Gordon Edes says bat Crawford 2nd

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from TheExaminer. Show TheExaminer's posts

    Re: Gordon Edes says bat Crawford 2nd

    I said this a couple months ago and got eviscerated by andrewmitch. CC can bat second against rhp, and having him bat ninth against lhp is ok. My amusement lies in the posters who say CC should NEVER, EVER, EVER bat leadoff, then yell just as loudly that he should bat ninth. Basically, it's the same thing once the game gets going.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from lowelll. Show lowelll's posts

    Re: Gordon Edes says bat Crawford 2nd

    Re: defense

    posted at 1/4/2012 1:46 PM EST
    Posts: 1830
    First: 2/1/2011
    Last: 2/26/2012
    In Response to Re: defense:
    Nice post, ex. Then there were all the PBs and questionable WPs. We haven't made many adjustments on defense thus far. We kept a slow Scutty at SS instead of going with Iggy (or even Aviles/Punto). (Same or worse) We let Vtek go and replaced him with Shoppach, a better fielder, but maybe not as a good a game-caller: Plus.. We got rid of Lowrie and now have Punto and a full season of Aviles: Plus. No Drew & Reddick: replaced with Sweeney (DMac/Aviles): Minus.
    Posted by moonslav59


    As I said earlier Moonie, the Sox have done nothing to improve for 2012. But you have more cred on this forum, and are less likely to be eviscerated for saying it.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Gordon Edes says bat Crawford 2nd

    John Henry should personally call Carl and articulate that the two hole is his...Carl needs to feel wanted...sounds pretty basic, but it is the right thing to do...this may get Carl to get off to a good year...

    So, should Henry personally call Papi and Youk to explain why they are being demoted and not to take their demotions personally and that they "are wanted" too?
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Gordon Edes says bat Crawford 2nd

    I said this a couple months ago and got eviscerated by andrewmitch. CC can bat second against rhp, and having him bat ninth against lhp is ok. My amusement lies in the posters who say CC should NEVER, EVER, EVER bat leadoff, then yell just as loudly that he should bat ninth. Basically, it's the same thing once the game gets going.

    It's not even close to the same thing.

    1) The 1 slot got 141 more PAs than the 9 slot last year for the Sox.
    2) The first inning often sets the tone for the game.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from Mchampion. Show Mchampion's posts

    Re: Gordon Edes says bat Crawford 2nd

    Edes needs his head examined.  Crawford was pitiful last year and until he proves he can hit in Boston (regardless of what his salary is) he is a bottom of the line up hitter.  Once he starts producing and proves he is capable of getting on base then of course there should be thoughts of him being moved up in the order.  Right now the Sox have much better hitters batting at the top of the line-up.  And they should stay right there.  
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Gordon Edes says bat Crawford 2nd

    In Response to Re: Gordon Edes says bat Crawford 2nd:
      Last year, we faced 55 LH'd starters (34%). That's a very signifcant amount of games and PAs. CC does hit some LHPs well, so maybe we are talking about 25% of the games that he is not even close to being justified slotted 2nd... NOT EVEN CLOSE! Over the corse of a season our #2 slot gets about 770 PAs, so we are talking about over 190+ PAs. Last year we got a .371 OBP from our 2 slot. Should we really change that to .333? Crawford: Career: .333 vs RHPs: .343 vs LHPs: .308 Here's the breakdown of lost men on base over 770 PAs: 2011: .371 (On base293 per  767 PAs             .393 Pedey (226/576)             .351 Others (67/191) Give CC 700 PAs in the 2 slot and give the others 1 .350 OBP lie last year:              .308 CC  (215/700)              .351 others (25/70)    Total: .312 (240/770) That's a loss of 53 men on base over 770 PAs. Even if CC steals 70 bases, it wouldn't make up for 53 less men on base in front of AGon, Youk and Papi. And, these numbers are based on CC's career numbers, not his most recent numbers (which are worse, particularly vs LHPs.) This seems so clear to me. I find it hard to believe so many posters here are for this idea. Maybe it is because, as fans, we have been deprived of watching speed on our team for so long, there is a tendency to dream about how it would be so nice to see us have it for once.
    Posted by moonslav59


    I'm not sure you can look at it as simplistically as that Moon. For one, don't you think with the better protection hitting around him that his OBP is likely to improve? Plus if Ells is on base, Crawford's likely to see more fastballs.

