Let's talk about Adam Dunn destinations

[CaliSoxFanViaSWside]

It mostly doesn't -- team WAR is just the sum or individual player WAR. So anything that happens that has to do with how the players interact with one another or how different streaks or sequences of events occur will NOT be reflected. These are the factors that make reality reality and so it cannot be predicted entirely by a mathematical formula.

Just by following this conversation , I'd venture to guess most of the Sox WAR is on the pitching side whereas Clevelands is evenly distributed, so any value the Sox have in pitching WAR is negated by lack of hitting WAR . So teams can have even WAR's but a team where it is more evenly distributed between offense and pitching probably has a better record. Is this assumption correct and a better way to explain it than trying to explain how Wins Above Replacement does not translate to actual wins and losses to the layman ?

[Dick Allen]

Just by following this conversation , I'd venture to guess most of the Sox WAR is on the pitching side whereas Clevelands is evenly distributed, so any value the Sox have in pitching WAR is negated by lack of hitting WAR . So teams can have even WAR's but a team where it is more evenly distributed between offense and pitching probably has a better record. Is this assumption correct and a better way to explain it than trying to explain how Wins Above Replacement does not translate to actual wins and losses to the layman ?

If WAR isn't created equally, it is a deceiving and incorrect stat. I don't think there is any question 5 years from now, unless it is totally tweaked, statheads will be calling anyone who brings up WAR a fossil. If one run created = one run saved, if the stat was accurate, 2 teams 14 games apart in less than 100 games, shouldn't have the same cummulative WAR. It simply doesn't add up.

Edited July 18, 2013 by Dick Allen

[LittleHurt05]

If WAR isn't created equally, it is a deceiving and incorrect stat. I don't think there is any question 5 years from now, unless it is totally tweaked, statheads will be calling anyone who brings up WAR a fossil. If one run created = one run saved, if the stat was accurate, 2 teams 14 games apart in less than 100 games, shouldn't have the same cummulative WAR. It simply doesn't add up.

 

I agree. My other issue is with the concept of "replacement player". As if any scrub off the street would put up a 0 WAR. If I'm to believe the Sox system is as bad as they say, I bet most of those guys would contribute negative WAR as well.

[hammerhead johnson]

wRC+ figures for all of the Sox hitters. Keppinger is the worst in the league if we're talking a minimum of 300 plate appearances.

 

Jeff Keppinger 49

Tyler Flowers 63

Alexei Ramirez 78

Dayan Viciedo 82

Conor Gillaspie 82

Paul Konerko 83

Alex Rios 103

Alejandro De Aza 105

Adam Dunn 110

Gordon Beckham 114

 

Not much will to win as far as I can tell.

[CaliSoxFanViaSWside]

If WAR isn't created equally, it is a deceiving and incorrect stat. I don't think there is any question 5 years from now, unless it is totally tweaked, statheads will be calling anyone who brings up WAR a fossil. If one run created = one run saved, if the stat was accurate, 2 teams 14 games apart in less than 100 games, shouldn't have the same cummulative WAR. It simply doesn't add up.

I just think its impossible to add up one particular stat of individuals and expect to try and apply it to wins and losses of a team because if thats what your looking for it will never happen at least not in any one stat. Traditional stats do a better job of that because you can just look at a pitching stats W's in any given year on a particular teams roster and if it adds up to 100 wins you know that team had a good year. Brian Kenney (MLB network resident saber dude)would hate this since he advocates getting rid of wins and losses of pitchers as a stat. Of course you won't know how good those actual pitchers actually are until you examine more advanced pitching stats.

 

I think I'm just as likely to make an accurate guess at a teams final record by looking at traditional team stats (even if you eliminate pitchers W/L stats and saves) as I would be looking at saber stats. Would be an interesting experiment to take traditional offensive defensive pitching and baserunning stats of a team and pit them against saber stats for the same categories and let fans try and predict the teams record by them.

[CaliSoxFanViaSWside]

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.

There will always be arguments over stats providing a players individual value because baseball is a team game. A players value can be diminished or enhanced by what those around him do. Trout leads off with a single steals 2nd in a close game late innings. Oppossing team manger decides to IBB next guy to set up the double play .Maybe the next player hits into a double play, or hits a 3 run HR. So that stolen base could be great or could be bad for his team. The stolen base itself was not bad but it did set up a sequence of events that turned out bad.

[Eminor3rd]

Just by following this conversation , I'd venture to guess most of the Sox WAR is on the pitching side whereas Clevelands is evenly distributed, so any value the Sox have in pitching WAR is negated by lack of hitting WAR . So teams can have even WAR's but a team where it is more evenly distributed between offense and pitching probably has a better record. Is this assumption correct and a better way to explain it than trying to explain how Wins Above Replacement does not translate to actual wins and losses to the layman ?

