What's Wrong with Brian Dozier?

[ThejacKmp]

 

IMHO, each of the past two seasons saw Dozier dip, inconsistent or not, in the second half.

 

Categorically and basely untrue. Erroneous. I cannot condemn this statement enough. Even though I have before. See below (I keep this in a document on my desktop because the misconception about Brian Dozier’s second half is so pervasive):
------
What is interesting about this is not that Dozier had a bad second half of 2015 but that everyone thinks he had a bad one the year before. His splits before and after the break in 2014:

 

AVG/OBP/SLG/OPS
.242/.340/.436/.776
.244/.352/.387/.739

 

There's a slight fall off in slugging but an increase in OBP. Overall this is not much of a drop off. The narrative is almost entirely driven by the differences in his home runs, which we focus on too much.  Dozier had 18 HR in the first half of 2014 vs. 5 HR in the second half but also had 16 doubles and no triples vs 17 doubles and one triple. As the first half has 100 more at bats than the second half, the real story is a little less pop with some home runs turning into doubles. This myth of Dozier falling apart in the second half of 2014 colors the way we look at Dozier as a player. He slumped late in 2015 but we certainly shouldn’t be building patterns out of one season and the mistaken impression of another season. He played every day through injury - the issue is the Twins not giving him a day off, not some failure to finish seasons.

 

If you want another reason to disregard the Dozier second half struggle narrative, here are his first and second half splits in 2013:

 

AVG/OBP/SLG/OPS
.235/.310/.386/.696
.253/.313/.443/.757

 

So please, for the love of Sano, the next time you see someone on Twins Daily or IRL talk about how Dozier always fades in the second half, introduce them to this funny thing called statistics. We can do better than rehashing the tired plotlines of the FSN broadcast.

[ThejacKmp]

 

It's interesting what players people are willing to make excuses for.  

 

There's a thread labeling Buxton a flop after ~150 plate appearances that have also been split over 2 seasons, with the majority of those PA coming when the GM himself said he "wasn't ready".  Someone who had never had a AAA at bat, and missed the majority of the 2014 season.  But write him off!

 

Dozier has sucked for almost 4 months of Baseball but it doesn't matter because he must have been hurt or tired.  

 

I don't know about other people but based on the arguments Dozier-defenders are making, I can't think that they are the people calling Buxton a flop - I bet they're in there yelling "SSS" and "rushed to the majors". And the Dozier-attackers would be consistent if they were attacking both. So I don't see any dichotomy in excuse-making

 

As a DD, I'll say that I believe Buxton will have a great second half and am not at all worried about his slow start to his career. We have a small sample and he is super young. Calling him a flop is criminally misguided. While I don't agree with the DAs and think we're very premature in panicking to the "trade/bench Dozier" levels some advocate, that's a much more solid argument than the Buxton pessimists.

 

Don't see the correlation and don't think the two things are the same argument. Have to disagree with you.

[Willihammer]

Does consistency even matter?

[ThejacKmp]

 

3 hits and a Homer don't change 400 PAs, my point continues to be that limiting this discussion to 58 at bats is disingenuous.  This has been on going and last year provides context.  Since when do previous season trends get dismissed out of hand?  You playing by those rules all the time or only when it suits?

 

And those 400 PAs (which are really like 320) don't change the 1000 PAs before that. Brian Dozier is not Chris Parmalee - he has earned some leeway with his past performance because we have two years of evidence of his wild successes. He doesn't have the years of leeway Mauer has (as much as people have loved to rag on Mauer, you don't see threads about how this year is a mirage because Mauer's past makes this hot streak seem like a return to the norm rather than aberration) but he has enough to outlast 320 ABs over two seasons or 58 ABs this season.

 

You can't just focus on your 400/320 PAs and ignore the years before it. Your 400/320 PAs are definitely a concern and Brock and others have never denied that it's not been good. We're just asking you to remember the 1000 before that and understand that this hasn't hit the level of statistically relevant. As Brock said, if we hit end of May, mid-June and he's still at .600 OPS, then we start to worry and perhaps think about other options.

[TheLeviathan]

 

 

Also, 400 AB is a bit overstating his slump. He had an .850 OPS as late as Jul 19 last year. That's a rather arbitrary place to start cutting things off but BR's game logs are really useful in showing stats day by day. July 21 is really where you start seeing a steady decline in his OPS with very little of the seesawing up and down of the first three weeks of July (when his OPS was a stellar .746). 

