Why Bobby Crosby is about to start sucking again ... if he hasn't already
by monkeyball on May 2, 2008 2:58 PM PDT
37 comments
... or, a little story illustrating small sample size.
With last night's 2/5, Bobby Crosby's OPS slipped back up over .700 for the season. To .702.
That's not real good, folks.
And it promises to get worse.
Here's Crosby's OPS for the last 10 games: .827, .799, .793, .775, .788, .758, .736, .710, .692, .702.
Sense a trend there?
OK, to be fair, maybe Bobby's on a cold streak -- just as he was on a hot streak earlier in April.
But a closer look at Crosby's splits (whether you prefer the numbers sliced, diced, or mashed with a spork) indicates that, despite what looked like a promising start to the season (with Crosby appearing to be positioned closer to the plate and avoiding the sweet gooey temptation of lunging at sliders away), this isn't some more rational, calculating pod-Bobby, but the same ol' Cros we know and ... well, "loathe" is a strong word that I'll leave for others to endorse.
BABIP, LD/GB/FB%, L/R splits
Crosby's not hitting more line drives this year. He's not hitting right-handers better. He's not working more walks off of right-handers.
Basically, he's had outstanding success against a small handful of mediocre left-handed relief pitchers.
His line drive/groundball/flyball percentages (all purty pickchers courtesy of the most useful frikkin' baseball website in teh Internets) are basically in line with his career trend lines:
Basically Crosby has generated a small sample of unsustainable success against lefties. 2008 L/R OPS splits: .933 vs lefties, .616 vs. righties. For his career (and this came as a bit of a surprise to me), Crosby essentially has no platoon advantage: .710 vs lefties, .697 vs. righties. (Now, that should be qualified: if you look at his Y/Y splits, he oscillates pretty wildly, sometimes crushing lefties, sometimes crushing righties. I think this could be explained in part by his injuries -- from reducing his sample size to where fluctuations appear magnified, and from playing hurt and adjusting his approach -- but more so by the simple fact that Crosby is an inconsistent batter, both in his results and his approach.) Crosby's L/R OPS splits:
And here's Crosby's walk-rate L/R splits:
... and his BABIP L/R splits:
All those blue lines pointing way up high? Those are Bobby's 2008 success agsinst lefties.
Let's look a little more closely (albeit with far less statistical significance) at the specific left-handed starters Crosby has faced this year (2008 numbers; career numbers): Lester (1/3, 2B; 0/2); Sabathia (2/5; 3/12); Lee (0/5; 1/10); Buehrle (1/3; 2/15); Danks (0/3; 2/3); Liriano (0/0, BB; 0/1); Bedard (1/2, 2B; 2/9); Saunders (0/3; NA). Crosby's overall H/AB vs. LHSPs? 5/24. (Caveat: I generated all these numbers with a hand tally going through the A's schedule to date. Please correct me if I'm wrong with any of these.)
Hunh. That ain't so good. How'd he ...
Well, let's see. If he's 10/31 overall against lefties this year ... and 5/24 against lefty starters ... against lefty non-starters ... he's 5/7.
Takeaway: he's done most of his damage against left-handed ... relievers. Which means a lot of 1/1s, 1/2s, 2/2s. Which also means (given that few closers are left-handed, and that if Crosby were up in what the opposing manager deemed a high-leverage situation, he'd likely have been facing a right-handed reliever) that the LH relievers he has seen and pounded have been LOOGYs, middle relievers, and long men -- in other words, mostly bad pitchers who were left in to mop up, and/or guys with really bad platoon splits against right-handed batters.
What's more, eyewitness evidence clearly shows that Crosby has, over the course of the season, crept further and further away from the plate. I can't even begin to speculate on the cause of this (continental drift?), because from the games I've seen, it's not as if Crosby's been getting busted inside especially heavily. (In other words, I don't think this is a case of "the league adjusting to Crosby's adjustment": I think Bobby made an intentional offseason/spring training adjustment, went on a [perhaps coincident] tear for a week, and has since both reverted to his old stance through lack of concentration, and [perhaps not so coincidentally] regressed to his career mean performance level.)
