it completely changed my mind about the stat. It truly is a very flawed stat and I am now an OPS guy (I used to be a BA and OBP guy).

And it wouldn't take 2 "top" prospects for this guy, would it? I highly doubt that.

doublem23
03-02-2010, 03:15 PM
*-1

You want to give up two + top prospects, pay him 12-14mm per for 3-5 years for a ~.250 career average and being amongst those leading the league in Ks - for 110 walks and 40 HRs?

If it keeps Andruw Jones out of our everyday lineup... Yes.

Our prospects always suck, let's trade them before they fail spectacularly on our team.

jabrch
03-02-2010, 03:21 PM
Someone on the radio the other day said, "I don't care much for batting average because it's a stat that says a single and a home run are equal", and it completely changed my mind about the stat. It truly is a very flawed stat and I am now an OPS guy (I used to be a BA and OBP guy).

I don't believe you can use any single statistic, certainly not if you are talking about a guy you would bat in the middle of your order. No single stat can tell the picture. It's too complicated a game for one stat to tell all. Batting average has to be accounted for. Getting hits and stopping the opposition from getting hits is how you ultimately win baseball games.

And it wouldn't take 2 "top" prospects for this guy, would it? I highly doubt that.



They are negotiating an extension with him right now. Would Washington even consider trading him? Not cheaply. When you look at what's in our system, I could easily see it costing two of the top 5....maybe 1 and then one of the top 10? Either way, the cost would almost surely include one of Hudson, Flowers or Mitchell + another prospect. Regardless - add in a 4 year 52mm deal...

He doesn't hit LHP. He doesn't hit for average. He plays bad defense. There's got to be room for a discussion here that debates the merit of Adam Dunn's greatness. I'm not saying he sucks - I just wouldn't pay the price (prospects and cash) to have this guy in my lineup. For that sort of price, or more, I'd much rather go after a more complete player.

TheOldRoman
03-02-2010, 03:25 PM
Our prospects always suck, let's trade them before they fail spectacularly on our team.That is nonsense. Look at Beckham last year. Danks, Hudson and Flowers are looking good. Mitchell has lots of potential. While many of our past prospects have failed, there has been a shift in organizational philosopy. The Sox have done very well in the past two drafts, and we will see how that pans out. "Trade them before they suck" is a weak arguement anyway, but even if you want them to, there might be players out there who could help the Sox more than Dunn. If they are going to sell off the farm, they might as well get Adrian Gonzalez, who will be available for the right price. The Sox have enough to get him. Lance Berkman will likely be made available this season, also.

Furthermore, how much do you think a Dunn would improve our team? I saw that you picked them to have a losing record. Do you think the Sox win 10 more games with him? If he doesn't turn them into a probable playoff team, why even bother?

jabrch
03-02-2010, 03:30 PM
If it keeps Andruw Jones out of our everyday lineup... Yes.

Respectfully, I don't pay much attention to your anti-Jones campaign as you are unwilling to see any possibilities that conflict with your vision - sorry.

The price we'd have to pay to get Dunn would require your justifcation to be much more than, "he's better than the guy we just paid 500K for". Because what you aren't taking into account is that if you are getting Jones out, you only need to remove another 9.5mm this year to stay salary neutral. Let's say we have 6mm to spend (Damon) now you need to cut 3.5mm

Our prospects always suck, let's trade them before they fail spectacularly on our team.

I trust management has a pretty good read on our prospects. Their trade history has shown that. But let's maximize return on prospects. If we are going to give up, for arguement's sake, Hudson and Jordan Danks, I'd want more back than a guy with such clear and exploitable flaws (he can't hit LHP and he doesn't hit much) just because he walks and hits HRs.

Nobody is saying Dunn isn't better than Jones/Kotsay. But that's not an apples to apples comparison at all.

DirtySox
03-02-2010, 03:31 PM
They are negotiating an extension with him right now. Would Washington even consider trading him? Not cheaply. When you look at what's in our system, I could easily see it costing two of the top 5....maybe 1 and then one of the top 10? Either way, the cost would almost surely include one of Hudson, Flowers or Mitchell + another prospect. Regardless - add in a 4 year 52mm deal...

They want to negotiate an extension with Dunn. Nothing has progressed past that. He will be trade fodder by the all-star break if he doesn't want to stay in Washington. I would be surprised if he costs more than one top prospect and a throw in. He's a half year rental.

asindc
03-02-2010, 03:34 PM
Someone on the radio the other day said, "I don't care much for batting average because it's a stat that says a single and a home run are equal", and it completely changed my mind about the stat. It truly is a very flawed stat and I am now an OPS guy (I used to be a BA and OBP guy).

And it wouldn't take 2 "top" prospects for this guy, would it? I highly doubt that.

If Dunn is as valuable as you say, why do you think it would take less than two top prospects to acquire him?

I don't believe you can use any single statistic, certainly not if you are talking about a guy you would bat in the middle of your order. No single stat can tell the picture. It's too complicated a game for one stat to tell all. Batting average has to be accounted for. Getting hits and stopping the opposition from getting hits is how you ultimately win baseball games.





They are negotiating an extension with him right now. Would Washington even consider trading him? Not cheaply. When you look at what's in our system, I could easily see it costing two of the top 5....maybe 1 and then one of the top 10? Either way, the cost would almost surely include one of Hudson, Flowers or Mitchell + another prospect. Regardless - add in a 4 year 52mm deal...

He doesn't hit LHP. He doesn't hit for average. He plays bad defense. There's got to be room for a discussion here that debates the merit of Adam Dunn's greatness. I'm not saying he sucks - I just wouldn't pay the price (prospects and cash) to have this guy in my lineup. For that sort of price, or more, I'd much rather go after a more complete player.

I agree with this.

jabrch
03-02-2010, 03:34 PM
They want to negotiate an extension with Dunn. Nothing has progressed past that. He will be trade fodder by the all-star break if he doesn't want to stay in Washington. I would be surprised if he costs more than one top prospect and a throw in. He's a half year rental.


Ok - so 1 plus a throw in - I don't think my point changes much. Will you pay that price to get this guy, and then pay him 4/52+ for a guy who hits 40 HRs, walks 110 times, can't catch, can't throw, doesn't get a lot of hits, and is easily marginalized in close and late situations by a decent LHP?

If management wanted that, there's no reason we wouldn't have given Thome the 2mm and kept him around.

DirtySox
03-02-2010, 03:39 PM
Ok - so 1 plus a throw in - I don't think my point changes much. Will you pay that price to get this guy, and then pay him 4/52+ for a guy who hits 40 HRs, walks 110 times, can't catch, can't throw, doesn't get a lot of hits, and is easily marginalized in close and late situations by a decent LHP?

If management wanted that, there's no reason we wouldn't have given Thome the 2mm and kept him around.

I would be perfectly fine with it. Dunn >>> Thome. Most anti Thome people are leery of the decline, his age, and injury concerns.

asindc
03-02-2010, 03:41 PM
They want to negotiate an extension with Dunn. Nothing has progressed past that. He will be trade fodder by the all-star break if he doesn't want to stay in Washington. I would be surprised if he costs more than one top prospect and a throw in. He's a half year rental.

There has been zero indication that Dunn might want to leave for anything other than more money. If he does not sign an extension that is one thing, but he did sign with the Nats as a FA before the beginning of last season, mainly because they overpaid him. If they want to overpay him again, there is a good chance that he will stay.

doublem23
03-02-2010, 03:43 PM
That is nonsense. Look at Beckham last year. Danks, Hudson and Flowers are looking good. Mitchell has lots of potential. While many of our past prospects have failed, there has been a shift in organizational philosopy. The Sox have done very well in the past two drafts, and we will see how that pans out. "Trade them before they suck" is a weak arguement anyway, but even if you want them to, there might be players out there who could help the Sox more than Dunn. If they are going to sell off the farm, they might as well get Adrian Gonzalez, who will be available for the right price. The Sox have enough to get him. Lance Berkman will likely be made available this season, also.

Furthermore, how much do you think a Dunn would improve our team? I saw that you picked them to have a losing record. Do you think the Sox win 10 more games with him? If he doesn't turn them into a probable playoff team, why even bother?

Beckham's borderline "our prospect" how many games did he even play in the Sox minor league system? The guy's just obviously tooled to play baseball and thankfully, Josh Fields was so terrible he forced the Sox's hand and got him the hell away from the morons that populate our minor league coaching ranks. Danks, Flowers, and Mitchell all look good, but then again, so did Rauch, Kip Wells, and Brian Anderson and they all panned out to be ****. And, for the record, none of those guys are really envied league-wide, they just look great in our depth chart because our system is so thin. Let's not make the mistake of thinking these guys are all 5-star, 80-across-the-board, can't miss dynamos.

Dunn is basically exactly what this team needs, a masher in the middle of the order. So yes, I'd be willing to part with just about any member of the Sox's minor league roster for him.

jabrch
03-02-2010, 03:48 PM
Dunn is basically exactly what this team needs, a masher in the middle of the order.

I'm not so sure of that...

He won't get you more than 150 hits, he hits 40 HRs and maybe 25 doubles. That's not a masher in my book.

He gets on base a lot - can't argue that. But a "masher"? Meh...

And you still need to account for about 4mm of cost that we'd need to eliminate somewhere assuming we were topped out at 6mm in the Damon negotiations,

doublem23
03-02-2010, 03:48 PM
Respectfully, I don't pay much attention to your anti-Jones campaign as you are unwilling to see any possibilities that conflict with your vision - sorry.

HILARIOUS coming from the guy who's spent the majority of this thread trying to make people believe in nonsense like guys who get on base aren't valuable or something or other.

doublem23
03-02-2010, 03:51 PM
I'm not so sure of that...

He won't get you more than 150 hits, he hits 40 HRs and maybe 25 doubles. That's not a masher in my book.

