Author Topic: Red Sox sign Crawford  (Read 1239 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline GMUNat

  • Posts: 5212
Re: Red Sox sign Crawford
« Reply #25: December 12, 2010, 03:31:34 AM »
338 PA over many years is not a large sample size by any means. That is about half a season worth of PA spread out over 6+ seasons. That really isn't relevant because that could easily be explained by random variation.

Online blue911

  • Posts: 16573
Re: Red Sox sign Crawford
« Reply #26: December 12, 2010, 09:24:33 AM »
338 PA over many years is not a large sample size by any means. That is about half a season worth of PA spread out over 6+ seasons. That really isn't relevant because that could easily be explained by random variation.

If 6+ seasons of data collection isn't enough, then why bother at all? You've naged and moaned about Roger Bernadina since before the All-Star break and he didn't have any more PA's. If 300+ PA aren't enough to spot a trend, then maybe the data isn't being collected or analyzed properly. But to say 6 years isn't enough time is ridiculous.

Offline tomterp

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 28210
  • Hell yes!
Re: Red Sox sign Crawford
« Reply #27: December 12, 2010, 10:20:08 AM »
338 PA over many years is not a large sample size by any means. That is about half a season worth of PA spread out over 6+ seasons. That really isn't relevant because that could easily be explained by random variation.

If you read the column, you'd see that Boz offers more than simply regurgitating the triple slash line.  Evidently his only real power is direct pull, or into Fenway's huge right field.  Crawford rarely drives the ball hard to left of center.  Also, Crawford's range as a fielder is going to be an underutilized tool in Fenway, per Boz:

Quote
Everything about Crawford's game is ill-suited to lopsided Fenway. His only flaw is a weak arm. In Boston's huge right field, he'd be a pigeon for the running game. So, he'll have to remain a left fielder. But he'll be stuck in the smallest left field in the sport, where the impact of his range is minimized and the hits he does manage to steal will mostly be singles, not doubles or triples.

Many elite lefty hitters blossom into batting champs in Boston if they have opposite-field power. You'd think that the 215-pound Crawford would fit the bill. And he may. But he hasn't yet. In his whole career, he only has seven opposite-field homers. And in Tropicana Field, only three of his 53 homers have been hit even one inch to the left of dead center field. On paper, you couldn't draw a hitter less helped by Fenway. Maybe he'll adjust.


Offline PANatsFan

  • Posts: 37061
  • dogs in uncensored, nudes in gameday
Re: Red Sox sign Crawford
« Reply #28: December 12, 2010, 12:16:41 PM »
If you read the column, you'd see that Boz offers more than simply regurgitating the triple slash line.  Evidently his only real power is direct pull, or into Fenway's huge right field.  Crawford rarely drives the ball hard to left of center.  Also, Crawford's range as a fielder is going to be an underutilized tool in Fenway, per Boz:


I like his analysis of Hammer's spray chart. What a swing he has if the ball goes out in the same area every time.

Offline Lintyfresh85

  • Posts: 33832
  • Next year, maybe?
Re: Red Sox sign Crawford
« Reply #29: December 12, 2010, 12:52:13 PM »
Boz overstated the Willingham thing... while he does pull the ball on his home runs... they're really not that closely bunched together.

Offline tomterp

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 28210
  • Hell yes!
Re: Red Sox sign Crawford
« Reply #30: December 12, 2010, 01:02:36 PM »
Boz overstated the Willingham thing... while he does pull the ball on his home runs... they're really not that closely bunched together.

Most of them don't land in the same seat?   Shocked, I tell you!    :lol:

I wonder how he compares to other dead pull hitters, though.  Are his among the most consistently placed?

Offline PANatsFan

  • Posts: 37061
  • dogs in uncensored, nudes in gameday
Re: Red Sox sign Crawford
« Reply #31: December 12, 2010, 01:09:22 PM »
Boz overstated the Willingham thing... while he does pull the ball on his home runs... they're really not that closely bunched together.

Sorry. I trusted him because he is a professional :stir:

Online JCA-CrystalCity

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 18071
  • Platoon - not just a movie, a baseball obsession
Re: Red Sox sign Crawford
« Reply #32: December 12, 2010, 01:10:07 PM »
I read the first half of the article (posted on the wall at eye height in CCSP at a place I was standing for about a minute ;) ).  I think up thread I said I also was concerned about the spray chart I had seen. He does not have a history like Boggs or Lynn of going the opposite way.  That said, Boz was completely mistaken in his evaluation of the Red Sox offense going into last season (they were 2d in runs in baseball when he was saying that they blew it by emphasizing defense in their position pick ups and letting Bay walk). 

