Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: The Most Dangerous Division in Sports

Carl Crawford And WAR

You could say I am skeptical of many of the advanced defensive metrics that are out there. That wouldn't be news, especially since I am in no way anti-advanced statistics -- if you've stuck with me this long since we came to Over the Monster or you have read me in the past, it should be pretty clear I love me some data. 

That is why, when Red Sox fan and fellow SB Nation blogger Adam Darowski mentioned on Twitter this morning that Carl Crawford was finally at 0.0 WAR (of both the Fangraphs and Baseball Reference variety), my first thought was to wonder just how little the defensive metrics in both fWAR and bWAR thought of Crawford, and if they were on target with their figures.

Star-divide

Crawford, in his three months on the field for Boston, has been worth -0.7 runs fielding via Ultimate Zone Rating, and is at -0.1 defensive WAR at Baseball Reference. In a vacuum, nothing is particularly striking about that. But throw some context in, and you start to wonder if it makes any logical sense. Crawford, according to UZR, was worth 16, 17, and 18 runs defensively in his last three seasons in Tampa Bay's outfield. What UZR is asking us to believe is that, because he has had to learn how the ball bounces off of the Green Monster in left, he is suddenly not only not playing like a plus defensive outfielder, but is trending negatively defensively in three months time.

Now, I can accept the idea that Crawford, not as accustomed to the nuances of playing left field at Fenway, has played under his actual skill level to this point. But if I didn't trust UZR in Fenway's left field before, then this certainly isn't helping the matter. Without even getting into the matter of all of the batted-ball data problems, and the fact that UZR, even if it is finely tuned mathematically, is stuck in a "garbage in, garbage out" position due to the data it is fed, let's consider that, in Manny Ramirez's Red Sox career, he was rated a far worse fielder at Fenway Park than on the road according to UZR in his career. The Manny Ramirez who had trouble ranging and taking proper routes, but played the ball off of the wall well and was able to play shallower at home due to the smaller space, the Manny Ramirez who could use his arm and quick release to his advantage in the smaller confines of Fenway's left field. 

This isn't me saying that Ramirez was all-world defensively at Fenway during his time in Boston -- just think logically about this. Left in Fenway was tailored for someone like Ramirez, as it was able to hide some of his problems, but magnify his few strengths. Why then was he considered so much worse at home, even after park adjustments for UZR? Fenway should be helping Crawford, too -- while he doesn't have the range issues Ramirez did, his arm is his weakest defensive tool, and the smaller left at home games should go a long ways towards hiding that fact; UZR hasn't seen it that way just yet.

Ramirez improved defensively according to UZR after leaving Boston, despite moving to a much larger home park with more territory to roam. Or, to put it another way, UZR rated Jason Bay as worth +1.7 runs defensively with the Red Sox in 2009, despite a history of being about as bad defensively as Crawford was good. Something is amiss with UZR and Fenway's left field, and it makes Crawford's -0.7 value suspect.

This is a long way of saying that Crawford has likely played better than his WAR indicates. Baseball Prospectus's Fielding Runs Above Average (FRAA), which avoids the batted-ball data that can muck up the works in more advanced metrics, but by doing so has taken kind of a back to the basics approach, has Crawford at 2.8 runs above average. In three months time, in a new (and unique) setting, and with his ability, that is more reasonable. FRAA, by the way, has Crawford as a win or better defensively in the past three years, so it's not like the system rates him higher historically than UZR or Baseball Reference's defensive WAR. 

It should be no surprise, given that FRAA believes Crawford has been above-average in the field, that he has already been worth nearly a win above replacement overall as well. At that rate, despite his horrid April, Crawford may end up an average season in the first year of his deal with Boston. This may seem like picking the prettiest picture and going with it, but, given the problems with UZR and the questionable drop in Crawford's numbers from last year to this year, it also happens to be the more believable scenario.

Comment 108 comments  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Around SB Nation

Thoughts II

Apr 2012 from Pinstripe Alley - 27 comments

Joey Votto Gets Paid

Apr 2012 from MLB Daily Dish - 0 comments

My AL-Only League Keeper List

Apr 2012 from Fake Teams - 10 comments

Comments

Display:

Thanks for that

I tried to keep it to the systems with the recognizable WAR models since that’s what made me think of it in the first place.

by Marc Normandin on Jul 27, 2011 10:13 AM EDT up reply actions  

It's year one of seven

And he literally had one bad month. Climb down from the rooftop.

by Marc Normandin on Jul 27, 2011 10:14 AM EDT up reply actions  

Do we think he's going to get better as he ages?

