Marty Brennaman Really Does Hate Adam Dunn

"walking to his position"

That's a phrase that has become a joke on this site, and I think that's for a legitimate reason. I can't remember how it started, but I'm pretty sure it was regarding Dunn and his value as a player, and that's just illogical. I would totally disagree with anyone who tries to base the value of a player on whether or not he sprints/jogs/sommersaults to his position, but I DO relate to Marty's and others' frustrations.

Dunn's style--the laid-back Texas farmboy, joking around, having fun, and not at all intense--doesn't fly too well in a town like Cincy and with a person like myself (I'm a high school soccer coach and would be classified as a "screamer"). I hate Dunn's style. That doesn't mean I don't think he's a valuable hitter. But I can relate with the complaints, and all I see around here is the phrase being mocked.

My point is, let's mock the idea that walking devalues his hitting ability, but let's not mock the idea that it will not endear him to the average Reds fan. Maybe I'm in the minority, but I want to watch guys with some enthusiasm and intensity. Maybe I'm reading the guy wrong...

by greg456 on Feb 4, 2007 11:45 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

To me

there's a difference between an outright loafer and someone who's merely laid back. I think Dunn tries, even if his facial expressions and body language don't convey it. If he consistently let fly balls drop before him or didn't run out grounders (like a Manny Ramirez), then I could understand the frustrations. But I don't think that's the case with Dunn.

by ken on Feb 5, 2007 8:05 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Marty, Marty, Marty...

Brennaman: This is a guy who should hit 50 plus home runs and should drive in 130 runs or more every single year.

What Marty doesn't mention is that no one actually does that. NO ONE. Even a hitter like Jim Thome- someone Dunn should aspire to emulate- has come close to that 50/100 plateau exactly twice during his career (2001 and 2003). Ironically, those were also the seasons in which Thome breached the 180 Strikeout barrier (185 and 182 respectively).

And I don't think anyone should make a mistake- Marty Brennaman has already given up on Dunn. Entirely. I don't think for a second that Brennaman cares to understand players who profile like Dunn. As good as Marty used to be, this kind of thing happens when someone just up and decides to stop learning.

It's really tragic how far Brennaman has fallen. Had he not turned so angry over the past few seasons, he had the potential to be the Reds' version of Harry Caray. Unfortunately, at this point he shows little interest in calling a game and can't see beyond that which he was taught in little league. I lost interest in listening to him over two years ago and I don't see that changing anytime soon.

by Reds123 on Feb 5, 2007 12:19 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

how can you blame him?

The past six years, well, maybe not last year, but the previous five were the worst years in the history of the Reds with Brennaman as broadcaster. Cincinnati has a great baseball tradition and has won more championships than any team except the Yankees (26) and that wretched thing that took the trophy last year (10). Oh, and Boston (6), but we all know about their drought. We aren't supposed to stink like that.

He who laughs last obviously didn't get the joke.

by Daedalus on Feb 5, 2007 12:27 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Actually, I do blame him.

Marty's comments aren't just about the general suckitude that is the Reds. He targets players- even the good ones- if they don't play "Martyball". Of course, "Martyball" doesn't allow for any learning curve whatsoever. His consistent negative comments about Edwin Encarnacion last season were inexcusable (as was his constant Dunn bashing).

Every player must play up to their "ceiling" every year even if that ceiling is nigh-unattainable. Heck, look at what he said about Dunn (50 HR/130 RBI every season). It's as it Marty's just setting him up to underachieve considering that no one can possibly be expected to do that. The real nasty thing is that people take Marty's words as gospel because they just don't know any better.

And you are correct- Cincinnati has a great baseball tradition. Yet, it doesn't appear that Brennaman understands it. If he did, he'd understand how rare it is for the Reds to have a player capable of putting up a consistent seasonal line of 100 RS/40 HR/100 RBI. Apparently, Marty can't remember that a poor defensive low-BA/high IsoD/high-K/high power left fielder helped lead the Reds to the threshold of the playoffs in 1999. I'm not sure we saw Greg Vaughn sprint to his position a whole lot that season. Yet, because the Reds had a winning season that year, Vaughn was lauded for his "leadership" while Dunn- a man who is legitimately positive, engaging, and fun- is positioned as a chemistry and effort issue.

And Marty has been off the deep end for some time about Dunn. Here's an excerpt from a March 19th, 2005 chat at the Enquirer website:

Brennaman: Adam Dunn, even though he struck out 195 times last year, he walked over 100 times last year, so he has a great eye. I'm thrilled to death that he walks that much, but he's not paid to do that. The most shocking stat of my 31-year career was last year, in 568 at-bats, he did not have one sacrifice fly.

That truly shocking thing is that his comments are so completly neolithic. Dunn is paid to do exactly what he does- avoid Outs (whatever the form) and acquire as many bases as he can when avoiding an Out. But comments like that are what we get when an announcer completely jumps the shark and decides that players should things that are pretty much historically impossible. Don't even get me started on the idiotic Sac Fly comment. That's quite probably the dumbest of many incredibly dumb things Marty's said over the past few years.

My apologies in advance if you feel I'm being grumpy with you, Daedalus. My writing tends to get very strong when the Marty Brennaman subject comes up. I just feel that his schtick hurts the club and has for some time. The Reds are a team that should have been building a marketing strategy around it's young productive players. Yet, every time we see a player of that ilk, there's Marty to tell you why he's no good. He should be promoting Dunn as the team's best player. He should be positioning Encarnacion as a future All-Star 3B. If he were objective. But he's "all but given up" on Dunn at age 26 and thinks that Encarnacion can't play Third Base at age 23.

Oh, but wait- when Dunn and Encarnacion improve their games, Marty will tell anyone who'll listen that they did so by doing exactly what he said they should do. That's how Marty rolls and it means that he can't ever be wrong. He's done it before and he'll do it again.

It's just a freakin' mess. At this point, the Reds would do well to enlist the help of an announcer who could actually objectively promote younger players. Yet, the attitude you get from Brennaman is "Move along, nothing more to see here". That impacts the number of fans who're willing to spend the money to walk through the turnstiles at GAB. But until Castellini and his marketing crew figure that out, attendance will be impacted by Brennaman's inability to tell good players from bad players.

by Reds123 on Feb 5, 2007 1:44 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Marty doesn't promote players

I don't listen to Marty much anymore, but my impression is that he doesn't promote players and doesn't want to. He prides himself on his objectivity. Maybe he should temper his criticism of players, but if you and/or the Reds ownership want a promoter, it's not going to be Marty.

by pw on Feb 5, 2007 2:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Is he serious?

Fifty home runs every year? That's insane.

"A man once told me to walk with the Lord. I'd rather walk with the bases loaded." - Ken Singleton

by BubbaFan on Feb 5, 2007 12:31 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Down on Dunn

While I will concede that Dunn's raw power numbers and walks make him look like franchise player, he is far from it. I also don't always agree with Marty, especially concerning EE and Milton's consistency since the year 1 disaster. However, in this case he has a point. How many legitimately big hits did he get for us last year? Everyone remembers the grand slam in the amazing comeback and another game winning single in that same two week hot streak, and that was about it. The fact remains that he is an easy out for quality pitching in key situations. His strikeout totals and batting average are just inexcusable for a player of his ability. I could care less how much he weighs, but his lack of production with runners in scoring position and bad defense make him a liability for our team. Dunn is constantly saying that he and Chambliss are working to go the other way more, so he can cut down on strikeout totals, etc., but at some point I would like to see results. His plate discipline and laziness are a drain on the team. I know it is not in everyone's nature to be like Freel or the Java Man, but he and Griffey make themselves easy targets with their body language after strikeouts.

I firmly believe that Krivsky made a huge mistake in getting rid of Kearns in the Nats deal last summer. You never trade your best all-around player for what we got from that deal. I am just as befuddled now as I was the day I saw that pop up on ESPN for the first time. His constant tinkering with the 40-man roster and subsequent management of our farm system have not bothered me all that much, with the exception of giving Cormier another guaranteed year. Our system was pretty bare to begin with; the exceptions being Votto, Bruce, Bailey, and a few others. I have a really bad feeling going into this year about our run production levels, especially in close games. I am all for improved defense on this club, but at what price is it coming? If Krivsky really wanted to do something positive this winter, he would have found away to swipe Adam LaRoche on the cheap like Pittsburgh did. I know they gave up a hard-thrower with some ceiling and LaRoche was getting a big raise, but I thought that was one of the more underrated moves of the offseason. He is the anti-Dunn, in that his batting average actually goes up with r.i.s.p. and two outs. Instead, we got Jeff Conine, who Marty seems to be really high on for some strange reason....

