Crawford Lineup Shuffle?

[Six4Three]

Wow, really? You don't get it, no matter how its spelled out. You completely missed the target with my comment.

 

I'll try again. YOU CANNOT COMPARE THE PRODUCTION OF PEDROIA TO CRAWFORD USING OTHER PLAYERS AS VARIABLES.

 

Is that clear enough?

 

Also, if you read ORS's post and understood it, you would see that your argument is completely wrong is proven wrong with statistics, not opinion, which means you clearly did not understand it.

 

OF COURSE I CAN COMPARE THEIR PRODUCTION USING OTHER PLAYERS AS VARIABLES. You don't think A-Gon hittng behind Pedroia has SOMETHING to do with how many runs he's scored? Or that Scutaro/Drew/Varitek has something to do with how few runs CC has scored? (Both players have 31 runs).

 

You, ORS, and his Holy Stats all put too much value on OBP and too little on speed. How clear can I be on this? How many times does this have to be pointed out to you? What those values in his post do NOT differentiate is what the average player does when he gets on base and what the fastest players do when on base.

 

The fact that CC has matched Pedroia's run total from way down in the order with a much lower OBP should say it all. Those aren't slouches hitting behind Pedoia and the bottom of the order aren't exactly a murderers' row.

 

OBP doesn't win games, runs do, in whatever method they are achieved.

[BornToRun]

EDIT: Wrong thread

[ORS]

OF COURSE I CAN COMPARE THEIR PRODUCTION USING OTHER PLAYERS AS VARIABLES. You don't think A-Gon hittng behind Pedroia has SOMETHING to do with how many runs he's scored? Or that Scutaro/Drew/Varitek has something to do with how few runs CC has scored? (Both players have 31 runs).

 

You, ORS, and his Holy Stats all put too much value on OBP and too little on speed. How clear can I be on this? How many times does this have to be pointed out to you? What those values in his post do NOT differentiate is what the average player does when he gets on base and what the fastest players do when on base.

 

The fact that CC has matched Pedroia's run total from way down in the order with a much lower OBP should say it all. Those aren't slouches hitting behind Pedoia and the bottom of the order aren't exactly a murderers' row.

 

OBP doesn't win games, runs do, in whatever method they are achieved.

No, the values are what they are. I did not assign those values, the game of baseball did. Do you know what linear weights is/does?

[Emmz]

OF COURSE I CAN COMPARE THEIR PRODUCTION USING OTHER PLAYERS AS VARIABLES. You don't think A-Gon hittng behind Pedroia has SOMETHING to do with how many runs he's scored? Or that Scutaro/Drew/Varitek has something to do with how few runs CC has scored? (Both players have 31 runs).

 

You, ORS, and his Holy Stats all put too much value on OBP and too little on speed. How clear can I be on this? How many times does this have to be pointed out to you? What those values in his post do NOT differentiate is what the average player does when he gets on base and what the fastest players do when on base.

 

The fact that CC has matched Pedroia's run total from way down in the order with a much lower OBP should say it all. Those aren't slouches hitting behind Pedoia and the bottom of the order aren't exactly a murderers' row.

 

OBP doesn't win games, runs do, in whatever method they are achieved.

 

1. You really need to look into sabermetrics, they will make your arguments seem much less unintelligent.

 

2. If you're not on base, you're not scoring runs. Regardless of his speed, Pedroia's in position to score a run much, much more often than your buddy Crawford. I can't believe you're even still trying to debate this.

[Palodios]

Six4Three, a little tip. Arguing against sabermetrics around here is going to get you nowhere.

[SCM33]

1. You really need to look into sabermetrics, they will make your arguments seem much less unintelligent.

 

2. If you're not on base, you're not scoring runs. Regardless of his speed, Pedroia's in position to score a run much, much more often than your buddy Crawford. I can't believe you're even still trying to debate this.

 

Yeah, I am not even going to waste my time with it anymore, clearly he just doesn't get it.

 

Apparently, all of baseball has been wrong with the way they evaluate players in the last 10-12 years.

[Six4Three]

No' date=' the values are what they are. I did not assign those values, the game of baseball did. Do you know what linear weights is/does?[/quote']

 

 

Haha, of course I do. Again, they don't take into account the actual two players in question.

 

Can someone please explain to me, since linear weights have failed so miserably to do so, how Pedroia has not scored any more runs than Crawford this season? Actually, I know how, I'm just curious what you folks call it. Does CC do something better or does Pedroia do something worse?

