PDA

View Full Version : Crede: Is he really that bad?


Iguana775
07-21-2005, 08:34 AM
You may be surprised like I was when you look at his monthly splits...

G__AB__R__H__2B_3B_HR__RBI_BB_K_SB_CS_AVG_OBP_SLG_ OPS
April 24 79 12 24 6 0 2 9 5 9 0 0 .304 .368 .456 .824
May 26 84 8 13 2 0 3 9 5 17 0 1 .155 .211 .286 .496
June 25 80 11 22 3 0 6 17 5 10 1 0 .275 .333 .538 .871
July 12 35 3 10 3 0 2 6 1 6 0 0 .286 .306 .543 .848


His worst month, May was a REALLY bad month. But the total for every other month are really pretty good.

G__AB__R__H__2B_3B_HR__RBI_BB_K_SB_CS_AVG_OBP_SLG_ OPS
24 194 26 56 12 0 10 32 11 25 1 0 .289 .345 .505 .850

So in conclusion, Crede really isn't that bad after all.

:)

:hawk:
"I love it when you analyze"

Frater Perdurabo
07-21-2005, 09:15 AM
You're right.

Crede's .850 OPS with May taken out is better than Konerko's career OPS of .825, and his 2005 OPS of .830 (which got him in the All-Star game).

So, does that mean if Crede played first base, he could have been the backup 1B at the All-Star game?

Kind of makes you wonder if Konerko's really all that good and worth $9 million per year, doesn't it?

The FOGIDPK/aPaulogists who bash Crede really need to consult the facts before they, like Paulie, spew more oral diarrhea....

scottjanssens
07-21-2005, 09:49 AM
Sox wouldn't be anywhere near where they are right now without Paulie. At any rate neither player will be back next year so don't too attached.

ilsox7
07-21-2005, 09:50 AM
Sox wouldn't be anywhere near where they are right now without Paulie. At any rate neither player will be back next year so don't too attached.

Probly 95% that Crede is back next year. Ozzie loves him...and for many reasons, rightfully so.

scottjanssens
07-21-2005, 09:51 AM
Crede's .850 OPS with May taken out is better than Konerko's career OPS of .825, and his 2005 OPS of .830 (which got him in the All-Star game).

It's a fool's game to omit bad outtings much less bad months. Especially when comparing to another player without eliminating their worst month. Not to mention the error in scope when you compare one season with a career as the team around you affects your stats.

If you eliminate everybody's worst month then everybody has all-star caliber stats. Besides, I was told here that OPS is bulls--t.

ilsox7
07-21-2005, 09:53 AM
It's a fool's game to omit bad outtings much less bad months. If you eliminate everybody's worst month then everybody has all-star caliber stats. Besides, I was told here that OPS is bulls--t.

I doubt anyone here said OPS was bull****. The compalint I most often see about "statheads" and agree with is their use of weird defensive stats and selective use of other stats to help make their argument better, while ignoring other useful, pertinent information.

scottjanssens
07-21-2005, 09:55 AM
I doubt anyone here said OPS was bull****.

It was said yesterday in the game thread.

ilsox7
07-21-2005, 09:57 AM
It was said yesterday in the game thread.

OK, most people here won't totally dismiss OPS. It's probly one of the few "new" stats that has been adopted as being as significant as the more traditional stats and in some cases, more significant.

scottjanssens
07-21-2005, 09:59 AM
If you want to see relative contributions of Crede vs. Konerko, and aren't reflexively antiSABR, then you should look at EQA, heck in every advanced offensive stat Konerko kills Crede.


Konerko EQA: .276 EQR: 49 BRAA: 7
Crede EQA: .243 EQR: 30 BRAA: -6

A_ROW33
07-21-2005, 10:00 AM
Crede really isn't that bad. I'm just a bit concerned about his back, and if it gets any worse we are going to have our hands tied. As it is Pablo Ozuna is playing almost every game because we constantly have to give someone a day off and pablo is the only backup we have who can play the left side of the infield.

