Dunn continues streak of walks

[Fishercat]

FWIW, it also doesn't help him considering his lineup position. Maybe he would be swinging for more contact if he had guys to drive him in, A lineup (just for instance) with Dunn where he usually is would be (just for instance, not likely real)

Freel
FeLo
Griffey
Casey
Dunn
Kearns
Randa
Larue

Now, if you were Adam Dunn, would you want to settle for a single a little more often and depend on a disappointing OF, a cooling-off 3B, Jason Larue, and the pitcher to drive you in. I bet he'd be more contact leaning if he could have a Casey-Griffey-Lopez behind him.

[Wally Mo Pena]

They don't "pitch around" the good hitter because the walk isn't as good as a hit...they do it so they can face a less talented hitter behind that hitter. It's a situational thing to set up a supposed favorable situation, not because allowing another player to get on base is a good thing. The good player gets the walk because they know they have a better chance of escaping the situation with the weaker hitter up next. Sometimes it doesn't work out though. Sometimes that walk can be MORE costly than pitching to the good hitter.

But if you are saying a walk is as good as a hit, why would they care about pitching to a good hitter as opposed to a bad hitter, because all the good hitter can do to you is get a hit. I’ve seen Sean Casey get pitched around with a guy on second, because they don’t want him to hit a single, that means that the walk they gave him was not as good as the single. Right? If the walk was as good as the single, they wouldn’t give it to him, they’d try to get him out. A one in three chance of him getting a single is worth walking him, so the walk can’t be as good as a hit. The walk doesn’t score the runner, plain and simple.

I agree with you CRF and AD44 that walks are important, and i'm glad that Dunn takes a lot of walks. My three points are: 1) a single is better than a walk, overall, because it is more likely to drive in runs, 2) Dunn's OBP doesn't make him a great hitter, because someone in the lineup has to drive in runs with contact, and he is supposed to be one of those guys, 3) Dunn should be more aggressive with RISP.

I don’t hate Dunn, I just think that he isn’t very productive. I think people are wowed by the high OPS, and forget that it’s just a stat (though a good one) and doesn’t measure production all the way. I think he should bat third also, but you can’t blame everything on where he bats, fifth is a good rbi spot in the lineup, it’s the heart of the order. If he got more hits, he’d have more rbi’s and be better for the team.

On the subject of trading him… I think some people gare a little sensitive about criticizing a player for things he should be criticized about. You don’t actually think done should e batting .230 or whatever he’s at now, do you? High OPS or not, you’d like to see him bat .270 instead right? If his OPS was the same it would be better for the team for him to bat .270, that’s just a fact. But just because I criticize the guy, doesn’t mean that I want him sent away.

If there was any reason to think about trading him, it’s that he doesn’t seem to work very hard (from articles I’ve read, not that I know him personally) and that I don’t think it’s responsible for a player to talk about playing for a rival team in the middle of a loosing streak, and citing the poor play of his team as a reason. But I think both of those things are probably due to his problems with the staff, and I think they should be let go first. If he doesn’t shape up under new management I wouldn’t mind seeing him go. There are other high OPS guys.

[Wally Mo Pena]

for what it's worth, and i just like thinking about it, i would say the reds most productive lineup would look like this:

Freel
Lopez
Dunn
Wily Mo (fingers crossed)
Casey
Griffey
Randa
Larue

[NFLman2033]

CRF30... has got to be the most annyoing person I have ever had the misfortune of posting with... AD44 is worse between the two of them in this thread I don't think I wish to return to this forum again.. goodbye

[CincyRedsFan30]

CRF30... has got to be the most annyoing person I have ever had the misfortune of posting with... AD44 is worse between the two of them in this thread I don't think I wish to return to this forum again.. goodbye

I'm sorry you want to leave, but there's really no reason to get upset over statistics being used, especially those that have been proven the most reliable.

[Sea Ray]

You guys have to get over your defensiveness where Adam Dunn is concerned. If he stays in a Reds uniform he will likely be one of the best Reds ever and his name will be found all over our recordbook. But that doesn't mean that there aren't holes in his game. The fact is he's probably not even an All Star at this point.

Right now he is a guy who walks a lot (leading to a high OBP) and hits for LH power second only to Barry Bonds. But that's it. He hits for a low batting average and he's horrible at driving in runs when the ball does not leave the ballpark.

His RBI to HR ratio is worse than Dave Kingman's. Dunn for his career is averaging just 2.3 RBIs per HR while Kingman averages about 2.75. Out of Dunn's 28 RBIs how many did not come on one of his 14 HRs? I don't know but I bet darn few.

If you want stats to backup Dunn's weaknesses you got it: batting average, low RBI totals and strike outs.

I still think he is the most feared hitter in this lineup and I agree that he should be hitting 3rd (and that's Miley's fault that he's not). But don't go bashing folks and running them off the board just because you are defensive about Dunn's shortcomings.

