Adam Dunn has no power
by casejud on Jan 26, 2009 12:58 AM EST
167 comments
...is about as logical a statement as saying Adam Dunn is a terrible LF
I know this won’t stop any of you foolish ones who criticize Adam Dunn’s outfield play from doing so – (this will just be for fun and my own benifit and whover else is entertained by it) – but there is a way to measure defense – a very BASIC one- its called, well i just call it the amount of plays a guy has made.
In 2008 Adam Dunn made 1.97 plays per game (per 9 innings) as a LF – the league average was 1.90!!
For Adam Dunn’s career he has made the same exact 1.97 plays per game, in 950 games out there – since 2001 when Dunn came into the league the league average for ML Lf’s is 1.93!!!
Do you understand what this means you idiots out there? Dunn was and has always been and was again last year an A-V-E-R-A-G-E major league LF. Do you understand that? ? He’s not a Gold Glover, He’s not GOOD, He’s not BAD, He’s certainly not a DH unless of course you wan’t to classify all of these Left Fielders as Designated Hitters…
Pat Burrel 1.77 in 1185 games
Moises Alou 1.76 in 1244 games in LF
Luis Gonzalez 1.99 in 2418 games
Josh Willingham 1.76 in 371 games
Ryan Braun 1.95 in 149 games
Carlos Lee 1.98 in 1403 games
Jason Bay 1.97 in 740 games
Man-Ram 1.76 in 890 games in LF
Matt Holliday 1.92 in 687 games
Adam Lind 1.87 in 153 games
Carlos Quentin 1.83 in 135 games
Delmon Young 1.99 in 151 games
Endy Chavez, Alfonso Soriano, Randy Winn, Dave Roberts, Carl Crawford, Johnny Damon, Shannon Stewart, Jay Payton, Ben Francisco, Garett Anderson were/are significantly better than Dunn at catching the ball in Left Field over the years. they were ALL also more athletic players and were all able to play a decent CF at times during thier careers. Besides Soriano, Lee, and sometimes Anderson, NONE of them can put runs on the board like Dunn
The most interesting players on the top list are Holliday and Quentin. Both are damn good hitters like Dunn is, both are error-prone OF’s like Dunn who don’t throw particularily well but catch the balls near them and a few more. Enough to hold down jobs as average fielders who earn thier living with thier bats. Whats the difference?
Neither of them have to listen to MADE UP FANTASY BULLSHIT about how terrible of a Left Fielder they are!
He’s okay out there. Thats it. He isnt killing anybody. Would he more of an asset at 1b? Sure. Maybe. He just isn’t that bad of an outfielder folks
0 recs |
167 comments
Email
Print
Comments
Adam Dunn is one of the worst, if not THE worst, defensive OFs in the game!
If you were to put a tent out there in left field the past couple of seasons you would have had a circus.
by Birdfan01 on Jan 26, 2009 1:07 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
So...
Over a 7-year period, in two separate baseball parks, Cincinnatti has had WAY, WAY, WAY more balls hit to LF than any other park in all of baseball?
That is what you are saying right?
How else do you explain the ABSOLUTE FACT that Adam Dunn has a lifetime range factor of 1.97 and the league average for LF over those 7 years is 1.93?
I have some plausible answers…
1. ALL average left fielders are one of the worst outfielders in the game.
2. The balls caught by the tent in LF in Cincinatti were counted as outs and balls caught by Adam Dunn
3. Only a nit-wit or a moron would try to say that a guy with above average range numbers was one of the worst OF’s.
4. Adam Dunn has had slightly more range than the average LF over the past 7 years.
by casejud on Jan 26, 2009 4:34 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
5. Range factor doesn't tell you what you seem to think it does.
by acblue on Jan 26, 2009 4:35 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
replying to myself...
scroll down, idiot
by mraver on Jan 26, 2009 9:33 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Milton, Arroyo and Claussen are all flyball pitchers
so yes, on a theoretical level there’s reason to believe they’ve had more balls hit to left, and to the rest of the outfield in general. Milton is a really extreme flyball pitcher even, plus he’s left-handed, which means even more balls to left.
Vogt early, Vogt often.
by Brickhaus on Jan 26, 2009 12:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Calm down.
Nobody’s (well…) saying Dunn isn’t a good offensive player. The amount of plays per game is dependent on how many balls are hit to him over the course of a game—something he has no control over.
That “FANTASY BULLSHIT” that you speak of considers things like errors, chances, range, etc. There is no perfect way to measure defense, but there are methods a hell of a lot better than “plays made.”
That said, Dunn is absolutely woeful at defense.
by NateHST on Jan 26, 2009 1:12 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Range Factor
IS plays made. So if you recognize range factor as a valid stat then you also recognize what I am saying. Thank-you.
Dunn career RF since 2001 1.97
Average LF since 2001 1.93
He’s not unless you show me some really crazy eveidence that more balls are hit to LF in Cinci than other places. It would have to be a LOT more balls also since Dunn is THE SLOWEST AND WORST OF OF ALL-TIME yet he magically, mystically catches more baseballs for outs at his position than the AVERAGE player at his position. Get it?
WORST player has more range than AVERAGE player.
Wouldn’t that make the “WORST OUTFIELDER” at least an average outfielder or, a below average one.?
by casejud on Jan 26, 2009 4:28 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Most people don't recognize RF as a valid stat
It was something Bill James invented 25 years ago when trying to figure out if you could make defensive statistics, and since then even he’s discredited the stat as being pretty close to useless.
Vogt early, Vogt often.
by Brickhaus on Jan 26, 2009 12:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Do you understand what this means you idiots out there? Dunn was and has always been and was again last year an A-V-E-R-A-G-E major league LF. Do you understand that? ? He’s not a Gold Glover, He’s not GOOD, He’s not BAD
Youre right – he’s not BAD… He’s absolutely TERRIBLE.
-20 Runs by UZR in 08. Probably around -12 to -15 as a LFer in any given year. This gives back a good amount of his offensive value. He was worth +27.4 runs offensively and -22.8 runs defensively. With replacement and positional adjustments he comes out to +1.8 Wins. For comparison, Jason Varitek was worth +1.2. Among qualifying LFers Dunn came in 19th, right behind Luke Scott (2.0) and in front of Garret Anderson (1.5).
