Izturis would have been nice
by Swishdball on Nov 30, 2007 12:29 PM PST
157 comments
But he just signed a 1 (ONE!!!!) year deal with the Cardinals. Would have been an awesome and cheap addition, but we all know if a guy can hit for average, has speed, plays good defense, and would make for a pretty good leadoff hitter, the A's won't consider him. At least we have Bobble Crosby and Donnie Murphy to ease our minds. Boy, what a relief.
0 recs |
157 comments
Email
Print
Comments
1 year/$2.85 million
I guess this means the A's have no intention of making Crosby compete for his job. Once again they've proven that they're content to hand him the reins and let him go on his merry way.
by grover on Nov 30, 2007 12:29 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
do you seriously think izturis was even
remotely worth considering???
by mikeA on Nov 30, 2007 12:31 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Two words for you
Bobby Crosby.
by grover on Nov 30, 2007 12:43 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
grover, there's no easy way to put this–
you've done gone and lost your mind.
by rebus on Nov 30, 2007 12:48 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I've been watching Crosby the past 2 seasons
What did you think was going to happen after that kind of exposure?
by grover on Nov 30, 2007 1:01 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Touché, sir.
Touché.
by rebus on Nov 30, 2007 1:04 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I want to see Crosby fight for his job
He had it handed to him 4 years ago and for the past two seasons he has done nothing to keep it.
Everyone keeps saying that Crosby's defense covers for his bat. Izturis is a good defensive SS. He doesn't have Crosby's power but he actually posted a higher OBP. (Yes, they both sucked.) He was also healthy last year, something Crosby hasn't managed in 3 years.
So what's the real downside? You could possibly get a healthier, cheaper version of Bobby Crosby?
by grover on Nov 30, 2007 1:01 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Cheaper?
Crosby next year: 3.5M
Crosby plus Izturis next year: 6.35M
Explain to me how this is cheaper.
by PaulThomas on Nov 30, 2007 1:08 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Gee, PT
I was comparing the one guy's salary to the other.
Crosby is a waste of $8.75 million over the next two years, the A's can't get that money back unless a near miracle occurs and somebody takes him off the A's hands.
by grover on Nov 30, 2007 1:16 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
You can't have it both ways
If you believe (as you obviously do) that Crosby and his contract have zero or negative trade value, then comparing Izturis' salary to Crosby's is completely pointless.
As it is now, we'll likely have Crosby starting with Murphy backing him up for cheap. If we signed Izturis, we'd have Izturis starting with Crosby still making all that money on the bench. Or vice-versa. Either way, it's just an extra $2.85 million dollars pissed away on a player who has no chance of being any good.
by andeux on Nov 30, 2007 1:25 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Or
Crosby gets hurt again and the Murphy manages to get the job, then broke ass Crosby is rotting on the bench wasting Oakland's money. Know what?
I'd take that scenario if to was offered to me!
I don't care if the A's sign Izturis or Ghandi, I just want to see a sign that the A's are going to be proactive and try to improve themselves at SS. Instead, they've stood pat.
Want to know why I think Izturis would be an upgrade over Crosby? Because I think he'd actually play a whole season. I don't know if he's actually a better player than Crosby, I just think he's going to get on the field a lot more often.
by grover on Nov 30, 2007 1:45 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Wait, you want a full season of '07 Crosby?
I guess in some technical sense, that might not be utterly worthless. You might get 1.0 WARP instead of 0.7. Whoop-de-freaking-do. Nice way to spend 2.8 million dollars.
The point is to upgrade shortstop, not to flail around randomly looking for omens of "proactivity" at shortstop.
by PaulThomas on Nov 30, 2007 1:52 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I told anyone who'd listen
that the A's should trade Crosby in the offseason.
That was last offseason.
You're damn right the point is to upgrade SS and the A's haven't done a thing to do so. Signing Izturis, however stupid an idea it might be, would at least signal that Crosby's free ride is over and that he's going to have to actually produce to keep his job.
As things stand now, it's status quo. And that is even more unacceptable than signing Izturis.
by grover on Nov 30, 2007 2:00 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I have a much cheaper way of "signalling"
that his free ride is over.
Namely, giving him a phone call and telling him "Hey, Crosby, your free ride is over."
One way costs $2.85 million and satisfies grover. The other way costs 50 cents, but isn't public.
I think your ego is going to have to take a backseat here.
by PaulThomas on Nov 30, 2007 2:02 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
If the A's haven't tried the phone bit long
before now than things are even worse than I imagine.
by grover on Nov 30, 2007 2:10 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Alright grover
I am gonna give you a pass on this one because I think you are letting your legitimate frustration about Bobby Crosby cloud your common sense.
The best way I can say it is that just because we have crap currently for a SS, does not mean we should sign slightly different crap as competition. Ultimately, it is still crap and who needs to waste an additional 40 man roster spot (let alone 3M) on more crap.
Or the slightly less known adage of "Two Craps don't make a SS" (or is it Two Craps make a Crapshoot"...)
(cue monkeyball poo joke)
by AsFanInLA on Nov 30, 2007 1:57 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I want somebody to challenge Crosby for his job!!
And I don't give a damn who it is, just as long as the general baseball world acknowledges that the challenger can indeed play SS at the major league level.
I think the only way Bobby Crosby ever plays up to his potential is if someone bitch slaps him in a public display. That could be a trade, that could be signing someone and announcing he'll get a chance to compete for the job. I believe, I truly believe that the A's have coddled Crosby all along and that Bobby does not fear losing his job. No one should feel that comfortable after the putrid performance we've seen for the past 2 years.
by grover on Nov 30, 2007 2:05 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I'll do it.
by oblique on Nov 30, 2007 5:39 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
You're hired!
by grover on Nov 30, 2007 5:48 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I want somebody to challenge Crosby for his job!!
And I don't give a damn who it is, just as long as the general baseball world acknowledges that the challenger can indeed play SS at the major league level.