In sum, Crosby has inflated his 2008 stats against a handful of crappy left-handed relievers. Five hits. Seven ABs.
The more Crosby plays, the more his stat line is going to fall into his career trendline. Which ain't good.
0 recs |
37 comments
Email
Print
Comments
confirmed watching the games
BoCro has been standing farther away from the plate, and lunging out (and missing) pitches on the outside. Except for his more open stance he looks much like past years.
Time to look at some more videos and listen to what people are saying again, “Bones”...
by OaklandSi on May 2, 2008 3:04 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
In the pic JLAFF has, Bobby seems right on top of the plate, maybe camera angle.
by theblackpearl on May 2, 2008 3:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I was referring to all his plate appearances
on Monday and Tuesday night. Since I didn’t see Wednesday’s or Thursday’s game, it’s possible that he did stand more closely during the at bat in JLaff’s photo. (Sorry, I should have been more specific.)
by OaklandSi on May 2, 2008 3:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thursday, I bitched at him
cause he was standing way far from the plate.
My wife told me to stop bitching and try to enjoy the game.
by MobiusKlein on May 2, 2008 6:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's easy, Bobby...
Scoot up scoot up scoot up!
Either that or rip the damn plate out of the ground and pull it closer to you!
"You have to have a catcher or you'll have all passed balls."- Casey Stengel
by Gaijin_Suketto on May 2, 2008 6:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not one to defend Bobby Crosby ...
but it’s easy to pull out “non-representative” samples from a single player to show that their overall stats aren’t that meaningful. We should remember, though, that every batter faces crappy pitchers and sees their stat line benefit from it. While it may be more meaningful to compare hitters performance against starters/top 4 relievers, unless you calculate that split for all players, doing it for a single player is meaningless, because you don’t know what that is relative to.
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
by devo on May 2, 2008 3:10 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
perhaps I oversold the LOOGYS SUXXORZ! angle
And you are absolutely right about arbitrary good/bad pitcher splits.
My overall point (which I think I lost the throughline on in the middle of the piece) is that not only is the overall sample of Crosby’s 08 perf to date small, but that the effects of his out-of-line-with-career-numbers elements were exerting a disproportionate weight on his overall numbers, and will likely decline and definitely will exert less influence over his overall numbers.
And what did we do once we discovered a rift in the fourth dimension? We launched a monkey into it. @('.')@
by monkeyball on May 2, 2008 3:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Fair'nuff ...
But here are some graphs that give us reason for optimisim:
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
by devo on May 2, 2008 3:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I've argued this before
but the problem with Crosby is not that he strikes out too much, or that he doesn’t walk enough. He’s pretty average in those categories, maybe a little below but not markedly so.
The problem is that he is really, really bad when he makes contact with pitches.
I wrote this over the winter:
I’m confounded, I really am. Crosby’s batted-ball numbers look like Derek Jeter’s. And yet he has a BABIP of .254. His OCSlg is absolutely putrid—despite his considerable power, when he makes contact with the ball, he looks like Juan Pierre.
His slugging percentage on contact this season is .444. His BABIP is .289. Both marginal upward regressions to the mean, accounting for his slight increase in success at the plate—yet both remain well below where they need to be for him to be a good hitter. The only hitters who can succeed with those kind of numbers are Reggie Willits-like freaks who never strike out, and Crosby is emphatically not that kind of hitter.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on May 2, 2008 3:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I know ... you're work in this regard has been quite illuminative ...
but striking out less (assuming he makes fewer outs because of it) is a good thing—and while his contact may suck, it’s better than not making contact at all.
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
by devo on May 2, 2008 4:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
True
and his contact quality last year was probably unusually bad even for him… hence the regression to the mean.
Last year he was a sub-replacement level player. I don’t think he’s that bad—I think he’s in the fringe between replacement level and average. So far this year, he’s been average… so I expect him to drop off somewhat more, but not all the way to 2006-2007 levels.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on May 2, 2008 4:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
here, here
Let’s boil it down. OK??