He is not a good baseball player. Good hitter despite his contact issues and would be a very good option at DH. Terrible, terrible fielder. Everyone who watches him thinks so and every metric shows it that way. No point arguing about whether he’s a bad fielder because there is absolutely no question he is. In fact, he’s one of the worst defensive players in baseball and its exceedingly obvious that this is so. The only question remaining is how much of his offensive value he is putting back with the glove – and the possible answers to that range from “a lot” to “most.”
The market finally is valuing guys like this correctly in 2009 and I for one am glad to see it.
by alskor on Jan 26, 2009 1:19 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Jeez
I WISH we could REALLY settle this. If you think Jason Veritek was close to being as good of a baseball player as Adam Dunn I really don’t know what to say except, “That is pretty stupid”
by casejud on Jan 26, 2009 4:23 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Except...
Jason Varitek, WAR, 2002-2008: 21.0
Adam Dunn, WAR, 2002-2008: 20.5
Oops.
by acblue on Jan 26, 2009 4:26 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Tek's WAR is inflated because he is a catcher
If you are a league average hitting catcher than you are a almost a 3 WAR player by default. That being said, it’s harder to find a league average hitting catcher than a league average hitting left fielder.
by vivaelpujols on Jan 26, 2009 4:32 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Who are you anyway?
Adam Dunn’s mom? President of his fan club?
by Birdfan01 on Jan 26, 2009 1:23 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Yes
I am Adam Dunn’s Mother. Somebody has to defend my Baby.
by casejud on Jan 26, 2009 4:20 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
dear mrs. dunn,
your son is a very talented baseball player. he’s handsome and special and really a delight to this world. he’s a great ballplayer, and i just love watching him display his talents for me. thank you for bringing this special youngman into this world.
love travdog,
PS. personally i don’t think he’s good defensively.
"True fact: In a global thermonuclear war, the only human who would survive would be David Eckstein" -PT
by travdog6 on Jan 26, 2009 4:51 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The most interesting players on the top list are Holliday and Quentin. Both are damn good hitters like Dunn is, both are error-prone OF’s like Dunn who don’t throw particularily well but catch the balls near them and a few more. Enough to hold down jobs as average fielders who earn thier living with thier bats. Whats the difference?
The difference is these guys arent actually bad at the OF. Youve chosen one arbitrary measure of OF defense and its terribly flawed. In fact, its not even worth discussing because Im sure youre aware how bad an idea it is to use this to measure OF defense – and if for some reason you are not I expect about 15 posts explaining it to you to follow mine.
For starters, Quentin and Holliday were worth about a win more each with their bats in 2008. Holliday shows up as a pretty decent OFer in most metrics. UZR has him +4.3 runs in 08 and somewhere a little better than that for his career. Quentin has SSS issues but UZR liked him in 08 as well, showing him +5.6.
Holliday and Quentin are better hitters by half again and much, much better fielders than Dunn.
Further, just because some team is dumb enough to hand jobs or big contracts to guys like, say, Raul Ibanez does NOT make Adam Dunn a worthwhile or smart option for any team.
by alskor on Jan 26, 2009 1:26 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Holliday and Quentin are better hitters by half again and much, much better fielders than Dunn
No, they are NOT.
by casejud on Jan 26, 2009 4:14 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Try using evidence instead of all caps.
by acblue on Jan 26, 2009 4:14 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Evidence dude?
What the hell is wrong with you?
I just posted a post that told you the absolute fact that over a period of 1400 baseball games, Luis Gonzalez – who has the reputation of being a very solid LF- caught 1.99 balls per 9 innings in his career.
Adam Dunn over 950 ballgamers has caught 1. 97 balls per game.
They have the same range ok?
Unless you can convince me more balls are hit to LF in Cincinnatti since 2001 then how else can you explain that?
by casejud on Jan 26, 2009 4:20 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Try using evidence that isn't bad.
Great American Ballpark is an extreme hitter’s park and inflates fly balls. Every reputable metric on the planet says Dunn is a terrible defensive outfielder. The consensus amongst the scouting community is that Dunn is a terrible outfielder. The only person that thinks he’s even average is you, and the only thing you have to back it up is a really outdated statistic that you’re not even using correctly.
by acblue on Jan 26, 2009 4:24 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
GAB doesn't inflate flyballs
It actually decreases the amount of playable flyballs because of how small it is, however, that would also explain the high range factor.
by vivaelpujols on Jan 26, 2009 4:30 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
What I should have said is that it depresses ground balls.
by acblue on Jan 26, 2009 4:31 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
No idea, but the evidence is that fewer ground balls are hit there than at other parks.
by acblue on Jan 26, 2009 4:34 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
That's because of pitchers
Two things that GAB does do are
1) inflate homers
2) inflate flyballs inside a fielders range
GAB is one of the smallest OF in the bigs. That is the main reason why Dunn gets more plays a game. A flyball hit in Coors field has a much better chance of dropping than a flyball hit in GAB. Dunn has bad range, his home ballpark allows for more catchable balls.
by vivaelpujols on Jan 26, 2009 4:39 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't think I agree that it's because of pitchers, at least not 100%.
As far as the rest of your post though, spot on.
by acblue on Jan 26, 2009 4:41 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Say what you want
but Dunn’s range factor is 1.97 on baseball reference.com and on espn.com. Its being used completely accurately and correctly. You can INTERPRET it as you like but I’m using it just fine.
by casejud on Jan 26, 2009 5:04 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
2008 Batting Runs
Holliday: 39
Quentin: 37.7
Dunn: 27.4
by alskor on Jan 26, 2009 4:54 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Wahst your point?
Anybody can tell you that Holliday, Quentin, and Dunn are all terrific run producers.
by casejud on Jan 26, 2009 5:05 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
its a matter of degree
I claimed:
For starters, Quentin and Holliday were worth about a win more each with their bats in 2008.
You claimed:
Holliday and Quentin are better hitters by half again and much, much better fielders than Dunn
No, they are NOT.
You were wrong.
by alskor on Jan 26, 2009 1:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
how many years in a row has Dunn
had 40HR and 100RBI. I’ll take that any day of the week as my cleanup hitter. His avg may lack a bit, but he makes up for it with his high walk rate. Those are as good as singles.