I think the only way Bobby Crosby ever plays up to his potential is if someone bitch slaps him in a public display. That could be a trade, that could be signing someone and announcing he'll get a chance to compete for the job. I believe, I truly believe that the A's have coddled Crosby all along and that Bobby does not fear losing his job. No one should feel that comfortable after the putrid performance we've seen for the past 2 years.
by grover on Nov 30, 2007 2:06 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Sorry for the double post
The little flag said the 1st attempt had failed.
by grover on Nov 30, 2007 2:07 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
xbhaskarx would hate having Ghandi on the team
Lackey would be all up in Gandhi's mug, jawing at him, and Gandhi would just sit there and take it.
by monkeyball on Nov 30, 2007 10:18 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Bill Plaschke would write articles
about how his passive nonviolence sent the team into a 10-year funk.
by PaulThomas on Nov 30, 2007 10:25 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
See: Cost, Sunk
by PaulThomas on Nov 30, 2007 1:32 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
would rather have
Treasure, Sunk (en)
by jubjub on Nov 30, 2007 1:37 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I realize Crosby is a sunk cost
That doesn't mean you let him drag you down to the bottom. The A's need someone to play SS and it sure hasn't been Bobby Crosby!
I'm still inclined to try and package Crosby with Haren if we make a trade.
by grover on Nov 30, 2007 1:40 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Jesus
Just outright him to the minors and get him off the roster. That makes about 8.35 million times more sense than lowering the value of your own player with an unnecessary salary dump.
by PaulThomas on Nov 30, 2007 1:49 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
So now it's OK to eat the salary
when before you chastised me by adding Izturis' $2.85 million to the total.
If Crosby is so bad that you're willing to just eat almost $9 million to be rid of him then you shouldn't use his contract to complain about someone else coming in to challenge for the job.
by grover on Nov 30, 2007 1:56 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I didn't "use his contract to complain"
I complained about the prospect of paying almost $3 million to Cesar Izturis. Which is, as I said, patent idiocy. If Cesar Izturis was on my roster and due to make almost $3 million next year, I'd outright him off of it as well.
by PaulThomas on Nov 30, 2007 2:00 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
If Izturis ends up starting in St. Louis
You'll end up eating those words.
by grover on Nov 30, 2007 2:11 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Just because
Tony LaRussa who is a lush who is stupid enough to actually want Izturis on his team doesn't mean the A's should start drinking TLR's crazy juice.
by BlameChannel53 on Nov 30, 2007 2:13 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I must have been drinking with TLR
that post was as coherent as Minaya's trade ideas.
by BlameChannel53 on Nov 30, 2007 2:14 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
i prefer the pre-crazy, football-playing juice
by monkeyball on Nov 30, 2007 10:24 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
No
if Izturis ends up starting in St. Louis it will just mean that even if Crosby has another bad year he won't be the worst starting SS in baseball.
by andeux on Nov 30, 2007 2:14 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
If Crosby finally plays to his tools
and can stay healthy all year than the A's will have the better SS. If he does what he's done the past two years (which seems more likely but it's possible I could be biased) than my money is on Izturis being the better player.
I have a hunch a lot of people are going to take me up on that claim, so $5 and the deal is limited to the first 20 respondents.
by grover on Nov 30, 2007 2:19 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Hmm...
We need to set a way to judge this contest if Crosby misses another 60-70 games in 2008.
by grover on Nov 30, 2007 2:22 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
WARP?
Or, WARP except with FRAR subbed out for another fielding system?
Incidentally, seeing as how Izturis has (see above) NEVER had a year in which he's actually outperformed Crosby, I'll take that bet in a New York minute. And enjoy my Venti post-victory Frappucino.
by PaulThomas on Nov 30, 2007 3:09 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Technically that's not true
He's never posted a higher OPS than Crosby. Izturis has scored a higher WS score twice, last year and in 2004.
by grover on Nov 30, 2007 3:13 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Sorry, I don't consider WS a statistic
that's worth spending any time on.
by PaulThomas on Nov 30, 2007 3:35 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Well
You want to use WARP except for its defensive component. Great. So how do you merge oWARP with whichever defensive metric and come up with an accurate answer of who the better overall player was?
Not playing that game. One system that covers the overall performance of the players in question. Even if the system is flawed it still measures the players the same.
Besides, you just don't like WS because you'd probably lose. The more relevant topic is this: If Izturis plays the whole season and Crosby misses 70 games is it an automatic forfeit in my favor?
by grover on Nov 30, 2007 3:49 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Now that's just flat-out insulting
Right. My integrity is worth a whopping five bucks to me. Sure. Also, I sold my soul for a donut. In case you were wondering.
Fine. Just use WARP. I don't like Win Shares because it makes no sense, not because it's less likely to produce an outcome that's favorable to me. How the hell would I know whether one system prefers one kind of player to another? I don't even understand how Win Shares works. That's precisely why I don't like it!
And no, of course it's not an automatic forfeit. Whichever player adds more value adds more value, regardless of how many games he plays. 80 games of great performance is more valuable than 160 games of shitty performance. For normal players, i.e. guys performing at above-replacement-level performance levels, playing more games will result in a higher WARP, and thus will be an advantage. If your guy is performing at sub-replacement-level, where more games lowers his value, that's your problem.
by PaulThomas on Nov 30, 2007 4:44 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Can't take a joke?
We're not using WARP because I don't trust the defensive metrics, same as you. If you're using two seperate systems how do you total the offensive and defensive scores?
by grover on Nov 30, 2007 4:51 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Can't we just invent one?
Replacement level is like 20 runs below average per 160 games, right? So couldn't we just use UZR, except adding 1 run per 72 innings (8 games) played to get a replacement level baseline instead of an average level baseline?
As long as the offensive and defensive metrics are on the same scale, i.e. runs above and below replacement level, I see no problem with having the metrics come from independent systems.
by PaulThomas on Nov 30, 2007 5:22 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Have you seen final UZR stats?
I haven't and it's almost December.
by grover on Nov 30, 2007 5:50 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Donnie Murphy maybe?
what's the problem with him competing for the job?
by rebus on Nov 30, 2007 1:14 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
That was one of the better ideas
But the A's have gone public and said they expect Murphy to be a back-up. Like I said below, they didn't even offer him the cliche of the best player winning the job.
by grover on Nov 30, 2007 1:17 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Along the lines
of mikeA's post below about Izturis hitting for average, I'll grant that those are, in fact, two words.