[CincyRedsFan30]

NL Ranking for Runs Scored(by team):
1) St. Louis
2) San Diego
3) Los Angeles
4) Philadelphia
5) Colorado
6) Cincinnati
7) New York
8) Chicago
9) Atlanta
10) Arizona
11) Milwaukee
12) San Fran.
13) Florida
14) Washington
15) Pittsburgh
16) Houston

Team batting average:
1) Colorado
2) Florida
3) Philadelphia
4) St. Louis
5) Chicago
6) San Fran.
7) Los Angeles
8) San Diego
9) New York
10) Washington
11) Pittsburgh
12) Arizona
13) Milwaukee
14) Cincinnati
15) Atlanta
16) Houston

Team OBP:
1) Philadelphia
2) San Diego
3) Los Angeles
4) St. Louis
5) Colorado
6) Florida
7) San Fran.
8) Cincinnati
9) Arizona
10) Milwaukee
11) New York
12) Chicago
13) Washington
14) Pittsburgh
15) Atlanta
16) Houston

ONE team(Houston) correlates in ranking when it comes to Runs Scored vs. Batting Average.

FOUR teams correlate in ranking exactly when it comes to Runs Scored vs. OBP.(AND THIS STAGGERING STAT: ALL teams in the top 5 in team OBP are among the top 5 teams in overall Runs Scored, just not in that exact order. It includes the same five teams that are top 5 in team OBP)

How about this one(Strikeouts from most team K's to least):
1) Cincinnati
2) Milwaukee
3) New York
4) Arizona
5) Atlanta
6) San Diego
7) Los Angeles
8) Colorado
9) Washington
10) Houston
11) Philadelphia
12) Pittsburgh
13) Chicago
14) Florida
15) St. Louis
16) San Francisco

It seems to be that strikeouts have very little correlation to Runs Scored. The Reds have the most, yet they are in the top half of Runs Scored. The Giants have the least, yet they are in the lower half of Runs Scored.

Let's take a look at those "evil" walks(from most BB to fewest walks drawn):
1) Philadelphia
2) San Diego
3) Arizona
4) Cincinnati
5) Milwaukee
6) Los Angeles
7) St. Louis
8) New York
9) Atlanta
10) Pittsburgh
11) San Fran.
12) Colorado
13) Washington
14) Florida
15) Chicago
16) Houston

Three of the five teams in the bottom five in Runs Scored in the league are also in the bottom five of number of BB in the league. The other two: Chicago and Colorado. Colorado plays at Coors and we all know what happens at Coors when it comes to hits. The Cubs are middle of the pack in Runs Scored and have gotten there mainly because of HR(Dunn's other big thing): Most in the NL over the Reds by SEVEN HR.

[Sea Ray]

OBP is a valuable stat. I grant you that.

But that doesn't mean that Dunn's game doesn't need more hits, fewer strikeouts and more RBIs.

[CincyRedsFan30]

Here is a good article from Baseball Prospectus(2001):

August 23, 2001
The Daily Prospectus
More on Awards


by Joe Sheehan

I've spent some time on the road this week, which is why this is just the second DP since the weekend. I'm going to be bouncing around the East Coast, seeing friends and family, for most of the next few weeks, so the column's schedule may be even more erratic than usual.

As an aside, if Continental Airlines is looking for a new slogan, I'd be happy to volunteer this nugget: "Continental: It's Better Than Walking."

Back to the diamonds... I've probably spent too much time on awards lately, but let me waste a few more electrons on what I believe to be obvious: Barry Bonds is the most valuable player in the National League. That there seem to be more arguments against Bonds than for him drives me crazy, because we're witnessing one of the greatest single-season performances in baseball history, a year on par with Babe Ruth's better work.



AVG OBP SLG AB 2B 3B HR BB SB CS EqA RARP
Bonds .307 .489 .818 374 27 1 54 128 10 2 .412 101.2

Bonds has a chance to break the single-season records for home runs, and walks, the NL single-season mark for slugging average, and has a reasonable shot at the second-best offensive season in history, behind Ruth's 1921. Barry Bonds's 2001 can be reasonably compared with Babe Ruth's best season. That's about the best single-sentence case for an MVP I've ever heard.

Bonds's primary competition for the MVP award comes in the form of a pair of corner outfielders also having good years:



AVG OBP SLG AB 2B 3B HR BB SB CS EqA RARP
Gonzalez .344 .436 .718 474 26 6 46 66 1 1 .362 73.5
Sosa .322 .434 .743 444 30 5 49 90 0 1 .370 76.9

Based on performance--just what they've done when in the batter's box--Bonds is the best player in the league in 2001. He's hit for more power, reached base more, and used many fewer outs than the other two players. His EqA and RARP numbers reflect that superiority: Bonds has been 25-28 runs better than the other two players, or a bit more than two wins. The gap between Bonds and these two guys is comparable to the gap between them and people like Shawn Green and Larry Walker. Sosa doesn't gain any ground on Bonds defensively, while Gonzalez may close some of the gap, but not two wins, or even one.

The case against Bonds, and in favor of the other two, is starting to come down to two points:


The players around Gonzalez and Sosa are better than the players around Bonds (building their team-dependent stats, like runs and RBI, and increasing their chance of making the postseason).