Next Year! We Swear!
by NothinG on Jan 26, 2009 9:09 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Actually
Thanks to the Chris Davis thread, and poster Typical Idiot Fan, I can now tell you that :
“According to The Book and Tom Tango’s research, the hit is worth 0.77 runs while the non-intentional walk is worth only 0.63 runs, thus, a guy who gets on base with more hits should have a higher run total then a guy who hits less but walks. (For the wOBA formula, it’s actually 0.90 per base hit and 0.72 for a walk)”
Sometimes, this site rocks.
by GuyinNY on Jan 26, 2009 11:54 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Actually that's much closer than I realized
I thought the value ratio was closer to 3:2. A walk really is almost as good as a hit.
Many years from now, when his name's recalled
Everyone will say, "He should have passed the ball"
-- Al Stewart, "Football Hero"
by PaulThomas on Jan 26, 2009 9:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
you talk about using a single measure
and then keep talking about UZR. Its not like it doesn’t have its own conceptual and structural problems.
by Lovejoy on Jan 26, 2009 1:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Plus/Minus...
the other system that uses comprehensive play-by-play data from BIS, ranks Dunn as the third-worst left fielder in baseball over the past 3 years, worth 58 fewer runs than an average left fielder from 2006-2008. Only Manny Ramirez and Pat Burrell were worse in the field. UZR has him saving 50 fewer runs than average over the same timeframe.
When the best metrics and the scouts are in unequivocal agreement about a player, that’s a pretty good indication.
For good measure, Tango’s fan’s scouting report ranks Dunn as a 27 – with league average being 50 (1 standard deviation = 20). Reds fans who saw Dunn play every day for years consider Dunn to be one of the worst left fielders alive.
by slamcactus on Jan 26, 2009 6:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm pretty sure that you are joking
because I’m pretty sure that if you have actually read anything about baseball on SBnation, then you would know how bad a fielder Dunn is. UZR had him a -22.8 runs last year. He cost his team(s) over 2 wins with the glove, and didn’t quite make up for it with the bat either.
by vivaelpujols on Jan 26, 2009 1:33 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Sorry man
That stat is just innacurate
by casejud on Jan 26, 2009 4:13 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Do you know what UZR is?
The number of runs above or below average a fielder is in both range runs and error runs combined.
That sounds a lot like range factor converted into runs to me.
by vivaelpujols on Jan 26, 2009 4:28 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Make a case, Jud
You could be entirely right that UZR is way off base about Adam Dunn. Saying “That stat is just inaccurate” doesn’t do anything to indicate it, though. Make your case, Jud, or forever hold your peace.
by sharksrog on Jan 28, 2009 4:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Post Fail
Just because you’re pissed off at a bunch of Oriole fans, don’t re-post the same psychotic diatribe here.
I reject your reality and substitute my own.
by WayneCampbell08 on Jan 26, 2009 1:50 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Maybe you shouldn't post
If you’re going to be abrasive to people before they even have a chance to say anything.
by aap212 on Jan 26, 2009 2:00 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Maybe...
I find it abrasive how people make up stuff about certain basball players. It’s annoying. People can respond to what I say how they like. My post is MY response
by casejud on Jan 26, 2009 4:12 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Well
you would know something about being abrasive.
by alskor on Jan 26, 2009 4:53 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
What difference does it make?
I post because I’m pissed about something. I don’t mind being abrasive.
by casejud on Jan 26, 2009 5:00 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I find it abrasive how people make up stuff about certain basball players. It’s annoying.
Your lack of self-awareness is stunning.
When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realized God doesn’t work that way, so I stole one and prayed for forgiveness. - Emo Philips
Neglectful father of David Quinowski
by marcello on Jan 27, 2009 3:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
whatever dude
you are easily stunned then. i am COMPLETELY aware that I can be abrasive. I can be even be abrasive about being upset about people being abrasive- its hypocritical true- but in a way tat is very minor in the sceme of things. So, anyways, you are dead wrong- Im aware
by casejud on Jan 27, 2009 10:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Inherent flaw...
As per usual casejud, you are insulting others and their knowledge of the game, when in fact you seem to show a severe lack of common sense.
Plays per game doesn’t mean crap. I can stand in LF and every time a ball is hit to LF, I can wait ‘til it hits the ground before I make any attempt to field it. It still goes as a play. That is like saying a running back in football is good because he averages 22 carries a game. Chances aren’t what makes a player… it’s what you do with those chances. If the running back is only getting 3 yards a carry, he isn’t very good (or his line sucks).
If Adam Dunn is letting outs fall for singles, singles for doubles, and doubles for triples, he is not good. Just because he slowly trots to the ball and throws it to a cutoff man does not make him an average fielder. But it does go down as a “play”.
And the reason those other players like Endy Chavez, Alfonso Soriano, etc have a significantly higher PPG average is because of both random chance and because some of them have excellent range and actually get to more balls outside of LF. They cover some the CF might get, or they catch a few extra foul balls a year.
And for the sake of the English language, please learn some proper grammar. Some manners wouldn’t hurt either. Quit typing like all your opinions are facts. They are opinions. Learn the difference.
"My mom always taught me it's better to laugh at yourself than to laugh at others. She was so wrong. ;)" -Pedrophile
by Boxkutter on Jan 26, 2009 2:50 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Dont know what you are talking about dude
Those numbers are range factor. It was invented by a guy named Bill James. Its a simple stat, just devided by innings played. It can be INTERPRETED in all sorts of ways but It is a FACT that Adam Dunn has a career range factor of 1.97 and the league average at that position over that span is 1.93.
I just want someone to logicly explain to me how a TERRIBLE LF outfielder Catches more balls than the AVERAGE LF? The Cincinatti Reds Pitchers gave up gignificantly more flyballs to left over a 7 YEAR PERIOD? Ha ha ha ha. That sounds absolutely crazy to me
by casejud on Jan 26, 2009 4:08 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Catches + Assists - errors / Innings played times nine
Pretty close to the same number if you just did it by put-outswhich are – Catches
by casejud on Jan 26, 2009 4:59 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yes
See my post above. They have had a VERY flyball heavy staff. I’d be willing to bet that their RF and CF numbers are higher than average as well.
Vogt early, Vogt often.
by Brickhaus on Jan 26, 2009 12:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Damn thing...
I was writing this and I hit a wrong button… time to start over.
The 2008 Reds came out slightly above average in CF and exactly average in RF. CorePatt and Freel were significantly above average in CF (.15 and .12 higher than league average) but Jay Bruce was significantly below average (-.08), and I think most of us can agree that CF is not for him and knew that before this stat. In RF though Bruce’s number was much better (.14 higher than league average), but because Griffey Junior played in RF so much and he can barely move around (.18 lower than league average), their RF rating is average as a team.