He gets on base a lot - can't argue that. But a "masher"? Meh...

And you still need to account for about 4mm of cost that we'd need to eliminate somewhere assuming we were topped out at 6mm in the Damon negotiations,

21st highest slugging percentage of all active players. THAT GUY CAN'T HIT FOR ****!!!!!!!!!

Hey, I'm not the GM, but if the Sox are really so hung up over $4 M that they're willing to let Jones take the PAs at DH over a guy who is, you know, good, then the Sox deserve the 3rd place finish they'll get.

DirtySox
03-02-2010, 03:52 PM
HILARIOUS coming from the guy who's spent the majority of this thread trying to make people believe in nonsense like guys who get on base aren't valuable or something or other.

Agreed. This anti-OBP campaign is getting tiresome.

I miss CG. This thread is built for him.

dickallen15
03-02-2010, 04:00 PM
I'm not so sure of that...

He won't get you more than 150 hits, he hits 40 HRs and maybe 25 doubles. That's not a masher in my book.

He gets on base a lot - can't argue that. But a "masher"? Meh...

And you still need to account for about 4mm of cost that we'd need to eliminate somewhere assuming we were topped out at 6mm in the Damon negotiations,

He has a career OPS over .900. I don't know how he couldn't be called a masher. I don't think he will ever be a White Sox, but he certainly is a masher.

doublem23
03-02-2010, 04:01 PM
He has a career OPS over .900. I don't know how he couldn't be called a masher. I don't think he will ever be a White Sox, but he certainly is a masher.

Don't worry, if the Sox pick up Dunn, jabrch will be singing his praises 'til the cows come home.

jabrch
03-02-2010, 04:03 PM
Don't worry, if the Sox pick up Dunn, jabrch will be singing his praises 'til the cows come home.


Yeah - cuz I was all over the Nick Swisher bandwagon... I didn't like him when we got him. And I then said I am more than willing to see if I could warm up to that type - but I never did. And when we let him go, I was not upset at all.

If we got Dunn, I'd hope for the best. I'd cheer for him - I'm not going to root against a Sox player. But that doesn't mean I wouldn't not like the move if we gave up 2 top prospect, paid him 4/52+ and not have the opportunity to use that money on more complete players when they are available.

jabrch
03-02-2010, 04:06 PM
HILARIOUS coming from the guy who's spent the majority of this thread trying to make people believe in nonsense like guys who get on base aren't valuable or something or other.

I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything - my opinion - which I am entitled to. Same as you are entitled to think we suck and are destined to a third place finish.

And I never said guys who get on base aren't valuable Dubs. Please don't mischaracterize my arguement. I don't do that to you. My point was he gets on base by a walk or a HR. He doesn't hit enough and he strikes out too much. That's not something I like in my middle of the order hitters. You are welcome to love that type of hitter dude. Go for it. But not my cup of tea.

TheVulture
03-02-2010, 04:29 PM
The problem with OBP based argument is the notion that a walk is as good as a hit. You don't see many runners score from second base on a walk. If a walk was as good as a hit there would be no such thing as an intentional walk.

Generally speaking, a walk is better than an out, but sometimes that's not even true. I'd rather have an outcome that results in a run scored even if the at bat results in an out. Of course, I'm a proponent of the bird in the hand theory.

On the other hand, a base hit is always better than an out. A runner on 2nd and 3rd situation will never score on a walk. So you walk Frank Thomas and Dan Pasqua hits into a DP, end of inning. A runner on 3rd situation will often score on an out. A runner on 3rd will virtually always score on a base hit and a lot of times the runner on 2nd will score as well.

So how can it be said a walk is as good as a hit? The only time that is true is when the bases are empty.

TheVulture
03-02-2010, 04:33 PM
That said it's hard to argue against a .400 OBP/40 HR player. I'd rather have both kinds of hitter. Give me the .315/.350 guy AND the .250/.400 guy

jabrch
03-02-2010, 04:48 PM
That said it's hard to argue against a .400 OBP/40 HR player. I'd rather have both kinds of hitter. Give me the .315/.350 guy AND the .250/.400 guy

The beauty of it is that we have more than just a singe stat or two to measure a player by. I agree that 40 HRs and .400 obp are both great numbers. So is a .315 avg. So is a .500 slg. Other good measures include defense and base running.

Happily, we have enough data that we can look at multiple items to formulate our opinions on players and we aren't lmited to just slash stats.

Craig Grebeck
03-02-2010, 04:48 PM
Pop quiz: how many seasons has Adam Dunn batted .230 or lower?

(one)

!

jabrch
03-02-2010, 04:50 PM
So how can it be said a walk is as good as a hit? The only time that is true is when the bases are empty.

And even then - the guy who gets on base via the hit will be more likely able to do it against a guy throwing strikes than a guy who does it moreso via the walk - who relies on pitchers not doing their job. In a big game, when it counts, against a great pitcher, do you want a guy who hits .250/.400 or a guy who hits .310/.360? I want the guy who has a better chance of getting a hit. The great pitcher is less likely to be issuing a walk in that situation.

Craig Grebeck
03-02-2010, 04:51 PM
My point being, quoting Adam Dunn as a .230 hitter is liking referring to Nick Swisher as a .219 hitter or Mark Kotsay as a .750 OPS guy.

Listen, is Adam Dunn perfect? No. Are there many better players than him? Yes. Will he cost a ton at the deadline? No. I would imagine it would take something like Carlos Torres, Treybone, and maybe Nathan ones. Would I do that? Hell yes. Adam Dunn solves our problems for this season.

Question for Jabrch: why isn't it valid to compare Jonesay to Dunn?

Edit: and your assertion that a walk is a pitcher failing is certainly no more valid than mine that it is a hitter succeeding. Avoiding outs = success.

Daver
03-02-2010, 05:19 PM
Edit: and your assertion that a walk is a pitcher failing is certainly no more valid than mine that it is a hitter succeeding. Avoiding outs = success.

Both of them are pretty lame and a wasted argument considering neither the batter or the pitcher has any control over the strike zone.

kittle42
03-02-2010, 05:28 PM
Both of them are pretty lame and a wasted argument considering neither the batter or the pitcher has any control over the strike zone.

So walks are only attributable, positively or negatively to....umpires???

Craig Grebeck
03-02-2010, 05:28 PM
Both of them are pretty lame and a wasted argument considering neither the batter or the pitcher has any control over the strike zone.
That is certainly true. I think degrading a batter's ability to reach base just isn't valid. Most people don't look at OBP in a vacuum, myself included.

Craig Grebeck
03-02-2010, 05:29 PM
So walks are only attributable, positively or negatively to....umpires???
I thought Daver was saying the umpire's effect isn't borne out in the statistics...but I'll let him clarify.

For the record, hitters certainly control their fate at the plate more than jabrch has asserted in this thread.

TheVulture
03-02-2010, 05:48 PM
In a big game, when it counts, against a great pitcher, do you want a guy who hits .250/.400 or a guy who hits .310/.360?

I'd rather have the .310 hitter.

kittle42
03-02-2010, 05:51 PM
I'd rather have the .310 hitter.

Problem is a huge percentage of 162 games are not "big games" "when it counts" "against a great pitcher."

Over 162 games, I'll take the .400 line.

jabrch
03-02-2010, 05:52 PM
Both of them are pretty lame and a wasted argument considering neither the batter or the pitcher has any control over the strike zone.


But if a pitcher succeeds in throwing strikes, a hitter will walk how often? The ball is in the pitcher's hands. How does he not have primary control? Sure - there is a lot of stuff that can go on once he throws it - but a good pitcher can throw strikes and severely limit the number of walks he yields. A good hitter has no way to walk unless the good pitcher fails at his job.

I'm not sure what you mean Daver - a pitcher controls if he throws a ball over the plate or not. A hitter controls what he chooses to swing at. An umpire only usually can blur a few plays a game that are shades of grey.

TheVulture
03-02-2010, 05:54 PM
Avoiding outs = success.

Except in the case where you need a run, and that out results in a run scoring and a walk doesn't. One out, man on third, tied game, bottom of the ninth, the walk actually hurts you whereas an out could result in a win.

Craig Grebeck
03-02-2010, 05:54 PM
I'd rather have the .310 hitter.
If we're criticizing people for evaluating a DH solely for his ability to get on base, we shouldn't just label players .250/.400 or .310/.360. That's 2/3 of what is a woefully incomplete form of evaluation -- slash stats. I cite them all the time, but if we're talking about "taking" one player over the other, being so black and white while simultaneously vague won't serve you well.

Craig Grebeck
03-02-2010, 05:54 PM
Except in the case where you need a run, and that out results in a run scoring and a walk doesn't. One out, man on third, tied game, bottom of the ninth, the walk actually hurts you whereas an out could result in a win.
How does a walk hurt you? You are extending the inning. I'm not advocating for a player to walk up there and not take the bat off his shoulder -- duh. I'm saying that I want guys who have a good understanding of the strike zone.

Craig Grebeck
03-02-2010, 05:55 PM
But if a pitcher succeeds in throwing strikes, a hitter will walk how often? The ball is in the pitcher's hands. How does he not have primary control? Sure - there is a lot of stuff that can go on once he throws it - but a good pitcher can throw strikes and severely limit the number of walks he yields. A good hitter has no way to walk unless the good pitcher fails at his job.

I'm not sure what you mean Daver - a pitcher controls if he throws a ball over the plate or not. A hitter controls what he chooses to swing at. An umpire only usually can blur a few plays a game that are shades of grey.
I debunked the hell out of this some years back by showing that, in the playoffs, walks are AS prevalent (if not more plentiful) as in the regular season. I'll dig that up.

jabrch
03-02-2010, 05:55 PM
I'd rather have the .310 hitter.

Problem is a huge percentage of 162 games are not "big games" "when it counts" "against a great pitcher."

