Dunn?

[Balta1701]

Adam Dunn's career: (from B-R)

 

High leverage: .232/.371/.488 (.858 OPS)

Medium leverage: 238/.364/.508 (.872 OPS)

Low leverage: .241/.369/.493 (.862 OPS)

 

 

Its just my opinion, thats why I said I think. Sorry that my opinion offends you so much

 

What drives me nuts is that in this very thread a few posts before you repeated your opinion that Adam Dunn started performing vastly worse in the clutch, in high-leverage, game on the line situations...it was pointed out using actual numbers that your opinion didn't match reality. But, you not only repeated your opinion, you completely ignored where it was responded to with actual numbers and pretended it didn't exist.

[Paulstar]

What drives me nuts is that in this very thread a few posts before you repeated your opinion that Adam Dunn started performing vastly worse in the clutch, in high-leverage, game on the line situations...it was pointed out using actual numbers that your opinion didn't match reality. But, you not only repeated your opinion, you completely ignored where it was responded to with actual numbers and pretended it didn't exist.

I honestly did not see that post. But you can also look at his career stats with two outs in an inning, runners in scoring position with two outs, bases loaded with two outs, his decline in stats once the game enter the 7th-8th-9th (but is extremely good in extra innings), etc. With all these stats available, you can take a hand full of stats and make them show one thing, but then take another and they would show something else.

 

And I am not a fan of the BR leverage stat. There are so many variations and different situations in baseball where sure, one situation based on runners on and how many outs might seem like high leverage, but there are so many different circumstances than can affect the degree of pressure.

 

Stats are great and all, but when you actually get to watch a player every day for a couple years, I think you can throw the stats out the window. You are gonna learn much more about a player from watching them vs. live pitching than stats will ever tell you. And from what I have seen from Dunn, as well as read and heard from others who got to watch him every day in Cincinnati, the man is always around losing teams. I never said he is the sole driving force for these said teams being losers, but I think its a little more than coincidental. If you want to cast it simply as just bad luck, be my guest. I'm not going to try and make you out to be a village idiot, but don't try and make me out to be one either because you disagree with me.

Edited July 2, 2013 by Paulstar

[Paulstar]

His numbers with the Diamondbacks included an .889 OPS. He hit homers, got on base, and increased the team's productivity in general. It's not his fault they went 22-22.

 

Regarding last year, there were talks of him being hurt during the entire second half.

 

Anyways, this is the last I'm talking about this, I obviously completely disagree with you and really, I think you're fighting your own battle here.

I don't know how you can say if it was or wasn't his fault. Did you watch all 44 of those games? All I said is that I would love to hear what some people who actually got to watch that team every day think about Dunn. Stats can be decieving, and I think foolish to base opinions solely on stats. I just think that acquiring a so called top bat like his, you would think he would help an already over .500 ballclub play better than .500 ball in a tight playoff race.

[LittleHurt05]

I honestly did not see that post. But you can also look at his career stats with two outs in an inning, runners in scoring position with two outs, bases loaded with two outs, his decline in stats once the game enter the 7th-8th-9th (but is extremely good in extra innings), etc. With all these stats available, you can take a hand full of stats and make them show one thing, but then take another and they would show something else.

 

And I am not a fan of the BR leverage stat. There are so many variations and different situations in baseball where sure, one situation based on runners on and how many outs might seem like high leverage, but there are so many different circumstances than can affect the degree of pressure.

 

Stats are great and all, but when you actually get to watch a player every day for a couple years, I think you can throw the stats out the window. You are gonna learn much more about a player from watching them vs. live pitching than stats will ever tell you. And from what I have seen from Dunn, as well as read and heard from others who got to watch him every day in Cincinnati, the man is always around losing teams. I never said he is the sole driving force for these said teams being losers, but I think its a little more than coincidental. If you want to cast it simply as just bad luck, be my guest. I'm not going to try and make you out to be a village idiot, but don't try and make me out to be one either because you disagree with me.

 

Dunn was with the Reds from 2001-2008. Over this time period, they averaged scoring 4.58 runs/game, while giving up 5.212 runs/game, and won around 73.5 games per year.

 

After he left from 2009-2012, the scoring went down to 4.424 runs/game, while they gave up much less at a clip of 4.191 runs/game. Their average season went up to 86.25 wins and they made the playoffs twice.

 

Recap: Dunn leaves, their offense gets slightly worse, but suddenly they give up a run less per game and become a good team. Most people think that it's because they suddenly got a better pitching staff. However, your explanation is that Adam Dunn is a loser. Gotcha.

[Paulstar]

The bolded line above seems like a contradiction to me. Are you suggesting that he would have better plate discipline if he was more willing to swing at pitches that are harder to hit?