BTW, I can't believe I sat down and complained this much after my football team just won the Super Bowl four hrs. ago. Go Horse!!!

by bmaxwell13 on Feb 5, 2007 2:38 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Lies, damned lies, and . . .

situational statistics. They must lie, of course, because they say that Dunnn's AVG and OPS (234/855 overall) rose with RISP and 2 outs (246/963). As for K's, see RM's post below.

I agree that our offense could be bad this year, and you're right that 1B would be a good place to start. But I don't think Krivsky could've acquired LaRoche because the Braves wanted relievers.

by ken on Feb 5, 2007 8:01 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Adam LaRoche

If Krivsky really wanted to do something positive this winter, he would have found away to swipe Adam LaRoche on the cheap like Pittsburgh did. I know they gave up a hard-thrower with some ceiling and LaRoche was getting a big raise, but I thought that was one of the more underrated moves of the offseason. He is the anti-Dunn, in that his batting average actually goes up with r.i.s.p. and two outs.

Does it now? LaRoche 2006 by situation:

None On: .290 BA/.342 OBP/.604 SLG
Runners On: .276 BA/.371 OBP/.497 SLG
w/RISP: .254 BA/.342 OBP/.459 SLG
w/RISP- 2 Out: .215 BA/.329 OBP/.400 SLG

Excepting his pedestrian BB rates, LaRoche was nowhere near the "anti-Dunn" in 2006. Far from it. If you want a RISP w/2-Outs comparison, that's pretty easy because both players posted identical AB totals in that situation (65) with Dunn producing 28 RBI to LaRoche's 21 RBI in 2006.

Now, situational stats- as others have aptly noted- suffer from small sample size issues. Over time, players are who they are across all situations. Go check Dunn's 3-year splits. His situational BA across all situations is well within acceptable variance norms. Same for his SLG; and that's important because SLG- not BA- is the true RBI driver. And his OBP numbers go through the roof. Contrary to what Marty will tell us, Adam Dunn has actually been more productive historically with ducks on the pond than without.

Yet, according to Marty, Dunn has no value but Adam LaRoche (who tanked situationally in 2006) is a fantastic player. Go figure.

by Reds123 on Feb 5, 2007 11:21 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Your numbers have no relevance here

Clutchiness is not about numbers. It's about how a fan "feels" a player does when it counts. A good fan knows who is good in the clutch and who is not. No numbers will show him he's wrong.

by Red Menace on Feb 5, 2007 11:40 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Ah, yes...my numbers...

I make them up, you know. I have to because I never lift my head up from my spreadsheet to watch a real baseball game.

by Reds123 on Feb 5, 2007 12:13 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

clutch

I agree, by watching and following your team you have a lot better feel than those who go strictly by the numbers especially when you talk about clutch players.

Remember 1990

by Dominican Red on Feb 6, 2007 11:06 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Reality check courtesy of statistics!

I post this acknowledging that statistics are no good. I mean, is there a "statistic" that showed how many times David Eckstein gritted it out last year? But still...

He is a guy who drove in five runs in the month of September last year

RBI in the month of September:
Encarnacion 5 Hatteberg 4 Denorfia 4 Griffey 3 Freel 3
I know, Ryan Freel isn't paid to get RBI (he also had 7 Runs Scored). Still, I am pretty close to giving up on all these players.

and didn't even get to 100 runs batted-in.

"Recently" the Reds failed to have a player record 100 RBI in:
1979-1984
1988
1990-1998
2001-2003
That's why those teams were completely horrible, and weren't even worth following.

He is going to make $10 million this year.

Estimated Salaries for 2007 (in millions):
Manny Ramirez 18 Mike Hampton 14.5 Todd Helton 16.6 Troy Glaus 10.75 Frank Thomas 10 Richie Sexson 14 Adrian Beltre 11.5 Carlos Lee 11 Jim Thome 14 Garret Anderson 11
Sure, you can find some players with Dunn's service time who are better bargains. There are plenty who are worse, or about the same. But Marty seems to mean this as an extreme perjorative, as if Dunn is grossly overpaid. He's not.

I get tired of people saying he hits 40 home runs and drives in 100 runs. Wonderful.

Don't even mention it again. It's worthless. Marty's tired of it.

This is a guy who should hit 50 plus home runs and should drive in 130 runs or more every single year.

Ladies and gentlemen, the 27 seasons in which a player has hit 50 home runs and 130 RBI in the history of baseball:

Barry Bonds 2001 Mark McGwire 1998 Mark McGwire 1999 Sammy Sosa 1998 Sammy Sosa 1999 Sammy Sosa 2000 Sammy Sosa 2001 Roger Maris 1961 Babe Ruth 1920 Babe Ruth 1921 Babe Ruth 1927 Babe Ruth 1928 Jimmy Foxx 1932 Jimmy Foxx 1938 Hank Greenberg 1938 Ryan Howard 2006 Luis Gonzalez 2001 Alex Rodriguez 2001 Alex Rodriguez 2002 Ken Griffey Jr 1997 Ken Griffey Jr 1998 Hack Wilson 1930 Mickey Mantel 1956 David Ortiz 2006 George Foster 1977 Cecil Fielder 1990 Johnny Mize 1947

Wow. That includes some of the most flukey, outlier seasons of all time. Let's clean it up. Here are the 6 players who have ever hit 50/130 more than once, and how many times they did it:

Babe Ruth 4 Sammy Sosa 4 Mark McGwire 2 Alex Rodriguez 2 Jimmy Foxx 2 Ken Griffey Jr 2

Babe Ruth was very good at baseball. And Sammy Sosa went on a crazy, suspicious run. Remember, Marty thinks Dunn should do this every year. Don't talk to him about 40/100.

Did you know Hack Wilson had 191 RBI in 1930? But he should have had 213. It's true.

And he can't do it because he leads the world in strikeouts.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Do we have to always do this? Really? Ok...

These guys led the league (nay, the world) in strikeouts:

Babe Ruth
1918
1923
1924
1927
1928

Hack Wilson
1927
1928
1929
1930
1932

Jimmy Foxx
1929
1930
1931
1933
1935
1936
1941

Mickey Mantel
1952
1954
1958
1959
1960

Mike Schmidt
1974
1975
1976
1983

Reggie Jackson
1968
1969
1970
1971
1982

Duke Snider
1949
1954
1957

Harmon Killebrew 1962, Eddie Mathews 1952, Ralph Kiner 1946...

Ok, I'm going to stop now. Strikeouts do not correlate with lower run scoring. In fact they kind of correlate with higher run scoring. Many people smarter than you have studied this a lot. But never mind those "studies." Baseball ain't played in a lab. Check this out:

Top 10 Strikeouts 2006:
Adam Dunn
Ryan Howard
Curtis Granderson
Bill Hall
Alfonso Soriano
Jason Bay
Richie Sexson
Grady Sizemore
Jhonny Peralta
Nick Swisher

Bottom 10 Stikeouts 2006 (Qualified):
Nick Punto
Brian Roberts
Jamey Carroll
Aaron Hill
Jeff Conine
Carlos Lee
Jack Wilson
Todd Helton
Aubrey Huff
Mark Loretta

We're just talking offense now. Which group is better?

I think he was overweight last year.

Yeah, probably.

He walks to his position.

This means nothing.

He walks off the field.

This is the excrement that results when ignorance eats too much stupidity.

Look, a lot of people listen to Marty, and he's lowering their understanding of baseball. The problem isn't just the case he makes, which can be refuted on its terms. The very bedrock of his baseball knowledge is fundamentally flawed, as illustrated by infusing an individual player's RBI total with great meaning.

In 20 years I can't imagine still having these conversations. They're like the 1860s debates about whether African Americans are capable of looking after themselves. The zeitgeist is changing. I know many baseball fans age 25 and younger and almost all of them understand and take for granted the type of things old baseball guys still rail against. As false conventional wisdom that has stood for years is overturned, we'll have to deal with these unpleasant situations where good ol' boys like Marty sound completely stupid. The problem is he's holding back a lot of people. You can already see the difference looking at fanbases team-by-team. Some are further ahead on the inevitable path than others.