 

If I wanted to cherry pick where he was looking most awful I could have.  I'm well aware that the last 300 at-bats make Dozier look REALLY bad.  I picked post ASG because it is a natural division where we commonly compare player performance.  

 

I mean, if you want to get more specific with just how terrible he's been you're certainly making a good case for it.  But it's absolutely true that he's on a long, on-going stretch of poor play - that's what is concerning.  This isn't 58 at-bats, it's extended significantly farther back than that.

 

Where you choose to be concerned is absolutely fine.  What I reject and really hate that happened in this thread was a rush of people saying "Meh, it's 58 PAs".  It's not just 58.  Where you magical line is for being concerned is just as good as my magical line, but we aren't talking about 58 PAs.  That's a disingenuous refutation of the point being made.

[Willihammer]

Where you choose to be concerned is absolutely fine.  What I reject and really hate that happened in this thread was a rush of people saying "Meh, it's 58 PAs".  It's not just 58.  Where you magical line is for being concerned is just as good as my magical line, but we aren't talking about 58 PAs.  That's a disingenuous refutation of the point being made.

Dozier has already made several orbits around a ~.750 mean. Why shouldn't we expect him to do it again this time? The complete lack of any peripherals suggesting his slump is permanent this time is why I'm shrugging about it, personally.

[ThejacKmp]

 

If I wanted to cherry pick where he was looking most awful I could have.  I'm well aware that the last 300 at-bats make Dozier look REALLY bad.  I picked post ASG because it is a natural division where we commonly compare player performance.  

 

I mean, if you want to get more specific with just how terrible he's been you're certainly making a good case for it.  But it's absolutely true that he's on a long, on-going stretch of poor play - that's what is concerning.  This isn't 58 at-bats, it's extended significantly farther back than that.

 

Where you choose to be concerned is absolutely fine.  What I reject and really hate that happened in this thread was a rush of people saying "Meh, it's 58 PAs".  It's not just 58.  Where you magical line is for being concerned is just as good as my magical line, but we aren't talking about 58 PAs.  That's a disingenuous refutation of the point being made.

 

Its not a natural division, it's a completely arbitrary division. Brian Dozier wasn't a different guy after the All-Star Break (especially since he didn't get a break). My line picks "where did Brian Dozier start to struggle?" and it is relevant. 320 PAs is less convincing than 400 because it is a smaller sample.

 

People are saying 58 PA because they are refusing to go along with your connection of this year to last year. This is a brand new season and has a very small sample. Dozier was worn down last year and I (and others) think that its disingenuous to pretend that there was no break in the middle; thus, when we say 58 we mean "Hey, this is a brand new season and it's a very small sample this year so let's exercise some patience and avoid the kneejerk pessimism."

 

You can certainly disagree but using words like hate and attacking Brock on a somewhat personal level seems like overkill. It might be time to take a step back. I've been there before too - you think you're right and you want to fight anyone who disagrees. That's why I have my warning point :-)

[TheLeviathan]

 

Dozier has already made several orbits around a ~.750 mean. Why shouldn't we expect him to do it again this time? The complete lack of any peripherals suggesting his slump is permanent this time is why I'm shrugging about it, personally.

 

And that's fine, that's a valid reason to do so.  He's certainly exploded for stretches of extremely productive play and we may be on the cusp of that.  Only the future is going to tell.  (Though I may argue dropping him in the batting order may be called for.  Or that we have more flexibility with that if he's going to be this streaky)  

 

What worries me about Dozier's hitting profile is that it's relatively limited (draw walks, pull everything) that I think attacking him from a pitcher's perspective is easier than, say, someone like Sano or Mauer.  I wonder if his binge the first half of the year drew a lot of attention and if he's been "figured out".  He might be attacking pitches the same way, but peripherals don't always tell the whole story.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Its not a natural division, it's a completely arbitrary division. Brian Dozier wasn't a different guy after the All-Star Break (especially since he didn't get a break). My line picks "where did Brian Dozier start to struggle?" and it is relevant. 320 PAs is less convincing than 400 because it is a smaller sample.