 

And what does this have to do with him being a losing ballplayer who makes his team worse around him? There's nothing wrong with you questioning whether or not his skill set is a good fit for this team, but that's not what you said said before.

I'm not saying that at all. In some situations you are supposed to sit dead red. Other situations call for you sacrificing power and just meeting the ball to help the team. However, it seems like Dunn sits dead red looking for a pitch to hit for a homer a lot more than the average player does, and if he truly had great plate discipline, he would not strikeout looking probably around 50 times a year and strike out twice for every walk he draws.

 

I think it would be awesome if Dunn was fined a hundred bucks for every home run he hit and every time he struck out looking. Dunn is big and strong enough where if he just looks to meet the ball a lot more than he does now, and focus hitting the ball the left side (where it is the biggest hole on the field for him to hit the ball to), his average would greatly benefit and he would probably wind up hitting just as many, if not more home runs than he does now.

[Paulstar]

Dunn was with the Reds from 2001-2008. Over this time period, they averaged scoring 4.58 runs/game, while giving up 5.212 runs/game, and won around 73.5 games per year.

 

After he left from 2009-2012, the scoring went down to 4.424 runs/game, while they gave up much less at a clip of 4.191 runs/game. Their average season went up to 86.25 wins and they made the playoffs twice.

 

Recap: Dunn leaves, their offense gets slightly worse, but suddenly they give up a run less per game and become a good team. Most people think that it's because they suddenly got a better pitching staff. However, your explanation is that Adam Dunn is a loser. Gotcha.

Hahahahaha, I never said that pitching didn't drastically benefit the Reds. You would be a nut to think that pitching didn't help the Reds turn around, but nice job putting words in my mouth though, very nice.

 

In my opinion, when you add everything up about Dunn, it's not that crazy to think that some teams are better without Dunn. And I know for a fact there are several Reds fans out there who believe for a fact that part of the reason why the Reds turned around from being a bottom dweller to a contender had to do with getting Dunn out of the clubhouse.

 

So if you want to sit there and calculate different numbers, and put words in my mouth, go ahead. You have your opinion and I have mine. I'm glad I am not as obstinate as you and just view anyone with a minority opinion as an idiot as you clearly have tried to make me out to be.

[LittleHurt05]

Hahahahaha, I never said that pitching didn't drastically benefit the Reds. You would be a nut to think that pitching didn't help the Reds turn around, but nice job putting words in my mouth though, very nice.

 

In my opinion, when you add everything up about Dunn, it's not that crazy to think that some teams are better without Dunn. And I know for a fact there are several Reds fans out there who believe for a fact that part of the reason why the Reds turned around from being a bottom dweller to a contender had to do with getting Dunn out of the clubhouse.

 

So if you want to sit there and calculate different numbers, and put words in my mouth, go ahead. You have your opinion and I have mine. I'm glad I am not as obstinate as you and just view anyone with a minority opinion as an idiot as you clearly have tried to make me out to be.

 

What exactly did Dunn do in the clubhouse that made the Reds lose so many games? Now I'm interested. I've never heard people say Dunn is a clubhouse cancer. Please provide some details.

[bigruss]

What exactly did Dunn do in the clubhouse that made the Reds lose so many games? Now I'm interested. I've never heard people say Dunn is a clubhouse cancer. Please provide some details.

FACT is Reds fans claimed rumors to be FACTUAL. So those are FACTS.

 

Don't believe him? It's ok, that's just his opinion.

[LittleHurt05]

FACT is Reds fans claimed rumors to be FACTUAL. So those are FACTS.

 

Don't believe him? It's ok, that's just his opinion.

 

And I'd lilke to hear what those FACTUAL rumors from those FACTUAL Reds fans are, as there is still nothing that supports his RIDICULOUS opinion.

[caulfield12]

This is almost back to the Rowand/Everett departure theory for the Sox downfall in 2006, or Juan Uribe after 2008. Too bad there's no +/-category in baseball like there is in hockey, although there are obvious limitations to that stat.

 

Or the opposite, getting rid of Lee and Ordonez created a more "winning/unselfish" attitude in the clubhouse before the 2005 season.

Edited July 2, 2013 by caulfield12

[Jake]

In this thread, the human mind has a better memory and capacity to analyze than statistics. "Adam Dunn sucks in the clutch because I remember him striking out at a time I wanted him to hit, damn it!"

[bigruss]

And I'd lilke to hear what those FACTUAL rumors from those FACTUAL Reds fans are, as there is still nothing that supports his RIDICULOUS opinion.

I hope you got my sarcasm in that post

 

But yea, PaulStar if you have some documented stories/quotes/etc I would be interested in hearing them. So far, I've seen nothing bad said about Dunn as a person.