Age-27 is supposed to be when he’s good. Instead, he massively sucks.

by Sean O on Jul 27, 2011 10:16 AM EDT up reply actions  

Again

One bad month. You are making more of this than you need to.

And, to answer your question, speedy players like Crawford that have some power tend to age better than anyone. As they lose speed, they tend to gain some pop to compensate, and remain highly productive longer than other player types. If he were one-dimensional, there would be an issue, but he isn’t, so there isn’t.

by Marc Normandin on Jul 27, 2011 10:20 AM EDT up reply actions  

I do wonder if the turf will effect his aging in a negative way.

But he should be fine for a few years regardless. My guess is he’ll make people forget about the slow start by season’s end. He’s a good player. Guys don’t lose talent this quickly.

by R.J. Anderson on Jul 27, 2011 10:34 AM EDT up reply actions  

So if it's only one bad month, why does he still have a sub .300 wOBA?

I’m not saying he’ll be bad for the next 6 years, but he’s been pretty bad this year. It’s concerning to know that he has to hit .300 every year to put up good offensive numbers.

Twitter: @BoldandBrash

by BoldandBrash on Jul 27, 2011 11:34 AM EDT up reply actions  

I understand this fact,

but the fact that he is awful, awful, awful this year, in his age-27, without a single actual reason (same league, same division, same opponents, same position), is a big problem.

It boils down to a 79 OPS+ for $21m.

by Sean O on Jul 27, 2011 12:20 PM EDT up reply actions  

No, it doesn't

It boils down to one bad month and your insistence that it means more than it does.

by Marc Normandin on Jul 27, 2011 12:24 PM EDT up reply actions  

So you really have no problem

with paying $21m to a guy with a 79 OPS+? Who is a LF for the Boston Red Sox?

by Sean O on Jul 27, 2011 12:34 PM EDT up reply actions  

The season isn't over yet.

So you can’t throw the whole $21M out there like that. :-D

Let’s see if it looks like he earned it after the end of the season.

Also, it is a straw man to suggest that Marc (or others) ‘have no problem’ with paying $21M for a 79 OPS+ guy. Marc (and others) are not saying they have no problem with that. Marc (and others) are saying that the numbers so far are based on SSS.

NBA Officiating - Corrupt? Incompetent? Which is worse? Does it matter? It sucks.

by mmmmm on Jul 27, 2011 12:38 PM EDT up reply actions  

there is nothing close to SSS

about the end of July.

I see no reason to defend a player we are winning in spite of, rather than because of.

by Sean O on Jul 27, 2011 12:47 PM EDT up reply actions  

geez

The guy had a bad April and then he was out with an injury for much of June and July.

I’ll take his May numbers any time.

by RickD on Jul 27, 2011 4:54 PM EDT up reply actions  

and his .325 OBP in that month?

Sure it’s only one “bad” month, but the other months haven’t been good.

Twitter: @BoldandBrash

by BoldandBrash on Jul 27, 2011 7:04 PM EDT up reply actions  

315 PAs

104 of them in Apr/Mar when he posted a ridiculously abnormal .431 OPS.

His OPS for the other 211 PAs since is .777.

His career OPS is .775.

My bet is that by the end of the season he’ll be closer to the latter number than to .431.

NBA Officiating - Corrupt? Incompetent? Which is worse? Does it matter? It sucks.

by mmmmm on Jul 27, 2011 6:10 PM EDT up reply actions  

Interesting that a player with a career OPS of .775

is being paid better that Matt Holliday.

I'm a 7 WAR player in bed.

by TheLoneDavid on Jul 27, 2011 6:21 PM EDT up reply actions  

Good question.

Though I suppose the argument would be that OPS only measures the raw hitting component of Crawford’s value. He also (in theory) provides higher value than Holiday with his baserunning and defense. Throw in age (one year younger) as a factor and thus projected future value (one extra year before decline?) and that’s probably the basis for his contract.

I’m not saying I agree with it. As I said many times this last off season, I didn’t want us to spend big on either Werth or Crawford. But I can sorta figure out the rationalization for it.

NBA Officiating - Corrupt? Incompetent? Which is worse? Does it matter? It sucks.

by mmmmm on Jul 27, 2011 6:34 PM EDT up reply actions  

nah the argument would be that

his career stats are not representative of his actual skill- he was brought up to the major leagues too young because the Devil Rays needed a star and was just a pretty bad player when he came up. He has since developed and learned to hit.

Of course, that argument is completely thrown off by the numbers he’s putting up this year.

by wolf9309 on Jul 28, 2011 12:51 AM EDT up reply actions  

Disagree.

