Dunn to the Dbacks

[jersey cubs fan]

As far as one out being better than another, well, we'll have to agree to disagree.

 

i'm not sure how you can agree to disagree on something when you're wrong about it. the expected value of putting the ball in play is greater than the expected value of striking out. i'm not taking into account whether dunn would be a better or worse hitter if he played more to contact, but if you have two guys that are exactly equal except one makes 100 "expected outs" (including errors) by putting the ball in play, and the other makes 100 outs by striking out, i'd obviously take the guy who makes the outs by putting the ball in play.

 

Your assumption is wrong. An out is an out. In real world there is "no expected" there is only what happens and what doesn't happen. The way the out happens matters not.

 

yeah, and in the real world the guy who makes 100 outs by putting the ball in play hits sac flies, grounds home a runner from third, gets on base via errors and moves runners up. that outweighs the negative of the 2 times he rolls into a double play, and is more valuable than the 100 strikeouts from the other guy.

 

So you are assuming only 2 GIDP?

 

The theoretical 2 players who are exactly the same except for the way they make outs is a pointless exercise.

 

The only thing that matters is productivity. How a productive player makes his outs is meaningless.

[Tracer Bullet]

As far as one out being better than another, well, we'll have to agree to disagree.

 

i'm not sure how you can agree to disagree on something when you're wrong about it. the expected value of putting the ball in play is greater than the expected value of striking out. i'm not taking into account whether dunn would be a better or worse hitter if he played more to contact, but if you have two guys that are exactly equal except one makes 100 "expected outs" (including errors) by putting the ball in play, and the other makes 100 outs by striking out, i'd obviously take the guy who makes the outs by putting the ball in play.

 

Your assumption is wrong. An out is an out. In real world there is "no expected" there is only what happens and what doesn't happen. The way the out happens matters not.

 

yeah, and in the real world the guy who makes 100 outs by putting the ball in play hits sac flies, grounds home a runner from third, gets on base via errors and moves runners up. that outweighs the negative of the 2 times he rolls into a double play, and is more valuable than the 100 strikeouts from the other guy.

 

So you are assuming only 2 GIDP?

 

The theoretical 2 players who are exactly the same except for the way they make outs is a pointless exercise.

 

The only thing that matters is productivity. How a productive player makes his outs is meaningless.

 

you can't disagree with truffle. he's already told you that this position is wrong.

[CubinNY]

As far as one out being better than another, well, we'll have to agree to disagree.

 

i'm not sure how you can agree to disagree on something when you're wrong about it. the expected value of putting the ball in play is greater than the expected value of striking out. i'm not taking into account whether dunn would be a better or worse hitter if he played more to contact, but if you have two guys that are exactly equal except one makes 100 "expected outs" (including errors) by putting the ball in play, and the other makes 100 outs by striking out, i'd obviously take the guy who makes the outs by putting the ball in play.

 

Your assumption is wrong. An out is an out. In real world there is "no expected" there is only what happens and what doesn't happen. The way the out happens matters not.

 

yeah, and in the real world the guy who makes 100 outs by putting the ball in play hits sac flies, grounds home a runner from third, gets on base via errors and moves runners up. that outweighs the negative of the 2 times he rolls into a double play, and is more valuable than the 100 strikeouts from the other guy.

Nice numbers there (especially the double play). I can do this too. The guy who ks 100 times hits 20 more HRs than the guy who grounds a runner home, hits the SF fly and is helped by the occasional error because he waits for a pitch to drive.

 

Whose better, the Juan Pierre that rarely ks or the mythical Juan Pierre that ks almost every time he makes an out? The answer, is neither. But I'd rather have the mythical one because his OBP would likely be higher and he'd hit into less double plays.

 

There an opportunity cost for every event.

 

BTW> I've never heard of out expectancy before.

[TruffleShuffle]

mathematically, the expected value (in terms of runs) of a ball put in play is higher than the expected value of a strikeout.

[davearm2]

As far as one out being better than another, well, we'll have to agree to disagree.

 

i'm not sure how you can agree to disagree on something when you're wrong about it. the expected value of putting the ball in play is greater than the expected value of striking out. i'm not taking into account whether dunn would be a better or worse hitter if he played more to contact, but if you have two guys that are exactly equal except one makes 100 "expected outs" (including errors) by putting the ball in play, and the other makes 100 outs by striking out, i'd obviously take the guy who makes the outs by putting the ball in play.

 

Your assumption is wrong. An out is an out. In real world there is "no expected" there is only what happens and what doesn't happen. The way the out happens matters not.

If it's the leadoff hitter of the game, then the way the out happens matters not.

