Dunn to the White Sox (p. 12)

[hawkeyecub]

his OPS is never close to dominant and figures to hover around .900, at best.

 

In 6 of his 10 seasons (including this year), he's had an OPS better than .900. That includes a .948, .956 and .940 OPS. Saying .900 at best is underestimating how good he's been in the past.

 

In his last 7 seasons, he's gone:

.855

.940

.898

.901

.889

.928

.913

 

Other than the .940 5 seasons ago, and the .928 last year, he's been a .900 guy. Given that his walks are down and his power should start to decline within a season or so, expecting him to routinely eclipse .900 seems strongly optimistic.

 

Holy cherry-picking. What is the reason for using 7 years? Just because you wanted to include one of his poorer seasons and exclude the two great ones he had before that? And why do you just take out his two best years from that stretch? Other than the .855 7 seasons ago and the .889 3 seasons ago, he's averaged a .924 OPS in the last 9 years. See how that works?

 

He's slugging .556 this year (.291 ISO) and stands a good chance of hitting 40 HR again in Washington. I don't know why the power is just going to start declining within a season, especially with a move to Wrigley.

[SouthSideRyan]

I think there are relatively few people who take enough interest to dig below the surface and have intelligent discussion, and they congregate in places like this. I think most sports fans are either casual or ignorant. IMO.

 

From what I've seen (anecdotal, yes), the large bulk of fans tend to be casual. They root for the team, but don't follow it intensely. They simply either don't care enough to dig into the deeper stats (math isn't exactly a well-loved combo with hanging out watching a game for most people) or don't have the time.

 

So they go largely off reputation, what they hear and which players seem to be trying hard at the times they watch. I don't think it's as much intentionally avoiding stats as it is not feeling that sports is an important enough area to focus large amounts of time pouring over numbers.

 

From what I've seen, the majority of fans who would identify themselves as die-hards are also stupid. Intelligent people don't have time to be heavily invested in sports, we're just the suckers

[Guest]

his OPS is never close to dominant and figures to hover around .900, at best.

 

In 6 of his 10 seasons (including this year), he's had an OPS better than .900. That includes a .948, .956 and .940 OPS. Saying .900 at best is underestimating how good he's been in the past.

 

In his last 7 seasons, he's gone:

.855

.940

.898

.901

.889

.928

.913

 

Other than the .940 5 seasons ago, and the .928 last year, he's been a .900 guy. Given that his walks are down and his power should start to decline within a season or so, expecting him to routinely eclipse .900 seems strongly optimistic.

Wrigley has consistently played up offensive numbers by a fair amount for the past five years while Washington is consistently neutral since moving into their park three years ago.

 

If Dunn were playing in Wrigley right now, he'd probably be around a .930 - .950 OPS hitter.

[jersey cubs fan]

If Dunn were playing in Wrigley right now, he'd probably be around a .930 - .950 OPS hitter.

 

Not if they had him batting 4th.

[Clem Fandango]

In what world is debating about having a .900+OPS hitter on your team a good idea or not? Dunn will be cheaper than than Gonzalez or Fielder, isn't too terribly old, can be had this coming offseason, and will consistently put up at least a .900 OPS or thereabouts.

 

Count me in on the Dunn for 2011 bandwagon... just don't give him a NTC, Jim

[Prizefight]

In what world is debating about having a .900+OPS hitter on your team a good idea or not? Dunn will be cheaper than than Gonzalez or Fielder, isn't too terribly old, can be had this coming offseason, and will consistently put up at least a .900 OPS or thereabouts.

 

Count me in on the Dunn for 2011 bandwagon... just don't give him a NTC, Jim

 

Thank you.

 

/thread.

[Backtobanks]

In what world is debating about having a .900+OPS hitter on your team a good idea or not? Dunn will be cheaper than than Gonzalez or Fielder, isn't too terribly old, can be had this coming offseason, and will consistently put up at least a .900 OPS or thereabouts.

 

Count me in on the Dunn for 2011 bandwagon... just don't give him a NTC, Jim

 

 

Or an 8 year contract.

[Backtobanks]

I think there are relatively few people who take enough interest to dig below the surface and have intelligent discussion, and they congregate in places like this. I think most sports fans are either casual or ignorant. IMO.

 

From what I've seen (anecdotal, yes), the large bulk of fans tend to be casual. They root for the team, but don't follow it intensely. They simply either don't care enough to dig into the deeper stats (math isn't exactly a well-loved combo with hanging out watching a game for most people) or don't have the time.