Marty Brennaman has a really swell voice. He uses nice phrases like "hit of the two-base variety" and "titanic struggle." There's no one I'd rather hear describe the happenings on a baseball field. But his analysis is wrong wrong wrong and there's no getting around that.

by Red Menace on Feb 5, 2007 2:48 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Ageism

Do you really want to piss off all the older Reds fans that lurk here? First of all, I'm (pleasantly) surprised you know that many fans 25 and younger. We keep hearing how MLB has utterly failed to attract this age group. Secondly, you seem to be advocating dumping years of baseball tradition, unless I'm misreading you. MLB likes to promote the handing down of traditions between the generations. To hear you tell it, there's going to be nothing but name-calling between grandpa, the kids and the grandkids. Sounds like a lot of fun. BTW, don't bother going to Cooperstown. I was there last fall and loved the town, even though, or maybe because it's Norman Rockwellesque. The HOF left me cold. Not much about the Reds there either. Maybe the good stuff's at their museum in Cincinnati.

by pw on Feb 5, 2007 2:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Guilty as charged (kind of)

Maybe I made it sound like something of a holy war. First the most part the generations can get along. And of course there are older fans who continue learning about the game. Nearly all the fans my age I know are really into MLB because of the internet, SABRy stuff and fantasy baseball. I'm just struck by how debates about the value of strikeouts never seem to occur within my age group.

What really bothers us the aging sports media who seem to make no effort to better understand the sport. I can't watch a game without hearing a broadcaster preach the old nonsense. It's a joke among my young baseball fans. I can think of a few (young) newspaper writers whose understanding goes beyond old cliches (Joe Posnanski in KC, Tim Marchman in NY, Brien O'Neill in Pitt, Dan LeBatard in Miami, someone in Seattle). Of course there's any number of "new media" sources that are great.

In the first awkward year of Marty and Steve, Stewart tried to bring up OPS a few times and Marty just completely shut him down. That's frustrating.

by Red Menace on Feb 5, 2007 5:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

wow

you used the word "zeitgeist". Well done.

Well said and very well written my friend.

"Your shower shoes have fungus on them. You'll never make it to the bigs with fungus on your shower shoes." - Crash Davis

by Caleb on Feb 5, 2007 5:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Thanks...

Great post. I needed that.

If only you could spell "Mantle"?

by Billingsfan on Feb 6, 2007 8:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

In all fairness

I think that Marty was expressing his disapointment in Dunn. We all think that Dunn can be a better hitter.(fielder not so much) I just think that Marty shot off a little too much like we are all prone to do when we are frustrated with the situation and are expectations are continually crushed.

by redacolyte on Feb 5, 2007 7:47 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

I agree

What he is really saying is Dunn is stupid/bull-headed. He has all the talent in the world yet refuses to adjust.

by WayneNarron on Feb 5, 2007 10:38 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I'm with Marty,

at least the vast majority of what he says on Dunn.

Dunn was overweight last season, did strike out too often and wasn't as strong defensively as he likely can be. That doesn't mean he is a bad player. He's quite valuable, but not as valuable as he can be.

As for not running to his position, I'm with greg456. The only things we can control in life are attitude and effort. I want players, employees, children, friends, etc., who show some effort and enthusiasm. I just do. It's my personal preference.

Does non-hustle in such a situation as getting to his position rub off on other areas -- areas that show up in the boxscore -- of Dunn's game. I don't know, but it could well be.

We Are ... Marshall!

by Thundering Turtle on Feb 5, 2007 9:40 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Marty

Ya know, I used to defend Marty quite a bit, especially to my friends from out of town.

Until a game last year. There was a rain delay, and Marty and Steve were taking calls. A caller asked how ERA was calculated. Steve flat stated he didn't know, and Marty's answer was both convoluted and completely wrong. That's right, the "Hall of Famer" couldn't even explain the most basic pitching stat available.

just....wow.

by sidnancy on Feb 5, 2007 9:41 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Will Dunn have a chip on his shoulder?

Here's a guy who lists a bunch of players he thinks could arrive for ST pissed off and feeling like they have something to prove: http://www.sportsline.com/mlb/story/9968757 Dunn is one of them:

Adam Dunn, Cincinnati Reds: The Reds blaming Dunn and his supreme whiffage for their offensive woes is like ExxonMobil blaming The Sierra Club for global warming. Dunn enjoys a rep as one of the game's most genuine aw-shucks fellas, but he can only hear this absurd line of reasoning so many times before he unleashes a "We've penciled Dave Ross, Alex Gonzalez and Brandon Phillips into our everyday lineup, and you're blaming ME?" rant

by pw on Feb 5, 2007 9:45 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

I agree with Marty

It is coming from the man who taught me baseball, what else can I say? For me, Dunn is a good batter, I can accept someone with his skills at the plate on my team. However, he is useless in the OF, that makes him an incomplete player, and not good enough to be on my team. Feel free to come up with a 100 stats that somehow proves me wrong, I still dont like him, and (prolly) never will.

GO REDS!

by ewquinn on Feb 5, 2007 10:00 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

I am with Marty about half way.....

Does Adam Dunn strike out too much? Yeah, he probably does. I tend to say strikeouts dont matter for a hitter, but when you lead the league every year and post the 2 highest strikeout totals EVER in 3 seasons.... its a problem.

When compared to his peers of other 40 HR hitters, Adam Dunn is far and away less of a hitter. 10 other players hit 40 HRs last season. Their batting average was .291. Dunn hit .235.

Since 2000, of all players to hit 40 HR, only Adam Dunn has had a slugging percentage under .500 and its not really even close.

The problem is that Adam Dunn does two things well, and thats the end of his game. He walks and he hits HRs. Thats it. Every other part of his game sucks. He cant hit for anything near a respectable average. He cant field. He cant run.

He is one of the most frustrating people to watch play baseball based on those things.

Is it his fault that the offense sucks? Surely it is not.

www.redsminorleagues.com

by dougdirt on Feb 5, 2007 10:14 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

He can't run?

I know Dunner doesn't steal many bases, but even last year, when he was packin a few extra lbs he's always been faster on the basebaths than he looks.

by blotzphoto on Feb 5, 2007 3:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Base Running

This is only one example (but I'm sure there is more) however I specifically remember on July 4th last year, Dunn was the second batter of the game, and inexplicitly lost track of the number of outs, and got doubled off first because he was already to third base on a fly ball by Griffey.

Marty went nuts on the air when that happen, and I'm sure if we look back at the game thread (game # 84) Dunn was killed for it on this site too.

I completly agree with 'dougdirt' when he says that Dunn is one of the more frustrating players to watch. I'm not ready to give up on him like Marty said, because the Reds needs his bat in the lineup not just for the on base average and the homers, but also for the protection he provides Junior and EE with which you don't see in the stat books. However, the mental errors, amongst other aspects of the game, are very frustrating to cope with.

by indy on Feb 5, 2007 3:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I'd Like to Take Part of that Back

I went back and looked at the game thread I was referring to... while there was some hints of negativity towards Dunn, most of it was from 'NEILYNG' and I'm not 100% sure if that counts. However, it was a day game during a Holiday with only 52 total comments.

by indy on Feb 5, 2007 4:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

"I remember this one time when Dunn..."

I have a big problem with this line of reasoning. Here's why:

According to Bill James's baserunning stats, Dunn got doubled off exactly ONCE in 2006, and made exactly ONE baserunning out in 2006. Just because you remember it doesn't make it indicative of his ability as a baserunner.

"Karma - there it was. The meaning of life, straight from Carson Daly's lips to my morphine-laced ears." -Earl Hickey

by BLee2525 on Feb 5, 2007 6:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Ok

I agree with that... one piece of anecdotal evidence is not indicitive of his base running ability, and Bill James has "stats" to prove me wrong. Although, my point was more towards the mental errors he makes that I feel makes him a pretty frustrating player to watch.

by indy on Feb 6, 2007 8:10 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

He may be faster than he looks......

but he looks REALLY slow. But I wasnt referring to just the base paths. He cant run in the field either. Granted, there arent many guys his size who can run, but regardless, he cant run.

www.redsminorleagues.com

by dougdirt on Feb 5, 2007 4:52 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Honestly...

I'm not sure what you expect "fast" to look like from a guy 6'6" tall. The Reds don't often ask him to steal bases, but he's been darned proficient (75% career- 7 for 7 in 2006). Heck, if they really wanted him to take off more I have little doubt he could put up SB numbers akin to those of a young Dave Winfield (a much sleeker 6'6").

And there aren't many guys of Dunn's size period. Yet, he still runs better than pretty much anyone who approaches his height- much less his height and weight. He may not look graceful while churning around the bases, but when he covers as much ground with two steps as a smaller guy can with three he doesn't need style points.

by Reds123 on Feb 5, 2007 7:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Slide head first

If you slide head first, your in 6" before the other guys.. :)

by snohio on Feb 6, 2007 9:30 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

But Brawndo's got what Dunn craves!

