Dunn continues streak of walks

[Wally Mo Pena]

Studies show that a walk is slightly less valuable than a single, because even though a walk cannot drive in a runner, it also avoids a double play.

Some of you here seem to act like Dunn can simply choose to hit .275 instead of .245. It's a cute notion, but who couldn't use more hits, fewer strikeouts, and more RBI?

Adam Dunn is easily the best player the Reds have had in years, and the best this year hands down. If you can't be happy with him, what kind of deluded fantasy will make you happy? A healthy Ken Griffey?

i disagree, i think Harang, Freel, and FeLo have all been more valuable than dunn this year. And when Adam Dunn tells you that he is sucking, who are you to argue with him? You came into this discussion pretty late, and seem to have missed the point. We aren't saying that he should magically be better, we were arguing that if he had a higher batting average he would be a more complete hitter to some folks who have said that the high OBP is the only thing that matters.

[CincyRedsFan30]

The argument was over Dunn's overall contributions, which have been among the best in the NL. He's also been the best on the team this year.

[Wally Mo Pena]

overall contributions? what has he contributed besides HRs and walks?! He's just not that productive of a hitter. This is just going around in circles. All you have is OPS and that he bats fifth, and to me that doesn't give you a productive overall hitter, or overall contributions.

[Wally Mo Pena]

while i still don't think Dunn has been the best player on this team, i will say that he was the best player in april.

I think all of us who disagree on how good adam dunn is right now can agree that if there is one thing dunn needs to work on, it's consistancy.

April
.292 .427 .694 - 16 xbh - 15 rbi

May
.200 .392 .495 - 11 xbh - 12 rbi

June (3 games)
.273 .429 .273 - 0 xbh - 1 rbi

If dunn can become more consistant at the plate, having better ABs more often (think if he could learn to foul balls off more a la manny ramirez he would be way better) that he really would be the force that some people here think he already is.

And lets hope he can get his june OPS over .700 soon, those 3 games at houston and colorado don't bode well though as those are both good power parks.

[CincyRedsFan30]

Sure he can work on being more consistent, but so can most players. And I don't think his June OPS is a big deal just three games into the month. That's "small sample size" at its best. That will go up as soon as the HR start coming, and he always seems to have periods where he is hitting plenty of those.

[Wally Mo Pena]

Studies show that a walk is slightly less valuable than a single, because even though a walk cannot drive in a runner, it also avoids a double play.

I think you are confused here, you must be talking about contact or something, because a single doesn't often result in a double play, or even one out, since by definition it's a hit. The situation you are talking about, where someone is safe at first and still causes one or two outs wouldn't be a single, it would be a fielders choice. A single means everyone is safe, unless they try to get an extra base and get thrown out, and that's not the hitters fault.

[missionhockey21]

Career wise, June is a pretty decent month for Dunn so hopefully we will see Dunn catch on fire soon.

Split  	Avg  	G  	AB  	R  	H  	2B  	3B  	HR  	RBI  	BB  	K  	OBP  	Slg  	OPS  	SB  	CS  	SB%  	HBP  	GDP  	TB  	IBB  	SH  	SF  	AB/HR  	AB/K
June 	.268 	77 	269 	51 	72 	12 	0 	20 	39 	55 	92 	.400 	.535 	.935 	5 	1 	.833 	5 	1 	144 	6 	0 	1 	13.5 	2.9

[CincyRedsFan30]

Article on stirkeouts from Baseball Prospectus:

February 29, 2004
Baseball Prospectus Basics
Just Another Out?


by Ryan Wilkins

As we've stated on a number of different occasions throughout the Baseball Prospectus Basics series, one of the goals of performance analysis is to separate perception from reality. Sometimes that means interpreting numbers, and sometimes that means interpreting events with our eyes. Either way, it's about collecting information, and getting a little bit closer to the truth.