 

So they go largely off reputation, what they hear and which players seem to be trying hard at the times they watch. I don't think it's as much intentionally avoiding stats as it is not feeling that sports is an important enough area to focus large amounts of time pouring over numbers.

 

I'm an avid lifelong (56 years) Cub fan and retired math teacher, but some of the arguments involving advanced statistics bore me to tears and seems to take the enjoyment out of baseball just to prove a point. Also, I've see many heated discussions here in which one poster uses one set of stats to disprove another posters stats on whether a certain player is good or not.

[jersey cubs fan]

I'm an avid lifelong (56 years) Cub fan and retired math teacher, but some of the arguments involving advanced statistics bore me to tears and seems to take the enjoyment out of baseball just to prove a point.

 

I don't understand this argument. How does it take the fun out of anything? The stats just show you who should play, it doesn't determine who wins, or the outcome of any matchup.

[dew1679666265]

I'm an avid lifelong (56 years) Cub fan and retired math teacher, but some of the arguments involving advanced statistics bore me to tears and seems to take the enjoyment out of baseball just to prove a point. Also, I've see many heated discussions here in which one poster uses one set of stats to disprove another posters stats on whether a certain player is good or not.

 

I get bored by some of the more advanced statistical debates, but I also feel like looking at some advanced stats has made me much more knowledgeable and helped me to understand the game better. I'm not much of a math person either (I can do it for the most part, I just don't like it), but I enjoy using some stats more than just looking at average and counting stats.

 

As for different people using different stats, that's part of why discussion is good. In many debates I've seen on this board, there wasn't really a "winner" and a "loser." It's much more laying out two points of view and seeing what can be taken from those points of view.

[Iceblink]

In what world is debating about having a .900+OPS hitter on your team a good idea or not? Dunn will be cheaper than than Gonzalez or Fielder, isn't too terribly old, can be had this coming offseason, and will consistently put up at least a .900 OPS or thereabouts.

 

Count me in on the Dunn for 2011 bandwagon... just don't give him a NTC, Jim

 

In the world where you overpay for a guy based on past performance rather than what he'll be over the life of the contract, it can be a bad idea. Hendry has shown he'll jump into that world over and over and over again. Considering Dunn has two above average skills (homers and walks), and the walks are down, and the other parts of his game range from average to very far below average, I don't think it's a no-brainer.

 

He isn't terribly old, but he's going to be 31 in a couple months. Before the PED era, 31 was old for a power hitter. 31 is old for a player who was slow and defensively challenged in his mid 20's. Those skills will only become larger liabilities.

 

Giving him a 5 year deal in the 10-15 million range seems like a pretty good-sized risk. Granted, I seem to be mostly alone in thinking that.

[Backtobanks]

I'm an avid lifelong (56 years) Cub fan and retired math teacher, but some of the arguments involving advanced statistics bore me to tears and seems to take the enjoyment out of baseball just to prove a point. Also, I've see many heated discussions here in which one poster uses one set of stats to disprove another posters stats on whether a certain player is good or not.

 

I get bored by some of the more advanced statistical debates, but I also feel like looking at some advanced stats has made me much more knowledgeable and helped me to understand the game better. I'm not much of a math person either (I can do it for the most part, I just don't like it), but I enjoy using some stats more than just looking at average and counting stats.

 

As for different people using different stats, that's part of why discussion is good. In many debates I've seen on this board, there wasn't really a "winner" and a "loser." It's much more laying out two points of view and seeing what can be taken from those points of view.

 

I guess my point is that I don't need the advanced stats to figure out who the best (or worst) 100 players in baseball are. As for all the in-between players, it doesn't seem to make much difference to me.

[Northside Blues]

Apparently people do

 

http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/rank?versionId=2&listId=533#topOfList

 

While placing Griffey ahead of Bonds is inexcusable, that's one thing...but really Tony Gwynn?

[Guest]

In what world is debating about having a .900+OPS hitter on your team a good idea or not? Dunn will be cheaper than than Gonzalez or Fielder, isn't too terribly old, can be had this coming offseason, and will consistently put up at least a .900 OPS or thereabouts.

 

Count me in on the Dunn for 2011 bandwagon... just don't give him a NTC, Jim

 

In the world where you overpay for a guy based on past performance rather than what he'll be over the life of the contract, it can be a bad idea. Hendry has shown he'll jump into that world over and over and over again. Considering Dunn has two above average skills (homers and walks), and the walks are down, and the other parts of his game range from average to very far below average, I don't think it's a no-brainer.

