Let's talk about Adam Dunn destinations

[chw42]

I'm not aware of any formula that includes reaching on error. For what it's worth, I usually reference FanGraphs because they use Tango's formulas:

 

wOBA = (0.691×uBB + 0.722×HBP + 0.884×1B + 1.257×2B + 1.593×3B + 2.058×HR) / (AB + BB – IBB + SF + HBP)

 

Also, here are all of the historical component run values by year: http://www.fangraphs.com/guts.aspx?type=cn

 

ROE was in the original formula.

 

I never quite understood why they did that when they didn't count intentional walks.

 

I mean, sure, reaching on errors alters run expectancy, but so does an intentional walk.

 

And in both cases, the result of the hitter getting on base wasn't completely his doing.

[cabiness42]

Definitely. Most of my web searches are "x player fangraphs"

 

Most of my web searches are for naked women.

 

[chw42]

Most of my web searches are for naked women.

 

We certainly know who's the straight one here don't we now?

[Eminor3rd]

And so Ellsbury's offense has been worth 1/3 of a win more than Dunn's offense so far this season?

 

Correct. Or, more precisely, the things that Ellsbury has done on offense would typically result in one third more win. The critical difference in this number and actual wins is the presence of context. So obviously it's possible that most of Ellsbury's hits came in crucial situations (bases loaded, bottom of the 9th, etc.) and resulted in many more wins, or vice versa for Adam Dunn, but in order to control for game situation and let us compare players on an even field, each event is given a run value based on what it produces on average. For example, a HR can obviously be worth anywhere between one run and four runs, but this year, it's been worth 2.081 runs on average, so both players get credit for 2.081 runs for every homerun they hit.

 

So when I say Ells has contributed 10.5 runs above average, those runs are assuming all of his contributions produced average results.

[GreenSox]

There's really no point in dealing Dunn. We'll eat 80% of the salary, get nothing back, and then have to scramble to find a DH. He's a sunk cost, and he's fine right there as we rebuild. He's not a clubhouse distraction nor does he create any other negatives.

[chw42]

Correct. Or, more precisely, the things that Ellsbury has done on offense would typically result in one third more win. The critical difference in this number and actual wins is the presence of context. So obviously it's possible that most of Ellsbury's hits came in crucial situations (bases loaded, bottom of the 9th, etc.) and resulted in many more wins, or vice versa for Adam Dunn, but in order to control for game situation and let us compare players on an even field, each event is given a run value based on what it produces on average. For example, a HR can obviously be worth anywhere between one run and four runs, but this year, it's been worth 2.081 runs on average, so both players get credit for 2.081 runs for every homerun they hit.

 

So when I say Ells has contributed 10.5 runs above average, those runs are assuming all of his contributions produced average results.

 

If they want context, WPA is the place to look.

 

Usually, WPA corresponds with a list of players that you often see on SportsCenter in a given year.

[Balta1701]

There's really no point in dealing Dunn. We'll eat 80% of the salary, get nothing back, and then have to scramble to find a DH. He's a sunk cost, and he's fine right there as we rebuild. He's not a clubhouse distraction nor does he create any other negatives.

If we'd have to eat 80% of the salary you're right. This whole discussion was driven by statements that if a team would pick up much more than that (i.e. claim Dunn on waivers or something like that) the Sox would hesitate.

[witesoxfan]

Correct. Or, more precisely, the things that Ellsbury has done on offense would typically result in one third more win. The critical difference in this number and actual wins is the presence of context. So obviously it's possible that most of Ellsbury's hits came in crucial situations (bases loaded, bottom of the 9th, etc.) and resulted in many more wins, or vice versa for Adam Dunn, but in order to control for game situation and let us compare players on an even field, each event is given a run value based on what it produces on average. For example, a HR can obviously be worth anywhere between one run and four runs, but this year, it's been worth 2.081 runs on average, so both players get credit for 2.081 runs for every homerun they hit.

 

So when I say Ells has contributed 10.5 runs above average, those runs are assuming all of his contributions produced average results.

 

Ceteris paribus.

[Jake]

I mean, most of my searches are "x player nude"?

 

Wait, wat

[iamshack]

Correct. Or, more precisely, the things that Ellsbury has done on offense would typically result in one third more win. The critical difference in this number and actual wins is the presence of context. So obviously it's possible that most of Ellsbury's hits came in crucial situations (bases loaded, bottom of the 9th, etc.) and resulted in many more wins, or vice versa for Adam Dunn, but in order to control for game situation and let us compare players on an even field, each event is given a run value based on what it produces on average. For example, a HR can obviously be worth anywhere between one run and four runs, but this year, it's been worth 2.081 runs on average, so both players get credit for 2.081 runs for every homerun they hit.

