PDA

View Full Version : Mark Reynolds


getonbckthr
12-04-2010, 01:15 PM
would anyone be interested in Mark Reynolds to play 3B? I know he strikes out a lot but for some reason I think he plays a solid defense and a ton of power.

Taliesinrk
12-04-2010, 02:08 PM
I'm not sure that question can be answered today. First, I should say that for some reason, I think Reynolds has been touted as someone who plays good D as well (although, honestly, I have never really seen him on a consistent basis). IF the Sox re-sign Konerko, I'd rather see Morel at 3B with Teahen playing the utility role (for both cost and development reasons). A line-up with the heart of TCM, TCQ, Rios, Dunn, and Konerko should be plenty powerful (and, IIRC, Morel showed power potential last season, despite his lack of it in the minors, right?). I think the other positions should focus on D, speed, and contact. The only other thing that could complicate the situation is if Quentin is dealt.

DSpivack
12-04-2010, 02:29 PM
No.

Taliesinrk
12-04-2010, 02:41 PM
Also, I just looked up his stats from last year. Tell me there's a typo. I knew he had a bad season (at least avg.-wise), but is it actually possible to play in 145 games and still not reach the Mendoza line? His power w/ lack of avg. reminds me of Jose Valentin, circa 2003... except it makes Valentin look more like Ted Williams.

cws05champ
12-04-2010, 05:01 PM
No.

+1. Nice guy for a lineup that Needs more power, but We need more High OBP guys to go with the power guys. We can't have two guys in the lineup that will K 200 times.

pythons007
12-04-2010, 11:24 PM
+1. Nice guy for a lineup that Needs more power, but We need more High OBP guys to go with the power guys. We can't have two guys in the lineup that will K 200 times.

Exactly, this guy keeps beating records that aren't good. He's strikes out at an alarming rate!! He strikes out something like 1 in every 3 at bats.

TDog
12-05-2010, 02:53 PM
Exactly, this guy keeps beating records that aren't good. He's strikes out at an alarming rate!! He strikes out something like 1 in every 3 at bats.

In 2010 Reynolds struck out in 35 percent of his plate appearances. (In 2009, he struck out in about 34 percent of his plate appearances.)

In 2010, Reynolds struck out in about 42 percent of his at bats.

At least he didn't ground out weakly to second, although with a runner on second with none out, that would have helped his team.

Pablo_Honey
12-05-2010, 03:28 PM
I do love me some high OPS guys but Reynolds is just too much. He simply doesn't walk enough or hit for power (doubles included) to offset his bad contact rate.

doublem23
12-05-2010, 03:34 PM
At least he didn't ground out weakly to second, although with a runner on second with none out, that would have helped his team.

:rolling:

Keep beating that drum, man. These posts are always good for a laugh.

For further clarification, because this is clearly a concept you cannot understand,

Adam Dunn's career line: .250/.381/.521
Mark Reynold's career line: .242/.334/.483

DirtySox
12-05-2010, 03:40 PM
:rolling:

Keep beating that drum, man. These posts are always good for a laugh.

For further clarification, because this is clearly a concept you cannot understand,

Adam Dunn's career line: .250/.381/.521
Mark Reynold's career line: .242/.334/.483

Dinosaur logic is the best logic.

chunk
12-05-2010, 03:47 PM
Reynolds is coming off a bad year, so maybe the sox could buy low. If he bounces back, man that's a reallllly good lineup.


I don't care about strikeouts and neither should you.

TDog
12-05-2010, 03:56 PM
:rolling:

Keep beating that drum, man. These posts are always good for a laugh.

For further clarification, because this is clearly a concept you cannot understand,

Adam Dunn's career line: .250/.381/.521
Mark Reynold's career line: .242/.334/.483

Where did I mention Dunn? I've watched Reynolds play and he compares more with Joe Borchard (although Borchard was making more contact with Fresno last summer until he slumped later in the season).

The Diamondbacks are shopping Reynolds because he goes down without making contact more than a third of the time he comes to the plate.

The idea that strikeouts are irrelevant for a hitter is ridiculous. When a hitter gets two strikes on him, he should be trying NOT to strike out.