It's got electrolytes!

And Dunn strikes out!

by Red Menace on Feb 5, 2007 10:33 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Welcome to Costco, I love you.

We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars. --Oscar Wilde

by JD Arney on Feb 5, 2007 2:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

He's a rare bird

Dunn, that is. Why can't people just accept that Dunn is a very unique player? A product of Dunn's looping power stroke is that he will strike out a lot. A product of his selectivity and discipline is also that he will strike out a lot. (That sounds weird, but it isn't--he takes a lot of borderline pitches, and while many of them probably should be called balls, they aren't). Yet, his strengths--power and on base ability--flow directly from those traits. Given the lack of pop throughout the rest of the lineup, I fail to see how turning some of his strikeouts into popups and ground outs and some of his homers into doubles would turn around the fortunes of this team. With Bruce and Votto on the way, it is imperative that the Reds keep Dunn to have in his prime while Bruce and Votto are here. Once Bruce goes Larry Walker on us (yes, that is whom most scouts compare him to), I don't think people will care too much about Dunn's strikeouts.

Just to mitigate a bit, it's obvious that Dunn had a down year last season. Who knows if that can be attributed to losing a friend in Kearns or just to having zero protection in the lineup. I think it's a given he'll bounce back, and hopefully it will be to 2004/2005 levels.

by teb7 on Feb 5, 2007 10:35 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Steve Stewart

Sorry to semi-hijack the thread, but news in San Diego is that Steve Stewart is one of two finalists for the open spot in the Padres' radio booth.

by cggarb on Feb 5, 2007 12:07 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

SS

I hope he gets it. He seems like a nice guy, and a stand up guy, and I actually enjoyed listening to him last year.

"Your shower shoes have fungus on them. You'll never make it to the bigs with fungus on your shower shoes." - Crash Davis

by Caleb on Feb 5, 2007 5:52 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

i thought

he would get a job with the nationals.

He who laughs last obviously didn't get the joke.

by Daedalus on Feb 5, 2007 7:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

The Strikeout Discussion Again?

Man, just about the time I thought the Strikeout conversation was squelched, here it comes again. Especially in Dunn's case.

Actually the RR group (as a whole) has somewhat turned me into a "Don't Buy" up from a "Sell" on Dunn. Defensively, I'd agree with most people, his lack of hustle, effort, whatever you want to call it in LF drive me absolutely crazy! I mean, ready to pull my hair out insane. Jogging out the position, eh.. Jogging to catch the fly ball and letting it land in front of you is a Charlie Brown ARRGGHHH..

That said, offensively, he is better than some people give him credit for. Strikeouts are, for the most part, meaningless. Slyde has totally got me to buy into his system on that. Sure, you don't want an out, but ground out, fly out, against the wall out, it's all the same. 1 OUT. I'd love to see some numbers that reference Dunn's SO's and Other Outs and compare them to "the average player". Take out In-Play outs that advance a runner and add two for a double play out (in which case you were better just striking out to begin with.) I would bet that the numbers would show that he has fewer than the average in-play (or foul) outs and we know he has more strike outs.

As mentioned above, a player like Dunn, if he reduces his SO's you are going to see reduced BB's, fewer HR's and many more in-play outs. With that you are going to see a major reduction in RBIs. Marty will then say "What happened to AD, he used to hit all these home runs, now he's just batting .275".

Offensively, I wouldn't want AD any other way, truthfully. Defensively, I guess I can tolerate it, just don't let me sit down the left field line.

by snohio on Feb 5, 2007 12:35 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Hmmm

My biggest complaint with Dunn is how many Sac fly outs has Dunn had in the past few years? Wasn't there a stat about that? I don't mind the guy walking a lot but he should be able to drive the ball to the outfield and get a run in once in awhile.

As for fielding he needs to be in better shape and needs to get a good jump on the ball.

To be honest my Take on Dunn is he's as good/bad as the hitters around him.

Please contribute to the Hats for Bats fund.

by Pilsner73 on Feb 5, 2007 2:12 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

What you say

makes a lot of sense to me.

by pw on Feb 5, 2007 2:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Sac flys

My biggest complaint with Dunn is how many Sac fly outs has Dunn had in the past few years?

He had 3 last year, the same number as Albert Pujols. He had 2 in 2005, one less than Pujols. If that's honestly your biggest complaint with Dunn, I'd say he's doing pretty well.

Wasn't there a stat about that?

Yup. He went an inordinate number of at-bats without a sac fly from the end of 2003 until the beginning of 2005. However, you may also note that 2004 was his most productive offensive season. All of his fly balls that were deep enough to score somebody left the yard.

"Karma - there it was. The meaning of life, straight from Carson Daly's lips to my morphine-laced ears." -Earl Hickey

by BLee2525 on Feb 5, 2007 6:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Well said.

The idea of Dunn's 2004 Sac Fly drought was an "issue" revolves around the concept that Sac Flies are a result of effort and intent rather than random events.

Hitters can, with intent, make some things happen. Hitting a spinning baseball at exactly the right height and distance in the field of play to allow a runner, regardless of speed, to score from third base ain't one of those things.

by Reds123 on Feb 5, 2007 7:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Ok

Here is Pujols compared to Dunn. Yes he may not hit a lot of sac fly either but he has nice results.

G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI TB BB SO SB CS OBP SLG AVG

143 535 119 177 33 1 49 137 359 92 50 7 2 .431 .671 .331 pujols

160 561 99 131 24 0 40 92 275 112 194 7 0 .365 .490 .234 dunn

Regardless of stats, I personally find Dunn a frustrating hitter to watch even though he gets a ton of walks. So many times I see him let two or three good pitches go by and then he swings at something either way high or in the dirt for strike 3 when there are runners on.

If I remember correctly for last season he did his best hitting work batting second, not the usual spot where you put your big rbi, homerun hitter. I feel Marty and others who criticize Dunn just do it because they see the potential to be a great offensive player and would like to see him work harder on it.

Please contribute to the Hats for Bats fund.

by Pilsner73 on Feb 6, 2007 10:56 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I have a dumb question

Please, anybody hammering on Dunn for lack of effort based on walking to his position, answer this question for me:

How does the manner in which Dunn gets from the dugout to left field tell us more about his level of effort/commitment/focus/savvy than the following facts:

He plays every inning of every game
He never asks for a day off
He never asks out of a game
He plays hurt
He plays through fatigue
He's generally the only person on the team for which statements 1-5 apply
He was asked to switch positions, and did so without bitching
He was asked to switch back a week before the season started, and did so without bitching
He's regarded as a genuinely good guy by everybody who covers the Reds
He's regarded as a model teammate

"Karma - there it was. The meaning of life, straight from Carson Daly's lips to my morphine-laced ears." -Earl Hickey

by BLee2525 on Feb 5, 2007 6:24 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

My take on it is

For the money Dunn (or any other ballplayer) makes, showing up for work, working hard, working smart and not complaining should be mandatory.

For that matter, no matter the salary or profession, such traits should be mandatory.

Typically, in any sport, players who play with emotion perform better than those who don't. That doesn't mean allowing emotion to take over, but it's an element that comes into play in making a player better.

We Are ... Marshall!

by Thundering Turtle on Feb 6, 2007 10:34 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

You tell 'em Marty

Dunn does nothing but strikeout and hit home runs, and he strikes out way more than he should. He will likely be the youngest player to reach 1,000 career strikeouts. That's ridiculous. Of course a lot of good sluggers have struck out a lot, but they were more productive then Dunn.

I personally don't understand why Dunn is content on being an above average player. He should be an excellent player. He has hall of fame talent and strives for mediocrity as oppose to excellence. I'm with Marty in that it would be nice to trade him, but the Reds won't get much out of it.

by KAredsfan on Feb 5, 2007 6:43 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

i like marty

and i like dunn

and i think the statheads miss out on a lot of what is great about the game that you can't quantify.

and dunn is frustrating. people don't get impressions based on one or two things.

and green jello is better than red.

He who laughs last obviously didn't get the joke.

by Daedalus on Feb 5, 2007 7:17 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Stats

I like to look at stats, but don't want to immerse myself in them. That's too much like work in the research lab. Maybe it depends on whether you want baseball to be a temporary escape from your routine or not.

by pw on Feb 6, 2007 10:10 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Allow me to quantify my feelings

Dunn is a polarizing figure at the center of the old school v. stathead debate. He draws a lot of unfair and unsupportable criticism, but that doesn't that the statheads that defend him don't see the flaws in his game or get frustrated with him occassionally. His fielding leaves a lot to be desired (I mean, check out his UZR), and if his conditioning was the reason for his Aug/Sept swoon then he must improve on that.