Over 162 games, I'll take the .400 line.


I agree with TheVulture. But I am not saying that Kittle is wrong. It's a matter of preference and opinion. As with most discussions - there is no black and white here. Just a million shades of gray. I just don't feel that Dunn would be worth his cost of prospects to trade and then cash to extend - that's 100% opinion with no right/wrong....

guillen4life13
03-02-2010, 06:02 PM
I know this doesn't necessarily take everything into account, but would a stat calculation as follows be more indicative and inclusive of a player's abilities than BA, OBP, OPS, etc (without taking parks and such into effect as OPS+ does):

[0.75*(BB+SB+HBP+SACN)+1*(1B-CS+SACRBI)+2*(2B)+3*(3B)+4*(HR)]/[PA]

SACN represents sacrifice plays that do not result in a RBI.
SACRBI represents sacrifice RBI.

I used 0.6 as an arbitrary constant to say that a walk, HBP, or stolen base is worth 75% of a 1B since its very rare for either to result in someone else scoring. A caught-stealing is worth a single since it eliminates any possibility of the runner scoring, thus negating the single.

This just seems like it would give a clearer idea of a player's offensive history.

guillen4life13
03-02-2010, 06:03 PM
I agree with TheVulture. But I am not saying that Kittle is wrong. It's a matter of preference and opinion. As with most discussions - there is no black and white here. Just a million shades of gray. I just don't feel that Dunn would be worth his cost of prospects to trade and then cash to extend - that's 100% opinion with no right/wrong....

By midseason, I'd be very surprised if Dunn wouldn't be available for a song because the Nats will likely be out of it and will approach it as a salary dump more than anything. No top prospects will be moved for a player rental like this. The money itself will be the biggest factor in the deal.

jabrch
03-02-2010, 06:13 PM
I know this doesn't necessarily take everything into account, but would a stat calculation as follows be more indicative and inclusive of a player's abilities than BA, OBP, OPS, etc (without taking parks and such into effect as OPS+ does):

[0.75*(BB+SB+HBP+SACN)+1*(1B-CS+SACRBI)+2*(2B)+3*(3B)+4*(HR)]/[PA]

SACN represents sacrifice plays that do not result in a RBI.
SACRBI represents sacrifice RBI.

I used 0.6 as an arbitrary constant to say that a walk, HBP, or stolen base is worth 75% of a 1B since its very rare for either to result in someone else scoring. A caught-stealing is worth a single since it eliminates any possibility of the runner scoring, thus negating the single.

This just seems like it would give a clearer idea of a player's offensive history.

A hooby do scobando bi bopularitic.

By midseason, I'd be very surprised if Dunn wouldn't be available for a song because the Nats will likely be out of it and will approach it as a salary dump more than anything. No top prospects will be moved for a player rental like this. The money itself will be the biggest factor in the deal.

If that's the case, then fine. I'd be more than happy to have him for the second half, at no cost other than his salary - and thus with no need to extend him since you aren't giving up anything relevant to get him. I don't see that happening - but if you are right, then my feelings on his relative value to his cost (since his cost would go down to about 0) would be different.

asindc
03-02-2010, 06:21 PM
By midseason, I'd be very surprised if Dunn wouldn't be available for a song because the Nats will likely be out of it and will approach it as a salary dump more than anything. No top prospects will be moved for a player rental like this. The money itself will be the biggest factor in the deal.

The problem with thinking about Dunn just like any other valuable player on an also-ran team is that the Nats trumpeted his signing as an indication that they are not just going to throw seasons away while they try to build a contender. If there is a market of at least 3 teams for his services near the trade deadline, it will take more than a song.

Thatguyoverthere
03-02-2010, 06:29 PM
I disagree with the notion that a BB is always less preferable than a hit. There are some situations where I'd take a walk over a single. For example, there's a reason Hawk calls it the "dreaded lead-off walk" and we never hear the "dreaded lead-off single". Working the count makes the pitcher throw more pitches, and I'd argue that a walk could get into a pitcher's head more than a single would.

Situation A: Pitcher throws one pitch, gives up lead-off basehit.

Situation B: Pitcher throws eight pitches, gives up lead-off walk.

Which situation is going to make the pitcher more rattled? Now, let's change Situation A so that the pitcher throws eight pitches and then gives up the single. I'd still argue that the walk will rattle him more, as I think it would be more deflating, especially if the pitcher ends up throwing a pitch just off the corner for ball four, than if the hitter simply made good contact.

Daver
03-02-2010, 06:44 PM
But if a pitcher succeeds in throwing strikes, a hitter will walk how often? The ball is in the pitcher's hands. How does he not have primary control? Sure - there is a lot of stuff that can go on once he throws it - but a good pitcher can throw strikes and severely limit the number of walks he yields. A good hitter has no way to walk unless the good pitcher fails at his job.

I'm not sure what you mean Daver - a pitcher controls if he throws a ball over the plate or not. A hitter controls what he chooses to swing at. An umpire only usually can blur a few plays a game that are shades of grey.

How many of the strikes Greg Maddux threw were strikes for any other pitcher? The strike zone is completely arbitrary to the person calling it, and can be used against both hitters and pitchers at any given point, you can't break down a purely human decision into a workable stat.

munchman33
03-02-2010, 07:01 PM
In a big game, when it counts, against a great pitcher, do you want a guy who hits .250/.400 or a guy who hits .310/.360?



I can't tell, which of those guys is Andruw Jones?

doublem23
03-02-2010, 07:53 PM
I can't tell, which of those guys is Andruw Jones?

:rolling:

doublem23
03-02-2010, 07:56 PM
Except in the case where you need a run, and that out results in a run scoring and a walk doesn't. One out, man on third, tied game, bottom of the ninth, the walk actually hurts you whereas an out could result in a win.

OK you bring that point up time and time and time again, but what about the other say, 595 plate appearances in a season in which it's not the 9th inning, and the Sox aren't down by 1 run, and there aren't runners at 2nd and 3rd?

jabrch
03-02-2010, 07:58 PM
How many of the strikes Greg Maddux threw were strikes for any other pitcher? The strike zone is completely arbitrary to the person calling it, and can be used against both hitters and pitchers at any given point, you can't break down a purely human decision into a workable stat.

If you have read any of my postings over the years, you would know that I agree with this statement.

But the strike zone still is the strike zone - and an umpire still is usually consistent inside of a single game. The strike zone usually doesn't jump around during a game. Some umps do suck - but that's the exception - not the rule. In general, a great pitcher will be able to find the strikezone when he really wants to - now that may equate to "grooving it" and then be something great pitchers try to avoid - they pitch to the corners - not to contact.

Daver
03-02-2010, 08:10 PM
But the strike zone still is the strike zone - and an umpire still is usually consistent inside of a single game. The strike zone usually doesn't jump around during a game. Some umps do suck - but that's the exception - not the rule. In general, a great pitcher will be able to find the strikezone when he really wants to - now that may equate to "grooving it" and then be something great pitchers try to avoid - they pitch to the corners - not to contact.

How many pitchers get the treatment Maddux has gotten over his career? He threw more non strikes for strikes than any other pitcher I can remember, Randy Johnson got the nod in that direction quite a bit himself, the strike zone is not the strike zone, it never has been and it never will be, that is the advantage great pitchers get, great hitters like Frank Thomas also get this advantage, the ump will call it a ball on a close pitch that does not get swung at,whether it was in the zone or not.

A batter that can extend an at bat and draw a walk is an advantage to his team, not merely by getting on base, but by forcing the pitcher to throw more pitches. Fifty years ago this would have no value, but in the wimp league of today it does have a valid intrinsic value.

TheVulture
03-02-2010, 08:22 PM
If we're criticizing people for evaluating a DH solely for his ability to get on base, we shouldn't just label players .250/.400 or .310/.360. That's 2/3 of what is a woefully incomplete form of evaluation -- slash stats. I cite them all the time, but if we're talking about "taking" one player over the other, being so black and white while simultaneously vague won't serve you well.

I wasn't criticizing or discussing the anyone's evaluation of the DH situation. I was talking about the scenerio presented by jabrch that I quoted in my post. If I need a basehit, I'd rather have the guy who gets the most base hits. If I just need a baserunner moved, I'd go with guy who puts the ball in play with the most control. If I need a three run homerun, I'd go with the .240/40HR guy. If the bases are empty, I'll go with the guy that gets on base the most. Of course, you'd have to factor in matchups and situation.

Besides, I seem to recall at least a hundred of your posts in defense of your player evaluation based on black and white slash stats, so I'm not so sure your second statement is accurate.

TheVulture
03-02-2010, 08:29 PM
OK you bring that point up time and time and time again, but what about the other say, 595 plate appearances in a season in which it's not the 9th inning, and the Sox aren't down by 1 run, and there aren't runners at 2nd and 3rd?

My argument as I presented it is that a hit is always better than a walk when there are runners on base and that even on occasion an out is better than a walk.

So my statement was that, based on that assumption, you can't draw the conclusion "not making at out=success" as was asserted by another poster in this thread. Some would even consider moving a runner into scoring position while making an out a success, though I'm sure the usual suspects will argue that point.

TheVulture
03-02-2010, 08:37 PM
How does a walk hurt you? You are extending the inning. I'm not advocating for a player to walk up there and not take the bat off his shoulder -- duh. I'm saying that I want guys who have a good understanding of the strike zone.

If scoring a run wins you the game, and a runner is already on 3rd base the second runner has no value. Making an out that scores the winning run ends the game. So drawing a walk instead of putting the ball in play in order to score the run is a detriment. With one out, you have two chances to put the ball in play to score the run(obviously the second chance for a ball in play would need to result in a hit.) If a batter draws a walk, it raises the possibility of reducing your chances to one. That's why the intentional walk is in existence.

jabrch
03-02-2010, 08:43 PM
How many pitchers get the treatment Maddux has gotten over his career? He threw more non strikes for strikes than any other pitcher I can remember,{

Very few - if any - so he's the exception not the rule. What's the point? He got that credibility by throwing strikes. Same as Frank had from taking balls - but again - that's the exception, not the rule.