He wasn’t much good last year.
Or the year before.
The year before that he showed signs of brilliance in one 2 year period.
He is walking more so far this year.
He hasn’t been fully heathy since his rookie season.
Hitters do “leap” to another level of production—often times in their 3rd or 4th full season in the bigs. I’d argue that, given the injuries, this would be the candidate year for a Crosby “leap”. Which may never occur.
They’ve played all of 30 games this year—and that’s way too few to make any conclusions, including the more optimistic one I hinted at about ten days or so ago.
And guess what? A Lot of righties feast on lousy left hand relievers. What else is new??
by madmongoose on May 2, 2008 3:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
1 two month period, i meant
would that it could have been two years
by madmongoose on May 2, 2008 3:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Okay, now do one for Emil Brown showing that he's not going to keep up his 1.200 OPS with RISP
We’re equal opportunity hating, right? :D
by mikev on May 2, 2008 3:12 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
my other takeway from all those graphs ...
Crosby ain’t quite as bad as ‘07—but his overall career trendline (insofar as you can draw conclusions from it, as short as it is) has him declining to where he is that bad pretty soon.
And what did we do once we discovered a rift in the fourth dimension? We launched a monkey into it. @('.')@
by monkeyball on May 2, 2008 3:22 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Sorry, monkeyball
but this is the kind of statistical pseudo-analysis that I loathe. You can “prove” just about anything you want this way: start with what is a small amount of data to begin with (1 month of at-bats), “slice and dice” it into tinier parts (by month, or by pitcher handedness, or whatever), and (here’s the tricky part) finally dismiss the parts that don’t support your predetermined conclusion as an unsustainable fluke while grasping on to the ones that do as a meaningful sign of what’s to come.
It’s perfectly reasonable to be a Crosby doubter (or even hater) because of the observational evidence that he’s moved further from the plate again, or because his major league track record as a whole indicates that he’s just not a very good hitter (ZiPS had him at .240/.305/.353), but the statistical dissection and trendreading presented here is just worthless.
"Tomorrow it may rain." - Leo Durocher
by andeux on May 2, 2008 3:33 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I read it more in terms of
Crosby sucking like 06-07 being the baseline, and the stuff here is just suggesting that his performance so far ought not do much of anything to move us off that baseline expectation, which seems fine to me if not particularly enlightening.
The A's colors are green and gold.
by mikeA on May 2, 2008 3:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
ie
it’s not “Crosby sucks: just look at these graphs and breakdowns that prove it.” It’s, “there’s no reason to think that he’s now a .700 OPS player instead of a .650 OPS player based on what’s happened so far,” or “there is no indication of real improvement.”
The A's colors are green and gold.
by mikeA on May 2, 2008 3:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The problems with that
1. As PaulThomas points out above (despite being a card-carrying member of the BrotherHood of Bobby Crosby Doubters himself), those exact same stats actually indicate that Crosby should be getting better results than he has over the past couple of years. For example PrOPS (a projection system based on batted-ball type) predicts an OPS right around .730 for both last year and this one. So improved results without improved peripherals is not only possible, but, depending on how much faith you put in predictions based on batted-ball type, maybe even likely. This isn’t something outlandish like Todd Linden’s spring training, where something like 75% of the balls he put in play became hits.
2. The difference between a .700 OPS player and a .650 OPS player over one month is going to be lost in the noise anyway, and not really worth mentioning.
I should also add that “sucks” is a relative term. Crosby’s actual offensive performance for the month, mediocre as it is, is exactly middle of the pack among qualified AL shortstops, and closer to the ones just above him than to the ones just below.
"Tomorrow it may rain." - Leo Durocher
by andeux on May 2, 2008 4:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The "sucks" was referring to 2006-2007; I'm perfectly pleased with his performance so far
Other points taken.