As Marc points out, it boils down to a bad month. Slumps happen. Really, really bad slumps that last a whole month (or even longer) happen. Even to players who have a history of being consistently good.

Papi, Pedroia – do we really need to review such recent history?

NBA Officiating - Corrupt? Incompetent? Which is worse? Does it matter? It sucks.

by mmmmm on Jul 27, 2011 12:35 PM EDT up reply actions  

And Crawford has no history of helping his team?

Pedroia may be the most underpaid player in baseball.

NBA Officiating - Corrupt? Incompetent? Which is worse? Does it matter? It sucks.

by mmmmm on Jul 27, 2011 12:51 PM EDT up reply actions  

I'm saying

Pedroia and Papi get tons of slack when it comes to the Red Sox. Crawford is an overpaid nothing who has badly hurt this team.

by Sean O on Jul 27, 2011 12:58 PM EDT up reply actions  

+1

Same thing with Lackey. Pedroia and Ortiz have helped win WS. Crawford and Lackey have been mediocre since joining the Red Sox. They deserve the scrutiny.

Twitter: @BoldandBrash

by BoldandBrash on Jul 27, 2011 1:01 PM EDT up reply actions  

Yeah he had ONE awful month, but his other months haven't been great because he

has a .293 wOBA right now with a crap walk rate. And if you want to go with the month by month thing: he’s trending downwards again.

Twitter: @BoldandBrash

by BoldandBrash on Jul 27, 2011 12:59 PM EDT up reply actions  

He does have a history

of being good. However as many here argued BEFORE the signing the contract that was offered was too much for his skill set especially vis-a-vis the park he was going to play in both offensively and defensively. He will be better than he has been for sure-but that was an overpay in terms of $$ and years.

by Buzzy on Jul 27, 2011 4:48 PM EDT up reply actions  

+1

I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.

by Drugs Delaney on Jul 27, 2011 5:36 PM EDT up reply actions  

Well, I won't argue about the overpay.

I was on record as not wanting to pay for either Werth OR Crawford because I felt we had guys like Reddick, Kalish soon to step up and Chien & others down the road and I’d rather have overpaid instead for yet more pitching.

But that said, even if I think CC is likely to be overpaid – it is still WAY WAY too early to pass judgment on his value.

His OPS right now is heavily dragged down by his first 104 PAs. The last 211 PAs are more normal. His UZR is not even worth talking about because UZR is simply useless with such a small sample.

Also, when talking about overpay – keep in mind that for a contending team like the Red Sox, the marginal value of a win (and hence WAR) is higher than league average. That’s because an extra win is more likely to result in playoff revenues (while for Seattle, an extra win results in … nothing). Hence teams like the Red Sox can afford to ‘overpay’ more.

Another way to say it is that the $ value of WAR on Fangraphs needs to be adjusted to reflect the value to each team and would be higher for the Red Sox.

NBA Officiating - Corrupt? Incompetent? Which is worse? Does it matter? It sucks.

by mmmmm on Jul 27, 2011 6:19 PM EDT up reply actions  

Bad is an understatement

He wasn’t just bad—he was the worst player in baseball for that month. And in the months since then he’s been basically average, which is still well below what he’s paid to do.

by BigNachos on Jul 27, 2011 10:28 AM EDT up reply actions  

Basically average?

According to what standard, exactly? Have you seen what the average left fielder is hitting this year? Crawford has been well above that since May.

by Marc Normandin on Jul 27, 2011 10:35 AM EDT up reply actions  

Left Field Averages

MLB: .255/.320/.400
AL: .250/.308/.381

Crawford since May 1: .294/.322/.453

And let’s not forget the defense.

by Marc Normandin on Jul 27, 2011 10:38 AM EDT up reply actions  

I looked at wRC+

which has him at 116, 106, and 95 (100 being average) in the months since April.

by BigNachos on Jul 27, 2011 10:41 AM EDT up reply actions  

keep in mind those numbers are not weighted evenly because of the DL stint

he had 22 more plate appearances in May (the best one of those) than in June and July (so far) combined.

and a 116 is not close to average. The Red Sox are the only team with a team wRC+ of over 115. It’s certainly not exceptional, but well above average.

by wolf9309 on Jul 27, 2011 10:56 AM EDT up reply actions  

If he had put up 116 wRC+ for the season, he would rank 70th in the majors of 154 qualified. Or, to put it another way, it would be about 16% better than average.

That seems pretty close to average to me, and that’s cherry-picking his best month.