Evaluating the importance of strikeouts, especially for hitters, is something that has traditionally fallen into the second category. And it's easy to understand why: baseball is a game that centers around the ongoing conflict between batter and pitcher, and there are few outcomes that capture the drama of that conflict better than a mighty whiff, followed by a long walk back to the bench. On the surface at least, a strikeout appears to be the ultimate failure for a hitter—infinitely worse than a Texas-leaguer or a flyout to center.

From a quantitative perspective, however, there is little evidence to suggest that a strikeout is "worse" than a groundout, popout, or any other means of making an out, with respect to generating runs. Sure, it might look bad—not even being able to put the ball in play—but the fact is that error rates, in this era of improved equipment, are as low as they’ve ever been. Granted, putting the ball in play, whether in the air or on the ground, can sometimes enable a hitter to advance a runner, but it also increases the chance of hitting into a double-play—a far greater rally-killer than a strikeout.

As a result of all that, the value of "just putting the ball in play" is as low as it's ever been. The following graph illustrates the correlation—or lack thereof—between team strikeouts and team run scoring from 1950-2002:



As you can see by the round, lifeless blob in the middle of the graph, there is virtually no positive correlation between a team's strikeout totals and its runs-scored totals. When it comes to offense, an out is an out is an out.

On an individual level, the evidence against strikeouts as the scourge of the earth only gets more damning. Check out the correlation between Ks and the various elements of offensive production:

Correlation of SO/PA with (all players 1950-2002, 300+ PA)


Metric Correlation
----------------------
ISO +0.388
SLG +0.198
BB/PA +0.125
OBP -0.100
AVG -0.290

OPS +0.106
MLVr +0.005


While it might not be overwhelming, there is a distinct, positive correlation between an individual's strikeout rate and a number of useful attributes: hitting for power—as represented in this case by isolated power (ISO, or slugging percentage minus batting average) and slugging percentage (SLG)—as well as drawing walks—as represented by walk-rate (BB/PA). Of course, causation is a sticky subject, so try not to misinterpret the above data as "proof" that increased strikeouts cause an improvement in a player's secondary skills. It's just that where one group shows up, often so does the other.
Notice, also, the virtually non-existent (albeit positive) correlation between strikeout rate and "complete" measures of offensive performance like on-base plus slugging (OPS) and Marginal Lineup Value Rate (MLVr). No matter how you slice it, it just doesn't appear that strikeouts have much of an effect on a team's—or an individual's—ability to produce runs.

But those are hitters. Pitchers, on the other hand, are a completely different story.

Where the value of "just putting the ball in play" has often been overstated for hitters, the opposite has long been the case for pitchers. In their case, a strikeout is most definitely not "just another out." In fact, the ability to create outs for one's self is among the most important skills a pitcher can possess.

Why? There are a number of reasons, but mainly it's because more strikeouts mean fewer balls in play. Fewer balls in play mean (on average) fewer hits surrendered. And with fewer hits surrendered come fewer runs allowed. The steps aren't perfect, mind you, but on a macro level they hold up. The following graph illustrates the correlation between individual strikeout rate and ERA from 1993-2002:



Or, to perhaps give this conclusion some real-world resonance, look at the disparity in ERA between those pitchers with the highest strikeout rates in the league in 2003 and those at the bottom of the barrel:


Pitcher SO/9 ERA
------------------------------------
Kerry Wood 11.35 3.20
Mark Prior 10.43 2.43
Curt Schilling 10.39 2.95
Pedro Martinez 9.93 2.22
Javier Vazquez 9.40 3.24


Pitcher SO/9 ERA
------------------------------------
Joe Mays 3.46 6.30
Danny Graves 3.20 5.33
Aaron Cook 3.12 6.02
Kirk Rueter 2.51 4.53
Nate Cornejo 2.13 4.67


