How about trading for Carl Crawford?

[Stotle]

Question for Stotle... You seem to hint that Boston had some strange way of looking at it. Bad word... innovative way of evaluating CC's worth (in Fenway and overall.) Without revealing any secrets, is this what you're saying? They had some proprietary way of looking at it that made them pull the trigger?

Yeah, they have their own measurements, generally, on the defensive side. More specifically, reading defense at Fenway and trying to project players in that setting.

The bump in offensive performance is a separate issue -- also proprietary stuff relating to projecting players' performance specifically at Fenway (supposedly big reason AGon was seen as a "must get").

[CA-ORIOLE]

On the other side, those bolded statements are statements of opinion, by you, that are not supported with anything

While it's certainly my opinion, your statement that my opinion is not supported by anything is simply untrue.

[Stotle]

While it's certainly my opinion, your statement that my opinion is not supported by anything is simply untrue.

As presented in the post, there were only statements. I don't think you are making things up. But you didn't say provide home/away splits, turf/grass splits, etc. to support your statements. You just made them. I'm sure you formed those opinions based on research/looking at various stats. You jsut didn't make that background part of your posts.

[CA-ORIOLE]

As presented in the post, there were only statements. I don't think you are making things up. But you didn't say provide home/away splits, turf/grass splits, etc. to support your statements. You just made them. I'm sure you formed those opinions based on research/looking at various stats. You jsut didn't make that background part of your posts.

I referenced concern over Crawford's Home/away splits in the OP. I additionally referenced the turf issue in post 27 as well as the point that he will simply not get as many balls at LF in Fenway in that post (as well as a follow on post to you) than he would otherwise in a normal configureation (there are other concerns with that, but that's the basic point). The offense and defensive splits for Crawford are pretty obvious and simple to look up. I felt no need to provide them and if you (or anyone) wanted to challenge me on them you could have done so at any point. I didn't get the sense you were really looking for more info from me to support my argument, but were rather more intent on dismissing it. Up until the last post I really had not commented about the offense and never adressed the offensive issue (other than generally with his splits) as I was more or less content to say "ok maybe" to you at that point. Personally, I think all three apsects of his game; baserunning, defense and offense could be mitigated to some extent in that park.

[Stotle]

I referenced concern over Crawford's Home/away splits in the OP. I additionally referenced the turf issue in post 27 as well as the point that he will simply not get as many balls at LF in Fenway in that post (as well as a follow on post to you) than he would otherwise in a normal configureation (there are other concerns with that, but that's the basic point). The offense and defensive splits for Crawford are pretty obvious and simple to look up. I felt no need to provide them and if you (or anyone) wanted to challenge me on them you could have done so at any point. I didn't get the sense you were really looking for more info from me to support my argument, but were rather more intent on dismissing it. Up until the last post I really had not commented about the offense and never adressed the offensive issue (other than generally with his splits) as I was more or less content to say "ok maybe" to you at that point. Personally, I think all three apsects of his game; baserunning, defense and offense could be mitigated to some extent in that park.

1. You did reference that you didn't like home/away splits back in post 1. I honestly didn't remember every post by the time I came along to this thread and saw your/mweb's comments about the "obvious" loss in defensive value.

2. Post 27, again, just says that you think he benefits from turf. If this is your support then you are kind of going down the "Crawford benefitted from turf because I think he benefitted from turf" line.

3. The entire point of my reference to Boston's internal metrics was to point out that the splits you're looking up to make your statements as to the "obvious" loss in value defensively, may not be accurate.

4. It's not a fact that he won't get as many opportunity in Fenway, and conceding it as a fact that does not mean that his value to the team is in any way lessened. As I've said several times now, Boston is looking at more than appraisal of performance presented in the defense stats you're looking at. They are looking at, and projecting, total defensive performance specific to their personnel and their home field. It's a matter of integrating one player's performance with another's, as well as projecting how inserting a player into a system will affect the performance of the other pieces of that system in a given environment.

I understand your position. Again, I just don't think you would have that same position if you were privy to the info made available in Boston's front office. That's not being dismissive. It's just a suggestion to you and/or anyone that conclusions you've reached as "obvious" based on the stats you can look up online may not be so obvious when you get into more complex analysis. You're analysis may be the very best possible with the info available to you. I wouldn't doubt it -- you seem to know your stuff. But I don't think you have the best information available to you. Just my opinion.

I waved a white flag because it became obvious some time ago that you weren't budging, and I'm just restating my point over and over again. I guess I'm happy to continue doing this, but it seems like wasted efforts on both our parts.

