Radio Rumor about a 4 Way Trade Potentially Set in Place

[igor67]

In the interest of some unity. If you like at EQA which does all the appropriate rate adjustments Hall actually edged Crawford in 2 of the last 3 years .283, .288, and .250 (Crawford's totals .281, .283, .285). Based strictly on batting totals it's very close. Because of Carl's youth you might expect a little bit more out of him yet, and it's possible that we've already seen the best of Hall and he may settle in as closer to a .275 player. That said those EQA totals are telling us that Crawford's improvements the last 3 years have been fairly small, and not even something you can say is all that significant in terms of total production. Given our need for a better defense and more OBP you could make a case that there are other factors that would increase his relative value, but we are not talking about a huge difference with the bat.

[DuWayne Steurer]

A lot of people are completely ignoring Hall's 2005, in which he put up an .837 OPS, better than any full season Crawford has had, as well as the great year Hall had in 2006.

 

It's one thing to have the opinion that Hall isn't as good, or is equal, but to be telling people to "get real" because they're of the OPINION that Hall is nearly equal to Crawford, when the stats at least point in that direction is not really conducive to good discussion, IMO of course.

 

Hall's probably not going to hit 35 homeruns again, but I would not at all be surprised to see him hit 20 to go along with 35-40 doubles.

[Weirdos19]

A lot of people are completely ignoring Hall's 2005, in which he put up an .837 OPS, better than any full season Crawford has had, as well as the great year Hall had in 2006.

 

It's one thing to have the opinion that Hall isn't as good, or is equal, but to be telling people to "get real" because they're of the OPINION that Hall is nearly equal to Crawford, when the stats at least point in that direction is not really conducive to good discussion, IMO of course.

 

Hall's probably not going to hit 35 homeruns again, but I would not at all be surprised to see him hit 20 to go along with 35-40 doubles.

 

Bill Hall had one year that was better than Carl Crawford, 2006. You compare any other year and there is no comparison.

 

Sure, Hall had a slightly higher OPS in 2005, but Crawford stole 40 more bases. They don't include that in OPS. People say SB don't matter. That's a crock. Posters here have endlessly complained when our pitchers couldn't move runners while giving up an out. Now we could get a guy that can move himself 50 times a year and it doesn't matter. Wow.

 

If Bill Hall is capable of repeating 2006. I say great, keep him. But I don't see it happening. Crawford will have another great year. That's a given.

[Oldcity]

Exactly. Hall has had two seasons better than anything Crawford has done. Crawford can play at most two positions; Hall has played four. Why is this such a huge gap again? Using things like batting average and K totals don't bolster your argument much, if at all.

[pogokat]

hall is better than crawford minus who we have to give up to get him

[Robideaux]

Carl Crawford's ZiPS:

 

.316/.356/.479

 

link

[dadofandrew]

People say SB don't matter. That's a crock.

 

 

 

OXS is 97-98% accurate in predicting runs scored. SB's are not a part of that not because they are meaningless, but because they make little difference. Ditto for K's. When a formula works, saying it doesn't work is borderline lunacy.

 

The odd thing is, many like to add in SB's and not figure in CS's. Obviously, a player that steals at a 80-100% rate has a lot of added value, maybe even 10-20 runs a year, depending on how often he runs. A guy that steals at a 50-60% clip is negative value. However, almost all basestealers have a success rate of 60-80%, which is all but meaningless. Simply put, if it mattered, teams that steal bases would win more...no correlation. Ditto for teams that do not steal, or allow a lot of steals...look at San Diego, historically poor at throwing out runners trying to steal, and still very good at not allowing runs.

 

If you just say something and cannot find data to support it, the odds are, it's not being considered by MLB teams. It's easier to make a list of teams not using the numbers deemed "silly" a decade ago than it is teams using them. The next generation is here, and some of the innovators, like Beane, have now moved onto other things, defense for one thing. The OBP bargains are long gone, teams have caught up.