 

People are saying 58 PA because they are refusing to go along with your connection of this year to last year. This is a brand new season and has a very small sample. Dozier was worn down last year and I (and others) think that its disingenuous to pretend that there was no break in the middle; thus, when we say 58 we mean "Hey, this is a brand new season and it's a very small sample this year so let's exercise some patience and avoid the kneejerk pessimism."

 

Then you are a drawing an arbitrary line.  It's always arbitrary when you're doing this sort of thing.

 

I don't disconnect seasons when I think about players.  Sano's plate discipline is absolutely a factor for me as I consider his start.  I take John Ryan Murphy's BABIP from last year into consideration for projecting this year.  I can't ever remember shutting off last season's trends from consideration merely because they were last season.  I find the notion preposterous, in fact.  A hitter's past is always relevant.

 

If you want to haggle between 320 and 400 - it's still WAY more than 58 an that's the whole point.  320 is enough for me to be concerned, if it's not for you - fine.  Just don't paint it as a 58 PA over reaction - it isn't.  That is twisting the argument and an unfair presentation of what you disagree with.

[ThejacKmp]

 

Then you are a drawing an arbitrary line.  It's always arbitrary when you're doing this sort of thing.

 

I don't disconnect seasons when I think about players.  Sano's plate discipline is absolutely a factor for me as I consider his start.  I take John Ryan Murphy's BABIP from last year into consideration for projecting this year.  I can't ever remember shutting off last season's trends from consideration merely because they were last season.  I find the notion preposterous, in fact.  A hitter's past is always relevant.

 

If you want to haggle between 320 and 400 - it's still WAY more than 58 an that's the whole point.  320 is enough for me to be concerned, if it's not for you - fine.  Just don't paint it as a 58 PA over reaction - it isn't.  That is twisting the argument and an unfair presentation of what you disagree with.

 

1) You can disagree with where I draw the line but you can't call it arbitrary. Arbitrary is when you do something with no reason, just picking a random date as the dividing point. For example, the All-Star Break is an arbitrary dividing line. By contrast, I looked at the day-to-day stats and identified the date where I saw his OBP start to trend down. That's a reasoned dividing line. The logic and method may or may not be flawed but it is not arbitrary.

 

2) You are totally fine to connect seasons and thus talk about 400 PAs. You’ll notice that even though many of us don’t agree with connecting the two seasons in the way you do, we’ve been willing to discuss it and contextualize it from your frame of reference. By the same token, you need to understand the arguments on the other side about not connecting seasons and be willing to see why people say 58 PA = SSS and how that’s a valid point. I can’t believe that you can’t at least wrap your head around the idea that a new season is a new start and is worth considering as a new dividing point (e.g. we’re not adding in Mauer’s second half to his hot start this year to minimize it because this is a new season and we can see that maybe some things changed for him health-wise in the offseason). Can you come that far? No need to agree but also no need to be incredulous.

 

3) Also, if you’re going to connect the two seasons, you need to address the 1000+ PAs before that. Unless you can present some evidence as to why things changed 400/320 PAs ago (he’s getting different pitches, shifts became more prevalent, he went on the DL, his GF dumped him), then it’s hard for people to accept that those 400/320 PAs tell the real and complete story rather than just one part of the story which may or may not be true.

[TheLeviathan]

 

1) You can disagree with where I draw the line but you can't call it arbitrary. Arbitrary is when you do something with no reason, just picking a random date as the dividing point. For example, the All-Star Break is an arbitrary dividing line. By contrast, I looked at the day-to-day stats and identified the date where I saw his OBP start to trend down. That's a reasoned dividing line. The logic and method may or may not be flawed but it is not arbitrary.

 

The start of a new season is an arbitrary line too.  Whether I pick a 4 day all star break or a 4 month break, Dozier didn't magically become a new hitter in either span of time.  Looking at the larger, most relevant context is my reasoning.

 

58 PA = SSS and how that’s a valid point.

 

 

No one disagrees.  It's not relevant for the argument that was presented in the first post.  Posting that argument is not a valid point because no one is arguing it.  It's a straw man.  It's irrelevant.

 

 

 

As for his 1,000 PAs - Again...not really.  We all acknowledge he had a great stretch, but hitters can do that and then find the league adjusts to them and they never find that success again.  No one is denying he's had a great start as a full time regular, the problem is why haven't we seen that Dozier for a considerable length of time?  It's perfectly valid to be concerned when it's been a pretty significant chunk of time since he was that player.