 

Dick Allen is right -- a win is a win is a win. Whether it's pitching or hitting or defense, the inputs that go into the stat are all broken down to runs saved or runs earned, which obviously have equal value. The reason it doesn't add up to actual wins is really just what I was trying to explain before about the stat assigning value to events based on their average outcomes versus their actual outcomes. But, again, the stat was NOT designed to add up to actual wins, so it isn't a surprise that it doesn't. It's really all about trying to compare players on an equal playing field. Is Peter Bourjos (all defense) having a better year than David Ortiz (all offense)? Is Adrian Beltre (clean up in a stacked lineup) really playing better than Ryan Braun (cleanup in a garbage lineup)? It essentially tries to serve as en equalizer of context and play-style by measuring all of a players contributions by the amount of runs they typically produce.

 

Dick Allen -- you're right that it isn't perfect, but I still think you're looking for the stat to do more than it is supposed to do. It's very useful for a lot of things, but matching team records isn't it. It's sort of like how people get caught up on pitcher wins. When someone says "who cares about everything else, nothing matters more than a win," you can't really argue. The problem is that pitchers wins are NOT the same stat as team wins, they just have the same name. That's true, also, of wins above replacement. The win we're talking about is really defined as "produced ten runs above replacement," and we call it a win because of pythag, but it isn't the same stat as what shows up on the standings.

 

A tangent on the "imperfection" of WAR-like stats: the product is onyl as good as the inputs. So, if they aren't right, it's not so much about the idea of them as it is about the data that goes in. Currently, the LEAST reliable components of these stats are centered on (1) evaluating catcher defense. The errors and throws are easy, but what about pitch framing and game calling? All studies so far can't find the differences showing up in the results, and no one is willing to accept that it doesn't matter, so we assume there's more there that we haven't figured out how to measure, (2) factoring leverage into RP evaluation. SPs gain a ton of value by soaking up innings, but and RP inning is not often the same as a SP inning in terms of value because RP innings often occur in more important game situations. Leverage index is currently factored in, but how much weight it's given is up to debate, and (3) positional defense. UZR makes perfect sense in all but extreme shift situations, but the numbers tend to fluctuate more than people expect them to, which leads many to distrust them.

[kitekrazy]

I think if we were talking about the last year of his deal, maybe. But with a whole other year at $15 million? I can't see it. Again, what would Dunn get if he were a free agent right now? $5 million? $10 million? It sure wouldn't be a long term deal.

 

There is no shortage of stupid owners in baseball.

 

[greg775]

Advanced stats allow us to have a more empirical way to say that Dunn is, in fact, a good hitter

 

Any stat that says Adam Dunn is a good hitter has to be questioned. If he's a good hitter, why aren't teams lining up to acquire him? I'd be shocked if he doesn't just retire after the current contract expires or play for pennies. I want people on the record on this topic. Does anybody else think Adam Dunn is a "good hitter?"

I say NO.

[Noonskadoodle]

If the Orioles got Dunn....

 

They would be scary, but I see them going after possibly more pitching.

 

Wonder if Oakland could be interested? Although Mr Moneyball resides there.

[iamshack]

Any stat that says Adam Dunn is a good hitter has to be questioned. If he's a good hitter, why aren't teams lining up to acquire him? I'd be shocked if he doesn't just retire after the current contract expires or play for pennies. I want people on the record on this topic. Does anybody else think Adam Dunn is a "good hitter?"

I say NO.

Ugh...Greg, that is essentially what we have been arguing for the last 150 posts.

[Balta1701]

If the Orioles got Dunn....

 

They would be scary, but I see them going after possibly more pitching.

 

Wonder if Oakland could be interested? Although Mr Moneyball resides there.

The Orioles seem more likely to be able to absorb that money than Oakland.

[Y2Jimmy0]

Any stat that says Adam Dunn is a good hitter has to be questioned. If he's a good hitter, why aren't teams lining up to acquire him? I'd be shocked if he doesn't just retire after the current contract expires or play for pennies. I want people on the record on this topic. Does anybody else think Adam Dunn is a "good hitter?"

I say NO.

