August 9, 201016 yr No. I'd like him as my LFer and one of those two at 1B. We've seen that before-not a leader, not a winner, and horrific in left field on defense. I have never witnessed a player so lazy on d in my life. He doesn't position himself well,doesn't read the ball well off of the bat, has a weak arm, other than that he is fine. I'll take the current group of Reds. Here is the most importants stat-wins, and the Reds are doing well-no need to mess that up. Let Dunn bomb away in DC, and let's see how much value he has this off season again as a free agent. Not much will be the answer this year just like it was last year.
August 9, 201016 yr I know the Sox use Sabremetrics quite a bit, but that doesn't mean I have to take it as the end all be all way of determining a players productivity levels. And yes, I realize there are flaws in the method I was using, which is why I stated, the formula I was using, and how it's much more simplistic. The same arguement you use about Michael Young compared to Pujols and Votto can be used with Dunn....Would you really rather have Dunn than Pujols or Votto as your teams primary run producer? I know I wouldn't. Who anywhere said that they would rather have Dunn rather than Pujols or Votto as their primary run producer? I certainly didn't. You and Jim seemed to get such glee out of pointing out that Brian Roberts, Nick Markakis etc "out produced" Dunn last season when that clearly isn't the case.
August 9, 201016 yr Who anywhere said that they would rather have Dunn rather than Pujols or Votto as their primary run producer? I certainly didn't. You and Jim seemed to get such glee out of pointing out that Brian Roberts, Nick Markakis etc "out produced" Dunn last season when that clearly isn't the case. In the most simplistic method of calculating runs produced, they did. If runs are the name of the game, why does it matter if you're scoring them, or knocking them in, doesn't it all count the same?
August 9, 201016 yr Author In the most simplistic method of calculating runs produced, they did. If runs are the name of the game, why does it matter if you're scoring them, or knocking them in, doesn't it all count the same? Many different ways to calc it and yours is one. It happens to be simplistic in the minds of people that analyze the game. Its just one of many. OPS and SLG% have to to be taken into account as well for they both contribute to a team's chances of scoring.
August 9, 201016 yr Author We've seen that before-not a leader, not a winner, and horrific in left field on defense. I have never witnessed a player so lazy on d in my life. He doesn't position himself well,doesn't read the ball well off of the bat, has a weak arm, other than that he is fine. I'll take the current group of Reds. Here is the most importants stat-wins, and the Reds are doing well-no need to mess that up. Let Dunn bomb away in DC, and let's see how much value he has this off season again as a free agent. Not much will be the answer this year just like it was last year. The "not a winner" badge comes from people who are looking to justify their dislike for him but they can't come up with enough. In other words, there's no merit to it. He's not int he game for his defense. No news there. Nats say he's a leader in the clubhouse. I'll take their word for it over outsiders' perception and hope.
August 9, 201016 yr The "not a winner" badge comes from people who are looking to justify their dislike for him but they can't come up with enough. In other words, there's no merit to it. He's not int he game for his defense. No news there. Nats say he's a leader in the clubhouse. I'll take their word for it over outsiders' perception and hope. Trading Dunn was one of the many moves the Reds made to " change the clubhouse dynamics ". Go back to the 07 opening day lineup, and you can see that sweeping changes have been made in that regard. Looks like it worked.
August 9, 201016 yr Games played by Dunn in his last 5 years: 161 160 160 152 158 You seemed to have missed the point. I didn't say he didn't play. What he did was tank miserably in the stretch run.
August 9, 201016 yr I see you, like me, would rather watch a winning Reds club. Good form! :thumb::thumb:
August 9, 201016 yr Author Trading Dunn was one of the many moves the Reds made to " change the clubhouse dynamics ". Go back to the 07 opening day lineup, and you can see that sweeping changes have been made in that regard. Looks like it worked. If there was a problem in the clubhouse (and I'm not sure there was) it was most likely with Griffey. Other than the "unnamed sources" who has said Dunn's not a good team guy? Not the Nats. They've praised him. Gammons has praised him. Who hasn't? Secondly, the lame excuse that the Reds are now winning without Dunn so it must have been Dunn shows two things: 1)a jaundiced eye towards Dunn and 2) a COMPLETE lack of knowledge of how a team works.
August 9, 201016 yr Author I see you, like me, would rather watch a winning Reds club. Good form! So you and History think that if the Reds had Dunn instead of Gomes and every other player was the same that the Reds wouldn't be winning?
August 9, 201016 yr If there was a problem in the clubhouse (and I'm not sure there was) it was most likely with Griffey. Other than the "unnamed sources" who has said Dunn's not a good team guy? Not the Nats. They've praised him. Gammons has praised him. Who hasn't? Secondly, the lame excuse that the Reds are now winning without Dunn so it must have been Dunn shows two things: 1)a jaundiced eye towards Dunn and 2) a COMPLETE lack of knowledge of how a team works. At least you get it. Someone who believes the Reds are better with Gomes instead of Dunn has completely lost it and is so blinded by their hate for him that they can't think clearly.
August 9, 201016 yr So you and History think that if the Reds had Dunn instead of Gomes and every other player was the same that the Reds wouldn't be winning? I think team chemistry is very important in the major leagues. And to address your other point-Dunn has always put up big numbers, but his teams have always lost. Reminds me of former Bengal Doug Pelfrey the kicker. Wasn't on winning teams in high school, college or the pro's. Very accurate kicker. Give me guys that are proven winners. Jim Edmonds is one.........give me Lonnie Smith...always seemed to end up on winners.... Derek Fisher in hoops... Robert Horry too. You can't dismiss as coincidence that some guys are on winners and some guys aren't, especially when in today's age they play on so many different teams.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.