But if people's impressions (even when based on dozens or hundreds of events) are contrary to any objective measurement, then you have to question the impressions.

by ken on Feb 6, 2007 11:47 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Interesting...

and i think the statheads miss out on a lot of what is great about the game that you can't quantify.

Now, I've always considered myself a baseball fan who can do math rather than a "stathead". I tend to dislike the compartmentalization the word implies. Heck, I hated the generalization of scouts being ignorant tobacco chewing neanderthals in "Moneyball" as well.

But have you considered that "statheads" may not be "missing out" on anything? That maybe- just maybe- they get exactly the same enjoyment out of whatever it is we can't quantify? I'm asking in all honesty. Because I don't get it. I keep hearing that folks proficient in statistical analysis are somehow "missing out" or aren't "balanced" enough.

I just can't figure out why I should pity poor me for missing out on whatever it is that I'm apparently missing out on.

by Reds123 on Feb 5, 2007 7:39 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

No.... you're missing out

I can't tell you why exactly, but I just feel it.

OK... I'm just teasing. I think the whole fantasy/statcrazed approach to baseball is pretty amusing, but a positive evolution of this great game. In my limited posts here, I have already had multiple of my comments refuted by some of you guys who can quickly tell me that if I take the ratio of called first strikes X stolen bases/ # of hotdogs sold during an inning in which that player bats + the squareroot of advanced runners with less than two outs then clearly I would see how wrong I was. I guess I'm getting old. Sigh.

by TheC on Feb 6, 2007 10:11 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Zen

Some of you do the same thing to those of us who enjoy the game without having to live by stats. You constantly tell us we're wrong and that there is something wrong with us if we ignore the numbers or if we give impressions based on observations. I mean, there is a comment somewhere above that basically says that older fans don't know what the hell they are talking about because they don't live or die by the new stats. Indeed, this whole discussion is based on the idea that Marty is wrong because he doesn't.

I for one don't think the new stats are wrong or bad or whatever, and I look at them on occasion. I appreciate Slyde and Red Menace devoting hours upon hours of their time putting together nice tables for us. I get tired of the strikeout debate, too. I just get tired of some statheads (and I use that as a term of endearment) saying that everyone else is wrong. This board is dripping with condescension because some people are voicing their opinions without numbers. If someone has an impression based on one game, well, maybe they aren't on the mark. But when you watch 120-140 games a year, I think an impression is pretty valid.

You can't quantify the amount of frustration you can feel seeing Dunn day in and day out make the same mistakes over and over again. For the record, I think the "50 home runs" was a bit of hyperbole, but I don't think it's too much of a stretch to expect 120-130 RBI from a guy who hits 40 homers every year. Did anyone pull up the stats on how many solo shots he hit out last year? I have the impression he hits more solo shots than anything. Hmm...looking at the 2006 stats, I see that 23 of his 40 home runs were solo shots - more than half. Guess my impression was right. I also have the impression that Dunn doesn't get a lot of RBIs when he isn't hitting home runs. About a quarter of his RBI came from solo shots. And when you take into consideration that the other 17 homers account for RBIs, that leaves 54 RBI. Compare that to Pujols' 89 non-HR RBI or 67 for Ramirez or 67 for Thome or 74 for Bay, with only Bay playing about as many games as Dunn. Where do I find how many runners he left on base last year without having to do the math myself? I'm willing to bet it was pretty significant, and LOBs have to be the most frustrating part of baseball. But you know, I didn't really need to look up all of those numbers, because I observed with my own eyes and I felt the frustration.

You know what else? You can't quantify the hope the fans get when Dunn comes to the plate, like maybe, just maybe he could hit one out. You can't quantify the energy Ryan Freel brings to a game or how he forces managers to pay attention to him when he's on the basepaths. You can't quantify what leadership does for a clubhouse, though, as the 1994-95 team of Larkin proved, leadership can make all the difference. And you can't quantify the goosebumps people get when they hear "And this one belongs to the Reds." So when people go tearing Marty down saying "his cute little phrases like titanic struggle" demonstrates that after 30+ years of baseball he doesn't know what he's talking about, it gets under the skin of those who think this game is more than just numbers.

I love Dunn. I have a poster of him on my wall. I like him as much as I like Kearns. I love Marty, too, and am grateful that we have him. There is room for them to coexist in Redsland. And I didn't make the comment to start an argument, just to point out that there is more to life than VORP and that crucifying Marty over these comments is overreacting. Actually, it would have been easier just to say, "Marty is entitled to his opinions, and even though I don't agree with some of them, I love that he gives them. We are fortunate to have him for an announcer. Have you heard some of the others who are out there?" Besides, it gives us something to discuss. And if anyone read all this, you get a medal. A virtual medal. I'm just procrastinating at work.

He who laughs last obviously didn't get the joke.

by Daedalus on Feb 6, 2007 1:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

geez

that didn't feel that long when i typed it...sorry!

He who laughs last obviously didn't get the joke.

by Daedalus on Feb 6, 2007 1:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Amen, sister!

I'd like to point out that there's more to life than baseball, let alone VORP. It's just a gme, folks. Lighten up.

by pw on Feb 6, 2007 2:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

more to life than baseball?

no there isn't!

;)

He who laughs last obviously didn't get the joke.

by Daedalus on Feb 6, 2007 2:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Jeeez

I put off typing a paragraph for work only to come on this site and read your essay

"You my friend, are hardcore." - Krivdawg to the bathroom mirror

by rose2hall on Feb 6, 2007 3:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

You want to hug it out?

Yeah that was me. My bad.

I do object to this characterization:
So when people go tearing Marty down saying "his cute little phrases like titanic struggle" demonstrates that after 30+ years of baseball he doesn't know what he's talking about

Again, I'll say that there's no one I'd rather hear call a game.

by Red Menace on Feb 6, 2007 3:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

it was just my IMPRESSION

that someone was saying Marty didn't know what he was talking about. I mean, I can't back that up with stats...ha ha HA LOL! But really, I was mixing comments to prove a point or just to write words or something.

That sentence, when I reread it, doesn't make sense. I mean, you got the meaning and all, but it is poorly worded, isn't it? Oh, I get it - the subject in the gerund phrase "phrases" does not agree with the verb "demonstrates." There should be no S there. Duh.

The day Marty signs off for the final time will be a day I spend bawling, just like when I thought it was Joe's last game. And I'll be pretty depressed when Dunn is traded or signs with another team, too, just like when another homegrown Reds outfield was traded...

He who laughs last obviously didn't get the joke.

by Daedalus on Feb 6, 2007 5:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

gimme my virtual medal ;-)

I read it all, and I liked it. It's not too long.

I like stats, especially if they show me something surprising, that I hadn't noticed. But numbers aren't everything. I'm as interested in hearing people's subjective impressions as I am in the number crunching.

"A man once told me to walk with the Lord. I'd rather walk with the bases loaded." - Ken Singleton

by BubbaFan on Feb 6, 2007 6:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

here you are

He who laughs last obviously didn't get the joke.

by Daedalus on Feb 6, 2007 8:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I read it all

I did not understood it. I'm dum. I'm too dum for the majors. Thats why Marty don't like me.

Marty, do you have your shirt on?

by Adam from Milwaukee on Feb 6, 2007 8:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

LOL!

Thanks!

Have some candy.

"A man once told me to walk with the Lord. I'd rather walk with the bases loaded." - Ken Singleton

by BubbaFan on Feb 6, 2007 10:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

The problem with impressions...

is that they are significantly influenced by the expectations and assumptions of the person making them. Advanced statistical analysis was really created to challenge the conventional wisdom of the game, i.e. the assumptions people make about it. For example, conventional wisdom says that when you get a man to first with nobody out, you bunt him over. It's just assumed. Statistical analysis showed, however, that you actually DECREASE your chance of getting a run home that inning if you give up an out to move a man up a base. In general, the first advanced statistical analyses done showed us that outs were FAR more valuable than they were assumed to be (hence, the rise of OBP), and that the type of out didn't matter all that much. Statistical analysis provides a means of objectivity so that the bias of the observer doesn't cloud your vision of what's really of value (i.e. harping on strikeouts while ignoring OBP).

An example of a faulty assumption leading to a wrong impression is as follows:

For the record, I think the "50 home runs" was a bit of hyperbole, but I don't think it's too much of a stretch to expect 120-130 RBI from a guy who hits 40 homers every year. Did anyone pull up the stats on how many solo shots he hit out last year? I have the impression he hits more solo shots than anything. Hmm...looking at the 2006 stats, I see that 23 of his 40 home runs were solo shots - more than half.