    1) CC had some good hitters right behind him in TB as well. Yes, it would help CC's numbers batting 2nd vs 6th, but the offset does not tip the balnce of the negatives. 
    2) I do not see his OBP being much higher than .330-.340, and never being higher than .310 vs LHPs-- a horrible number for a Sox 2 slot hitter.

    But even it didn't, the 53 less men on base in front of Papi, Youk, and Agon from the #2 spot would be somewhat made up for in Pedroia batting in front of them in the #3 slot, wouldn't it?

    No, our 3 slot would actually be worse. AGon is better than Pedey in the 3 slot, esp against RHP. This is my major point. Moving CC to the 2nd slot does this:
    1) The 2 slot will have a way lower OBP than if Pedey stays there.
    2) The 3 slot will be downgraded from AGon to Pedey.
    3) The 4 slot will be improved vs RHPs with AGon over Youk, but maybe worse vs LHPs with AGon vs Youk.
    4) The 5 and 6 slots get improved. I did mentione that CC up 2nd "lengthens" our line-up by imroving our 6 slot, but nobody is going to convince me that downgrading the 2/3 slots is worth upgrading the 5/6 slots. What about CC getting about 75 more PAs than Papi and Youk? (Or 
    that Pedey, AGon, Youk and Papi all get about 20 less PAs each over a season.)

    Also, the increased production from the #6 slot would compensate for some of that.

    See above.

    I understand that the guys at the top of the line up get more ABs, but my feeling is that while you may be better off in one regard by making a line up change, that benefit will be cancelled out by weakening another part of your line up.

    If every slot got 775 PAs over a season, maybe you could make this point, but it doesn't happen that way. Also, I see the greatest need for our line-up is to get as many people on base ahead of AGon, Youk and Papi as possible. This far outweighs any advantage of having 2 instead of 1 speedy guy up ahead of these 3 great hitters. 

    I also see a strong possibility that Bobby V won't even run these two ragged in front of the big 3 hitters. The dangers of running into outs has got to the point where both of these guys CS rates are close to the point of being not worth trying to steal (esp vs LHPs). I realize baserunning is much more than just SBs and CSs. CC will likely score more from 1B on a 2B than Pedey, although Pedey is a very good head-up base-runner in his own rights. 

    Pedey also had 26 SBs last year and 8 CSs in 2011, so is the upgrade to CC really that much of a game-changers in terms of speed?

    That's why I was wondering how many runs difference we are talking about over the course of the season, not just from the #2 hole, but from the team altogether. My understanding is that there wouldn't be much of a difference, but I honestly don't know. 

    I am near certain that having a .350 OBP vs RHPs and a .310 vs LHPs in the 2 slot, instead of a .370-.390 overall OBP from Pedey will have a huge negative impact on the run scoring of this team.

    And I mentioned one of the reasons for batting Crawford 2nd was because that's where he seems most comfortable.  It's not to protect his ego, it's to help his comfort level, hence his confidence level.   There's a difference, IMO.   Baseball players are very much creatures of habit.

    I think this is a false paradigm.

    People have said the same about Pedey... even moreso.

    Pedey has hit very well in the 4 slot.

    People said the same about Jacoby in the 1 slot, until last year.

    People said the same about Papi in the 3 slot, but when they moved him to the 5th slot, he took off and hasn't looked back.

    CC was injured last year. He was under a hot spot light. He was in a new fishbowl. A new park. A new batting slot. Are we really so certain, he did so poorly because of the uncomfortable batting slot? If he is the type of player that gets psyched out by this type of change, then he's not as great as many of you think he is. He is also likely to get upset or "uncomfortable" in high pressure situations as well. 

    He'll adjust to the 6th slot.

    Oh, by the way, these recent numbers might surprise you. CC is not most comfortable in the 2 slot:

    2011:
    7th slot: .915 (141 PAs)
    6th slot: .742 (196)
    8th slot: .629 (113)
    2nd slot: .460 (45)

    2010:
    3 slot: .890 (207 PAs)
    2 slot: .833 (456)

    2009:
    2 slot: 668 out of 672 PAs (.817)  (On base in 2 of 4 PAs not in 2 slot)

    2008:
    3 slot: .814 (99)
    2 slot: .698 (381)

    2007:
    2 slot: .854
    1 slot: .823
    3 slot: .777
    others: 2 hits in 3 PAs, including an HR

    2006:
    2 slot: .915 (381)
    3 slot: .757 (176)
    1 slot: .633 (96) 

    The 4 years from 2008-2011, I don't see any support for the idea that CC is most comfortable up 2nd. Before 2008, yes.