[mweb]

And even with the Sox' advanced numbers/studies, you said those produced a "disagreement as to how much Crawford's value is lessened by 81 games in Fenway." That suggests there is a loss. So yeah, obvious loss in defensive value seems to remain a fine conclusion, the amount of what is lost is obviously up for debate and no one has stated otherwise.

Edit: Can't wait for more on what the word really means.

[LookinUp]

For what it's worth, this back and forth bickering actually has included some really nice arguments, IMO. The bickering gets old, but I like the substance.

[Lucky Jim]

Ha. For once I'm not responsible for all of the grinding metal in a thread.

That said, I wonder about the reliability of the more granular analysis, for now. That was one of the things that I was getting at early - did the Sox try to identify hidden value using advance/proprietary/their own metrics, and if so, is it possible that their desire to out-think others led them to rely upon not-ready-for-prime time stats? I'm not claiming they did - just, in the back of my head, this is one of the issues that seem interesting to me.

[CA-ORIOLE]

1. You did reference that you didn't like home/away splits back in post 1. I honestly didn't remember every post by the time I came along to this thread and saw your/mweb's comments about the "obvious" loss in defensive value.

If you didn't read the OP, that's really not my fault. That provides the foundation for the thread.

2. Post 27, again, just says that you think he benefits from turf. If this is your support then you are kind of going down the "Crawford benefitted from turf because I think he benefitted from turf" line.

My opinion Crawford benefitted from the turf is an opinion based on his splits/performance and in consideration of his particular skillset and park characteristics. It's not because "I think he did".

3. The entire point of my reference to Boston's internal metrics was to point out that the splits you're looking up to make your statements as to the "obvious" loss in value defensively, may not be accurate.

Boston's internal system may be great, but logically there is no way (other factors being equal) he cannot lose some value. If he gets less balls, he makes less plays. Assuming their system is 100% accurate, it can only define his rate of efficiency. The other aspects are certainly less definitive and debatable.

I understand your position. Again, I just don't think you would have that same position if you were privy to the info made available in Boston's front office. That's not being dismissive. It's just a suggestion to you and/or anyone that conclusions you've reached as "obvious" based on the stats you can look up online may not be so obvious when you get into more complex analysis. You're analysis may be the very best possible with the info available to you. I wouldn't doubt it -- you seem to know your stuff. But I don't think you have the best information available to you. Just my opinion.

And if that's your position. It s certainly fine. I have no problem with it. It doesn't leave us much to debate. I just resent your inference that I'm somehow being dishonest or less than forthright in my analysis.

I waved a white flag because it became obvious some time ago that you weren't budging, and I'm just restating my point over and over again. I guess I'm happy to continue doing this, but it seems like wasted efforts on both our parts

I think the issues with this are adressed above and I don't think it's an issue with me "not budging".

[mweb]

Ha. For once I'm not responsible for all of the grinding metal in a thread.

That said, I wonder about the reliability of the more granular analysis, for now. That was one of the things that I was getting at early - did the Sox try to identify hidden value using advance/proprietary/their own metrics, and if so, is it possible that their desire to out-think others led them to rely upon not-ready-for-prime time stats? I'm not claiming they did - just, in the back of my head, this is one of the issues that seem interesting to me.

That may be the case.

I don't doubt that they had some solid info that suggested Crawford would be a better signing than it seemed like, but I think CA-ORIOLE is also right in saying that they can simply afford to receive less bang for their buck and each win added is obviously extremely important to them. So the info may have got them to the point where they were comfortable with it, but I doubt it brought them to the point where they thought it was a good contract in simple value terms.

BTW, I am not so sure Boston deserves as much of the benefit of the doubt in their thought process as is being discussed in this thread. They obviously deserve some just as any MLB team does, and they deserve more than some teams such as the O's, but in terms of major free agent signings, their track record under Theo is far from stellar.

[Stotle]

Ha. For once I'm not responsible for all of the grinding metal in a thread.

That said, I wonder about the reliability of the more granular analysis, for now. That was one of the things that I was getting at early - did the Sox try to identify hidden value using advance/proprietary/their own metrics, and if so, is it possible that their desire to out-think others led them to rely upon not-ready-for-prime time stats? I'm not claiming they did - just, in the back of my head, this is one of the issues that seem interesting to me.

I think part of the issue is that Boston is looking at defense as a more complex system with integrated parts whose values can be affected by mixing and matching different combinations. That is, Crawford's pressence was seen as a positive addition not only for his individual production, but also because of the projected impact his presence would have on the defensive production as a whole.

