Carl Crawford's offensive woes.
by TheLoneDavid on Feb 11, 2012 3:46 PM EST
Email
Print
We all know Crawford was bad offensively last year, even the pessimists such as myself expected more than the 83 wRC+ he posted last year. I am going to very briefly try to explain why he was so bad last year, and a rather vague expectation for the future.
I looked at Crawford's numbers from 2004-2011, the years where he was a good player. I did not include his first two years in the league in my study.
I was looking at Crawford's career batted ball splits (the results between grounders/fliers/liners) and I noticed that Crawford posted his second worst ever OPS on ground balls. His worst ever numbers came in 2008, when, as many of you will remember, he was almost constantly hampered by wrist and knee injuries. These numbers aren't just some sort of standard deviation with Crawford, he regularly put up roughly .600 OPS on ground balls for his career, with a couple of years approaching .700. In 2011? .487, a huge dropoff from his career rate.
Crawford may not have realized that his GB-centric approach wasn't working, as he hit as much as 66% GBs into July. That number drops off to 37% in August, and we can see an immediate improvement, as his wOBA improves from .282 in July, to .344 in August, as his LD% and FB% both go up.
Tropicana Field has a cement block placed in front of home plate, the harder surface there and the faster infield in my opinion helped Crawford post his good numbers on ground balls. Now that Crawford is in Fenway, he'll need to tweak his plate approach in an attempt to hit more fly balls and line drives, which, by the end of the season he seems to have done, posting a 38.5% FB at home in Fenway. If he continues with that approach, lowering his GB% to roughly 45%, we could see improvement from him in the future. He'll never be the player he was in Tampa Bay, but he could be much better than what we saw last year.
160 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Just as a quick comparison to show how much Crawford relied on his GBs
Ellsbury put up a .479 OPS on GBs last year.
"I can’t explain what I mean. And even if I could, I’m not sure I’d feel like it."
-JD Salinger.
It is encouraging to see that he was trending upward late in the year
That combined with “hopefully” a fully healed wrist and he can provide solid value
Well, he went up in August, then dropped off again in September
but that might have been because everyone around him sucked.
"I can’t explain what I mean. And even if I could, I’m not sure I’d feel like it."
-JD Salinger.
by TheLoneDavid on Feb 11, 2012 4:16 PM EST up reply actions
I just don't believe that this is a legitimate reason
his career BABIP is .328. His career BABIP at Tropicana is .337. In fact, his BABIP at Fenway last year was .337.
Doesn’t it seem more probable that it was due to injury than anything else? I would think that if it was the cement, he would’ve spent his whole career putting up great numbers at home and terrible ones on the road, but that just isn’t the case.
If I could see home/road GB splits then maybe
but the fact that his wRC+ jumps crazy high from July to August is the only thing I have to look at right now, along with his higher home BABIP, with a lower home GB% for 2011.
"I can’t explain what I mean. And even if I could, I’m not sure I’d feel like it."
-JD Salinger.
by TheLoneDavid on Feb 11, 2012 5:35 PM EST up reply actions
I think you're viewing him as having more control over his batted ball profile than batters typically do
I think it makes a lot more sense that he was hitting 66% GB into July because he was having timing problems that it is that he was intentionally trying to hit every ball into the dirt. He’d never done that before and I don’t know why he would try to start now.
You’d expect his home BABIP to leap dramatically with his higher line drive percent, because the expected BABIP on a line drive is leaps and bounds above anything else. Expected is about .240 for grounders, .150 for fly balls, and .730 for line drives.
As you might expect for someone of his speed, his BABIP is much higher than typically expected on grounders- as much as .287 for his career- but even that difference is minimal compared to the difference between grounders and line drives.
by wolf9309 on Feb 11, 2012 5:53 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Good counterpoint...
So, I guess the next question would be what was his GB% over his career in Tampa Bay. I’m one of the folks in here wondering whether the faster infield down there had an impact on his BABIP (though you’ve shown no home/road split in his career, so maybe less of an issue), but if his GB% was way higher through July… maybe that is more of a timing issue than anything else.
I am also one of the folks in here that expects a banner year from Carl, and look forward to drafting him in the second round this year (after getting him #7 overall last year, when folks in my leagues jumped all over Adrian Gonzalez early)…
I thought we’d never win it all. And then we went down 0-3 to the Yankees in 2004, and I thought it was the end of the world.
Wait ’til THIS year!
Buy it or not, it's the truth
without a real LF to play in, Crawford’s basically a highly-paid DH. His one job is to catch balls off the wall and throw the guy out at second, and he doesn’t have the arm to do that.
"I can’t explain what I mean. And even if I could, I’m not sure I’d feel like it."
-JD Salinger.
by TheLoneDavid on Feb 11, 2012 6:52 PM EST up reply actions
Ells can shift over towards right
Crawford can shift towards center. He is one of the best fielding LFs in the league
Then why didn't they?
"I can’t explain what I mean. And even if I could, I’m not sure I’d feel like it."
-JD Salinger.
by TheLoneDavid on Feb 11, 2012 7:17 PM EST up reply actions
So what you're saying is, is that you don't actually watch them play.
An entire outfield shifted to the right for the majority of games would be noticeable if you watched.
I am Sandy's bitch
We Are Because You Were
@WadePSU
It is your recollection that
as a rule, both Ellsbury and Crawford shaded towards right.
Galactus does as he pleases. Because Galactus is drunk.
Look in the mirror and ask yourself: "Am I a hater troll?"
@#$%ing Twit: @blogtard
OTM | Silver Seven
Wait!
There are different Red Sox seasons we can watch?
The Year of Extreme Opinions
BLAAAAAAARGH OMFG SIGN STARTERS!!
I apologize if this post has offended you in any way. Please retroactively ignore it. Thank you for your consideration.
by nuthinboutnuthin on Feb 12, 2012 4:02 PM EST up reply actions
...................................
I watched the wrong @#$%ing one. >:(
Galactus does as he pleases. Because Galactus is drunk.
Look in the mirror and ask yourself: "Am I a hater troll?"
@#$%ing Twit: @blogtard
OTM | Silver Seven
It really seems like just as many games are played away from Fenway as in it.
