PDA

View Full Version : Baseball Prospectus in SI


thomas35forever
08-03-2006, 02:02 PM
BP has written in this week's SI that returning to the postseason will be tough for the White Sox unless their strikeout rate improves, which is "not likely" to happen because the rotation is "tired" from all the innings our pitchers threw last year in the regular season and playoffs. They also mention Freddy and Javy's participation in the WBC. "In other words, this staff may be doomed by its own success."

samram
08-03-2006, 02:17 PM
BP has written in this week's SI that returning to the postseason will be tough for the White Sox unless their strikeout rate improves

I think they'll be fine as long as their out rate improves.

getonbckthr
08-03-2006, 02:21 PM
I think they'll be fine as long as their out rate improves.
Unfortunately our defense effects the out rate, K's will help avoid our defensive blunders

White Sox Randy
08-03-2006, 02:31 PM
That's a bunch of stupid stathead bs.

Last year, Garland was awesome and struck out noone.

Contreras' k's about the same as last year.

Buehrle's down a little and so is Garcia.

Vazquez was brought in here because of all of his k's and his "peripherals" are the best on the team and he is our worst starter.

Last year the Sox pitching staff as a whole was the best and they were not close to leading in strikeouts.

Dan Mega
08-03-2006, 02:41 PM
By winning it all last year the Sox proved BP wrong on so many fronts that it wasn't even funny. The statheads had no answer to the White Sox' success so they claimed Chicago was just "lucky".

Screw BP and all their pointlessness.

SouthSide_HitMen
08-03-2006, 02:50 PM
SI & Baseball Prospectus = Dumb and Dumber

(ESPN is Dumberer)

SoxSpeed22
08-03-2006, 03:22 PM
I think samram hit it right between the eyes for this one.

Lip Man 1
08-03-2006, 03:49 PM
How does BP explain the Braves pitchers not getting tired after going to the post season 14 years in a row? or the Yankees 10 straight years?

Do I think the Sox are tired...yes, particularly Garcia and Vazquez due to that insane WBC but that's not the only reason.

Lip

PalehosePlanet
08-03-2006, 03:53 PM
Where the strikeout rate really needed to improve is in our bullpen setup men (esp. RHP setup). Now that we have the K's from Jenks/Thornton/Macdougal in the 7th through 9th range we should be set.

To me the only time it's important to get the K is in the later innings with a man on 3rd and 0 or 1 out.

miker
08-03-2006, 04:25 PM
The last time I believed something I read in Sports Illustrated was back when the swimsuit edition actually featured women wearing swimsuits...

DumpJerry
08-03-2006, 04:57 PM
I hear the "people" at BP get very upset when baseball games are actually played and not just scored according to their stat models.

SOXSINCE'70
08-03-2006, 05:04 PM
If these dirtbags think i'm renewing my subcription once it runs out in
January,they've got another thing coming.SCREW 'EM ALL!!:angry:

FedEx227
08-04-2006, 03:57 PM
In some cases what they're saying is true. But they need to take into account the fact that 2/5 parts of are rotation are plain and simple not strikeout pitchers. Buehrle and Garland pitch for grounders, plain and simple.

I honestly think K ratio is a really, really stupid way to judge a teams future.

StatHead21
08-04-2006, 05:58 PM
Its a theory, they may be right and they may be wrong. Fact is the staff's ERA has sky since last season. Loss of Rowand(don't jump on me, I'd rather have Thome), all of those innings and a less efficient defense= 1 more run to their ERA. It seems like they aren't pitching up to their cabability but, did you ever think last year that they were pitching out of their minds?

Lets face it, Freddy, Buehrle, Cotts, Pollitte, Hermanson and Garland all pitched out of their minds last year. They are good but not as good as they were last season.

Freddy's velocity dropped, Buehrle cannot hit his spots, and Garland lost his change up earlier in the year. Fatigue may be what has caused this lack of focus.

StatHead21
08-04-2006, 06:01 PM
If these dirtbags think i'm renewing my subcription once it runs out in
January,they've got another thing coming.SCREW 'EM ALL!!:angry:

Because they have a theory on why the Sox pitching sucks this year? Thats insane.

I cancled when they left the Sox off the cover after winning the series.(first team they've ever left off) No point in getting all up in arms because of a theory they have about the Sox not pitching up to par.