The difference isn't accidental. In a nine-inning complete game, Kerry Wood is roughly 30% less reliant upon his defense to convert batted balls into outs than someone like Kirk Rueter or Nate Cornejo would be. That's not just a huge difference, that's a Marlon-Brando-pulling-up-a-chair-to-the-buffet difference.
Strikeout rate also has predictive value. According to a study conducted by Keith Woolner, pitchers with high strikeout rates age better than comparable pitchers (i.e., pitchers who posted similar park-adjusted ERAs at the same age) with low strikeout rates. Bill James also gave this subject some treatment in his most recent edition of the Historical Baseball Abstract when discussing Mark Fidrych, and came to a similar—if slightly hyperbolic, as Tommy John can attest—conclusion: "There is simply no such thing as a starting pitcher who has a long career with a low strikeout rate."

The prominence of the strikeout in Major League Baseball has been increasing steadily over the past 130 years, and it may continue to grow as teams begin to let go of their macho attachment to "just putting the ball in play" on offense, while further valuing pitchers who are self-sufficient on the mound. Like many other developments in baseball, this will be a sign of evolution, and a better game overall will be the result.

Don't fear the strikeout. In many ways it is a harbinger of better things to come.

[CincyRedsFan30]

I think you are confused here, you must be talking about contact or something, because a single doesn't often result in a double play, or even one out, since by definition it's a hit. The situation you are talking about, where someone is safe at first and still causes one or two outs wouldn't be a single, it would be a fielders choice. A single means everyone is safe, unless they try to get an extra base and get thrown out, and that's not the hitters fault.

I think what he's saying is that the product of someone who hits a single as opposed to walking in any one situation is also more often a DP. Because they've hit more grounders than the individual who K's, some of those balls that don't go through for singles will turn into DPs, which hurt the team more than a strikeout does.

[Wally Mo Pena]

I think what he's saying is that the product of someone who hits a single as opposed to walking in any one situation is also more often a DP. Because they've hit more grounders than the individual who K's, some of those balls that don't go through for singles will turn into DPs, which hurt the team more than a strikeout does.

the discussion had nothing to do with strikeouts, he was referencing walks. He said singles were better than walks but not by much because singles led to DPs and that countered the rbi potential that singles have and walks don't. Nothing was said about k's. My point was that you can talk about contact, or no contact, and then the DP argument is valid and important. But if you are talking about singles and walks, then you can't talk about DP's because singles can't be double plays because they are hits. DUH.

[Saber]

Man, I bet [random player] would be a lot better if he upped his average by 50 points.

I like my new sig.

[CincyRedsFan30]

the discussion had nothing to do with strikeouts, he was referencing walks. He said singles were better than walks but not by much because singles led to DPs and that countered the rbi potential that singles have and walks don't. Nothing was said about k's. My point was that you can talk about contact, or no contact, and then the DP argument is valid and important. But if you are talking about singles and walks, then you can't talk about DP's because singles can't be double plays because they are hits. DUH.

I think you're missing the point here. What I'm saying is this:

Let's see two players are similar except one has 45 singles and the other has 45 BB. The same hitter who has 45 singles is also more prone to DPs because of the amount of contact they're making. It all goes hand-in-hand. They do hit more singles, but they also hit into DPs during other AB, which takes the positive benefits of the singles over the walks down a lot.

[missionhockey21]

It is proven that the more contact, the more risk for DP's there are. But Adam Dunn over his career has been pretty stingy with DP's (25 in 2340 TPA's) so I think more contact might outweigh the risk of DP's that comes with it due to his low ratio of DP's. Especially since when Dunn is on, he goes for extra bases quite often.

[CincyRedsFan30]

Dunn will also make more Outs if he starts swinging at pitches he can't hit. Dunn will never get a lot of good pitches if he keeps batting 5th or (now) 6th in the lineup.

[missionhockey21]

And that is key. I know the whole saying about ifs and buts..... but you gotta think if Dunn was in a spot to get more and better pitches to hit he would at least be at .260 with a few more dingers. But sadly Miley isn't realizing this.