Gordon Edes says bat Crawford 2nd

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Gordon Edes says bat Crawford 2nd

    This is only true if Crawford is closer to 2011 than 2010. If he is like 2010 at all this year he should bat second.

    Vs. RHPs an argument can be made that the 2010 Crawford should bat 2nd, but I'm still not buying it. 

    1) We are not sure if he can or will ever have a season like 2010 again.
    2) We can be pretty certain Pedey will continue his consistency and maybe get better as he reaches the typical prime ages.

    Agian, look at the numbers. CC in 2010 is still not good enough to crack the top 5 in our line-up. And, our top 5 are too good to deserve a demotion.

    Although I do not think this is the best way to determine who should bat in the top 5 slots this year, let's look at Pedey and Jacoby's best seasons from 2009-2011 as compared to CC's 2010 season: 
    (Remember OBP is more important than Slg% in the 1 or 2 slot)

    Crawford 2010:
    .307/.356/.495/.851    vs RHPs .332/.379/.552/.930    vs LHPs .256/.312/.384/.696

    Pedroia 2011:
    .307/.387/.474/.861    vs RHPs .287/.355/.445/.800    vs LHPs .358/.463/.547/1.010
    Pedroia 2010:
    .288/.367/.493/.860    vs RHPs .304/.367/.543/.910    vs LHPs .236/.367/.333/.700
    Pedroia 2009:
    .296/.371/.447/.819    vs RHPs .302/.373/.466/.839    vs LHPs .277/.366/.399/.765

    Ellsbury 2011:  
    .321/.376/.552/.928    vs RHPs .337/.388/.577/.965    vs LHPs .284/.348/.492/.841
    Ellsbury 2009:
    .301/.355/.415/.770    vs RHPs .294/.346/.417/.763    vs LHPs .318/.374/.411/.785

    It's not even close vs LHPs, but vs RHPs, CC's 2010 season does look better than any of Pedey's last 3 seasons vs righties. To me, this is not enough evidvence to warrant moving Pedey from the 2 slot or Jacoby from the 1 slot. I don't see any evidence to show that CC is likely to have another 2010 season vs RHPs. I see a lot of evidence to show that we can count on about a .360-.370 OBP from Pedey vs RHPs and .365-.400+ vs LHPs. 

    I hope CC has a 2010-type season and gives Bobby V this "problem" to solve.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from notin. Show notin's posts

    Re: Gordon Edes says bat Crawford 2nd

    This is why everything is not based on stats and splits.  They have a time and place, but should not be the end-all-be-all determining factor.

    Crawford is going to have to step up from last year.  That much is not up for debate.  I don’t expect a return to the MVP-caliber 2011, but I also don’t expect him to be the abysmal pitcher-like hitter from 2012, either.  A happy medium would be nice.

    After all, the prototypical mod of a 2-spot hitter is not as rooted in OBP.  There are numerous strategies that incorpate it in other ways, such as moving runners over, sac bunts.  I’m not saying Crawford will do those functions, but lets’ not role him in as not fitting the role, when the role is all over the place and the Sox have used plenty of poor OBP options there in the past.  I’ve never heard anyone complain about how bad Rick Burleson was as a 2-spot hitter, but he wasn’t exactly Wade Boggs when it came time to get on base.

    Not to mention, Crawford has the ability to be an offensive force in more ways than just swinging the bat.  Behind Ellsbury, he likely gets to see more pitchers throwing from the stretch, which certainly helps.  He also might get to see a more wide-open right side of the infield, and as a LHH with an open stance has positioned himself to take advantage (though he reportedly might be closing it up a bit and not trying to pull everything through that hole.  Probably wise if he has lingering wrist issues.)

    On the bases, he gives similar help to Pedroia/whoever hits in the three hole.  If he is on base, he gets pitchers into the stretch, and he opens up the infield. 