[Big Reed]

wow Crawford's zips appear in less than 24 hours by a different poster? coincidence ? or bias? Those zips look pretty good.

 

to the person who says Crawford hsn't improved much, I would say that's because he's consistant. he actually has improved a lot verses left handed pitchers.

 

is there a reason nobody wants to bring up that hall hit lefties for a 270 clip but hit righties only at .243 last year? In 2006, he hit lefties at .300 but righties at . 261. On the other hand, Crawford hit lefties at a .200 clip in 2002, and then improved to hit .263, .295, . 244, .288, and .318 this past year. Does that not show a steady improvement over the course of 5 years? Crawford hit righties for .315 last year.

 

Crawford's stats are very consistant over a 5 year period with a slight increase. Crawford is two years younger than hall, but has played 2 more full seasons than him. Sure hall can play other bases. but that's not going to happen any time soon if he's wearing a brewers' uniform. so that attribute is kind of wasted. Crawford has played other positions as well. Crawford has played CF.

 

Today's yahoo MLB rumors says braun has agreed to play left field if that's in the best interest of the Brewers. but as part of it, it also said that ha l would remain in the OF and the Brewers would acquire a third baseman. I think that says it all about hall's other positions satsus. hall is an outfielder for the brewers. He is not going to move back to the infield. So consider his stats as only an outfielder.

[qrk10000]

Exactly. Hall has had two seasons better than anything Crawford has done. Crawford can play at most two positions; Hall has played four. Why is this such a huge gap again? Using things like batting average and K totals don't bolster your argument much, if at all.

 

I disagree, Stevo. 2006 was a great season for Hall and if we are solely speaking about power and extra base hitting, it was better than any of Crawford's seasons. I don't think it is fair just to look at those numbers, though, and Crawford is a perfect example of why OPS cannot be the sole measurement. Crawford has proven that he can consistently hit .300, steal 50 bases, and score 100 runs a season. He also has the ability to hit a lot of doubles and triples. Even though to date, he has not been a huge home run hitter, consider where he has hit in the lineup historically. He has always been a 1,2, or 3 hitter in the lineup with the majority of his time spent in the 1 and 2 spots. Those are not places where he needs to hit a lot of homeruns. Even more amazingly, he has had more RBI's than Hall in 3 of the past 4 seasons. Hall has never been a good judge of pitches and I am not sure if he can ever be counted on in clutch situations (RISP). Hall's numbers with RISP: .249/.329/..453. Crawford's numbers with RISP: .321/.357/.518. Crawford has a huge edge in his defensive abilities in the outfield, too. Crawford is incredibly consistent, too. Take away his numbers in June and he played well every month in 2007. Hall on the other hand only played well in June in 2007.

 

I don't like the multiple position argument either in terms of playing for the Brewers. We don't need another second baseman or shortstop. We need a solid outfield, though, that can do the things many of our other players can't do: get on base, steal bases, and score runs. I don't consider 2005 to be a better season than Crawford's 2006 or 2007 season and I think his breakout 2006 season is quite close to Crawford's 2007 season. I would take Crawford over Hall 10 times out of 10 and would give up Villanueva if it meant being able to acquire him.

[TheBrewer]

Obviously this isn't fantasy baseball, there are things that are more important in real life, than in fantasy baseball. However at the same time though with that being said, who would you rather have had on your fantasy team the past 3-4 years. Hall doesn't even crack the discussion.

[endaround]

Thats because fantasy baseball loves BA and SBs. Yes maybe someday Crawford will be as good as Corey Hart. But he isn't right now.

[igor67]

Al you need to abandon the blanket SB don't matter argument it's so 2001. The reason that OXS works that well is because without fail every year the league as a whole has a SB% within a couple of percentage points of the break even point. That doesn't mean that individual base stealers are not worth anything.