The players around Gonzalez and Sosa are worse than the players around Bonds (enabling "analysis" like Jayson Stark's column at ESPN.com which uses the players' run and RBI totals as a percentage of the team's run and RBI totals to conclude that Sosa has been the MVP).
The first point, of course, is one we've been fighting for years. Runs and RBI aren't good measures of performance, not when we have OBP and slugging average (not to mention more advanced tools). They depend heavily on the performance of the team around the player, and specifically, on the two players in front of and behind the player in the lineup. So if Craig Counsell plays a lot more than Tony Womack, Luis Gonzalez becomes a better MVP candidate. It's a terrible way to evaluate performance.

The second point takes bad tools--runs and RBI--and adds a layer of complication--long division!--to create something that looks like sophisticated analysis, but is really just fun with numbers, a freak stat. Sosa and Gonzalez have a larger percentage of their squads' team-dependent stats than Bonds does. That's not value, that's accounting. Put together, this tool seems to say that it's important for an MVP to have good enough players immediately surrounding him in the lineup to fluff his runs and RBI totals, but really bad hitters everywhere else, to keep the team runs down.

Even if Bonds led in the stat, it wouldn't matter: his performance doesn't need to be filtered through the play of his teammates, and it's only when the play of those teammates is factored in that the runners-up begin to look comparable to him. Without using team-dependent stats, there's no case for anyone but Bonds.

The other part of this is that the award is almost certainly going to go to the player on whichever of the three teams makes the playoffs. If all three go, the award will go to the one who makes it by the smallest margin, unless that's Bonds, in which case it's a tossup between the two more media-friendly characters. It really doesn't matter all that much what these three players do as much as it matters what Randy Johnson and Curt Schilling and Jeff Kent and Fred McGriff do. That statement is 1) accurate and 2) absurd.

It's the Most Valuable Player Award, not the Most-Valuable-Player-From-a-Team-That's-Good-But-Not-Too-Good-And-Provides-Enough-Support-to-Build-Up-One-Guy's-Runs-and-RBI Award. By the best measures of performance we have, Bonds is easily the top MVP candidate in the National League. Denying him the honor, on the heels of the 1998 NL MVP vote, would make it all the more likely our grandchildren will look back and wonder what the hell we were thinking.

Joe Sheehan is an author of Baseball Prospectus. You can contact him by clicking here

[Sea Ray]

The thing that makes Bonds so special in addition to his high OBP is that he rarely strikes out. I think last year he had more HRs than strike outs. Unfortunately Adam Dunn is no Barry Bonds.

[Wally Mo Pena]

OBP is a valuable stat. I grant you that.

But that doesn't mean that Dunn's game doesn't need more hits, fewer strikeouts and more RBIs.

dude, you are right, and you are dealing with CRF in a very reasonable manner, i hope you won't leave as well just because he refuses to listen. I thought what you said about dunn being in the record books but having holes in his game was right on point, and shows how willing you were to discuss the issue. When CRF makes comments like "evil walks" he shows how little he listens, and you might do well to ignore him sometimes, even if he is a "moderator."

I think all we were saying about walks was:
If dunn's OBP stayed the same, but he batted .270 instead of .220 with risp, he would have made the same number of outs, gotten on base the same number of times, but walked 3 less times and gotten a hit 3 more times. Those 3 more hits would have driven in 3 more runs or more, with nothing else changing. Not outs, not OBP, nothing. Just three more runs at least, and that's better. We've lost one run games before, maybe we'd have one them if Dunn gets those three more hits and three less walks.

[Saber]

Studies show that a walk is slightly less valuable than a single, because even though a walk cannot drive in a runner, it also avoids a double play.

Some of you here seem to act like Dunn can simply choose to hit .275 instead of .245. It's a cute notion, but who couldn't use more hits, fewer strikeouts, and more RBI?

Adam Dunn is easily the best player the Reds have had in years, and the best this year hands down. If you can't be happy with him, what kind of deluded fantasy will make you happy? A healthy Ken Griffey?

[Sea Ray]

Studies show that a walk is slightly less valuable than a single, because even though a walk cannot drive in a runner, it also avoids a double play.

Some of you here seem to act like Dunn can simply choose to hit .275 instead of .245. It's a cute notion, but who couldn't use more hits, fewer strikeouts, and more RBI?

Adam Dunn is easily the best player the Reds have had in years, and the best this year hands down. If you can't be happy with him, what kind of deluded fantasy will make you happy? A healthy Ken Griffey?

Who says we're not happy with him? We're just pointing out holes in his game and there are holes.

[Saber]

Please, this is just taking out the struggles of a team on its best player. Change Adam Dunn to Alex Rodriguez, go the Yankees forum, and it's the same thing.

[Sea Ray]

Please, this is just taking out the struggles of a team on its best player. Change Adam Dunn to Alex Rodriguez, go the Yankees forum, and it's the same thing.

It's all the same thing?

OK, did Arod's critics on the other board state that he'll likely be one of the best players ever in franchise history?

I earlier stated:

"If he stays in a Reds uniform he will likely be one of the best Reds ever and his name will be found all over our recordbook."