That must be an illusion
by cds7c on Feb 11, 2012 8:16 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
When you take away exactly half the number of games a player is useful in
it dramatically lowers their overall value.
81>9, it’s fairly basic math. Crawford went from only having to play 9 games/year in Fenway to having to play at the very least 81. That takes away value, even if he does play half his games on the road.
"I can’t explain what I mean. And even if I could, I’m not sure I’d feel like it."
-JD Salinger.
by TheLoneDavid on Feb 11, 2012 8:25 PM EST up reply actions
At the very most, 81.
There is no way for him to play more than 81 in Fenway over 162 games, but there is certainly room for him to play less than that. (For instance, he’ll play much less than 81 in 2012, if he’s going to miss all of April…)
Sorry, TLD… had to correct you on that line.
I thought we’d never win it all. And then we went down 0-3 to the Yankees in 2004, and I thought it was the end of the world.
Wait ’til THIS year!
I was including the postseason.
But you’re right, barring injuries, over a 162 game season he will play less than 81 games, but he’ll also miss road games, so it evens out.
"I can’t explain what I mean. And even if I could, I’m not sure I’d feel like it."
-JD Salinger.
by TheLoneDavid on Feb 20, 2012 3:26 PM EST up reply actions
Fair enough...
Just busting your balls a bit, since I haven’t been around here lately.
Everything is so serious all the time in here… and we still haven’t signed Oswalt, who seems to be hoping for an injury on a team closer to his home in Mississippi to rescue him from a season in Boston.
That really makes me think we might be better off without him… I mean, he clearly does not want to pitch in Boston.
I thought we’d never win it all. And then we went down 0-3 to the Yankees in 2004, and I thought it was the end of the world.
Wait ’til THIS year!
It's more about his age than his surroundings
He turned 30 last August. The best is gone.
see, I do buy that
Because Fenway just isn’t a park that’s really suited for his strengths at all. This doesn’t mean he can’t be a very good player, but he’s certainly not going to be as dominating as he was in 2010
With respect to his power
numbers, this is true. As I wrote a million times last year, his power is in the right field power alley. Fenway is a good 15 feet deeper there than the Trop.
Carl Crawford OPS in Fenway
A history:
2007 .583
2008 .669
2009 .850
2010 .782
Average in about 200 Plate Appearances : .721
Average in Fenway last year: .724
I really like CC. He went out of his way to be nice to my son on several occasions. He is an easy guy to cheer for.
But his OPS last year in Fenway is almost identical to his 4 year average.
"He is an easy guy to cheer for."
This. I’ve only heard good things about how he is in the clubhouse and with fans. So, when he was signed, I didn’t think it was a good idea…but I wanted to be wrong. Or, at least, wrong for as long as possible.
I continue to hope that.
Galactus does as he pleases. Because Galactus is drunk.
Look in the mirror and ask yourself: "Am I a hater troll?"
@#$%ing Twit: @blogtard
OTM | Silver Seven
of course his road OPS was a ridiculous amount lower than his 4 year average
so are we to believe that he played exactly his normal game at home and was just awful on the road or what?
Just to consider
If he continues with that approach, lowering his GB% to roughly 45%, we could see improvement from him in the future. He’ll never be the player he was in Tampa Bay, but he could be much better than what we saw last year.
If, as you suggest, he’s taking a new approach at the plate that can or will generate more line drives and fly balls, he actually would have the opportunity to increase his productivity at the plate, particularly in an offensive environment. Fangraphs:
A line drive produces 1.26 runs/out, while fly balls produce .13 R/O and groundballs produce .05 R/O. In other words, batters want to hit lots of line drives and fly balls, while pitchers want to make batters hit groundballs.
Unless we assume that his true talent has dropped so much in the past year that it would mitigate or prevent the increase in extra base hits.
Twitter: @Greenlineoutfit
The thing that's hard to believe about Fenway not being suited to his strengths is
he has a 92 wRC+ at home and a 76 wRC+ on the road. He just had a bad year, it happens and people are overblowing one year like they always do.
We're not overblowing one year
we’ve been saying it’s the wrong place for him since Theo went out and handed him the contract.
"I can’t explain what I mean. And even if I could, I’m not sure I’d feel like it."
-JD Salinger.
by TheLoneDavid on Feb 12, 2012 10:24 AM EST up reply actions
but why is Boston such a bad fit for him
if he hit better at Boston than on the road. Maybe Carl is just a player who plays better at home because of reasons like not having to travel. Maybe Tampa Bay was not a perfect fit for him, but maybe he just performs worse on the road for some other reason. That’s the argument I was making for Pedroia on Pinstripe Alley
I don't think boston is that bad of a fit for him.
If we look here
two of Carl’s fly outs in 2011 would be homers in Fenway.
None of his HRs in Tropicana would be outs
Two of his doubles and triples would be Home runs and only two of them look like they would be outs
it's partly because right field is so huge and partly because
I think his biggest defensive strength is his range forwards and backwards, which is pretty much completely removed at Fenway.
Which is fine, plenty of points to support that argument
I just don’t think Fenway is one of the stronger points. Sure, its valid, but not nearly as valid as how poorly he fits in the lineup, the composition of the club, his age or his career OBP.
no it looks like 3 of those doubles would go over the fence
that would give Carl 5 extra HRs with 24 homers.
This wasn't just a bad year
It was the single largest loss of WAR that wasn’t due to injury, or suspension in at least the last 10 years as you proved for me at some point this winter.
I am Sandy's bitch
We Are Because You Were
@WadePSU
Beltre had a bigger loss and rebounded fine
putting up 5 WAR the next year. Crawford just had a bad year, and I look forward to him having a 5 WAR year next year and silencing all the doubters.
That's a misleading statement
Beltre had a monster outlier year in 2004, and his 2005 year was actually closer to his career numbers. Crawford had his best year in 2010, but his 7 WAR year was still closer to his career average than his .2 WAR year in Boston.
"I can’t explain what I mean. And even if I could, I’m not sure I’d feel like it."