     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from DeweyCBoston. Show DeweyCBoston's posts

    Re: Gordon Edes says bat Crawford 2nd

    In Response to Re: Gordon Edes says bat Crawford 2nd:
    Crawford (Plate approach for OBP, not for #3 hitter 20M a year OPS) Pedroia AGon Youk Ortiz a series of nobodies of hitting Ellsbury should have been traded by now, and that will become evident during this 30 million a year for Crawford and Ellsbury 2012.
    Posted by hankwilliamsjr


    cmon, ellsbury can hit for power too, hit crawford #1 and let him bunt liberally
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from DeweyCBoston. Show DeweyCBoston's posts

    Re: Gordon Edes says bat Crawford 2nd

    In Response to Re: Gordon Edes says bat Crawford 2nd:
    In Response to  Re: Gordon Edes says bat Crawford 2nd :   Last year, we faced 55 LH'd starters (34%). That's a very signifcant amount of games and PAs. CC does hit some LHPs well, so maybe we are talking about 25% of the games that he is not even close to being justified slotted 2nd... NOT EVEN CLOSE! Over the corse of a season our #2 slot gets about 770 PAs, so we are talking about over 190+ PAs. Last year we got a .371 OBP from our 2 slot. Should we really change that to .333? Crawford: Career: .333 vs RHPs: .343 vs LHPs: .308 Here's the breakdown of lost men on base over 770 PAs: 2011: .371 (On base293 per  767 PAs             .393 Pedey (226/576)             .351 Others (67/191) Give CC 700 PAs in the 2 slot and give the others 1 .350 OBP lie last year:              .308 CC  (215/700)              .351 others (25/70)    Total: .312 (240/770) That's a loss of 53 men on base over 770 PAs. Even if CC steals 70 bases, it wouldn't make up for 53 less men on base in front of AGon, Youk and Papi. And, these numbers are based on CC's career numbers, not his most recent numbers (which are worse, particularly vs LHPs.) This seems so clear to me. I find it hard to believe so many posters here are for this idea. Maybe it is because, as fans, we have been deprived of watching speed on our team for so long, there is a tendency to dream about how it would be so nice to see us have it for once. Posted by moonslav59 I'm not sure you can look at it as simplistically as that Moon. For one, don't you think with the better protection hitting around him that his OBP is likely to improve? Plus if Ells is on base, Crawford's likely to see more fastballs. 1) CC had some good hitters right behind him in TB as well. Yes, it would help CC's numbers batting 2nd vs 6th, but the offset does not tip the balnce of the negatives.  2) I do not see his OBP being much higher than .330-.340, and never being higher than .310 vs LHPs-- a horrible number for a Sox 2 slot hitter. But even it didn't, the 53 less men on base in front of Papi, Youk, and Agon from the #2 spot would be somewhat made up for in Pedroia batting in front of them in the #3 slot, wouldn't it? No, our 3 slot would actually be worse. AGon is better than Pedey in the 3 slot, esp against RHP. This is my major point. Moving CC to the 2nd slot does this: 1) The 2 slot will have a way lower OBP than if Pedey stays there. 2) The 3 slot will be downgraded from AGon to Pedey. 3) The 4 slot will be improved vs RHPs with AGon over Youk, but maybe worse vs LHPs with AGon vs Youk. 4) The 5 and 6 slots get improved. I did mentione that CC up 2nd "lengthens" our line-up by imroving our 6 slot, but nobody is going to convince me that downgrading the 2/3 slots is worth upgrading the 5/6 slots. What about CC getting about 75 more PAs than Papi and Youk? (Or  that Pedey, AGon, Youk and Papi all get about 20 less PAs each over a season.) Also, the increased production from the #6 slot would compensate for some of that. See above. I understand that the guys at the top of the line up get more ABs, but my feeling is that while you may be better off in one regard by making a line up change, that benefit will be cancelled out by weakening another part of your line up. If every slot got 775 PAs over a season, maybe you could make this point, but it doesn't happen that way. Also, I see the greatest need for our line-up is to get as many people on base ahead of AGon, Youk and Papi as possible. This far outweighs any advantage of having 2 instead of 1 speedy guy up ahead of these 3 great hitters.  I also see a strong possibility that Bobby V won't even run these two ragged in front of the big 3 hitters. The dangers of running into outs has got to the point where both of these guys CS rates are close to the point of being not worth trying to steal (esp vs LHPs). I realize baserunning is much more than just SBs and CSs. CC will likely score more from 1B on a 2B than Pedey, although Pedey is a very good head-up base-runner in his own rights.  Pedey also had 26 SBs last year and 8 CSs in 2011, so is the upgrade to CC really that much of a game-changers in terms of speed? That's why I was wondering how many runs difference we are talking about over the course of the season, not just from the #2 hole, but from the team altogether. My understanding is that there wouldn't be much of a difference, but I honestly don't know.  I am near certain that having a .350 OBP vs RHPs and a .310 vs LHPs in the 2 slot, instead of a .370-.390 overall OBP from Pedey will have a huge negative impact on the run scoring of this team. And I mentioned one of the reasons for batting Crawford 2nd was because that's where he seems most comfortable.  It's not to protect his ego, it's to help his comfort level, hence his confidence level.   There's a difference, IMO.   Baseball players are very much creatures of habit. I think this is a false paradigm. People have said the same about Pedey... even moreso. Pedey has hit very well in the 4 slot. People said the same about Jacoby in the 1 slot, until last year. People said the same about Papi in the 3 slot, but when they moved him to the 5th slot, he took off and hasn't looked back. CC was injured last year. He was under a hot spot light. He was in a new fishbowl. A new park. A new batting slot. Are we really so certain, he did so poorly because of the uncomfortable batting slot? If he is the type of player that gets psyched out by this type of change, then he's not as great as many of you think he is. He is also likely to get upset or "uncomfortable" in high pressure situations as well.  He'll adjust to the 6th slot. Oh, by the way, these recent numbers might surprise you. CC is not most comfortable in the 2 slot: 2011: 7th slot : .915 (141 PAs) 6th slot: .742 (196) 8th slot: .629 (113) 2nd slot: .460 (45) 2010: 3 slot : .890 (207 PAs) 2 slot: .833 (456) 2009: 2 slot: 668 out of 672 PAs (.817)  (On base in 2 of 4 PAs not in 2 slot) 2008: 3 slot : .814 (99) 2 slot: .698 (381) 2007: 2 slot : .854 1 slot: .823 3 slot: . 777 others: 2 hits in 3 PAs, including an HR 2006: 2 slot : .915 (381) 3 slot: .757 (176) 1 slot: .633 (96)  The 4 years from 2008-2011, I don't see any support for the idea that CC is most comfortable up 2nd. Before 2008, yes.
    Posted by moonslav59