I have no idea why White Sox fans are embracing high-strikeout hitters after complaining about an all-or-nothing offense in many of the seasons of the past decade. But I promise, I won't be among those calling for Greg Walker to be fired because the 2011 White Sox are striking out too expletive much.

Pablo_Honey
12-05-2010, 05:35 PM
I have no idea why White Sox fans are embracing high-strikeout hitters after complaining about an all-or-nothing offense in many of the seasons of the past decade.
Um, high strikeout hitters aren't necessarily in the same vain as all-or-nothing hitters we've had. The latter type of hitters looks for nothing but homeruns thus fails to either get a hit or draw a walk. In Reynolds' case, absolutely. He's either hit or miss although he does have a bit of patience. In Dunn's case, no. He walks a lot and gets his fair share of non-homerun hits.

Lyle Mouton
12-05-2010, 05:45 PM
I'm confused as to why people like TDog continue to make wholesale depictions of the fanbase. So some cretins think Jim Thome was an "all or nothing" (whatever the **** that means) hitter? Cool. Just because some dip**** calls the Score complaining about too many strikeouts doesn't mean I can't form my own opinion.

Daver
12-05-2010, 06:02 PM
I'm confused as to why people like TDog continue to make wholesale depictions of the fanbase. So some cretins think Jim Thome was an "all or nothing" (whatever the **** that means) hitter? Cool. Just because some dip**** calls the Score complaining about too many strikeouts doesn't mean I can't form my own opinion.


And the propellerheads can drag all the statistical analysis they want into a discussion, but it still doesn't keep me from forming my own opinion, so what really is your point?

Lyle Mouton
12-05-2010, 06:38 PM
And the propellerheads can drag all the statistical analysis they want into a discussion, but it still doesn't keep me from forming my own opinion, so what really is your point?
Because TDog's logic rests on the notion that White Sox fans are somehow being hypocritical/unintelligent by embracing a ballplayer who has a certain skillset (in this case: three true outcomes) because some other White Sox fans did not like Jim Thome/Nick Swisher or other "all or nothing guys."

So, what really is your point?

Marqhead
12-05-2010, 06:46 PM
Because TDog's logic rests on the notion that White Sox fans are somehow being hypocritical/unintelligent by embracing a ballplayer who has a certain skillset (in this case: three true outcomes) because some other White Sox fans did not like Jim Thome/Nick Swisher or other "all or nothing guys."

So, what really is your point?

Propellerheads!

TDog
12-05-2010, 06:56 PM
I'm confused as to why people like TDog continue to make wholesale depictions of the fanbase. So some cretins think Jim Thome was an "all or nothing" (whatever the **** that means) hitter? Cool. Just because some dip**** calls the Score complaining about too many strikeouts doesn't mean I can't form my own opinion.

I don't listen to the Score. I have no idea what is said there. But I know that a lot of people posted for years complain about all-or-nothing offense, complaining that hitters were always swinging for the fences etc. And the fact is, no hitter helps his team by striking out except in the rarest of freak circumstances.

Right now, strikeouts are a statistical abstraction. When hitters are striking out with runners at third and less than two out next summer, OPS will continue to be a statistical abstraction, but strikeouts won't.

DirtySox
12-05-2010, 06:57 PM
Propellerheads!

Do people actually use this term in everyday conversations? Or is it as aged as the people who employ it?

I had never heard it until I visited WSI.

Marqhead
12-05-2010, 06:58 PM
Do people actually use this term in everyday conversations? Or is it as aged as the people who employ it?

I had never heard it until I visited WSI.

I only know of one person who uses it.

DirtySox
12-05-2010, 07:09 PM
I only know of one person who uses it.

WSI needs more custom titles. I'd be honored to wear a Propellerhead tag.

Daver
12-05-2010, 07:13 PM
I only know of one person who uses it.

You know three, me, West, and Ode, the name was invented as a stab at engineers, but it evolved into anyone that overanalyzes everything, and can only approach a subject from a specific perspective while ignoring all others.

Daver
12-05-2010, 07:15 PM
WSI needs more custom titles. I'd be honored to wear a Propellerhead tag.

Become a subscriber and you can make your own title.