Numbers aside, Crede has helped the sox win many a game in the 05 season. He is a solid contributor and I would hate to see the sox lose his contributions and not have another play should he go down.

scottjanssens
07-21-2005, 10:02 AM
I should make clear I'm not bashing Crede here, just this poor analysis. No Crede isn't bad. He's not great either, but he's not hurting the team so I'm fine with him.

ilsox7
07-21-2005, 10:04 AM
If you want to see relative contributions of Crede vs. Konerko, and aren't reflexively antiSABR, then you should look at EQA, heck in every advanced offensive stat Konerko kills Crede.


Konerko EQA: .276 EQR: 49 BRAA: 7
Crede EQA: .243 EQR: 30 BRAA: -6

I'm not into the stats or comparing Crede to PK. My argument for Crede is and always has been: find me a Gold Glove 3rd baseman who will hit significantly better than .250/20/75 and won't cost $10MM and I'd be open to it. Otherwise, what we get from Crede, playing an important position on the field and giving some pop at the bottom of the line-up is fine by me.

Also, Ozzie seems to think Crede is next year's Jon Garland. Well, Ozzie said last year Garland would break-out and he certainly has, so I will go with that track record and see what happens next year. To me, there are bigger needs unless Joe's back simply cannot hold up.

scottjanssens
07-21-2005, 10:11 AM
I'm not into the stats or comparing Crede to PK. My argument for Crede is and always has been: find me a Gold Glove 3rd baseman who will hit significantly better than .250/20/75 and won't cost $10MM and I'd be open to it.
Otherwise, what we get from Crede, playing an important position on the field and giving some pop at the bottom of the line-up is fine by me.

I agree with this. But the thread was started by comparing (and justifying) Crede's poor offense this year to Konerko's.

Also, Ozzie seems to think Crede is next year's Jon Garland. Well, Ozzie said last year Garland would break-out and he certainly has, so I will go with that track record and see what happens next year. To me, there are bigger needs unless Joe's back simply cannot hold up.

I think Ozzie's wrong on this one. Lots of people saw the good in Garland in previous seasons, but there's too much bad in Crede's swing for my tastes. He's still taking huge Frank Thomas style swings. Unfortunately he doesn't have the raw ability that Frank has (not that many do). It's great when Crede makes contact, like he did on Monday. He just doesn't do it often enough to justify that approach. He's 27 so you can't write him off completely, but despite numerous attempts by coaches over several years he hasn't changed his swing or his approach. I don't see a bright future for Joe.

fquaye149
07-21-2005, 10:13 AM
Sox wouldn't be anywhere near where they are right now without Paulie. At any rate neither player will be back next year so don't too attached.

You're right. If the sox played with no one standing at first base in the field and automatically conceded an out whenever the cleanup hitter was due up, they would probably not be in first place.

However, if they had the firstbaseman from basically any other team in baseball, they probably would be right where they are right now, give or take.

fquaye149
07-21-2005, 10:14 AM
If you want to see relative contributions of Crede vs. Konerko, and aren't reflexively antiSABR, then you should look at EQA, heck in every advanced offensive stat Konerko kills Crede.


Konerko EQA: .276 EQR: 49 BRAA: 7
Crede EQA: .243 EQR: 30 BRAA: -6


oh ****! I forgot to consider the EQR.

So the point is, Crede doesn't hit as well as Konerko?

Stop the presses.

ilsox7
07-21-2005, 10:15 AM
I agree with this. But the thread was started by comparing (and justifying) Crede's poor offense this year to Konerko's.

Agreed. I was just hijacking. :smile:



I think Ozzie's wrong on this one. Lots of people saw the good in Garland in previous seasons, but there's too much bad in Crede's swing for my tastes. He's still taking huge Frank Thomas style swings. Unfortunately he doesn't have the raw ability that Frank has (not that many do). It's great when Crede makes contact, like he did on Monday. He just doesn't do it often enough to justify that approach. He's 27 so you can't write him off completely, but despite numerous attempts by coaches over several years he hasn't changed his swing or his approach. I don't see a bright future for Joe.