RadioheadRocks
08-04-2006, 07:54 PM
If these dirtbags think i'm renewing my subcription once it runs out in
January,they've got another thing coming.SCREW 'EM ALL!!:angry:

Look at it this way, those who subscribe to the "SI Cover Jinx" theory are probably glad to see the Twins' Joe Mauer featured on this week's cover. :D:

MISoxfan
08-04-2006, 08:29 PM
Its a theory, they may be right and they may be wrong. Fact is the staff's ERA has sky since last season. Loss of Rowand(don't jump on me, I'd rather have Thome), all of those innings and a less efficient defense= 1 more run to their ERA. It seems like they aren't pitching up to their cabability but, did you ever think last year that they were pitching out of their minds?

Lets face it, Freddy, Buehrle, Cotts, Pollitte, Hermanson and Garland all pitched out of their minds last year. They are good but not as good as they were last season.

Freddy's velocity dropped, Buehrle cannot hit his spots, and Garland lost his change up earlier in the year. Fatigue may be what has caused this lack of focus.

Let's not face it. Buehrle did not pitch out of his mind last season. He had his best season ever, but only slightly. He did not pitch far from his career norms.

Let's not face it. Freddy did not pitch out of his mind last season. His ERA was a whole .14 lower than his career AVERAGE. He had his third or fourth best season last season.

The jury is still out on Cotts and Garland. Both could have easily been breakout seasons, Cotts doesn't have numbers as good this season, but he also isn't surrounded by the great pitching that he had last season. Garland struggled to start with, but I think his last 9 outings have shown that he capable of another '05. Politte and Hermanson, yeah they had crazy seasons, but that's it.

RadioheadRocks
08-04-2006, 08:33 PM
Because they have a theory on why the Sox pitching sucks this year? Thats insane.

I cancled when they left the Sox off the cover after winning the series.(first team they've ever left off) No point in getting all up in arms because of a theory they have about the Sox not pitching up to par.

Since the White Sox actually got an entire commemorative World Series Champions issue from SI and also had the nationwide SI cover with Podsednik's home run off Lidge, I really wasn't all that concerned about that. I'll admit I was somewhat disappointed that the Championship cover of The Sporting News was only available regionally while the rest of the nation got "the second half of the NFL season" on that week's cover, but that's JMHO.

StatHead21
08-04-2006, 08:44 PM
Let's not face it. Buehrle did not pitch out of his mind last season. He had his best season ever, but only slightly. He did not pitch far from his career norms.

Let's not face it. Freddy did not pitch out of his mind last season. His ERA was a whole .14 lower than his career AVERAGE. He had his third or fourth best season last season.

The jury is still out on Cotts and Garland. Both could have easily been breakout seasons, Cotts doesn't have numbers as good this season, but he also isn't surrounded by the great pitching that he had last season. Garland struggled to start with, but I think his last 9 outings have shown that he capable of another '05. Politte and Hermanson, yeah they had crazy seasons, but that's it.
And thats just good enough to spike the ERA 1.04 runs. But in the Sox defense, only one team has an ERA under 4 this season(the Tigers)3.70. Last year therer were 10 (Cards, Astros, White Sox, Indians, Angels, A's, Twins, Mets, Nats, Brewers) in order.

FarWestChicago
08-04-2006, 10:43 PM
Loss of Rowand(don't jump on me, I'd rather have Thome), all of those innings and a less efficient defense= 1 more run to their ERA.Anderson is a huge defensive improvement over Aaron "Where the hell is that ball going" Rowand. He's not even remotely close to Anderson in defensive ability. Now, when you toss in Mack "Are we really supposed to catch these damn things" every few games it evens out some. But, the defensive improvement from Aaron to Brian has nothing to do with the lack of success of the pitching staff.

StatHead21
08-05-2006, 02:25 AM
Anderson is a huge defensive improvement over Aaron "Where the hell is that ball going" Rowand. He's not even remotely close to Anderson in defensive ability. Now, when you toss in Mack "Are we really supposed to catch these damn things" every few games it evens out some. But, the defensive improvement from Aaron to Brian has nothing to do with the lack of success of the pitching staff.
Thats just a biased and ignorant comment. Aaron had one of the best seasons ever in CF and any scout/stat will tell you that. Rowand got great jumps and has good speed. Anderson has the talent to be better but doesn't get the jumps that Rowand does. Anderson also has never heard of a cutoff man. I'm glad we have Thome but Rowand dwarfs Anderson if you're comparing this year to last.