Those were just 2008 numbers.
"My mom always taught me it's better to laugh at yourself than to laugh at others. She was so wrong. ;)" -Pedrophile
by Boxkutter on Jan 26, 2009 12:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Food for thought
Now, place me in the column that doesn’t think Adam Dunn is a very good outfielder at all. John Dewan ranked him ahead of only Manny Ramirez there when he came out with his Fielding Bible three winters ago, and I doubt Adam will rank much higher in his new edition coming out soon.
That said, according to mlb.com, the Reds were tied for fifth-lowest in air outs and were fourth HIGHEST in ground outs and strike outs among National League pitchers last season.
According to baseball-reference.com, Adam’s range factor per nine innings was 1.93 with the Reds in 2008, slightly above the league average of 1.90.
I remain unconvinced of Adam’s prowess in the outfield, but I don’t have a good explanation of how Adam came up with an above-average range factor with a team that actually scored LOW in terms of air outs recorded — and scored high on boty ground outs and strikeouts.
Your stats above are helpful, Boxkutter, but I don’t think they explain the discrepancy away in anything approaching entirety.
by sharksrog on Jan 28, 2009 4:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
what the hell kind of stat is plays per game
and why are you using it
"True fact: In a global thermonuclear war, the only human who would survive would be David Eckstein" -PT
by travdog6 on Jan 26, 2009 2:54 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Range Factor
I just like to call it plays made. It doesn’t sound so complex then. It’s just like batting average dude. It has its flaws but I dont think it is really possible for a guy to be slightly above average in range over a 7 year period and be “terrible”, “awfull”. “the worst ever”, or “Satan in LF” as he has been called here.
by casejud on Jan 26, 2009 4:10 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
You didn't come up with it so you don't get to decide what it's called.
And range factor is a pretty bad stat. The fact that you chose to use the one defensive stat that makes your case means your argument is pretty weak.
’
The metrics think he’s bad, the scouts think he’s bad and casual fans think he’s bad. Tough to argue with that.
by acblue on Jan 26, 2009 4:12 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Not so fast
Fisrtly, I called it plays made because i wasn’t trying to use a STAT. In the sense that HITS or HOMERS is a stat. It is just simply an average of how many balls he Catches and it seems to be pretty dang accurate for every other player.
By the way, I AM a pretty big fan of The Fielding Bible’s +/- metric and not knowing howe Adam Dunn ranked there I thought I’d check it out – you ready? He’s not in the top ten- and he’s not in the bottom five either- hmmmm, almost like an average LF like his range numbers say he is.
by casejud on Jan 26, 2009 4:44 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
His +/- numbers from 06-08 are -58
That is 3rd worst among all left fielders during that time. NOT AVERAGE. TERRIBLE.
by vivaelpujols on Jan 26, 2009 4:48 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Just one metric
I dont think hes that bad.
by casejud on Jan 26, 2009 4:50 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
And yet when you thought it helped your argument you were a pretty big fan.
by acblue on Jan 26, 2009 4:52 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Why isnt he one of the 5 worst in 2008?
Any particular reason? Not enough playing time? Honest question.
I just don’t see how someone who is described as bad, terrible, and yes “one of the worst ever” I’ve heard it several times, can catch more flyballs than an average LF over a seven year period. Ac, didn’t the Reds play in TWO PARKS since 2001?
by casejud on Jan 26, 2009 4:57 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
He played a third of the season in right field with AZ
so he didn’t have enough chances to make mistakes in left as the other guys.
by vivaelpujols on Jan 26, 2009 4:58 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Small sample size.
One year of defensive data isn’t nearly enough to drawn any real conclusions about ability.
And you don’t see it because you either don’t want to see it or you don’t understand range factor.
by acblue on Jan 26, 2009 4:59 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Its easy
play on a team with a crappy pitching staff – or a pitching staff that gives up lots of flyballs – OR in a park that favors hits to a certain area. These all are real effects.
In fact what separates the dinosaur Range Factor from modern fielding metrics in large part is that they adjust for these contexts.
by alskor on Jan 26, 2009 4:59 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Dunn...
likely isn’t one of the worst in 2008 because he logged 310 innings between 1B and RF. Fielding Bible treats each player as position-specific and will give a cumulative +/- based on time spent there. In 2008, Dunn logged 200 fewer LF innings than 2007, and 340 fewer innings than in 2006. Like any counting stat, that’s going to depress his totals.
You’re wrong on this one, casejud. Move on.
by slamcactus on Jan 26, 2009 6:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
"Just one metric "
Like RF is just one stat?
Never, Never, NEVER give up
by hero66 on Jan 27, 2009 12:04 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Here's one for you?
If Adam Dunn is the worst defensive outfielder of All-Time, lets say he is. I agree with you for the sake of argument.
He has caugh 1.97 balls per nine over 7 years and the average LF has caught 1.93 over this time because there are a TON of balls hit to LF in Cincinatti because there is NO OTHER EXPLANATION except to say that Dunn is close to average and we KNOW that isnt true. How do we explain THIS…
http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/CIN/2008.shtml
Look at LF for Cincy. 7 other players started games for the Reds and NONE of them caught as many flyballs per nine innings as Adam Dunn. Why?
I’ve got it! Players INTENTIONALLY hit the ball to him because he is so bad! LOL
by casejud on Jan 26, 2009 4:54 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
You're not using a reputable statistic to make your point.
I don’t care how many other ways you can make it seem like range factor is backing you up, range factor doesn’t matter and so no one is going to care.
by acblue on Jan 26, 2009 4:56 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
If it isnt reputable...
Why is it the most prominant fielding stat on baseballreference.com?
Or on espn.com?
Why is it that every time I look at the stat good fielders have good range numbers and bad ones dont? Except Adam Dunn
by casejud on Jan 26, 2009 5:14 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
BBRef is amazing but it's not really at the analytical forefront.
ESPN is terrible.
by acblue on Jan 26, 2009 5:16 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
If it is good enough for them...
…you know the rest. Its the same stat on both places so I could care less what you think abut espn. At least I sort players by a number of different stats. Good website for a few things.
by casejud on Jan 26, 2009 5:22 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
What about it?
Will they tell me the final truth about Adam Dunn? That a guy with 100 runs and 100 Rbi evry year is one of the worst players in baseall. These folks are positively delusional about this guy.