For the most part, I'd agree. However, I see no options for a team who cannot spend $100MM to upgrade. And there is still a slim chance Joe shows he can hit .275/20/80 with a good OBP. Likely? Probably not. But possible. I think it's pretty clear next year will be Joe's make or break year. Assuming, of course, there is a viable replacement lined up.

scottjanssens
07-21-2005, 10:16 AM
You're right. If the sox played with no one standing at first base in the field and automatically conceded an out whenever the cleanup hitter was due up, they would probably not be in first place.

However, if they had the firstbaseman from basically any other team in baseball, they probably would be right where they are right now, give or take.

The same could be said for Crede or any other single position player on the team. My first point is Konerko has easily contributed more to the Sox success than Crede. My second point is there so much that was flawed in the original analysis from the "if you discount" fallacy to comparing apples and oranges (season vs. career).

Jerko
07-21-2005, 10:18 AM
I'm not saying Joe is the best 3rd baseman in the world, but I like the Sox chances of winning better when he's in the lineup.

veeter
07-21-2005, 10:21 AM
Sox wouldn't be anywhere near where they are right now without Paulie. At any rate neither player will be back next year so don't too attached. Paulie MAY not be back but Crede? He's not going anywhere. He's cheap, got a great glove and part of the best team in baseball. What leads you to believe he'll be gone?

ilsox7
07-21-2005, 10:21 AM
My second point is there so much that was flawed in the original analysis from the "if you discount" fallacy to comparing apples and oranges (season vs. career).

Totally agree. I always find it funny when people say, "Well if you ignore everything Shingo did against Cleveland, he had an ERA of 4.97 or whatever, which isn't so bad!" You can't do that...it makes no sense.

However, if at the end of the year, Joe hits well in all months but May, I will say there is definitely an increased possibility that we see a very productive offensive year for Joe in 2006.

fquaye149
07-21-2005, 10:22 AM
The same could be said for Crede or any other single position player on the team. My first point is Konerko has easily contributed more to the Sox success than Crede. My second point is there so much that was flawed in the original analysis from the "if you discount" fallacy to comparing apples and oranges (season vs. career).

I would disagree wholeheartedly. Crede probably plays the best third base in the league. Paulie does not play the best 1B in the league, nor is he the best cleanup hitter (or anywhere near the best).

There are only a few players who could have contributed more to this team than Crede when you factor in the defense and the meager offense he provides. People like Blalock, Chavez...etc. He would have to mash or play some Brooks Robinson to be a significant upgrade over Crede, all-around.


Basically any 1B would have been more or less as good as Paulie.

ilsox7
07-21-2005, 10:25 AM
I would disagree wholeheartedly. Crede probably plays the best third base in the league. Paulie does not play the best 1B in the league, nor is he the best cleanup hitter (or anywhere near the best).

There are only a few players who could have contributed more to this team than Crede when you factor in the defense and the meager offense he provides. People like Blalock, Chavez...etc. He would have to mash or play some Brooks Robinson to be a significant upgrade over Crede, all-around.


Basically any 1B would have been more or less as good as Paulie.

I would not say any 1st baseman would be as good. What I would say, though, it GIDPK is much easier to replace than Joe would be, especially when factoring in money. Joe will continue to be cheap. If GIDPK is not around, we save money. That money can be used to replace him or upgrade elsewhere and hopefully make a Net Gain to the team.

scottjanssens
07-21-2005, 10:26 AM
Totally agree. I always find it funny when people say, "Well if you ignore everything Shingo did against Cleveland, he had an ERA of 4.97 or whatever, which isn't so bad!" You can't do that...it makes no sense.

However, if at the end of the year, Joe hits well in all months but May, I will say there is definitely an increased possibility that we see a very productive offensive year for Joe in 2006.

Sure, you can discount individual performances when you compare a player against himself. But you still need to be careful about it. But you can discount performance from a player and compare the result to another player (and then compare it to career stats no less).

