Coco Crisp

[Rob]

Boston ranked #1 in runs scored four times during Theo's tenure, they never ranked lower than 6 and were 3rd of better every season aside from the 6 ranking. Their rankings for OBP and SLG are pretty much the same. Don't even try to talk nonsense about Theo being obsessed with defenders.

 

Are you responding to me? Because I don't know how a team being good on offense is somehow a rebuttal for "Theo likes players with well rounded skillsets."

 

Let me ask you this, how many one dimensional sluggers can you name that Theo Epstein acquired during his tenure in Boston? David Ortiz might've counted if he ever played the field, but he doesn't... so Victor Martinez, maybe? That year Wily Mo Pena was their 4th OF? The one year deal for Todd Walker in Theo's first offseason?

 

You don't see Theo sign many guys who don't contribute in multiple ways.

 

and yet you are supporting the notion of acquiring coco.

 

your whole post was supporting the notion that theo goes after defensive guys

 

My whole post? What about the part where I blatantly state "Theo likes players with well rounded skillsets." And the next post I made, where I quoted myself saying that. Respond to the point of the whole post... don't just pick out what you think will make for a fun argument. You aren't davearm.

 

I'm only giving the most bare support for a Coco Crisp acquisition possible "if there's room for him on the team and the price is right, there's no reason for him to elicit the negative reaction he's garnered so far." He's just a guy. He walks that fine line between "he's a fantastic 4th OF" and "he's a pretty good stopgap option if we're spending our money elsewhere." I was only pointing out that he fits the description of the type of guy our front office favors.

[Little Slide Rooter]

Boston ranked #1 in runs scored four times during Theo's tenure, they never ranked lower than 6 and were 3rd of better every season aside from the 6 ranking. Their rankings for OBP and SLG are pretty much the same. Don't even try to talk nonsense about Theo being obsessed with defenders.

 

Are you responding to me? Because I don't know how a team being good on offense is somehow a rebuttal for "Theo likes players with well rounded skillsets."

 

Let me ask you this, how many one dimensional sluggers can you name that Theo Epstein acquired during his tenure in Boston? David Ortiz might've counted if he ever played the field, but he doesn't... so Victor Martinez, maybe? That year Wily Mo Pena was their 4th OF? The one year deal for Todd Walker in Theo's first offseason?

 

You don't see Theo sign many guys who don't contribute in multiple ways.

 

and yet you are supporting the notion of acquiring coco.

 

your whole post was supporting the notion that theo goes after defensive guys

 

My whole post? What about the part where I blatantly state "Theo likes players with well rounded skillsets." And the next post I made, where I quoted myself saying that. Respond to the point of the whole post... don't just pick out what you think will make for a fun argument. You aren't davearm.

 

I'm only giving the most bare support for a Coco Crisp acquisition possible "if there's room for him on the team and the price is right, there's no reason for him to elicit the negative reaction he's garnered so far." He's just a guy. He walks that fine line between "he's a fantastic 4th OF" and "he's a pretty good stopgap option if we're spending our money elsewhere." I was only pointing out that he fits the description of the type of guy our front office favors.

 

We're trying to build a winning team. Remember the whole good, young players to help us win now and in the future thing? Just because a guys available, relatively cheap, and not completely God awful doesn't mean we need him. If we could get Cespedes or some young, high ceiling guy then I'm all for railroading Byrd or Soriano, but I really can't justify doing it and replacing them with CoCo Crisp unless we can get something useful for one of them in the form of cash and/or players. At least Soriano and Byrd give us the glimmer of hope that they can put up an OPS in the .800s. Crisp is basically Juan Pierre with a touch of power.

[dew1679666265]

Crisp has a career .275/.330/.406 triple slash line with a wOBA of .327 and a wRC+ of 98. I'd venture to guess that's about average for a CF over his career. Is it good? No. But it's not like he's bad either.

 

He's a slightly less effective David DeJesus with more injury issues. He's not a perfect signing on even a very good one... but if there's room for him on the team and the price is right, there's no reason for him to elicit the negative reaction he's garnered so far.

 

Signing Crisp isn't a negative on its own. But when you consider that this team already has little to no power in the outfield, has only 1/3 of the starting OF get on base at a good clip (DeJesus), and already has Tony Campana to very cheaply fill the great defense/baserunner role and also has DeJesus to provide both decently, going after Crisp seems like a terrible allocation of funds - even if he signs cheaply.