A .294/.322/.453 line is simply not impressive for a left-fielder, especially one at Fenway, no matter how well he fields and runs the bases. If that’s his true level of production, then he’ll be a huge disappointment for the life of that contract.

by BigNachos on Jul 27, 2011 11:11 AM EDT up reply actions  

They are a league average. That is everyone. In every context.

You know, like a park factor would adjust for.

And Fenway is tougher on lefties, so really, his line should be better than that in a vacuum.

by Marc Normandin on Jul 27, 2011 11:37 AM EDT up reply actions  

it is in total

but for lefties, because right field is huge, it isn’t unless they have the strength to regularly go the other way off the wall.

It’s right-hander paradise.

by wolf9309 on Jul 27, 2011 11:57 AM EDT up reply actions  

and also, Marc may know more about this and I could be wrong

but my understanding is that park factors are simply a straight number that is applied equally to every hitter, not taking handedness into account. So Crawford’s numbers would probably look worse park adjusted despite the fact that it’s not a particularly good park for him to hit in.

by wolf9309 on Jul 27, 2011 11:59 AM EDT up reply actions  

Correct.

Which can understate (or overstate) how much a park is actually affecting a player, i.e., left-handed hitters in Petco are far worse off than the general park factor implies.

by Marc Normandin on Jul 27, 2011 12:05 PM EDT up reply actions  

That's probably the best way to apply PF anyway

Ortiz has been a much better hitter at Fenway over his career despite being left-handed, at least in part because he hits a lot of balls off the wall. I seriously doubt Fenway is hurting him overall. And then of course lefties like Wade Boggs received huge benefits from Fenway.

Crawford does have the power to go off the wall (he hit one high up the deepest part of the wall in left-center in a game I attended earlier this season). So far, his home/away splits are about even, though only one home run has come at Fenway.

Depending on your point of view, you could either argue Fenway is hurting him, or he’s just failing to take proper advantage of Fenway.

by BigNachos on Jul 27, 2011 12:21 PM EDT up reply actions  

Agree on generalized PF

But there are times where players fall through the cracks and they don’t fit like a glove. Crawford may not have the power to utilize right field the same way he did in Tampa Bay, though that’s tough to say based on just a few months, too.

by Marc Normandin on Jul 27, 2011 12:25 PM EDT up reply actions  

Crawford's hit spray charts don't favor Fenway.

He is not the opposite field hitter that Gonzo and Papi are to make use of the closeness of the Monster. And without more power, he’s not going to make a living pulling shots over the deep right field fence.

In Fenway, Crawford will be primarily a singles hitter. But that’s okay, because with his speed he can both steal and take the extra base when advanced by others.

Crawford physically may develop a bit more power in the next couple of years – that is not uncommon for his body type.

NBA Officiating - Corrupt? Incompetent? Which is worse? Does it matter? It sucks.

by mmmmm on Jul 27, 2011 12:44 PM EDT up reply actions  

well as a left handed batter

I have the power to hit the wall if It hits just the right part of the bat and I get just a little lucky. It’s not something Crawford ever has done with any regularity. Juan Pierre hit a home run this year, but I wouldn’t call him a home run hitter.

by wolf9309 on Jul 27, 2011 12:48 PM EDT up reply actions  

Indeed

park fact is crap as it adjusts one number across the board instead of adjusting for outcome type and handedness. However because of the lack of foul ground generally Fenway helps hitter of all handedness. In fact the Sox have determined in the past that many lefties hit better than righties in Fenway, presumably the type that can go the other way like Ortiz and Gonzalez. This is one reason why I worried about Crawford from the beginning-he has only pull power and rarely goes the other way in general.

by Buzzy on Jul 27, 2011 4:54 PM EDT up reply actions  

Exactly

Case in point: while Ortiz’s overall numbers are better at home, he hits HR at a better rate on the road.

I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.

by Drugs Delaney on Jul 27, 2011 5:41 PM EDT up reply actions  

Lefties who can hit to all fields

With authority are not exactly all over the world waiting to be signed. In general, the park factors work, but there are most definitely players that do not fit contextually, as you said.

by Marc Normandin on Jul 27, 2011 8:36 PM EDT up reply actions  

I'm not sure I get the 16% above average thing

only looking at qualified batters isn’t really accurate because the batters who aren’t qualified typically aren’t as good so they drag average way down.

Yes, obviously if he puts up those numbers over the course of his contract that’ll be severely disappointing. But in an offensive down year where the league average line for the AL (which is better than the NL, so better than the MLB average) is /.255/.322/.398, it’s above average.

Really, the only big thing I’m taking exception with in what you’re saying is posting the three months as if they’re all equal. That’s another type of cherry-picking

by wolf9309 on Jul 27, 2011 11:27 AM EDT up reply actions   1 recs

The whole point of this article

Is mistrusting the numbers that say he’s been bad at it because he has looked like a good defensive outfielder in a position that has historically been improperly rated. I don’t understand your comment.