The opposite side of the "if you discount" argument is, he totally suck that one month (or outting) what's to say he won't do it again?

So.ILSoxFan
07-21-2005, 10:26 AM
Was it really not enough for you Crede haters to see Ozuna out there?

Was it not enough to watch him drive in 4 in the first game of the tiggers series?

Joe Crede is a gold glove third baseman who comes through with clutch hits at the right time.

Can anyone mention a moment this year, where you have said, "Crede should have made more effort to get to that ball"? It seems to me that he always gives 110%

Oh, AND WE PAY HIM $400,000 A YEAR

Stop the madness:angry:

[/Rant]

tsamdog
07-21-2005, 10:27 AM
I'm not saying Joe is the best 3rd baseman in the world, but I like the Sox chances of winning better when he's in the lineup.

Jerko, I wholeheartedly agree. For some reason, Crede's defense has been overlooked - recognized but not appreciated. I would love to see a stat of runs saved by a defensive player. Balance that against his occasional pop at the bottom of the lineup. I don't know, but it seems to me that thirdbasemen of Joe's ability (both D and O) are hard to find and tough to keep. He's a bargain for a team that's 30+ games over .500.

fquaye149
07-21-2005, 10:27 AM
I would not say any 1st baseman would be as good. What I would say, though, it GIDPK is much easier to replace than Joe would be, especially when factoring in money. Joe will continue to be cheap. If GIDPK is not around, we save money. That money can be used to replace him or upgrade elsewhere and hopefully make a Net Gain to the team.

That's basically my point.

And the decline in production any other firstbaseman would give us would be nowhere near the decline in production defensively someone like Joe Randa would give us.

Not to mention Joe Randa would be a hell of a lot harder to acquire than say, Tony Perez.

ilsox7
07-21-2005, 10:29 AM
Was it really not enough for you Crede haters to see Ozuna out there?

Was it not enough to watch him drive in 4 in the first game of the tiggers series?

Joe Crede is a gold glove third baseman who comes through with clutch hits at the right time.

Can anyone mention a moment this year, where you have said, "Crede should have made more effort to get to that ball"? It seems to me that he always gives 110%

Oh, AND WE PAY HIM $400,000 A YEAR

Stop the madness:angry:

[/Rant]

I think the majority of us around here totally agree with this. However, there is a VERY loud vocal MINORITY (led by Shoota) that hates Crede.

scottjanssens
07-21-2005, 10:32 AM
I would disagree wholeheartedly. Crede probably plays the best third base in the league. Paulie does not play the best 1B in the league, nor is he the best cleanup hitter (or anywhere near the best).

First we have to define best. Obviously Crede is nowhere near best when considering offense. Comparing defense is trickier and for the sake of argument (because I have no urge to repeat the defensive stat debate) let's assume Crede is the greatest thirdbaseman to put on a glove. Best to me says best in field and best at bat. Crede's not the best. Jeter is, but only because Rolen has been injured. When Crede salary has to be pointed out as a strength, you know the performance isn't where it should be. Sure Crede's a great bargain. But you can't tell me that the Sox wouldn't be a stronger team if they had Jeter at third.

There are only a few players who could have contributed more to this team than Crede when you factor in the defense and the meager offense he provides. People like Blalock, Chavez...etc. He would have to mash or play some Brooks Robinson to be a significant upgrade over Crede, all-around.

Basically any 1B would have been more or less as good as Paulie.

You've moved the goalpost though. The orignal comparison was Crede's production vs Konerko's production, not Crede vs MLB 3Bmen and Konerko vs. 1Bmen.

Update: fixed a rather nasty typo.

scottjanssens
07-21-2005, 10:36 AM
Was it really not enough for you Crede haters to see Ozuna out there?

Is this directed at me? If so, you need to read the whole thread. I don't hate Crede and I'm not saying he should be replaced. I'm just saying the original post dissed Konerko using an invalid comparison.