 

Also, that post was in reference to you apparently referring to Crisp as well-rounded, in the same arena as Lowell, Beltre, Gonzalez, etc. When your offensive output can be optimistically described as "Is it good? No. But it's not like it's bad either," then you're not a well-rounded player.

[Rob]

Crisp has a career .275/.330/.406 triple slash line with a wOBA of .327 and a wRC+ of 98. I'd venture to guess that's about average for a CF over his career. Is it good? No. But it's not like he's bad either.

 

He's a slightly less effective David DeJesus with more injury issues. He's not a perfect signing on even a very good one... but if there's room for him on the team and the price is right, there's no reason for him to elicit the negative reaction he's garnered so far.

 

Signing Crisp isn't a negative on its own. But when you consider that this team already has little to no power in the outfield, has only 1/3 of the starting OF get on base at a good clip (DeJesus), and already has Tony Campana to very cheaply fill the great defense/baserunner role and also has DeJesus to provide both decently, going after Crisp seems like a terrible allocation of funds - even if he signs cheaply.

 

Also, that post was in reference to you apparently referring to Crisp as well-rounded, in the same arena as Lowell, Beltre, Gonzalez, etc. When your offensive output can be optimistically described as "Is it good? No. But it's not like it's bad either," then you're not a well-rounded player.

 

Runs are runs. Whether they come from power or stolen bases or defense is immaterial. I'll agree that Crisp isn't really ideal for a bench role, as the pinch runner/defender role can be filled quite adequately by Campana (although Campana makes Crisp look like Babe Ruth at the plate) as well as the fact that Crisp hasn't always been a great clubhouse guy when demoted to the bench. But if one of Soriano/Byrd is shipped off and we've spent the bulk of our money elsewhere (1B/SP), there simply aren't many better OF options in Crisp's price range. You could spend all day debating the relative merits of the Crisp/Damon/Drew/Fukudome/Kubel group.

 

Again, I'm not supporting going hard after Crisp or anything of the sort. I'm just saying he makes some small degree of sense should the Cubs find themselves in a very specific situation that might, but probably wont, occur later this offseason (after trading Soriano/Byrd and with the team near broke after filling some other holes). He's not a player worth getting mad about or excited about.

 

I'm not going to get into a semantic debate about the definition of well-rounded.

[dew1679666265]

Runs are runs. Whether they come from power or stolen bases or defense is immaterial. I'll agree that Crisp isn't really ideal for a bench role, as the pinch runner/defender role can be filled quite adequately by Campana (although Campana makes Crisp look like Babe Ruth at the plate) as well as the fact that Crisp hasn't always been a great clubhouse guy when demoted to the bench. But if one of Soriano/Byrd is shipped off and we've spent the bulk of our money elsewhere (1B/SP), there simply aren't many better OF options in Crisp's price range. You could spend all day debating the relative merits of the Crisp/Damon/Drew/Fukudome/Kubel group.

 

Again, I'm not supporting going hard after Crisp or anything of the sort. I'm just saying he makes some small degree of sense should the Cubs find themselves in a very specific situation that might, but probably wont, occur later this offseason (after trading Soriano/Byrd and with the team near broke after filling some other holes). He's not a player worth getting mad about or excited about.

 

I'm not going to get into a semantic debate about the definition of well-rounded.

 

I'm not angry or anything that we might be going after Crisp, I just don't see a real benefit to it. Unless Theo/Hoyer just really don't like Brett Jackson, it would make far more sense to go with a Jackson/DeJesus/(Soriano/Byrd) OF if we trade Sori/Byrd rather than giving Crisp a few million to probably not be much, if any, better than BJax.

 

Just seems like a really poor allocation of funds, especially if it happens later in the offseason when funds are tight already.

[NoDak]

While this doesn't necessarily give any insight into this potential signing I thought it was unusual. On baseballreference.com the similarity scores for Coco Crisp are:

David DeJesus (960)

Marlon Byrd (952)

 

Both are already on the cubs roster. Again, no real insight, but kind of funny.

[jersey cubs fan]

Runs are runs. Whether they come from power or stolen bases or defense is immaterial.

 

No they aren't. Runs from hitting are real. Runs from defense are theoretical.

[Tracer Bullet]

I don't understand this argument. Why aren't runs prevented, you know, really prevented? Is inability to properly attribute them to specific players?

[Guest]

Runs are runs. Whether they come from power or stolen bases or defense is immaterial.

 

No they aren't. Runs from hitting are real. Runs from defense are theoretical.