Randy Johnson got the nod in that direction quite a bit himself, the strike zone is not the strike zone, it never has been and it never will be, that is the advantage great pitchers get, great hitters like Frank Thomas also get this advantage, the ump will call it a ball on a close pitch that does not get swung at,whether it was in the zone or not.

Maybe I am just slow - but I don't get your point.

A batter that can extend an at bat and draw a walk is an advantage to his team, not merely by getting on base, but by forcing the pitcher to throw more pitches. Fifty years ago this would have no value, but in the wimp league of today it does have a valid intrinsic value.

That's fine - I understand the difference between 5 pitches thrown and 8 pitches - but over the course of a game/season, I still want guys who hit the ball vs guys who wait for a pitcher (or an umpire) to call ball four. The walk is a great bonus if the pitcher can't get strike 3, but it isn't a replacement for hitting the ball where people are not standing.

And while some pitchers or hitters do get the benefit of the doubt, I don't think the umpires in general are bad. (Despite what Hawk seems to think)

TheVulture
03-02-2010, 08:52 PM
OK you bring that point up time and time and time again, but what about the other say, 595 plate appearances in a season in which it's not the 9th inning, and the Sox aren't down by 1 run, and there aren't runners at 2nd and 3rd?

I guess I didn't really answer your question exactly. First, the scenerio I presented is the most pivotal at bat a player can have in the game, so I'd argue it has some relevance even if it only happens in a few cases. However, it is also the extreme situation of my overall statement that a hit is better than a walk any time a runner is on base. In my opinion, scoring the run is the ultimate goal. Hitting with men on base, or at least moving runners while making an out, is what gets the job done. Granted, you have to have some one on base to begin with. But you can get three men on base in a single inning and not score while you can also get a single batter on base and score. Who had the better inning?

The high BA/low OBP low K player is going to get the job of advancing runners more often that the low BA/high OBO high K player, all else being equal.

Daver
03-02-2010, 09:02 PM
Very few - if any - so he's the exception not the rule. What's the point? He got that credibility by throwing strikes. Same as Frank had from taking balls - but again - that's the exception, not the rule.



Maybe I am just slow - but I don't get your point.



That's fine - I understand the difference between 5 pitches thrown and 8 pitches - but over the course of a game/season, I still want guys who hit the ball vs guys who wait for a pitcher (or an umpire) to call ball four. The walk is a great bonus if the pitcher can't get strike 3, but it isn't a replacement for hitting the ball where people are not standing.

And while some pitchers or hitters do get the benefit of the doubt, I don't think the umpires in general are bad. (Despite what Hawk seems to think)

Well we also threw some doubt onto the validity of OBP as it stands as well as OPS, but I personally don't pay attention to either of them so I really don't give a rats ass.

jabrch
03-02-2010, 09:41 PM
Well we also threw some doubt onto the validity of OBP as it stands as well as OPS, but I personally don't pay attention to either of them so I really don't give a rats ass.

LOL....Any single statistic tells you nearly nothing. I hardly trust any of them in isolation. That's why I think OBP amd OPS only tell you a small piece of the story, in particular in the case of a guy like Dunn where his splits vs LHP, his D, his lack of hits, and his Ks partionally marginalize his OBP and OPS.

Craig Grebeck
03-02-2010, 09:53 PM
LOL....Any single statistic tells you nearly nothing. I hardly trust any of them in isolation. That's why I think OBP amd OPS only tell you a small piece of the story, in particular in the case of a guy like Dunn where his splits vs LHP, his D, his lack of hits, and his Ks partionally marginalize his OBP and OPS.
Which is precisely why you weigh certain skills to effectively convey their importance. I care about a player's ability to control the strike zone a hell of a lot more than his defensive value when he'd be called upon to be a designated hitter.

TheVulture
03-02-2010, 10:02 PM
I care about a player's ability to control the strike zone a hell of a lot more than his defensive value when he'd be called upon to be a designated hitter.

But if a guy strikes out 195 times in a season, is he really controlling the strike zone? Or is he just letting teams pitch around him so someone else has to get the job done?

doublem23
03-02-2010, 10:05 PM
The high BA/low OBP low K player is going to get the job of advancing runners more often that the low BA/high OBO high K player, all else being equal.

Uh, no?

A low OBP player is also more likely to make an out and do nothing than a high OBP guy. You seem to present these scenarios only with outcomes that support your position, how about the fact that the guy that gets on base more often is just more likely to get on base and keep an inning going?

Craig Grebeck
03-02-2010, 10:49 PM
But if a guy strikes out 195 times in a season, is he really controlling the strike zone? Or is he just letting teams pitch around him so someone else has to get the job done?
When you phrase it like that, it's almost as though you're calling his manhood into question.

TheVulture
03-02-2010, 11:10 PM
Uh, no?

A low OBP player is also more likely to make an out and do nothing than a high OBP guy. You seem to present these scenarios only with outcomes that support your position, how about the fact that the guy that gets on base more often is just more likely to get on base and keep an inning going?

I seem to present scenarios that only support my position? My position is that players that put the ball in play and get base hits are going to advance more runners than batters that strikeout a lot and don't get a lot of base hits but reach base at a high rate, of course all the scenarios I use are going to be where a batter is batting with runners on base.

Doing nothing is striking out. When you put the ball in play you can advance a runner. If you get a hit you can advance runners multiple bases and actually score. You can score a runner from 1st base - you can even score yourself. With a walk, you cannot advance a runner multiple bases and you cannot score a runner unless the bases are loaded. If you strikeout 33% of the time and fail to get a basehit 76% of the times you don't walk, you're not going to be very good at advancing runners.

Let's look at two extremes in this example - Juan Pierre - high BA/low OBP and very low k rates - and Adam Dunn - low BA/high OBP and very high K rates.

Last year Pierre batted with runners on base 168 times and struck out 11 times and drew 13 walks. 157 out of 168 times, Pierre either reached base or put the ball in play and made an out. Five of his walks came without a runner on 1st. So between the walks without runners on 1st and times he struck out, we know he could not have advanced a runner in 16 out of 168 PA.

Dunn batted with runners on base 348 times and struck out 94 times while drawing 70 walks. 36 of those walks came without a runner on 1st base, so we know he could not have advanced a runner in 130 out of 348 PA.

Already we know Dunn could not have advanced a runner in 37.3% of the times he batted with a runner on base compared to 9.5% for Pierre. The other 62.7% of the PA for Dunn and 90.5% for Pierre would be the times each either got a base hit or made an out after putting the ball in play. Can you honestly argue that in those PA a .250 hitter like Dunn would be able to make up the difference in the amount of advanced runners from the extra 27.8% times a .300 hitter like Pierre could have advanced runners?

Granted, Dunn hits a lot more for extra bases than Pierre, thus advancing runners further when he does advance them, but if you'll recall in my previous arguments I said "all else being equal."

TheVulture
03-02-2010, 11:11 PM
When you phrase it like that, it's almost as though you're calling his manhood into question.
:D:

Well, I did say I'd take both players!

TheVulture
03-02-2010, 11:28 PM
Sorry, let me amend a couple items:



Doing nothing is striking out.

I should've said 'doing nothing is making an out while failing to advance a runner.' Of course, striking out is the prime example of 'doing nothing'.


Dunn batted with runners on base 348 times and struck out 94 times while drawing 70 walks. 36 of those walks came without a runner on 1st base, so we know he could not have advanced a runner in 130 out of 348 PA.

Already we know Dunn could not have advanced a runner in 37.3% of the times he batted with a runner on base compared to 9.5% for Pierre. The other 62.7% of the PA for Dunn and 90.5% for Pierre would be the times each either got a base hit or made an out after putting the ball in play. Can you honestly argue that in those PA a .250 hitter like Dunn would be able to make up the difference in the amount of advanced runners from the extra 27.8% times a .300 hitter like Pierre could have advanced runners?

I forgot to include the walks that did advance runners. Out of 348 PA with runners on base, we know Dunn walked 34 times that advanced a runner. Pierre eight out of 168. So we know runners were advanced no more than one base in 9.8% of Dunn's PA, 4.8% for Pierre.

37.3% of the time we know runners did not advance, 9.8% we know did for Dunn.
9.5% we know did not, 4.8% we know did for Pierre.

I will assume a high BA low K rate player has much better bat control than a low BA high K rate player. Is it likely for .250 hitter with little bat control to make up the difference on a .300 player in this case?

Ranger
03-02-2010, 11:41 PM
If scoring a run wins you the game, and a runner is already on 3rd base the second runner has no value. Making an out that scores the winning run ends the game. So drawing a walk instead of putting the ball in play in order to score the run is a detriment. With one out, you have two chances to put the ball in play to score the run(obviously the second chance for a ball in play would need to result in a hit.) If a batter draws a walk, it raises the possibility of reducing your chances to one. That's why the intentional walk is in existence.


I will agree that sometimes a high OBP/low AVG guy can be frustrating because you want that big hit. But really, were we frustrated by Nick Swisher until he stopped getting on base? Early in the '08 season, I think we were pretty pleased with how many walks he was drawing and how many innings he kept going by getting on base.

Of course, it's always beter to get a hit, but this example you've given is the ONLY reason to ever not want a walk. However, focusing on the at-bat itself, it is really never a bad thing to take a walk. Sure, you could retroactively examine a walk (after an inning-ending DP) and conclude that the walk hurt the team, but is that really fair to the hitter that drew the walk? I don't think it is.