 

If it's the bottom of the ninth, bases loaded, game tied, and less than two outs, then the way the out happens matters tremendously. A flyout wins the game. A strikeout leaves it up to the next guy. A DP grounder sends the game to extras.

 

This simple hypothetical is all it takes to defeat the "an out is an out" argument pretty soundly.

[CubinNY]

Nope. I'm saying that striking out is significantly worse than sharply putting the ball into play.

Except for when it results in an out. Then it's neither better nor worse.

 

What one thinks about the out is totally irrelevant.

 

 

Tying run on third, less than 2 outs; a strikeout is not worse??

 

This is ridiculous. If the runner doesn't score, not worse. If the runner scores better.

 

What anyone thinks about the out doesn't matter. If it makes people feel better that a player hit the ball sharply or the fielder made a great play, fine, feel better about the out. The result is the same as a strikeout.

 

As I've said before context is everything. If the out results in a run that's a "better" out. It doesn't matter how the out was made.

Page 9.

[jersey cubs fan]

mathematically, the expected value (in terms of runs) of a ball put in play is higher than the expected value of a strikeout.

 

That's fine. Nobody goes up there trying to strikeout (except for pitchers or Ron Coomer when avoiding the DP is the only goal).

 

 

But that has nothing to do with anything. The goal is to hit a ball hard. The preference is to get a hit.

 

 

But an out is still an out and a strikeout is no worse than other outs, they all suck from an offensive standpoint.

[TruffleShuffle]

mathematically, the expected value (in terms of runs) of a ball put in play is higher than the expected value of a strikeout.

 

But an out is still an out and a strikeout is no worse than other outs, they all suck from an offensive standpoint.

 

this just isn't true. i'm having trouble finding what i read that disproves it, but the value of an out put into play is marginally greater than the value of an out not put into play.

[UK1679666180]

I have no idea what point you are trying to make here.

 

Tim is exactly right on what? making an out on a ball in play is better than striking out? Or Dunn would be better if he put the ball in play more?

 

I don't know how you can say "working the count" has hurt Dunn. Among power hitters, he's got one of the best OBP in all of baseball. I have to believe that putting the ball in play would negatively affect his OBP and his power numbers. It might help his BA though, but at what cost?

 

As far as one out being better than another, well, we'll have to agree to disagree.

 

Tim is exactly right that if Dunn replaces even 1/3rd of his strikes into even balls put into play (not even sharply into play) that is significantly better than those 60 or so strikeouts.

 

Dunn is too passive of a hitter.

 

He has had 1555 of 3735 ABs end on counts where he was down 0-2, 1-2, and even on 2-2. That's 42% of his career ABs.

 

This is OPS in those counts:

0-2 .365

1-2 .336

2-2 .469

 

He has had 2140 of his 3735 ABs with two strikes (including full counts).

 

Look at his splits early in the count w/less than two strikes:

 

0-0 1.251 OPS

1-0 1.178

1-1 1.204

0-1 1.043

2-1 1.230

 

He's such a horrible two strikes hitter, that he would be better off being more aggressive earlier in the count, given how well he does when he puts the ball in play.

 

When he makes contact 0-2, he's hitting .357, 1-2 297, 2-2 .350.

[imb]

mathematically, the expected value (in terms of runs) of a ball put in play is higher than the expected value of a strikeout.

 

But an out is still an out and a strikeout is no worse than other outs, they all suck from an offensive standpoint.

 

this just isn't true. i'm having trouble finding what i read that disproves it, but the value of an out put into play is marginally greater than the value of an out not put into play.

 

i always assumed that was true. I just also always assumed that the difference between a k and an out in play is so often not game changing that it's not worth sweating it either way as long as the batter is overall productive.

[Jehrico]

This whole argument about Dunn and who bad Ks are for outs is a little silly.

 

Let's weight this thing a little bit. This isn't exactly scientific, as it's too difficult to dive into exact splits for the league as a whole without spending an incredible amount of time, but bear with me.

 

The league (MLB, not AL or NL) has committed 2214 errors so far this year. Granted, some of those errors allow 1Bs to become 2Bs, or they allow runners stealing second to go to third or what not, but the large majority of these errors are guys reaching first that otherwise shouldn't have. Let's say that's around 1700 extra base runners that shouldn't have been there. The league has Kd 24,197 times out of 137,218 plate apperances, or 17.6% of the time. Dunn has 1215 Ks out of 4549 career plate appearances, which is a rate of 26.7% of the time. If he were K'ing at this year's league average rate every year, he'd average 105Ks per 600 plate appearances per year. Over the course of an average Dunn season, he Ks about 55 times more than normal. That's 55 more "bad" outs that he makes in an average year. The league has GIDP 2853 times this year, which is a rate of 2.1% of all plate appearances. Dunn has GIDP 54 times in his career (less than 3x what Lee has this year already), for a rate of 1.2% of the time. If he were GIDP at the league rate, he'd have 5 more GIDPs each year. So, essentially, Dunn has makes 55 more of one kind of "bad" out, and 5 less of another kind of "bad" out.