 

wat

[Guest]

All runs are theoretical in a predictive sense. Any prediction you attempt to make off of statistics is inherently theoretical (at least, in the way it's being used here...not real would be more apt).

[jersey cubs fan]

I don't understand this argument. Why aren't runs prevented, you know, really prevented? Is inability to properly attribute them to specific players?

 

Because there is nothing resembling a reliable way to measure them.

[mul21]

I don't understand this argument. Why aren't runs prevented, you know, really prevented? Is inability to properly attribute them to specific players?

 

I think the wild inconsistency/inaccuracy of defensive metrics is the issue. Yes, you can generally tell if a guy is preventing/allowing more runs than an average guy might, but quantifying exactly how many is pretty inexact and something I have a problem really putting a ton of value in outside of just generalizing whether a guy is a good, average, or bad defender.

[Guest]

I don't have a problem if people are skeptical of defensive metrics, especially for an individual season or even player. But I don't understand the negativity towards the approach of getting guys who have defensive value. You can argue over the relative value added(although UZR must be the luckiest guesser ever to have WAR be so closely correlated to wins, if this thread is to be believed), but in several cases recently I've seen people out and out dismiss defensive value added/subtracted even when something like UZR wasn't saying anything outrageous. In this case, we have nearly 5 full seasons of Crisp playing CF, and UZR rates him 5 runs above average there. He doesn't even get a huge lift from the baserunning metrics either, he's a career +3 baserunner per 150 games. Are these numbers so outrageous? He's a fast guy who's always been thought of well defensively. But since he doesn't have a huge ISO, he's getting talked way down in this thread. Crisp isn't a one dimensional player. He hits for a decent average, takes an average amount of walks, adds tremendous value on the bases, and is a good defender. He's a 2-3 win player, and would fit in very well to the current OF rotation if one of the current 4 OF were traded. He isn't being rumored for a spot that the masses are targeting for an impact player this year. Indications are thus far that he wouldn't be prohibitively expensive, or require a long term deal. So what's the problem?

[SouthSideRyan]

You don't see diminishing returns by having great defenders play next to each other?

[jersey cubs fan]

I don't have a problem if people are skeptical of defensive metrics, especially for an individual season or even player. But I don't understand the negativity towards the approach of getting guys who have defensive value.

 

I have a problem pretending you know how many runs a guy prevents with his glove, and then pretending a run created = a run prevented. I also have problem with the notion that everybody is very happy to forecast the decline in runs created via the bat with age and then ignoring the decline in 30-something year olds whose defensive value is tied very closely to their legs.

[Guest]

You don't see diminishing returns by having great defenders play next to each other?

 

Do you think the Cubs are really close to that point? Is there a single player on the team that you would say is an elite defender? Maybe Barney? Otherwise the best case is guys like Crisp, DeJesus, Byrd, and Jackson, who aren't going to be Brett Gardner in racking up runs saved. I think there's enough room on the field for those types of marginal improvements to be realized, even across many positions.

[jersey cubs fan]

You don't see diminishing returns by having great defenders play next to each other?

 

Do you think the Cubs are really close to that point? Is there a single player on the team that you would say is an elite defender? Maybe Barney? Otherwise the best case is guys like Crisp, DeJesus, Byrd, and Jackson, who aren't going to be Brett Gardner in racking up runs saved. I think there's enough room on the field for those types of marginal improvements to be realized, even across many positions.

 

There's not enough room in the lineup to justify such paultry production for such marginal defensive improvement.

[Guest]

I don't have a problem if people are skeptical of defensive metrics, especially for an individual season or even player. But I don't understand the negativity towards the approach of getting guys who have defensive value.

 

I have a problem pretending you know how many runs a guy prevents with his glove, and then pretending a run created = a run prevented. I also have problem with the notion that everybody is very happy to forecast the decline in runs created via the bat with age and then ignoring the decline in 30-something year olds whose defensive value is tied very closely to their legs.

 

I know you like to dismiss UZR as magic beans, but you just sound bad for trying to dismiss defensive value in its entirety.

 

Well we're forecasting Crisp for 1-2 years as opposed to 4-5 times as many years for guys like Pujols and Fielder. Obviously there's a risk involved if Crisp can't steal bases any more, but 1) I don't much cause for concern from his recent performance(his frequency and success of stealing bases are at career highs the last 2 years), 2) I don't think he's at all likely to underperform a 1-2 year deal at his probable cost, 3) Any risk is muted since we're talking about having him join a rotation of 4 outfielders, and he's much more a hedge against Jackson and DeJesus than a key cog of the offense.