Chisox003
08-05-2006, 04:18 AM
Thats just a biased and ignorrant comment. Aaron had one of the best seasons ever in CF and any scout/stat will tell you that. Rowand got great jumps and has good speed. Anderson has the talent to be better but doesn't get the jumps that Rowand does. Anderson also has never heard of a cutoff man. I'm glad we have Thome but Rowand dwarfs Anderson if you're comparing this year to last.
:rolling:

Look, I loved Rowand as much as the next Sox fan, but he flat out doesnt compare to Anderson defensively.

Arm strength, reads, jumps, routes, speed, you name it -Brian's better.

It's not being biased, it's watching.

FarWestChicago
08-05-2006, 09:05 AM
Thats just a biased and ignorrant comment. Aaron had one of the best seasons ever in CF and any scout/stat will tell you that. Rowand got great jumps and has good speed. Anderson has the talent to be better but doesn't get the jumps that Rowand does. Anderson also has never heard of a cutoff man. I'm glad we have Thome but Rowand dwarfs Anderson if you're comparing this year to last.:roflmao:

If you are going to call somebody ignorant you might want to learn how to spell the word. :redneck

spiffie
08-05-2006, 09:47 AM
Thats just a biased and ignorrant comment. Aaron had one of the best seasons ever in CF and any scout/stat will tell you that. Rowand got great jumps and has good speed. Anderson has the talent to be better but doesn't get the jumps that Rowand does. Anderson also has never heard of a cutoff man. I'm glad we have Thome but Rowand dwarfs Anderson if you're comparing this year to last.
Wow, I thought the only people still trying to say that Aaron was a better CF than Brian were the "screw numbers, I know what I see" crowd. Considering every fielding metric out there shows Anderson as a significant upgrade over over Rowand, I don' know what stat is going to tell you Rowand is a better CF.

As for the defense thing, while BA is an upgrade, he has inadvertantly helped put Mackowiak in CF for about 1/3 of the games this year, which is a nightmare. And all around the field everyone has not fielded as strongly as last year. Lots of small things that were done right nearly every time last year seem to get screwed up more often this year. Uribe sailing throws, or Iguchi not turning the DP quickly or Podsednik not getting to a ball in LF. The defense as a whole has not been as solid as it was last year, which is a major problem for a pitching staff who mostly relies on having low BABIP. Add in that they've also all given up a much higher rate of HR this year, and that's a recipe for trouble. The pitchers are getting hit more and harder when they are hit.

The Wimperoo
08-05-2006, 11:08 AM
The only way you could say the Rowand trade hurt the defense is the fact that Ozzie runs Mack out there every 3rd game. If we still had Rowand he would be there all the time. While BA is better than Rowand, Rowand still runs circles around Mack. It's mainly the other guys who were much better last year that are causing the defense to struggle this year. Pods is worse this year. Uribe is still good, but worse than last year. Iguchi by most fielding metrics is worse this year.

For a stat head, you sure don't know much about stats.

Chisox003
08-05-2006, 02:20 PM
For a stat head, you sure don't know much about stats.
No, for a stathead he knows exactly what they all do - not much.

These FOBB and disciples of the like depend on stats more than actually WATCHING the ****ing game, and it makes them look foolish.

MISoxfan
08-05-2006, 11:18 PM
:rolling:

Look, I loved Rowand as much as the next Sox fan, but he flat out doesnt compare to Anderson defensively.

Arm strength, reads, jumps, routes, speed, you name it -Brian's better.

It's not being biased, it's watching.

Isn't Anderson having a better defensive year than he ever even approached in the minors?

DumpJerry
08-06-2006, 09:04 AM
Thats just a biased and ignorant comment. Aaron had one of the best seasons ever in CF and any scout/stat will tell you that. Rowand got great jumps and has good speed. Anderson has the talent to be better but doesn't get the jumps that Rowand does. Anderson also has never heard of a cutoff man. I'm glad we have Thome but Rowand dwarfs Anderson if you're comparing this year to last.
ROWAND SUCKS! There, I said it. Rowand's baserunning blunders were legendary (remember Game 2 of the World Series where he robbed AJ of a double?). His "spectacular" catches in the outfield are due to his getting a bad jump and then he thinks "oh ****!" and runs the right direction to make up for the initial blunder.

BA, on the other hand, is Robo outfielder. His "boring" catches are due to his ability to get the right jump on the ball seemingly while AJ is putting down the signs. BA has played 90+ games without an error or broken face.