My original point here was that a high OBP guy is not a bad thing ever, even if he gets on base without getting hits. BUT, it is better to have a guy that gets hits, which is why you cannot dismiss batting average altogether (guys hit for average likely drive in runs and likely advance runners at a better rate). Neither statistic is more important, they each have value.

kittle42
03-02-2010, 11:46 PM
Let's look at two extremes in this example - Juan Pierre - high BA/low OBP and very low k rates - and Adam Dunn - low BA/high OBP and very high K rates.

You managed to construct an argument in which Juan Pierre is either equal to or better than Adam Dunn as a run producer.

Unbelievable. No, really, it is not believable.

TheVulture
03-02-2010, 11:49 PM
Sorry, let me amend a couple items:



Doing nothing is striking out.

I should've said 'doing nothing is making an out while failing to advance a runner.'


Dunn batted with runners on base 348 times and struck out 94 times while drawing 70 walks. 36 of those walks came without a runner on 1st base, so we know he could not have advanced a runner in 130 out of 348 PA.

Already we know Dunn could not have advanced a runner in 37.3% of the times he batted with a runner on base compared to 9.5% for Pierre. The other 62.7% of the PA for Dunn and 90.5% for Pierre would be the times each either got a base hit or made an out after putting the ball in play. Can you honestly argue that in those PA a .250 hitter like Dunn would be able to make up the difference in the amount of advanced runners from the extra 27.8% times a .300 hitter like Pierre could have advanced runners?

I forgot to include the walks that did advance runners. Out of 348 PA with runners on base, we know Dunn walked 34 times that advanced a runner. Pierre eight out of 168. So we know runners were advanced no more than one base in 9.8% of Dunn's PA, 4.8% for Pierre.

37.3% of the time we know runners did not advance, 9.8% we know did for Dunn.
9.5% we know did not, 4.8% we know did for Pierre.

So you are left with balls put in play. Pierre BABIP with runners on=.323, Dunn = .337. Dunn's being much higher than his overall BA due to his insanely high K rate. Dunn advanced runners by putting a ball in play in 74 of 348 PA, Pierre 43 of 168 PA.

So we know Dunn advanced runners in 20.1% of his PA with runners on via basehit. Pierre, 25.6%.

Therefore Dunn absolutely did not advance a runner 37.3%, absolutely did advance a runner 29.9% and perhaps did or did not the other 35.8%

Pierre did not advance a runner 9.5%, did advance a runner 30.4% of the time and perhaps did the other 60.1%.

I think it is pretty clear who advanced runners more often.

TheVulture
03-03-2010, 12:12 AM
You managed to construct an argument in which Juan Pierre is either equal to or better than Adam Dunn as a run producer.

Unbelievable. No, really, it is not believable.

My analysis does not take into account extra base hits. However, my original argument was "all else being equal." All else being everything other than BA/OBP/K rates. I used this example to explain why, everything else being equal, I'd rather have a high BA/low OBP/low k rate at the plate with runners on base and to defend my assertion that a .300/.350 low k rate hitter will advance runners more often than a .250/.400 high k rate hitter.

I stand by my assertion that Pierre, based on last years performance, advanced runners more often than Dunn. Of course, he didn't advance himself to home plate at quite the rate as Dunn. Dunn is a threat regardless if there are runners on base.

asindc
03-03-2010, 10:01 AM
In an article on the front page of the sports section in the Washington Post today, the headline reads "Intent on staying in Washington, Dunn focuses on playing the field." In the article, Dunn is quoted as being adament about not wanting to DH. "I won't do it full time. You can write that out right now."*





*I would link to the web version of the article, but you have to be a subscriber to the Post to access it. I am, but I think the Post would rather I dropped a couple of quotes from the article in my post rather than link to it. Mods, if you prefer I remove the quotes, I will.

Craig Grebeck
03-03-2010, 10:04 AM
In an article on the front page of the sports section in the Washington Post today, the headline reads "Intent on staying in Washington, Dunn focuses on playing the field." In the article, Dunn is quoted as being adament about not wanting to DH. "I won't do it full time. You can write that out right now."*





*I would link to the web version of the article, but you have to be a subscriber to the Post to access it. I am, but I think the Post would rather I dropped a couple of quotes from the article in my post rather than link to it. Mods, if you prefer I remove the quotes, I will.
Come the winter meetings, he'll change his tune when he sees the offers from AL clubs.

jabrch
03-03-2010, 01:08 PM
In an article on the front page of the sports section in the Washington Post today, the headline reads "Intent on staying in Washington, Dunn focuses on playing the field." In the article, Dunn is quoted as being adament about not wanting to DH. "I won't do it full time. You can write that out right now

He wants to stay in Wash. They want him. I'd be surprised if something doesn't get worked out before he hits FA.

#1swisher
03-03-2010, 01:32 PM
In an article on the front page of the sports section in the Washington Post today, the headline reads "Intent on staying in Washington, Dunn focuses on playing the field." In the article, Dunn is quoted as being adament about not wanting to DH. "I won't do it full time. You can write that out right now."*





*I would link to the web version of the article, but you have to be a subscriber to the Post to access it. I am, but I think the Post would rather I dropped a couple of quotes from the article in my post rather than link to it. Mods, if you prefer I remove the quotes, I will.

Here it is. He's in his second year of, two-year/$20 million.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/02/AR2010030203817.html

doublem23
03-03-2010, 01:35 PM
Come the winter meetings, he'll change his tune when he sees the offers from AL clubs.

For sure. Plus, what do you expect this guy to say to his team's hometown paper? I ****ing hate Washington and would be on the first plane out of here? I'm sure that would play well in the District.

PalehosePlanet
03-03-2010, 02:06 PM
I find it hilarious that possibly the worst fielder in the history of Major League baseball is not hip to Dh'ing.

If he wants to play a position he'd have to stay in Washington.

I'm not even exaggerating, the only player that was even close to Dunn-bad in all the years I've watched baseball was Chili Davis.

asindc
03-03-2010, 02:21 PM
For sure. Plus, what do you expect this guy to say to his team's hometown paper? I ****ing hate Washington and would be on the first plane out of here? I'm sure that would play well in the District.

I quoted it more for the fact that he is not willing to DH than for his possible extension with the Nats.

jabrch
03-03-2010, 03:21 PM
I find it hilarious that possibly the worst fielder in the history of Major League baseball is not hip to Dh'ing.

If he wants to play a position he'd have to stay in Washington.

I'm not even exaggerating, the only player that was even close to Dunn-bad in all the years I've watched baseball was Chili Davis.


Some players are very stubborn. Dunn seems that way. The high Ks, low avg... He doesn't seem to show much improvement - and likely doesn't care to. He's probably OK with 40 HRs and 100 walks and he doesn't mind sucking vs LHP, sucking with a glove and not being a great hitter when pitchers throw strikes. That's ok - there's room for a guy like him on many teams. And SOMEONE will pay him big bucks.

Taliesinrk
03-03-2010, 03:50 PM
I find it hilarious that possibly the worst fielder in the history of Major League baseball is not hip to Dh'ing.

If he wants to play a position he'd have to stay in Washington.

I'm not even exaggerating, the only player that was even close to Dunn-bad in all the years I've watched baseball was Chili Davis.

:dye:

"I resent that."

jabrch
03-03-2010, 03:55 PM
:dye:

"I resent that."


Not even close...

Nellie_Fox
03-03-2010, 04:08 PM
:dye:

"I resent that."

WAYYYY over the top.

doublem23
03-03-2010, 04:27 PM
Not even close...

Seriously, he wasn't even the worst defensive OF on the Sox last year.

DaveFeelsRight
03-03-2010, 04:33 PM
:dye:

"I resent that."
better answer:

http://janeheller.mlblogs.com/betemit.sox.jpg

DirtySox
03-03-2010, 04:39 PM
Some players are very stubborn. Dunn seems that way. The high Ks, low avg... He doesn't seem to show much improvement - and likely doesn't care to. He's probably OK with 40 HRs and 100 walks and he doesn't mind sucking vs LHP, sucking with a glove and not being a great hitter when pitchers throw strikes. That's ok - there's room for a guy like him on many teams. And SOMEONE will pay him big bucks.

Cool assumptions bro.

doublem23
03-03-2010, 04:45 PM
Some players are very stubborn. Dunn seems that way. The high Ks, low avg... He doesn't seem to show much improvement - and likely doesn't care to. He's probably OK with 40 HRs and 100 walks and he doesn't mind sucking vs LHP, sucking with a glove and not being a great hitter when pitchers throw strikes. That's ok - there's room for a guy like him on many teams. And SOMEONE will pay him big bucks.

That definitely explains why his BA last year was the highest of his career. No improvement whatsoever.

This is a guy with the 20th best OBP and 21st best SLG amongst all active MLB players. There's room for him on any team.

jabrch
03-03-2010, 04:55 PM
There's room for him on any team.

True - for sure...but at what price?

mzh
03-03-2010, 04:56 PM
True - for sure...but at what price?
The Nats have expressed interest in bringing him back, so it might take a hefty load. I would rather put that effort towards A-Gon or Prince.

jabrch
03-03-2010, 05:04 PM
The Nats have expressed interest in bringing him back, so it might take a hefty load. I would rather put that effort towards A-Gon or Prince.

Or for less money Derek Lee, Lance Berkman or Carl Crawford...

Lots of options

Taliesinrk
03-03-2010, 05:13 PM
Not even close...

WAYYYY over the top.

Seriously, he wasn't even the worst defensive OF on the Sox last year.


I was trying to figure out how to properly use teal there. What I wanted was J.D.'s picture to be teal, with the words being normal font color. I was trying to point out how ridiculous the posts have been that I've seen here lately acting as though/saying that J.D. is the worst defensive OF in MLB...

munchman33
03-04-2010, 05:53 PM
Or for less money Derek Lee, Lance Berkman or Carl Crawford...

