Interest in Carl Crawford?

[SweetZombieJesus]

Who said that about Crawford? How likely is it that a guy who hits the ball on the ground as much as Crawford does hits 40 home runs? Is he suddenly going to hit more balls in the air? His swing doesn't look conducive to it. Are 25% of his flyballs going to turn into home runs when the major league average is (last I saw, maybe someone else can find more authoritative numbers) was 9-11%? The only guy I can find who hits the ball on the ground at least that much and had an Isolated Power over .190 more than once is good 'ol Jacque Jones.

 

There are guys who hit a decent amount of groundballs and hit home runs, but they're not good comparisons to Crawford. Matt Holliday - he plays in Coors. Jack Cust this year - something's got to give. 34% of Cust's flyballs were home runs this year, that's not going to happen again. But Cust is a big, muscular guy, I wouldn't compare him to Crawford. If Crawford fills out like Cust he isn't going to be stealing any bases. Vlad Guerrero hit a lot of groundballs and home runs in 2007 - Vlad is a freak. Crawford is not Vlad. Does Crawford have any hope of generating the kind of sheer power and torque Guerrero does with his swings? No way.

 

I just don't see it. Hitting the ball on the ground benefits Crawford's speed. If he hits fewer balls on the ground his home runs may increase but then his batting average and OBP would likely drop. I don't see where he's going to reach this fantasy scenario where he's hitting .320 with 40 home runs and so and so steals.

 

I don't see how Crawford would need to do much more filling out. As he's already built a NFL strong safety.

[badnews]

I'm not sure why you singled out that phrase. I just said Crawford is unlikely to do what Cust himself is unlikely to do next year, and Cust did it with the Rob Deer grip-and-rip approach which I doubt would work for Crawford or suit his game at all.

[SweetZombieJesus]

Well, as I said earlier today. Crawford's two of his last three years he's been a guy who hits a ton on the road. The one year he wasn't was a strange year for Tropicana Field (way above its normal Park Effects).

 

Last year he was 342/388/874 on the road now granted that was with a unsustainable BABIP of 411

in 05 he was 314/355/850 with a BABIP in the 335 range.

 

I think getting to a hitters park will do wonders for his career.

 

Now would I give up Hill and Marmol for him. No, I'd give up one of them though

[don_kessinger_was_good]

That quote from earlier that said Hill, Patterson and a prospect? If the prospect is not one of our top 5 guys above A ball, and not one of the players from the recent draft, then I'd pull the trigger. Patterson has no future here and a prospect like Juan Mateo, or Florida's own Ryan Harvey, that's no less.

 

Essentially it would be Hill for Crawford, and while I like Hill, he's older than Zambrano, Prior and Marshall, he has bouts of inconsistency, and he's a pitcher that goes out there once every 5 days. Crawford OTOH is in your lineup everyday, for a team that needs improved offense. I'd do it.

 

Sign Fukudome and then trade Pie with a veteran (say, Dempster) for starting pitching help to replace Hill. An outfield of Soriano, Crawford and Fukudome? Yeah, I'd say that was a pretty good improvement.

[Mephistopheles]

When you said that Carlos Silva was the same as Zambrano over the past 4 years with Fielding Independent Pitching, I didn't say you had no clue what you were talking about. I just pointed out where that didn't appear to be the case.

 

That isn't what I said. I said they've been comparable, which is true. Zambrano's better, but not as much as you'd think. FIP isn't adjusted for league by the way (it should be). Once you get those adjustments in the system: FIP the last three years for Zambrano {3.79, 4.29, 4.58} and Silva's {4.04, 4.87, 4.42}. Zambrano's average the last three years is 4.22 and trending upwards. Silva's average the last three years is 4.44 with no clear trend. .2 runs, that's pretty comparable you know. You see, perhaps I did know what the hell I was talking about. It isn't my fault I see things like that and know their effects.

 

Kotsay's EqA ranged from .264-.290 those years.

 

Okay? He generally put up an OBP driven .285ish EqA in CF with above average defense and a 7 WARP. What's your point? I'm pretty sure that comparison is still the best one out there. Once his PECOTA card comes out, expect Kotsay to be near the top of his comps.