    See Below:

    Red Sox entire lineup is weak against lefties, is that crawfords doing?
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from DeweyCBoston. Show DeweyCBoston's posts

    Re: Gordon Edes says bat Crawford 2nd

    In Response to Re: Gordon Edes says bat Crawford 2nd:
    I said this a couple months ago and got eviscerated by andrewmitch. CC can bat second against rhp, and having him bat ninth against lhp is ok. My amusement lies in the posters who say CC should NEVER, EVER, EVER bat leadoff, then yell just as loudly that he should bat ninth. Basically, it's the same thing once the game gets going. It's not even close to the same thing. 1) The 1 slot got 141 more PAs than the 9 slot last year for the Sox. 2) The first inning often sets the tone for the game.
    Posted by moonslav59


    true, CC SHOULD bat #1, Ellsbury #2, i agree with that...

    we better get a leadoff guy out of the cc investment, cause ellsbuty and his agent are gonna get megadollars from someone...if cc cant bunt and take walks, rs may trade him anyway. i am a big ellsbury fan!
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Gordon Edes says bat Crawford 2nd

    I never said CC should bat first and never will.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from Thesemenarecowards. Show Thesemenarecowards's posts

    Re: Gordon Edes says bat Crawford 2nd

    I think that is the right line-up vs. RHP but vs LHP I'd go Ells/Pedey/Agone/Youk/Papi/Ross/Crawford
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from RedSoxKimmi. Show RedSoxKimmi's posts

    Re: Gordon Edes says bat Crawford 2nd

    But even it didn't, the 53 less men on base in front of Papi, Youk, and Agon from the #2 spot would be somewhat made up for in Pedroia batting in front of them in the #3 slot, wouldn't it?