 

Will he go on a binge and make those fears go away?  Certainly has happened in the past.  I'd welcome it, but we won't know until he takes more at-bats.  But while you and others may arbitrarily decide mid or late May is the time to be concerned (when he has less than 300 at-bats this year) - I'm looking at a larger context and sample size right now.  

[alarp33]

 

1) You can disagree with where I draw the line but you can't call it arbitrary. Arbitrary is when you do something with no reason, just picking a random date as the dividing point. For example, the All-Star Break is an arbitrary dividing line. By contrast, I looked at the day-to-day stats and identified the date where I saw his OBP start to trend down. That's a reasoned dividing line. The logic and method may or may not be flawed but it is not arbitrary.

 

 

His OBP in July '15 was .282, it was no worse in the 2nd half of that month (post all star break) than it was in the 1st half of the month. 

 

He actually hit .229 (11 for 48) July 17 - 31 with 6 walks

 

July 1 - 12 hit .183 (9 for 49) w/ 4 walks  

 

So your numbers appear to be flawed, yes

[bird]

 

Does consistency even matter?

 

 

In skydiving, absolutely.

[ThejacKmp]

 

His OBP in July '15 was .282, it was no worse in the 2nd half of that month (post all star break) than it was in the 1st half of the month. 

 

He actually hit .229 (11 for 48) July 17 - 31 with 6 walks

 

July 1 - 12 hit .183 (9 for 49) w/ 4 walks  

 

So your numbers appear to be flawed, yes

 

Ummm, no.

 

1) A month is an arbitrary dividing line. Again, let’s avoid those and find reasoned ones. But we’ll work with July if you want to stay arbitrary.

 

2) If you’re going to disagree with where I draw the line, at least address the time frame I chose. I picked 7/21 as the dividing line but instead of actually addressing that line, you cherry-picked two random samples to try to show inconsistency. That’s pretty sneaky. I get why you included July 17 in justifying your “he finished stronger” argument – he hit well from 7/17 to 7/19 which swells your super small sample size.  A more accurate way to use that swell would be to do what I did and include it in the “Good Dozier” period while moving the rest of that abysmal period to the “Bad Dozier” era. You then doubled down by highlighting 7/1 to 7/12 because it was a lull that allowed you to ignore his mid-month prowess.  Sneaky work with numbers but let’s address the actual dividing date I selected.

 

3) Bogus Use Of Numbers II: You’re challenging an argument based on OPS with batting average and walks. That conveniently ignores slugging which many would consider a really important part of both OPS and understanding how a player is doing.  Before 7/21 (my reasoned dividing line), Dozier hit 4 HR and 3 doubles. For the rest of the month, he hit 1 HR and 1 double. If we want to lose arbitrary July designations, in all of August he hit 4 doubles and 5 HR and in September/October he hit 6 doubles and 2 home runs. I picked 7/21 as the first game of the Bad Dozier era because that’s where his power disappeared and his OPS started to plummet. Address that, not batting average and raw numbers of walks.

 

I still hold that 7/21 is the most reasonable day to start looking at Dozier’s 2015 swoon because it’s where the power slackens. If you have another idea, I’m more than interested in looking at it – there are candidates but his 4 HR in eight game stretch in the mid-July boom makes earlier ones hard to defend. But those stats you quoted are bogus. Address my argument, don’t cherry pick stats which have nothing to do with what I was talking about.

[alarp33]

I think you misunderstood my post.  You are attempting to reason he didn't fall off until late July. I am telling you he sucked all of July, as evidenced by the monthly numbers as a whole. His obp was .282 in July, his wRC+ was 92

 

I only broke the month in half (pre and post all star break) to show that both numbers were bad,... he was bad the whole month. I wasn't saying he was good in the 2nd half.. I'm not sure how you got that idea from what I wrote

[ThejacKmp]

 

The start of a new season is an arbitrary line too (etc)

 

A) The start of a new season is not arbitrary, it has well-considered reasons for being a good dividing line. Guys have four months off to rest and recuperate. Teams and lineups change. Guys get a chance to try new offseason workout regimes.  You don’t have to agree with those reasons and we can discuss how important they are but they are reasons that keep it from being arbitrary. We really need to make sure everyone understands the word arbitrary – it means picking a date for no reason, just at random. The All-Star Break is one of those because it is just a random day schedule makers use to divide the season in two.  The start of a season or July 21st is not – there are reasons for making that choice, agree or disagree.