 

 

I don't know how to answer this. You have an agenda. You always have. Someone a long time ago poisoned you that strikeouts are bad. Dunn has value. Even when Adam Dunn was a monster there were many people who didn't like the way he played baseball. Dunn was always paid to hit 40 bombs, walk 100 times, score a bunch of runs, and have an .ops near .900. He did that job consistently for many many years. Teams were willing to live with the batting average under .230 and 120+ strikeouts a season. Dunn's .obp with the Sox has not been good enough. However, I believe he does have the 2nd highest .obp on the team and made like the 3rd fewest outs on the team last season. Every season there is a chance that Dunn will lead the league in homers, walks, and strikeouts. I would take that every time from him. If Dunn finishes his deal with the Sox the overall 4 year product will still be characterized as a disappointment. Even after probably 125+ homers in a Sox uniform all because of that 1st season. Is he overpaid? Yes. As a free agent though I still think Dunn gets a 2 year deal at $10 per season. What he offers a team is very valuable. He just should not be expected to be a team's best player.

[Y2Jimmy0]

If the Orioles got Dunn....

 

They would be scary, but I see them going after possibly more pitching.

 

Wonder if Oakland could be interested? Although Mr Moneyball resides there.

 

 

Exactly. Mr. Moneyball would have loved Dunn in his prime. He was the epitome of a perfect Billy Beane player. Homers, walks, and tons of runs scored while ignoring the strikeouts. Oakland would need a ton of money to obtain Dunn though. That is the problem.

[Y2Jimmy0]

I don't know how to answer this. You have an agenda. You always have. Someone a long time ago poisoned you that strikeouts are bad. Dunn has value. Even when Adam Dunn was a monster there were many people who didn't like the way he played baseball. Dunn was always paid to hit 40 bombs, walk 100 times, score a bunch of runs, and have an .ops near .900. He did that job consistently for many many years. Teams were willing to live with the batting average under .230 and 120+ strikeouts a season. Dunn's .obp with the Sox has not been good enough. However, I believe he does have the 2nd highest .obp on the team and made like the 3rd fewest outs on the team last season. Every season there is a chance that Dunn will lead the league in homers, walks, and strikeouts. I would take that every time from him. If Dunn finishes his deal with the Sox the overall 4 year product will still be characterized as a disappointment. Even after probably 125+ homers in a Sox uniform all because of that 1st season. Is he overpaid? Yes. As a free agent though I still think Dunn gets a 2 year deal at $10 per season. What he offers a team is very valuable. He just should not be expected to be a team's best player.

 

 

Obviously, I meant $10 million per season.

[greg775]

I don't know how to answer this. You have an agenda. You always have. Someone a long time ago poisoned you that strikeouts are bad. Dunn has value. Even when Adam Dunn was a monster there were many people who didn't like the way he played baseball. Dunn was always paid to hit 40 bombs, walk 100 times, score a bunch of runs, and have an .ops near .900. He did that job consistently for many many years. Teams were willing to live with the batting average under .230 and 120+ strikeouts a season. Dunn's .obp with the Sox has not been good enough. However, I believe he does have the 2nd highest .obp on the team and made like the 3rd fewest outs on the team last season. Every season there is a chance that Dunn will lead the league in homers, walks, and strikeouts. I would take that every time from him. If Dunn finishes his deal with the Sox the overall 4 year product will still be characterized as a disappointment. Even after probably 125+ homers in a Sox uniform all because of that 1st season. Is he overpaid? Yes. As a free agent though I still think Dunn gets a 2 year deal at $10 per season. What he offers a team is very valuable. He just should not be expected to be a team's best player.

 

Good post, but I can't see him getting $10 million a season anytime in the future. You can blame age, but I'd blame production. Re. Dunn. It's the annual advanced stats people vs. normal stat people. When he goes 1-for-30 or strikes out 3-4 times in a game, I think that contributes to lineup lethargia and overall team s***tiness. Maybe he does have some value, but I think most people who do not follow advanced stats closely would disagree violently. To many people, Dunn is a lineup wrecker because of his Ks and long stretches of awful-ness.

[Y2Jimmy0]

Good post, but I can't see him getting $10 million a season anytime in the future. You can blame age, but I'd blame production. Re. Dunn. It's the annual advanced stats people vs. normal stat people. When he goes 1-for-30 or strikes out 3-4 times in a game, I think that contributes to lineup lethargia and overall team s***tiness. Maybe he does have some value, but I think most people who do not follow advanced stats closely would disagree violently. To many people, Dunn is a lineup wrecker because of his Ks and long stretches of awful-ness.

 

Most General Managers do not agree with you though. I could care less who disagrees violently. I understand Dunn's flaws. But what you are failing to grasp is the positives that he provides. Guys that take walks and hit a s***load of homers don't grown on trees. If Dunn were not on this baseball team this season they would be a lot closer to the worst record in baseball. What Dunn provides is important. The team is just so bad that what he provides doesn't really make much of a difference. There are many players on the White Sox that are a lot worse than Dunn but you insist on beating this dead horse and I don't really understand why.