Your impression that his low RBI totals are a result of an inordinate amount of solo shots is a result of the assumption that Dunn should be hitting half of his HR's with runners on base. Therein lies the problem. Dunn hits 43% of his HR's with runners on base, but takes only 42% of his AB's with runners on. He actually hits HR's slightly more often, on a per AB basis, with runners on base than with the bases empty. How can you reasonably expect a 50/50 split when he gets 100 less AB's with runners on than he does with the bases empty? Fautly assumption = wrong impression.

And, in my experience, the most frequent battles between the "old-schoolers" and the "stat-heads" occur when the old-schoolers refuse to acknowledge arguments made by stat-heads. This includes statements like:

"Stats lie."
"I go by what I see."
"Too statty for me."
"Why does OPS matter?"
Anything with the word "clutch" in it.
"You can just tell"

"Karma - there it was. The meaning of life, straight from Carson Daly's lips to my morphine-laced ears." -Earl Hickey

by BLee2525 on Feb 6, 2007 6:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

no

I said my impression is that he hits more solo shots than anything, meaning out of his home runs. That's not faulty logic, that's poor wording. My impression was not based on how many at bats he had but how many solo shots he hit compared to those he did not hit. I said nothing about how he should be hitting half of his home runs with runners on base.

The next sentence is about my impression that Dunn doesn't get a lot of RBIs when he isn't hitting home runs, NOT that his low RBI totals are a result of an inordinate amount of solo shots. I then compared him to similar guys and came to the conclusion that his RBI totals are lower. Again, there is no assumption that Dunn should be hitting half of his home runs with runners on base. The only "should" I said was that the guy should be hitting 120-130 RBI, because that is what guys who hit 40 homers a year usually hit.

In your rush to say that what I said was wrong, you missed the point entirely, though you did prove my point about statheads always saying non-statheads are wrong. Your logic is faulty in that you are making assumptions that I am assuming things I am not assuming. I probably should have broken up the paragraph. So what? It's a blog comment, not a newspaper article.

He who laughs last obviously didn't get the joke.

by Daedalus on Feb 6, 2007 8:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

you get one, too

He who laughs last obviously didn't get the joke.

by Daedalus on Feb 7, 2007 9:21 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Not to be a pain...

Did anyone pull up the stats on how many solo shots he hit out last year? I have the impression he hits more solo shots than anything. Hmm...looking at the 2006 stats, I see that 23 of his 40 home runs were solo shots - more than half.

The next question would be: "Are solo HR rates higher than 50% abnormal and/or high enough to be an issue?"

In 2006, MLB hitters smacked 5,386 Home Runs. Of those, 3089 were solo shots. That's a Solo HR percentage of 57.35%. Adam Dunn's percentage of solo shots was 57.50%- virtually identical to the MLB average.

Now let's take a look at the top HR hitters in the game (those with 35 or more). That list includes 23 players MLB batting title qualfiers. From that list, exactly six players posted lower than 50% solo HR rates. Six. The players who produced the highest rate of solo Home Runs (above 60%)?

Nick Swisher (60%)
David Ortiz (61.11%) <Yes- THAT David Ortiz>
Carlos Lee (62.16%)
Jason Bay (62.86%)
Alfonso Soriano (65.22%)

Heck of a list; including two huge FA signings and "Mr. Clutch" David Ortiz. But here's the thing- it's a pretty meaningless list. Hitters can't control when they hit Home Runs. And even over multiple seasons what might look like major variances in Solo HR rates actually live in the low single-digit situational gross HR variances.

But let's also take a look at the six players who produced solo HR rates below 50% in 2006:

Jason Giambi (43.24%)
Lance Berkman (44.44%)
Albert Pujols (45.90%)
Alex Rodriguez (45.71%)
Jim Thome (47.62%)
Carlos Beltran (48.78%)

Well, there's Pujols as some might expect. But there's also "Mr. Choke" Alex Rodriguez. Go figure. Here are the three-year split Solo HR rates for all the players I've listed:

Thome (48.35%)
Beltran (49.47%)
Giambi (50.62%)
Pujols (50.74%)
A-Rod (51.26%)
Berkman (53.54%)
Carlos Lee (54.00%)
Swisher (56.90%)
Dunn (57.14%)
Bay (58.06%)
Soriano (59.42%)
Ortiz (59.86%)

Now let's add the remainder of the 23-man 35-plus HR cast from 2006:

Manny Ramirez (44.72%)
Carlos Delgado (45.63%)
Bill Hall (47.54%)
Ryan Howard (51.22%)
Travis Hafner (52.43%)
Aramis Ramirez (53.33%)
Paul Konerko (56.90%)
Troy Glaus (56.99%)
Jermaine Dye (58.16%)
Andruw Jones (59.50%)
Frank Thomas (60.87%)

From a list of 23 players, we've got exactly five who've hit more HR with ducks on the pond than with the bases empty. Only one of those players (Manny Ramirez) has hit more than 100 HR over that span. No one, including Manny, has produced as many HR as Dunn. Nine from that sample produced Solo HR rates within one percentage point or higher versus Dunn's 57.14% rate.

In summary, you may have been right on your "impression" that over half of Dunn's Home Runs last year were solo shots, but that impression actually infers an expectation that Dunn should be hitting a higher rate of taters with ducs on the pond. Yet, by using simple analysis, we come to find the following:

Dunn's Solo HR rate is right at what we should reasonably expect from any hitter.
The vast majority of top HR hitters from 2006 have not, over time, produced fewer Solo Home Runs than with Runners On.
Dunn's Solo HR rate, given the sample, is well within acceptable norms of his high-power contemporaries.

In short, the "solo HR" thing appeared to have stuck with you as an issue or frustration; yet it's not an issue and shouldn't be anything resembling a frustration when viewed in proper context. And frankly, I've always failed to see an issue with a hitter who hits a lot of solo Home Runs; because it means he's his own RISP whenever he walks to the plate.

Also, I'd like to point out what you did after you perceived that Dunn hit more solo shots than multi-Run dingers. You verified your impression with a check of the historical record. In short, you wanted to check the data before posting just in case the data didn't back you up. I applaud you for that even if it does mean you've got a bit of "stathead" in you. However, you did need to actually look up the numbers. Your post couldn't exist in its current form had you not done that.

Now, if you went as far as I did in actually determining whether or not Dunn's Solo HR rate was a real deficiency (a validity and expectation litmus test), you'd have found that- regardless of what you may have heard or thought- it's not an issue at all. That's one of the values of statistical analysis; it allows our conclusions to match up with reality. Otherwise, we allow our "impressions" to rule us and that leads to unnecessary bias and unreasonable expectations. The Brennaman quote(s) in this thread are a prime example of both the former and the latter.

...it gets under the skin of those who think this game is more than just numbers.

Sorry, but I've heard that exact quote (and variations) far too often. I'm very very good with numbers. Yet, I have not (and never will) say that the game of baseball is just about numbers. In fact, I've never heard any sabermetrician use those words aloud or in print. No one thinks that the game is "just numbers". No one.

Now, I'd like my medal delivered Priority Mail and I'll offer to do the same. ;)

by Reds123 on Feb 7, 2007 12:08 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

here:

He who laughs last obviously didn't get the joke.

by Daedalus on Feb 7, 2007 9:21 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

oh, and

stop reading into the statement "My impression is that Dunn hits more solo shots than anything." There is no implication in that statement, no assumptions, no hidden meanings. It means what it says. It doesn't mean he does it more than anyone or he does it less than anyone or that he gets fewer RBI because of it or anything like that. It simply says Dunn hits more solo shots than home runs with runners on.

The only reason people are making that connection is because I included it in the same paragraph as "He should hit 120-130 RBI." At one point they were separate, but somehow I managed to put them together. Oh well, erring is human.

and the medal was a virtual medal, so no priority mail!

He who laughs last obviously didn't get the joke.

by Daedalus on Feb 7, 2007 10:17 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

But I LIKE Priority Mail!

Oh, and there's this too (from your previous post)...

Where do I find how many runners he left on base last year without having to do the math myself? I'm willing to bet it was pretty significant, and LOBs have to be the most frustrating part of baseball. But you know, I didn't really need to look up all of those numbers, because I observed with my own eyes and I felt the frustration.