I think Rowand for Thome was a lopsided trade in favor of the Sox.

jabrch
08-06-2006, 11:38 AM
The Strikout Rate Championship is as important as the Attnedence Championship. Someone tell me who has one of those Strikout Rings.

BP continues to embarass themselves.

jabrch
08-06-2006, 11:43 AM
Thats just a biased and ignorant comment. Aaron had one of the best seasons ever in CF and any scout/stat will tell you that. Rowand got great jumps and has good speed. Anderson has the talent to be better but doesn't get the jumps that Rowand does. Anderson also has never heard of a cutoff man. I'm glad we have Thome but Rowand dwarfs Anderson if you're comparing this year to last.

You are just flat wrong. Rowand was an inferior defender to BA using any measure except wall crashes. When they give extra credit for crashing into a wall, let me know. Rowand hit .270/.320 last year. He was hardly an offensive force. BA is growing into MLB hitting, but he's already a better defender (unless making webgems is important) than Rowand. When it is offense we need, Ozzie goes to Mackowiak. We lose a lot defensively, but we get a .310/.380 hitter.

But specifically, if you want to talk about Rowand's jumps, you are way off base. His jumps were bad.

Lip Man 1
08-06-2006, 11:48 AM
Conidering the difference in team strike out rate is what .44, I'd say the propellerheads at B.P. are even more strange then they usually are.

Lip

Chips
08-06-2006, 04:12 PM
ROWAND SUCKS! There, I said it. Rowand's baserunning blunders were legendary (remember Game 2 of the World Series where he robbed AJ of a double?). His "spectacular" catches in the outfield are due to his getting a bad jump and then he thinks "oh ****!" and runs the right direction to make up for the initial blunder.

BA, on the other hand, is Robo outfielder. His "boring" catches are due to his ability to get the right jump on the ball seemingly while AJ is putting down the signs. BA has played 90+ games without an error or broken face.

I think Rowand for Thome was a lopsided trade in favor of the Sox.

:thumbsup:

santo=dorf
08-06-2006, 04:25 PM
Is SI going to start publishing horoscopes now?
I have never understood why statheads put such a strong emphasis on K/9 but then say K's for a hitter like Adam Dunn are overrated. How can it be both ways?

How does BP explain the Braves pitchers not getting tired after going to the post season 14 years in a row? or the Yankees 10 straight years?

Do I think the Sox are tired...yes, particularly Garcia and Vazquez due to that insane WBC but that's not the only reason.

Lip
So hilarious you have such a negative opinion of the WBC even though you admitted you didn't watch it.

Vazquez and Garcia probably would've gotten more innings in spring training if they didn't pitch in the WBC.

spiffie
08-06-2006, 06:43 PM
Is SI going to start publishing horoscopes now?
I have never understood why statheads put such a strong emphasis on K/9 but then say K's for a hitter like Adam Dunn are overrated. How can it be both ways.
Because Dunn is still extremely productive. This year Dunn is hitting 257/386/560 with 128 K's. So even though he is making a lot of outs via strikeouts, he's still getting on base nearly 40% of the time. His OPS is a very solid .946.

And of course the argument will come that "his K's could be productive outs" and therefore all the rest of his production is nullified because he doesn't get enough runners over to third by hitting the ball to the right side. Other than the obvious argument that "no one seems to wish Thome were replaced by someone who strikes out less" there is the more reasoned one.

This year with RISP Dunn is hitting 264/425/692. With RISP and 2 outs he's hitting 310/453/714. So his OPS with men in RISP is over 1.000. So there is the production issue.

Overall though is the question of how much good his not K'ing so much would do. This year he has come up to the plate 202 times with men on base. 37 of those times he drew a walk. Of the other 165 times he had 40 hits, 58 K's, and 64 times where he hit the ball into an out. He has 6 GIDP. And 3 times he has hit sacrifice hits. So if Adam Dunn never struck out, just using those numbers he would hit into about 5 more double plays. Even if we say that 1/2 of those strikeouts were they ball-in-play hits would lead to a baserunner moving, since nearly 1/2 of his AB's with men on base come with just a man on 1st, it seems like it might lead to at best 10 more runs scoring over the course of the season, if that. In order to believe that his K's are having a major effect you would pretty much have to say that every time he bats with men on base his getting a ball in play would lead to a run, which seems absurd. He might be costing the Reds 2 runs per month due to a high K rate with men on base. That would seem to be rather well offset by his production. If he were Rob Deer, it would be one thing, but thus far any negatives from his K rate seem to be minimal ones.