[Emmz]

Lol, that post shows that you clearly do not know what linear weights are, and how they work. It's not even worth arguing with some bonehead who uses runs scored and crap like that to support his argument. You probably still use RBIs to support your arguments too.

[Dojji]

It's not about runs scored, it's about the probability of scoring a run.

 

Which becomes a lot easier when a guy is on the basepaths.

 

Besides, there's a good argument catered for the baseball troglodytes like yourself for why to keep Crawford out of the #2 hole. That's the last place in the world you want 2 straight LHH's, and Ellsbury is killing the baseball so he goes nowhere.

[Emmz]

Good lefty like Fatassia shuts that down all night.

[ORS]

Haha, of course I do. Again, they don't take into account the actual two players in question.

 

Can someone please explain to me, since linear weights have failed so miserably to do so, how Pedroia has not scored any more runs than Crawford this season? Actually, I know how, I'm just curious what you folks call it. Does CC do something better or does Pedroia do something worse?

I don't believe you. If you understood linear weights, you would know that it is not a stat that will explain what you are asking for, so it hasn't failed at anything.

 

Also, for the sake of argument, please rectify the following contradiction. Your argument is that Crawford will move into scoring position more often than Pedroia via his speed, yet, Pedroia has more stolen bases to date, and Pedroia has done a better job taking extra bases on balls in play (1.8 BsR to Crawford's -0.5). How do you reconcile your point with this contradiction? If what you are saying is valid, Pedroia would have scored more runs. This is a big fat red flag.

 

You can either acknowledge how weak your argument is relative to the actual events, or you can consider the discussion closed, because I won't engage in further debate when you display this level of ignorance.

[ORS]

Besides' date=' there's a good argument catered for the baseball troglodytes like yourself for why to keep Crawford out of the #2 hole. That's the last place in the world you want 2 straight LHH's, and Ellsbury is killing the baseball so he goes nowhere.[/quote']

This isn't an issue if one of the LHH doesn't have a strong platoon split. What you want to avoid is two in a row with a strong split, because that creates both a mismatch against a same-handed starter and an opportunity to use a situational reliever. Ellsbury doesn't have a strong split over his career.

[redsoxbeatz]

this entire argument sucks. CC is doing fine as of late and the Red Sox are clearly the #2 or #1 team in the league. Also, I don't think Tito is reading this thread so whats the point?

[Six4Three]

 

Your argument is that Crawford will move into scoring position more often than Pedroia via his speed, yet, Pedroia has more stolen bases to date, and Pedroia has done a better job taking extra bases on balls in play (1.8 BsR to Crawford's -0.5). How do you reconcile your point with this contradiction? If what you are saying is valid, Pedroia would have scored more runs. This is a big fat red flag.

 

You can either acknowledge how weak your argument is relative to the actual events, or you can consider the discussion closed, because I won't engage in further debate when you display this level of ignorance.

 

 

Exactly! Pedroia should have more runs. CC is trailing Pedroia in SB's right now but will obviously out-steal him by seasons' end. Yet even with more stolen bases and 30+ more walks Pedroia, as of yesterday, wasn't out-scoring CC. I don't need to reconcile anything, you need to tell me how the pathetic Crawford, even with the worst April of his career, could possibly keep up with the almighty Pedroia in runs? Shouldn't Pedroia's magnificent OBP, blazing speed, and god-like protection result in MANY more runs than what CC is scoring? Yes. The answer is yes.

 

And speaking of straw men....my argument is NOT "that Crawford will move into scoring position more often than Pedroia via his speed". My argument is that Crawford will score more often than Pedroia via his speed given the same protection. (By month's end he'll probably be doing it without the same protection.) It is my personal opinion that Don Zimmer would have 32 runs this season with A-Gon/Youk/Ortiz batting behind him and that CC would have even more still if he wasn't hitting so far back.

 

While the extra bases on balls in play stat is a refreshing change from the usual OBP rhetoric, it naturally gets trumped by my "caveman" stats of slugging and total bases. I happen to appreciate CC's combination of overall speed, slugging, and ability to score. Those skills will put him in both the MLB Hall of Fame and your Sabermetrics Hall of Shame. This is a perfect example of why you need to watch the actual games to judge a player instead of just looking at page 2 of his expanded stats.