 

The ongoing discussion has highlighted that this is a new season – who cares what the original post was, the discussion evolved along well-reasoned lines. Again, you can disagree with that and I think you should note that people have been willing to talk about the parameters you believe in while you do not extend them the courtesy of talking on their well-reasoned (but of course, maybe wrong) parameters. Saying that people’s view is irrelevant or “a straw man” is pretty bogus. If you want to discuss reasons why we should include last season or why the offseason break is overrated as a dividing line, by all means do so. But don’t just shut down people by calling their arguments irrelevant.

 

C) A great stretch? It was 2 years! It’s three times longer than your sample! His 2014 was a full season of dominance. If a full season (plus the end of 2013 plus the first half+ of 2015) isn’t a “considerable length of time” I don’t know what would satisfy that criteria.

 

D) You’re "looking at a larger context and sample" – kind of. You’re perfectly comfortable ignoring the previous success (we don’t want context and sample to get too large I guess?) while honing in on a bad stretch that isn't as long as you make it out to be. You still need to explain to us why you can isolate about half a season from the two years preceding it but we’re not allowed to separate 2.5 months last year from 58 PAs this year.

 

E) The big thing you need is evidence. Find some stats that show that Dozier is facing different pitches (he isn’t BTW, see above). Show that his GB% has jumped (it hasn’t). Look into whether he’s seeing more shifts (no one has done this yet, it seems hard).  Find something because “400 PAs matters while season breaks and prior success don’t because I said so” is more of a rant than a reasoned argument.

[adorduan]

 

My issue is that regardless of what side of the argument you fall on, Dozier has consistency issues.  This roster highlights those issues because it is comprised of several boom or bust type players.  If I am looking at this roster from an outside perspective, Sano, Park, Arcia, Dozier, Rosario, and Buxton all have consistency issues which is a problem.  If you are looking to improve on the overall consistency of the roster as a whole, the natural player you should part with is Dozier.  It isn't that he isn't a good player, it is more that his issues are the same issues which you will get from the younger players who you are planning to build this team around long term.  That redundancy is a roster issue.

Unfortunately, Buxton doesn't have a consistency issue, he's been consistently bad.

[TheLeviathan]

 

The ongoing discussion has highlighted that this is a new season – who cares what the original post was, the discussion evolved along well-reasoned lines. 

 

You clearly don't get what a strawman is.  It took 5 replies in this thread before the original poster's point was lost in a "SSS" argument.  That argument is totally irrelevant and completely unfair to the original poster who very clearly made the point to note he was using a larger sample.  The point is not only invalid, it's completely ridiculous and deliberately ignores what was said.

 

The discussion didn't "evolve" - it got forced down a sidetrack by a totally irrelevant point.  THEN it evolved, making the original point totally lost while some of us tried in vain to get back to it.

 

Lastly, I haven't ignored anything.  If I had "ignored" his other 1000 at-bats I'd be asking for him to be sent to AAA.  And I've said nothing even remotely close to that.  I spoke of feeling worried about him.  That also means I don't have to provide direct evidence - I'm not stating a fact, I'm stating a feeling that I'm getting from the length of time his production has been so putrid.  I've openly stated that only the future will prove anything right or wrong.  I hope my feeling is wrong, but we're approaching a large sample here that is on-going in his career.

 

It isn't a SSS.  It isn't 58 ABs.  It's about 300-400 at-bats that are ongoing.  If you want to wait until 500 to be worried - be my guest.  But at least treat the original post and people that share that sentiment with a fair argument.  Every time in this thread that "It's only 58 PAs!' was mentioned was a disingenuous, irrelevant argument.  Plain and simple.

[ThejacKmp]

 

You clearly don't get what a strawman is.  It took 5 replies in this thread before the original poster's point was lost in a "SSS" argument.  That argument is totally irrelevant and completely unfair to the original poster who very clearly made the point to note he was using a larger sample.  The point is not only invalid, it's completely ridiculous and deliberately ignores what was said.