 

Iwamura's slugging was not 85% of his Japanese numbers. Hideki Matsui's slugging doesn't get to 85% of his Japanese numbers and his OBP doesn't get to 93%. The Japanesebaseball.com site lists Johjima's OBP as .360, not within the 93%. And we're just throwing out Kaz Matsui's numbers because we don't like them.

 

Saying the batting average will stay within 96% without taking into account strikeouts seems like it could have problems.

 

Hey oh. I don't have time do go into this now....my NPB <--> MLB translation stuff isn't on this computer. Tomorrow afternoon I may have time run through the data quickly. I do however, have EqA for Japanese players the last few seasons and know that on average the translation of EqA to the US is .93.

 

Hideki Matsui's EqA in Japan routinely was around usually around .330 topping out in the .350 range. That's translated to an average around .305 and a max around .330 in the US. That's what he's been here. Pretty damn accurate translation.

 

Iwamura's EqA in Japan was almost always around .300 and always translated to the .280-.284 range. Guess what his EqA was? .284. Iwamura

 

Kenji's EqA was usually around .290-.295 in Japan with the notable exception of his career mvp season. That translates to the mid .270s....his EqA in the us is .275.

 

For the interested:

 

Fukudome

Year JPB --> MLB

2002 .311 --> .289

2003 .322 --> .299

2004 .305 --> .283

2005 .323 --> .301

2006 .350 --> .326

2007 .317 --> .294

 

For the even more interested, Kazuo Matsui:

1998 .287 --> .267

1999 .295 --> .274

2000 .295 --> .275

2001 .293 --> .273

2002 .316 --> .294

2003 .298 --> .277

 

He's obviously done worse than the translations, but the translations put his Japanese numbers at pretty a uninspiring as it is. The hype was unjustified.

 

For the even more interested, Hideki Matsui (note im using 2007 PF on these and YG's home park was much more of a hitter park relative to the league when he played there, but I did no adjustments there so the translations are a bit high):

 

1998 .316 --> .294

1999 .326 --> .303

2000 .334 --> .311

2001 .332 --> .309

2002 .341 --> .317 Note: 50 HR season

 

His five seasons in the US

2003 .279 - transition season...

2004 .316

2005 .305

2006 .310

2007 .301

 

For all intents and purposes, those are identical. Flat out identical. Now that we know that I, as always, know exactly what I am talking about, we can agree that my comparisons are valid. I mean does Badnews translations account for Fukudome playing in the npb equivalent of yellowstone? Of course not. I mean does Badnews translations take in account that on average hitters have a higher discipline in the US than they did in Japan? Of course not.

 

Simply looking at three or four players to make an accurate gauge on the effect of switching is kinda dumb. You need to look at everything, build similarities, etc. It's not an easy task. The quick and dirty JEqA*.93 = MLBEQA is the best simple gauge.

[RynoRules]

The more I look at the numbers, the more Hill for Crawford straight-up seems like a fair deal. Hill would be the best pitcher on that team not named Kazmir, no? He'll be 28 (IIRC) this year, has been healthy through out his career and has a very good K/BB ratio. I don't think I 'd give up more than Hill to get Carl.

 

Please listen, Jim. Don't make this Pierre Part II.

[nilodnayr]

The more I look at the numbers, the more Hill for Crawford straight-up seems like a fair deal. Hill would be the best pitcher on that team not named Kazmir, no? He'll be 28 (IIRC) this year, has been healthy through out his career and has a very good K/BB ratio. I don't think I 'd give up more than Hill to get Carl.

 

Please listen, Jim. Don't make this Pierre Part II.

 

When you adjust for league, Shields had a better season last year than Hill.

[TheDude]

Please listen, Jim. Don't make this Pierre Part II.

 

Wow! So now Carl Crawford is Juan Pierre? This is absurd. I'm honestly baffled at the response on this message board to the Cubs interest in Crawford. The kid is a stud in the making, is only 26, and under contract for several years at below market value.

 

You're talking about a guy who, coming into his 27/28 prime years looks to put up an .850 OPS, 60+ xbh, and 50 SB. Your looking at acquiring a guy for what will likely be his 2 best seasons as a pro. Juan Pierre part II? Did you just forget your smiley or something?

[fromthestretch]

Please listen, Jim. Don't make this Pierre Part II.

 

Wow! So now Carl Crawford is Juan Pierre? This is absurd. I'm honestly baffled at the response on this message board to the Cubs interest in Crawford. The kid is a stud in the making, is only 26, and under contract for several years at below market value.