In 2006, Adam Dunn produced an RBI every 3.41 AB with Runners On. The National League average was 3.78 AB per RBI with ducks on the pond. The Reds posted one RBI per ever 3.92 AB w/Runners On. Dunn's 3.41 AB rate looks even better when we consider that the Reds finished 13th in the NL in Doubles and dead last in Triples. And his 2006 rate was actually better than his 3.61 posted in 2004.

Over the past three years, Dunn's AB per RBI rate w/Runners On is 3.28 AB per RBI. The NL average over that same span is 3.88 AB per RBI. Doesn't matter how he produced those better-than-average rates. Only matters that he did.

Now isn't that interesting? You felt really frustrated while watching Dunn put up better than team-average and NL-average AB per RBI rates with ducks on the pond. You saw most of his games with your own eyes, but still left with the impression that he was doing a poor job. But a quick check indicates he performed above reasonable expectations.

That's a good demonstration of the value of statistical analysis. What we might think is bad may actually not be. Too often we don't know because we don't have enough information to determine context. Nor can we possibly properly store and process enough observational information over a 162-game season to form truly reliable conclusions without some way to cross-check our impressions versus what really happened.

And if you meant no qualitative assignment to the solo HR comment, then my apologies. I'm probably a bit touchy about that because I constantly see the "solo HR" argument positioned as one of Dunn's weak points.

by Reds123 on Feb 7, 2007 11:24 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

The Reasons

First off, VERY nice post Daedalus. I'd agree with most of that, and I learned pretty quickly that I don't fight the stats. I ask for them if I need to complete my opinion, and lucky for me we have people here who can rattle that stuff off without sweating.

I guess with the numbers above, sure his is above average on that, but what we get from watching a player like Adam Dunn is that we EXPECT him to perform every time. He is a marquise player. So when he doesn't come through that thought sticks in our mind more than the times when he does come through.

The opposite occurs when our expectations of someone are low, we remember what they did high to perform above them.

I'm sure I didn't state this in the best way, but high profile players will always be criticized for their mistakes and low profile players will always be cheered for going above.

by snohio on Feb 7, 2007 12:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

BJ

Bill James once said something like "fans of bad teams always blame their best player." It was really apt in 2005 when the Reds were leading the league in runs and Michael was convinced the problem was Dunn, not pitching.

by Red Menace on Feb 7, 2007 12:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

i don't blame dunn

I blame Morron and The Trade and three catchers and 40 year old relievers on our losses. Morron gets the blame first. Unless it's Ryan Franklin. But Morron still gets the blame because he's the one who used Franklin in the first place.

Actually, I think this is the first time I ever participated in the Adam Dunn debate. But it really wasn't about Dunn, was it?

He who laughs last obviously didn't get the joke.

by Daedalus on Feb 7, 2007 5:11 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

It's not just fans of bad teams

Yankees fans blame A-Rod. (Yes, he's set off yet another media kerfluffle.)

And I can't really blame them. I know even in the "worst year of his career" (last year), he had stats to kill for. And there's no such thing as clutch. And his "close and late" numbers are fine. Etc.

Doesn't matter. If the World Series were on the line, I'd want Jeter coming to the plate, not A-Rod. And I think most Yankees fans feel the same.

Speaking of A-Rod...this guy did an analysis of A-Rod's swing last year. He claims it shows why A-Rod couldn't hit sac flies last year. (As one of the local announcers loved to point out, A-Rod was second worse in the league at getting the runner home with a man on third and less than two outs.) According to this analysis, last year, A-Rod was shifting his weight differently, and the result was that balls that would ordinarily have been flies became grounders.

"A man once told me to walk with the Lord. I'd rather walk with the bases loaded." - Ken Singleton

by BubbaFan on Feb 7, 2007 6:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Hmn...

Speaking of A-Rod...this guy did an analysis of A-Rod's swing last year. He claims it shows why A-Rod couldn't hit sac flies last year.(As one of the local announcers loved to point out, A-Rod was second worse in the league at getting the runner home with a man on third and less than two outs.) According to this analysis, last year, A-Rod was shifting his weight differently, and the result was that balls that would ordinarily have been flies became grounders.

Did that guy also point out that A-Rod actually hit more Sac Flies in 2006 than he did in 2005 and that A-Rod's 2006 Line Drive rate was about 2.5% higher than in either 2004 or 2005? Or that A-Rod's actual 2006 Ground Ball rate of 42.3% was actually lower than his 2004 (45.3%) and 2005 (44.8%) results?

by Reds123 on Feb 7, 2007 7:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Would have been pretty difficult...

...unless he had a crystal ball. ;-) He did the analysis at mid-season.

I think a big part of the reason A-Rod says last year was the worst of his career was defense, not offense. (Though I'm sure batting 8th was not the high point of his career.) He had a bad case of the yips for awhile there. The NY tabloids were calling him "E-Rod" when they weren't caling him "8-Rod."

"A man once told me to walk with the Lord. I'd rather walk with the bases loaded." - Ken Singleton

by BubbaFan on Feb 7, 2007 8:28 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

You know

I just really, really suck at math. Always have. I want to be a stathead, and the techniques used to evaluate players makes sense to me, but I cannot grasp many of the calculations. My eyes start to cross. I have a journalism degree, with an English minor, so I have a different way of understanding than does the average linear thinker, which statheads tend to be. I'll pull a Rodney King plea here, as long as intuition is given a fair shake.

I, for one, love Dunn...and generally tolerate Marty's GIGANTIC EGO. I have the same problem with Marty that I have with numerous others...he's obvious, in what he choses to highlight and regurgitate. I can call one of his musings a mile away. If I were not a Reds Freak, I would probably hate his little butt. (i.e. Tim McCarver).

Given the proper context, Dunn's value would be a bit more visible. Put him in, say, the Phillies line-up wedged between Howard and Utley, and watch his stock rise. I tire of the strikeout debate. It's like trying to explain evolution to an evangelical. Might as well just punch yourself in the eye and cut out the middle man.

Fire George Grande!

by Pops Daniels on Feb 6, 2007 11:50 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

i'd like to

trundle out one of my favorite quotes in situations like this.

from a publication codenamed bp06:

The Brobdignagian slugger can't carry the team to a pennant if every angry peasant in the Ohio Valley is poking him in the ankles with their pitchforks because they think he strikes out too much.

a lot of us have been tired of this argument for a while.

And in the end the love you take is equal to the love you make.

by boobs on Feb 6, 2007 1:40 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

watching baseball

My publicist has informed me that my comments above might have been taken out of context. I apologize if anyone was offended. Red Menace has to keep being Red Menace.

A lot of people have mentioned that they watch a lot of baseball and form their opinions that way. First I want to point out that this plays on the old attack that statheads don't watch baseball (because they're stuck in their parents' basement looking at computers and they frankly don't even like the sport). Can you imagine someone who watched a ridiculous amount of baseball and was into objective, quantitative analysis? My God, he'd be some sort of unstoppable superfan!

Also there are many reasons why just watching the game will give you the wrong impression--confirmation bias, observer effect, etc. Having a lot of passion for your team only makes this more likely. Most fans of a statistical bent had a 'lightbulb' moment when they realized that someone they always thought was good actually sucked, or vice versa (for many in the '80s it was Bill James pointing out that Larry Bowa was in fact a bad hitter).

If I ever get a billion dollars I'd love to commission this study (after I buy a baseball team): have a group of people watch a team's entire season, but have no access to the players' stats. Black them out on the TV broadcasts and beep them when an announcer says them. Then at the end of the year have the subjects rate the players--who were the best hitters and pitchers, who came through when it counted, etc. I'd be willing to bet that there would be a big difference between their perceptions and reality.

by Red Menace on Feb 6, 2007 4:37 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

What you are saying

is that God does not exist because there are no numbers to prove it. Yet I know He exists because I can see him:

He who laughs last obviously didn't get the joke.

by Daedalus on Feb 6, 2007 8:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

That would

be interesting and fun.

We Are ... Marshall!

by Thundering Turtle on Feb 7, 2007 2:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

The problem

The problem with the "stats vs. watching" debate is that it's based on a false premise. Every baseball fan is a "stathead" at some level.

If you know any stat at all about a player, you're no longer "just" watching the game. Thus, when someone implies they are superior for ignoring stats and "going just by what they see", they're lying - quoting even batting average makes you a "stathead".

Worse yet, perceptions really blind what you think is reality. Case in point: Edwin Encarnacion. Did he hit well last year? Most people around here would say he did; in fact, people were screaming for Narron to play him more. The reality is, among 3B with more than 250 PA, he was 16th out of 40, or barely above average; those 40 hitters had an OPS of .813 while playing 3B, and EE (in a hitter's park, remember) hit .831 (Bad Man, in fact, had an OPS of .867 while at 3B - we would have been better served keeping him there, at least in the short run). So if by "he hit well" you mean "anyone who hit league-average or higher hit 'well'", OK, but my definition would set a higher threshold; I'd at least want him to hit better than the guy he chased to the bench.