[Paulstar]

What exactly did Dunn do in the clubhouse that made the Reds lose so many games? Now I'm interested. I've never heard people say Dunn is a clubhouse cancer. Please provide some details.

Lazy, only cared about home runs, lacked clutch hitting, etc. This is all stuff said by Marty Brennaman, some beat writers, and some casual fans. If I recall correctly, there was a poster who came on here right after the Dunn signing who was a life long Reds fan and started a thread stating how getting rid of Adam Dunn was the first step in turning around the Reds and that the White Sox would rue the day they signed Dunn (I don't remember the details but I believe it was somewhere along those lines). I'm sure you can find stuff on the other side of spectrum as well, but this whole perception of Dunn being a loser was not just started by me out of the blue, this has been an issue surrounding Dunn for several years now. I still find it humorous how JP Ricciardi just completely lost it back in 2008 and went on a rant about Adam Dunn and why Blue Jay fans should not want him. Obviously, JP Ricciardi had his own issues as GM of the Blue Jays, but when a major league GM would go out and rant about a player who had no affiliation to his team like he did, it shows that there are front office people and scouts out there who see Dunn as a losing ball player.

 

And there is nothing out there about him being a bad person. From all accounts he is a great guy. I'm talking strictly baseball wise and the way he plays the game

Edited July 2, 2013 by Paulstar

[Jake]

There are so many people that spend their whole youth being told that striking out and pulling the ball is bad that I think it is impossible for some fans to ever like Adam Dunn.

[Paulstar]

There are so many people that spend their whole youth being told that striking out and pulling the ball is bad that I think it is impossible for some fans to ever like Adam Dunn.

If pulling the ball was bad, baseball would be almost as boring as soccer.

 

However, I will never see the value in spending big money on any player who strikes out 1/3 (with probably over a quarter of those K's being of the backwards variety) of the time and only has one legit tool.

[LittleHurt05]

Lazy, only cared about home runs, lacked clutch hitting, etc. This is all stuff said by Marty Brennaman, some beat writers, and some casual fans. If I recall correctly, there was a poster who came on here right after the Dunn signing who was a life long Reds fan and started a thread stating how getting rid of Adam Dunn was the first step in turning around the Reds and that the White Sox would rue the day they signed Dunn (I don't remember the details but I believe it was somewhere along those lines). I'm sure you can find stuff on the other side of spectrum as well, but this whole perception of Dunn being a loser was not just started by me out of the blue, this has been an issue surrounding Dunn for several years now. I still find it humorous how JP Ricciardi just completely lost it back in 2008 and went on a rant about Adam Dunn and why Blue Jay fans should not want him. Obviously, JP Ricciardi had his own issues as GM of the Blue Jays, but when a major league GM would go out and rant about a player who had no affiliation to his team like he did, it shows that there are front office people and scouts out there who see Dunn as a losing ball player.

 

And there is nothing out there about him being a bad person. From all accounts he is a great guy. I'm talking strictly baseball wise and the way he plays the game

 

OK, well that tells more, and I can see where some of that comes from. But if the Rangers suddenly acquired him, I doubt they'd suddenly go in the tank and miss the playoffs. because he is Adam Dunn.

[Balta1701]

If pulling the ball was bad, baseball would be almost as boring as soccer.

 

However, I will never see the value in spending big money on any player who strikes out 1/3 (with probably over a quarter of those K's being of the backwards variety) of the time and only has one legit tool.

 

"You see this fist? This fist is for you if you don't take that back".

[Paulstar]

OK, well that tells more, and I can see where some of that comes from. But if the Rangers suddenly acquired him, I doubt they'd suddenly go in the tank and miss the playoffs. because he is Adam Dunn.

And I completely agree with you. It would be lunacy to think otherwise, as it would be quite tough for one player to completely destroy a whole team. However, I felt like the Reds built their team around Dunn (was their highest paid player his final couple years there, I believe), and getting rid of Dunn and them becoming better wasn't completely coincidental.

 

Unfortunately, you can tell I have too much Hawk in me and I agree with him that winning is a whole lot more than stats (although I don't go as far as he did with TWTW stuff, he made himself out to look like a complete idiot when he was saying that stuff on mlbn) and have to do with the culture of a team and their clubhouse.

[Balta1701]

And I completely agree with you. It would be lunacy to think otherwise, as it would be quite tough for one player to completely destroy a whole team. However, I felt like the Reds built their team around Dunn (was their highest paid player his final couple years there, I believe), and getting rid of Dunn and them becoming better wasn't completely coincidental.

 

Unfortunately, you can tell I have too much Hawk in me and I agree with him that winning is a whole lot more than stats (although I don't go as far as he did with TWTW stuff, he made himself out to look like a complete idiot when he was saying that stuff on mlbn) and have to do with the culture of a team and their clubhouse.