    No, our 3 slot would actually be worse. AGon is better than Pedey in the 3 slot, esp against RHP. This is my major point. Moving CC to the 2nd slot does this:

    This is not what I meant. In regards to the 53 less men on base in front of Papi, Youk, and Agon, Pedroia would still be batting in front of those three. Instead of Pedroia in the 2 hole with Agon, Youk and Papi at 3,4, and 5, Pedroia would be in the 3 hole with Agon, Youk , and Papi still behind him. Other than fewer at bats, I don't see a significant difference.

    Yes, there's an extra batter between Ells and Pedroia, but if you take the 3 batters before the big bats, you are looking at Ells, Crawford, and Pedroia coming up before the RBI guys if Crawford bats 2nd. If Crawford bats 6th, you are looking at the #9, Ells and Pedroia coming up before the RBI guys. If Crawford bats 9th, you are looking at Crawford, Ells and Pedroia coming up before the RBI guys.  Other than the first time through the order, I don't see a significant difference.


    I am near certain that having a .350 OBP vs RHPs and a .310 vs LHPs in the 2 slot, instead of a .370-.390 overall OBP from Pedey will have a huge negative impact on the run scoring of this team.


    Everything I've read regarding the line up says that changes in the batting order are not that significant. Maybe I'm looking at the wrong research, or maybe you can direct me elsewhere, but the studies I have read conclude that the difference between a typical line up and an "optimal" line up is between 5 and 15 runs over the course of the season. Managers, to my knowledge, do not use these "optimal" line ups because they often call for someone like Youk to bat lead off. In the AL, the difference is even less because of no pitcher batting.

    Making one line up change of Crawford from 6th to 2nd would have even less significance. One of the most drastic moves involving putting a pitcher in the clean up spot would make a difference of 16 runs over the season. The difference in where Crawford bats would likely be negligible, wouldn't it?

    Granted, the studies did not take all factors into account, like speed, and like how a pitcher might approach a batter differently depending on where he's hitting. But I'm not convinced that batting Crawford down in the order will have as big an impact as you believe. Is there something in these studies that is so flawed that they have no validity?


    All that said, I have to admit that when Ellsbury had that horrid OBP out of the lead off spot a few years back, I was arguing as stongly as anyone that he needed to be moved down in the order until he could get on base at a better clip. Intuitively, that makes sense to me, but I'm not convinced that it makes that much of a difference in scoring runs. If the team and Crawford are struggling early with Crawford batting 2nd, I would not be opposed to moving him down, more so to take the pressure off than anything else.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from RedSoxKimmi. Show RedSoxKimmi's posts

    Re: Gordon Edes says bat Crawford 2nd

    I will respond to other parts of your post later Moon, I just don't have the time right now.   :-)
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Gordon Edes says bat Crawford 2nd

    But even it didn't, the 53 less men on base in front of Papi, Youk, and Agon from the #2 spot would be somewhat made up for in Pedroia batting in front of them in the #3 slot, wouldn't it?

    No, it wouldn't. Putting a guy who makes outs more often between Ells and Pedey will men that it won't get to AGon, Youkd, and Papi as often because the 3rd out will happen before it gets that far.


    Let's say Ellsbury leads off an inning with 0 outs, this is how it looks my way:

    Ells      .380 OBP
    Pedey .390
    AGon  .400
    Youk   .390
    Papi   .380
    CC      .330


    What's the chances Youk gets up (at least  guy gets on base)? What's the chances Papi gets up (at least 2 guys get on base)?

    Now
    ,
    are the odds the same that AGon and Youk and Papi get a chance to bat with men on base for this?

    Ells      .380
    CC       .330
    Pedey  .390
    Agon    .400
    Youk    .390
    Papi     .380
     

    What if Ellsbury comes up with  or 2 outs?
    What if Ellsbury comes up with  on and  out already? Etc...