Pablo_Honey
12-05-2010, 07:21 PM
I don't listen to the Score. I have no idea what is said there. But I know that a lot of people posted for years complain about all-or-nothing offense, complaining that hitters were always swinging for the fences etc. And the fact is, no hitter helps his team by striking out except in the rarest of freak circumstances.

Right now, strikeouts are a statistical abstraction. When hitters are striking out with runners at third and less than two out next summer, OPS will continue to be a statistical abstraction, but strikeouts won't.
Check out this article, although it's not the best argument I've seen. Second half of the article drives the point home: http://ca.sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=jp-strikeouts090909

asindc
12-05-2010, 07:22 PM
Do people actually use this term in everyday conversations? Or is it as aged as the people who employ it?

I had never heard it until I visited WSI.

Not entering the fray here, but to answer the question, yes.

DirtySox
12-05-2010, 07:26 PM
Not entering the fray here, but to answer the question, yes.

I was legitimately curious. I will now go back to my propellerhead systems analysis project.

TDog
12-05-2010, 08:44 PM
Check out this article, although it's not the best argument I've seen. Second half of the article drives the point home: http://ca.sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=jp-strikeouts090909

Somewhere Ted Williams is rolling over in his grave. Or at least his head is spinning (no disrespect intended). This writer's argument is flawed. Babe Ruth was hitting more than 10 percent of the American League's home runs while he was failing to hit at least 40 in six straight seasons. And he was walking more than twice as many times as he struck out. And in a few of those years he was both driving in and scoring an average of more than a run a game.

Not that the writer mentioned Ted Williams, but the year he hit .406, Williams led the league with 37 home runs and struck out only 27 times. His on-base percentage is irrelevant.

More hitters might be more productive if they worked on making more contact.

But if you are happy to see pitchers pitch around your RBI hitters and you want to call that production, our differences are irreconcilable.

Pablo_Honey
12-05-2010, 09:55 PM
But if you are happy to see pitchers pitch around your RBI hitters and you want to call that production, our differences are irreconcilable.
Pitchers will pitch around the biggest threat in the lineup regardless of their tendency to strike out or not. Who in their right mind would throw anything remotely hittable to monsters like Ruth or Williams? They'd just walk them instead of risking it by throwing in the strikezone.

Yes, there have been great hitters like Ted Williams and Babe Ruth who could avoid striking out while posting up crazy homerun numbers. The fact is, these guys are only a handful. We've seen only one of those this decade in Albert Pujols and that's it. It's unreal to expect hitters to maintain 40 homerun power and draw 100 walks while avoiding strikeouts and by extension hitting for contact. The former two require that the batter risks being struck out by the pitcher so they need to make a choice. As long as hitters aren't compromising their contact skills to the extreme (as in the case of Reynolds) for power and patience, they are productive at least in my opinion.

As for the article, like I said before, it's not particularly a great article but it gives the readers a basic idea of the argument it's making without delving too much into statistical analysis. It had Adam Dunn's quotes in it so that's why I picked it.

slavko
12-06-2010, 12:09 AM
I don't listen to the Score. I have no idea what is said there. But I know that a lot of people posted for years complain about all-or-nothing offense, complaining that hitters were always swinging for the fences etc. And the fact is, no hitter helps his team by striking out except in the rarest of freak circumstances.

Right now, strikeouts are a statistical abstraction. When hitters are striking out with runners at third and less than two out next summer, OPS will continue to be a statistical abstraction, but strikeouts won't.

This is sort of over my head, but isn't there a measure of strikeouts in "need to advance a runner" situations vs. strikeouts in general? Some hitters have a different plate approach when they need to make contact for the team.

Otherwise, I bow to you math freaks.

TDog
12-06-2010, 12:45 AM
Pitchers will pitch around the biggest threat in the lineup regardless of their tendency to strike out or not. Who in their right mind would throw anything remotely hittable to monsters like Ruth or Williams? They'd just walk them instead of risking it by throwing in the strikezone.