I (and I guess many people) don't trust some the advanced stats. For instance, I'm not convinced you can adjust for league as accurately as proponents suggest, especially across leagues or seasons. I really distrust trying to convert various counting stats to "runs" or "wins", and worse yet "...above replacement".

But there is something to learn from more advanced stats. I remember when Larry Walker nearly won the Triple Crown, and people talked about Piazza deserving the MVP. Now I know why (park effects), but it was flabbergasting to me at the time. The fact that strikeouts are ugly, but don't really matter much was another revelation. These are pretty basic concepts (park effects) or easily verifiable (strikeouts are no worse than other outs).

And in my case it's not that the additional math is daunting, it's that I don't fully trust the way the math is used. But for some, the math can be daunting, and that'll turn people off.

Finally, people like to think they know what they're talking about, especially something they invest alot of time and effort in (say, if you've been a radio announcer for a team for 30 years...). Telling them what they think they know is wrong is upsetting; it's human nature to immediately get defensive. To make matters worse, some of the guys who advance the newer stats can be...unpleasant.

Finally, it's still a game, played by humans. All of the numbers in the world won't tell you who'll win today. The great beauty of the game isn't in the stats, it's in the game itself. Because of the nature of baseball, stats are easy to come by; thus, on the surface it's easy to say "X is a good player", and back it up. You don't have to "make the guys around you better" or "lead the team to a championship"; all you have to do is hit/pitch/catch the ball. Some want a deeper understanding, so they try to equate the different contributions players bring, but I think it's misguided and a waste of time to argue whether Barry Bonds ultimately is the 2nd or 3rd best hitter of all time, or whether Roger Clemens is the best pitcher ever, or just the best since WWII.

Just sit back, enjoy the game, and know that you're watching great athletes (unless Clayton is in the game).

just....wow.

by sidnancy on Feb 8, 2007 11:33 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

but you did notice

that i kind of turned the debate away from Dunn? Yes! I win!!!!!!

He who laughs last obviously didn't get the joke.

by Daedalus on Feb 8, 2007 11:55 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Neat Trick

Try a text search for "Michael" in this thread and see how many results there are.

Except for my mention of it just now, there are none. How did THAT happen?

"Players have two things to do. Play and keep their mouths shut." -Sparky Anderson

by boohiss on Feb 6, 2007 5:07 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Try this ...

I've chopped wood with an ax, and split wood with a maul. With an ax, it's easy to hit your spot, but you don't get a lot of power. Often times, you wind up with your ax half way through the wood. With a maul, you can split it clean, but often you miss that sweet spot.

For a big guy like Dunn, he's using a maul. He could choke up and do singles - but fans don't pay for that. He's a home run guy. People want it far and deep, even if seldom. Rod Carew he ain't.

We have to live with it. At his size and weight, it's an amazing athletic accomplishment to make home-run contact 40 times. Few in history have done that occasionally, fewer still consistently. It's a tough game.

Marty's full of shit. He's a 70's guy. Big Red Machine. Have it all our way. Don't just win - win big. I like him, hate his trivia quizzes, and wish he would lighten up. It's Cincinnati. Not New York. You gotta do a lot with a little.

by Billingsfan on Feb 6, 2007 8:53 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

That's great!

I love it that you tied Brennaman into the BRM. Interestingly enough, the BRM outscored it's opponents on Home Runs, Walks, OBP, SLG, OPS, and...high Strikeout totals. And pitching that was just good enough.

Yet, he's convinced that the key is pitching, defense, putting the ball in play, and doing the "little things" (whatever the heck he thinks those are).

In short, the BRM was dominant because of all the things Marty hates about Adam Dunn.

by Reds123 on Feb 7, 2007 12:17 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Big Red Machine

I don't really know if this proves anything, but I thought it was an interesting stat in tying the BRM talk with doing the "little things"

The 1976 Reds still holds the National League record for Most Runners Left on Base for a season (1,328, 8.1 a game). Granted, they scored 857 runs (5.3 a game), so it's a little more forgiveable.

by indy on Feb 7, 2007 9:16 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

BRM

Yet, he's convinced that the key is...defense

Uh, the BRM had Bench (10 GG), Morgan (5), Conception (5) and Geronimo up the middle, and Rose (2) at 3B.

The defense was likely the reason the mediocre pitching didn't stop them.

just....wow.

by sidnancy on Feb 8, 2007 10:32 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Does it come down to this?

Can Adam Dunn be a better player than he is?

I say he can. It's likely every player on the roster can.

If so, then what does Dunn have to do to become the best player he can be?

We Are ... Marshall!

by Thundering Turtle on Feb 7, 2007 2:28 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Good question!

Dunn basically only needs to do two things:

Stop listening to people who are motivated by the concept that they need to reduce his strikeouts for the sake of reducing his Strikeouts (basically he should wear earplugs around Narron).
Swing less at bad pitches to make pitchers more often pitch into his zone.

When those two things happen, Dunn's BB and HR rates are going to climb with a corresponding increase in Batting Average. Ironically, that BA increase will happen without Dunn acquiring a significantly higher number of Base Hits as the additional BB will drive his AB total down because he'll be trading Outs for Walks. That'll result in a Strikeout decrease as well- although not a K per AB rate decrease.

by Reds123 on Feb 7, 2007 7:31 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

This thread

I have really enjoyed reading all this.

Hopefully Dunn will show improvement this season and become the player we all want him to be.

"Your shower shoes have fungus on them. You'll never make it to the bigs with fungus on your shower shoes." - Crash Davis

by Caleb on Feb 8, 2007 8:14 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

he'll have to get a lot better

because he sucks! we'll never win with him!

And in the end the love you take is equal to the love you make.

by boobs on Feb 8, 2007 8:55 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

maybe

we just need to improve the guys around him and let him be a supporting guy rather than the main cog?

"Your shower shoes have fungus on them. You'll never make it to the bigs with fungus on your shower shoes." - Crash Davis

by Caleb on Feb 8, 2007 10:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

You guys are great

I too have really enjoyed this thread.

For me the bottom line is: can a player continue to improve during the course of his career? Even the greats aren't perfect and have things to work on. Physical abilities diminish to be sure, but nobody (and particularly not a multi-million dollar athlete) should stop trying to improve at his or her job. Dunn has a lot of stuff to work on. As Caleb says, hopefully Dunn will show improvemnet this season. To use a football analogy, my beloved Colts just won the Super Bowl (did you hear?) At post-game pressers Peyton talked about how he expected the experience of winning the Super Bowl to make him a better quarterback, and how he didn't want to be given a pass because he had finally won one. That pretty much says it all to me.

Lastly, I have to comment on the STATS vs. IMPRESSIONS/GUT REACTIONS FROM WATCHING debate (did I notate that correctly?) I think that both have truth to them and are thus invaluable to these discussions. It is, I believe, simultaneously true that impressions are influenced by a number of things (including expectations, moods, prevailing wisdom, etc.), and that stats and quantifications alone cannot fully measure the inner workings of the game.

One quick example: Dunn's HRs with or without runners on base. By observation we feel like he hit more HRs without than with. And stats back this up. But then stats also say that he had more bases-empty ABs, and his percentage was actually higher with runners on. But there's so much not accounted for by just looking at the surface of either of these approaches.

On the one hand, pitchers might not be as careful with nobody on base, thus accounting for fatter pitches and more solo HRs. On the other hand, maybe pitchers bear down harder with runners on base, but are more concerned with walking batters and setting up a big inning. And what's the game situation? And I'm not just talking about the late-inning-RISP kinda thing. Does the opposing pitcher have good stuff tonight? If so, maybe a pitcher goes a little harder in the early innings than he would if his team were scoring early runs. How's the bullpen? If a team has had a couple of extra-inning games in a row and the bullpen is gassed, the starting pitcher may have to give up a couple of HRs in order to eat some innings. I could go on and on, but I don't want to bore. Hopefully you get my point (even if you don't agree).

Stats give us a good, measurable framework with which to make sense of a complicated game. And impressions/gut reactions give us a good instinctual and emotional framework with which to make sense of a complicated game. Each has its strength, and each its weakness. Luckily, the strength of each is the weakness of the other. And that's why we need them both. Ain't symbiosis grand?

by ctnyc on Feb 8, 2007 9:54 PM EST reply actions 0 recs