 

I'll concede that barring injuries to others, there's no chance of CC moving up in the order. That has more to do with Tito catering to egos than CC's not deserving it in my opinion. Being the newest lefty certainly doesn't help. It's just a shame to see him sacrifice so many offensive numbers for these younger guys while also being under-utilized in the smallest left field in the majors.

 

Next he'll be asked not to steal because it's distracting to Saltalamacchia at the plate.

[Emmz]

Seriously dude? lolz, I'm done, I give up

 

Oh, lmfao "WATCHEZ GAMEZZZZ"

[Six4Three]

Thanks. The pleasure was all mine.

[Dojji]

Because no sabremetric guys ever watched a single game in their lives.

 

Not everyone with speed is a tablesetter. Assuming that everyone who happens to run really fast functions best ONLY in the role of a tablesetter is ridiculous, narrowminded and foolish.

 

Crawford has extra base speed, not tablesetting speed. There's a difference. He does his best work plugging the gap and legging out doubles and triples, a tablesetters' first job is to get their butts on base and let themselves be driven in by the hitters behind them. It's fully possible to be good at one and not the other. And in Crawford's case, his best attribute between his on base ability and his power (SLG) is easily the power. Take a look at the stats if you don't believe me.

 

Crawford is built to be a lower middle of the order hitter on a good team, replacing some of the HR power you don't get with among the best triples power in the league. Good gap double or triple clears the bases nearly as well as a homer. Guy like that can drive a lot of runs in even with slow runners ahead of him. That's what this guy does, and we overpaid for him no question in my mind, but we didn't pay for him at all to be a freaking tablesetter, and the lineup reflects that. He's here to shoot the gap and run like the devil's after him. THat's less effective if there aren't runners ahead of him.

[ORS]

Exactly! Pedroia should have more runs. CC is trailing Pedroia in SB's right now but will obviously out-steal him by seasons' end. Yet even with more stolen bases and 30+ more walks Pedroia' date=' as of yesterday, [i']wasn't[/i] out-scoring CC. I don't need to reconcile anything, you need to tell me how the pathetic Crawford, even with the worst April of his career, could possibly keep up with the almighty Pedroia in runs? Shouldn't Pedroia's magnificent OBP, blazing speed, and god-like protection result in MANY more runs than what CC is scoring? Yes. The answer is yes.

 

And speaking of straw men....my argument is NOT "that Crawford will move into scoring position more often than Pedroia via his speed". My argument is that Crawford will score more often than Pedroia via his speed given the same protection. (By month's end he'll probably be doing it without the same protection.) It is my personal opinion that Don Zimmer would have 32 runs this season with A-Gon/Youk/Ortiz batting behind him and that CC would have even more still if he wasn't hitting so far back.

 

While the extra bases on balls in play stat is a refreshing change from the usual OBP rhetoric, it naturally gets trumped by my "caveman" stats of slugging and total bases. I happen to appreciate CC's combination of overall speed, slugging, and ability to score. Those skills will put him in both the MLB Hall of Fame and your Sabermetrics Hall of Shame. This is a perfect example of why you need to watch the actual games to judge a player instead of just looking at page 2 of his expanded stats.

 

I'll concede that barring injuries to others, there's no chance of CC moving up in the order. That has more to do with Tito catering to egos than CC's not deserving it in my opinion. Being the newest lefty certainly doesn't help. It's just a shame to see him sacrifice so many offensive numbers for these younger guys while also being under-utilized in the smallest left field in the majors.

 

Next he'll be asked not to steal because it's distracting to Saltalamacchia at the plate.

This is the contradiction - Barney style - just for you because you still don't get it.

 

You are saying the better baserunner will score more.

 

Pedroia is the better baserunner so far this year.

 

Pedroia has not scored more.

 

See?

 

If the better baserunner has not scored more, your point falls flat on its face. It is an illogical argument to continue supporting it when such a contradiction exists. It means, like others have said in this discussion, that there must be some other contributing factor that your argument does not account for, like the fact that scoring runs is a situation dependent outcome - with that situation being what the hitters behind the baserunner do.

 

EDIT: Oh, and I just noticed the part about total bases and SLG. I guess we are playing the moving target game. Whatever, career SLG: Pedroia .449, Crawford .442....yawn.

[a700hitter]

This is the contradiction - Barney style - just for you because you still don't get it.

 

You are saying the better baserunner will score more.