Though apparently you guys made up your mind about Carl Crawford a few months ago.

by BigRedDog42 on Jul 27, 2011 3:55 PM EDT up reply actions   1 recs

Historically

he has looked good-but by the eye test he has looked bad this year. I am not trying to back up UZR over anything else-he looks unsure of him self there and plays way too deep. I don’t really get it-I know he is an elite calibre defender but he hardly looks like one in 2011.

by Buzzy on Jul 27, 2011 4:56 PM EDT up reply actions  

+1

He does look bad. Also, he plays too deep at Fenway. I don’t know if that’s on Crawford or the coaching staff, though.

I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.

by Drugs Delaney on Jul 27, 2011 5:42 PM EDT up reply actions  

He played here a few times for the Rays too.

I’m not clear why he plays so deep… he has the speed to go back for the ball, and the same speed could take some bloop hits away (something some of us suggested after he was signed).

Again… I didn’t want us to get Carl in the offseason, but once we got him, I was enthusiastic about what he can bring to the team.

It is hard to believe he lost everything in a single season. 2011, he might not be worth the money… over the contract? I suspect he’ll earn it.

by AlohaSox on Aug 4, 2011 2:21 PM EDT up reply actions  

UZR has some problems, but we all know of the problems every metric has with Fenway.

As someone on fangraphs once said, every time a new metric comes out, you should look and see how it handles Coors and Fenway. If they are at the extremes, then you know it’s capturing park effects.

by ThePanda on Jul 27, 2011 10:13 AM EDT reply actions  

I usually trust Dewan's +/- more than UZR, BUT

No defensive metric is at all reliable based on three months of data, and their creators have said as much.

by Toe Nash on Jul 27, 2011 10:20 AM EDT reply actions  

So, your overall point about Fenway’s LF definitely has truth to it, but it’s tough to draw anything from Crawford’s data so far, I’d say.

by Toe Nash on Jul 27, 2011 10:22 AM EDT up reply actions  

This^.

I’m not worried at all.

The eye-test says that Crawford looks more comfortable and more like the ‘old’ Crawford since he came back from the DL and I expect the stats will eventually reflect the capabilities he’s shown the last few years.

NBA Officiating - Corrupt? Incompetent? Which is worse? Does it matter? It sucks.

by mmmmm on Jul 27, 2011 10:32 AM EDT up reply actions  

UZRisms

I don’t have a link to the data, but I recall someone pointing out that Crawford’s UZR numbers with the Rays was so good largely because he was so well rated at the Trop. He was something like 30+ UZR at home but <10 UZR away. So, while Fenway may now be suppressing his UZR, the Trop may have been exaggerating it.

Another interesting tidbit about left-fielder UZR is that Crawford is supposed to be an elite left-fielder, which UZR agrees with, but UZR has Brett Gardner as being vastly superior to Crawford, by like 2 or 3 wins. If Crawford’s elite, then what is Gardner is some sort of demigod. It all just seems suspicious to me.

I think the reality is that Crawford is a good but not great outfielder, Gardner is a truly great one, and the rest of the left-fielders are just atrociously bad (making Crawford and Gardner stand out so much).

by BigNachos on Jul 27, 2011 10:38 AM EDT reply actions  

Home/road

There are a lot of odd home/road splits for UZR, and a lot of reasons to distrust them. Not just UZR, of course, but a lot of the systems that utilize the same kind of data that UZR does.

Gardner is pretty fantastic, fwiw.

by Marc Normandin on Jul 27, 2011 10:41 AM EDT up reply actions  

UZR: What it actually tells us

Great points, Marc. For anyone here who doesn’t have much experience with using UZR, I would urge you to go here:

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/the-fangraphs-uzr-primer/

and scroll down to the heading “Does UZR tell us what actually happened on the field?”

Most people who use UZR do seem to realize that it needs to be used in large samples (multiple years) to be really useful, but that actually understates just how completely useless it is when used over, say, 74 games (the amount Crawford has played).

Not only does it not show his true talent level, it doesn’t even necessarily show you what actually happened in the field. (And that’s not even taking into account that UZR data from Fenway is particular suspect, as Marc points out.)

Anyway, I realize Marc and other commenters are basically already saying this, but I thought I’d point people toward the source/explanation.

by Jake_W on Jul 27, 2011 10:41 AM EDT reply actions   1 recs

Forget UZR

Crawford’s defense is fine. It’s the walk rate that is scaring me.