I think Fenway has some unique advantages for a fast lefty, including the two corners (CF and RF) that have extra base potential and the deep power alley.  The other thing to think about is that, back in October or early November, the Red Sox announced they were pulling in the RF fence.  Ya think maybe they knew they'd be this left handed next year?  Crawford says he's working on walking more.  I'll believe when I see it. 

The Red Sox say that Allard Baird took in over half of Crawford's games after the All Star break last year.  The significance of that is that he is the scout in Theo's inner circle and pretty trusted.  When they say that they were after him all the way and it was not reactive, they may not be blowing smoke.  They and the Angels may have been duped into to going high by the Tuesday dinner Cashman had with Crawford and his agent (Angels reportedly had a 6 year offer at $108MM with a vesting option, the Red Sox a 7 year offer at < $120 MM, then bumped it up when the Angels gave Crawford a deadline), but I do think they wanted him bad.

I'll stick to my view that, as a fan of both teams, I'd rather have Werth in Fenway and Crawford here, but I'll also recognize that the sum of my baseball knowledge is equal to a 3 year old's pee in the ocean when compared to Rizzo, Epstein, and Baird.

Offline PANatsFan

  • Posts: 37061
  • dogs in uncensored, nudes in gameday
Re: Red Sox sign Crawford
« Reply #33: December 12, 2010, 01:13:42 PM »
Careful with the spray charts in that reading location! I just don't think Crawford will be that speedy for 7 years. Power sticks around, Werth makes me happy.

Offline DPMOmaha

  • Posts: 18213
Re: Red Sox sign Crawford
« Reply #34: December 12, 2010, 01:27:32 PM »
Boz overstated the Willingham thing... while he does pull the ball on his home runs... they're really not that closely bunched together.
Yeah, he went with hyperbole there.  That said, I think he had all of them except 1 go left of center.  Though he did hit one almost dead central vs. Santana last year.  He was much more apt to take the ball the other way while he was in Florida.

Offline GMUNat

  • Posts: 5212
Re: Red Sox sign Crawford
« Reply #35: December 12, 2010, 01:35:09 PM »
Careful with the spray charts in that reading location! I just don't think Crawford will be that speedy for 7 years. Power sticks around, Werth makes me happy.
Speed players age better than Sluggers. http://www.insidethebook.com/ee/index.php/site/comments/does_speed_age_better/

Offline PANatsFan

  • Posts: 37061
  • dogs in uncensored, nudes in gameday
Re: Red Sox sign Crawford
« Reply #36: December 12, 2010, 01:36:11 PM »
Speed players age better than Sluggers. http://www.insidethebook.com/ee/index.php/site/comments/does_speed_age_better/


Do I just accept the word of a guy named Tangotiger?

Offline GMUNat

  • Posts: 5212
Re: Red Sox sign Crawford
« Reply #37: December 12, 2010, 01:41:01 PM »
If 6+ seasons of data collection isn't enough, then why bother at all? You've naged and moaned about Roger Bernadina since before the All-Star break and he didn't have any more PA's. If 300+ PA aren't enough to spot a trend, then maybe the data isn't being collected or analyzed properly. But to say 6 years isn't enough time is ridiculous.
I'm not a huge fan of 338 PA sample sizes and making conclusions off of them, but 338 PA in one season is infinitely better than 338 PA over 9 seasons which is what Crawford has played. That's an average of 38 Random PA/year over a 9 year span. You can see where the problems come. I naged about Bernadina because he hasn't been good whether it is in the big leagues or his indistinguishable minor league career. He hasn't shown anything. If someone shows that they are a good player over a 5383 PA sample size, I'm not taking a random 338 PA from that sample (6.28% of sample) against pretty good pitchers to make conclusions.

Offline Lintyfresh85

  • Posts: 33832
  • Next year, maybe?
Re: Red Sox sign Crawford
« Reply #38: December 12, 2010, 01:42:06 PM »
Do I just accept the word of a guy named Tangotiger?

If you knew who he was, you would.

He basically developed the the aging curve of players.

Offline GMUNat

  • Posts: 5212
Re: Red Sox sign Crawford
« Reply #39: December 12, 2010, 01:42:21 PM »
Do I just accept the word of a guy named Tangotiger?
You should accept the facts. Speed guys have historically aged better than power guys.


btw, I'd consider Tangotiger pretty credible on this considering he has been hired by multiple MLB teams to do consulting work. They obviously love his work and the merits of them.