[DuWayne Steurer]

The most accurate formula I've seen that accounts for stolen bases (from Bill James himself) says that every 7 stolen bases will create a run that otherwise would not have scored. Every 4 times a runner is caught, it detracts a run that otherwise would have scored. Given that formula, 50 steals = about 7 extra runs, 10 caught stealing = about 2 runs less, so a net gain of 5 runs, or if you prefer, one half of one win.

 

Now yes, I know the stat haters will say that's breaking it down to a ridiculous level, and that it doesn't take into account game specific situations. That's right, it doesn't. One thing it's trying to say is that many times when a guy steals a base, he would have scored regardless.

 

I don't think people are saying "steals don't matter". I don't think people are discounting Crawford for what he does. I think some people are saying that Crawford is somewhat overrated because of his abysmally low walk rate, and the fact that he doesn't hit for as much power as some people say. I see MANY references in this thread to Crawford hitting "10-20 homers a year", yet his career high is 18. That's not 10 to 20. I can say Hall is capable of hitting 30-40 a year (though he's never reached 40), and be just as correct as those predicting Crawford to hit 20. Also in this thread are several saying that Crawford gets "tons of doubles and triples", yet in his five full MLB seasons, he's reached 60 extra base hits one time. He's only hit 30 doubles twice, so he really isn't at all the doubles machine some are saying. By comparison, Hall had almost 80 extra base hits in 2006, and over 60 in 2005.

 

I think as much as some people are saying Crawford is overrated, some people are undervaluing Hall, his poor 2007 notwithstanding. I don't believe it's a stretch to think that Hall is capable of bouncing back (I'm not predicting it, I'm saying he's capable of it) and putting up a .270/.330/.475 line, or even better.

 

Lastly, people are complaining about the stats used in this discussion, but if there wasn't over 100 years of baseball history that can be looked at statistically, and see for oneself that 98% of the time OPS, OxS, and any other variation of it, correctly predicts runs scored within a handful over the course of a season. These aren't fluky stats that swing wildly year to year with their predictive value (such as BAw/RISP), but paint a very clear picture of a players statistical value with the bat.

 

It's one thing to say a person prefers Crawford over Hall, I can dig that, but to say crap like "you must be smoking something" or "you can't possibly be serious" when someone tries to point out Halls positive value really drags an otherwise solid discussion down.

[qrk10000]

I see MANY references in this thread to Crawford hitting "10-20 homers a year", yet his career high is 18. That's not 10 to 20.

I'm confused.

[DuWayne Steurer]

I see MANY references in this thread to Crawford hitting "10-20 homers a year", yet his career high is 18. That's not 10 to 20.

I'm confused.

 

Sorry, I should have said "that's not 20".

 

[logan82]

I would take Crawford over Hall 10 times out of 10 and would give up Villanueva if it meant being able to acquire him.

No way. Are you serious? Give up a promissing SP for a corner outfielder?

[qrk10000]

I would take Crawford over Hall 10 times out of 10 and would give up Villanueva if it meant being able to acquire him.

No way. Are you serious? Give up a promissing SP for a corner outfielder?

 

Absolutely, and I am a huge Villanueva fan. I think Crawford could be our starter in center field for many years to come. The thought of he and Weeks batting in front of Braun, Fielder, and Hart makes me smile in a way only my wife has ever seen.

[endaround]

Since Crawford isn't a center fielder that would be rather hard to do.

[TheBrewer]

CC has played CF I believe if Im not mistaken

[Oldcity]

He has said in the past he doesn't like to play center/prefers to play left.

[Big Reed]

Crawford has played center field in three different seasons. The maximum number of games was 30. Although he hasn't played much CF in his career, and he prefers not to play CF, I believe Crawford would be a much better CF than Hall.

 

When comparing career stats of hall and crawford, one thing that isn't mentioned much is that a player will do different things when batting in different parts of the batting order. A batter batting 4th-5th -6th will swing for the fences and hit a lot more home runs than a player who bats 1st, 2nd or 3rd. A batter hitting at the top of the order tends to hit with the purpose of getting on base rather than hitting for the fences. Many lead-off batters have proven they could hit home-runs if that was their plan. they just chose not to. Brady Anderson, Steve Finley, Wade boggs and Rickey Henderson have all proven they could hit home runs. However, when their role was just to get on base, that's what they did.

