Roch's Latest... Speculation about Dunn?

[WietersOvechkin]

Come on guys, be positive for once.

I mean, really. We haven't had the chance to make our WOW offer yet.

Hahaha... I am looking forward to it;):laughlol::laughlol: Rep to you

[byrdz]

There may not be many teams making it obvious that they are interested in Dunn but for sure there is one or more lying in the weeds ready to pounce when the time is right.

[Orioles West]

If we put him in the outfield will his bat make up for his glove?

I'm guessing he produces more runs than he gives up.

That aside, the reason a team will sign him, it will be for that bat and the fun of watching the baseball fly out of the park.

Winning, of course, is the most fun, but if we can't win next year, some prolific home runs could be cool to watch. Sometimes, I think the number crunchers forget about the fun stuff.

Defense replacements, some days at DH, I think it could work, if people want it to.

-Don

[Oriolesfan4life]

Certainly Dunn has shown that he is by no means a gold-glover. But I would argue that he isn't much worse than Luke Scott defensively. Besides, his bat certainly makes up for it.

I'm in no way saying we should sign Dunn. I'm just sick and tired of the O's coming up with excuses why they aren't pursuing certain players.

[Mackus]

But I would argue that he isn't much worse than Luke Scott defensively.

And you would be horribly, horribly mistaken.

This is not an opinion. It is an inarguable fact that Dunn is a considerably worse defensive outfielder than Luke Scott. Luke is a bit above average. Dunn is about as bad as it gets defensively.

[amateurfan]

IMO, the market is on-hold right now, waiting to see what Manny does.

I bet Dunn goes with a team that wanted Manny but didn't get him. We'll see.

In circumstances of recent years past, I would agree, but who wants Manny now? Dodgers? Giants? I can't off the top of my head think of any other teams he's been linked to. Last I read was that the Giants didn't have much money to play with.

[El Gordo]

I disagree with this completely.

Positioning is as much a function of the team's manager as it is of each player. The best fielders are the ones with the most range, the surest hands, and the best arms. If one of their managers has the RF stand on the foul line, it doesn't mean he's a crappy RF, just that his manager is being ridiculous. I think a lot of the positioning things will even out, but not all of them. It should be taken into account.

I doubt that this happens often enough to be anything more than noise. And many players, Cal being a great example, were responsible for their own positioning because they studied the game so intensively. Paul Blair is another example. This contributed to their effectivenerss and in Cal's case made up for range. CPat is a good example of the reverse of this. He relies on raw speed to make up for poor positioning and poor routes. The reason managers do more positioning for their players today is because a lot of the younger players haven't invested as miuch energy in learning how to do this IMO.

[Mackus]

I'm guessing he produces more runs than he gives up.

He certainly does.

However, its still far better to have him at DH and Luke Scott in LF than to have Dunn at LF and Scott at DH. I'd even argue that we'd probably be better off with something like Burrel (if he had signed here, for example) at DH and Scott in LF than Scott at DH and Dunn in LF. Don't know for sure if those numbers work out, but they'll probably be close, and maybe even someone who's a much less proficient hitter than Burrell could still make it come out ahead.

Dunn's limitation in LF cause his overall contributions to not be worth the cost.

[RShack]

I disagree with this completely.

Positioning is as much a function of the team's manager as it is of each player. The best fielders are the ones with the most range, the surest hands, and the best arms. If one of their managers has the RF stand on the foul line, it doesn't mean he's a crappy RF, just that his manager is being ridiculous. I think a lot of the positioning things will even out, but not all of them. It should be taken into account.

If you're point is that a manager can have some influence, and that an idiot manager can interfere with a guy's performance, well, OK.

In theory, a manager could bat Babe Ruth in front of Mark Belanger and get the Babe even more walks. So?

But, back to reality, I never heard anybody say Nick stands in the wrong place.

You think Nick didn't top the list because DT told him to stand in the wrong place?

If they did this with Paul Blair, you think he should have gotten bonus points for playing so shallow and getting back on flyballs anyway.

But in this system he would: He'd get credit for all the flyballs he got back on, plus he'd get credit for all the short bloop singles he turned into outs.

The system handles that by focusing on Actual Results.

This system would give zero points to Jim Edmunds for falling over and crashing into things, it would only give him credit for making plays.

Giving style points for where somebody stands strikes me as the opposite of tracking actual real-world performance.