 

So when I say Ells has contributed 10.5 runs above average, those runs are assuming all of his contributions produced average results.

Which they obviously did not...but we can, god forbid, look at how many RBI and home runs each one has!

 

I have nothing against advanced stats, in fact, I am entirely in favor of them. Sometimes I think we are a bit quick to throw out some of the older stats in favor of the new shiny ones. The fact that Dunn has been as consistent as he has in his career goes to the fact that he is going to hit 40ish home runs and knock in 90-100 ish runs regardless of how much control he has over how many people get on base or don't get on base each year.

 

Relative to other middle of the order hitters, those are fairly favorable numbers. In fact, so much so, that not many of those hitters are going to be available on the market. Obviously Dunn comes with some warts and everyone knows what those are - we don't need wrc+ to tell us that. I applaud the use of wrc+ to determine just how much those warts affect his value, but it doesn't mean I have to live by them.

 

When the stakes are this high and the games become fewer and fewer, there is something to the fact that Adam Dunn has hit 430 home runs in his career and I can put him at the plate or I can put Jacoby Ellsbury at the plate. In my opinion, there is a value to that that cannot be precisely quantified, but it can be quantified by the fact that this is the type of hitter Adam Dunn is, because he has been incredibly consistent in doing so over his career, and I don't need to overcomplicate it by trying to put a precise value upon him which factors in 94 different things.

[Steve9347]

Ceteris paribus.

Penus pubus

[witesoxfan]

Penus pubus

 

Steve's most common search phrase

[hammerhead johnson]

You know that Eminor is gonna blow a gasket if you keep quoting these primitive OBP and SLG numbers, correct?

 

You do read right? That post was in reply to another post which asked a question related to those numbers.

 

That post was in reply to blah blah blah

 

doooooooooonnnn't caaaaaaaaaaare

 

As far as the Ellsbury vs Dunn OPS thing, it's my understanding that you never look at OPS for table-setters. Nobody ever judged Ichiro by OPS, correct? It's basically something you use to evaluate run-producers. Sometimes you get rare freaks that do both (Mike Trout, etc).

 

But I generally agree with everything Eminor is saying in this thread. I love wOBA & wRC.

[LittleHurt05]

You down wit OPP?

[Eminor3rd]

Which they obviously did not...but we can, god forbid, look at how many RBI and home runs each one has!

 

I have nothing against advanced stats, in fact, I am entirely in favor of them. Sometimes I think we are a bit quick to throw out some of the older stats in favor of the new shiny ones. The fact that Dunn has been as consistent as he has in his career goes to the fact that he is going to hit 40ish home runs and knock in 90-100 ish runs regardless of how much control he has over how many people get on base or don't get on base each year.

 

Relative to other middle of the order hitters, those are fairly favorable numbers. In fact, so much so, that not many of those hitters are going to be available on the market. Obviously Dunn comes with some warts and everyone knows what those are - we don't need wrc+ to tell us that. I applaud the use of wrc+ to determine just how much those warts affect his value, but it doesn't mean I have to live by them.

 

When the stakes are this high and the games become fewer and fewer, there is something to the fact that Adam Dunn has hit 430 home runs in his career and I can put him at the plate or I can put Jacoby Ellsbury at the plate. In my opinion, there is a value to that that cannot be precisely quantified, but it can be quantified by the fact that this is the type of hitter Adam Dunn is, because he has been incredibly consistent in doing so over his career, and I don't need to overcomplicate it by trying to put a precise value upon him which factors in 94 different things.

 

Yes, all this is true. I don't think the old numbers should be thrown out, so to speak, they just need to be used to answer the questions they are suited to answer (OPS needs to be thrown out though, in my opinion, because it doesn't answer the one thing it's supposed to answer).

 

The whole reason I brought this up is because we seem to be coming back to "Adam Dunn sucks he hits .200!" vs. "Yeah but he hits 40 homers so it's worth it!" which is a very valid and important debate -- is the power worth the low average? And there's a family of stats designed to help us answer that very question that I don't think people are using.

 

Batting average answers some questions perfectly, I just don't think it answers THIS question perfectly. Fortunately, wRC+/wOBA does.