Three walks in eight games since returning from the DL is something, I suppose. Still an ugly 3.8 percent walk rate.

by UltimateCranston on Jul 27, 2011 11:19 AM EDT reply actions  

The move to Boston has eaten a big chunk out of Adrian Gonzalez’s walk rate as well, though of course he’s more than compensating by getting a lot more hits.

If being in the Red Sox lineup suppresses walk rates (since no one can be pitched around?), that makes Youk and Pedroia’s walk rates all the more impressive.

by BigNachos on Jul 27, 2011 11:26 AM EDT up reply actions  

How do defense mechanisms handLe arm strength and accuracy?

I have a hard time calling any OFers elite if they have no chance of deterring runners.

by cds7c on Jul 27, 2011 11:24 AM EDT reply actions  

There is an “Arm” component to UZR, which is measured in runs above average. In Crawford’s case, it is the only negative component and is the reason his overall UZR is down so much this year.

For some reason, his “Arm” was slightly above average in UZR the previous two seasons, perhaps due to much far fewer opportunities to have his arm tested compared to at Fenway?

by BigNachos on Jul 27, 2011 11:34 AM EDT up reply actions  

Hard to really quantify

Arm-measuring components of UZR and the Fielding Bible metrics really don’t have much relevance imo. According to that, Ichiro’s arm has been below average for almost half of his Seattle career.

by L33to II on Jul 27, 2011 11:40 AM EDT up reply actions  

Typical UZR caveats apply

Overall, Ichiro’s arm is rated as well above average, at least in UZR, despite some negative seasons. I’d imagine even over a full season, the sample sizes where an outfielder’s arm is tested are pretty small, so it’ll take several seasons to get a good measurement.

I am surprised Crawford’s arm overall rates as about average, since it seems weaker than that.

by BigNachos on Jul 27, 2011 11:50 AM EDT up reply actions  

It's not strong. But not wild either. He seems decently accurate on throws in his range.

So he’s probably making up for short-hopping the long throws by nailing the shorter ones.

NBA Officiating - Corrupt? Incompetent? Which is worse? Does it matter? It sucks.

by mmmmm on Jul 27, 2011 12:30 PM EDT up reply actions  

Or maybe playing on the turf in the Trop helped maintain speed on throws that bounced?

by BigNachos on Jul 27, 2011 1:37 PM EDT up reply actions  

Strangely, I'm not that worried about Crawford.

He’s a good contact hitter, has speed and very good defense. Those skills don’t just disappear. I’m sure he’s had trouble adjusting to Fenway and the everyday media scrutiny, especially compounded by the fact he spent his career in Tampa Bay. Even if it takes him the whole year to adjust we have a good enough team that we don’t need him to be “The Guy” even if we’re paying him that way. It took Beckett a year, Drew a year, and I fully expect it to take Crawford a year.

Go Sox

by MikeAtBU on Jul 27, 2011 11:47 AM EDT reply actions  

I tend to agree.

He’s getting paid for being seena as the best available outfielder at the time. If for the duration of his contract the 1-5 hitters look as good as they do now, this team will be fine if he performs similarly to what JD has.

He could improve… he may one day get more comfortable hitting with a 0-1 count???

by GJ on Jul 27, 2011 12:03 PM EDT reply actions  

Let's at least come to two consensus opinions here. Crawford has...

1 – Underperformed for the Red Sox to his usual ability so far.
2 – Been grotesquely overpaid by the Red Sox for what he has given them to date.

It is likely #1 will change for the better as, mathematically, players in the 27-29 age range move to their mean or maybe even improve slightly.

It is likely that consensus #2 can remove the word “grotesquely” in the coming months and may even be eliminated in the coming years.

We have no choice but to give him time to work it out.

by dsharp on Jul 27, 2011 12:13 PM EDT reply actions  

Problem is,

he turns 30 in a few days…

by BigNachos on Jul 27, 2011 1:39 PM EDT up reply actions  

Look at the chick leaning over the sets in the picture!

In Lax We Trust - Official Pro Lacrosse Blog of SBN
Minor League Ball - Minor League Baseball Analyst

by Marisa Ingemi on Jul 27, 2011 12:22 PM EDT reply actions  

given that she's trying to deflect a ball from our LF, in extra innings,

I think it would’ve been fine if she an hero’d on that catch.

by Sean O on Jul 27, 2011 12:49 PM EDT up reply actions  

setting aside the UZR issues

my sense is that Crawford could play shallower in LF than he does, especially with LH hitters up. It can be hard to judge positioning when watching games on TV so I could be wrong, but I would think that a guy with his speed and ability to read the ball could play shallower and trust that he can get back to wall quickly when it is over his head. Some players are more comfortable coming in on the ball so it could be a style of play thing. I imagine when he does get fully acclimated to the wall he will take away tons of bloop singles.