Given years of data about each player, I'm not sure why you'd want to do that.

I'm even less sure of how you possibly could do that without screwing it up.

And, except for contolling for the Idiot Manager Theory, I don't see what you'd gain from it.

[hoosiers]

So, it sounds like we have contacted Dunn and let him know the circumstances with which we would play for him.

Sounds good to me generally. However, if you tell a guy he is DH only and has no value to you in the field, inherently, you are offering the guys less $ because he has less utility.

I wonder how many open DH spots there are out there - maybe not so many considering how little interest there wasi Huff at the deadline. I also wonder what NL teams are going to stick Dunn in the OF or at 1B.

There's not much optimism in Roch's report, but maybe this could drag on a bit and AD could start warming to the DH opening in Bmore.

[Osfan13]

We all know that he's bad in LF, and I doubt he's good at 1B. Manny is bad in LF, and Ruth wasn't known for his glove in RF. The question is "Does his bat outweigh his definencies"?

I imagine Giambi at 1st and all I see is Dunn. Doesn't mean that Giambi isn't worth a signing. The "Holy Grail of GMs" Billy Beane signed the guy. That means either he or Cust plays the field.

And please, no stats showing how good or bad he is in the field and how it correlates to wins/losses. A 40 HR 90-100 RBI guy is asking for a deal that is less than Konerko's was after the 2005 season. Dunn should get an assurance that he will play the field SOMETIMES.

BTW, did you see his comparables by age? I did a break-down of each team in the AL that he played and how he did a few years ago on orioles.com. I'd do one again, but I'm writing a paper on "False Memory Syndrome" for my winter-mester class and am pressed for time. If we'd get him for his bat, why doesn't somebody show the numbers he's put up against the AL, especially the AL East. That's what we'd want him for anyway.

[Mackus]

Its not style points. It goes into determining range. Your Paul Blair example is exactly my point, or Andruw Jones in his prime. They should get credit for both being able to play shallow and catch balls that other guys drop in while also being able to go back on the ball great.

Basically I would try to figure out how far a player runs to get to where each ball lands, how long it takes to get there, if they get there in time. All those things. And basically figure out who has the best range, who can cover the most ground, prevent the most balls from being fielded.

I don't want to falsely reward Melvin Mora for having huge range if he fields a ball right where the SS would be, but its only because he was standing right there in a Ortiz-style shift. He shouldn't get bonus points for that.

We're getting a bit away from the FB and sort of into OOZ plays, but its all part of the same thing. None of these defensive stats are perfect, so when a particular player's ratings in one or another of the stats doesn't pass my smell test, I don't feel bad about discarding it in a particular case. Certainly any of the defensive stats are better than traditional stats, or just following the Web Gems on baseball tonight. But when I think I've got enough justification to think my opinion of a player is more accurate than what the Fielding Bible says, I don't have any hesitation in trusting myself over their system. I don't do this for everyone, because obviously I don't see everyone play enough to be justified to take my opinions over some of these stats. I don't have any sort of running plays made or missed tally, but I am confidant enough to put someone into an average category, slightly above or below, or way above or below.

[Osfan13]

I wish you'd have told me that ahead of time ;-)

lol, it makes sense, but I dunno. What do you think, Dodgers? Giants? What is the market then?

[Mackus]

BTW, did you see his comparables by age?

Looking at what he's done in miniscule sample sizes against each AL team is a worthless endeavor. It won't show anything meaningful because the sample sizes are all far too small. Do you think it is in any way relevant that he has a 1.848 OPS in 9 career games against the Rangers?

Dunn's offense isn't in question. The debate is if he is worth signing if he's insisting on playing LF everyday. I don't think so. I think we could sign an average or slightly better fielding left-fielder who hits roughly as well as Luke Scott and they'd be worth as many wins to us as Dunn in LF.

Heck, I'll go out on a short limb and say that as left-fielders, Dunn and Luke Scott are just about equal in terms of overall value. Anybody want to give Scott a 3/$36M contract? Of course not. Dunn's defense kills his team. As a DH he'd be a great addition, as a LF I'll pass, and stick with Scott.

[jcroemer]

Adam Dunn doesn't want to play DH? Oh, I guess his poo doesn't stink, either. He is a joke with the glove. You shouldn't put a bad defense behind young pitching! Can we be done with Dunn? Let's move on!