-JD Salinger.
by TheLoneDavid on Feb 12, 2012 1:15 PM EST up reply actions
That's the thing, Beltre went from massive outlier, immediately back to his career numbers
Crawford’s career year isn’t the outlier, 2011 is. For one we’re talking about the peak, the other we’re talking about the valley. Beltre isn’t an analog for Crawford, sorry.
I am Sandy's bitch
We Are Because You Were
@WadePSU
A career year
is by definition, an outlier. Crawford likely saw his peak in 2009/2010, and in 2011, his valley, both outliers.
Twitter: @Greenlineoutfit
They aren't analogs
Beltre’s career year was 5.7 WAR larger than any year he had ever had before, and 6.6 WAR higher than the preceding year, Crawford’s career year was 1.7 WAR higher than anything he had ever put up before (also happened to be the preceding year, Beltre’s career year is a true outlier, Crawford’s seems just a part of career progression, within the variability of his career. The outlier is his .2 WAR 2011. Beltre’s year after was 2.4 WAR which fits in just fine with his career numbers. Crawford’s valley does not.
I am Sandy's bitch
We Are Because You Were
@WadePSU
Where did I suggest that they are analogies?
I stated that a career year is by definition, an outlier, something that you’re overlooking or misunderstanding.
Crawford’s avg fWAR heading into his 2010 career year (excluding 2002’s partial season) = 4.1
Crawford’s 2010 WAR = 7.6
Difference = 3.5
Avg WAR heading into 2009 = 4.5
2009 WAR = .02
Difference = 4.3
So we got a variance going one way of 3.5 WAR and another of 4.3 WAR. They’re both outliers. You can’t dispute that.
As an aside, the Beltre’s 2005 is further removed from his career average that you’re suggesting as well.
AVG heading into 2005 (excluding 1998 partial season) = 4.2
2005 = 2.4
Difference = 1.8
Not nearly as large as the jump in the preceding year, but you can agree that 1.8 wins is a significant difference. While he’s hit sub-3 win territory a few times since, they continue to fall well off his avg of 4.3 to date (again, excluding 1998).
Twitter: @Greenlineoutfit
Bo did, which is what I’m in huge disagreement with:
which is why Crawford will be likely to go back to his career numbers
You and I appear to be arguing semantics once again over the definition of outlier. My only point here, is that Beltre’s huge decline in WAR is explainable in reference to his career, Crawford’s is much harder to.
If you had to choose two of these numbers and label them as “most surprising” in reference to their careers: 7.6, 9.9, 2.4 and 0.2, which two do you choose? For me, I choose 9.9 and 0.2. Which is why I don’t relate Beltre and Crawford because for one the surprise is the career year and for the other the surprise is the drop off after the career year. Peak and valley, that’s why I don’t think the two of them belong in the same discussion, even if both peak and valley for both of them stand out from averages, the peak of Beltre and the valley of Crawford stick our further than the valley of Beltre and the peak of Crawford.
I am Sandy's bitch
We Are Because You Were
@WadePSU
Bad years happen for sure
But not to 30 year outfielders in their prime going from MVP level output to near utter uselessness in the course of a single year. Crawford’s “bad year” is historic really.
I am Sandy's bitch
We Are Because You Were
@WadePSU
while he didn’t drop off as much as Crawford Matt Kemp still lost almost 5 WAR from 2009 to 2010 and was almost as bad as Crawford. In 2011 he put up 8.7 WAR. People have up and down years which is what you don’t get
Dunn wasn't a particularly great player
Had a couple good years but he had flirted with worthlessness previously in his career.
I am Sandy's bitch
We Are Because You Were
@WadePSU
He's actually was/is quite a good player
Just a misused player, if he had spent his career in the AL, he wouldn’t have UZR/etc. weighing his WAR down. Batting runs/wOBA/wRC+ all place him in good company.
Heading into 2011 he had an average career oWAR (B-Red) of 3.4 (excluding his rookie year). He had posted an oWAR > 3.5 from 2007-2010.
He had an oWAR of -2.3 in 2011.
For comparison’s sake, Crawford average 3.3 oWAR (excluding rookie year), none less than 2.3 since his first full season. He had an oWAR of 0.
I’m not trying to say that Crawford didn’t have a very very bad year, or even really argue anything in particular at this point. Year’s as bad as CC’s do happen though. Maybe with more regularity than we credit.
Twitter: @Greenlineoutfit
I can't believe there's yet another WAR
“oWAR”? What the @#$% is THAT?
Galactus does as he pleases. Because Galactus is drunk.
Look in the mirror and ask yourself: "Am I a hater troll?"
@#$%ing Twit: @blogtard
OTM | Silver Seven
There's always another WAR
I guestion, HUH, what is it good for?
I am Sandy's bitch
We Are Because You Were
@WadePSU
Ha.
It’s just the offensive component of WAR.
If you go to Dunn’s B-Ref page, under “Player Value—Batters” you’ll see "oWAR, and “dWAR,” these combined equal rWAR.
oWAR = offensive runs plus a positional adjustment plus a replacement level adjustment. Then divided by 10 to convert to wins.
Fangraphs doesn’t carry an equivalent, though it could just as easily be calculated using their values.
I imagine it’s not commonly cited because frankly, the further you get away from the simple clean package of overall WAR, the more reason their is to just look at more detailed batting and running stats, or do the leg work of comparing to other players at the position. It works though for a quick look.
Imagine how much differently people would perceive David Ortiz if he had to play the field. That Dunn still posted the WARs that he did is actually a credit to his bat. If the Tigers actually go through with Cabrera at 3rd, we could see a similar scenario with him this year.
Twitter: @Greenlineoutfit
I think the Tigers try it in Spring Training
realize it doesn’t work, then move Miggy to DH and trade Victor in the offseason.
"I can’t explain what I mean. And even if I could, I’m not sure I’d feel like it."
-JD Salinger.
by TheLoneDavid on Feb 12, 2012 6:48 PM EST up reply actions
OK
Now that you’ve mentioned it, I do remember seeing it in Baseball Reference. Gotcha gotcha gotcha.
Galactus does as he pleases. Because Galactus is drunk.
Look in the mirror and ask yourself: "Am I a hater troll?"
@#$%ing Twit: @blogtard
OTM | Silver Seven
UZR chose to hate Kemp that year.