- Matt Sullivan
"I would change policy, bring back natural grass and nickel beer. Baseball is the belly-button of our society. Straighten out baseball, and you straighten out the rest of the world." Bill "Spaceman" Lee
www.overthemonster.com
www.spacemanspancakes.wordpress.com

by Mattsullivan on Jul 27, 2011 1:20 PM EDT reply actions  

+1

My opinion is that he’s playing too shallow. This may be because he’s having trouble playing the monster and wants to compensate for that or his arm strength.

Twitter: @BoldandBrash

by BoldandBrash on Jul 27, 2011 1:25 PM EDT up reply actions  

But he's had years of playing the wall

We’re not talking about those poor guys from the NL West who play 3 games here every 6 years, he had years of standing in front of it 9 times a year.

by Sean O on Jul 27, 2011 2:25 PM EDT up reply actions  

Well, as a former centerfielder... there are a few things that might justify the deep play.

You are always taught to take your first steps back when the ball is hit to make sure you’ve judged it correctly, before running in.

And it is easier to run in then it is to run out… so maybe, just a theory here, he’s playing deep because he knows he has the range to get to the balls that are in shallow left with his speed.

Of course, the counter argument here is that he doesn’t need to play so deep because balls hit over his head will be off the wall anyway, but just a possibility.

by AlohaSox on Aug 4, 2011 4:05 PM EDT up reply actions  

Also I'm pretty tired of the derping over the contract

Are we really going to have the same ragefest/debate over the contract any time the guy gets mentioned for the next six years? This article is about his defense, let’s try to stick to the topic.

by L33to II on Jul 27, 2011 2:21 PM EDT reply actions   1 recs

No,

we’ll have DFA’d him by then.

by Sean O on Jul 27, 2011 2:25 PM EDT up reply actions  

Listen, did you dislike like the contract when it was signed?

Because you sound like someone who is dealing with a severe case of confirmation bias thanks to a bad month.

by Marc Normandin on Jul 27, 2011 2:45 PM EDT up reply actions  

No, I was really really badly horribly wrong

didn’t love it, didn’t hate it, but never thought he would suck this much. It’s painful watching such a bad ballplayer taking up such resources.

by Sean O on Jul 27, 2011 2:50 PM EDT up reply actions  

I'm in this category.

When we got Gonzo, I thought that took us out of the Crawford sweeps and it made me happy. I didn’t really want him anyway. Then, when we got him for what we paid (considering the contract Werth had just signed), I wasn’t happy but I wasn’t overly upset either.

The difference between us is that while I’ll agree with your assessment that he has sucked this season (bad month skewing his season numbers or not), I don’t believe he’ll suck this bad for the duration of his contract.

I think this will end up being a one year fluke, and for the money we spent, I certainly hope I’m right.

by AlohaSox on Aug 4, 2011 4:07 PM EDT up reply actions  

I disliked it when it was signed

Do I get a prize?

You keep saying he had just had a bad month, implying that otherwise he’s been a good player. But, there’s still lots to dislike about his performance. His walk rate is still awful, his strikeout rate is up, his base running is way way down (just 11 for 16 stealing, for example), his power is down, and as the article addresses, his defensive metrics are way down.

There’s a big difference between a slump driven by poor luck and performance being down across the board. I think you’d find a lot less resistance to your arguments in support of Crawford’s defense if it was an isolated decline, and not a decline in all facets of his game.

by BigNachos on Jul 27, 2011 3:25 PM EDT up reply actions  

Seems to me that Sean O was one of the happier individuals around here when it happened

If I recall, he doesn’t like the buy-low Smoltz style of contracts and would rather go out and get star players, like Crawford.

I however didn’t really like the deal from the get go, he didn’t seem to be a good fit for our needs. A leadoff hitter who won’t hit leadoff and a centerfielder who won’t play centerfield and would be playing in a LF that as people have said before, may be the most defensively insignificant position in all of baseball.

One bad month may be right, but it was many the worst month of baseball I’ve ever seen, so bad it took him over half the season (one with an injury, a new thing to worry about) just to reach a 0 value instead of the negative one he was sporting the whole year.

"We are not normal, We are Legends. People will tell their kids about us." - Deon Butler before Ohio State Game 2008.

by Rogue Nine on Jul 27, 2011 5:09 PM EDT up reply actions  

I remember being somewhat concerned about the money

But generally supportive, yes. I wasn’t thumping the Crawford drum for weeks like I was with Beltre last offseason.