But I don't see how those two words are supposed to convince anyone in their right mind that signing someone who is 100% guaranteed to hit worse than Crosby is somehow a good idea.
by andeux on Nov 30, 2007 12:54 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
To be honest
I could think of a lot better ideas for SS, but I cannot think of a worse idea than letting Crosby have the job again without a fight.
The A's won't even throw the token cliche of Murphy getting a shot at competing for the job. I'll take any sign, even Cesar Izturis (who I think will hit better this year if you stick him in the line-up and leave him alone) that shows the A's are trying to upgrade at SS.
by grover on Nov 30, 2007 1:05 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Crosby will probably
take the A's signing Izturis as an indication that they're NOT trying to upgrade at SS.
by rfloh on Nov 30, 2007 2:13 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Interesting.
"can for average": .259 career, .258 in '07
"has speed": 3 SB in '07
"plays good defense": Fine.
"would make for a pretty good leadoff hitter": .295 OBP career, .302 in '07
You just forgot to mention his power. (0 HR, .315 SLG in 110 games in '07)
by EastCoastA on Nov 30, 2007 12:31 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
.259 is an average--->he hits for average.
QED
by mikeA on Nov 30, 2007 12:35 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Ha, well played.
by EastCoastA on Nov 30, 2007 12:45 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
well played, Garkel
by jubjub on Nov 30, 2007 12:55 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Izturis is like playing with one more pitcher
Ummmm, not sure what planet you're from, but izturis is a HACKING MASS CANDIDATE Aka one of the worst hitters in all of baseball. I would not want him on my TRIPLE-A team, let alone MLB. All field, no hit players do not belong on the A's...we're not stupid enough to want them unless they're extremely cheap min wage utility guys: See example 1: Scutaro. Izturis probably isn't even worth minimum wage.
by tomoyo on Nov 30, 2007 12:35 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
To paraphrase Rob Neyer
Cesar
Izturis
Cannot
Hit
Period.
His career EqA is .223. Just for reference, Crosby's career EqA is .243.
by PaulThomas on Nov 30, 2007 12:36 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
OPS+ last season
45 games, Cesar Izturis... 69
93 games, Bobby Crosby.... 68
not enough?
career OPS+
Izturis... 67, with a career high of 88
Crosby... 84, with a career high of 111
i hope this thread is sarcasm that went right over my head.
by rebus on Nov 30, 2007 12:36 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Crosby at his WORST is better
I just wanna make this clear, crosby even at his worst is better than izturis in hitting. That's sad to think about :/
by tomoyo on Nov 30, 2007 12:36 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
on the plus side...
Izturis is almost a month younger than Crosby.
that's it.
by rebus on Nov 30, 2007 12:38 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
One more thing
I don't think this is a joke post, just noticed swishd also posted wanting ECKSTEIN, aka most overrated player in all of baseball for bullshit grit.
Eckstein has these flaws:
a) fields average b) has average speed c) cannot throw hard d) cannot walk e) cannot hit for power f) has a moderate injury past(wait that's PERFECT for us) g) as leadoff hitter, can automatically ruin entire offense
Positives:
a) can hit for average b) cannot think of anything else at all.
Izturis:
Same flaws for eckstein except for following:
a) has strong arm b) cannot hit for average
Now seriously, does any team really want these guys? I don't know why. It's complete offense murder. It's like sticking a pitcher at the top of your order.
by tomoyo on Nov 30, 2007 12:46 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Eckstein is
actually a decent OBP guy. Last 3 years OBP: 363, 350, 356.
Eckstein >>>> Izturis.
by rfloh on Nov 30, 2007 2:12 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yep that's eckstein's main plus
by tomoyo on Dec 2, 2007 5:20 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Do not want
by BlameChannel53 on Nov 30, 2007 1:12 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Have people who want Izturis
been asking Omar Minaya for advice on talent evaluation?
Just to be clear, this is CESAR Izturis we're talking about. Not MAICER Izturis.
by rfloh on Nov 30, 2007 2:10 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Wrong Izturis
Crosby MIGHT have some legit competition if we'd acquire MAICER Izturis, who's a far better offensive player and will cost a lot less than his brother.
But if we're talking about Cesar, then forget about it.
by Taj Adib on Nov 30, 2007 2:25 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
yeah, i was going to say
macier izturis, yes please.
cesar izturis, HELL NO.
by xbhaskarx on Nov 30, 2007 2:48 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Let's not forget about it
Let's look at the numbers.
Defensively:
Crosby scored a 3.3 defensive WS based on 813 inings of work. He recorded 131 put outs, committed 14 errors, 282 assists and made 211 plays on 253 Balls in Zone (BIZ) for a RZR of 834.
Izturis scored a 1.3 defensive WS based on 655 innings of work. Obviously his score was lower at least in part by the fewer chances. So I tried to estimate his numbers based on a similiar number of chances. That way we could get a feel for how the two compared defensively.
Again, this is just an estimate.
In real life Izturis recorded 96 put outs, committed 8 errors, 196 assists and made 147 plays on 171 Balls in Zone for a RZR of 860. If he had had the same number of chances as Crosby (253 BIZ) his estimated numbers would have been 143 put outs, 12 errors, 291 assists and made 218 plays.
In other words, as good or better defensively than Crosby. So his defensive WS would have been at least the same as Crosby, 3.3. Offensively, Crosby managed a 0 WS vs. Izturis' 1.4 WS.
So, it seems as if Izturis would have been the better player if he had had the same amount of playing time as Crosby got.
We can argue all we want that signing Izturis would have been a bad move, but do not suggest that Izturis was to poorer player last year. The numbers, as best as can be figured, say otherwise.
by grover on Nov 30, 2007 3:10 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The numbers say nothing of the sort
On defense, you conveniently omitted out-of-zone plays: Crosby had 40, while Izturis only had 8. Even if you again use your questionable method of scaling up Izturis' numbers based on balls in zone, this difference still swamps those of the other numbers.
