Crawford by the numbers...

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from --The--Babe---. Show --The--Babe---'s posts

    Re: Crawford by the numbers...

    In Response to Crawford by the numbers...:
    [QUOTE]Hey all, I thought it might be handy to see some numbers regarding Crawford...I have no purpose in mind by putting these together other than to give us all some perspective. We know he started poorly, and he's been great since then...what will things look like if he hits well for the rest of the season? First, some slash lines (avg/obp/slg/ops) In April: .155/.204/.227/.431 Since April: .303/.327/.497/.824 Since May 23: .333/.363/.667/1.029 We are all well acquainted with how poor Crawford's April was, and we know he's been great in recent weeks (.667 slugging is amazing...and given his track record, likely to not stick long term). But I was pleasantly surprised how good he's been since the first day of May, as that's a good sample size, and bodes well for the rest of his season. What would a full season of his post-April and post-May-23 numbers look like? I project to 155 games, as that's in line with a normal Crawford season Since April: 186 hits, 28 2Bs, 16 3Bs, 20 HRs, 107 R, 99 RBI, 16 BB, 111 K, 16 SB, 8 CS Since May 23: 204 hits, 33 2B, 24 3Bs, 41 HRs, 139 R, 147 RBI, 16 BB, 90 K, 16 SB, 8 CS Clearly, the latter of those two is NOT the real Crawford, as it's more akin to last year's Jose Bautista or someone of that sort. But his numbers since April, a solid 1.5 months, are right in line of what we would expect of him (and even more impressive considering that it's all come from the 6th to 8th spot in the batting order). Finally, what would his FINAL BATTING LINE be if we took his post-April numbers, projected them to the end of the season, and added that to his April numbers? Essentially, if he keeps hitting as he has for 1.5 month (a reasonable assumption given that Crawford annually gets off to a slow start and then stays hot for the rest of the season) for the rest of the year, what will it all look like in the end? Here it is: 154 games, 647 PAs, 614 ABs, 171 hits, 27 2Bs, 13 3Bs, 18 HRs, 96 runs, 89 RBIs, 18 BBs, 110 Ks, 17 SBs, 9 CS .280/.307/.454/.762 It's not great, but it's not bad at all, and that's given the longest extended slump of his career. There's also always the chance that he'll keep hitting as he has in recent weeks (given Fenway Park and the ability of the lineup overall), so these numbers can be even better. Oh, and one more thing...here are some other notes to take from the above numbers: -Can Crawford improve his plate discipline? His strikeout rate has still been high since April, and his walk rate has still been about half what it usually is (though his K rate has improved in recent weeks). Is this because he's being pitched more aggressively than he was when he batted in the middle of the Ray order? Is he trying to purely hit out of his slump? -Where have all the steals gone? You need to get on base to steal, and all Crawford's recent extra base hits don't put him in steal situations, but the steal rate is VERY low. Is he trying to avoid making outs? Is it harder to steal that low in the lineup? He'll need to tack on more steals to be worth his contract. -One of the reasons Crawford IS worth the money and IS worth having is his versatility...he can contribute in every facet of the game of baseball. He can hit for an assortment of extra base hits, and at times even has legitimate home run power. He can hit for average. If his bat fails him, he can still wreck havok on the basepaths. He plays an elite OF defense. And even when he isn't in the best spot in the order, he can create runs by scoring or driving guys in. As with Dustin Pedroia, this is a guy who is a plus even when he's going poorly.

    Posted by redsoxu571[/QUOTE]

    He will never be worth the money he is being paid. And, no, pedroia is not a plus when playing poorly. In no way can hitting .260 with little to no pop be considered "plus".

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from J-BAY. Show J-BAY's posts

    Re: Crawford by the numbers...

    In Response to Re: Crawford by the numbers...:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Crawford by the numbers... : He will never be worth the money he is being paid. And, no, pedroia is not a plus when playing poorly. In no way can hitting .260 with little to no pop be considered "plus".
    Posted by --The--Babe---[/QUOTE]

    crawford may or may not babe, only time will tell, too soon to say. as far as PD, i'll put him in the same catogory as teixiera. even when not productive offensively, he is defensively. which is a plus. and the value of having a good player on both ends
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from SpacemanEephus. Show SpacemanEephus's posts

    Re: Crawford by the numbers...

    In Response to Re: Crawford by the numbers...:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Crawford by the numbers... : He will never be worth the money he is being paid. And, no, pedroia is not a plus when playing poorly. In no way can hitting .260 with little to no pop be considered "plus".
    Posted by --The--Babe---[/QUOTE]

    True, but he sure has been plus with his .500/.605/1.339 OPS against the Yankees ...
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from chuchos. Show chuchos's posts

    Re: Crawford by the numbers...