The Reds had nothing around him. That's like saying the Royals built their team around Gil Meche and so it's his fault they didn't make the playoffs. Sure he was their highest paid player, but Barry Bonds wasn't making those teams into playoff teams.

[Paulstar]

"You see this fist? This fist is for you if you don't take that back".

Thats an unfair comparison if you ask me. Jim Thome, at least early on and in his prime, had two legit tools, hit and power. He is a career .276 hitter which is pretty damn impressive when you consider you could could pencil in him striking out in 1/3 of his AB's. I guarantee you if Dunn was a career .276 hitter with the ability to hit over .300, he would be making more money and be on a different team than the White Sox.

 

None-the-less, good comeback with Big Jim. Some people blame the 2006 White Sox not being as good as 2005 on him (and some other reasons as well), and for some of the same reasons I'm ripping on Dunn, and I guess I will look like I'm contradicting myself here, but Thome did nothing but help that 2006 team. Boy, it would be nice to get that offense back with Dye, Konerko, Thome, and Crede all having fantastic years. If only that team had a CF.

[Balta1701]

Thats an unfair comparison if you ask me. Jim Thome, at least early on and in his prime, had two legit tools, hit and power. He is a career .276 hitter which is pretty damn impressive when you consider you could could pencil in him striking out in 1/3 of his AB's. I guarantee you if Dunn was a career .276 hitter with the ability to hit over .300, he would be making more money and be on a different team than the White Sox.

 

None-the-less, good comeback with Big Jim. Some people blame the 2006 White Sox not being as good as 2005 on him (and some other reasons as well), and for some of the same reasons I'm ripping on Dunn, and I guess I will look like I'm contradicting myself here, but Thome did nothing but help that 2006 team. Boy, it would be nice to get that offense back with Dye, Konerko, Thome, and Crede all having fantastic years. If only that team had a CF.

Just so it's pointed out, since Dunn is a career .238 hitter, the difference between Dunn and Thome in terms of their "hit tool" is an average of 18 hits per year.

 

18 hits per year is not why one of them is a solid player and one of them is a hall of famer.

[Paulstar]

The Reds had nothing around him. That's like saying the Royals built their team around Gil Meche and so it's his fault they didn't make the playoffs. Sure he was their highest paid player, but Barry Bonds wasn't making those teams into playoff teams.

I dont see how you can compare the early-mid 2000 Royals with the Reds. The Reds spent a whole lot more money and actually had players on their team that the average fan had heard of.

 

But I do see your point, and the Reds did have Joey Votto coming up which also forced Dunn out. I guess its one of those situations where there is no right or wrong answer, just me in the minority vs. the majority who disagree on here.

 

However, I am a bit worried at how much posters on this board seem to be extremely pro-sabrmetrics. I got nothing against people who use advanced stats and see value in some of them, but I have a feeling I will be in the minority in a lot of discussions when it comes to evaluating players.

[Paulstar]

Just so it's pointed out, since Dunn is a career .238 hitter, the difference between Dunn and Thome in terms of their "hit tool" is an average of 18 hits per year.

 

18 hits per year is not why one of them is a solid player and one of them is a hall of famer.

I'd agree with that to an extent, but I think you are undervaluing just how crucial 18 hits can be throughout a season. Baseball is a game where one more hit can make all the difference in the world.

[Balta1701]

I dont see how you can compare the early-mid 2000 Royals with the Reds. The Reds spent a whole lot more money and actually had players on their team that the average fan had heard of.

 

But I do see your point, and the Reds did have Joey Votto coming up which also forced Dunn out. I guess its one of those situations where there is no right or wrong answer, just me in the minority vs. the majority who disagree on here.

 

However, I am a bit worried at how much posters on this board seem to be extremely pro-sabrmetrics. I got nothing against people who use advanced stats and see value in some of them, but I have a feeling I will be in the minority in a lot of discussions when it comes to evaluating players.

I just picked a random year from that set with the reds, 2005. Dunn hit 40 HR and had a .927 OPS.

 

In the Reds starting rotation, here were the ERA's:

3.83

4.21

5.36

6.38

6.47

 

Cincinatti's team ERA was either worst in the NL or 2nd worst in the NL for more than 1/2 of the seasons Dunn was there and was only outside the bottom 4 once in his entire time there.

[Balta1701]

I'd agree with that to an extent, but I think you are undervaluing just how crucial 18 hits can be throughout a season. Baseball is a game where one more hit can make all the difference in the world.

If you were talking about the difference between a 92 win team and a 90 win team, fine.

 

If you're talking about "boy this team was just terrible because of Adam Dunn's presence", which is the claim you've been trying to defend, that line is nonsense.