Frankly I don't understand either the Crede or Konerko haters.

wdelaney72
07-21-2005, 10:37 AM
I am very happy with Crede at third base. Crede has done well in situational hitting and has good power and RBI production, despite his low BA. Not everyone in the lineup is going to be a .300 hitter. There's going to be one or two guys who struggle. This year we have a productive 2B and C in the lineup, so Crede's low BA doesn't hurt so much.

The big $$ on a more glamorous 3B would take away from money that is currently being spent on pitching, which is the biggest factor in our team's success. I'm very happy having Joe Crede as the everyday 3Bman.

samram
07-21-2005, 10:39 AM
First we have to define best. Obviously Crede is nowhere near best when considering offense. Comparing defense is trickier and for the sake of argument (because I have no urge to repeat the defensive stat debate) let's assume Crede is the greatest thirdbaseman to put on a glove. Best to me says best in field and best at bat. Crede's not the best. Jeter is, but only because Rolen has been injured. When Crede salary has to be pointed out as a strength, you know the performance isn't where it should be. Sure Crede's a great bargain. But you can't tell me that the Sox wouldn't be a stronger team if they had Jeter at third.



You've moved the goalpost though. The orignal comparison was Crede's production vs Konerko's production, not Crede vs MLB 3Bmen and Konerko vs. 1Bmen.

Update: fixed a rather nasty typo.

Derek Jeter plays 3B for which team?

scottjanssens
07-21-2005, 10:40 AM
I think it's official IlSox, the thread has been hijacked. :cool:

All anyone can talk about now is salary and justifying keeping Crede when neither was part of the original topic. I should be more careful in the future with my flip comments (e.g. not getting attached).

scottjanssens
07-21-2005, 10:41 AM
Derek Jeter plays 3B for which team?

Is he back at shortstop? Shows how much I pay attention to the Yankees. At any rate, Crede's not the best all around 3bman.

TornLabrum
07-21-2005, 10:42 AM
Is he back at shortstop? Shows how much I pay attention to the Yankees. At any rate, Crede's not the best all around 3bman.

As far as I know, he never left shortstop. ARod has been playing 3rd base.

ilsox7
07-21-2005, 10:43 AM
I think it's official IlSox, the thread has been hijacked. :cool:

All anyone can talk about now is salary and justifying keeping Crede when neither was part of the original topic. I should be more careful in the future with my flip comments (e.g. not getting attached).

Yea, the whole Konerko comparison went out the door real fast!

Heffalump
07-21-2005, 10:44 AM
Is he back at shortstop? Shows how much I pay attention to the Yankees. At any rate, Crede's not the best all around 3bman.

"At any rate," When has Jeter EVER played third base?

chaerulez
07-21-2005, 10:46 AM
Can you name a third baseman that Crede's stats are similar too?

Scott Brosius.

Just proving, you don't need a monster 3B to win baseball games and a championship. A decent hitting player with good pop and a great glove works out fine...

fquaye149
07-21-2005, 10:53 AM
First we have to define best. Obviously Crede is nowhere near best when considering offense. Comparing defense is trickier and for the sake of argument (because I have no urge to repeat the defensive stat debate) let's assume Crede is the greatest thirdbaseman to put on a glove. Best to me says best in field and best at bat. Crede's not the best. Jeter is, but only because Rolen has been injured. When Crede salary has to be pointed out as a strength, you know the performance isn't where it should be. Sure Crede's a great bargain. But you can't tell me that the Sox wouldn't be a stronger team if they had Jeter at third.



You've moved the goalpost though. The orignal comparison was Crede's production vs Konerko's production, not Crede vs MLB 3Bmen and Konerko vs. 1Bmen.

Update: fixed a rather nasty typo.


I meant best defensively. Crede is nowhere near best offensively nor best overall. However, neither is Konerko. At least Crede does something near the best of his class (defense) that is hard to replace. All Konerko does among the best is hit HR. Better than nothing, but it's hardly unique. Most every other first baseman in baseball can hit home runs and give us better production in different areas than Konerko.