We are not starting yet another UZR debate here, let me just say this, I’m not buying Kemp’s UZR numbers.
I am Sandy's bitch
We Are Because You Were
@WadePSU
Haha. Wait, wait, wait though
Aren’t we largely doing just that with Crawford?
A significant chuck of his value is defense, which fWAR chooses to value using UZR. More specifically, one year of UZR.
I should just stay out of all future Crawford discussions that in anyway rely on UZR. It’s often cited with far more confidence than deserving.
Twitter: @Greenlineoutfit
The difference is, is that I’ve never been convinced that Kemp was an above average fielder as his 2009 UZR suggests, so I think the initial value of his dropoff was artificially high, but that’s casual observation and reading because I don’t get many Dodgers games here on the east coast.
I’ve seen enough of Crawford over his career to believe he is an elite fielder, and I didn’t see that in 2011.
The difference between them is that Kemp’s numbers in my opinion aren’t really believable, while Crawford’s were. I’m selective in my use of UZR.
I am Sandy's bitch
We Are Because You Were
@WadePSU
Which career numbers
because if we are talking about his Fenway OPS numbers they were damn near identical to his career average there.
More so
I’d say both statements emphasis the lack of value in using a career year as a baseline.
Twitter: @Greenlineoutfit
I swear to Jobu that you spent all of yesterday trying to tell the Yankees fans that home/road splits mean nothing.
And here you are trying to convince us of their value?
I am Sandy's bitch
We Are Because You Were
@WadePSU
they mean nothing
in terms of a player’s value, but they do mean something in telling you if a player is a good fit for a park or not. We would see that Carl would be much better on the road, if he’s such a bad fit for Fenway
Y'know, it's ironic that the one time I try to be optimistic this winter it still starts people fighting.
"I can’t explain what I mean. And even if I could, I’m not sure I’d feel like it."
-JD Salinger.
I would appreciate a quote of where I said that
I would also appreciate you not putting words in my damn mouth. I said that Beltre is not a reason for Crawford to be better and I disagreed with your notion that the talk over Crawford’s 2011 is overblown on the basis that his drop in value is the largest unexplainable drop in WAR in the last decade, while you tossed out a player who I consider to have the largest GAIN in WAR that is unexplained in the last decade.
You need to start paying some damned attention to what people are actually saying before you hit the post button.
I am Sandy's bitch
We Are Because You Were
@WadePSU
Well you said “This wasn’t just a bad year
It was the single largest loss of WAR that wasn’t due to injury, or suspension in at least the last 10 years as you proved for me at some point this winter.” Which one is incorrect. That’s why I tossed out Beltre, not because he was a comp to Crawford. When you say, “This wasn’t just a bad year” it implies that you think he’ll be as bad again
You clearly don't know enough about the people here to start saying things for us
I’m not your girlfriend, I don’t speak in double meanings or imply things and if you read me enough, you’d know that, so I would take a step back before saying things for the rest of the people on this site before you start speaking for them also because there is a certain amount of familiarity that you don’t yet have that is required to do it.
When I say that “This wasn’t just a bad year” I am ONLY talking about 2011, I’m not saying shit about his 2012 with that. While I don’t think he’ll be as good as he was, I don’t think he’ll be that bad again either. I’m saying you cannot just parse over his 2011 and say “Oh well, shit happens.” It needs to be looked into, because hugely talented players don’t just do what he did.
I am Sandy's bitch
We Are Because You Were
@WadePSU
"I'm not your girlfriend"
When did you two break up? :(
Bososx13 cheated on him
with Bandwagon75.
Galactus does as he pleases. Because Galactus is drunk.
Look in the mirror and ask yourself: "Am I a hater troll?"
@#$%ing Twit: @blogtard
OTM | Silver Seven
Oh, now that's just mean.
Is this what happens when I go on a ski vacation, and neglect OTM for a week or so… all this nastiness!
;)
I thought we’d never win it all. And then we went down 0-3 to the Yankees in 2004, and I thought it was the end of the world.
Wait ’til THIS year!
Rogue never said Crawford was going to be as bad again
And frankly, so what if he did, that’s no excuse to get all bent out of shape again. Rogue didn’t start the fight, you did, and you’ve been the instigator in just about every thread you’ve been in. Before you start laying blame on others, maybe you should take a look at your own actions.
"I can’t explain what I mean. And even if I could, I’m not sure I’d feel like it."
-JD Salinger.
by TheLoneDavid on Feb 12, 2012 5:17 PM EST up reply actions
Look up. Look down.
LOOK AT YOURSELF.
Galactus does as he pleases. Because Galactus is drunk.
Look in the mirror and ask yourself: "Am I a hater troll?"
@#$%ing Twit: @blogtard
OTM | Silver Seven
This
"Man you are one pathetic loser. No offense." - Lloyd Christmas
"To every complex problem, there is an answer that is simple, easy to understand and wrong." – H. L. Mencken
by Lloyd Christmas on Feb 13, 2012 10:21 AM EST up reply actions
Just so everyone is clear
I wasn’t telling David to do that…it’s from an old SNL skit.
Galactus does as he pleases. Because Galactus is drunk.
Look in the mirror and ask yourself: "Am I a hater troll?"
@#$%ing Twit: @blogtard
OTM | Silver Seven
it WAS strange
especially being positive about Crawford! Who I don’t think you’ve had a positive thought about since day 1.
Well, I set out to prove why Crawford would always fail here
and I discovered that towards the end of the year he tweaked his swing a bit to put the ball in the air more. That’s good news, and if he keeps it up in the future he could be decent offensively, even if he doesn’t fit Fenway’s LF profile.
"I can’t explain what I mean. And even if I could, I’m not sure I’d feel like it."
-JD Salinger.
by TheLoneDavid on Feb 13, 2012 9:06 AM EST up reply actions
Your inconsistency...
... is yet another sign of heretical fanitudinal impurity
The Year of Extreme Opinions
BLAAAAAAARGH OMFG SIGN STARTERS!!
I apologize if this post has offended you in any way. Please retroactively ignore it. Thank you for your consideration.
by nuthinboutnuthin on Feb 13, 2012 2:53 PM EST up reply actions
Too bad Ellsbury made that move irrelevant.