I will say though that as someone who does not hate stats with anything near the Crusading passion of many of the folks here, the K rate obsession seems to be one of the biggest miscalculations among SABR folks. It seems to me that a pitcher with a medium but not overly high K/9 would be the most desireable in this era of very tight pitch counts, as that would mean the pitcher has a very good out pitch to get out of trouble, but is not spending 6-7 pitches on each at-bat.

jabrch
08-06-2006, 07:06 PM
Spiffie, I don't think you quite answered the question...

Why is it that K/9 is such a positive indicator that BP would print it in SI as evidence that the Sox won't make the post season, when it seems that BP and their ilk push hitters who are known for striking out a lot?

That's a conflicting story.

Ks are nice to have for pitchers. Their bad to have for hitters. But a player can be a great hitter and K a lot, or a great pitcher who doesn't get a lot of Ks. They can be a bad hitter who doesn't K much, or a bad pitcher who has a lot of Ks/9 (ok - that one is less likely, but I am sure it exists).

santo=dorf
08-06-2006, 07:53 PM
a bad pitcher who has a lot of Ks/9 (ok - that one is less likely, but I am sure it exists).
Some guys with high ERAs:
Cole Hammels
Fernando Cabrera
Peavy (well this year it's very high)
Burgos
Daniel Cabrera
Jorge De La Rosa
Scott Williamson
Rudy Seanez
El Duque
Juan Cruz
Doug Davis is usually high in the K department too.

Spiffie, my comment wasn't directly entirely to Dunn, but it seems like when statheads get asked the question of batters striking out too much, they always point to Dunn as to why it isn't bad.

Dunn is a very special case.

Lip Man 1
08-06-2006, 08:56 PM
Dorf:

It's not just me... every beat writer who covers the Sox has said the same thing, OZZIE has said it, Kenny Williams sarcastically told one of the reporters 'since the Commissioner's for it, I guess we all have to be...'

The Sox are paying the price for the idiot Bud.

And it's not the innings thrown in the spring Dorfmeister, it's WHEN they had to start preparing.

Garcia threw the final Sox game in late October. By January he had to start full scale workouts to be ready to pitch to major league hitters in game conditions much earlier then normal.

Normally you don't even start throwing hard until the middle to late January. (Those workouts are done a few times a week at your home) Most pitchers (I know, I was one) don't even think about throwing off speed pitches, cutters or sliders until the middle of February. Garcia and Vazquez had to have them all going and under control by early February. They had to start throwing daily in January.

That's where the effect has come in. Garcia threw a ton of innings and yet got about a month less to recover from it.

The WBC is stupid, ridiculous, insane and just another sceme for the owners to extort more money.

I hope the Sox piss all over it the next time it rolls around.

Lip

Frater Perdurabo
08-06-2006, 09:09 PM
Thats just a biased and ignorant comment. Aaron had one of the best seasons ever in CF and any scout/stat will tell you that. Rowand got great jumps and has good speed. Anderson has the talent to be better but doesn't get the jumps that Rowand does. Anderson also has never heard of a cutoff man...Rowand dwarfs Anderson if you're comparing this year to last.
I'm glad lots of other wise posters in this thread tore your argument apart, saving me the trouble. But all of these also apply:

:rolleyes::dunno::roflmao::bs::kukoo::nuts: :smokin::whatever:
:whoflungpoo

SoxSpeed22
08-06-2006, 10:01 PM
I'm jumping on the anti-WBC train here too, because Fox Sports showed all of the people who have had downer years this year. I think Vazquez is doing better but Freddy's been hit a lot harder.

spiffie
08-06-2006, 10:04 PM
Spiffie, I don't think you quite answered the question...

Why is it that K/9 is such a positive indicator that BP would print it in SI as evidence that the Sox won't make the post season, when it seems that BP and their ilk push hitters who are known for striking out a lot?

That's a conflicting story.

Ks are nice to have for pitchers. Their bad to have for hitters. But a player can be a great hitter and K a lot, or a great pitcher who doesn't get a lot of Ks. They can be a bad hitter who doesn't K much, or a bad pitcher who has a lot of Ks/9 (ok - that one is less likely, but I am sure it exists).
Actually my answer was that I think K/9 is horribly overrated by BP, and that K's for hitters are way too worried about by the stat-hating fan. I enjoy considering the way stats may tell us things about the game. But I am not some sort of BP following stathead who just wishes the damn game would be played on paper. I'd rather watch/listen to the 300 or so games per year that I catch. And of the mistakes BP makes, putting such an emphasis on K/9 is one of their biggest dogs (get it, K/9, dogs?! HA!).