[southsider2k5]

You down wit OPP?

 

I prefer the wOPP+

[Jake]

That post was in reply to blah blah blah

 

doooooooooonnnn't caaaaaaaaaaare

 

As far as the Ellsbury vs Dunn OPS thing, it's my understanding that you never look at OPS for table-setters. Nobody ever judged Ichiro by OPS, correct? It's basically something you use to evaluate run-producers. Sometimes you get rare freaks that do both (Mike Trout, etc).

 

But I generally agree with everything Eminor is saying in this thread. I love wOBA & wRC.

 

Well, with tablesetters, you might also look at their advanced baserunning stats. This is part of overall player value that is factored into WAR. There are several players that we often think of as good while the only advanced stats that bear out their perceived value is advanced baserunning -- which isn't a bad thing.

 

Juan Pierre, for instance, almost never had a wRC+ in the above average column throughout his career but frequently rated as an excellent player because his fielding was frequently worth 1-2 wins and his baserunning was often worth 2-3 wins above replacement. Meanwhile, his bat was sometimes not even replacement level but he was still a very good player to have on your team. It's amazing how the advanced statistics have come along to evaluate all parts of the game.

 

The biggest work in progress IMO is evaluating catcher defense, though there are some really promising stats coming out in that regard too. The only issue is that they aren't being updated at the rate that other defensive statistics are (I don't believe any numbers for the most sophisticated catcher defense statistics are available yet for this season).

 

An important and sometimes confusing distinction to keep in mind is replacement level vs league average. League average, by its nature is going to be a harder standard than replacement level. There are below league average players that are above replacement level. Likewise, league average is a more easily agreed upon standard than replacement level, which is a (more) hypothetical standard.

[GreenSox]

If we'd have to eat 80% of the salary you're right. This whole discussion was driven by statements that if a team would pick up much more than that (i.e. claim Dunn on waivers or something like that) the Sox would hesitate.

Sure, if someone pick up his whole salary they'll let him walk. But they won't because he's not close to worth it.

Otherwise, I'd rather have him around than a bunch of Danks Jrs and DeWayne Wises at DH.

[iamshack]

Yes, all this is true. I don't think the old numbers should be thrown out, so to speak, they just need to be used to answer the questions they are suited to answer (OPS needs to be thrown out though, in my opinion, because it doesn't answer the one thing it's supposed to answer).

 

The whole reason I brought this up is because we seem to be coming back to "Adam Dunn sucks he hits .200!" vs. "Yeah but he hits 40 homers so it's worth it!" which is a very valid and important debate -- is the power worth the low average? And there's a family of stats designed to help us answer that very question that I don't think people are using.

 

Batting average answers some questions perfectly, I just don't think it answers THIS question perfectly. Fortunately, wRC+/wOBA does.

Yeah, I appreciate what you always bring to the table. Although I'm not sure wrc+/woba can provide the entire context...there has to be some value to the fact that baseball games are decided by who scores the most runs and Adam Dunn is capable of producing them extremely well in short bursts. There is a context that can be provided in simpler ways than just isn't with some of these more advanced metrics (at least not to my knowledge).

[Jake]

Well, with tablesetters, you might also look at their advanced baserunning stats. This is part of overall player value that is factored into WAR. There are several players that we often think of as good while the only advanced stats that bear out their perceived value is advanced baserunning -- which isn't a bad thing.

 

Juan Pierre, for instance, almost never had a wRC+ in the above average column throughout his career but frequently rated as an excellent player because his fielding was frequently worth 1-2 wins and his baserunning was often worth 2-3 wins above replacement. Meanwhile, his bat was sometimes not even replacement level but he was still a very good player to have on your team. It's amazing how the advanced statistics have come along to evaluate all parts of the game.

 

The biggest work in progress IMO is evaluating catcher defense, though there are some really promising stats coming out in that regard too. The only issue is that they aren't being updated at the rate that other defensive statistics are (I don't believe any numbers for the most sophisticated catcher defense statistics are available yet for this season).

 

An important and sometimes confusing distinction to keep in mind is replacement level vs league average. League average, by its nature is going to be a harder standard than replacement level. There are below league average players that are above replacement level. Likewise, league average is a more easily agreed upon standard than replacement level, which is a (more) hypothetical standard.

 

Glancing at FanGraphs, you can see that while Ellsbury's bat isn't starkly more valuable than Dunn's this season (a bit less than a win), his defense and baserunning add another 1.5+ wins to his value, which is tremendous and means he's having an indubitably better season than Dunn.