 

You're talking about a guy who, coming into his 27/28 prime years looks to put up an .850 OPS, 60+ xbh, and 50 SB. Your looking at acquiring a guy for what will likely be his 2 best seasons as a pro. Juan Pierre part II? Did you just forget your smiley or something?

 

No one is comparing Pierre to Crawford. People just don't want the Cubs to trade away the farm to get him.

[Tracer Bullet]

Please listen, Jim. Don't make this Pierre Part II.

 

Wow! So now Carl Crawford is Juan Pierre? This is absurd. I'm honestly baffled at the response on this message board to the Cubs interest in Crawford. The kid is a stud in the making, is only 26, and under contract for several years at below market value.

 

You're talking about a guy who, coming into his 27/28 prime years looks to put up an .850 OPS, 60+ xbh, and 50 SB. Your looking at acquiring a guy for what will likely be his 2 best seasons as a pro. Juan Pierre part II? Did you just forget your smiley or something?

 

Did the point really fly that far over your head? Crawford isn't JP, but Hill, Marmol, & Cedeno aren't Pinto, Nolasco and Mitre either. The comparison is wildly overpaying for a marginal improvement in our team (though you could easily argue that JP wasn't an improvement at all). At least that's how I took it. And I think when you look at JP and what we gave up to get him v. Crawford and what we're rumored to be giving up to get him (at least if it's really Hill, Marmol, Cedeno), I think it's a fair comparison.

[TheDude]

Please listen, Jim. Don't make this Pierre Part II.

 

Wow! So now Carl Crawford is Juan Pierre? This is absurd. I'm honestly baffled at the response on this message board to the Cubs interest in Crawford. The kid is a stud in the making, is only 26, and under contract for several years at below market value.

 

You're talking about a guy who, coming into his 27/28 prime years looks to put up an .850 OPS, 60+ xbh, and 50 SB. Your looking at acquiring a guy for what will likely be his 2 best seasons as a pro. Juan Pierre part II? Did you just forget your smiley or something?

 

Did the point really fly that far over your head? Crawford isn't JP, but Hill, Marmol, & Cedeno aren't Pinto, Nolasco and Mitre either. The comparison is wildly overpaying for a marginal improvement in our team (though you could easily argue that JP wasn't an improvement at all). At least that's how I took it. And I think when you look at JP and what we gave up to get him v. Crawford and what we're rumored to be giving up to get him (at least if it's really Hill, Marmol, Cedeno), I think it's a fair comparison.

 

This board overvalues its prospects tremendously. This is the only place you'll find people thinking of the trade as overpaying. I would like to keep Marmol, and part with Hill, Cedeno, and a different prospect. But the Cubs have more Marmols and Hills coming.

[inari]

No one's overvaluing prospects; we don't want to give up Hill. He's no prospect.

[apete6]

I know this doesn't make any statistical sense, but does anyone think that there would be an impact (positive or negative) of Crawford going from a terrible team playing in an empty stadium in an average media market to the Cubs? Would he "try too hard" and suck for 2 months like JP or would he relish the opportunity and become a better player?

 

Or would it have absolutely no effect because these guys don't care where they play as long as the check clears?

 

P.S., I change my original theory as to giving up any 3 Cubs prospects/young guys for Crawford. I now want to keep Rich Hill. Marmol, Cedeno, and anyone in the minor leagues or Marshall/Gallagher would be great.

[fromthestretch]

This board overvalues its prospects tremendously. This is the only place you'll find people thinking of the trade as overpaying. I would like to keep Marmol, and part with Hill, Cedeno, and a different prospect. But the Cubs have more Marmols and Hills coming.

 

Or perhaps, you attribute too much value to Crawford. But I guess it's easier to blame everyone else on the board.

 

If the Cubs trade Hill, that opens a hole in the rotation. He's a durable starter who has had success at the major league level and still has a few more years before he'll be making big money. That's a valuable player to have. If you're going to include him in a deal for Crawford - trading him to a team that needs and wants inexpensive, effective, young pitching - then you shouldn't have to give up too much more. If you're going to give up a lot for one player, go all out and try to get Cabrera. Crawford is good, but he's not elite.

[TheDude]

No one's overvaluing prospects; we don't want to give up Hill. He's no prospect.

