Judging Crawford (the post-April version)

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

    Re: Judging Crawford (the post-April version)

    In Response to Re: Judging Crawford (the post-April version):
    [QUOTE]CC hits best in the 6th/7th slot. Possible reflection of his entire year: He may not press as much - or try too hard to impress .
    Posted by harness[/QUOTE]

    laughable. he has been in those slotts most of the season and is having a dismal season. 
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: Judging Crawford (the post-April version)

    In Response to Re: Judging Crawford (the post-April version):
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Judging Crawford (the post-April version) : laughable. he has been in those slotts most of the season and is having a dismal season
    Posted by BurritoT[/QUOTE]

    What's laughable is UR lazy nature.
    Crawford in the
    6th slot: .298 BA  .323 OBP  .786 OPS
    7th slot: .298 BA  .351 OBP  .863 OPS

    Crawford in the #2 slot: .217 BA  .250 OBP  .554 OPS

    UR even to lazy to look up the plural of slot...

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from S0ftl@w. Show S0ftl@w's posts

    Re: Judging Crawford (the post-April version)

    Harness, you are captious idiot!

    Crawford 8 slot: BA .240 OBP .269  OPS .609

    If you don't stop using specious anecdotal "evidence", I will carve you a new one. Obviously, as your other idiotic derby ruining a hof swing, batting order has nothing to do with Crawford's problem. I provided details on why, now you go read what I wrote and start paying attention and reading more and posting seldom.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: Judging Crawford (the post-April version)

    In Response to Re: Judging Crawford (the post-April version):
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Judging Crawford (the post-April version) : laughable. he has been in those slotts most of the season and is having a dismal season. 


    Put UR specs on, oh softone drivel master. This misspelled allusion retorts my post stating 6th/7th slot. That is the subject matter being doscussed. Get it???

    He has hit better at the end of the line-up as opposed to in front of it. That's the whole point, bimbo. He's hitting .124 batting 1-5.
    .281 from 6th-8th. All his power production has come from these slots.
    The reasons could easily be due to pressure/sense of expectation/altered approach.
    Or have you forgotten the Pedey lead-off experiment?

    Now, tells up more about Jake's reverse pivot...
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from S0ftl@w. Show S0ftl@w's posts

    Re: Judging Crawford (the post-April version)

    He has hit better at the end of the line-up as opposed to in front of it.

    Your moron!

    8 slot  BA .240 OBP .269 OPS .609
     
    Not better!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: Judging Crawford (the post-April version)

    Man, are you on thick sauce tonight. I just drew a comparison from hitting 1 thru 5 as compared to 6-9.
    Front of the order, which is where UR buddy wants him to hit, as opposed to the lower spots. Get it? Hello????????????????????

    Try and keep up, you silly, 43% fat city clown.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from aussiewill. Show aussiewill's posts

    Re: Judging Crawford (the post-April version)

    In Response to Judging Crawford (the post-April version):
    [QUOTE]So I have been wondering just how bad Crawford has been and if there is a "light at the end of the tunnel."  FWIW, I am not looking at the life of his contract, just judging this year.  So I decided to put on my statistician hat (it is quite small and threadbare) and break down CC's season on a statistical basis. Here is my conclusion: Crawford was AWFUL in April ... awful in epic proportions.  No surprise there, we all knew that.  Since April, however, he has essentially been performing at or slightly below his career average in almost all offensive categories.  That sounds fine but there are some negative mitigating factors, namely: 1 - His defense has been bad and we obviously expected more there 2 - He is stealing bases at a historically low rate  3 - His BB/K totals and ratio are as bad as they've been in his career 4 - Most importantly, his contract and our expectations weren't set at career averages but rather under the expectation of the peak years.  Notably, higher OBP and SLG than his career averages Here are the numbers: If we back out April, CC is 87 of 303 with 15 2B's, 5 3B's 18 HR's, 25 BB, 118 K and 13 SB.  If we normalize that to a full season of 575 AB's this is what his line might look like: AVG OBP SLG 2B 3B HR SB BB K    .287 .322 .445 28 9 15 25 25 118 Overall, I'd give the post-April version of CC a grade of about C+.  Discuss.
    Posted by 111SoxFan111[/QUOTE]

    Since you like to pick and choose, IE forgetting his April Stats. How about forgeting his 9 hits in 11 at bats . I can't seem to find out when the 9 for 11 was. But since you want to take April out of his stats, and ignore his prodigous amount of steals , Oh how about Tito benching him today against , ah, oh, a lefthander for Aviles, Crawford had muscle cramps, poor baby.

    This guy will be the biggest bust ever , see that's the problem with a big money contract, you get big money and don't perform, your a big(money) bust. How else does one define the biggest bust . That would be the one who gets the most money and who is a bust. I know that concept is difficult for vertically challenged people, but what other yard stick should we pick and choose to use?
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from futbal. Show futbal's posts

    Re: Judging Crawford (the post-April version)

    If baseball had a salary cap, then obviously Crawford's better numbers since May would still not be enough to justify his deal. Alas, it does not. But teams still have budgets, so his improvement still has to be judged (at least somewhat) with respect to how much he costs the team. His overvaluation doesn't seem to be hurting the team's morale. So, for me, it comes down to lack of financial flexibility; e.g., can they afford to keep Ellsbury, go after enticing free agents like Pujols, etc., in the future.
     

Share