[iamshack]

Well, with tablesetters, you might also look at their advanced baserunning stats. This is part of overall player value that is factored into WAR. There are several players that we often think of as good while the only advanced stats that bear out their perceived value is advanced baserunning -- which isn't a bad thing.

 

Juan Pierre, for instance, almost never had a wRC+ in the above average column throughout his career but frequently rated as an excellent player because his fielding was frequently worth 1-2 wins and his baserunning was often worth 2-3 wins above replacement. Meanwhile, his bat was sometimes not even replacement level but he was still a very good player to have on your team. It's amazing how the advanced statistics have come along to evaluate all parts of the game.

 

The biggest work in progress IMO is evaluating catcher defense, though there are some really promising stats coming out in that regard too. The only issue is that they aren't being updated at the rate that other defensive statistics are (I don't believe any numbers for the most sophisticated catcher defense statistics are available yet for this season).

 

An important and sometimes confusing distinction to keep in mind is replacement level vs league average. League average, by its nature is going to be a harder standard than replacement level. There are below league average players that are above replacement level. Likewise, league average is a more easily agreed upon standard than replacement level, which is a (more) hypothetical standard.

And yet Juan Pierre was widely thought of as a very good player using simple statistics and our eyes, until some of the advanced statistics determined he was not...and then more advanced statistics determined that he was.

 

Oh thanks advanced stats!

[iamshack]

Glancing at FanGraphs, you can see that while Ellsbury's bat isn't starkly more valuable than Dunn's this season (a bit less than a win), his defense and baserunning add another 1.5+ wins to his value, which is tremendous and means he's having an indubitably better season than Dunn.

It seems to me the pitfall many fall into is in thinking this is the only manner in which to evaluate a player, when its simply not true

[Eminor3rd]

Yeah, I appreciate what you always bring to the table. Although I'm not sure wrc+/woba can provide the entire context...there has to be some value to the fact that baseball games are decided by who scores the most runs and Adam Dunn is capable of producing them extremely well in short bursts. There is a context that can be provided in simpler ways than just isn't with some of these more advanced metrics (at least not to my knowledge).

 

Yeah, sequencing is an interesting matter. To my knowledge, most attempts at judging the value of consistency vs. streakiness have been inconclusive, though I do specifically remember someone creating a stat called BACON (Batting Consistency) that was supposed to measure who had their hits distributed most evenly. If I recall correctly, Ichiro was the champion there.

 

Ahh, yes: http://www.plunkeveryone.com/?p=95

[Jake]

And yet Juan Pierre was widely thought of as a very good player using simple statistics and our eyes, until some of the advanced statistics determined he was not...and then more advanced statistics determined that he was.

 

Oh thanks advanced stats!

 

 

Except "eyes" don't always agree. Adam Dunn is the perfect example. Some people will just never admit that a hitter that strike out 25-30% of the time can be good no matter what else he does. Advanced stats allow us to have a more empirical way to say that Dunn is, in fact, a good hitter. I can hold whatever position I'd like if all of our eyes are acceptable as measurement. Since people don't like arguing over eyes, we have numbers. And when we have numbers, the best numbers are better. Batting average says Dunn sucks. OBP sometimes suggests that Dunn sucks. Yet, he does not suck.

 

We didn't need advanced stats to see that Miguel Cabrera and Mike Trout were great, but WAR told us that Trout was more valuable by quite a measure last year. It also tells us that Miggy is more valuable this year, despite being an absolutely atrocious defender.

[southsider2k5]

Except "eyes" don't always agree. Adam Dunn is the perfect example. Some people will just never admit that a hitter that strike out 25-30% of the time can be good no matter what else he does. Advanced stats allow us to have a more empirical way to say that Dunn is, in fact, a good hitter. I can hold whatever position I'd like if all of our eyes are acceptable as measurement. Since people don't like arguing over eyes, we have numbers. And when we have numbers, the best numbers are better. Batting average says Dunn sucks. OBP sometimes suggests that Dunn sucks. Yet, he does not suck.

 

We didn't need advanced stats to see that Miguel Cabrera and Mike Trout were great, but WAR told us that Trout was more valuable by quite a measure last year. It also tells us that Miggy is more valuable this year, despite being an absolutely atrocious defender.

 

And why is that? Because that is the way that these stats were biased. Change the importance of a piece of the puzzle, and their values could change drastically.