Remind me again that there is a snowball’s chance in hell we get to keep Ellsbury around in Fenway? I really do love watching him play… and not just because he hit an inside the park home run when I was at Fenway last September…
I thought we’d never win it all. And then we went down 0-3 to the Yankees in 2004, and I thought it was the end of the world.
Wait ’til THIS year!
And that doesn't even really discuss the rotation holes/questions
Not really, anyways other than mentioning Bard as being tried out as a starter.
by The Name is Dalton on Feb 13, 2012 8:50 AM EST up reply actions
Im really not worried about the rotation.
After the nightmare that was Wake and Lackey. ALL of these ‘depth guys’ would have had Brinks trucks at their doors in September, driven by Lucchino and Theo themselves, begging them to throw a handful of innings.
Yes, but...
… as bad as our rotation was in 2011, we didn’t exactly replace what we lost. We thought we had reliable innings coming from Lackey (who ended up being dreadful) – but who is taking those innings in 2012?
We thought we had Dice K as a solid #5 (until he tore his elbow), and as frustrating as he can be, he was still a solid play at the #5. We thought we’d get consistency there (you know, consistently average, when comparing his gems to his stinkers)… now, we’re running with Bard at the #5 (assuming we wait out Oswalt long enough to plug him in at #4).
I just don’t see our current depth guys as a solution to filling holes we didn’t think we had last year. I’m confident we’ll end up with new holes we don’t know we have now (Beckett is due for a back injury or two, for instance, not to mention Buchholz recovery isn’t a given)… plus we have holes at #4 and #5 today.
Ugh… it’s time for this again: BLAAAAAARGH OMFG SIGN STARTERS!!!
I thought we’d never win it all. And then we went down 0-3 to the Yankees in 2004, and I thought it was the end of the world.
Wait ’til THIS year!
Crawford will rebound, I have no doubt about that.
Call it adjusting to the weather, the spotlight of the NE media, the natural turf or the ballpark itself, Crawford will rebound in year two with the Sox. His injury probably factored in as well, and he was no doubt gripping from the start of the season, pressing to prove himself worthy of his enormous contract. Some people just take longer to make the adjustments.
My question is, what will the Sox opening day batting order look like? Assuming Crawford remembers how to play the way that got him that contract, I can’t imagine he’d be batting in the bottom 1/3 of the lineup again. Pedroia is the perfect #2 guy, but he did damn well batting 3rd last year, and I think that if Crawford rights the ship, he’s going to be slotted in at 2nd.
Just a pre-spring training batting order:
1. Ellsbury (L)
2. Crawford (L)
3. Pedroia ( R)
4. AGon (L)
5. Youk ( R)
6. Ortiz (L)
7. Aviles ( R)
8. Sweeney (L)
9. Salty (S)/ Shoppach ( R)
I could also see Crawfor starting off the year down at 6, and just sliding everyone up a slot – but I think if he can get his average back up in the .280-.300 range, he’ll be at 2nd.
I am a veteran of the Internet - I will suffer fools gladly. And then mock them. And then post cat pictures.
They're not going to move Pedroia out of the 2 slot
He’s the best #2 hitter in the game, and Crawford doesn’t have the OBP to be that high up in the order.
Besides that, there’s no guarantee he’ll be ready by opening day.
"I can’t explain what I mean. And even if I could, I’m not sure I’d feel like it."
-JD Salinger.
by TheLoneDavid on Feb 13, 2012 2:11 PM EST up reply actions
Pedroia is the perfect #2 guy, but he did damn well batting 3rd last year
I’m not sure where you came to this conclusion. His numbers from the #3 spot were by far the worst compared to him batting #2 and #4. He had only 40 Plate Appearances from the #3 spot and 110 from the #4, so those are small sample sizes and should be taken with a grain of salt. That being said, looking at the below numbers his numbers from the #3 spot were the worst and it’s really not close.
#2: .303 BA, .398 OBP + .468 SLG = .861 OPS, 100 tOPS+, 142 sOPS+
#3: .263 BA, .300 OBP + .263 SLG = .563 OPS, 33 tOPS+, 43 sOPS+
#4: .347 BA, .394 OBP + .584 SLG = .979 OPS, 125 tOPS+, 145 sOPS+
by The Name is Dalton on Feb 13, 2012 2:31 PM EST up reply actions
A HUGE GRAIN OF SALT.
But I ultimately agree with the position that Pedroia shouldn’t bat 3rd. If simply because A-Gon is the best hitter on the team and as such, should be written there in permanent marker.
Twitter: @Greenlineoutfit
actually Tom Tango and Mitchel Lichtman found in the book
3rd is not a good place to put your best hitter. I put in the Sox 2011 numbers in David Pinto’s lineup simulator, and it said to put Gonzalez 1st, Youkilis 2nd or something. It said it would give 10 extra runs, that’s 1 win and a playoff appearance
You have to balance OBP and power
Adrian isn’t suited for the leadoff role, he comes up to bat with the least number of men on base that way. Adrian should be hitting 4th, that’s where you have the biggest percentage of batting with men on base.
"I can’t explain what I mean. And even if I could, I’m not sure I’d feel like it."
-JD Salinger.
by TheLoneDavid on Feb 13, 2012 8:19 PM EST up reply actions
You're right.
I’ve read it, but I guess old-school logic told hold for a bit there.
Twitter: @Greenlineoutfit
Oh, well.
If a computer said it, then.
Galactus does as he pleases. Because Galactus is drunk.
Look in the mirror and ask yourself: "Am I a hater troll?"
@#$%ing Twit: @blogtard
OTM | Silver Seven
I don't see how trusting a computer simulation
is any less silly than trusting conventional wisdom that the best hitter should bat 3rd, especially considering that conventional wisdom has been proven wrong in baseball time and time again…
i meant conventional wisdom, in general, has been proven wrong time and time again in baseball
i also happen to believe that statistical models have proven that particular conventional wisdom wrong, but i recognize not everyone buys that.
sure, "conventional wisdom" has been proven wrong
but the term “conventional wisdom” is really only used when something HAS been proven wrong, which doesn’t imply that it is all wrong. When it’s correct, it’s usually just called common sense.