 

The discussion didn't "evolve" - it got forced down a sidetrack by a totally irrelevant point.  THEN it evolved, making the original point totally lost while some of us tried in vain to get back to it.

 

Lastly, I haven't ignored anything.  If I had "ignored" his other 1000 at-bats I'd be asking for him to be sent to AAA.  And I've said nothing even remotely close to that.  I spoke of feeling worried about him.  That also means I don't have to provide direct evidence - I'm not stating a fact, I'm stating a feeling that I'm getting from the length of time his production has been so putrid.  I've openly stated that only the future will prove anything right or wrong.  I hope my feeling is wrong, but we're approaching a large sample here that is on-going in his career.

 

It isn't a SSS.  It isn't 58 ABs.  It's about 300-400 at-bats that are ongoing.  If you want to wait until 500 to be worried - be my guest.  But at least treat the original post and people that share that sentiment with a fair argument.  Every time in this thread that "It's only 58 PAs!' was mentioned was a disingenuous, irrelevant argument.  Plain and simple.

 

I think the main issue here is that you want a formal debate and this is a discussion website.

 

Of course discussion evolves and changes, that's a good thing for it to do. People reacted to the 3+ months from the poster by saying "Hey, there was a season break in between and there have only been 50 PAs this year, let's not be overly worried! This year is a SSS and there were some extenuating circumstances last year with a lack of rest. Plus, we've got a much larger sample that makes some of those concerns fade!" You’re right, that’s not exactly what the original poster was talking about but his point continued to be talked about in conjunction with several other points.

 

By the time this thing gets to Page 3, there are four related discussions going on - which is kind of the point of the internet. Some of them were really fun - is Brian Dozier getting pitched to differently? How long does it take pitchers to adjust to a hitter? When can we date Dozier’s struggles to? Some of them are likely less interesting but that’s the price you pay. Yeah we don't exactly solve the original question in the shortest path possible but we aren’t a think tank, we’re people who bring up all kinds of interesting information that enriches and expands the narrow post that was originally put up.

 

So no, that's not a strawman argument because this isn't a formal debate and the argument has a pretty clear connection to what the poster was talking about. He might not have wanted to talk about it but it’s relevant and other people did want to discuss it and how it pertains to Dozier’s 3+ months. People were providing a new perspective on what the poster said, bringing in new information to further a discussion. If no one can add in any other information, this is more like people screaming from soapboxes at each other than actually discussing something.

 

If we live in a world under your rules, we only can discuss things in very narrow parameters. In fact, we're likely going to need each poster to clearly outline the thing they are talking about and the nine things they are not talking about and don't want anyone to mention. The only problem will be that no one will care because it will stop being fun.

 

Finally: "The point is not only invalid, it's completely ridiculous and deliberately ignores what was said." This is where you rub me wrong and it sounds like some others as well. You can't declare other people's opinions ridiculous and invalid unless you back that up with information. You want to have your feelings but not have other people have different ones.  No one controls the discussion and if people want to talk about something related within the thread that they think has bearing on understanding Brian Dozier and his struggles, they have every right to do so without The Leviathon telling them they are ridiculous and invalid.

[Vanimal46]

In fairness, I was the original poster of this thread. I get the point that it's a new season, everything's duckies and bunnies until it's not. People can choose to believe that Dozier will turn it around because he has a track record. I hope he does.. I provided the larger sample size of his bad 2nd half and slow start this year, because if I started a thread saying "Dozier's off to a brutal start" It would only be a SSS!! discussion. 

If some want to give him time to adjust and/or pretend nothing's wrong, that's fine. IMO 300-400 PA's, wherever you want to draw the line, of below average production is a cause for concern. The expectations were pretty high for Dozier from people on this website this year, myself included. Unfortunately his at bats so far are looking more like 2015 2nd half Dozier compared to 2015 1st half Dozier. 

[TheLeviathan]

 

Of course discussion evolves and changes, that's a good thing for it to do. People reacted to the 3+ months from the poster by saying "Hey, there was a season break in between and there have only been 50 PAs this year, let's not be overly worried! This year is a SSS and there were some extenuating circumstances last year with a lack of rest. 

 

No, that last point is speculation.  None of us know why August and September were so brutal anymore than we know for sure why this April has been brutal as well. 