[witesoxfan]

I agree. My other issue is with the concept of "replacement player". As if any scrub off the street would put up a 0 WAR. If I'm to believe the Sox system is as bad as they say, I bet most of those guys would contribute negative WAR as well.

 

A team full of replacement players would be expected to win about 42 out of 162 games. Say you're offensive lineup was

 

C - Hector Gimenez

1B - Travis Ishikawa

2B - Tyler Kuhn

SS - Pedro Ciricao

3B - Brent Morel

LF - Brent Lillibridge

CF - Jerry Owens

RF - Jordan Danks

DH - Jack Cust

 

you wouldn't expect that team to win more than 42 games. Think of those sort of players are your replacement player base line.

 

Any stat that says Adam Dunn is a good hitter has to be questioned. If he's a good hitter, why aren't teams lining up to acquire him? I'd be shocked if he doesn't just retire after the current contract expires or play for pennies. I want people on the record on this topic. Does anybody else think Adam Dunn is a "good hitter?"

I say NO.

 

Well that is a subjective question. What do you mean by a "good hitter?" Someone who shows good bat control, can fight pitches off, wear pitchers out, and hit for a good average? No, he's not. Is he going to produce more runs than the average MLB hitter, hence being a"good hitter?" Yes he is.

[greg775]

Most General Managers do not agree with you though. I could care less who disagrees violently. I understand Dunn's flaws. But what you are failing to grasp is the positives that he provides. Guys that take walks and hit a s***load of homers don't grown on trees. If Dunn were not on this baseball team this season they would be a lot closer to the worst record in baseball. What Dunn provides is important. The team is just so bad that what he provides doesn't really make much of a difference. There are many players on the White Sox that are a lot worse than Dunn but you insist on beating this dead horse and I don't really understand why.

 

I would think if his current value is $10 million a year then we could trade him by contributing some cash. I will say this. ... if Dunn is as valuable as you say, he probably isn't even on the trading block. Sox are probably happy to try it again next year.

[chw42]

A team full of replacement players would be expected to win about 42 out of 162 games. Say you're offensive lineup was

 

C - Hector Gimenez

1B - Travis Ishikawa

2B - Tyler Kuhn

SS - Pedro Ciricao

3B - Brent Morel

LF - Brent Lillibridge

CF - Jerry Owens

RF - Jordan Danks

DH - Jack Cust

 

you wouldn't expect that team to win more than 42 games. Think of those sort of players are your replacement player base line.

 

 

 

Well that is a subjective question. What do you mean by a "good hitter?" Someone who shows good bat control, can fight pitches off, wear pitchers out, and hit for a good average? No, he's not. Is he going to produce more runs than the average MLB hitter, hence being a"good hitter?" Yes he is.

 

Oh the horror!

 

[iamshack]

Most General Managers do not agree with you though. I could care less who disagrees violently. I understand Dunn's flaws. But what you are failing to grasp is the positives that he provides. Guys that take walks and hit a s***load of homers don't grown on trees. If Dunn were not on this baseball team this season they would be a lot closer to the worst record in baseball. What Dunn provides is important. The team is just so bad that what he provides doesn't really make much of a difference. There are many players on the White Sox that are a lot worse than Dunn but you insist on beating this dead horse and I don't really understand why.

A few years ago, it was Rios he did this to.

[Y2Jimmy0]

A few years ago, it was Rios he did this to.

 

 

So am I wasting my time defending Adam Dunn haha? I didn't even mention that he's usually top 5 in pitches seen per plate appearance.

[iamshack]

So am I wasting my time defending Adam Dunn haha? I didn't even mention that he's usually top 5 in pitches seen per plate appearance.

In my limited experience, you are usually wasting your time arguing with Greg about anything.

[Steve9347]

Steve's most common search phrase

mmmmmmmmmmmmm

[Eminor3rd]

Good post, but I can't see him getting $10 million a season anytime in the future. You can blame age, but I'd blame production. Re. Dunn. It's the annual advanced stats people vs. normal stat people. When he goes 1-for-30 or strikes out 3-4 times in a game, I think that contributes to lineup lethargia and overall team s***tiness. Maybe he does have some value, but I think most people who do not follow advanced stats closely would disagree violently. To many people, Dunn is a lineup wrecker because of his Ks and long stretches of awful-ness.

 

Greg, he isn't a superstar nor is he a lineup wrecker. He is a player very good at some things, very bad at others, and it all adds up to 10% above league average offensively, with no defensive value. He is a roughly average DH. That is his value. Overpaid or underpaid, he is not anything extreme.