In this case, I don’t know, it makes a lot of sense to me. I understand you want your best hitter to get as many plate appearances as possible- but if you can insure that he’ll bat every first inning and put a couple of good on-base guys up ahead of him, there’s a much bigger chance of him actually being able to cause damage in his first at bat; especially when you have someone speedy like Ells ahead of him, who could score from first on a double/score from second on a single (whereas I’m not sure Gonzo, for all I love him, could score from second on a triple).
Obviously, I think the rules would change if you’re a team that doesn’t have a deep enough offensive that you can get guys who can actually get on base well ahead of your best hitter- but in a reliatively deep lineup, it makes a lot of sense to me.
All I know
is that the less people using wisdom the better.
The only people I want flying my planes are people who are certified through Microsoft Flight Simulator.
Galactus does as he pleases. Because Galactus is drunk.
Look in the mirror and ask yourself: "Am I a hater troll?"
@#$%ing Twit: @blogtard
OTM | Silver Seven
I used to play a decent amount of Asteroid on the old school Atari.
Does that count for anything?
by The Name is Dalton on Feb 14, 2012 1:03 PM EST up reply actions
@#$% yeah, it does!
You can be the gunner.
Galactus does as he pleases. Because Galactus is drunk.
Look in the mirror and ask yourself: "Am I a hater troll?"
@#$%ing Twit: @blogtard
OTM | Silver Seven
Sadly, I disagree.
I think Ellsbury earned the lead off spot last year, and seems to have shown he can thrive there.
I thought we’d never win it all. And then we went down 0-3 to the Yankees in 2004, and I thought it was the end of the world.
Wait ’til THIS year!
A player batting 4th
loses about 50 plate appearances in a season, but comes up to bat 50% of the time with players on base in front of him. That’s the best place for your best power hitter, because yes, he loses 50 PAs, but if he hits 36 home runs, roughly 18 of them will have men on base in front of him. If you have your best hitter leading off, he only sees men on base 36% of the time, so those extra 50 PAs are sort of wasted.
Adrian should be batting 4th.
"I can’t explain what I mean. And even if I could, I’m not sure I’d feel like it."
-JD Salinger.
by TheLoneDavid on Feb 14, 2012 11:48 AM EST up reply actions
I'd say you just made a pretty solid argument
that Papi should be batting 4th and our best OBP guy, Adrian, should be batting before him
I wouldn't mind that if you think Adrian will only hit 27 HRs again.
"I can’t explain what I mean. And even if I could, I’m not sure I’d feel like it."
-JD Salinger.
by TheLoneDavid on Feb 14, 2012 1:14 PM EST up reply actions
I'd say at least until Adrian proves that his "power outage" is over
I use quotes just because I think it’s awesome how incredible of a hitter he is.
Then, I could maybe see an argument for pushing him to cleanup, but I dunno, to me it makes the most sense to have the best on base guy in the top third
I can see that
but if you have Ortiz hitting 4th you run into a L/L problem. It’s not a huge deal, but I’d rather have Adrian’s reverse splits in the 4th spot, with Ortiz in front of him.
"I can’t explain what I mean. And even if I could, I’m not sure I’d feel like it."
-JD Salinger.
by TheLoneDavid on Feb 14, 2012 1:49 PM EST up reply actions
could be, depending on how Ortiz is doing against lefties this year (was better against them last year)
Either way. Ellsbury-Pedroia-Gonzalez-Ortiz-Youk or Ellsbury-Pedroia-Ortiz-Gonzalez-Youk. These things both sound good to me. We can spend all of spring training yelling at each other about lineups.
Ortiz-Gonzalez
Would give Ortiz the kind of protection he hasn’t had since July 2008. Youk’s a good player, but he’s not on the level of Manny or Adrian.
"I can’t explain what I mean. And even if I could, I’m not sure I’d feel like it."
-JD Salinger.
by TheLoneDavid on Feb 14, 2012 4:35 PM EST up reply actions
this is true
but it’s not like we’re trying to squeeze value out of him after a poor year or anything- looks like he’s still a decent hitter to me.
sure, there's a pretty solid argument for that.
however, it’s also pretty well documented that if it is a myth, it’s a myth that Papi believes in, and something might be gained out of making him as comfortable as possible, right?
Making decisions for the purpose of making players comfortable is nonsense...
… just ask our center fielder, Carl Crawford.
The Year of Extreme Opinions
BLAAAAAAARGH OMFG SIGN STARTERS!!
I apologize if this post has offended you in any way. Please retroactively ignore it. Thank you for your consideration.
by nuthinboutnuthin on Feb 14, 2012 6:25 PM EST up reply actions
I've never been a major league hitter
but I’m going to guess that most of them are better at it when they’re more comfortable coming to bat. Just a guess.
Oh...
… I agree. I was making light of the idea that even the most forward thinking of organizations (with respect to conventional wisdom) don’t do things for reasons which might be statistically unquantifiable or grounded in a more “touchy-feely” basis. Of course they do…
The Year of Extreme Opinions
BLAAAAAAARGH OMFG SIGN STARTERS!!
I apologize if this post has offended you in any way. Please retroactively ignore it. Thank you for your consideration.
by nuthinboutnuthin on Feb 14, 2012 6:54 PM EST up reply actions
I was just thinking... this looks like so much fun to guess what ridiculous line up we'll use in 2012...
I cannot wait to start those arguments again.
Not the least of which is because it will keep me from looking at our dreadful rotation.
I thought we’d never win it all. And then we went down 0-3 to the Yankees in 2004, and I thought it was the end of the world.
Wait ’til THIS year!
This
especially when you have someone speedy like Ells ahead of him, who could score from first on a double/score from second on a single (whereas I’m not sure Gonzo, for all I love him, could score from second on a triple).
This is one of the prime reasons why I am skeptical of any simulator that bats Gonzo and Youk 1-2 ahead of Pedroia and Ellsbury. It literally boggles the mind. I understand the concept of putting your high OBP guys first, but if it isn’t taking into baserunner speed into it, than the run projection, in my personal opinion, is not at all accurate. Although I would love to see more of the logic behind it.