Offensively, I have no idea why someone would choose to use win shares as an evaluation method. There are many better ways of measuring offense. In particular, OPS+ and EqA are both readily available, and give a clear edge to Crosby.
by andeux on Nov 30, 2007 3:26 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
and really
the details here are beside the point, anyway.
If Crosby is so awful that we should be dumping him for nothing, then signing someone just as awful for an additional $3 million can't possibly make any sense. Whether that second player is a hair better or a hair worse than the first doesn't make any difference.
by andeux on Nov 30, 2007 3:34 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
You're ignoring the obvious
Why is Crosby crap? His defense is fine. His bat sucks, this is true but SS is a defensive position so couldn't we overlook the bat for the sake of the glove?
Maybe, if we could get his freakin' glove on the field for more than 100 games a year!
Izturis is as good or better with the glove and there's a real good chance he'd play the whole season!
That is a significant upgrade over what the A's have now.
by grover on Nov 30, 2007 3:54 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
OOZ plays had to be omitted
How do you factor in the number of OOZ plays when you have to do an estimate for in-zone-plays? And look at Izturis' numbers again, he recorded 25 OOZ plays last year in his 655 innings of work. The only thing I could think of doing was average his number of OOZ plays with his innings played to try and match up with Crosby. I did that and his new score would be 32. The problem with doing that is we've now switched from comparing actual chances with innings played. Izturis could have played with a bunch of strike out pitchers, limiting his chances to make a play. The only way to even attempt what I was doing was to base the numbers on a shared number of BIZ chances.
Why use WS on offense? Because at some point we need to sit down and compile all the data into a measuring tool. Can't use WARP, everyone complains about BP's defensive metrics. You want to use OPS+? The problem there is it weighs OBP and Slugging as being equal when the reality is OBP is more important than Slugging. Crosby had the higher OPS+ in 2007 (619-617) but Izturis had the higher OBP (302-278). So OPS+ penalizes Izturis for scoring higher in the more important offensive category.
Even if we used EqA, that's only an offensive stat. What happens if Crosby has the clear edge in EqA but Izturis is the better defender, how do we judge who was the better overall player? Win Shares, or one of it's variations, strikes me as providing the best middle ground.
by grover on Nov 30, 2007 3:44 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Right (oops), wrong, wrong, and wrong
I had missed that Izturis had two different stat lines at THT. Yes, he had 25 OOZ plays.
But no, you can't just use in-zone plays to measure someone's defense while excluding OOZ plays, which are just as important. If one player makes an additional 20 plays on balls out of zone at the expense of 10 plays in-zone (for example, due to unusual positioning), it's still a net gain of 10 plays. It's true that trying to scale them together based on chances is problematic, but scaling one while excluding the other altogether is not a solution.
And, no, OPS+ does not weight OBP and SLG the same. You're confusing OPS and OPS+.
And, no, there is no problem with combining offensive stats with one source from defensive stats from another as long as they are on the same scale (usually runs compared to some base line). Win shares are a poor middle ground because they simply aren't a very good measure of either offense or defense. And I'm pretty sure you agreed with that a year ago when the A's WS leader was Jason Kendall.
by andeux on Nov 30, 2007 4:13 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
OK, I'll scale the OOZ chances
Based on Innings played:
Crosby = 40
Izturis = 32
Based on BIZ (ie Chances):
Crosby = 40
Izturis = 37
The results haven't changed.
I think you're wrong on OPS+. It's adjusted for park and league factors, it doesn't mention anything about adjusting the importance of OBP vs. Slugging.
As for Win Shares, the defensive scores are based on a metric I trust. Well, on the metric I trust the most. How would you score EqA in a similiar manner?
by grover on Nov 30, 2007 4:31 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Grover,
people have converted RZR and Zone Rating into runs above average.
Chris Dial did this in 2006 for Zone Rating. He published his methodology on Baseball Think Factory here.
Chone Smith, the guy who does the CHONE projections, using that methodology have then converted 2007's RZR and ZR numbers into runs above average. Warning: that's an Excel file.
David Pinto's PMR numbers have also been converted into runs above average too. SS are here.
You can add any of these to either Batting Runs above Average, or Runs above Position, from BPro.
by rfloh on Nov 30, 2007 11:26 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Thank you!
I don't know about CHONE, I've been trying to get versed on UZR and RZR. So in his system, is he combining the numbers from RZR and ZR to come up with the final score? I'm a little unclear on that. RZR is supposed to be an improved version of ZR, therefore wouldn't the ZR scores be less accurate?
Because there's a pretty big difference between Ellis' RZR Runs (15) and his ZR Runs (26). Depending on which figure we used it could effectively end the discussion about Ellis' worth.
The PMR data is still trying to get up to speed.
Thanks again for the links.
by grover on Nov 30, 2007 11:51 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
If you look at the spreadsheet
He provides runs conversion for RZR, Zone Rating, and then an averaged score. In a study he did, he found that the averaged score has a higher correlation with run prevention.
RZR is an improved version of ZR yes. However, ZR and RZR use different underlying data. RZR's data is from Baseball Info Solutions. ZR's data is from STATS. UZR's data is also from STATS.
STATS and BIS appear to disagree on some OFs. Specifically OFs who make a lot of OOZ plays. Examples are Ichiro!, Andruw.
Because of this, it's probably best to look at both, or an averaged conversion.
by rfloh on Dec 1, 2007 12:27 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Good to know
Probably best to go with the averaged score.
by grover on Dec 1, 2007 12:38 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Win shares has some issues
with how a player's wins are assigned.
Using Baseball Prospectus' Runs above position, Croz was (-2.3). All Star Cesar Izturis was (-5.4).
This is challenging crap with crap. You might as well get Neifi while you're at it.
by rfloh on Nov 30, 2007 3:31 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Those runs above position
are just for offense.
by rfloh on Nov 30, 2007 3:32 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
BP's defensive metrics have serious issues
So much so that I will not use them.
by grover on Nov 30, 2007 3:56 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Like I said
those are just for OFFENSE. OFFENSE.
Add, RZR or Zone Rating to BPro's offensive numbers.
Also, Wins Shares has some equally serious issues.
by rfloh on Nov 30, 2007 11:04 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I'll ask again
How do we take the stats from one formula and measure them with another?