    No, our 3 slot would actually be worse. AGon is better than Pedey in the 3 slot, esp against RHP. This is my major point. Moving CC to the 2nd slot does this:

    This is not what I meant. In regards to the 53 less men on base in front of Papi, Youk, and Agon, Pedroia would still be batting in front of those three. Instead of Pedroia in the 2 hole with Agon, Youk and Papi at 3,4, and 5, Pedroia would be in the 3 hole with Agon, Youk , and Papi still behind him. Other than fewer at bats, I don't see a significant difference.

    See above. There will be less RBI chances for AGon, Youk, and Papi with CC up 2nd instead of Pedey.

    Yes, there's an extra batter between Ells and Pedroia, but if you take the 3 batters before the big bats, you are looking at Ells, Crawford, and Pedroia coming up before the RBI guys if Crawford bats 2nd. If Crawford bats 6th, you are looking at the #9, Ells and Pedroia coming up before the RBI guys. If Crawford bats 9th, you are looking at Crawford, Ells and Pedroia coming up before the RBI guys.  Other than the first time through the order, I don't see a significant difference.

    I only have CC up 9th vs LHPs, and more times than not he'd be doing no better tah anyone else up 9th.

    I am near certain that having a .350 OBP vs RHPs and a .310 vs LHPs in the 2 slot, instead of a .370-.390 overall OBP from Pedey will have a huge negative impact on the run scoring of this team.

    Everything I've read regarding the line up says that changes in the batting order are not that significant. Maybe I'm looking at the wrong research, or maybe you can direct me elsewhere, but the studies I have read conclude that the difference between a typical line up and an "optimal" line up is between 5 and 15 runs over the course of the season. Managers, to my knowledge, do not use these "optimal" line ups because they often call for someone like Youk to bat lead off. In the AL, the difference is even less because of no pitcher batting.

    I disagree with this data or philosophy. I think a line-up makes a big difference.

    Making one line up change of Crawford from 6th to 2nd would have even less significance. One of the most drastic moves involving putting a pitcher in the clean up spot would make a difference of 16 runs over the season. The difference in where Crawford bats would likely be negligible, wouldn't it?

    I think a .330 OBP up 2nd in front of our big 3 hitters instead of a .390 OBP would make a bigger difference than 5 runs. Plus, there's a much better chance that CC hits way under .330 than Pedey under .390. Over 770 PAs, it means there would be about 50 less outs from the 2 slot. That's about 50 more chances for a big 3 hitter to get an rbi or multiple RBIs. It seems more likely it would be about 2-6 runs more.

    Granted, the studies did not take all factors into account, like speed, and like how a pitcher might approach a batter differently depending on where he's hitting. But I'm not convinced that batting Crawford down in the order will have as big an impact as you believe. Is there something in these studies that is so flawed that they have no validity?

    I'm not aware of these studies, but 12-15 runs can make a big difference over a season.

    All that said, I have to admit that when Ellsbury had that horrid OBP out of the lead off spot a few years back, I was arguing as stongly as anyone that he needed to be moved down in the order until he could get on base at a better clip. Intuitively, that makes sense to me, but I'm not convinced that it makes that much of a difference in scoring runs. If the team and Crawford are struggling early with Crawford batting 2nd, I would not be opposed to moving him down, more so to take the pressure off than anything else.

    Why not just put Iggy up 2nd? He's fast, istnt he?
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from carnie. Show carnie's posts

    Re: Gordon Edes says bat Crawford 2nd

    moon, you keep saying the Red Sox lineup isn't Tampa's, would that be the same Tampa that has been consistently finishing ahead of us lately? I don't mean to downgrade your excellent statistical analysis, but maybe we could learn some lessons from Tampa no?
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from BurritoT. Show BurritoT's posts

    Re: Gordon Edes says bat Crawford 2nd

    If Tito had left Crawford in the 2 or 3 spot all of May, June, and July and then he still struggled he should have been batting 9th... and insignificant spot in the line-up with a huge upside considering the player and that Elles was next up.

    Tito never stayed with Crawford long enough which was surprising as he never moved Ortiz out of the 3 spot when he was terrible month after month.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from carnie. Show carnie's posts

    Re: Gordon Edes says bat Crawford 2nd

    In Response to Re: Gordon Edes says bat Crawford 2nd:
    If Tito had left Crawford in the 2 or 3 spot all of May, June, and July and then he still struggled he should have been batting 9th... and insignificant spot in the line-up with a huge upside considering the player and that Elles was next up. Tito never stayed with Crawford long enough which was surprising as he never moved Ortiz out of the 3 spot when he was terrible month after month.
    Posted by BurritoT
    That was the only problem I had with Tito last year.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from SinceYaz. Show SinceYaz's posts

    Re: Gordon Edes says bat Crawford 2nd

    In Response to Gordon Edes says bat Crawford 2nd:



    CARNIE!!!!