The A's colors are green and gold.
by mikeA on May 2, 2008 4:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The pretty pickchurs
would be more illustrative if 2003 were omitted. It’s obviously a partial season with only a handful of ABs. Including it just adds a confusing line to the left which doesn’t reflect anything significant but distracts from the trends shown in the other years.
formerly known as mdl
by iglew on May 2, 2008 3:37 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
what if this "trend" were just crosby's OPS in waves???
Specifically that of a cosine wave? We could use the formula for a cosine wave: cos(x) = sin(x + π / 2) to map out Croz’s pattern. gathered Crosby’s Long Beach State report card and learned that he was at the top of his class in Trigonometry his freshman year. Croz will rise again!!!
by stever4a's on May 2, 2008 3:48 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
that would mean that his OPS numbers will be...
827, .799, .793, .775, .788, .758, .736, .710, .692, .702., .692, .710., .736, .758, .788, .775, .793, .799, .827 and then 799, .793, .775, .788, .758, .736, .710, .692. Remember Bobby C. is a machine, a hitting machine! or a picking machine?
by stever4a's on May 2, 2008 3:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
My name is grover
and I approve the use of “loathe” when discussing Bobby Crosby.
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on May 2, 2008 4:45 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Let's just say I've never look forward to him at the plate
He grounds out a lot, or strikes out. He is so predictable. I would much rather have Scoot who had the ability to come through in clutch, hitting situations. Bobby is a bore and I am glad he is batting in the back-end of the lineup.
by butler19 on May 2, 2008 4:50 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
so is this who Crosby is?
a good defensive shortstop with no more than average offensive skills for his position?
by OaklandSi on May 2, 2008 4:51 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I think "good" probably overstates the case ...
I think “above average” would generally be more accurate.
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
by devo on May 2, 2008 5:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
yes
except decent defensive shortstop is closer
"The two of them deserve each other. One's a born liar, the other's convicted."
by SwampyD on May 2, 2008 4:55 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Nothing about Crosby
But the Mariners have 4 errors tonight, and they are only in the 3rd. Probably need to see what LL is up to.
Might as well Jump! - Van Halen
by sprtsnwyn on May 2, 2008 5:21 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
see what LL is up to
systolic, or diastolic?
And what did we do once we discovered a rift in the fourth dimension? We launched a monkey into it. @('.')@
by monkeyball on May 2, 2008 5:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
When Billy Joel wrote the line "Two men out and three men on"
I don’t think he was referring to blood pressure.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on May 2, 2008 5:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Lat night when he was up with the bases loaded and no outs
The Angel fan next to me was worried he was going to hit a grand slam. I said, “Don’t worry, he will K” And he did.
She said, “Good Guess”, I said, “he’s hitting .001 for the last 10 days”
by Trainman on May 2, 2008 6:39 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Not this bullshit again
This cat has been consistently hurt. He seems to be staying healthy now so just let him play and stop over analyzing everything thing he does in the first month of the season. He’s a quality player that just needs some consistent playing time. Anyone thats ever played the game understands how hard it is to play this game when healthy. Let alone not being able to get into a rhythm because your hurt.
by sactownbull on May 2, 2008 7:59 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
This argument makes no sense to me
He was fully healthy—and utterly godawful—for the first 4 months of last season. He barely missed a game from May to his injury.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on May 2, 2008 11:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You think Crosby was reading this today?
2 ropes to the left. Or did he just get lucky against a RHP?
by asfansince1989 on May 2, 2008 8:56 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I didn't see the whole game, but I saw one of those ropes, and I thought
he laid off a couple of outside pitches, and seemed to have a go with the pitch thought in his mind (hoping, hoping). Then the pitcher missed the target on the outside corner, leaving the pitch on the inside half of the plate and he really ripped it. I didn’t think it was lucky.
by alamedaman on May 3, 2008 12:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I have seen at bats where he is slightly closer to the plate,
and he does seem to have more of a thought about going to right field with the outside pitch. It’s not 100% consistent, but I’ve been very negative on him for the last few years, and I have some hope right now. I may be seeing what I want to believe, but I’m somewhat hopeful.
by alamedaman on May 3, 2008 12:39 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Athletics Nation
Related FanShots on Athletics Nation
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.