I definitely feel like I was wrong, since I don’t see any way he can be close to worth the amount we’re paying him. If we had a spacious LF, or if he had another 20 points of OBP, or if he could play CF, but it seems like he misses everything he needs to hit.

by Sean O on Jul 27, 2011 5:16 PM EDT up reply actions  

I did

and so far he’s been proving me right. He was okay in May, but everywhere else he’s been pretty godawful.

I'm a 7 WAR player in bed.

by TheLoneDavid on Jul 27, 2011 6:34 PM EDT up reply actions  

Yeah, this crap is going to get really old

People just want to get really angry. Do people object to him being overpaid? Would him making 10 million make it magically better? It’s all rather arbitrary numbers that you don’t pay so who cares.

Is it how he plays? The belief that only sluggers should be overpaid. Rather than a guy with skills that every team needs and which have proven to age better than lumbering sluggers who rely completely on bat speed.

Is it objecting to him being signed at all for any price? If that’s the case, you’ll really just have to move on or just spend the better part of the next decade being an obnoxious, complaining douche.

by BigRedDog42 on Jul 27, 2011 4:04 PM EDT up reply actions  

Of course people want to get angry

That’s what the Internet is for, right?

Actually answer your question, any discussion about Crawford creates a lot of controversy because:

1. He entirely lacks the classic sabermetric ideal, plate discipline. He’s much closer to the typical overrated 1980s speed/batting average guy. That gets traditional sabermetricists all riled up.

2. He entirely embodies the newfangled sabermetric ideals of defense and baserunning. Thus, any criticism of him gets new-aged sabermetricists all riled up.

3. Non-sabermetricists who still love the typical 1980s speed guy get all riled up about defending the new “exciting” player.

4. Overall, he’s played like crap this year, which gets people alternately decrying him as an overrated/overpaid bum and an underappreciated slow start/sample size victim. Also, throw in some Dan Shaughnessy disciples for good measure who would want to lynch Babe Ruth after a bad month.

5. Combine, stir, and you get EPIC CARL CRAWFORD WAR THREAD!!!!!

by BigNachos on Jul 27, 2011 4:41 PM EDT up reply actions  

I agree with all of this

You’re right, he is an odd mix of the current sabermetric ideals with the 1980s ideals. The one aspect he seems to be missing is the early 2000s ideals (namely discipline and home run power).

by BigRedDog42 on Jul 27, 2011 7:00 PM EDT up reply actions  

Base-running

He`s also only 11/16 on steals so he hasn`t been that `Game-changer`. Looked awful at the plate the last two nights (especially in the extra-inning loss where his poor defence cost the run that sent the game into extra innings and he blew 2 chances to score a man from 3rd with less than 2 outs). They`re ‘resting’ him tonight!

Overall he seems unsure of himself, timid and out of his depth this season. He needs a sports shrink!
I do believe he will return to form next year!

by Hallelujah2004 on Jul 27, 2011 6:22 PM EDT reply actions  

for the record

the ‘resting’ tonight is legit resting. Tito said he was gonna do it tonight 2 days ago.

by wolf9309 on Jul 28, 2011 12:53 AM EDT up reply actions  

Well... he has to get on base to have more steal attempts, right?

So…

Again, has he sucked this year? Yes.

Will he suck for the entire contract? God, I hope not.

by AlohaSox on Aug 4, 2011 5:11 PM EDT up reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to Over the Monster, an SB Nation community that delivers news and analysis while encouraging discussion regarding everything Boston Red Sox. OTM was founded Feb. 22, 2005.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Einstein_small
OTM Fantasy: Week 7
Einstein_small
OTM Fantasy: Week 6

Recent FanPosts

010_small
OTM Simpson Analogues
Pedroialazers2_small
The possibility of trading Kevin Youkilis
Moar_bacon_small
PSA vs. OTM Fantasy Smackdown Update
Small
The Curious Case of Daniel Nava
Rsz_ashleyspade_small
Top Red Sox Prospects
Einstein_small
OTM Fantasy: Week 5
Small
Mariano Rivera and TS Elliot and maybe Robert Frost
Small
Rivera has torn ACL

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

Yahoo_full_count

Managers

Red_seat_small Ben Buchanan

Twitter_eb_2_small Marc Normandin

Authors

Lowrie__1234972975_0178-1_small lone1c

Jddrew_small gizmosandy

Pedoria1_small Mattsullivan

Baghead-1_small Matthew Kory

Photo__2__small BrendanOToole

Cee_small Cee Angi