       Howzit, bro??!



       ...and I tend to agrfee

      
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from Chilliwings. Show Chilliwings's posts

    Re: Gordon Edes says bat Crawford 2nd

    In Response to Re: Gordon Edes says bat Crawford 2nd:
    In Response to Re: Gordon Edes says bat Crawford 2nd : Since your the one getting paid for this and he isn't?
    Posted by BosoxJoe5


    If Edes was getting paid to manage a baseball team it would still just be one person's view - it's not as if every decision made by every baseball manager is correct!   But Edes is getting paid to write about baseball by an industry (newspapers) largely interested in controversy.

    I don't agree with transferring at bats from Pedroia, Agon, Youk and Papi to Crawford; they are better hitters - better offensive players - so why do that?
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Gordon Edes says bat Crawford 2nd

    moon, you keep saying the Red Sox lineup isn't Tampa's, would that be the same Tampa that has been consistently finishing ahead of us lately? I don't mean to downgrade your excellent statistical analysis, but maybe we could learn some lessons from Tampa no?

    I have been screaming at the top of my lungs, "pitching, pitching, PITCHING!!!" for years and years.
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from seannybboi. Show seannybboi's posts

    Re: Gordon Edes says bat Crawford 2nd

    In Response to Re: Gordon Edes says bat Crawford 2nd:
    Why not flip CC and Els between 1st and 2nd depending if the pitcher is right or left handed?
    Posted by ampoule


    Ells and CC are both left-handed batters.  You really don't have to flip them around.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Gordon Edes says bat Crawford 2nd

    Ellsbury has hit LHPs about as well as RHPs over his career.
    CC has a horrible record vs LHPs.
    All left-handed hitters are not alike.

    The whole L-R-L thing is way overhyped.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from seannybboi. Show seannybboi's posts

    Re: Gordon Edes says bat Crawford 2nd

    Yes Crawford can be a success #2 hitter but there is absolutely no need to change our 1-3 lineup.  Why change the best 1-3 in the league and shake things up? My suggestion is leave our already the best 1-3 and try to make the best 4-6 with Youk, CC, and Ortiz.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from andrewmitch. Show andrewmitch's posts

    Re: Gordon Edes says bat Crawford 2nd

    In Response to Re: Gordon Edes says bat Crawford 2nd:
    I would use CC in the #1 slot in the line up as the table setter against RHP leave him there against LHP unless he proves he can't hit LHP this year. If he can't put him in the 9th hole, but don't flip him around the line up like a rag doll if he gets off to a slow start.  Hetchinspete.  P.S. I have been using this handle since I started using it. 
    Posted by Hetchinspete


    In case he proves he can't hit LHP "THIS YEAR" ?  You realize that he has never hit LHP for his entire career?

    The guy was one of the worst hitters in the league last year and what's everyone's solution?  Promote him! 

    Unbelievable.............The BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON CRAWFORD.  Until then, he bats 9th vs RHSP's and rides pine vs LHSP's.......
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from Chilliwings. Show Chilliwings's posts

    Re: Gordon Edes says bat Crawford 2nd

    In Response to Re: Gordon Edes says bat Crawford 2nd:
    Yes Crawford can be a success #2 hitter but there is absolutely no need to change our 1-3 lineup.  Why change the best 1-3 in the league and shake things up? My suggestion is leave our already the best 1-3 and try to make the best 4-6 with Youk, CC, and Ortiz.
    Posted by seannybboi


    Absolutely, I think it's a ridiculous non-problem, non-issue, and non-story and people in the media and at home are bored so are making up problems.  The Sox potentially have - or had in 2011 when Youk was healthy - among the best at each position in the order 1-5 and Crawford would be major step down at each of them.

    Do some people REALLY want a substantially worse leadoff hitter (or substantially worse nbr 2, etc.) AND transfer at bats from the big 5 to a substantially worse hitter?  Utter nonsense.
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share