 

Here's where it admittedly gets a little unscientific...what percentage of at bats occur with a guy on 3rd with 0-1 outs to where the K is less desirable than the sac fly? I can't tally that split without taking way too much time. Instead, I'll just look at the league average of Sac Flys and see if Dunn is trailing in that category (i.e. is his proneness to strike out affecting his ability to get that guy home from 3rd...). The percentages of where this affects a guy at third with less than 2 outs should normalize. The league has 993 Sac Flys, for a rate of 0.80%. Dunn, for his career 21 Sac Flies, for a rate of 0.46% of the time, so his proneness to missing the ball is affecting his ability to move the runner over. If he were keeping up with the average, over a course of 600 at bats, this means he is missing out on moving the runner over about twice a season.

 

No one is arguing his ability to not make outs is very valuable. However, if you want to compare the types of bad outs he is making to the type of bad outs he is not making, the cost of his high-OPB approach is approximately 2 sac flies, while you're also gaining 5 fewer double plays. Again, the sac fly part isn't scientific, because I don't have league wide splits with a guy at third and fewer than two outs. The GIDP isn't exactly scientific either because it doesn't weigh the Reds ability to get on base in front of Dunn and his number of chances of getting into a GIDP. If anyone really wants to consider those numbers, I bet the number of missed sac flies in a year won't deviate by more than one or two, and the number of GIDP won't deviate by more than one or two either.

 

So, let me say it again...Dunn's proclivity for the strikeout costs him moving the runner over about twice a year when compared to the average league player in a 600 plate appearance season. At the same time, he is getting into 5 fewer double plays per year. In exchange for his career .900 OPS, you're getting 2 fewer sac flies and 5 fewer GIDPs because of his Ks.

 

IMO, the impact of his high K rates on his overall value is pretty close to nil.

 

 

For the record, the main thing keeping Dunn from being a Manny type of hitter is his ability to make contact. On the other hand, Dunn is what he is, you know what you're getting with him, and it's not really fair to compare anyone to Manny, who is maybe the greatest all-around hitter of this generation (if not, then he's top 3).

Edited August 14, 2008 by Jehrico

[TruffleShuffle]

So, let me say it again...Dunn's proclivity for the strikeout costs him moving the runner over about twice a year when compared to the average league player in a 600 plate appearance season. At the same time, he is getting into 5 fewer double plays per year. In exchange for his career .900 OPS, you're getting 2 fewer sac flies and 5 fewer GIDPs because of his Ks.

 

you're not accounting for (a) the number of times that he doesn't reach base via the error, and (b) the number of times that any other baserunner is able to move up because the ball is put into play.

[fromthestretch]

So, let me say it again...Dunn's proclivity for the strikeout costs him moving the runner over about twice a year when compared to the average league player in a 600 plate appearance season. At the same time, he is getting into 5 fewer double plays per year. In exchange for his career .900 OPS, you're getting 2 fewer sac flies and 5 fewer GIDPs because of his Ks.

 

you're not accounting for (a) the number of times that he doesn't reach base via the error, and (b) the number of times that any other baserunner is able to move up because the ball is put into play.

 

Times reached base via error was discussed earlier in the thread. It's roughly less than two times per hundred at-bats.

 

What has to be weighed here is to what degree a more contact-minded approach would negatively impact Dunn's power and walks.

[Jehrico]

So, let me say it again...Dunn's proclivity for the strikeout costs him moving the runner over about twice a year when compared to the average league player in a 600 plate appearance season. At the same time, he is getting into 5 fewer double plays per year. In exchange for his career .900 OPS, you're getting 2 fewer sac flies and 5 fewer GIDPs because of his Ks.

 

you're not accounting for (a) the number of times that he doesn't reach base via the error, and (b) the number of times that any other baserunner is able to move up because the ball is put into play.

I pulled the error numbers up and forgot to put them in there (got sidetracked while typing that up).

