Reds Survivor - Round 22

[volzok]

Ok before this thread gets too crazy, here is what I believe the current vote total to be. If someone wants to double check me thats fine.

Dunn: 6
Freel: 6
Lopez: 3
Harang: 0

[Fishercat]

The problem with WRC (in this situation) is that it is a specialized statistic while RC is a universal statistic.

I don't think anyone is claiming that RC is perfect nor can it be quantified on the field. However, it is meant as a tool to objectively view the value of a player to his team.

The stuff that you see on the field is often turned into statistics which are fallable at best. The Runs Driven In and Runs Scored (more RBI) that you see are not a product of the individual hitter rather than a product of the team. The only way a player can completely create a run himself is a HR, the only way unless he steals home and moves around the bases without help from a hitter. Everything that happens on a field is a team effort and the only reason RC exists is to try to determine the value of an individual player in the situation. Suppose Superstar #1 played on a team with nothing around him. He can only do as much as his team allows. He could hit 1.000, but any runs produced not from the HR (1 run) is dependant on Crappy Hitter #2 or #3.

RC is a viable tool since it is fairly accurate. There is no perfect stat and there will never be a perfect stat due to the elements of luck and chance. It is fair to say that Adam Dunn created X amount of runs since this is an individual contest. It cannot be quantified by on the field performance but with 100 years of data, it can be estimated. A single, on average, will produce x amount of runs, a double y, a triple z, and a HR b. It's all taken from data of past performances.

The odds are, that if Dunn were replaced by a Base Zero player (0 in everything), that the Reds Lineup would not lose exactly 125 runs. It might be 120, it could be 140. However, it is a fair estimate to take on and consider since you are determining the value of an individual. In a perfectly average world, where singles, doubles, triples, and HRs were worth x amount of runs, then we could determine it and RC has to base itself on that world. The imperfect world has discrepencies which cause a flux in runs. The Sox were around 40 runs under projection IIRC in 2003? Why? Many possible reasons. A lack of "clutch" hitting, poor lineup construction, bad luck.

Nevertheless, I think the stat is a fair thing to consider even if it can't be proven on the field.

[CincyRedsFan30]

And clutch hitting does indeed exist, as Bill James himself recently said.

Of course I've known it's existed for quite some time.

Also, to use the argument that Dunn K's too much or doesn't hit sac. flies is ridiculous at this point in his career.

A couple of years ago that would have held some water, but he does so much now that it doesn't negatively affect him.

Anyway, sac. flies are very overrated, as they give away Outs, when the goal is to avoid outs throughout the game as much as possible. The more often a player avoids Outs, the more often everyone in the lineup gets to hit during any given game.

[volzok]

So if my count is correct, what should we do

[CincyRedsFan30]

We need someone to break the vote, but will that happen within the next few min.?

[AdamDunn#44]

I'll do the honors.

I vote Freel off. As much as I love the guy and his ability to get on base, Dunn has been slightly better.

Freel has been one of the better leadoff hitters in the game. I just Miley would move Dunn up to 2nd so we would have 2 .400+ OBP guys in front of hot hitting Casey and Griffey.

btw I would have voted for Lopez but since that would have made things worse , i went with freel.

[CincyRedsFan30]

Excellent.

Oh, and I agree. Freel hasn't been as good as Dunn, although certainly better than Jimenez, despite what many thought during the offseason.

[Wally Mo Pena]

Nevertheless, I think the stat [RC] is a fair thing to consider even if it can't be proven on the field.

Absolutely, as i mentioned, it is a valuable indicator. I was commenting on using it as a direct translation. If there was a perfect stat, an objective measure of offense, then there would be no room for debate on these issues. It would be "Adam dunn is this, Felipe Lopez is that, end of story."

But that's not the case, and it's how RC was being argued here.

I believe the quote was something like "because RC and runs scored were very similar for the team, you can objectively say that Dunn created 125 runs," which is not true. There is still room to debate other areas of his productivity, and maybe in the end, even point out areas that the stat lacks capability.

Like the OPS comparison of Pujols and Dunn, there are times when you can point out a stats weaknesses. A guy who only walks and hit's HR's will not be as productive as a more rounded power hitter with a high average, even though they have the same OPS.

The same sort of thing could be done for RC, even though in many cases it's a useful INDICATOR.

[CincyRedsFan30]

Dunn created around 125 runs, with over 97 percent accuracy.

[Wally Mo Pena]

it's like talking to a broken record. Well i say he created 56 runs with 99% accuracy. I can just keep repeating stuff too. At least fishercat put some thought into responding and didn't just regurjitate what he read elsewhere.

[CincyRedsFan30]

First you complained because I didn't show my "sources" for using it, and now you're complaining because I did. This thread is going nowhere and will be closed now.