Yes, there have been great hitters like Ted Williams and Babe Ruth who could avoid striking out while posting up crazy homerun numbers. The fact is, these guys are only a handful. We've seen only one of those this decade in Albert Pujols and that's it. It's unreal to expect hitters to maintain 40 homerun power and draw 100 walks while avoiding strikeouts and by extension hitting for contact. The former two require that the batter risks being struck out by the pitcher so they need to make a choice. As long as hitters aren't compromising their contact skills to the extreme (as in the case of Reynolds) for power and patience, they are productive at least in my opinion.

As for the article, like I said before, it's not particularly a great article but it gives the readers a basic idea of the argument it's making without delving too much into statistical analysis. It had Adam Dunn's quotes in it so that's why I picked it.

I don't believe Reynolds is a productive hitter. I've watched him play a lot, and I have never found him to be a productive hitter. The Diamondbacks appear to be shopping him because they don't believe he is a productive hitter.

I have always believed hitters big-home run/high strikeout hitters would be more productive if he shortened his two-strike swing the way Williams and DiMaggio did. (In My Turn at Bat, Williams wrote that he actually choked up a little with two strikes.) For example, I would love to see Dunn strike out less if it meant a higher batting average but fewer home runs. Pitchers would still pitch around him and artificially inflate his on-base percentage.

But one can only imagine how really good Nellie Fox would have been if he had struck out a lot.

Pablo_Honey
12-06-2010, 01:32 AM
I don't believe Reynolds is a productive hitter. I've watched him play a lot, and I have never found him to be a productive hitter. The Diamondbacks appear to be shopping him because they don't believe he is a productive hitter.
Now that I read my post, I realized that my opinion about Reynolds was confusing. I actually don't like Reynolds one bit. He sacrifices way too much of contact to generate the kind of power he displays, which isn't even impressive compared to monsters like Ryan Howard. Or it could be that he just can't hit a baseball all that well. Either way, this is one guy I'd hope to God Kenny isn't looking at.

I have always believed hitters big-home run/high strikeout hitters would be more productive if he shortened his two-strike swing the way Williams and DiMaggio did. (In My Turn at Bat, Williams wrote that he actually choked up a little with two strikes.) For example, I would love to see Dunn strike out less if it meant a higher batting average but fewer home runs.
Well this is your opinion and belief so I can't argue it. This is mostly pure mental experiments based on assumptions. Maybe Dunn would not have been as effective as he is today if he consciously avoided strikeouts. Maybe he would have hit .400. Maybe he could've become Albert Pujols. Who knows? Yes, shorter swings mean better contact but how much power he will lose is uncertain. It might as well halve his homerun totals if he did that. Not only that, if he cared about strikeouts, then he would actively protect the strikezone, which means he would have to swing at anything remotely close. This can severely cut down a number of walks he gets because he won't let pitches by him. Anyways, this involves too much variables so I'll just leave it at that.

Pitchers would still pitch around him and artificially inflate his on-base percentage.
You keep bringing this up but I ask again: Who the **** would not pitch around an intimidating slugger? Surely you don't think a fair share of walks on Babe Ruth were due to pitchers pitching around him? Or are you implying that pitchers back in the day had balls of steel so they just threw to Ruth like they would any other batters?

But one can only imagine how really good Nellie Fox would have been if he had struck out a lot.
Different kind of hitter fulfilling a different type of role. It's not really fair to bring him up in this argument. And again, too many variables to think about here.

KenBerryGrab
12-06-2010, 11:57 AM
He's an Oriole now.

ewokpelts
12-06-2010, 12:04 PM
He's an Oriole now.thoughts and prayers, ect.

TDog
12-06-2010, 01:22 PM
...
You keep bringing this up but I ask again: Who the **** would not pitch around an intimidating slugger? Surely you don't think a fair share of walks on Babe Ruth were due to pitchers pitching around him? Or are you implying that pitchers back in the day had balls of steel so they just threw to Ruth like they would any other batters? ...

Of course they pitched around Ruth while he was walking twice as often as he struck out -- and he had Lou Gehrig hitting behind him during his best Yankee years. They didn't track intentional walks as an individual statistic in Ruth's day, but people believe he received as many as 80 in a season. But Ruth was hitting .300. In most years he was hitting well over .300. In five seasons he hit over .370. One of those years he hit over .390. His on-base percentage was irrelevant. Pitchers pitched around Ted Williams. A big criticism of Williams in his day was that he walked too much, allowing pitchers to pitch around him in RBI situations. He wasn't the MVP the year he hit .406, led the league in home runs and finished second in RBIs. The man who led the league in RBIs won the MVP.