 

Pedroia is the better baserunner so far this year.

 

Pedroia has not scored more.

 

See?

 

If the better baserunner has not scored more, your point falls flat on its face. It is an illogical argument to continue supporting it when such a contradiction exists. It means, like others have said in this discussion, that there must be some other contributing factor that your argument does not account for, like the fact that scoring runs is a situation dependent outcome - with that situation being what the hitters behind the baserunner do.

 

EDIT: Oh, and I just noticed the part about total bases and SLG. I guess we are playing the moving target game. Whatever, career SLG: Pedroia .449, Crawford .442....yawn.

:lol:Wait till Jose Reyes gets here. Your head will explode.

[Dojji]

I would love to have Jose Reyes here, and suspect that a cost effective replacement (Lowrie) would go a long way in terms of the down payment to bring him in. I make that sacrifice every time. I respect the heck out of Lowrie and I'm glad he's getting his chance, but ELITE shortstops like Reyes just don't become available very often.

[iortiz]

:lol:Wait till Jose Reyes gets here. Your head will explode.

 

Jose is something else, the guy is .387 OBP so far this season, can't wait how this discussion could go, if we get this guy (i doubt it)... hehehe :harhar:

[iortiz]

If CC and Peddy would have the same OBP and Same Protection (Six4Three's argument) (translation: get on base in equal circumstances [not how many bases]) all would be reduced in measure their power (SLG) in order to know how close/far are from home once they got the base, and their ability on the paths (SB ), in order to rest a R's expectancy case; (some would say, take the OPS[OBP+SLG] & SB, i would say you can't, since it is important to measure separately, and clearly mark the difference once the guy take the base) but let me start with the OBP and see where it goes. Since their OBP are different, you can analyze their metric from any period of time in order to compare apples with apples; so... I would ask you all, which split time do you want to take/set/or would be fair? (ORS's (last 162 games) P's .369, CC's .335//// P's MVP's year .376 vs CC's last 5Y without 2008 (his best record) .355//// 2011 P's .361 CC's .283//// Last 28 P's .365 CC's .337), Which period?

 

I would say in order to be fair and set a tendency, that CC is a .355 OBP player (considering he's been around that number in 2006,2007,2009,2010 although he hasn't showed it in Boston yet in any split time, hope/waiting he shows) and Peddy is .373 (considering he's been around that number in 2007,2008,2009,2010). I would say that those 4 years/avg. are a decent base to start a case, so... .355 is not a bad OBP for a 1-2 spot; the thing is that you have already two better in that department and as i said, CC hasn't shown those numbers yet.

 

Since the OBP is not a "true" percentage because the SF is considered in the equation, i will despise the SFs number(or just keep it as a constant in the equation) in order to rest my case. With those numbers, Peddy would be on base 242 times/650 AB and CC would be on base 230/650 AB, so… A 5% deficit would represent 12 more times on base by Peddy if both take the same turns ABs this year. The fact would be: Peddy will take more times the bases, but... are 12 more times on-base taken through 650 ABs a big deal in order to score more Runs and take that spot?, even more; considering that the other guy once on base could use his better athletic conditions, and already hit, his bat power could send him further on the paths... Check out the numbers in the same period of time... CC's (avg.) SLG 473 & SB 53; P's(avg.) SLG 468 & 20 SB (his highest SBs ever). Here i found out 3 more bases taken by power (SLG) and 33 by SBs; BottomLine: 36 more bases taken by CC's once on base.

 

Who would you chose in order to generate more Rs early/trough in the game (assign a 2nd spot)? A guy who would be 12 more times on base in 650 AB or a guy who would take 36 more bases once on base in the same number ABs.? THINK!,

 

EDIT/TIP: That difference could be analyzed via linear weights!

 

The most recent version of the formula is:

BR = .47H + .38D + .55T + .93HR + .33(W + HB ) - ABF*(AB - H) or

BR = .47S + .85D + 1.02T + 1.40HR + .33(W + HB ) - ABF*(AB - H)

Where ABF is the coefficient calculated so that the Batting Runs for a league is equal to zero:

ABF = (.47H + .38D + .55T + .93HR + .33(W + HB ))/(AB - H)

[Emmz]

Lol, over the past month, Crawford has about the same numbers as his career averages suggest he's capable of. .300 or so hitter with .335 OBP. Pedroia is a .300ish hitter with a .375 OBP. There's a significant difference. Pedroia will always be in a position to score more often than Crawford as long as they're both healthy.