6th best LF in the game with the Bat
slightly below average with the glove, thats it
Real good ballplayer.
by casejud on Jan 26, 2009 5:24 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
They will say he is a very good hitter
And a terrible fielder.
by vivaelpujols on Jan 26, 2009 5:25 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Runs and RBI...
How is 3 times being over 100 runs in his career “evry year”…. just like only 4 times over 100 RBI. If the guy was as good a hitter as you think he is, he would be scoring a lot more runs and knocking in a lot more runs.
"My mom always taught me it's better to laugh at yourself than to laugh at others. She was so wrong. ;)" -Pedrophile
by Boxkutter on Jan 26, 2009 6:13 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
W-L for pitchers is also a useless stat, yet it’s also prominently featured in many analyses.
by ozzman99 on Jan 26, 2009 11:54 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
*revs engines*
W-L is NOT a useless stat. In today’s game, it’s best employed as a shorthand stat for a player’s prior production. Furthermore, over the course of a career it actually becomes a pretty decent barometer of performance (zomg! Blyleven!!!111one).
The problem with W-L is that it’s from another era and it reflects the game and attitudes of that era. Were pitchers to suddenly start completing most of their games again, or at least going very deep into their starts regularly, W-L would suddenly become a good stat again. In the meantime, it’s hardly useless as a stat, as it’s a quick way of saying “decent pitching + innings”.
by GuyinNY on Jan 26, 2009 12:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
fair enough
As a very rough measure, it can be used to gauge the quality of a pitcher over a signifcant number of starts. I still don’t think it means anything for relievers, though, and even for starters it’s only useful over a multi-year period. Anyone can have a bad year, or even a stretch of a few games where they pitch well but get no offensive support and pile up a few losses. Over the course of a career, that may even out, but in a one year sample it can create misleading results.
by ozzman99 on Jan 26, 2009 12:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
and by rough measure
I mean that a pitcher who has a career record of, say, 150-100 is probably a lot better than a guy who goes 60-90, but may not be any better than a guy who is 120-110.
by ozzman99 on Jan 26, 2009 12:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
There's a huge difference between career numbers and yearly ones
Bill James pointed out years ago that on a career level, total games played is actually a pretty good stat, (Eddie Murray is probably the closest thing to a simply good player on the top-10 list) whereas it’s utterly useless on a season-by-season basis.
TheSouthWing.com - A Magazine of essays, prose and poems
by OldProspects on Jan 26, 2009 6:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I recall a discussion over at baseballfever where Tom Tango thought it was a worthwhile stat over a long enough time period.
by Lovejoy on Jan 26, 2009 1:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Any stat that has ANY skill component at all is worthwhile over a long enough time period
Many years from now, when his name's recalled
Everyone will say, "He should have passed the ball"
-- Al Stewart, "Football Hero"
by PaulThomas on Jan 26, 2009 9:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
what is the definition of plays?
ive read different things in this thread: is it catches, or any fielded ball?
"True fact: In a global thermonuclear war, the only human who would survive would be David Eckstein" -PT
by travdog6 on Jan 26, 2009 4:58 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Nobody
Is counting balls he fielded that landed gfor base-hits or anything. It is balls caught.
The stat I am using is Range Factor. It is a bit “outdated” as they say but it is on player pages at baseball reference.com and a sorting stat on espn.com. You’ll probably notice something else about it if you look at the leaders at most positions 2b-3b-ss or lf-cf-rf (doesnt work for Catchers or 1b as a stat). The players at the top are all good fielders.
The stat for an OF is PUTOUTS minus ERRORS plus ASSISTS devided by Innings played times 9 + It is essentially the amount of flyballs caught per 9 inning game. Dunn’s career RF is 1.97. The average LF since 2001 is 1.93
These guys havent found a way to explain that Dunn played 2001-2002 in another park where he was also average in range.
by casejud on Jan 26, 2009 5:12 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
One year of data isn't enough to draw conclusions, he was much younger in 2001-2002, range factor isn't useful.
by acblue on Jan 26, 2009 5:16 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Range Factor
IS usefull. You are wrong. it is probably every bit as usefull as batting average. Subject to influences, biases, but still a good stat especially over a long period of time.
I trust it a LOT more than I trust any given person or groups opinion about a player becasue people are WAY,AY more biased than a pure stat.
by casejud on Jan 26, 2009 5:19 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Batting average
is a meaningless statistic in itself.
by vivaelpujols on Jan 26, 2009 5:20 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
OK
so if onw guy goes 1 for 100
and another goes 50 for 100
the guy with 1 hit is just as good or, rather you cant tell who is better by thier averages ( .010 to .500)
It isn’t meaningless AT ALL. It just isn’t the end all, be all of offense. The most important offensive stat, or even the second. it is still extremely important statistic. Hits make an offense go.
This is coming from a guy who is advocating Adam Dunn as a player too so you know Im not that big on batting average :-)
by casejud on Jan 26, 2009 5:27 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
OBP is the most important stat
having a high batting average doesn’t mean anything. if the guy who goes 50 for 100 doesn’t walk then he has a .500 OBP. If the guy who goes 1 for 100 walks 200 times than he is better.
by vivaelpujols on Jan 26, 2009 5:30 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Although...
A player that gets 30 hits and ten walks in 100 PA is more valuable than a player that gets 20 hits and 20 walks in 100 PA, which is why batting average is still somewhat useful.
by acblue on Jan 26, 2009 5:32 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
if they are all single than no
wOBA is actually the best. It takes into account all aspects of hitting.
by vivaelpujols on Jan 26, 2009 5:34 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
If all the hits for both players are singles, the player that singles more than he walks is more valuable.
by acblue on Jan 26, 2009 5:42 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Why?
the only reason supporting that would be that a single has a better chance of advancing a runner. BUt that all depends on the situation, which isn’t in the hitters control
by vivaelpujols on Jan 26, 2009 5:45 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Careful with this...
You can easily reverse it.
The only reason to suport that singles are not greater than walks would be assuming that nobody is on base. But that all depends on the situation, which isn’t in the hitter’s control.
by zego555 on Jan 27, 2009 9:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
So?
Lots of things aren’t in the batter’s control. The weather, for example, or how well the stock market is doing, or what the pitcher throws, or if he intentionally walks him or not. The mark of a good hitter is to capitalize on the opportunities he has to produce runs. A single is normally more valuable than a walk, because it normally does more to produce a run.
