User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
|
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
For wholesale prices on baseball gifts and equipment, check these stores out! |
Page rendered in 0.6189 seconds
58 querie(s) executed
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
:::Keanu Reeves gives you a blank, uncomprehending stare:::
And again, I don't care what worked for him his whole career, very little will change until he gets his right foot further in the box, holds his hands lower and stops moving all these pieces.
I think he needs to be sent to an eye doctor or possibly a sports psychologist. Or both. Despite the short run where he appeared to turn things around, he's still totally ###### at the plate. He just doesn't hit the ball hard.
It gets at what I love most about Adrian - his creativity. The two plays that stick out for me are the throw he made to 3rd base on the hard grounder, and the play in the last Yankee game when Gardner was picked off. Lester's throw came in a little late, but Gonzalez immediately pump-faked to freeze Gardner, and from there it was an easy pickle.
He's not just super-great at baseball, and it's not just baseball intelligence- it's baseball creativity. He can see opportunities on the field that the rest of us can't, and he has the talent to realize them.
Agreed. It always amazes me when people who should know better get caught up in it.
My argument, when talking about the contract, is that Carl Crawford's projection going forward is now a bit less than 10 runs per season worse than it was coming into the year. That should change the calculation on what sort of contract he'd deserve.
I did.
{sigh}
(Strat keeper league, actually. He has served me well thus far...)
Are you arguing that the ZiPS projection is wrong now, or was wrong in the spring? (I'm just taking the number from Fangraphs, so I could be misreading something, or Fangraphs could be doing something wrong. Any corrections, opportunities for dialogue and education on this are welcome.) Are you arguing that Crawford's contract was a bargain at the time, so it can't be a bad idea now?
And I appreciate you've walked back the claim that anyone said the contract "is a bust."
That is certainly true.
I'm skeptical of the accuracy of the updated ZiPS. I have no doubt the math works out but I think there are a variety of factors that may or may not have gone into Crawford's early season struggles that may not exist for the life of the contract;
1. Just a natural slump - These will happen of course but I think it got exacerbated by the circumstances
2. Pressing to live up to the new contract - This could linger if he has a bad year of course
3. Platoon split - 37% of PA vs. LHP in April, only 19% in May, career average is 30%, of course he has not really hit righties either
I tend to be skeptical of the mathematical forecasts when there is a serious outlier in the middle of the data. I'm sure they attempt to account for these things but when a player plays radically above/below his capability for a small period of time in the midst of a generally stable run I think we have to acknowledge that it is likely that there is something in there that is unusual. Perhaps it IS a talent change but that seems unlikely for a 29 year old player.
The point of turning to projections is that they place short-sample performance in context. It appears to be the case that even if you contextualize Crawford's terrible 150 PA, they still have a significant effect on his projected performance going forward.
If Crawford projects maybe eight runs a year worse than he did in March, that makes the contract a worse bet. Not an awful one, obviously not a bust, but a worse bet than it was when the Sox offered it.
Crawford 2009
+18 batting runs above average
+5.5 SB runs above average
+17.5 fielding runs above average
+22 runs above replacement level
-7 runs positional adjustment
Crawford 2010
+27 batting runs above average
+5 SB runs above average
+18 fielding runs above average
+22 runs above replacement level
-7 runs positional adjustment
That's an average well over 6 WAR per season. It's a legitimately elite player. You can argue that the defensive numbers should be lower, but even if you cut 20 runs from his overall defense, that's a 5+ WAR player. This is how a medium-power, low-walk LF can be worth $140M. With these numbers.
286/333/451 with 175 hits, 30 2B, 11 3B, 16 HR, 42 SB / 10 CS, 42 BB / 107 K in 610 AB
What if Carl Crawford had done that in 2010? His projection would be about the same as it is right now - a bit better, actually. That's a much tougher player to offer $140M to than the guy coming off the 307/356/495 season.
I'm not saying he's suddenly gotten worse. I'm saying, what if he wasn't as good as he seemed, based on the numbers? And the numbers do in fact now suggest precisely that he isn't as good as he seemed.
Beltran stunk in his first season w/ the Mets, JD Drew stunk in his first season with Boston, A-Rod lost 100 points of OPS in his first season with the Yankees. So did Jason Giambi. Adrian Beltre had a really tough first year in Seattle.
Vlad stayed the same after signing his first big contract in Anaheim. Teixeira had a pretty good year in New York, though he struggled mightily in April that year. A-Rod had a big season his first year in Texas.