RZR doesn't do a Runs Saved like UZR, it translates directly to Win Shares. BP measures their numbers in a different way. How do we make the numbers work together to tell us who is the best overall player?
If we don't have the Rosetta Stone we need to use 1 system.
by grover on Nov 30, 2007 11:20 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
See my post to you above
by rfloh on Nov 30, 2007 11:26 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Bad idea
You're going to challenge Crosby, who's worst year ever was a .627 OPS, with a player whose career OPS is .631? Why? Crosby's worst season is the same as the average year for Izturis.
by MrIncognito on Nov 30, 2007 2:56 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
who better to bring a direct challenge Crosby
than the player most similar to him?!
get on it, Dr. Evil.
by rebus on Nov 30, 2007 2:59 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
has anyone considered that maybe ...
... after Crosby's first injury, he was replaced by Evil Crosby?
by monkeyball on Nov 30, 2007 10:39 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Why consider this option
Because if SS was all about hitting we'd stick Cust in Crosby's place and be done with it.
by grover on Nov 30, 2007 3:17 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
defensively it's a wash
They're the same according to PMR and RZR.
Once again, Izturis is a crappy player. Donnie Murphy is a better player than Izturis, and we already have him.
by MrIncognito on Nov 30, 2007 8:32 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I know it's a wash
Do you want a good defender for 90 games or do you want a good defender for 150 games?
More importantly, I'd be perfectly content if the A's gave Murphy a shot at winning the starting job at SS. That would suit me just fine.
But they won't. The A's have gone public and proclaimed that Donnie Murphy is going to be the utility guy.
Which means that Bobby fucking Crosby has the job sown up and I challenge anyone on this website to come up with an arguement that he deserves such a reward. Key word there being "deserves".
The A's aren't even challenging Crosby to fight for his job. Until they do so, any major league SS is a better option then what we have now.
by grover on Nov 30, 2007 9:54 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
You do realize that if Crosby is out 70 games,
Donnie Murphy will get to play 72 games... right?
Whereas if he's stuck behind Crapsar Izturis, he'll play 12.
Sad to say, I don't actually think Crosby is going to miss 70 games. I think his "injury problems" are basically a fluke. But if he did, he would be doing the team a favor.
by PaulThomas on Nov 30, 2007 10:31 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
And then Crosby would get his job back
Starting the whole cycle all over.
It's possible that the A's could give Murphy a shot at the starting job in 2009 but if they were so inclined why don't they give him a chance now?
Crosby shouldn't be an option, but he is.
We agree that Crosby is a lost cause, a sunk cost, a dead weight. Let's pretend he's out of the picture and don't worry about the money. It's gone.
So you sign Izturis to a 1 year deal and declare an open competition for the starting job at SS. If Izturis wins than you still have Murphy to back up. If Murphy wins then you have an excellent defensive back-up for the rest of the year. Yummy goodness all around.
Now let me explain the facts to you and hopefully you'll learn something this time.
The A's need better production from the SS position. If you disagree with that you are in denial or worse. There are only 4 ways this improvement can happen.
- Crosby gets better.
- Someone else in the organization gets a chance.
- Sign someone new.
- Trade for a SS.
I think you know where I stand on the feasibility of option #1. The A's have already decreed that option #2 is not going to happen. Izturis or Eckstein are/were the best FA options and I sincerely doubt that Eckstein, gritty hero that he is, is going to be signing a 1 year contract for less than $3 million. That leaves option #4, work a trade. That could prove very costly.
If the A's aren't willing to let one of their own fight for the job than the least invasive way remaining to upgrade SS is/was to sign someone like Izturis.
I don't want to argue over Izturis, he's certainly not my 1st choice to replace Crosby and I'd much prefer the A's let Murphy and Gregorio Petit have a shot at the job. But if that's not going to happen I'm reserving the right to bitch whenever the A's let an opportunity to replace Crosby go by. Izturis was an opportunity however much you may hate to admit it. His defense is just as good and at this point I think he's the better hitter. That's not to say he's a good hitter, but I think he's better then what he showed last year.
by grover on Nov 30, 2007 11:04 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
If Crosby plays that's a good thing
Let's slow down a bit and look at best and worst case scenarios.
First without Izturis:
Best: Crosby plays full season and realizes some of his potential. Crosby is significantly better than Izturis, therefore the A's win.
Worst case 1: Crosby plays full season and repeats worst year of his career. Crosby is the same player as Izturis, and the A's didn't spend $3 million. A's win.
Worst case 2: Crosby gets hurt and Murphy plays. Murphy is better than Izturis. A's win.
With Izturis:
Best case: Crosby has good full season, Izturis rots on bench, Donnie Murphy is Ginterized. A's spend $3million and lose Murphy, A's lose compared to above.
Worst Case 1:Crosby plays full season and repeats worst yar of his career. Izturis still sits on bench because he sucks, and Donnie Murphy is again Ginterized. A's out $3 million and Donnie Murphy. Again, worse than above.
Worst Case 2: Crosby hurt. Izturis plays and is worse than Donnie Murphy, who sits on bench. A's out $3 million, and still field worse talent than above.
In the final analysis, there is no way in which it makes sense to pay a player $3 million to be the 3rd best SS on the roster.
by MrIncognito on Dec 1, 2007 8:24 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Crosby playing a good thing...
That's a foreign concept for me.
Maybe I wasn't clear, but when I said Crosby was out of the picture I meant something just this side of sleeping with the fishes.
If I had a say I would try to attach Crosby to every trade discussion the A's have with big money teams. If I couldn't get that to fly to my satisfaction I'd consider waiving him. Speaking logically, the A's should have done everything in their power to trade Crosby before the start of last season. That didn't happen and we ended up with the worst hitting starting SS in major league baseball.
Izturis was healthy last year, just stuck on a bench. If he and Crosby could do no more than repeat their 2007 season you'd see that Izturis is actually better than Crosby because he can actually get on the field. That's a sad commentary on Crosby, don't you think?