You’re right that there are times when they are identically valuable. One could, i suppose, go through all the times that a batter gets a single with nobody on and reduce the value to a walk, but I don’t really know how useful that would be.
TheSouthWing.com - A Magazine of essays, prose and poems
by OldProspects on Jan 27, 2009 11:32 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I think you misunderstand me.
I was giving an example of an invalid statement. I agree with you.
by zego555 on Jan 28, 2009 12:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
In this hypothetical
The player with more hits will have a higher SLG, so batting average still isn’t necessary or informative.
by ozzman99 on Jan 26, 2009 11:55 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I should say
That with 50% more hits, he probably has a higher SLG, unless there is a huge disparity in their XBH. Although, if their OBP’s are the same, I would rather have the guy with the higher SLG, even if he has a lower BA.
by ozzman99 on Jan 26, 2009 1:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
.
it is probably every bit as usefull as batting average.
Hey, we agree.
by acblue on Jan 26, 2009 5:20 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
(That's actually not true, batting average at least tells you something.)
by acblue on Jan 26, 2009 5:23 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Actually
Its just YOU buddy. If I hear a 3b has a 3.00 RF, I KNOW he is a good 3b. it tels you a lot about a player. More than a mix of other defensive metrics that dont even agree, do they?
by casejud on Jan 26, 2009 5:29 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Your line of reasoning is akin to writing a letter to the Economist
telling them to stop knocking sub-prime mortgages because 15 year old home-start data shows how wrong they are.
by acblue on Jan 26, 2009 5:31 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Dont really know what you are talking about there
but I dont think defensive metrics have advanced that far at all. The basic one works practically just as well I think.
by casejud on Jan 26, 2009 5:35 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Range factor
Pablo Sandoval’s range factor at third base in the minor leagues was 3.19 (per game, not per nine innings). That’s easily higher than 3.00, and yet there is considerable concern whether Pablo will be a decent — let alone good — major league third baseman defensively.
Pablo’s .900 career minor league fielding percentage at the hot corner isn’t at all impressive, but his 3.19 range factor per game indeed is so.
In a very small sample (85.0 innings) in the majors, the opposite has been the case. Certainly hard to improve on Pablo’s 1.000 fielding percentage, but his 1.80 RF/9 was well below the league average of 2.60.
Fielding is VERY hard to evaluate. I think John Dewan is the best available to the public, but even he will tell you fielding his far more difficult to evaluate than hitting or pitching.
Certainly range factor isn’t everything, but I do have a hard time wondering how Dunn successfully fielded more balls than the average left fielder while playing most of his games on a team that actually had FEW outs recorded via the fly ball.
I think Casejud is wrong here — but I do have to admit there are things regarding Adam’s range factor that I can’t explain at this point. Perhaps the Reds’ pitchers allowed a high number of fly balls to left field, although I don’t know where to find such stats.
by sharksrog on Jan 28, 2009 4:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Younger?
Are you saying he was once a decent outfielder? That’s be a neat admission. One that would at least lake sense.
by casejud on Jan 26, 2009 5:20 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
In 2002 he was an above average fielder according to UZR
since then he has been steadily declining each year and he is now a terrible fielder.
by vivaelpujols on Jan 26, 2009 5:21 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Doesnt jibe
for me. i think the adjustment for the park makes him worse than he really is somehow. I think the stat is flawed and he isnt that bad.
by casejud on Jan 26, 2009 5:30 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
How fucking delusional are you?
Do you actually think you are right all the time or do you try to start arguments on here purposefully? You take, what is widely accepted as a flawed stat like Range Factor (or whatever your brain wants to call it) and use it as the defining stat to rank OF, and when anyone tries to tell you different, you just keep quoting the stat repeatedly.
But when someone points to a stat that is widely accepted as being more accurate (let’s face is, no defensive stat is great), your response is “I think the stat is flawed and he isn’t that bad.”??? Seriously, are you mentally handicapped? No one can live to adulthood being that obtuse, right? Shouldn’t you have pissed off the wrong person by now and had your teeth knocked down your throat?
George Bernard Shaw once said “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” I really hope you are satisfied that you are helping to keep mankind from progressing.
"My mom always taught me it's better to laugh at yourself than to laugh at others. She was so wrong. ;)" -Pedrophile
by Boxkutter on Jan 26, 2009 6:25 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Huh?
I agreed with you all the way until the George Bernard Shaw line. Shaw is saying that the unreasonable are the ones who make mankind progress. So, in other words, we’re relying on casejud for progress.
TheSouthWing.com - A Magazine of essays, prose and poems
by OldProspects on Jan 26, 2009 10:57 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Unreasonable men...
Not quite sure how you are interpretting it. I think of it like a three legged race. Even if one of the people in it is great, their progress depends on their partner. If their partner is slow, idiotic and fights him the whole way, they aren’t going anywhere. That is what I am comparing casejud too. We are relying on people like him (unreasonable) for progress. Casejud is the slow, idiotic partner who fights us the whole way. Therefor he is keeping us from progressing.
"My mom always taught me it's better to laugh at yourself than to laugh at others. She was so wrong. ;)" -Pedrophile
by Boxkutter on Jan 26, 2009 12:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
If the grasp of...
… esoteric defensive metrics defines our progress as a species. I plead guilty. However, I seem to grasp that a guy with an OPS+ of 130 over a seven year career, with 7.3 Runs Created per 27 outs, is a really good offensive player. thats pretty advanced isn’t it?
The people who yak on and on about strikouts and batting average seem pretty uh, unreasonable, don’t they? I think they are holding us back more because that is even more obvious.
by casejud on Jan 26, 2009 1:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Obviously I'm not referring to casejud at all here
But I think he was referring to geniuses when he said unreasonable men, people who insisted on thinking about the world in an utterly different way. Einstein, for example, who refused to think of time and space or matter and energy as separate but rather as interconnected, or Napoleon who commanded history instead of being commanded by it. Progress relies on people who refuse to go along but are bull-headedly insistent, unreasonably so, on their own view. I think of that quote as related to Eleanor Roosevelt’s line about well-behaved women rarely making history.
And then there is casejud
TheSouthWing.com - A Magazine of essays, prose and poems
by OldProspects on Jan 26, 2009 7:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I never thought of it that way...
but I can certainly see how you thought that. It is a very interesting interpretation of the quote. I still like my interpretation more lol, but it’s great to see how else it can be construed.