    Granted, he needs to get on base to take better advantage of the speed aspect of his offensive game, and for the Sox to utilize it fully, but there is no denying the potential.   Moving Crawford to the bottom of the order absolutely reduces the effect.  A player loses an average of 18 plate appearances for every spot he drops in the order, so moving him from the 2 spot to the 9 spot means Crawford would come up to the plate approximately 126 fewer times.  Even at his modest OBP, this about 42 less times on base, and 42 fewer potential disruptions on the base paths.  Other hitters can get on base more often, such as Youkilis, but moving Youkilis down one spot in the lineup, for example, probably costs the Sox maybe 7 base runners over the course of a season, and this small number plus his extremely limited station-to-station base-running skills might have a net result of 1 run scored.

    I like the idea of Crawford hitting second, and see the potential parallel of this lineup (Ellsbury / Crawford / Pedroia / Gonzalez / Youkilis / Ortiz) as being the slightly lesser version of that monstrous 2000/2001 Indians lineup that started off with Lofton / Vizquel / Alomar / Ramirez / Thome.   Not as good up front, I get that, but also a little bit deeper.  But that Indians lineup was one of the best of the last quarter century…

     

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Mchampion. Show Mchampion's posts

    Re: Gordon Edes says bat Crawford 2nd

    Crawford is not a top of the line up hitter on this team.  On TB, yes he was but this is the REd Sox and we have great hitters.  CC is not one of th e better hitters on this team regardless of what he is being paid.  The sooner he learns that the better.   He should bat 7 or 8 and contribute the best he can.  And yes he is an albatros with that Theoistic contract.  lol.

     
  4. 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:
    [QUOTE]This is why everything is not based on stats and splits.  They have a time and place, but should not be the end-all-be-all determining factor. Crawford is going to have to step up from last year.  That much is not up for debate.  I don’t expect a return to the MVP-caliber 2011, but I also don’t expect him to be the abysmal pitcher-like hitter from 2012, either.  A happy medium would be nice. After all, the prototypical mod of a 2-spot hitter is not as rooted in OBP.  There are numerous strategies that incorpate it in other ways, such as moving runners over, sac bunts.  I’m not saying Crawford will do those functions, but lets’ not role him in as not fitting the role, when the role is all over the place and the Sox have used plenty of poor OBP options there in the past.  I’ve never heard anyone complain about how bad Rick Burleson was as a 2-spot hitter, but he wasn’t exactly Wade Boggs when it came time to get on base. Not to mention, Crawford has the ability to be an offensive force in more ways than just swinging the bat.  Behind Ellsbury, he likely gets to see more pitchers throwing from the stretch, which certainly helps.  He also might get to see a more wide-open right side of the infield, and as a LHH with an open stance has positioned himself to take advantage (though he reportedly might be closing it up a bit and not trying to pull everything through that hole.  Probably wise if he has lingering wrist issues.) On the bases, he gives similar help to Pedroia/whoever hits in the three hole.  If he is on base, he gets pitchers into the stretch, and he opens up the infield.  Granted, he needs to get on base to take better advantage of the speed aspect of his offensive game, and for the Sox to utilize it fully, but there is no denying the potential.   Moving Crawford to the bottom of the order absolutely reduces the effect.  A player loses an average of 18 plate appearances for every spot he drops in the order, so moving him from the 2 spot to the 9 spot means Crawford would come up to the plate approximately 126 fewer times.  Even at his modest OBP, this about 42 less times on base, and 42 fewer potential disruptions on the base paths.  Other hitters can get on base more often, such as Youkilis, but moving Youkilis down one spot in the lineup, for example, probably costs the Sox maybe 7 base runners over the course of a season, and this small number plus his extremely limited station-to-station base-running skills might have a net result of 1 run scored. I like the idea of Crawford hitting second, and see the potential parallel of this lineup (Ellsbury / Crawford / Pedroia / Gonzalez / Youkilis / Ortiz) as being the slightly lesser version of that monstrous 2000/2001 Indians lineup that started off with Lofton / Vizquel / Alomar / Ramirez / Thome.   Not as good up front, I get that, but also a little bit deeper.  But that Indians lineup was one of the best of the last quarter century…  
    Posted by notin[/QUOTE]

    The Burleson - Boggs era was a different world.