Lots of options

You are kidding yourself. Crawford will certainly cost more next year, and so will Lee if he puts up last year's numbers. Berkman will make less unless he rebounds from a horrid 2009. If he doesn't (and he probably won't), he's not close to the player Dunn is.

Craig Grebeck
03-04-2010, 05:56 PM
You are kidding yourself. Crawford will certainly cost more next year, and so will Lee if he puts up last year's numbers. Berkman will make less unless he rebounds from a horrid 2009. If he doesn't (and he probably won't), he's not close to the player Dunn is.
Berkman's 2009: .274/.399/.509

Horrid?

munchman33
03-04-2010, 05:59 PM
True - for sure...but at what price?

Any. He's one of the top 20 or so bats in baseball and no where near the base clogger you imagine him to be. Adam Dunn can run better than more than half of our squad last year. He's the prototypical number three hitter. High OBP, good power, and decent speed/baserunning abilities. Talking about him like he's not a great player or a player that shouldn't cost a lot is pretty laughable. After Adrian Gonzalez, he's the next best player in baseball available to clubs. Even if we didn't have a hole at DH/left hand power bat/3rd in lineup, this is a trade you make if you can. We have that hole. Kenny will pick him up if he's available before the deadline. Bank on it.

asindc
03-04-2010, 06:42 PM
Any. He's one of the top 20 or so bats in baseball and no where near the base clogger you imagine him to be. Adam Dunn can run better than more than half of our squad last year. He's the prototypical number three hitter. High OBP, good power, and decent speed/baserunning abilities. Talking about him like he's not a great player or a player that shouldn't cost a lot is pretty laughable. After Adrian Gonzalez, he's the next best player in baseball available to clubs. Even if we didn't have a hole at DH/left hand power bat/3rd in lineup, this is a trade you make if you can. We have that hole. Kenny will pick him up if he's available before the deadline. Bank on it.

I generally agree that Dunn is an above-average player, but I think of him more as a cleanup or # 5 rather than # 3. He strikes out too much to be a number 3 for my taste.

thedudeabides
03-04-2010, 06:50 PM
You are kidding yourself. Crawford will certainly cost more next year, and so will Lee if he puts up last year's numbers. Berkman will make less unless he rebounds from a horrid 2009. If he doesn't (and he probably won't), he's not close to the player Dunn is.

Lance Berkman does everything better than Adam Dunn on a baseball field, with the exception of homeruns.

Horrid year? You may want to familiarize yourself a little better with Berkman.

Also, have you evr seen Dunn play? He is a bad baserunner. Bad.

Not to mention one of the worst fielders in all of baseball.

Craig Grebeck
03-04-2010, 07:21 PM
Lance Berkman does everything better than Adam Dunn on a baseball field, with the exception of homeruns.

Horrid year? You may want to familiarize yourself a little better with Berkman.

Also, have you evr seen Dunn play? He is a bad baserunner. Bad.

Not to mention one of the worst fielders in all of baseball.
A few things:

1. I agree about Berkman. I think, perhaps, Munch could be referring to his general all-around decline last season. Still, I'd say continues a downward trend rather than labeling it as horrid.
2. Why do you slam his baserunning?
3. Probably the worst outfielder in baseball. Dye's a close second.

Taliesinrk
03-04-2010, 07:24 PM
A few things:

1. I agree about Berkman. I think, perhaps, Munch could be referring to his general all-around decline last season. Still, I'd say continues a downward trend rather than labeling it as horrid.
2. Why do you slam his baserunning?
3. Probably the worst outfielder in baseball. Dye's a close second.

Not a chance.

Craig Grebeck
03-04-2010, 07:27 PM
Not a chance.
Agree to disagree. You are undervaluing range, overvaluing his erratic but strong arm, and ignoring that he no longer has the legs to play an effective RF.

PalehosePlanet
03-04-2010, 07:38 PM
A few things:

1. I agree about Berkman. I think, perhaps, Munch could be referring to his general all-around decline last season. Still, I'd say continues a downward trend rather than labeling it as horrid.
2. Why do you slam his baserunning?
3. Probably the worst outfielder in baseball. Dye's a close second.

No probably about it. He's the worst outfielder in baseball since at least 1973. JD sucks out there but he's not in even in the same realm of bad that Dunn exists in.

As far as Berkman goes: I think he'd be a perfect fit for us this year. Next year? We'll see.

Taliesinrk
03-04-2010, 08:47 PM
Agree to disagree. You are undervaluing range, overvaluing his erratic but strong arm, and ignoring that he no longer has the legs to play an effective RF.

I think what you're saying is mostly true, but to say he's nearly the worst OF in all of MLB is a stretch, IMO.

Craig Grebeck
03-04-2010, 08:57 PM
I think what you're saying is mostly true, but to say he's nearly the worst OF in all of MLB is a stretch, IMO.
I don't know any as bad, other than Dunn. Maybe Hawpe.

thedudeabides
03-04-2010, 09:48 PM
A few things:

1. I agree about Berkman. I think, perhaps, Munch could be referring to his general all-around decline last season. Still, I'd say continues a downward trend rather than labeling it as horrid.
2. Why do you slam his baserunning?
3. Probably the worst outfielder in baseball. Dye's a close second.

2. Well, he's bad. He's very mistake prone and lazy. He's just not a heady player. Outside of what he brings at the plate, he's a really bad baseball player.

3. Dye was horrible last year, but he's still not even bottom 5. Dunn, Braun, Cust, Manny, Hawpe, Soriano just off the top of my head. I'm forgetting a few others, and there are about ten others that are debatable. There are some really bad outfielders in baseball today.

Taliesinrk
03-04-2010, 09:52 PM
2. Well, he's bad. He's very mistake prone and lazy. He's just not a heady player. Outside of what he brings at the plate, he's a really bad baseball player.

3. Dye was horrible last year, but he's still not even bottom 5. Dunn, Braun, Cust, Manny, Hawpe, Soriano just off the top of my head. I'm forgetting a few others, and there are about ten others that are debatable. There are some really bad outfielders in baseball today.

Manny and Soriano jump out immediately. Dye still knows how to read a baseball, regardless of his other flaws - that's more than a handful of guys can do (or make-up for with speed).

Craig Grebeck
03-04-2010, 09:53 PM
2. Well, he's bad. He's very mistake prone and lazy. He's just not a heady player. Outside of what he brings at the plate, he's a really bad baseball player.

3. Dye was horrible last year, but he's still not even bottom 5. Dunn, Braun, Cust, Manny, Hawpe, Soriano just off the top of my head. I'm forgetting a few others, and there are about ten others that are debatable. There are some really bad outfielders in baseball today.
2. Those are all platitudes. Do you have any evidence?

Also, what he brings at the plate makes him an ideal DH. Guy can ****ing rake. That's pretty much all that matters when you're a DH, no matter what our ****bag of a manager has to say.

jabrch
03-04-2010, 10:05 PM
2. Well, he's bad. He's very mistake prone and lazy. He's just not a heady player. Outside of what he brings at the plate, he's a really bad baseball player

And even still - how many + ABs does he have? 40 HRs, 25 doubles, and a handful of meaningful hits and walks. He's awful vs LHP and below average when needed to get a base hit and pick up a few runs.

I like Dunn as a slugger - but I'd never want him to be the centerpiece of my offense and I surely wouldn't pay the price it would take to acquire and extend him.

thedudeabides
03-04-2010, 10:20 PM
2. Those are all platitudes. Do you have any evidence?

Also, what he brings at the plate makes him an ideal DH. Guy can ****ing rake. That's pretty much all that matters when you're a DH, no matter what our ****bag of a manager has to say.

That's such a bull**** response. What kind of evidence do you want? It's baserunning. Why isn't he bad? What evidence do you have.

I never said he couldn't hit. He would be a great DH. I'm glad you're making up an argument to have with me, and using something I never said or injected into a conversation to take yet another shot at Ozzie. You're maturity level gets better by the day.

Craig Grebeck
03-04-2010, 10:34 PM
That's such a bull**** response. What kind of evidence do you want? It's baserunning. Why isn't he bad? What evidence do you have.

I never said he couldn't hit. He would be a great DH. I'm glad you're making up an argument to have with me, and using something I never said or injected into a conversation to take yet another shot at Ozzie. You're maturity level gets better by the day.
I'm just wondering how a guy with a career 75% stolen base average could be such a terrible baserunner.

And, my point was, you said outside of hitting he's a bad baseball player. Okay. Outside of pitching, Gavin Floyd is a bad baseball player.

thedudeabides
03-04-2010, 11:04 PM
I'm just wondering how a guy with a career 75% stolen base average could be such a terrible baserunner.

And, my point was, you said outside of hitting he's a bad baseball player. Okay. Outside of pitching, Gavin Floyd is a bad baseball player.

:rolling::rolling::rolling:

You are using stolen base % for an argument for Adam Dunn's baserunning!

He was all 0-1 last year and 2-3 the year before. That definitely defines his baserunning. Then again, this is the same guy who said they would rather have Jim Thome on first base than Scott Podsednik. It gets better every time you talk about baserunning.

And as far as your last petulant comment. You are again arguing with yourself. I never said Dunn couldn't hit, so keep beating that drum, and coming up with other awesome smart ass comments. I am surprised you didn't manage to somehow throw a shot at Ozzie in there somewhere.

I'm done having discussions with you. You can't carry on an adult conversation.

Craig Grebeck
03-04-2010, 11:05 PM
:rolling::rolling::rolling:

You are using stolen base % for an argument for Adam Dunn's baserunning!

He was all 0-1 last year and 2-3 the year before. That definitely defines his baserunning. Then again, this is the same guy who said they would rather have Jim Thome on first base than Scott Podsednik. It gets better every time you talk about baserunning.

