12-17-2008, 10:51 AM
<!--quoteo(post=5175:date=Dec 16 2008, 04:02 PM:name=BT)-->QUOTE (BT @ Dec 16 2008, 04:02 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=5104:date=Dec 16 2008, 12:47 PM:name=veryzer)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (veryzer @ Dec 16 2008, 12:47 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=5088:date=Dec 16 2008, 11:28 AM:name=leonardsipes)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (leonardsipes @ Dec 16 2008, 11:28 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Adam Dunn is an example of a failure of stat analysis. The analysis is wrong, because stat people treat baseball events as if they are random (because of: 1) law of large numbers and 2) events do occur within the range of normal distribution). To them the math (OBP is the most important) trumps what they see when the watch the game.
When you watch the games, you see that how opposing teams pitch Dunn is not random. If the run on base is crucial, they try to pitch so he can't hit the ball (BB or KO). Having him on base does not matter, and if 1b was open might even help them (that will make your calculator explode). If the benefit of an out is greater than the cost of him getting a hit (even a HR) they pitch to contact (one of the more difficult tasks in pitching).
All the things that make baseball, baseball, don't show up in the numbers. No matter how many times a stat head sees the other team walk Dunn and still get out of the inning, they will say it will all even out in then end. All runs are the same, all OBP is the same and putting Dunn on base increases the expected runs for Dunn's team.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
bingo.
babe ruth, ted williams, and post steroid barry bonds would hit .360 AND walk 140 times every year. that means that when they weren't being walked, they were still getting on base. dunn, if he isn't walking, is more than likely striking out or hitting a solo home run. thats why he sucks. he can't hit.
i'm not sure my point has anything to with sipes point, but i like sipes point nevertheless.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So we've established that Dunn isn't as good as possibly the three best hitters of all time? OK, I guess I can agree with that.
You guys are insane. To whatever degree that the stat guys overrate Dunn because he walks, you guys are going the exact opposite way because he strikes out too much. Look, a guy who has a .380 career OPB is FUCKING VALUABLE. A guy who has a .518 career slugging percentage IS FUCKING VALUABLE. A guy who hits 40 home runs a year IS FUCKING VALUABLE.
Yes he's not perfect, yes he can't field, yes he is not a line drive machine, but you guys continually put across the baffling argument that he can't hit AND teams pitch around him. So according to you, he gets NO credit for walking and NO credit for hitting home runs, even though he is one of the most prolific players in baseball on both counts. And those are good things to be good at when you want to score runs. The only things that suddenly matter are his average with runners in scoring position, and strikeouts.
and for fuck's sake, give up on the strikeouts. Yes, he strikes out a lot, and yes, he will strand guys at third because of that. Do you realize that Aramis has grounded into nearly 3 times as many double plays as Dunn has? That's 2 outs for the price of one. You don't think THAT costs as many runs as striking out with a man on third with less than 2 outs does? Strikeouts are a weakness, but they don't completely invalidate 40 home run power.
Dunn is a valuable player who has distinct weaknesses. I'm not sure I could handle him and Soriano in the same outfield and the same lineup, but for God's sake, while he is not a super star, that certainly doesn't mean he "sucks". He's beat up on the Cubs enough for me to know he can't completely suck.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
i'm just going to address the ramirez point. how many times did ramirez hit into a double play and still score a run? how many times did he hit into a double play and still drive in a run? how many times did he ground into a double play and still advance a runner to third?
now what happens when dunn strikes out? nothing. putting a ball in play trumps a strike out every time. striking out accomplishes nothing for your team. nothing. i'm an uneducated swine, so maybe my point makes no sense?
When you watch the games, you see that how opposing teams pitch Dunn is not random. If the run on base is crucial, they try to pitch so he can't hit the ball (BB or KO). Having him on base does not matter, and if 1b was open might even help them (that will make your calculator explode). If the benefit of an out is greater than the cost of him getting a hit (even a HR) they pitch to contact (one of the more difficult tasks in pitching).
All the things that make baseball, baseball, don't show up in the numbers. No matter how many times a stat head sees the other team walk Dunn and still get out of the inning, they will say it will all even out in then end. All runs are the same, all OBP is the same and putting Dunn on base increases the expected runs for Dunn's team.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
bingo.
babe ruth, ted williams, and post steroid barry bonds would hit .360 AND walk 140 times every year. that means that when they weren't being walked, they were still getting on base. dunn, if he isn't walking, is more than likely striking out or hitting a solo home run. thats why he sucks. he can't hit.
i'm not sure my point has anything to with sipes point, but i like sipes point nevertheless.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So we've established that Dunn isn't as good as possibly the three best hitters of all time? OK, I guess I can agree with that.
You guys are insane. To whatever degree that the stat guys overrate Dunn because he walks, you guys are going the exact opposite way because he strikes out too much. Look, a guy who has a .380 career OPB is FUCKING VALUABLE. A guy who has a .518 career slugging percentage IS FUCKING VALUABLE. A guy who hits 40 home runs a year IS FUCKING VALUABLE.
Yes he's not perfect, yes he can't field, yes he is not a line drive machine, but you guys continually put across the baffling argument that he can't hit AND teams pitch around him. So according to you, he gets NO credit for walking and NO credit for hitting home runs, even though he is one of the most prolific players in baseball on both counts. And those are good things to be good at when you want to score runs. The only things that suddenly matter are his average with runners in scoring position, and strikeouts.
and for fuck's sake, give up on the strikeouts. Yes, he strikes out a lot, and yes, he will strand guys at third because of that. Do you realize that Aramis has grounded into nearly 3 times as many double plays as Dunn has? That's 2 outs for the price of one. You don't think THAT costs as many runs as striking out with a man on third with less than 2 outs does? Strikeouts are a weakness, but they don't completely invalidate 40 home run power.
Dunn is a valuable player who has distinct weaknesses. I'm not sure I could handle him and Soriano in the same outfield and the same lineup, but for God's sake, while he is not a super star, that certainly doesn't mean he "sucks". He's beat up on the Cubs enough for me to know he can't completely suck.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
i'm just going to address the ramirez point. how many times did ramirez hit into a double play and still score a run? how many times did he hit into a double play and still drive in a run? how many times did he ground into a double play and still advance a runner to third?
now what happens when dunn strikes out? nothing. putting a ball in play trumps a strike out every time. striking out accomplishes nothing for your team. nothing. i'm an uneducated swine, so maybe my point makes no sense?
Wang.