 

It need not be a formal debate to have the decency to respond to someone's argument as it's stated rather than dismissing it as something it's not.  It sort of helps the discussion if you discuss what people are actually saying rather than something you make up to respond to.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Dozier now has an .889 OPS over the last seven days and a .744 OPS over the last 14 days.

 

SSS but that's how this works when we put too much stock in ~50 PAs. Dozier had basically the same arc last season as well.

 

Like I pointed out earlier in the thread, his peripherals - outside of flyballs - were all in line with his career norms. If he was struggling for a real reason, it was manifesting in a very odd manner because the underlying stats didn't show any kind of regression.

[TheLeviathan]

 

SSS but that's how this works when we put too much stock in ~50 PAs.

 

For the love of all that's holy - no one did that!

 

Shall I surround that statement in emojis or different color letters?  Why is that concept so hard to understand?  Let me try:   No one    said that      at any     point       in the    :shoot: conversation.   

 

If Brian Dozier wants to suddenly start hitting to all fields - that will sure as hell reduce my worries about him.  It was good to see last night.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

For the love of all that's holy - no one did that!

 

Shall I surround that statement in emojis or different color letters?  Why is that concept so hard to understand?  Let me try:   No one    said that      at any     point       in the    :shoot: conversation.   

 

If Brian Dozier wants to suddenly start hitting to all fields - that will sure as hell reduce my worries about him.  It was good to see last night.

I know you didn't say that and MY POINT was that ~50 PAs shouldn't influence the outlook of a player.

 

Because, as we've seen, just 30 PAs can drastically alter whether a player is "struggling".

 

I went rather in-depth earlier in the thread and pointed out that Brian Dozier - outside of an unsustainable flyball rate - was doing exactly the same thing he has in his career. Outside of the results - which we all know are prone to fluctuation for a variety of reasons - Brian Dozier was basically the same guy in early 2016 that he was in the aggregate of 2013-2015.

 

And besides, I didn't even quote you in this thread. You weren't the only person participating in the conversation.

[TheLeviathan]

 

And besides, I didn't even quote you in this thread. You weren't the only person participating in the conversation.

 

Since literally no one said that - who are you talking to and why are you talking to them in this thread?

 

The outlook of concern in this thread was based on 300+ PAs.  But I sure hope last night was a sign of things to come, if Dozier can start using the whole field we might see an end to his streaky play and a better, more consistent player.

[Platoon]

Maybe this discussion can be simplified? When BD is in full pull happy mode he, like others, relies solely on pitchers mistakes for success. When he hits like he did last night, he can be responsible for his success. Is he going to hit 28 HR's again? Probably not. But he will end up seeing more inside pitches than he would have otherwise, and can maybe hit 15. And he can be what he really should/could be. A fairly decent all around OB guy, who is a pretty good base runner and a fair defensive player. You can site statistics till hell freezes over, but a leadoff hitter at .179 hitting endless flares and ground balls, in essence since last summer is not simply operating in bad luck. Let's see if this new found love of RF continues?

[stringer bell]

Two things: I am going to give Dozier a partial pass for last season's second half--he was injured, fatigued and in his first postseason race. Secondly, the repeated story is that Dozier slumps in the second half. Not really true except for 2015. I think he'll be fine in '16.

[BHtwins]

He has an awful lot of Lew Ford in him. 

 

Lew's first 200 ABS were like..almost MVP level.  His next 700ish were solid above average MLB CF...then he slowly drifted into oblivion.

 

Lew's age 27 season he had 4.5 WAR and finished 24 in AL MVP.  Dozier's age 27 season he had a 5.2 WAR and finished 28th in AL MVP

 

Now, Dozier is a better defender at a more valuable position.  His first 200 abs weren't as good as Lew's but he has been better for longer. 

 

The thing that drives it home thinking back is how remarkably similar they were on their penchant for pull power and having tremendous bat speed.

[twinssporto]

 

What does SSS mean?

Signed Bohunk From Bemidji

 

 

SSS= small sample size.

Thanks for clarifying.  I'm not really bright.  Thought it meant Season Sucks Spectacularly 

[ShouldaCouldaWoulda]

 

Thanks for clarifying.  I'm not really bright.  Thought it meant Season Sucks Spectacularly 

No, that is a pretty bright acronym.