 

He isn't terribly old, but he's going to be 31 in a couple months. Before the PED era, 31 was old for a power hitter. 31 is old for a player who was slow and defensively challenged in his mid 20's. Those skills will only become larger liabilities.

 

Giving him a 5 year deal in the 10-15 million range seems like a pretty good-sized risk. Granted, I seem to be mostly alone in thinking that.

Even Dunn's agent isn't positioning a five year deal for Dunn. They've said they're hoping to get a four year deal, but would look at three year deals this offseason.

 

If you can get Dunn on a three year deal at a non-obscene figure, it makes way too much sense for this team to ignore.

[SouthSideRyan]

Apparently people do

 

http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/rank?versionId=2&listId=533#topOfList

 

While placing Griffey ahead of Bonds is inexcusable, that's one thing...but really Tony Gwynn?

 

Is Mark Grace really one of the 20 best position players of the 90s??

[jersey cubs fan]

Apparently people do

 

http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/rank?versionId=2&listId=533#topOfList

 

While placing Griffey ahead of Bonds is inexcusable, that's one thing...but really Tony Gwynn?

 

Is Mark Grace really one of the 20 best position players of the 90s??

 

Maybe if you require the player to have played in every year of the 90's.

[dew1679666265]

I guess my point is that I don't need the advanced stats to figure out who the best (or worst) 100 players in baseball are. As for all the in-between players, it doesn't seem to make much difference to me.

 

Teams deal with more than just the top 100 players in baseball, though, and there's a big difference between a guy like Mike Cameron and a guy like David Eckstein. The advanced stats help to tell you just how big a difference there is, since batting average and other more traditional stats are, at times, misleading.

[jersey cubs fan]

I guess my point is that I don't need the advanced stats to figure out who the best (or worst) 100 players in baseball are.

 

Yes you do.

[Backtobanks]

I guess my point is that I don't need the advanced stats to figure out who the best (or worst) 100 players in baseball are.

 

Yes you do.

 

Maybe you do, but I don't think I do.

[Backtobanks]

I guess my point is that I don't need the advanced stats to figure out who the best (or worst) 100 players in baseball are. As for all the in-between players, it doesn't seem to make much difference to me.

 

Teams deal with more than just the top 100 players in baseball, though, and there's a big difference between a guy like Mike Cameron and a guy like David Eckstein. The advanced stats help to tell you just how big a difference there is, since batting average and other more traditional stats are, at times, misleading.

 

Anybody who needs advanced stats to tell the difference between Mike Cameron and David Eckstein hasn't watched very much baseball.

[jersey cubs fan]

I guess my point is that I don't need the advanced stats to figure out who the best (or worst) 100 players in baseball are.

 

Yes you do.

 

Maybe you do, but I don't think I do.

 

It's good to have confidence.

[javy knows my name]

I guess my point is that I don't need the advanced stats to figure out who the best (or worst) 100 players in baseball are.

 

Yes you do.

 

Maybe you do, but I don't think I do.

 

It's good to have confidence.

If there's one guy on here who knows a player's value to his team and his perceived value to other teams, it's B2B

[Backtobanks]

I guess my point is that I don't need the advanced stats to figure out who the best (or worst) 100 players in baseball are.

 

Yes you do.

 

Maybe you do, but I don't think I do.

 

It's good to have confidence.

 

You mean that you can't look at each ML roster and pick out their 4-5 best players and their 4-5 worst players without looking up advanced stats. In most cases (not all), you can use observation and the basic stats (BA, OBP, OPS, ERA, etc.) to figure out who the best players are and who are the worst.

[XZero771679666304]

 

From what I've seen, the majority of fans who would identify themselves as die-hards are also stupid. Intelligent people don't have time to be heavily invested in sports, we're just the suckers

 

It's not that most intelligent people don't have the time, it's that they have more sense than to voluntarily become emotionally invested in something over which they have zero control. On the surface, it's just not a great idea, to say the least.

 

Well that, and most intelligent people had parents who turned them on to things other than sports as children. Unfortunately, I got turned on to the Cubs and baseball as a small child. I often wonder why I let myself get so worked up over it, but what can you do? Once it gets it's hooks in you at a young age, you're done.

 

 

As for the topic, Dunn may not be ideal, but if you can get him for 3 years for 10-13 million per, you have to bite.

[Northside Blues]

Well, it's nice to now that OBP and OPS are now thrown under basic stats these days. Joe Morgan would not approve.