Semantics. How about former prospect, or young talent?

 

For me it comes down to this: the Cubs don't have anyone like Crawford coming in the system. The Cubs have plenty of pitching to try out in the system.

 

This thread shows why the argument that Hendry never sells high is bunk. Anytime the Cubs have a player worth selling high on, the board freaks out.

[TheDude]

If you're going to give up a lot for one player, go all out and try to get Cabrera. Crawford is good, but he's not elite.

 

The Cubs don't have what it takes to get an elite player, only a good player. And why not target a good player coming into his 27-year season?

[Keener98]

No one's overvaluing prospects; we don't want to give up Hill. He's no prospect.

Semantics. How about former prospect, or young talent?

 

For me it comes down to this: the Cubs don't have anyone like Crawford coming in the system. The Cubs have plenty of pitching to try out in the system.

 

This thread shows why the argument that Hendry never sells high is bunk. Anytime the Cubs have a player worth selling high on, the board freaks out.

 

The Cubs have plenty of pitchers in the system, but none of them project to be as good as Rich Hill. When has Hendry ever sold high on a Cubs player or prospect?

[Keener98]

If you're going to give up a lot for one player, go all out and try to get Cabrera. Crawford is good, but he's not elite.

 

The Cubs don't have what it takes to get an elite player, only a good player. And why not target a good player coming into his 27-year season?

 

Because you dont give up 2 of your best pitchers on the team, for only a good player. If you are going to use Marmol and HIll together, then look for an elite player, not just a good one.

[abuck1220]

But the Cubs have more Marmols and Hills coming.

 

that's fantastic news! now that i know the cubs have more guys (that's plural!) that will be in the top 10 in the NL in whip, k/9, h/9, k's, k/bb, i feel much better about the team's future.

[Keener98]

I know this doesn't make any statistical sense, but does anyone think that there would be an impact (positive or negative) of Crawford going from a terrible team playing in an empty stadium in an average media market to the Cubs? Would he "try too hard" and suck for 2 months like JP or would he relish the opportunity and become a better player?

 

Or would it have absolutely no effect because these guys don't care where they play as long as the check clears?

 

P.S., I change my original theory as to giving up any 3 Cubs prospects/young guys for Crawford. I now want to keep Rich Hill. Marmol, Cedeno, and anyone in the minor leagues or Marshall/Gallagher would be great.

 

JP sucked for alot more than just 2 months.

[TheDude]

The Cubs have plenty of pitchers in the system, but none of them project to be as good as Rich Hill. When has Hendry ever sold high on a Cubs player or prospect?

 

The better question is how many opportunities have there actually been? Prior, Zambrano, Hill, and Marmol. What other young talent has come up from the farm and shown 'sell high' value? The list is slim, and if Hendry had moved Pior or Zambrano, or moves Hill or Marmol, it would trigger a wrath-storm.

[Keener98]

But the Cubs have more Marmols and Hills coming.

 

that's fantastic news! now that i know the cubs have more guys (that's plural!) that will be in the top 10 in the NL in whip, k/9, h/9, k's, k/bb, i feel much better about the team's future.

 

No kidding, if the Cubs have more Marmols and Hills coming, then they should trade them for Cabrera, and keep the real Marmol and Hill.

[TruffleShuffle]

But the Cubs have more Marmols and Hills coming.

 

that's fantastic news! now that i know the cubs have more guys (that's plural!) that will be in the top 10 in the NL in whip, k/9, h/9, k's, k/bb, i feel much better about the team's future.

 

yeah the cubs always have more very good players coming up from the minor leagues, until those guys actually get to chicago and it turns out they suck.

[Tedward]

The Cubs have plenty of pitchers in the system, but none of them project to be as good as Rich Hill. When has Hendry ever sold high on a Cubs player or prospect?

 

Bobby Hill and Matt Bruback for Aramis Ramirez

Hee Seop Choi for Derrek Lee

[fromthestretch]

If you're going to give up a lot for one player, go all out and try to get Cabrera. Crawford is good, but he's not elite.

 

The Cubs don't have what it takes to get an elite player, only a good player. And why not target a good player coming into his 27-year season?

 

When did I say the Cubs shouldn't go after Crawford? I just said don't give up too much for him. If you're going to overpay, then overpay for elite talent. If you're going to get good (but not elite) talent, don't overpay.