 

The league has created 2214 errors, for a rate of 1.6% of the time. Now, some of these errors are allowing guys to advanced to 3rd on an attempt to steal second, or allow singles to advanced to second. Not all of these errors are allowing guys to get on base to begin with. I don't have anything here to use but my judgement. I'm going to say 1700 of those are errors that allowed a guy to reach base. This reduces the error rate to 1.2%. If Dunn K's 55 times more than the average guy, then he's getting on base less than 1 time less a year due to a chance of error. Even if I assumed that all 2214 errors were allowing a guy on base, it's still less than once a year that Dunn isn't getting on base because he K'd instead of forcing the error (as compared to the average player).

 

The other argument (moving a guy over by putting the ball in play) I don't have a way of determining what the real impact is of Dunn's Ks. Anyone have a good site where I can see splits like that for all 30 teams at once? That's a tough one to find. Without having that number, if you consider Dunn is K'ing 55 times more than average over 600 plate appearances, then the number of times out of those 55 that he's not moving the runner over where someone else would is probably a handful.

[Jehrico]

Nevermind on the runners on base part...it's easier to tackle than I thought. Dunn has averaged 1039 plate appearances fron 2004 until now with runners on base. That's less than half of his plate appearances where someone is on base. If his K rate is uniform (men on vs no one on), then that means around 27 of his Ks a year are with men on base.

 

So that's 27 times he doesn't make contact with men on when the average guy would. That's 5 GIDP less though, and some of those 27 wouldn't have been moved if he had made contact anyways (hard to figure the real impact of that). If you look at the 22 times he didn't move the runner or hit into a DP, maybe half of those times a runner would have been able to move up.

 

So, the part that is easy to figure is that less than 1 time a year he fails to get on via error because of his lack of contact, and 2 times a year he fails to get the sac fly. Add maybe 10 times he fails to move a runner up a base. That adds a bit more to it, but still marginal IMO.

 

If anyone can come up with a better analysis of the real cost of Dunn's penchant for Ks, please add on.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Again, I keep seeing people in this thread slightly exaggerating.

 

All the regression models and other statistical analysis I've seen place a small negative value on K's vs. contact outs. Linear weights had it a -.05 runs worse.

 

So if Dunn K's 100 more times than the average slugger, that's about half a win a season, enough that it should be at least noted.

[chopsx9]

Nope. I'm saying that striking out is significantly worse than sharply putting the ball into play.

Except for when it results in an out. Then it's neither better nor worse.

 

What one thinks about the out is totally irrelevant.

 

 

Tying run on third, less than 2 outs; a strikeout is not worse??

 

This is ridiculous. If the runner doesn't score, not worse. If the runner scores better. What anyone thinks about the out doesn't matter. If it makes people feel better that a player hit the ball sharply or the fielder made a great play, fine, feel better about the out. The result is the same as a strikeout.

 

As I've said before context is everything. If the out results in a run that's a "better" out. It doesn't matter how the out was made.

 

Which can't happen on a strikeout without an error. Ofcourse context is everything except when the out is a strikeout because it doesn't matter what the context is a SO is never going to result in anything productive while a ball put in play, even if it results in an out, can.

 

Besides all that the original point was essentially that if Dunn put the ball in play more often he would make fewer outs especially with his ability to put the ball out of the park.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

The ball in play can also result in something worse than the strikeout. You know this, why intentionally omit it?

[wilk]

The ball in play can also result in something worse than the strikeout. You know this, why intentionally omit it?

 

And cutting the strikeouts so dramatically will obviously dramatically decrease his walks. And a walk is a heck of a lot better than an out, no matter how "sharply hit." Dunn is a "three true outcomes" (strikeout, walk or home run) player and decreasing any of them will decrease all of them. If Dunn were forced to strikeout 100 times less, he becomes a much less productive player. There's no way around that. In a hypothetical where every PA has the exact same outcome except 100 strikeouts become 100 in-play outs (again, not possible) the difference in run production would be rather insignificant and it'd take more than a season before it really results in any additional win.

[UK1679666180]

For the record, I really don't care about out in play vs. strikeouts, it is too marginal of a difference to get upset about.

 

My beef with Dunn is that he is reducing the chances of putting himself in a position to produce by working the count until it becomes a disadvantage for him. While strikeouts are often the ultimate outcome, it's his frequent ability to get behind in the count with two strikes that limits him on pitches that can be driven. If it's 1-1 and he takes a called strike, it's less likely that he'll get a better pitch to hit on 1-2. Sometimes tip your cap b/c there was nothing he could've done, sometimes you think he should've been more aggressive.

[Jehrico]

For the record, I really don't care about out in play vs. strikeouts, it is too marginal of a difference to get upset about.