    I don't think anyone is saying CC should bat 9th vs RHPs, so the differential is not 126 PAs, but maybe 80-90. (6th vs RHPs and 8th or 9th vs LHPs depending on who is out SS, Iggy or Aviles.) Let's say it's an even 100 PA differential between my idea and yours, since I'd have CC bat 2nd on days Pedey has off or vs some pitchers he rocks.

    That means he might be on base 32 to 37 more times and maybe steal 10 more bases. He'd also run into 3-4 outs in CS'ings, making his OBP more like .300-.320 than .320 to .370.  If we compare this to Pedey's recent numbers, I don't see the gain you do. Yes, CC's numbers would be better, but that's not the whole story. Pedey would have gotten on base 36 to 40 times in those 100 PAs in question, probably stole about 3-4 base with maybe 1 CS. So, we have Pedey at about 35-39 times on base (-1 for CS) to CC's 30-32 (counting his 3 CSs). Thats about 6 less outs by Pedey over the 100 PAs, but 6-7 less SBs. This isn't counting the extra base hit advantage Pedey has as well as the fact that he strikes out much less and make contact more.

    I know it's not all about stats. Traditionally, the 2nd slot has often been held by contact hitters who know how to bunt and protect the runner. OBP has not always been a big factor for many managers, but when you got guys like AGon, Youk and Papi batting 3-4-5, I think the strategy is to get your top two guys on base. The other factor is that Pedey is an excellent baserunner. It's not just about SBs. 

    As I have said before, batting CC 2nd vs RHPs makes some sense, but I'd make sure he is fully healthy before making the switch. I'm OK with this vs RHPs:
    1) Ells
    2) CC
    3) AGon
    4) Pedey (has great clean-up numbers)
    5) Papi
    6) Youk (lengthens the line-up)

    I still think this is better vs RHPs:
    1) Ells
    2) Pedey
    3) AGon
    4) Papi
    5) Youk
    6) CC

    Vs LHPs, nobody is ever going to convince me to put CC any higher than 6th. Vs most LHPs, he barely is justified batting 9th, 6th is a gift, 2nd is insanity.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from lowelll. Show lowelll's posts

    Re: Gordon Edes says bat Crawford 2nd

    According to Bill James, the batting order means very little.
     
  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:
    [QUOTE]Crawford is not a top of the line up hitter on this team.  On TB, yes he was but this is the REd Sox and we have great hitters.  CC is not one of th e better hitters on this team regardless of what he is being paid.  The sooner he learns that the better.   He should bat 7 or 8 and contribute the best he can.  And yes he is an albatros with that Theoistic contract.  lol.
    Posted by Mchampion[/QUOTE]

    Vs RHPs, he's our 5th or 6th best hitter. He should bat no lower than 6th.
    Vs LHPs, he's our 10th best hitter, although he does hit some lefties pretty well. With guys like Ross and Shoppach having great numbers vs lefties, I can't see any justification for CC being higher than 8th (unless Salty is playing vs a lefty instead of Shoppach). Aviles is much better than CC vs LHPs as well, and if it comes down to a choice between 8th or 9th, I like CC up in front of Jacoby.

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

    Re: Gordon Edes says bat Crawford 2nd

    In Response to Re: Gordon Edes says bat Crawford 2nd:
    [QUOTE]According to Bill James, the batting order means very little.
    Posted by lowelll[/QUOTE]

    No matter what it is worth, you still want your best order.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Gordon Edes says bat Crawford 2nd

    No matter what it is worth, you still want your best order.

    I agree. Even if all you gain is more PAs for your best hitters, it's worth it, but I believe it is more than that.
     

Share