[SouthSideRyan]

You don't see diminishing returns by having great defenders play next to each other?

 

Do you think the Cubs are really close to that point? Is there a single player on the team that you would say is an elite defender? Maybe Barney? Otherwise the best case is guys like Crisp, DeJesus, Byrd, and Jackson, who aren't going to be Brett Gardner in racking up runs saved. I think there's enough room on the field for those types of marginal improvements to be realized, even across many positions.

 

I'd say Crisp and Dejesus in the corners would be elite.

[Guest]

There's not enough room in the lineup to justify such paultry production for such marginal defensive improvement.

 

He's stolen a base every 10 plate appearances the last two years. His offensive production isn't paltry, especially since we're talking about Crisp replacing Soriano, Byrd, or Jackson, none of whom you can clearly say are going to be more productive offensively. Well, maybe Byrd. Either way the point remains.

[Guest]

I don't have a problem if people are skeptical of defensive metrics, especially for an individual season or even player. But I don't understand the negativity towards the approach of getting guys who have defensive value.

 

I have a problem pretending you know how many runs a guy prevents with his glove, and then pretending a run created = a run prevented. I also have problem with the notion that everybody is very happy to forecast the decline in runs created via the bat with age and then ignoring the decline in 30-something year olds whose defensive value is tied very closely to their legs.

 

I know you like to dismiss UZR as magic beans, but you just sound bad for trying to dismiss defensive value in its entirety.

 

Well we're forecasting Crisp for 1-2 years as opposed to 4-5 times as many years for guys like Pujols and Fielder. Obviously there's a risk involved if Crisp can't steal bases any more, but 1) I don't much cause for concern from his recent performance(his frequency and success of stealing bases are at career highs the last 2 years), 2) I don't think he's at all likely to underperform a 1-2 year deal at his probable cost, 3) Any risk is muted since we're talking about having him join a rotation of 4 outfielders, and he's much more a hedge against Jackson and DeJesus than a key cog of the offense.

The point is you can't forecast anything with any reliability. It's a pretentious argument that's pervasive (not necessarily with you but anywhere anyone tries to use defense to make a value judgment). There is no defensive metric that has any value due to both validity and reliability flaws. All anyone can do is give a best guess and that's just an opinion.

[Guest]

You don't see diminishing returns by having great defenders play next to each other?

 

Do you think the Cubs are really close to that point? Is there a single player on the team that you would say is an elite defender? Maybe Barney? Otherwise the best case is guys like Crisp, DeJesus, Byrd, and Jackson, who aren't going to be Brett Gardner in racking up runs saved. I think there's enough room on the field for those types of marginal improvements to be realized, even across many positions.

 

I'd say Crisp and Dejesus in the corners would be elite.

 

We're getting close to semantics now, but at what point do you think you're not netting actual value from an OF? Obviously if you put 3 +20 guys out there you probably aren't saving 60 runs the next year, but something like you mention where it's like +20-25 across 3 positions? I don't think that's unfeasible.

[Guest]

The point is you can't forecast anything with any reliability. It's a pretentious argument that's pervasive (not necessarily with you but anywhere anyone tries to use defense to make a value judgment). There is no defensive metric that has any value due to both validity and reliability flaws. All anyone can do is give a best guess and that's just an opinion.

 

I don't think you were following the points being made very well.

[Guest]

The point is you can't forecast anything with any reliability. It's a pretentious argument that's pervasive (not necessarily with you but anywhere anyone tries to use defense to make a value judgment). There is no defensive metric that has any value due to both validity and reliability flaws. All anyone can do is give a best guess and that's just an opinion.

 

I don't think you were following the points being made very well.

Thanks. I'm pretty sure I've seen the story before and the ending never changes.

[jersey cubs fan]

I don't have a problem if people are skeptical of defensive metrics, especially for an individual season or even player. But I don't understand the negativity towards the approach of getting guys who have defensive value.

 

I have a problem pretending you know how many runs a guy prevents with his glove, and then pretending a run created = a run prevented. I also have problem with the notion that everybody is very happy to forecast the decline in runs created via the bat with age and then ignoring the decline in 30-something year olds whose defensive value is tied very closely to their legs.

 

I know you like to dismiss UZR as magic beans, but you just sound bad for trying to dismiss defensive value in its entirety.

 

I don't dismiss the value of defense, I think you sound bad pretending you can put a runs driven in with their glove number on players, especially going forward.