I do not think Izturis is a good hitter but I think his bat would be acceptable when you factor in his glove. Izturis is on par with Crosby and he's healthy enough to get on the field every day, all season. That right there is a major upgrade over what the A's have had the last two years. Furthermore, Izturis was the better hitter last year. Yes, Crosby posted the higher OPS (by 2 points) but Izturis had the higher OBP (+24 points) and since 1 point of of OBP is greater than 1 point of Slugging... Cesar reigns!
If I have to hear the arguement that the A's can live with Crosby's bat because of his glove than I shouldn't have to hear a bunch of crap when I bring up a better hitter who's as good with the glove and is healthy enough to play a full season.
by grover on Dec 1, 2007 9:25 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
You're really missing a key point here
Players who are at or below replacement level do not accrue additional value for their teams by being healthy. The injury status, or lack thereof, of Nick Blasi had no bearing on the performance of the A's this last season. Similarly, the injury status, or lack thereof, of Crosby has no bearing on the performance of the A's next season.
As for the OPS thing, it's not park-and-league-adjusted. Izturis had an EqA (which IS adjusted for park and league, and uses linear weights to give each component of offense its true value, unlike slugging percentage or raw OPS) of about .212 last season. (I say "about" because he was traded midseason and BPro doesn't have a "full season" mark.) Crosby's was .219.
EqA is unquestionably more favorable than OPS to Castillo-esque high-OBP-low-SLG guys. And Izturis isn't even close to Crosby by that measure. His career mark is 20 points lower.
by PaulThomas on Dec 1, 2007 11:02 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
We're all missing key points
Mainly having a good defensive SS all year helps prevent runs, which is good for the pitching staff.
Crosby sucks, not because he can't hit but because he can't play more than half a season. If we are willing to accept an offensively challenged SS for the sake of run prevention then we should demand a guy who can be there all the time. Having Crosby play half a year and then slipping the defensively challenged Scutaro or Murphy in his place defeats the plan.
(Murphy came up a 2B, could he step up and handle SS for an extended period? Could he grow into the role? I don't know but I've already said I'd love to see him get a shot at the job to find out.)
As for Cesar's bat, I forgot to check Chicagos park factor. I knew Pittsburgh wasn't a good place to hit and that was his last stop... just slipped my mind. That can happen when I'm jumping threads.
by grover on Dec 1, 2007 11:29 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Murphy's not that defensively challenged
His fielding numbers from last year (small sample size alert!) were basically identical to Crosby's.
As I've said, Crosby's durability (or lack thereof) is of no real consequence when he's playing at such a low level. You don't want to get a guy where it's like "well, he sucks, but at least he shows up for work every day." There's a two-word phrase for such a guy: "Jason Kendall." The only thing a player like that does is inhibit the process of finding his own replacement.
by PaulThomas on Dec 1, 2007 11:38 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
wait: I'm confused
Sucky Healthy Player inhibits the process of finding his own replacement, and Sucky Injured Player doesn't need to be replaced?
When does one actually replace a sucky player, then?
(I'm not entirely in grover's camp on this one. Though I'm sympathetic to his point, I think he's hitting an oaktoon groove in this argument.)
by monkeyball on Dec 1, 2007 11:52 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Uh.....
sucky player never gets replaced by equally sucky free agent player healthy or otherwise. What doesn't make any shred of sense is simultaneously complaining that a guy sucks and should be replaced and also complaining that he gets hurt and thereby can't contribute on the field.
Izturis is no more relevant to Crosby needing to be replaced than that dental robot is.
by mikeA on Dec 1, 2007 12:01 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Making sense
It's pretty simple.
Crosby needs to be replaced.
If he's not going to be replaced then he needs to play. He's the best defensive SS the A's have.
The third option, Crosby sits on his broke ass, is the most common yet least satisfying scenario.
by grover on Dec 1, 2007 12:09 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Go stuff your tail up your pooper, ape
I admit Crosby is a thorn in my side and that my arguements for his removal aren't entirely objective. But I can acknowledge that fact which puts me worlds apart from oaktoon.
by grover on Dec 1, 2007 12:03 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Say what?
Sucky Injured Player absolutely needs to be replaced. He sucks.
Like I said, I'd waive Crosby tomorrow if I was the A's GM. If he clears, let him resurrect his career in AAA.
by PaulThomas on Dec 1, 2007 12:27 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Murphy's spent most of his career at 2B
The scouting reports I've seen, some going back to 2005, all say the same thing: solid range for 2B but iffy for a SS. Some of that can be masked by positioning, which comes with experince.
When the data size is small, I tend to trust the scouts.
I disagree with the Crosby statement, mainly the mentality that there's no real consequence when he goes down. The A's built their roster with the idea of having an above average defensive SS. Take that away, replace him with a below average defender, and you need more than a marginal upgrade on offense to counter the loss. Now your pitchers aren't getting the outs they expected, so they have to throw more pitches with runners on base. The harder your SP works, the quicker you end up going to the bullpen.
Not to mention the other team scores more runs, which is never a good thing.
by grover on Dec 1, 2007 12:00 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Murphy has the rocket arm though
The weaker range is going to be partially offset by a decreased number of infield hits to him. And if we're going with subjective reasoning here, there's nothing more infuriating to a pitcher (apart from an obvious error) than an infield hit.
Then there's always the "Sign Bonds, move Buck to shortstop" option...
I do think that if the A's go the rebuilding route, they should attempt to trade Street for Lillibridge (and hopefully squeeze out a single-A arm as well). Atlanta needs a closer, and they have middle infielders out the wazoo.
by PaulThomas on Dec 1, 2007 12:34 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I was just talking about his range
His arm's good enough for 3B and he has solid hands. And I mean that in the good way, not as in hands of stone.
by grover on Dec 1, 2007 12:51 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Grover, if you want "competition" for Crosby...
And we're going to rebuild anyways...
Why not try to get Hu from the Dodgers as part of the inevitable Blanton/Haren deal?
by Zonis on Nov 30, 2007 2:56 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Which would have been easier
Signing Izturis or trading for Hu?