Offline PANatsFan

  • Posts: 37061
  • dogs in uncensored, nudes in gameday
Re: Red Sox sign Crawford
« Reply #40: December 12, 2010, 01:43:13 PM »
What's his name? What's his training?

Offline Lintyfresh85

  • Posts: 33832
  • Next year, maybe?
Re: Red Sox sign Crawford
« Reply #41: December 12, 2010, 01:44:50 PM »
What's his name? What's his training?

He's never given out his name.

And who cares what his training is?

He's one of if not the most respected Sabermetrician outside of Bill James.

Offline PANatsFan

  • Posts: 37061
  • dogs in uncensored, nudes in gameday
Re: Red Sox sign Crawford
« Reply #42: December 12, 2010, 01:46:45 PM »
He's never given out his name.

And who cares what his training is?

He's one of if not the most respected Sabermetrician outside of Bill James.

I care about his training, sorry. Nate Silver has credentials. How do I know he's just one guy. How do I know a team has hired him? In 2010, you can find out who anyone is. I bet it's a bunch of different people. Seems like their methodology is pretty standard which is comforting without doing too much digging.

I also wonder how aging curves change without PED's.

Online JCA-CrystalCity

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 18071
  • Platoon - not just a movie, a baseball obsession
Re: Red Sox sign Crawford
« Reply #43: December 12, 2010, 01:49:58 PM »
If 6+ seasons of data collection isn't enough, then why bother at all? You've naged and moaned about Roger Bernadina since before the All-Star break and he didn't have any more PA's. If 300+ PA aren't enough to spot a trend, then maybe the data isn't being collected or analyzed properly. But to say 6 years isn't enough time is ridiculous.
338 PAs would be significant in a season.  Spread over 6 years, it probably is a bit less.  

Not to put too much credence into small sample sizes, but here are his Fenway stats the past 3 healthy years.  Before I even post them, I plan on doing a Marcel-like weighting, 5-4-3 weighting also.

2010 - 42 PAs, 37 ABs, 12 H, 4 2Bs, .324 / .350 / .432, 2 SH, 1 SF.400 BAbIP, 86 tOPS+**
2009 - 40 PAs, 38 ABs, 13 H, 4 2Bs, 1 3b, .342 / .350 / .500, 1 SF, .394 BABIP, 107 tOPS+
2007* - 40 PAs, 39 ABs, 10 H, 2 2B, .256 / .275 / .308, .357 BABIP, 44 tOPS+
5-4-3 = 41 PAs, 38 ABs, 12 H, 4 2B, .316 / .331 / .395

*I skipped 2008, when he was hurt and his overall numbers were down everywhere.
** tOPS+ is his ops relative to his total ops.

A .726 weighted OPS is of concern.  I feel better about the .850 and the .782 the past two years.  That lines up pretty well with the power aging curve.  Add in the bump guys normally get at home, maybe the change in park dimension, I feel comfortable predicting .780 OPS.  Add in that a lot of those singles turn into extra bases through steals, something OPS does not account for, and I think he'll be an offensive asset in Fenway.  Because that line up gets a bit of power out of 2d and when Cameron and Lowrie play (and proabbly out of the C platoon), I'm a little less concerned about the lack of power out of LF.  If he starts to walk a bit more, then he'll really be a plus.

edit at 2:20 PM - Took a quick scan of his splits on Fangraphs re: pull/ straight away / oppo.  He hits between 25 - 30% of the time the opposite way.  While he is not a fly ball guy, he may see a lot of balls off the wall.  The other thing hitting at Fenway does is make a lefty wait longer on pitches, which eventually could help his average.  I don't buy what Boz is selling.

Online JCA-CrystalCity

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 18071
  • Platoon - not just a movie, a baseball obsession
Re: Red Sox sign Crawford
« Reply #44: December 12, 2010, 01:51:16 PM »
If you read the column, you'd see that Boz offers more than simply regurgitating the triple slash line.  Evidently his only real power is direct pull, or into Fenway's huge right field.  Crawford rarely drives the ball hard to left of center.  Also, Crawford's range as a fielder is going to be an underutilized tool in Fenway, per Boz:

there will be no such thing as a bloop single to left, he'll play so shallow.