Those are the leading active hitters in WAR who changed teams via FA/Trade with long, big contracts right around their peak. None of them had better seasons in their first year with their new team. Some were the same. Many were particularly worse than the previous season. Some of this has to do with regression to the mean, but players like Drew and Beltre bounced back.
Isn't it possible that players really do press after signing a big contract in a new big market, and then become themselves again? #### LeBron stunk in November this year.
If it makes you feel any better, Iglesias is on his way back to Pawtucket tonight.
Sox are very good. Maybe not great like we all thought, but very good. Gonzalez is going to be a fright for the rest of the season.
The other possibility (and I don't know how the rules work) might be Kalish for the 60 day DL. I haven't read anything recently but it certainly didn't seem like he would be back anytime within 60 days of the original injury. I don't know if the 60 day DL exists in the minors though.
WJ - I'm not sure if I'm excited or not but I feel like that even with the recent stretch of a good won/loss record they still haven't played particularly well. Part of me thinks "woo-hoo, when they get hot it's going to be awesome" while the other part thinks "yikes, they just aren't impressive and it's going to be a year long struggle."
A part of that overperformance of Pyth is also a function of Papelbon. He's been a beast in high-leverage this month. I guess you could call that a subset of luck - Papelbon isn't a true 1.5 ERA pitcher - but it's also a subset of actually-playing-good.
No, but he's a very talented pitcher and his velocity seems up (?). This could just be one of those years where it all goes right for him. He did post sub 2 ERAs three times before in his career. Funny about all that trade Papelbon talk on WEEI. Right now it's Bard who looks a bit iffy.
I don't know if his velocity is up or it just looks that way because of is secondary pitches. The slider and the splitter are MUCH better pitches than they have been in the past two years for him.
Also, it's a little thing but he seems to be throwing that damned "stand up fastball" much better than he ever has. It seemed like he always would either groove it or throw it over the guys head but this year he seems to be getting at that shoulder/neck height that is nearly ideal. he's got a bunch of strikeouts on that pitch.
My wacky semi-conspiracy theory on Papelbon is that he's the rare player to whom "contract year" concerns might really apply. If his struggles in past years have been a function, in part, of Papelbon using more conservative mechanics and staying away from off-speed and breaking pitches to protect his arm, then it's possible that in a contract year he'd air it out more and use his secondary stuff more.
In any event, it's been fun as #### to watch him dominate again. (Where's Fly at?)
My wacky semi-conspiracy theory on Papelbon is that he's the rare player to whom "contract year" concerns might really apply. If his struggles in past years have been a function, in part, of Papelbon using more conservative mechanics and staying away from off-speed and breaking pitches to protect his arm, then it's possible that in a contract year he'd air it out more and use his secondary stuff more.
Interesting theory. If it really is the case, good for the Sox for this year, but you do have to wonder if it can hold up for an entire season. I also tend to think he was better last year than he got credit for and a lot of the concern was overstated.
I believe that WAS a curveball, not a slider. Did he used to slow more sliders? I think of him as a FB/Curve type.
Part of it was just my misperception: Bard has given up at least run three of the last four times I've personally watched him, and in one other outing walked two guys. I don't get NESN anymore and don't watch the Red Sox all the time.
Leadoff batters have a .381 OBP against Bard. I don't think he's pitching badly, he's just pitching into bad timing (last night was bad obviously). Of the six outings he has allowed a run in, five of them have featured the lead off man getting on (2 of those are home runs by the leadoff batter - Cooper and Boesch). The only time he has retired the leadoff man and allowed a run was Opening Day.
edit: I actually just cleaned up his Wiki page. It had him pitching for the Tulsa Oilers in 2010. A team that hasn't existed since 1976 or so.
Papelbon has been, as usual, terrible this year. I don't see how you could make the argument that he hasn't been. Every outing is a rollercoaster, and he gets through by the skin of his teeth. He has rarely gotten through an inning without allowing a baserunner.
Not to mention he's still pitching with that serious arm injury that he's had for 3 years running!
Don't ever change, karl.
Score one for MCoA. Nava DFAd, Drew Sutton getting the call.
No. He's been awful.
Fenway is not a good fit for Crawford, offensively or defensively. Slower IF surface than he had at the Trop, so he will lose some BABIP on GB. His hit charts have his FB power to RF, and Fenways RF is deeper than the Trop. He hits a lot of balls to LF, but mostly GB and LD, so he can't take advantage of the wall without changing his approach. Also, LF'ers can play shallow at Fenway so he may lose some hits on LD's to LF. On defense Crawford looks a bit wall shy, which is not a good thing at Fenway. Also, his arm is not very good, or accurate. Manny and Jason bay throw better than CC.