[iortiz]

Lol' date=' over the past month, Crawford has about the same numbers as his career averages suggest he's capable of. .300 or so hitter with [b'].335 OBP[/b]. Pedroia is a .300ish hitter with a .375 OBP. There's a significant difference. Pedroia will always be in a position to score more often than Crawford as long as they're both healthy.

 

take out CC's 2008 numbers in the past 5 years (could we set this tendency in order t be fair?). ehehehe:D

 

run the maths using LW (with those numbers), and you'd probably be surprised hehehe!

[Six4Three]

This is the contradiction - Barney style - just for you because you still don't get it.

 

You are saying the better baserunner will score more.

 

Pedroia is the better baserunner so far this year.

 

Pedroia has not scored more.

 

See?

 

If the better baserunner has not scored more, your point falls flat on its face. It is an illogical argument to continue supporting it when such a contradiction exists. It means, like others have said in this discussion, that there must be some other contributing factor that your argument does not account for, like the fact that scoring runs is a situation dependent outcome - with that situation being what the hitters behind the baserunner do.

 

EDIT: Oh, and I just noticed the part about total bases and SLG. I guess we are playing the moving target game. Whatever, career SLG: Pedroia .449, Crawford .442....yawn.

 

Wow, Pedroia has .007 better career slugging percentage in 600 less games? Talk to me when he has performed at this level for more than 5 full years please. Oh, I just noticed that Pedroia is just two years younger than Crawford yet he has just 50% of his cumulative stats. That's a shame.

 

 

If Pedroia is the better hitter, baserunner, slugger, and scorer then that means you believe the bottom of the order has been outperforming A-Gon/Youk/Ortiz which is padding Crawford's stats. Alrighty then, that's my cue. Nice talking to you.

[Emmz]

Wow, Pedroia has .007 better career slugging percentage in 600 less games? Talk to me when he has performed at this level for more than 5 full years please. Oh, I just noticed that Pedroia is just two years younger than Crawford yet he has just 50% of his cumulative stats. That's a shame.

 

 

If Pedroia is the better hitter, baserunner, slugger, and scorer then that means you believe the bottom of the order has been outperforming A-Gon/Youk/Ortiz which is padding Crawford's stats. Alrighty then, that's my cue. Nice talking to you.

 

"600 less games" "Two years younger" "50% of the cumulative stats".

 

lol

 

http://memeshack.com/areyouawizard/Are-you-a-wizard2.jpg

[ORS]

Wow, Pedroia has .007 better career slugging percentage in 600 less games? Talk to me when he has performed at this level for more than 5 full years please. Oh, I just noticed that Pedroia is just two years younger than Crawford yet he has just 50% of his cumulative stats. That's a shame.

Pedroia played college ball, then went through the progression of minor league levels. Think that might have something to do with those counting stats?

 

If Pedroia is the better hitter, baserunner, slugger, and scorer then that means you believe the bottom of the order has been outperforming A-Gon/Youk/Ortiz which is padding Crawford's stats. Alrighty then, that's my cue. Nice talking to you.

Not lately they haven't been, but they did have a rough start to the year, and you still haven't addressed the contradiction, so I'm still waiting.

[Six4Three]

Not lately? Nor will they ever keep up with A-Gon/Youk/Ortiz. That is why if Pedroia and CC end up with a similar amount of runs this year then that will be an epic FAIL for Pedroia. Every time you type you help make my point.

 

Sorry, my observation about Pedroia's late start belong in the "Who's on pace for the Hall Of Fame" thread. As in, this is the reason Pedroia is not on pace to make the Hall Of Fame.

[Emmz]

Are you really this stupid, or is you trollin'?

 

How would it be a fail for Pedroia if he gets into position to score more often, yet he finishes with less runs scored than Crawford? Absolutely one of the most ridiculous things I've heard on this forum, along with some of your other posts.

[ORS]

Not lately? Nor will they ever keep up with A-Gon/Youk/Ortiz. That is why if Pedroia and CC end up with a similar amount of runs this year then that will be an epic FAIL for Pedroia. Every time you type you help make my point.

 

Sorry, my observation about Pedroia's late start belong in the "Who's on pace for the Hall Of Fame" thread. As in, this is the reason Pedroia is not on pace to make the Hall Of Fame.

Still trying to ignore the failure of your first point, huh?