I think CA seems like he has a good grasp of the defensive metrics available to him. I just think some folks in Boston's front office (or formerly in Boston's front office) woudl say he's looking at defense as a whole in too simplistic a manner. Mark Cuban might say that many teams determine the optimal five players to put on the court at any given time is dependent on how those individuals perform as individuals and how they perform together. The Mavericks have an advantage (along with certain other clubs) because they also take into account how their combination of players are affected by the opposing five players on the court.

I think CA feels comfortable drawing some basic conclusions about defense based on the numbers available to him that tell him how a players performance is measured, and how that performance might vary based on home/away performance. I also think Boston has an advantage in that they are considering how that player's performance interacts with and might possitively affect the performance of the rest of their players, specifically within the confines of their home field.

I wonder if anyone has looked into whether, say, Ellsbury's measured defensive performance was any better this year?

[Stotle]

If you didn't read the OP, that's really not my fault. That provides the foundation for the thread.

My opinion Crawford benefitted from the turf is an opinion based on his splits/performance and in consideration of his particular skillset and park characteristics. It's not because "I think he did".

Boston's internal system may be great, but logically there is no way (other factors being equal) he cannot lose some value. If he gets less balls, he makes less plays. Assuming their system is 100% accurate, it can only define his rate of efficiency. The other aspects are certainly less definitive and debatable.

And if that's your position. It s certainly fine. I have no problem with it. It doesn't leave us much to debate. I just resent your inference that I'm somehow being dishonest or less than forthright in my analysis.

I think the issues with this are adressed above and I don't think it's an issue with me "not budging".

Okay, I'm done. I don't know why you are fired up about this, but it isn't an interesting convo for me anymore. I mean, the actual baseball side is, but not posts about posts about posts. If you want to discuss baseball, that's fine. Otherwise, here's me saying you're right, I'm wrong, I misconstrued your points and you were not incorrect or incomplete in any of your analysis, or the presentation of your analysis. Thanks for sharing it and for your contributions to this discussion. It is greatly appreciated by me, and I'm sure others all feel the same way.

[Stotle]

That may be the case.

I don't doubt that they had some solid info that suggested Crawford would be a better signing than it seemed like, but I think CA-ORIOLE is also right in saying that they can simply afford to receive less bang for their buck and each win added is obviously extremely important to them. So the info may have got them to the point where they were comfortable with it, but I doubt it brought them to the point where they thought it was a good contract in simple value terms.

BTW, I am not so sure Boston deserves as much of the benefit of the doubt in their thought process as is being discussed in this thread. They obviously deserve some just as any MLB team does, and they deserve more than some teams such as the O's, but in terms of major free agent signings, their track record under Theo is far from stellar.

I honestly think one of the biggest issues is that the front office probably isn't measuring value in the same way that amateur analysts (myself of course included) are measuring value. I don't know if their measurement is correct, but I do know that people in their shop feel pretty strongly that their measurements, particularly on the defensive side, are better than what's out there for the public.

[mweb]

I honestly think one of the biggest issues is that the front office probably isn't measuring value in the same way that amateur analysts (myself of course included) are measuring value. I don't know if their measurement is correct, but I do know that people in their shop feel pretty strongly that their measurements, particularly on the defensive side, are better than what's out there for the public.

I'm also quite confident that their ways of measuring value are better than amateurs, especially on the defensive side.

I still feel pretty strongly though that they overpaid for Crawford and part of the reason is that his defensive value takes an obvious hit simply because his range is the primary component in that value and the use of that range is limited in LF at Fenway. Then again, as stated, they can get away with overpaying and it can be argued they aren't overpaying as much or at all because added wins are more valuable to them than most teams. Of course he'll have to play more like he expected to for that to be true.

[Stotle]

I'm also quite confident that their ways of measuring value are better than amateurs , especially on the defensive side.

I still feel pretty strongly though that they overpaid for Crawford and part of the reason is that his defensive value takes an obvious hit simply because his range is the primary component in that value and the use of that range is limited in LF at Fenway. Then again, as stated, they can get away with overpaying and it can be argued they aren't overpaying as much or at all because added wins are more valuable to them than most teams. Of course he'll have to play more like he expected to for that to be true.

Understood. I also think it's possible that his individual defensive value is down in Fenway by some amount, but that lost value is more than overcome by added value to the overall production of the defense due to having Crawford in LF.

EDIT -- I'm not great at interpretting these numbers, but it looks like Fangraphs has both Ellsbury and Drew improving in defensive production this year. Ellsbury by a significant amount.