That said, I look at Crawfords stance and I think Curtis Granderson. Close the stance, lower the hands, and watch the HR's fly.
Also, he could pick up some tips from Gonzo about how to hit long FB to LF.
I think Crawford will be fine, but in the back of my mind I am thinking Jason Bay. I never imagined that Bay would be as bad as he is with the Mets after watching him destroy pitching with the Red Sox (and it was not all about Fenway, he hit more HR on the road, and when he hit them, they went 400+ ft). Hope that does not happen to CC.
*whitsles X-files theme*
I actually noticed he existed in April, I think when Detroit was playing the Yanks. I was stunned I had never heard of a guy with such an awesome name...
Heh.
Crawford has never been a crash into the wall guy. Not a great diver either though occasionally he'll pull off a real spectacular one.
I think he'll be fine.
In any case, I think this will be another interesting off-season. With Drew's spot vacanat and Kalish not hitting (I'm not convinced Josh Reddick will ever hit enough to carry a corner) might they be dipping into FA? Then, there's the whole question of catcher and shortstop going forward... (Oh, and DH!).
Umm wha? His K and BB numbers approximate his 2007/08 peak (the improvement in control is heartening by itself). Once the BABIP normalizes (.362 vs. .287 career), he should be pretty kickass. Note I was one of his biggest critics last year, but I have to give the psycho essobee some credit for unfucking himself.
Or, you know, a lost month, either one.
Crawford in May: .354/.510
I'm back from a self-imposed ban. A month ago I posted something in haste that was so colossally stupid, even for my own standards, that I figured I needed to take a break. Of course, I'm going to follow it up with selective endpoints...
For the time I've been gone, Crawford's slash line is 355/520/875. So, yeah, moot. His recent career numbers and his preseason ZiPS suggest this is roughly in line - but slightly higher - than we should expect. As MCoA has pointed out upthread, his awful start will likely keep him from coming close to any reasonable preseason projection for the full year; but let's enjoy the Good Carl while we have him. (And the Good Wake, too.)
As I type this, the Yankees/Mariners game has ended, which means Boston is alone in first place by a game. In three weeks they've gone from last place to first place. This is a steamroller of a team, 27-12 in their last 39 games (selective endpoints!). If they keep playing at that pace - they won't - they'd be around 106 wins at the end of the year despite their 2-10 start. That 27-12 stretch includes 16-4 against teams that are, right now, leading or in 2nd place in their divisions (Cleveland, Detroit, NY, Oakland, Los Anaheim). The team is 2nd in the AL in wins.
Maybe the Bruins have me extra euphoric, and maybe it's way past my bedtime. But this team rocks, and Crawford is a big part of why.
What I want to know is where are the Lowrie updates?
HOUSTON — After a return to action tomorrow by Carl Crawford was ruled out yesterday, the prospect of him returning before the All-Star break is not looking real bright either.
(Link)
Do with that what you will.
Defense: bad
BA: bad
OBP: bad
SLG: bad
Baserunning: bad
Maybe he's turning it around, but wow.
I'm not sure what the argument here is, though. I certainly agree that he's played better. But it's not the kind of better that will get him anywhere near being the player he's been for years. He's not, for example, doing a David Ortiz 2010 or a Pedroia 2011 (and other years too). He's gone from way below expectations to meeting expectations. That's a bummer. I guess I'm just frustrated because I keep waiting for the big hot streak. Maybe this will be it?
He's hitting at career lows in BA/OBP/SLG, and his speed is down also. He's not walking because he doesn't walk. He's at replacement level now, and he'll have to play the best baseball of his career over the next two months just to finish with a half-decent 2 WAR. It's a problem.
And it's not all that surprising, to me, that his defense fell off going to Fenway. The small left field caps his defensive value. As some of us pointed out at the time of the signing.
I think Crawford was atrocious in April and clearly psychologically messed up given the new situation. It reminds me ablot of Beltran's first season in new York and also arod's. I basically think for the rest of the season and the next 5 years they'll have the 5-6 WAR guy they thought they were getting. He's at replacement level now ray because he was over a win below it in April and missed a month of play. It's not particularly a "problem" because the sox are going to win 100 games and I have no reason to think that Crawford will be different than the guy we have right now rather than the one we got in April for the rest of the contract.
As to his defense and my eye, my eye is an idiot but my Bayesian priors suggest that he's a good defender.