To illustrate just how strange the idea of putting one of the slowest guys in the league ahead of our two fastest base-runners is, it was a prime argument that Robert57 repeatedly made.
by The Name is Dalton on Feb 14, 2012 1:02 PM EST up reply actions
Robert57
I was trying to think of his name the other day, and for the life of me I couldn’t.
Galactus does as he pleases. Because Galactus is drunk.
Look in the mirror and ask yourself: "Am I a hater troll?"
@#$%ing Twit: @blogtard
OTM | Silver Seven
Keep in mind what I was responding to
Wolf, I think your arguments regarding lineup constructions are all perfectly reasonable. I don’t agree with them, personally, but they’re absolutely valid.
My comment about conventional wisdom was in response to Bloggy’s sarcastic “Oh, well. If a computer said it, then,” which is just such a cliched and pointless dig to make. It’s like, Joe Morgan-style bad. Computer simulations, after all, are made by people, who are just trying to apply logic to a problem (same as you were in your post). To disregard them because they involve the dreaded computer machine is totally silly. (Sorry to be attacking you, Bloggy. You are probably the best commenter here in general.)
Thanks, Jake. I appreciate that.
I guess I just get a little squirrelly when someone says, “I did it with my computer, so I’m right”. It throws out human logic and human experience, and I don’t think it’s a good idea to discount either. I have no idea what is input into that program or what the parameters are or how good the programmer is or even if he/she likes baseball.
What I do know is that if Adrian Gonzalez is on 1st and Jacoby Ellsbury hits a ball into the gap, he likely would have a triple if Gonzalez’s slow, clunky ass wasn’t clogging up the base paths. Is there a line of programming in there for Gonzalez’s slow, clunky ass?
I have no problem with unconventional thinking…but it takes a lot more than a computer simulator to convince me.
Galactus does as he pleases. Because Galactus is drunk.
Look in the mirror and ask yourself: "Am I a hater troll?"
@#$%ing Twit: @blogtard
OTM | Silver Seven
that's basically how I feel
I could believe it, but to believe it, I would need to see exactly every variable that’s programmed into the computer and understand how it’s calculating it. It could be right, but it doesn’t sound it to me
Yup... I'm with you there too.
I thought we’d never win it all. And then we went down 0-3 to the Yankees in 2004, and I thought it was the end of the world.
Wait ’til THIS year!
I didn't say that was a smart reason
but you could think of it that way, because Gonzalez had the highest OBP on the team, therefore he would get on the most. I would suggest putting Ellsbury 3rd, Bill James stated to put a low OBP guy 3rd because he has no chance to lead off the 1st or 2nd inning. James said after that who leads off the inning is a crapshoot, but to have a low OBP guy not lead off 2 of the innings for sure is a good advantage. You also want a fairly good hitter in that spot though because he’ll be getting a lot of PAs. That’s why I suggested Ellsbury, he’s a good hitter who doesn’t have the highest OBP.
I wasn't trying to put word in your mouth, just giving my reaction to folks who rely overly on computers over common sense.
There certainly is something to be said about the low OBP guy batting 3rd. Maybe that’s why Crawford always wanted to bat 3rd.
Galactus does as he pleases. Because Galactus is drunk.
Look in the mirror and ask yourself: "Am I a hater troll?"
@#$%ing Twit: @blogtard
OTM | Silver Seven
hey now
find a quote or anything implying that he asked to bat third, anywhere. I don’t think it exists.
I'm trying to find it.
But maybe Ben knows where it is, he did assert it in this thread a year ago.
by The Name is Dalton on Feb 15, 2012 8:18 AM EST up reply actions
I remember the discussion clear as day.
Thanks, Dalton, for finding a reference.
Galactus does as he pleases. Because Galactus is drunk.
Look in the mirror and ask yourself: "Am I a hater troll?"
@#$%ing Twit: @blogtard
OTM | Silver Seven
I feel like I've asked for someone to provide a quote
nearly every time this has been mentioned, and no one has ever found me one. I’ve seen a lot of people speculating that that’s where he should be, and I’ve seen Joe Maddon say that he thinks Crawford is most effective there, but I have never seen a direct reference to him actually saying he wanted to bat third
It's not a direct quote from Crawford
But here’s one from Gammo:
Galactus does as he pleases. Because Galactus is drunk.
Look in the mirror and ask yourself: "Am I a hater troll?"
@#$%ing Twit: @blogtard
OTM | Silver Seven
Yeah sorry I couldn't find one
I really tried but any search for “Crawford batting order” or line-up spot, etc provided a whole lot of nonsense. Then my work needed me to do work (bastards!) and I had to stop looking.
Glad to see Bloggy found at least something.
by The Name is Dalton on Feb 15, 2012 2:45 PM EST up reply actions
Bloggy
Quit posting on this thread and get your lame butt signed up in the fantasy league!
Dearly
- BZ
Oh, is that what's going on??
I’m on it first thing in the morning! (An hour early than most of the rest of you!!)
Galactus does as he pleases. Because Galactus is drunk.
Look in the mirror and ask yourself: "Am I a hater troll?"
@#$%ing Twit: @blogtard
OTM | Silver Seven
You have to email German to get an invite.
His email is: jerome.baarhs@googlemail.com
"Man you are one pathetic loser. No offense." - Lloyd Christmas
"To every complex problem, there is an answer that is simple, easy to understand and wrong." – H. L. Mencken
by Lloyd Christmas on Feb 15, 2012 3:19 AM EST up reply actions
Thanks!
Galactus does as he pleases. Because Galactus is drunk.
Look in the mirror and ask yourself: "Am I a hater troll?"
@#$%ing Twit: @blogtard
OTM | Silver Seven
Email sent!
(Jerome??? Never woulda guessed that.)
Galactus does as he pleases. Because Galactus is drunk.
Look in the mirror and ask yourself: "Am I a hater troll?"
@#$%ing Twit: @blogtard
OTM | Silver Seven
are you really in a different time zone over there?
I did not know that. Which is embarrassing since I’ve been to nova scotia a few times. you’re in nova scotia, right?
Yup. Atlantic Time. We're an hour "ahead".
7:05pm in Boston is 8:05pm in Halifax.