"My mom always taught me it's better to laugh at yourself than to laugh at others. She was so wrong. ;)" -Pedrophile
by Boxkutter on Jan 27, 2009 2:33 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I think it is cool
What more worthy topic to discuss than people’s bizarre obsession with discrediting Adam Dunn – personally and professionally. He seems like a nice enough dude.
by casejud on Jan 26, 2009 5:17 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
No one is obsessed with discrediting Adam Dunn.
The bizarre thing here is your martyr complex by proxy.
by acblue on Jan 26, 2009 5:18 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
You are totally wrong
For the accomplishments of this guy, he is a completely maligned player. I dont really feel like a martyr but I am a bit puxxled by how much criticizm he gets for his fielding and his hitting. The guy is an absolute offensive force…every year…and all you hear about are the freaking strikouts… or how he doesnt love the game…yet he seems like a fun loving person that his teamates like…little bit of a lug out there in LF but Ive seen lots worse, sorry.
by casejud on Jan 26, 2009 5:33 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Once again
Dunn is an excellent offensive player. He is a terrible defensive player which takes away a lot of his overall value. Example
2008
+ 27.4 batting runs
- 22.8 fielding runs
That makes him only about 5 runs, or a half a win better than the average left fielder.
by vivaelpujols on Jan 26, 2009 5:37 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
No
The measurment for offensive runs is more refined and accurate than the fielding one. He isn’t hurting his team that much in the field. Its impossible.
by casejud on Jan 26, 2009 5:41 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The margin of error of UZR is about +/- 5 runs
so best case scenario, he only costs his team 17 runs. Worst case, he cost them 28 runs.
by vivaelpujols on Jan 26, 2009 5:43 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Where can I read up about UZR’s margin of error?
by Lovejoy on Jan 26, 2009 2:14 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
You don't even know how UZR is calculated, do you?
Rather than saying “its impossible”, please explain what the flaw in UZR is.
by Fett42 on Jan 26, 2009 8:12 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
just because you dont understand something doesnt mean its “impossible.”
by alskor on Jan 26, 2009 1:22 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Impossible?
There is a HUGE difference in run expectancy between a ball that a bad fielder drops in the outfielder when a good fielder would have made the out. Often, it’s the difference between an out and a double. The difference between an out and a double averages out to about .6 runs depending on in-game context. Hundreds of plays over more than 1000 innings adds up. Bad defenders cost their teams a lot of runs.
by slamcactus on Jan 26, 2009 7:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Two things
I’m disappointed with how few people (besides casejud) have actually taken the time to talk about the defensive metric they’re using and why it is reasonable.
I don’t think Dunn is the worst defensive LF in the league, but he’s probably in the bottom third. For my money, the plus/minus system (mentioned above) or David Pinto’s Probablistic Model of Range (PMR) are the best metrics out there. PMR takes each ball in play over the course of a MLB season and categorizes it by a number of parameters (velocity, location, angle off the bat if we’re talking a fly ball, etc.), and determines the probability that this ball would be turned into an out (ie, the number of balls like this one that were turned into outs divided by the total number of similar balls in play that year). If a player makes a play on a particularly tough ball, they’re given more credit than if they had just made a routine play. Similarly, they’re punished more for missing the easy ones than the tough ones.
According to PMR, in 2008, Dunn was in the bottom 10 (out of like 40 qualified players), placing between Pat Burrell and Matt Holliday.
Given this and his plus/minus ratings, I would say that, while he’s not uniquely horrible in the way you suggest he is perceived, he’s still pretty bad out there.
by mraver on Jan 26, 2009 9:56 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Thanks
That is really all that I was saying. That he was as bad as Matt Holliday or Pat Burell but recieves WAY more criticism for it. On top of that he gets flack for his OFFENSE even though it is plainly OBVIOUS that he is a really, really good offensive player on the whole – every season! I just think that is delusional and irrational and hard to understand. It would be different if he were really a bad guy or something but even then it doesnt change what a guy does within a ballgame.
I don’t particularily love Adam Dunn other than the fact I like an underdog and the way a large group of people talk about Dunn is like he is so bad in LF that ity makes him a worthless player out there and, I really just don’t buy it. Thats all really.
by casejud on Jan 26, 2009 12:55 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
UZR
is basically advanced range factor converted into runs. Dunn was 22.8 runs last year. +/ tracks balls hit to see if they are catchable by another player. over the last 3 years Dunn has been -58.
by vivaelpujols on Jan 26, 2009 3:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Two things Casejud said that are hilarious
1. “It isn’t meaningless AT ALL. It just isn’t the end all, be all of offense.”
- He was talking about average there. The funny part is he says that, then acts like range factor is the end all on defense. This guy is like a politician. He argues one thing, then reverses his logic to argue for another. The fact that he can’t stick to line of logic betrays his point.
2." He seems like a nice enough dude."
-The truth comes out. Casejud once met Dunn and is now trying to defend him because he thought Dunn was nice.
It’s obvious to me, and likely many others, that Casejud is simply looking for a fight. He’s making asinine arguments and doesn’t care if his arguments make sense.
While I agree that anecdotal evidence is often misleading and statistics can give a more accurate answer, I would have to agree with the majority here that Adam Dunn is a pretty bad defender.
The dude is slow and hasn’t made very many plays in the 10-20 games that I’ve seen him play over the last three years in person. Yes, he can catch balls that are hit right to him. But he’s a major leaguer, he better be able to catch those.
And, in case we forget, there are lies, damn lies and statistics. It seems that Casejud is using all of those.
by joltinjoe on Jan 26, 2009 10:29 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Not really
I’m really not doing any of that. It’s just that the amount of balls a guy catches is easier to interpret than other defensive statistics and it works well for everyone else except players who people have an irrational vendetta against.
I don’t even particularily love Adam Dunn if it weren’t for all the irrational criticism he recieves. For example, within this thread count how many times somebody says something negative about his OFFENSIVE gamedespit the fact that he is…
A) One of the most powerfull hitters in the game
B) Creates tons of offensive oppurtunities for his teamates by getting on base
C) Is a consistently, outstanding offensive player
That delusional thinkng people have about his offensive game – taking the fact that he is just a really outstanding offensive player and yakking insessantly about his batting average, his strikouts, his RBI’s, his RUNS, blah, blah, blah – when he is just a really good offensive player who is just doing it in a unique way – makes me think that the criticism about his defense is overblown too.