I'd certainly want Hu if the A's make a deal with the Dodgers.
by grover on Nov 30, 2007 3:15 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I'd just rather try to get someone who is good
or has the potential to be good, rather than sign someone I know who sucks.
by Zonis on Nov 30, 2007 3:39 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Me too
As long as we agree that Crosby should not be the starting SS.
by grover on Nov 30, 2007 3:55 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I for one don't mind Crosby in the lineup, as
long as the lineup is balanced enough for Crosby to bat 8th, he could hit .250-.260 and drive in 40-50 runs. I think that is Billy Beanes feeling as well, but we haven't had the offensive balance, just been offensive.
by theblackpearl on Nov 30, 2007 4:03 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Crosby in the line-up
Just getting him in the line-up for a full season would be an accomplishment.
by grover on Nov 30, 2007 4:07 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I think we are using
the words "awesome addition" a little too liberally here. Hold on, lemme check my calender... oh wait, it is 2007, not 2003.
by SoCal As Fan on Nov 30, 2007 4:05 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I was with grover for a while on this,
but now he has appeared to drop the "Ghandi" idea entirely. Ghandi could probably convince the rest of the lineup to "walk a mile in his shoes," which if you add it up gives you a pretty awesome team OBP.
by Nico on Nov 30, 2007 6:28 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I had to let Ghandi go
He hired an agent.
by grover on Nov 30, 2007 6:32 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Oh God -
<loses faith in faith itself>
by Nico on Nov 30, 2007 7:27 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
You might want to sit down for this
by grover on Nov 30, 2007 7:36 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Worse than Boras???
Who??? Oh, Cesar Izturis.
by Nico on Nov 30, 2007 8:03 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Gandhi
not Ghandi
by oblique on Dec 1, 2007 8:09 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
That's probably why he hired the agent
by grover on Dec 1, 2007 8:58 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Izturis isn't good...
His defense is highly overrated, he has speed, but it doesn't really mean anything when your OBP is less than .300, not to mention a .334 career slugging percentage!
He might be the only SS I would consider much worse than Eckstein.
Izturis's highest WARP3 (Yes I know, a controversial stat) was only 3.9. And that was in 2004, which was also Crosby's best year, where he put up a 6.7 WARP3.
2.85 million for Izturis is a complete waste of money...Scutaro is better than Izzy.
by Travis Buck Nuckin on Nov 30, 2007 10:51 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Overrated defense
Izturis's defense is as good as Crosby's. Crosby's defense was better than Scoot's.
Izturis hit OK in 2004. He tore up his elbow in 2005 and was swinging the bat with 1 arm. He missed most of 2006 while recovering from elbow surgery. Last year he spent most of his time on the bench, never getting consistent at bats. He struggled. The last time Izturis was healthy and given consistent at bats was 2004 and he did OK in that situation. That is exactly the type of opportunity he'll be getting in St. Louis.
And if you want to see a real complete waste of money, buy some early season tickets to an A's game and watch our $3.5 million SS in action.
by grover on Nov 30, 2007 11:14 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
If you look at Izturis
splits in 2004, he had one insane (for him) month in 2004. He had an 848 OPS, 123 OPS+, in July.
His month by month OPS+ in 2004, from April: 101, 84, 72, 123, 70, 78.
He, like Crosby, has been living off the memories of one good short spurt in which he got lucky.
by rfloh on Dec 1, 2007 12:33 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I did look at his splits in 2004
I also looked at his 2005 splits. He had an OPS+ of 112 in April and 126 in May. He then tore up his elbow and tried to play through the injury.
So 4 of the last 8 healthy months he had as a regular were average or better. That's why I think if you put him in the line-up and leave him alone he'll hit better than everyone is expecting.
by grover on Dec 1, 2007 12:43 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
It's kind of odd...
...I've kinda looked into the splits and such, and found that Bobby Crosby probably has one of the lowest BABIP I've seen: .275
Scutaro has a .284
Izturis has a .284
Neifi Perez has a .284
Chavez has a .285
Billy Beane during career had a .288
(For shits and giggles) Bonds has a .285
(Also for shits and giggles) Omar Vizquel has a .295
I've spent a little while trying to find one single player with a lower BABIP than Crosby, and the lowest I've found besides Crosby's .275 is .284 (which is a common BABIP for some reason).
I know that hitters have slightly more "control" over their BABIP than pitchers do...
But why the hell is Crosby's BABIP lower than EVERYONE'S in the league?? Most Crosby haters will probably say his BABIP is low "because he sucks".
hmm
interesting...
by Travis Buck Nuckin on Dec 1, 2007 1:05 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The fact is that for hitters
BABIP IS clearly a skill.
Look at Miguel Cabrera's career BABIP. An eye-popping 354.
Ichiro!: 357
Jim Thome: 326
by rfloh on Dec 1, 2007 1:16 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
well...
...Pierre has a .318, and he is a horrible baseball player.
Hanley Ramirez is very good, and has a .348
Cust had a .347 (which makes me concerned that he won't repeat his .900+OPS next year).
I think Jeter has the highest: 361! (I hate that bastard too, I'm sure the baseball Gods have something to do with this insanely high BABIP < / sarcasm > )
I guess BABIP is still a hard to judge stat just like AVG, because it doesn't tell you if you just are slapping the ball around like Pierre, or smashing the cover off like Cust.
by Travis Buck Nuckin on Dec 1, 2007 2:17 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
All depends on his LD skills
He had a sick 23.2% this year, 7th in baseball. If he can keep that up than his babip will be fine.
He also had a 31.7% HR/FB ratio to lead baseball, which is crazy. Really, really crazy. How was someone like this in the minor leagues forever?
by awesomer on Dec 1, 2007 7:15 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Well I said it's A skill
I didn't say that it is the ONLY skill. Pierre other skills are pathetic.
If you want to tell whether a player is murdering the ball, like Cust, McGwire, Thome, Ryan Howard, Bonds, Sosa, BJ Upton, use on contact numbers. Specifically on contact slugging.
by rfloh on Dec 1, 2007 12:09 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I've wondered that too
Look up Dan Johnson - His career BABIP is like .250. There's some essential hitting skill that the A's are missing.
by MrIncognito on Dec 1, 2007 8:29 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I've figured out why DJ's BABIP is so low
I think, anyway. It's a combination of being a dead pull hitter (so more balls are fielded by the defense because they can put the shift on him), being a left-hander (so that when he pulls the ball, it goes to the first-base side of the infield) and having the approximate baserunning speed of ketchup when poured from a bottle.