Aren't you also engaging the gambler's fallacy that you're talking about here? Despite the fact that Crawford's projection now calls for him to be worse than the player they were getting, you think he'll be just as good.
For my part, I don't think it's a fallacy. Players are not coin flips. They have hot streaks and cold streaks as they make adjustments. If a player is a .300/.400/.500 hitter, then goes .200/.250/.300 for a month, it's reasonable to expect that he'll make up for it a bit in the following month when he adjusts/gets healthy/etc. Nothing to do with expecting luck to equal out.
What's more, my previous didn't say I expected Crawford to have an Ortiz/Pedroia resurgence, only that the lack of one meant he wasn't going to have a decent year (although I guess I was pretty unclear, looking back).
There was never any reason to think they were getting a 5-6 WAR guy. He reached that level once, in his career year, and players don't generally repeat their career years year after year, especially not as they head into their 30s.
I'm totally serious. The guys you really want don't need their best year to stand out.
Aren't his projections completely meaningless?
I mean, he was projected to be very good. He's been bad. We can either accept the projections, and end the conversation, or we can discuss that the projections might be wrong. Any time a player has a bad stretch, the projections will reflect that, but that doesn't mean they're right.
I don't disagree. I didn't hate this signing from day one like Lackey, but inking Crawford to that kind of contract definitely made me nervous.
I think that we have good reason to dismiss the first month of this season as a complete aberration, and that it was clear he was pressing and wasn't the guy they signed, and therefore good reason to think that it shouldn't factor in to our projection for the rest of the contract. This is obviously debatable, but it's where I'm coming from and why I don't think I'm committing a gambler's fallacy.
So do you think that the cold streak plus adjustment typically leads to above (personal) average production going forward? I could buy that. I'm not sure if I think it's true, but I could definitely buy it.
Carl Crawford's WAR since 22: 5.1, 4.8, 4.8, 3.3, 2.8 (in 100 games), 5.8, 7.5. But sure, he reached 5-6 once. And it's not like his BABIP was otherworldly in 2009-2010 or anything.
This is silly. There's good reason to regress peak season, but to discard it completely is silly.
J.D. Drew entering the final year of his deal
A free agent class with Carlos Beltran coming off two injury plagued seasons and entering his mid-30s, possible one hit wonder Jose Bautista and Josh Willingham
A minor league system with Ryan Kalish who looked good but projects as Trot Nixon at best and Josh Reddick coming off a pretty forgettable season
Jacoby Ellsbury coming off a lost year
The fact is the Sox were heading into 2011 with the delightful combination of neither short term nor long term certainty in the outfield. A team with the Sox' financial means arguably should be overspending to avoid a black hole in the lineup particularly when options appeared limited. Now of course, seven months later Jacoby Ellsbury actually has turned into Grady Sizemore (the good one) and Josh Reddick has rebounded with a terrific season and the outfield suddenly looks pretty strong.
But back in December it was quite possible that even a 3.5 WAR Carl Crawford would be the best Red Sox outfielder in 2011 and beyond.
I don't see why a lost month of play should be completely disregarded, rather than just factoring it in to our projections going forward. Nobody thinks a horrid month means that he completely lost the ability to play baseball; it's just part of the last X years (3 or whatever) that people typically use in their projections.
I also don't put any weight on "he was pressing" theories in general. I mean, it's possible, but we have no clue, and everything we know about MLB players tells us that they are perfectly capable of handling pressure, in all forms. If you couldn't predict in March that he was likely to have a bad April because he would press, I can't put any weight in your analysis now. It's all post hoc.
No worries. Yeah, I was looking at bb-ref WAR.
This is interesting. My guess is that this exists so that if Boston trades Crawford to the Marlins, the Marlins can't then trade Crawford (without Boston's permission) to the Yankees over the life of the contract. I've never heard of this being done before and have to wonder if this is legal under MLB's rules. It's certainly devious.
Yeah, I remember when they signed him that was part of the deal. My recollection was it was an AL East clause but I'd trust Cot's over my addled mind.
I was so excited when I read on Twitter that the Sox signed Crawford. I didn't even know if it was believable. Getting Crawford mere days after trading for Gonzalez seemed like a coup!
And now here we are in July and it's hard to remember those feelings without thinking they occurred in a different universe.
Those are both above average numbers given the offensive context of the year, and below average for left.
The funny thing about this team is, good as it's been, it could have been better. Can you imagine how many wins the Sox would have if the outfield corners had performed even remotely up to expectations?
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main