 

My beef with Dunn is that he is reducing the chances of putting himself in a position to produce by working the count until it becomes a disadvantage for him. While strikeouts are often the ultimate outcome, it's his frequent ability to get behind in the count with two strikes that limits him on pitches that can be driven. If it's 1-1 and he takes a called strike, it's less likely that he'll get a better pitch to hit on 1-2. Sometimes tip your cap b/c there was nothing he could've done, sometimes you think he should've been more aggressive.

He also consistently works starters deeper into the count and contributes to them departing earlier, which helps the whole team.

 

As far as the comment of 100 strikeouts over average costing half a win, he strikes out about 50 times more than the average player every 600 at bats...so can we call it a game every four seasons?

[UK1679666180]

For the record, I really don't care about out in play vs. strikeouts, it is too marginal of a difference to get upset about.

 

My beef with Dunn is that he is reducing the chances of putting himself in a position to produce by working the count until it becomes a disadvantage for him. While strikeouts are often the ultimate outcome, it's his frequent ability to get behind in the count with two strikes that limits him on pitches that can be driven. If it's 1-1 and he takes a called strike, it's less likely that he'll get a better pitch to hit on 1-2. Sometimes tip your cap b/c there was nothing he could've done, sometimes you think he should've been more aggressive.

He also consistently works starters deeper into the count and contributes to them departing earlier, which helps the whole team.

 

As far as the comment of 100 strikeouts over average costing half a win, he strikes out about 50 times more than the average player every 600 at bats...so can we call it a game every four seasons?

 

His impact of working pitchers deep into counts isn't likely as damaging to the pitcher if he was more productive in the AB, therefore creating more runs and extending the pitchers' usage by not creating an out.

[nilodnayr]

For the record, I really don't care about out in play vs. strikeouts, it is too marginal of a difference to get upset about.

 

My beef with Dunn is that he is reducing the chances of putting himself in a position to produce by working the count until it becomes a disadvantage for him. While strikeouts are often the ultimate outcome, it's his frequent ability to get behind in the count with two strikes that limits him on pitches that can be driven. If it's 1-1 and he takes a called strike, it's less likely that he'll get a better pitch to hit on 1-2. Sometimes tip your cap b/c there was nothing he could've done, sometimes you think he should've been more aggressive.

He also consistently works starters deeper into the count and contributes to them departing earlier, which helps the whole team.

 

As far as the comment of 100 strikeouts over average costing half a win, he strikes out about 50 times more than the average player every 600 at bats...so can we call it a game every four seasons?

 

His impact of working pitchers deep into counts isn't likely as damaging to the pitcher if he was more productive in the AB, therefore creating more runs and extending the pitchers' usage by not creating an out.

Except, you know, that a a significant amount of those at bats are productive and end up in walks or hits...he does have a 500 OBP at a full count.

[Jehrico]

For the record, I really don't care about out in play vs. strikeouts, it is too marginal of a difference to get upset about.

 

My beef with Dunn is that he is reducing the chances of putting himself in a position to produce by working the count until it becomes a disadvantage for him. While strikeouts are often the ultimate outcome, it's his frequent ability to get behind in the count with two strikes that limits him on pitches that can be driven. If it's 1-1 and he takes a called strike, it's less likely that he'll get a better pitch to hit on 1-2. Sometimes tip your cap b/c there was nothing he could've done, sometimes you think he should've been more aggressive.

He also consistently works starters deeper into the count and contributes to them departing earlier, which helps the whole team.

 

As far as the comment of 100 strikeouts over average costing half a win, he strikes out about 50 times more than the average player every 600 at bats...so can we call it a game every four seasons?

 

His impact of working pitchers deep into counts isn't likely as damaging to the pitcher if he was more productive in the AB, therefore creating more runs and extending the pitchers' usage by not creating an out.

He does that quite a bit as well. He runs the count deep whether he's making an out or not.

[shnsajax]

For the record, I really don't care about out in play vs. strikeouts, it is too marginal of a difference to get upset about.

 

My beef with Dunn is that he is reducing the chances of putting himself in a position to produce by working the count until it becomes a disadvantage for him. While strikeouts are often the ultimate outcome, it's his frequent ability to get behind in the count with two strikes that limits him on pitches that can be driven. If it's 1-1 and he takes a called strike, it's less likely that he'll get a better pitch to hit on 1-2. Sometimes tip your cap b/c there was nothing he could've done, sometimes you think he should've been more aggressive.

 

I've stated many times that Dunn should be utilized as a run scorer and not a run producer. He is not a good hitter in any split. One of my biggest problems with him is the amount of RBI's he has not via the HR.

 

I do think he has a lot of value if used correctly, and that he is a detriment if used incorrectly. My biggest fear would be him hitting #3 or 4.