Basically DJ NEVER gets hits on ground balls. It's pretty much line drive or bust for him, apart from the occasional lucky fly ball and home run.
by PaulThomas on Dec 1, 2007 11:15 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Well, if I can't say he sucks...
How about... he's in a career long slump.
by grover on Dec 1, 2007 8:58 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
My guess about Crosby's BABIP
is that it's partly a result of how easy he is to get out in front on offspeed stuff. This results in pop-ups, which are a type of hit that rarely finds anything but a glove. Crosby hits few line drives but also hits few sharp grounders. Not good for BABIP, methinks.
by Nico on Dec 1, 2007 9:27 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Breakdown of Crosby's balls in play
LD%: 19.8%
GB%: 48.1%
FB%: 32.2%
Popup%: 5.7%
His popups are high, but not so high that they're causing him to have a low BABIP. He had almost no popups in 2006 and still had a horrible BABIP. His line drive percentage is normal. His home runs per fly ball is not great, but not atrocious, certainly not the cause of this. He's a fairly fast runner, and gets a decent number of infield hits.
I'm kind of mystified. If I had to stake a guess, I'd pin it on his non-homer, non-infield fly balls and say he's sending too many cans of corn to the outfielders. He certainly didn't hit very many doubles at all in the past few years, which may be indicative of a lot of OUTFIELD pop-ups. It's not swinging under the ball, because there's no way you hit almost 50% grounders by swinging under the ball.
by PaulThomas on Dec 1, 2007 11:33 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I think you're both right there
lots of pop ups in effect that get recorded as fly balls by whoever records such things.
by mikeA on Dec 1, 2007 11:41 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
But also
"he sucks" or "he never hits the ball hard" are as good answers as any.
by mikeA on Dec 1, 2007 11:43 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yes.
His on contact BA in 2007: 289
On contact SLG in 2007: 415.
On contact BA in 2006: 290
on contact SLG in 2006: 421
Those are pathetic on contact numbers.
Some comparisons:
Cust: 437 BA, 861 SLG on contact, this year.
Jim Thome, 401 BA, 805 SLG, on contact career.
Mark McGwire, 354 BA, 791 SLG on contact career.
Sammy Sosa, 379 BA, 722 SLG on contact career.
Bonds, 353 BA, 719 on contact career.
Neifi Perez: 296 BA, 415 SLG on contact career.
Basically, the last 2 years, our beloved Crosby has been hitting the ball as hard as Saint Neifi.
by rfloh on Dec 1, 2007 12:22 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
if you're rolling over on the ball, you do
Basically, the problem (if I may add yet another diagnosis) is that Crosby's bat doesn't take a direct route to and through the ball.
by monkeyball on Dec 1, 2007 11:56 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
How can his bat take a direct route
when his head doesn't know where the ball is?
by grover on Dec 1, 2007 12:04 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
How can you know where the ball is
when you're farther from home plate than the pitcher is?
by Nico on Dec 1, 2007 12:46 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Rolling over the ball
means you're hitting the top of the ball, not the bottom, as would be the case if you're swinging under the ball.
I'm going to take a look at his hit charts. If he's got a lot of grounders to short and flies to right, that's a sign of bad contact.
by PaulThomas on Dec 1, 2007 12:44 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Damn
No pattern on his hit chart.
Apparently Crosby just has a unique capacity for suckitude.
by PaulThomas on Dec 1, 2007 12:51 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I think ultimately, all 5 of us
(me, PT, grover, MikeA, Monkeyball) agree. The problem is that Crosby is off-balanced when he makes contact - whether that's because his swing is flawed in and of itself, or that he is easily made off-balanced by the pitcher, or (as I believe) both, Crosby simply doesn't do the single most important thing for a hitter to do and that is to have his body and bat in optimal balance through his swing as he makes contact. That's a recipe for suckitude, and the chart is essentially saying, "Yeah he usually gets out."
by Nico on Dec 1, 2007 1:02 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
If anything, it's encouraging
Serious, pronounced patterns are typically unfixable. In the case of Crosby, it seems clear that the issue is his plate approach and positioning. I just wish the team would fix that at AAA rather than attempting to fix it at the major league level.
by PaulThomas on Dec 1, 2007 6:15 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
AAA: One A for every foot
Crosby stands from home plate!
by Nico on Dec 1, 2007 8:08 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Izturis would be nice
for me to poop on.
by awesomer on Dec 1, 2007 7:04 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Once again
Triumph has succintly captured my thoughts. That little dog should run for President.
by BlameChannel53 on Dec 1, 2007 8:33 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
150 comments for a Crosby vs. Izturis debate.
Pretty sad, guys. We need some real baseball news.
by Philip Christy on Dec 2, 2007 10:23 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
All coming down to this:
Is ABC (Anyone But Crosby) better than Crosby? The answer: Actually, not necessarily.
by Nico on Dec 2, 2007 10:41 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah...
...this is like debating whether or not we'd rather step in dog shit or cat shit...
by Travis Buck Nuckin on Dec 2, 2007 2:14 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
grover thinks we should step in both!
by monkeyball on Dec 2, 2007 3:49 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
No, grover thinks we should get
cat shit to make dog shit realize it has, er, comp(ost)etition for the title of most qualified, uh, man(ure).
by Nico on Dec 2, 2007 9:08 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The sad part is...
with the Winter meetings upon us we are going to get some news...and I doubt it's going to be news that a lot of us like.
by IM4Oakgal on Dec 2, 2007 7:14 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Don't waste money is key
I just think this, unless we're getting a major upgrade on a shortshop who has decent or better defense and 800+ ops, there's NO reason to replace crosby currently. Doesn't matter if it's free agent, rule 5, trade/etc. It's not worth wasting the money to get someone who will do just as badly. And izturis is in the category of just as bad. Hell, we what really need is Arod to come and play short for us, j/k ;)
by tomoyo on Dec 2, 2007 5:30 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