And as far as your last petulant comment. You are again arguing with yourself. I never said Dunn couldn't hit, so keep beating that drum, and coming up with other awesome smart ass comments. I am surprised you didn't manage to somehow throw a shot at Ozzie in there somewhere.

I'm done having discussions with you. You can't carry on an adult conversation.
59 for 79 in stolen bases is laughable? The guy has shown he's competent out there. Yes, he hasn't done it in the last two years, but prior to that he showed he was an adept baserunner. Speed will deteriorate, but smarts/instinct will not. I'm not so sure what was petulant about my last statement. Adam Dunn is paid to hit the **** out of the ball. He does that. Quite a bit.

DrCrawdad
03-05-2010, 08:11 AM
I think what you're saying is mostly true, but to say he's nearly the worst OF in all of MLB is a stretch, IMO.

A few things:

1. I agree about Berkman. I think, perhaps, Munch could be referring to his general all-around decline last season. Still, I'd say continues a downward trend rather than labeling it as horrid.
2. Why do you slam his baserunning?
3. Probably the worst outfielder in baseball. Dye's a close second.

That's flat-out one of the stupidest comments I've read in ages.

You've seen Soriano attempt to play the field, right?

Craig Grebeck
03-05-2010, 08:16 AM
That's flat-out one of the stupidest comments I've read in ages.

You've seen Soriano attempt to play the field, right?
Soriano is more prone to gaffes, assuredly, but he gets to far more balls than Jermaine could dream to. Last season he was much, much worse than he'd been in 2007 and 2008. Still not Dye bad though.

thedudeabides
03-05-2010, 08:34 AM
That's flat-out one of the stupidest comments I've read in ages.

You've seen Soriano attempt to play the field, right?

There is a reason Soriano has the speed and arm he does and nobody would dream of putting him in right field. He would allow so many doubles and triples, it would decimate a pitching staff. He reads the ball off the bat, not only in the air, but on the ground, as bad as anyone in baseball. And he's every bit as afraid of the wall as Pods. His athletic skills are a waste. Although, I would definitely say Braun is worse. Those two really need to be DH's.

Dye is bad, but if he would move to left, he would be passable compared to many of the left fielders in the game. I'm not sure Dye was the worst outfielder on the team last year. People saying he is one of the 2-3 worst need to put down the UZR rankings and watch some of these guys play.

Craig Grebeck
03-05-2010, 10:09 AM
There is a reason Soriano has the speed and arm he does and nobody would dream of putting him in right field. He would allow so many doubles and triples, it would decimate a pitching staff. He reads the ball off the bat, not only in the air, but on the ground, as bad as anyone in baseball. And he's every bit as afraid of the wall as Pods. His athletic skills are a waste. Although, I would definitely say Braun is worse. Those two really need to be DH's.

Dye is bad, but if he would move to left, he would be passable compared to many of the left fielders in the game. I'm not sure Dye was the worst outfielder on the team last year. People saying he is one of the 2-3 worst need to put down the UZR rankings and watch some of these guys play.
How many times were you able to see Dye's reaction time?

jabrch
03-05-2010, 10:57 AM
People saying he is one of the 2-3 worst need to put down the UZR rankings and watch some of these guys play.

All the defensive statistics that I have seen are completely and totally meaningless to me. I can't imagine people actually using that sillyness to draw meaningful conclusions. ZR and UZR are horrendous jokes.

Craig Grebeck
03-05-2010, 11:00 AM
All the defensive statistics that I have seen are completely and totally meaningless to me. I can't imagine people actually using that sillyness to draw meaningful conclusions. ZR and UZR are horrendous jokes.
Pray tell, I'm a layman who has never seen UZR before. Explain to me how it is calculated, please. And specifically what makes it a horrendous joke.

SI1020
03-05-2010, 11:01 AM
All the defensive statistics that I have seen are completely and totally meaningless to me. I can't imagine people actually using that sillyness to draw meaningful conclusions. ZR and UZR are horrendous jokes. Nothing seems to divide fans more than rating players defensively.

thedudeabides
03-05-2010, 11:02 AM
How many times were you able to see Dye's reaction time?

I'm really not going to get into this with you. I'm sorry, I don't really think you know what your talking about when it comes to things like defense and baserunning, and everything you touch turns into a pissing match. I'm not interested.

I have seen him play live close to 100 games. His reactions and reads are not the problem.

Mod Edit: Let's knock off the personal attacks.

Craig Grebeck
03-05-2010, 11:03 AM
I'm really not going to get into this with you. I'm sorry, I don't really think you know what your talking about when it comes to things like defense and baserunning, and everything you touch turns into a pissing match. I'm not interested.

I have seen him play live close to 100 games. His reactions and reads are not the problem.
Then it's probably the first step. His first step in 2007-2009 was slower than any I've seen in my entire life. A poor first step mixed with running through cement will a terrible outfielder make.

Yes, he catches what he gets to -- he just gets to very little. For what it's worth, Tango's fan scouting report had him in the bottom fourth I think, ahead of guys like Guillen, Gomes, Ordonez, Stairs, Cust, etc.

And simply telling me I don't know what I'm talking about when I'm trying to engage you in conversation, then saying everything I touch turns into a pissing match is pretty poor form.

thedudeabides
03-05-2010, 11:13 AM
Then it's probably the first step. His first step in 2007-2009 was slower than any I've seen in my entire life. A poor first step mixed with running through cement will a terrible outfielder make.

Yes, he catches what he gets to -- he just gets to very little. For what it's worth, Tango's fan scouting report had him in the bottom fourth I think, ahead of guys like Guillen, Gomes, Ordonez, Stairs, Cust, etc.

Than you need to get to more baseball games. His first step is in the right direction, which is big. The same thing can't be said for a lot of these other fielders.

His instincts and reads, and I completely disagree with you about his first step, are still very good. He just has no athletic ability left, which makes his range awful. In left field he would be passable, or close to it. And he can still throw a bit.

He's nowhere near as bad as some of the guys patrolling left field in MLB. It doesn't make him good by any means, but to say he is the second worst outfielder in all of baseball is way off. And no I don't have any 'evidence' to prove it, so don't ask.

Call it what you will, but once you start treating others and myself with respect, I will treat you the same. I don't like words being put in my mouth and ideas shoved down my throat. If you don't like it, just stop responding to my posts. I don't have a problem with anyone else on this board, because they act respectfully, even when we disagree.

Craig Grebeck
03-05-2010, 11:17 AM
Than you need to get to more baseball games. His first step is in the right direction, which is big. The same thing can't be said for a lot of these other fielders.

His instincts and reads, and I completely disagree with you about his first step, are still very good. He just has no athletic ability left, which makes his range awful. In left field he would be passable, or close to it. And he can still throw a bit.

He's nowhere near as bad as some of the guys patrolling left field in MLB. It doesn't make him good by any means, but to say he is the second worst outfielder in all of baseball is way off. And no I don't have any 'evidence' to prove it, so don't ask.
Wake up on the wrong side of bed in the morning? Hell. I'm trying to engage you.

His first step is in the right direction sometimes, but not always. And it's slow as hell. With no athletic ability, he catches what he can get to. But beyond that, he's terrible. If put in LF, I don't see how he could be any better than in RF.

Craig Grebeck
03-05-2010, 11:19 AM
Call it what you will, but once you start treating others and myself with respect, I will treat you the same. I don't like words being put in my mouth and ideas shoved down my throat. If you don't like it, just stop responding to my posts. I don't have a problem with anyone else on this board, because they act respectfully, even when we disagree.
I'm looking through this thread and have no idea what you're talking about. Was it because we had a misunderstanding regarding Adam Dunn?

If so, here's the analogy I was trying to make. Dunn would DH here, therefore I don't give a **** about him being a terrible outfielder. Designated hitters hit. That's what they're paid to do. And he's good at that. I then said Floyd was a pitcher, therefore I don't give a **** how he plays third base because he's paid to pitch.

Edit: and is this because I don't like Ozzie? He's an alright manager, I've just met him and well, I'll leave it at that.

thedudeabides
03-05-2010, 11:23 AM
I'm looking through this thread and have no idea what you're talking about. Was it because we had a misunderstanding regarding Adam Dunn?

If so, here's the analogy I was trying to make. Dunn would DH here, therefore I don't give a **** about him being a terrible outfielder. Designated hitters hit. That's what they're paid to do. And he's good at that. I then said Floyd was a pitcher, therefore I don't give a **** how he plays third base because he's paid to pitch.

I'm just going to let it go. I didn't mean to get personal. Continue on with the thread. I'm done here.

jabrch
03-05-2010, 11:42 AM
Nothing seems to divide fans more than rating players defensively.


Probably because as bad as single metrics that combine multiple factors are for measuring a hitter, they are infinitely worse in measuring a fielder. As much as a hitter can be impacted by what is around him, a fielder is imapcted much more by who is to his right and left.

IMHO, defensive metrics suck - completely and totally.

Rohan
03-05-2010, 12:08 PM
I'm just going to let it go. I didn't mean to get personal. Continue on with the thread. I'm done here.


Way to not :stirpot:
I respect you for it.

Ranger
03-05-2010, 01:23 PM
2. Those are all platitudes. Do you have any evidence?

Also, what he brings at the plate makes him an ideal DH. Guy can ****ing rake. That's pretty much all that matters when you're a DH, no matter what our ****bag of a manager has to say.

Really?

Nothing seems to divide fans more than rating players defensively.

It's probably because a lot of us don't believe them to be reliable. They can't yet accurately measure the speed of the ball off the bat, for example, and it's pretty hard to define precisely a ball that a player "should have" gotten to. They also don't take into account defensive position prior to the pitch. There is still a lot of subjectivity in the foundation of those stats since the decision of whether a ball is hit hard or not is done by a guy watching a game on a monitor. For those that criticize people for making an analysis based on the "eye test", UZR isn't exactly completely objective.