Offline Lintyfresh85

  • Posts: 33832
  • Next year, maybe?
Re: Red Sox sign Crawford
« Reply #45: December 12, 2010, 02:26:03 PM »
I care about his training, sorry. Nate Silver has credentials. How do I know he's just one guy. How do I know a team has hired him? In 2010, you can find out who anyone is. I bet it's a bunch of different people. Seems like their methodology is pretty standard which is comforting without doing too much digging.

I also wonder how aging curves change without PED's.

I think you're taking a things a bit too seriously.


Offline tomterp

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 28210
  • Hell yes!
Re: Red Sox sign Crawford
« Reply #46: December 12, 2010, 02:49:00 PM »
I'm not a huge fan of 338 PA sample sizes and making conclusions off of them, but 338 PA in one season is infinitely better than 338 PA over 9 seasons which is what Crawford has played. That's an average of 38 Random PA/year over a 9 year span. You can see where the problems come. I naged about Bernadina because he hasn't been good whether it is in the big leagues or his indistinguishable minor league career. He hasn't shown anything. If someone shows that they are a good player over a 5383 PA sample size, I'm not taking a random 338 PA from that sample (6.28% of sample) against pretty good pitchers to make conclusions.


338 is a very substantial sample size, and it's a 100% sample of his Fenway PA's.

Try this Sample Size calculator, you'll find that 338 gives you a pretty high level of confidence that your sample is close to the actual performance over a much larger population.


http://www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm


Online blue911

  • Posts: 16573
Re: Red Sox sign Crawford
« Reply #47: December 12, 2010, 02:50:32 PM »
338 PAs would be significant in a season.  Spread over 6 years, it probably is a bit less. 

Not to put too much credence into small sample sizes, but here are his Fenway stats the past 3 healthy years.  Before I even post them, I plan on doing a Marcel-like weighting, 5-4-3 weighting also.

2010 - 42 PAs, 37 ABs, 12 H, 4 2Bs, .324 / .350 / .432, 2 SH, 1 SF.400 BAbIP, 86 tOPS+**
2009 - 40 PAs, 38 ABs, 13 H, 4 2Bs, 1 3b, .342 / .350 / .500, 1 SF, .394 BABIP, 107 tOPS+
2007* - 40 PAs, 39 ABs, 10 H, 2 2B, .256 / .275 / .308, .357 BABIP, 44 tOPS+
5-4-3 = 41 PAs, 38 ABs, 12 H, 4 2B, .316 / .331 / .395

*I skipped 2008, when he was hurt and his overall numbers were down everywhere.
** tOPS+ is his ops relative to his total ops.

A .726 weighted OPS is of concern.  I feel better about the .850 and the .782 the past two years.  That lines up pretty well with the power aging curve.  Add in the bump guys normally get at home, maybe the change in park dimension, I feel comfortable predicting .780 OPS.  Add in that a lot of those singles turn into extra bases through steals, something OPS does not account for, and I think he'll be an offensive asset in Fenway.  Because that line up gets a bit of power out of 2d and when Cameron and Lowrie play (and proabbly out of the C platoon), I'm a little less concerned about the lack of power out of LF.  If he starts to walk a bit more, then he'll really be a plus.

edit at 2:20 PM - Took a quick scan of his splits on Fangraphs re: pull/ straight away / oppo.  He hits between 25 - 30% of the time the opposite way.  While he is not a fly ball guy, he may see a lot of balls off the wall.  The other thing hitting at Fenway does is make a lefty wait longer on pitches, which eventually could help his average.  I don't buy what Boz is selling.

How much of Crawford's "trouble" are caused by the left fielder being able to play him short and take away the cheapies, combined with left center not yielding triple/doubles at the same rate as a "normal" park? Boston has/had some fine staffs that have to understand how to take advantage of the weirdness of the wall. Crawford's no fool and while the small left field will diminish his ability to cover the same amount of ground, he will benefit from the shorter throws.

Offline KnorrForYourMoney

  • Posts: 14320
  • Nats hitters = Maggie Lizer
Re: Red Sox sign Crawford
« Reply #48: December 12, 2010, 03:23:04 PM »
I think you're taking a things a bit too seriously.

Coming from you? :lmao:

But PA is.  Dude, just read the freaking analysis and decide whether it makes sense, and stop trying to make sure people have a PhD in sabermetrics or some crap. :crazy:

Offline Lintyfresh85

  • Posts: 33832
  • Next year, maybe?
Re: Red Sox sign Crawford
« Reply #49: December 12, 2010, 03:54:56 PM »
Coming from you? :lmao:

Pretty sure you have someone else confused with me.