It changes when you cross the Maine/New Brunswick border. Quebec and Ontario are in the Eastern timezone.
Galactus does as he pleases. Because Galactus is drunk.
Look in the mirror and ask yourself: "Am I a hater troll?"
@#$%ing Twit: @blogtard
OTM | Silver Seven
Newfoundland is half an hour ahead of that.
Galactus does as he pleases. Because Galactus is drunk.
Look in the mirror and ask yourself: "Am I a hater troll?"
@#$%ing Twit: @blogtard
OTM | Silver Seven
Indeed.
But they are wonderful.
Galactus does as he pleases. Because Galactus is drunk.
Look in the mirror and ask yourself: "Am I a hater troll?"
@#$%ing Twit: @blogtard
OTM | Silver Seven
A half hour?
Now that’s got to be really confusing.
I thought we’d never win it all. And then we went down 0-3 to the Yankees in 2004, and I thought it was the end of the world.
Wait ’til THIS year!
You know... this is another interesting study here...
I totally agree that Gonzo leading off would clog the bases in a way that the computer may not be able to understand.
However, by this logic… shouldn’t Carl Crawford hit #4? I know… I’m nuts, but if the idea is to put your best hitter #3 (with two high OBP guys ahead of him) to guarantee he hits in the first inning, than your 4th guy should/could be a second lead off (second inning of a 1,2,3 start, which elite starters often accomplish).
In other words, how often does batting Youk #4 clog the base paths in the second inning? And with Ellsbury leading the team in HRs last year, and having the speed to avoid clogging the base paths if he leads off the second inning, maybe he’s our best clean up hitter?
I know, I know… it doesn’t really make sense, but just one of those things I do with my kickball line ups: two high OBP players go first, a guy that can advance them hits third (but someone with power for a sacrifice fly if the lead off player gets to third) and my clean up hitter is the biggest hitter on the team. So, my #5 is someone with power and speed, so they can either drive in runs if there are players in scoring position, or start filling the bases up for another power hitter at #8.
And, yes, I really tried to relate kickball strategy to the Boston Red Sox.
I thought we’d never win it all. And then we went down 0-3 to the Yankees in 2004, and I thought it was the end of the world.
Wait ’til THIS year!
Well, Youk doesn't clog the bases, he's not hitting in front of anyone with speed if Crawford's going 7-9 in the order
it’s not like Youk is keeping Papi from stealing bases.
"I can’t explain what I mean. And even if I could, I’m not sure I’d feel like it."
-JD Salinger.
by TheLoneDavid on Feb 20, 2012 3:56 PM EST up reply actions
Ha ha ha!
That’s true…
However, I have a hard time figuring how Crawford hits ahead of Youk in 2012. For me, this is our starting line up (once Crawford is cleared for baseball, and with the team):
CF Ellsbury L
2B Pedroia R
1B Gonzalez L
3B Youkilis R
DH Ortiz L
LF Crawford L
SS Aviles R
RF Sweeney (L??)
C Salty/Shoppach (S/R)
I just don’t see putting Crawford in one of the top 3 spots, though this thread does make an argument for him (as a low OBP guy) to bat third, ahead of Youk… but that puts Gonzo #5, which is way, way too low. I don’t see Pedroia 3/Gonzo 4/Youk 5 either…
I mean, in my opinion, this is the top 6, with the bottom of the order to settle itself out later, and Carl is #6.
I thought we’d never win it all. And then we went down 0-3 to the Yankees in 2004, and I thought it was the end of the world.
Wait ’til THIS year!
At least until Lavarnway comes up
Then I would move Crawford to 9th and put Lava in the 6 hole.
"I can’t explain what I mean. And even if I could, I’m not sure I’d feel like it."
-JD Salinger.
by TheLoneDavid on Feb 20, 2012 5:15 PM EST up reply actions
Lavarnway is RH, right?
Since that’s really the split you’d “like” to break up, Big Papi and Crawford back to back.
I thought we’d never win it all. And then we went down 0-3 to the Yankees in 2004, and I thought it was the end of the world.
Wait ’til THIS year!
Clubhouse Confidential
just performed the exercise of “optimizing” last year’s lineup.
Pedroia
Gonzalez
Youkilis
Ortiz
Ells
Crawford
Saltalamacchia
Scutaro
Drew
I might have 7 and 8 backwards.
I think they may have provided a counterpoint to Pedroia at 1, but I missed it.
Twitter: @Greenlineoutfit
I don't like that at all
I don’t think MLB network takes speed and basestealing into account, there’s no reason to have Ortiz in front of Ellsbury and Crawford, not to mention three lefties in a row in the middle of the lineup.
"I can’t explain what I mean. And even if I could, I’m not sure I’d feel like it."
-JD Salinger.
by TheLoneDavid on Feb 20, 2012 8:33 PM EST up reply actions
Just a guess
Not attempting to defend their lineup.
Ortiz gets 4th because he posted the highest ISO.
From there, the two remaining highest OBP guys go at 1 and 2, Pedroia and A-Gon. Guess there’s either the leap/assumption/conclusion that Ellsbury’s base running and stealing last year don’t make up for an OBP .011 behind Pedroia for fourth. A poor % last year might back this more feasible.
The book then says the best remaining guy goes 5th, so Ells lands there.
Youk gets fourth.
Then 6-9 go in the go by order of talent.
Of course, if 6-9 is by talent instead of actual results, it kinda conflicts with basing 1-5 on what DID occur.
Twitter: @Greenlineoutfit
I like that they're trying to educate the average baseball fan on sabr
but I really don’t agree with a lot of the stories they come out with.
"I can’t explain what I mean. And even if I could, I’m not sure I’d feel like it."
-JD Salinger.
by TheLoneDavid on Feb 20, 2012 10:44 PM EST up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Eric Hosmer redefines the Baltimore chop with infield double (Video)
- College player makes impossible over the fence catch to save tournament game (Video)
- Security!: Camden Yards guard collides with Royals’ Mike Moustakas
- The Juice: Nelson Cruz matches career high eight RBIs, Pujols stays hot in Seattle
- Benches clear at Fenway as Red Sox-Rays rivalry heats up