On-base percentage is a statistical abstraction that doesn't mean the same thing for every hitter. You don't care how Juan Pierre gets on base, just that he gets on. But you don't want to see your RBI hitters be intentionally walked. Hometown fans boo such things. They boo if they don't give their best hitters something to hit. Yet, intentional walks added 24 points to Dunn's on-base percentage last year. They added 24 points to his OPS. If he had 10 more hits in those situations, he would have the same on-base percentage, but his batting average would have been 12 points higher. He would have had more RBIs. There is no way of telling without going going through the games how many, or how many more wins the Nationals would have finished with. By the same token, if he had gone 5-for-10 in those trips to the plate, he would have had a lower on-base percentage, but a higher batting average. Because on-base percentage is a factor in OPS, he could have had a better season, done more to help his team with a lower OPS, especially considering the number of times he was pitched around in walks that weren't considered intentional.

Dunn isn't going up there trying to coax a walk, especially with runners on base. That isn't his job. If you're Juan Pierre, it doesn't matter if a high on-base percentage is accompanied by a high batting average. His job is to get on base. If your job is to drive in runs, a .260 batting average and a .356 on-base percentage is nothing to get excited about.

And if you have runners on first and second with one out and a 3-2 count with Dunn up, there is no way you're going to send the runners.

WizardsofOzzie
12-06-2010, 01:55 PM
He's an Oriole now.

For 2 minor league pitching prospects

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=5891074

tstrike2000
12-06-2010, 03:02 PM
He's an Oriole now.

I couldn't see Kenny bringing him in here anyway. I believe he was the first player in MLB history to hit below the Mendoza (.198) for the year along with having more than 200 strikeouts. He was such a black hole on my fantasy team, I don't see how this helps Baltimore that much as he's not a plus defender either.

Huisj
12-06-2010, 03:10 PM
Well this is your opinion and belief so I can't argue it. This is mostly pure mental experiments based on assumptions. Maybe Dunn would not have been as effective as he is today if he consciously avoided strikeouts. Maybe he would have hit .400. Maybe he could've become Albert Pujols. Who knows? Yes, shorter swings mean better contact but how much power he will lose is uncertain. It might as well halve his homerun totals if he did that. Not only that, if he cared about strikeouts, then he would actively protect the strikezone, which means he would have to swing at anything remotely close. This can severely cut down a number of walks he gets because he won't let pitches by him. Anyways, this involves too much variables so I'll just leave it at that.


Looking at a few numbers, it's easy to see that Dunn doesn't really hit tons of homers when he has 2-strikes on him anyway. Last season, he hit a homer every 27 plate-appearances when he got any 2-strike count on him, compared to his overall rate of 1 every 17 PA. For his career those numbers are virtually the same as they were for the season (1 HR/29 PA w/ 2 strikes, 1 HR/ 17 PA overall).

So basically, if his homers with 2-strikes were cut in half in an effort to get more hits and fewer strikeouts, he'd still probably be at least a 30+ HR guy. And maybe his career line of .151/.274/.303 in 2-strike counts could improve a bit.

For sake of comparison, Pujols' career line in 2-strike counts is .268/.334/.487. (I used him because he's ridiculous).

Going a little deeper, I tried taking strikeouts out of their plate appearances to see what happens when they actually hit the ball with 2-strikes when they don't strike out:

Dunn: .355/.537/.715
Pujols: .359/.433/.653

So when Dunn doesn't strike out, he hits the crap out of the ball (even more so than Pujols). But he strikes out so much trying to do so that it makes him basically useless with 2-strikes. Also, that high OBP makes me think he's taking a lot of pitches too still trying to draw walks and is getting strike 3 called on him a lot.

If I had time, I'd try to think about what these might mean and I'd look into some of these numbers for other (more normal) hitter besides Pujols, but right now, I do not have that time.