 

Where am I going with this? I'm quite confident if crawford batted third or 4th or 5th more often, he would probably have more home runs. he has the power to do so. but his role is to hit second and either get on base or move upton over. I' m also quite confident that if hall batted second or third, he'd hit a lot less homers. history will reflect that many times a team without a real bonified #4 hitter will ask one of their better players to sacrifice their hitting stroke and average to become the big bopper and swing for the fences more often. I think the brewers asked hall to be more of a power hitter in 2006. i n doing so, he sacrificed some of his average to gain more power. I think he continued to swing for the fences in 2007, because that was his role. Crawford's roll is also very defined. Crawford could have a 500 slg and a 900 OPS if that was his role. But, it's not. it's unfair to judge Crawford's lack of home runs or OPS because he has never been asked to be the big bopper for tampa bay. His job is to get on base and move other runners over. and he does that extremely well, and also consistant.

 

Looking at what the Cubs offered for Crawford, and what Tampa bay has traditionally asked for in any deals involving their players, I would have to say giving up both Sheets and hall for crawford is a steep price to pay knowing full well that Sheets would end up in NY and hall would end up in Minn. What tampa would receive in return for Crawford would still be a very high price to pay.

 

something that should also be said about crawford is that despite his amout of stolen bases, he has traditionally batted second or third and not lead-off. if the brewers were to acquire Crawford, would he bat lead-off? or would he take hardy's spot at second in the order?

 

 

all things considered, Crawford will be paid almost half of what Eckstein wants. Crawford's contract is very attractive and small market friendly.

[Never Outhustled]

I'm quite confident if crawford batted third or 4th or 5th more often, he would probably have more home runs. he has the power to do so. but his role is to hit second and either get on base or move upton over.

If Crawford is sacrificing power to up his OBA, I guess he's just not a very good hitter, because his OBA is poor for the position he plays.

 

I don't see a single reason to even consider Crawford as a better leadoff hitter than Weeks. Weeks is clearly better at getting on base, and is a more efficient basestealer.

[Weirdos19]

If we were to acquire Crawford, I'd prefer Hart in center. With that speed in left and center, we wouldn't see many balls fall in between them.

 

If we got a third baseman, we could either have Braun or Hart in center, with the other in right.

 

 

And, to add a little to the conversation about Hall and Crawford. Hall would be batting sixth at the highest for the Crew this year. Crawford would be in the no.2 spot. We could have Weeks or Crawford on first about 60% of the time in the first inning. Braun is up third. Seeing Crawford at first will give our 3 and 4 hitters that many more fastballs, just to keep him at first.

 

Having Crawford in the 2 hole should have Weeks, Braun, and Prince seeing alot more fastballs. Could Braun and Prince have even better seasons?

[Big Reed]

totally agree wierdos.

 

too many times people only look at one player's stats and never look at how that player will improve other's stats. Rickey henderson not only generated his own stats but made the stats of those that followed him all the better. Yount would not have been an MVP without Molitor hitting in front of him and Cooper hitting behind him.

 

Look at what braun did with prince hitting behind him. then look at what prince did the year before with hall and jenkins hitting behind him.

 

Weeks had a higher OBP than braun did this past year. Does that mea n Weeks is a greater player or had a better season than Braun? I think it's safe to say , most brewers fans would agree it wasn't close. That's the problem when you use only one stat to defend or downplay a player. There is more to a player than just OBP! Crawford is twice the player hal l could ever hope to be and everybody that is an objective baseball fan knows this. To suggest that Weeks is better than Crawford is laughable.

[endaround]

And most Brewer fans would be wrong. Braun's WARP 3.9, Week's WARP 3.5