On the other hand, most hitting statistics are pretty black and white. If you hit .330, there is no disputing that you get a hit in 33% of your at bats. Those types of numbers are definite.

Until the FieldFX (the camera-based analysis) numbers begin to establish themselves, I refuse to use current defensive stats as proof of anything. I'm actually really excited about FieldFX. They've already begun to test it in the ballparks, and once they get some good numbers and tweak whatever they have to tweak, we should get a more accurate measure of defensive ability. At least we can have something defined, because it's intended to objectively and precisely measure all the stuff that UZR does not.


Then it's probably the first step. His first step in 2007-2009 was slower than any I've seen in my entire life. A poor first step mixed with running through cement will a terrible outfielder make.


In another post you said something about reaction time, but Dye's recognition of the flight path of the ball hasn't been a problem. His speed has been, but there have been very few balls that he's misjudged or that he's been slow to react or realize where the ball is going. He reacts immediately, he just isn't the quickest player any more.

SI1020
03-05-2010, 02:16 PM
Probably because as bad as single metrics that combine multiple factors are for measuring a hitter, they are infinitely worse in measuring a fielder. As much as a hitter can be impacted by what is around him, a fielder is imapcted much more by who is to his right and left.

IMHO, defensive metrics suck - completely and totally. Yes there can be problems with UZR for one, and here is a prime example.

http://metsmerizedonline.com/2009/12/what-the-uzr-disciples-wont-tell-you-about-jason-bay.html



It's probably because a lot of us don't believe them to be reliable. They can't yet accurately measure the speed of the ball off the bat, for example, and it's pretty hard to define precisely a ball that a player "should have" gotten to. They also don't take into account defensive position prior to the pitch. There is still a lot of subjectivity in the foundation of those stats since the decision of whether a ball is hit hard or not is done by a guy watching a game on a monitor. For those that criticize people for making an analysis based on the "eye test", UZR isn't exactly completely objective.

On the other hand, most hitting statistics are pretty black and white. If you hit .330, there is no disputing that you get a hit in 33% of your at bats. Those types of numbers are definite.

Until the FieldFX (the camera-based analysis) numbers begin to establish themselves, I refuse to use current defensive stats as proof of anything. I'm actually really excited about FieldFX. They've already begun to test it in the ballparks, and once they get some good numbers and tweak whatever they have to tweak, we should get a more accurate measure of defensive ability. At least we can have something defined, because it's intended to objectively and precisely measure all the stuff that UZR does not.
I pretty much agree with this and look forward to what the new technology will produce. In summary I think the new stats revolution has been more bad than good. I'm not a stodgy old fart just being reflexively cantankerous. I pore over and study these post Bill James numbers but find myself amazed that so many devotees totally discount older metrics to the point of absurdity. It really becomes a massive effort of ego tripping deconstructionism. That and the religious fervor attached to the latest trendy matrix. Why even bother to watch the games?

Since I have contributed somewhat to a hijack, let me say that Adam Dunn would be a welcome addition to our sorry ass DH situation.

Craig Grebeck
03-05-2010, 02:35 PM
Really?



It's probably because a lot of us don't believe them to be reliable. They can't yet accurately measure the speed of the ball off the bat, for example, and it's pretty hard to define precisely a ball that a player "should have" gotten to. They also don't take into account defensive position prior to the pitch. There is still a lot of subjectivity in the foundation of those stats since the decision of whether a ball is hit hard or not is done by a guy watching a game on a monitor. For those that criticize people for making an analysis based on the "eye test", UZR isn't exactly completely objective.

On the other hand, most hitting statistics are pretty black and white. If you hit .330, there is no disputing that you get a hit in 33% of your at bats. Those types of numbers are definite.

Until the FieldFX (the camera-based analysis) numbers begin to establish themselves, I refuse to use current defensive stats as proof of anything. I'm actually really excited about FieldFX. They've already begun to test it in the ballparks, and once they get some good numbers and tweak whatever they have to tweak, we should get a more accurate measure of defensive ability. At least we can have something defined, because it's intended to objectively and precisely measure all the stuff that UZR does not.




In another post you said something about reaction time, but Dye's recognition of the flight path of the ball hasn't been a problem. His speed has been, but there have been very few balls that he's misjudged or that he's been slow to react or realize where the ball is going. He reacts immediately, he just isn't the quickest player any more.
I understand your apprehension Ranger, you outlined it well. I can't take issue with all of it, and I think a combination of fielding metrics, scouting reports, and collaborative efforts like Tango's fan scouting reports will give someone a better idea than watching games on television.

And with regards to what I called Ozzie, I stand by it. If you really want details, PM me, otherwise I'll keep my thoughts to myself in the future. And I apologize if it offended anyone.

Ranger
03-05-2010, 06:57 PM
Yes there can be problems with UZR for one, and here is a prime example.

http://metsmerizedonline.com/2009/12/what-the-uzr-disciples-wont-tell-you-about-jason-bay.html


I pretty much agree with this and look forward to what the new technology will produce. In summary I think the new stats revolution has been more bad than good. I'm not a stodgy old fart just being reflexively cantankerous. I pore over and study these post Bill James numbers but find myself amazed that so many devotees totally discount older metrics to the point of absurdity. It really becomes a massive effort of ego tripping deconstructionism. That and the religious fervor attached to the latest trendy matrix. Why even bother to watch the games?

Since I have contributed somewhat to a hijack, let me say that Adam Dunn would be a welcome addition to our sorry ass DH situation.

I understand your apprehension Ranger, you outlined it well. I can't take issue with all of it, and I think a combination of fielding metrics, scouting reports, and collaborative efforts like Tango's fan scouting reports will give someone a better idea than watching games on television.

And with regards to what I called Ozzie, I stand by it. If you really want details, PM me, otherwise I'll keep my thoughts to myself in the future. And I apologize if it offended anyone.


I'm really not old school either, though I've been accused of it. Hell, I'm barely in my 30's (ugh). It's just that I can't completely buy into a statistic that has that sort of room for uncertainty and has some subjectivity to its foundation. Like that article said, there are too many fluctions with the stat from year to year and even if you take the numbers from consecutive years and average them, it doesn't even necessarily mean the player's actual ability is somewhere in the middle.

UZR, FP, and errors are all suggestions, not gospel. They are all flawed in some way. Offensive stats are much easier to dissect. What I simply cannot stand is, "oh, he's a terrible fielder because his UZR over a 3 year period is -12.5." The number should be viewed as a possible indication, and nothing more.

I know I'll sound like a complete nerd when I say this, but I'm somewhat giddy over the FieldFX thing. It's really cool. It should be able to measure exactly how hard a ball is hit, trajectory of the ball, how far a fielder had to run on an individual play, etc. And if it works right, these things will be measured exactly, it won't be estimated.

Grebeck, go ahead and send me a message because I'm curious as to why you say that...

DrCrawdad
03-05-2010, 11:02 PM
Soriano is more prone to gaffes, assuredly, but he gets to far more balls than Jermaine could dream to. Last season he was much, much worse than he'd been in 2007 and 2008. Still not Dye bad though.

So Soriano gets to more balls and has a better arm, why doesn't anyone ever put Soriano in RF? Hell, the Cubbies put the strapping Jacque Jones in RF over Soriano.

You know why no one puts Soriano is RF? Because Soriano has no aptitude for the field.

Last year I witnessed Soriano's ability to get to balls. On a September afternoon he got to a ball in LF hopped and missed the ball. Soriano doesn't just have gaffe's, he's a lousy outfielder with zero aptitude for the field and/or less desire to improve. Jermaine Dye, even slowed by age and injuries, is many times the fielder that Soriano is. And if the two were on the same team, every coach in MLB would if they had to choose whom to have in LF late in a game would choose Jermaine Dye.

I've heard these arguments in behalf of Soriano's defense before...by Cubbie fans.

Craig Grebeck
03-06-2010, 04:28 AM
So Soriano gets to more balls and has a better arm, why doesn't anyone ever put Soriano in RF? Hell, the Cubbies put the strapping Jacque Jones in RF over Soriano.

You know why no one puts Soriano is RF? Because Soriano has no aptitude for the field.

Last year I witnessed Soriano's ability to get to balls. On a September afternoon he got to a ball in LF hopped and missed the ball. Soriano doesn't just have gaffe's, he's a lousy outfielder with zero aptitude for the field and/or less desire to improve. Jermaine Dye, even slowed by age and injuries, is many times the fielder that Soriano is. And if the two were on the same team, every coach in MLB would if they had to choose whom to have in LF late in a game would choose Jermaine Dye.

I've heard these arguments in behalf of Soriano's defense before...by Cubbie fans.
Pathetic.

DrCrawdad
03-06-2010, 09:02 AM
Pathetic.

That wasn't a slam. It's a fact.

Tragg
03-06-2010, 09:57 AM
How many pitchers get the treatment Maddux has gotten over his career?
Tom Glavine....Maddux was reasonably close to the strikezone when getting the calls; not so much Glavine.
Frank Pulli et al do deserve a big assist.

munchman33
03-06-2010, 05:18 PM
That wasn't a slam. It's a fact.

I think he means you're letting the exception define the rule. Soriano is really the only player that extreme in terms of both having tremendous ability and absolute zero in baseball instincts.

SI1020
03-06-2010, 07:05 PM
Pathetic. Did you see Soriano butcher an easy play in the outfield and cost the Cubs a run in the fifth inning of today's game with the Sox? Just asking and not trying to pick a fight with you. It was quite comical to this Sox fan.

DrCrawdad
03-06-2010, 10:10 PM
Did you see Soriano butcher an easy play in the outfield and cost the Cubs a run in the fifth inning of today's game with the Sox? Just asking and not trying to pick a fight with you. It was quite comical to this Sox fan.


Yeah, but did you notice how Soriano got to the ball? Then how about that strong throw as the runners circled the bases?

:)