Santo...Dunn is a pointed to because usually the statement before it is some sort of absolute saying how a player can't be that good due to K's. Hell, I could point to Thome just as easily to show that K rate is irrelevant, or damn near irrelevant, especially for a middle of the order hitter unless it is moved to such an extreme where it is either every out made is a K or no outs are made by K. And if you find a power hitter who hits for a huge OPS and never strikes out much, I'll show you their HOF bust.

ma-gaga
08-07-2006, 01:07 AM
And of the mistakes BP makes, putting such an emphasis on K/9 is one of their biggest dogs

And the biggest mistake the non-stat head makes is assuming they understand what BP is all about. Seriously, you don't read the stuff, you see a couple of snippets here and there and make a blanket assumption.

and you couldn't be more wrong. :cool:

BadBobbyJenks
08-07-2006, 01:20 AM
How does BP explain the Braves pitchers not getting tired after going to the post season 14 years in a row? or the Yankees 10 straight years?

Do I think the Sox are tired...yes, particularly Garcia and Vazquez due to that insane WBC but that's not the only reason.

Lip



I think the you are overblowing the wbc effect on pitchers...
Explain Johan Santana, Carlos Zambrano, Erik Bedard, Jeff Francis, Dontrelle Willis, Roger Clemens, CC Sabathia, Jake Peavy,Kelvim Escobar,Francisco Liriano.

spiffie
08-07-2006, 07:52 AM
And the biggest mistake the non-stat head makes is assuming they understand what BP is all about. Seriously, you don't read the stuff, you see a couple of snippets here and there and make a blanket assumption.

and you couldn't be more wrong. :cool:
Well, if the 400+ page book they just put out qualifies as "a few snippets" I guess you're right. While reading it the book sure felt like more than "a few snippets" but hey, you know better I guess.

Lip Man 1
08-07-2006, 10:43 AM
Bad Bobby:

Santana, Zambrano, Bedard and Willis got off to bad starts.

Sabathia got hurt and missed six weeks.

Co-incidence?

Lip

spiffie
08-07-2006, 12:01 PM
Bad Bobby:

Santana, Zambrano, Bedard and Willis got off to bad starts.

Sabathia got hurt and missed six weeks.

Co-incidence?

Lip
And none of those pitchers have had to work into deep October either.

You want your best example of the WBC effect on pitchers? Brad Lidge.

BadBobbyJenks
08-07-2006, 02:14 PM
Bad Bobby:

Santana, Zambrano, Bedard and Willis got off to bad starts.

Sabathia got hurt and missed six weeks.

Co-incidence?

Lip

Santana has a career era of over 4 in april and may, hes a slow starter period

Dontrelle Willis had a 3.13 era for april, if thats a bad start, Id love to see a great start.

Sabathia was out of shape and criticized for it, WBC's fault???

Zambrano had 2 terrible outing to inflate his era and had it down to 3.42 by the end of may

Bedard started 4-1 and then went into a slide so I dont get this one either

santo=dorf
08-07-2006, 04:46 PM
Jon Garland struggled early and he didn't pitch in the WBC. Ben Sheets has struggled this year and has been injured and he didn't pitch in the WBC.

BadBobbyJenks
08-08-2006, 12:50 PM
And for the record, Javier was 4-1 to start the season with the sox. Is the WBC to blame for his mental breakdown that went on in the 6th inning the last 2 months?

Tragg
08-09-2006, 01:59 PM
Because Dunn is still extremely productive. This year Dunn is hitting 257/386/560 with 128 K's. So even though he is making a lot of outs via strikeouts, he's still getting on base nearly 40% of the time. His OPS is a very solid .946.
It still seems inconsistent...if Dunn is productive, despite the strikouts, why isn't a low ERA/WHIP low strikeout pitcher productive?
For the pitcher, it's considered luck...his balls are finding gloves this year; why doesn't that hold for the hitter?
Take Dunn by himself...Dunn strikes out, it's no big deal, just an out for him; but for the pitcher who strikes out Dunn, it's an accomplishment, a very positive stat. It just seems inconsistent.
Homers I can understand...they should be good for the hitter and bad for the pitcher and I think they are considered that way.