He’s like the Rasheed Wallace of baseball, this guy. Everything about him is overblown – offense, defense, attitude, everything. There are maybe 6 LF’s in the game who are as good as him, on the whole.
by casejud on Jan 26, 2009 1:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Casejud is absolutely right
Dunn may appear to the naked eye to be a lumbering figure who could be confused for a statue, but if you look at the tape with a stopwatch, you can see that he is actually covering ground like a cheetah.
by BaseballBrain on Jan 26, 2009 10:38 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
I thought this was hilarious
It’s funny ‘cause it’s true
TheSouthWing.com - A Magazine of essays, prose and poems
by OldProspects on Jan 26, 2009 7:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Dunn
His glove might be average, but since he only hits .250, his bat is terrible.
by rwperu34 on Jan 26, 2009 10:43 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
He wishes!
Dunn has only batted 250 or higher twice in his career when playing fulltime.
"My mom always taught me it's better to laugh at yourself than to laugh at others. She was so wrong. ;)" -Pedrophile
by Boxkutter on Jan 26, 2009 12:32 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
You Want A Basic Stat?
but there is a way to measure defense – a very BASIC one- its called
Oh, I know this one. It’s called fielding percentage right? I think that’s what we used to call it back in the dark ages. Can’t get more basic than that one right? It’s .969 as an outfielder by the way. So when you compare it to the number right next to it, the league average for an outfielder says .983. So what am I to think casejud? Pretty obvious. The most basic stat there is says he sucks. The end.
Or we could look at it another way. According to his fielding stats at the hardballtimes he’s made 30 fielding errors in the last 5 years in LF. (The numbers only go back to 2004 in case you were wondering). He’s also made 8 throwing errors as well. So 38 errors in 5 years? As an outfielder. That is not average by any means. (I actually miscounted here. It’s 38 as a LF + 1 as a RF. So 39 total.)
But that won’t be the end will it? Casejud will say he doesn’t like those stats either right? What I find funniest about this thread is that no one recognizes it for what it truly is. Another look at me post by casejud trolling for flames.
Same guy, new name.
by stillredsoxfan on Jan 26, 2009 11:27 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Everybody
Wants thier post to get noticed dude. Thats the point of making one. A little heated discussion hurts NOBODY so – whatever. I just think it is interesting how the mere mention of Adam Dunn’s name stirs up such passion.
Another irony is the discussion and comparrison of the meaninglessness of batting average to that of range factor. Isn’t Adam Dunn one of the actual POSTER BOYS for the meaninglessness of batting average? He’s a lifetime OPS+ 130 player, 7.3 Runs Created Per Game, a terrific offensive player, yet 2 posts above us his batting average is mentioned as if it means anything.
by casejud on Jan 26, 2009 1:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
BTW
Lest you think my pevious comment was ducking your questions. The reason why I focused on range factor is because it is the largest element of an outfielders play. It is obvious that he doesnt throw great, and is error prone but I think he chases flyballs better than people give him credit for. I even said that on the whole he is a below average OF, just not as bad of one as people think.
by casejud on Jan 26, 2009 1:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Make Up Your Mind Please
I even said that on the whole he is a below average OF, just not as bad of one as people think.
That’s from the post I am replying to. Where exactly did you say this? Not in your first post that started off this thread.
This is from your original post.
Dunn was and has always been and was again last year an A-V-E-R-A-G-E major league LF. Do you understand that? ? He’s not a Gold Glover, He’s not GOOD, He’s not BAD, He’s certainly not a DH unless of course you wan’t to classify all of these Left Fielders as Designated Hitters…
Gee, that certainly sounds like you think he is an average outfielder. But not only do I disagree with your “Dunn is average” argument if you can even call it that, I disagree with your Dunn is “below average but not really that bad as people think” idea too. Because he really is that bad.
Let’s put it another even simpler way. Since he started playing in 2001, Adam Dunn has made more errors in the outfield than any other player. When you add the 8 he made in the OF last year you get a grand total of 60 errors since 2001. An average of 7.5 errors a year in the OF.
HE IS THAT BAD. YES HE IS THE WORST OF AROUND. Is my caps lock convincing you yet? Let’s try again. More errors than any other OF playing during the same time. How can he not be classified as bad?
So if you want to continue to think he’s average because you “think he chases fly balls better than people give him credit for.” Well, there’s no arguing with flawless logic like that. Is there? Just don’t get pissed when people call you names or question your brain power, okay?
Same guy, new name.
by stillredsoxfan on Jan 26, 2009 2:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
OK Fine
He’s bad. Somewhere in this mess I said i think he should be categorized as below average if we REALLY need a word deffinition of his play. In either case I was actually
a) More concearned about the idea that his defense was so bad that it cancels out his offense. Dont belive it is CLOSE to being that bad. I watched him for about a week striaght last year ( not a lot, i admit) but I watched Raul Ibanez about 80-90 games last year and I can’t believe he’s as bad as that. I doubt ANY series of numbers will convince me of that even if he does make 7-8 errors a year. I REALIZE THIS, SO WHAT
b) even still from my original post and watching him I say that he isnt any more damaging to a team in LF than a pretty large group of LF’s, about half of them aren’t any good. thats why they are in LF
c) Never, at any point, was I upset about anybody questioning my brainpower. I can take it and even get a kick out of it occasionally if it is done with some wit. It’s all good! Enjoy yourself.
by casejud on Jan 26, 2009 5:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Ok
I’m going to summarize Adam Dunn in 2008. Using wOBA, Dunn was 27.4 runs better on offense the average player. Using UZR, Dunn was 22.8 runs WORSE on defense than the average player. Add in a positional adjustment because he is a corner outfielder, and Dunn was basically a league average player in 08. Dunn is an excellent hitter, but his offensive value is diminished a lot by the fact that is a crappy fielder.
2008 WAS a down year for Dunn. He was about 8 runs worse with the glove than in 07, due mainly to the the fact that he play a lot of right field with the D-Backs where he was really terrible. He was also about 7 runs worse with the bat than in 07. Moving forward, Dunn is probably a full run better than the average player. But he is still a defensive liability and he should be DHing.
by vivaelpujols on Jan 26, 2009 6:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
And here you go casejud;
Dunn as a DH is a pretty good player. ~2 wins, Worth about $10mm a year. I wouldn’t mind the M’s taking a flier on Dunn as a DH.
See? I don’t hate the guy. I just recognize his limitations.
by acblue on Jan 27, 2009 1:40 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