    So Jeter, Swisher, Posada, Martin, Cervelli, Nunez and Jones are not pluses either.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from --The--Babe---. Show --The--Babe---'s posts

    Re: Crawford by the numbers...

    In Response to Re: Crawford by the numbers...:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Crawford by the numbers... : crawford may or may not babe, only time will tell, too soon to say. as far as PD, i'll put him in the same catogory as teixiera. even when not productive offensively, he is defensively. which is a plus, until they eventually come around

    Posted by J-BAY[/QUOTE]

    No, Tex has alot of pop and has been very effective driving in runs.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from J-BAY. Show J-BAY's posts

    Re: Crawford by the numbers...

    In Response to Re: Crawford by the numbers...:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Crawford by the numbers... : No, Tex has alot of pop and has been very effective driving in runs.
    Posted by --The--Babe---[/QUOTE]

    i didnt mean just this year Babe. teixiera is notourious for very slow starts. in '09, his BA was .157. while an offensive player isn't producing at the plate, he is still a plus and of value playing well defensively, until they come around offensively. which teixiera always does and to date, so has PD
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from betterredthandead. Show betterredthandead's posts

    Re: Crawford by the numbers...

    Here are the numbers:

    BA .246  OBP .249  SLG .393 SB 8 Caught 4 Times 2 Errors 

    20 Million Cost 

    Not too good
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from --The--Babe---. Show --The--Babe---'s posts

    Re: Crawford by the numbers...

    In Response to Re: Crawford by the numbers...:
    [QUOTE]So Jeter, Swisher, Posada, Martin, Cervelli, Nunez and Jones are not pluses either.

    Posted by chuchos[/QUOTE]

    Correct.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from rkarp. Show rkarp's posts

    Re: Crawford by the numbers...

    I am a little disappointed at Crawfords defense. I thought he would get to more balls than he has at Fenway.
    I also did not think that he would be running as much as he did with the Rays.
    Offensive numbers are where they normally are.....
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from J-BAY. Show J-BAY's posts

    Re: Crawford by the numbers...

    In Response to Re: Crawford by the numbers...:
    [QUOTE]Here are the numbers: BA .246  OBP .249  SLG .393 SB 8 Caught 4 Times 2 Errors  20 Million Cost  Not too good
    Posted by betterredthandead[/QUOTE]

    you do realize only 1/3 of the season has been played??
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from redsoxu571. Show redsoxu571's posts

    Re: Crawford by the numbers...

    Babe, this wasn't meant to be a "defend Crawford" post or a "support Crawford" post as much as it was supposed to show how quickly Crawford changed things up, and how his final season numbers can end up being fine despite essentially a worst case scenario April.

    And by the way, what you said about Pedroia is very...ignorant. Pedroia is one of the three or so best fielding second basemen in all of baseball (far better in the field than Robinson Cano, by the way), he's a fantastic and very effecient baserunner and basestealer, and he's one of the two biggest leaders in his clubhouse. That doesn't strike as someone who provides value even when he's cold with the bat? Because every manager who values defense in the middle infield would laugh at you there...

    In fact, all those factors sure strike me as similar to a lauded and very important Yankee captain...except the defense part, as said Yankee captain was rarely more than a average fielder and was often quite bad in that area...
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from DirtyWaterLover. Show DirtyWaterLover's posts

    Re: Crawford by the numbers...

    I can understand not being good at judging balls, but I can't understand why his arm is so weak.  I'd figure a big guy like Crawford should be able to throw a strike from left field to the catcher.  His arm is really weak.

    As far as money goes, no one is "worth" as much as these guys make, including the owners.  But last year's TV rating fell 36% from the previous year and radio rating dropped as well.  I don't think the rating for this year are out yet, but I've got to believe they are up over last year.  Any increase in ratings has to be split between AGON and Crawford since they are the only significant change from last year's team.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from redsoxu571. Show redsoxu571's posts

    Re: Crawford by the numbers...

    Also, as a couple of you guys have noted, posting his season numbers to this point is misleading, as we have every reason to believe that Crawford has come around and will hit like this for the rest of the season.

    As I outlined here all the way back on April 11, Crawford has opened the season in a slump basically every year of his career. Eventually, he has a great few games, and the he hits as usual for the rest of the season.

    It looks like he had his usual slump this year, and then pressured himself to snap out of it, causing him to remain in a slump longer than usual. It seems clear that he's put the slump behind him, so it's safe to say he'll be excellent for the rest of the year (and interestingly, as the numbers above show, there's even still room for improvement). 


    rkarp also makes a great point about Crawford's defense...last year, he saved the second most total runs in the field in all of baseball, and he has not played to that standard so far. I can't break down fielding numbers statistically like I did with his hitting, but let's hope this was just a blip resulting from him concentrating on his hitting, and perhaps a natural adjustment to Fenway Park.
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share