You WILL be able to find a better hitter at 3B than Crede, but if we had one we would suffer defensively. Therefore for you to say we'd be in the same position with anyone but Crede at 3rd is a lot harder to support than to say we'd be in the same position with anyone BUT Konerko at 1st

scottjanssens
07-21-2005, 10:54 AM
"At any rate," When has Jeter EVER played third base?

Gah! I said Jeter meant A-Rod. They're interchangable Yankee bastids in my mind.

scottjanssens
07-21-2005, 10:55 AM
I meant best defensively. Crede is nowhere near best offensively nor best overall. However, neither is Konerko. At least Crede does something near the best of his class (defense) that is hard to replace. All Konerko does among the best is hit HR. Better than nothing, but it's hardly unique. Most every other first baseman in baseball can hit home runs and give us better production in different areas than Konerko.

Again, this isn't what the thread, at least originally, or my arguments are about.

fquaye149
07-21-2005, 10:57 AM
Again, this isn't what the thread, at least originally, or my arguments are about.

You're right. Your thread hijacking comment was that without Konerko we wouldn't be where we are.

That is completely bunk, imo. I think most every other first baseman or cleanup hitter in baseball could have done the job Paulie's done this year: hit .250 with some good power.

fquaye149
07-21-2005, 10:58 AM
Gah! I said Jeter meant A-Rod. They're interchangable Yankee bastids in my mind.

Wow. And this from the guy going to the line for Joe Sheehan.

Somehow I'm not surprised.

Jjav829
07-21-2005, 11:03 AM
You're right.

Crede's .850 OPS with May taken out is better than Konerko's career OPS of .825, and his 2005 OPS of .830 (which got him in the All-Star game).

So, does that mean if Crede played first base, he could have been the backup 1B at the All-Star game?

Kind of makes you wonder if Konerko's really all that good and worth $9 million per year, doesn't it?

The FOGIDPK/aPaulogists who bash Crede really need to consult the facts before they, like Paulie, spew more oral diarrhea....

Unreal. You couldn't just let this be a thread praising Crede. You had to bring your hate of Konerko into this and completely turn the thread into another Konerko bash/praise thread. Thanks. Can you possibly go, say, 10 posts without mentioning Konerko? Give it a try. Just once.

scottjanssens
07-21-2005, 11:03 AM
Wow. And this from the guy going to the line for Joe Sheehan.

Somehow I'm not surprised.

I wasn't going to the line for Sheehan. Sheesh, learn to read.

voodoochile
07-21-2005, 11:13 AM
Unreal. You couldn't just let this be a thread praising Crede. You had to bring your hate of Konerko into this and completely turn the thread into another Konerko bash/praise thread. Thanks. Can you possibly go, say, 10 posts without mentioning Konerko? Give it a try. Just once.

Excellent point. This thread originally was a thread about Crede. Though the hijack occured in the second post, it was still a hijack.

The fact is that the original post talked about Crede's monthly splits and didn't mention PK at all.

In honor of the ORIGINAL intent of this thread, I will chime in with my views. Crede is a solid contributor to this team. His defensive ability have led to the Sox having their best defensive squad in years and made the infield defense as good as I can ever remember.

His hitting is streaky, but his projections for the year - .248/23/71/.740 OPS aren't that far off from the numbers thrown around earlier in the thread and the fact is he has been better the last two months when healthy. Comes a point in time the hate is just hate and doesn't match the value Joe has brought to the team.

Jjav829
07-21-2005, 11:19 AM
You may be surprised like I was when you look at his monthly splits...


Actually, I wouldn't be because I've been saying this for a while. In an effort to try to bring this thread back to just being about Crede....

I do agree that you can't necessarily just chop off a players worst month and count the rest as his overall numbers. Crede did have an awful May and it does count. However, I think you do have to look at it as how this month drags down his statistics, skewing his overall numbers.

You look at his overall OPS of .740 and his average/OBP of .248/.302/.439. Now that doesn't look too impressive. However going .155/.211/.286/.496 in May just kills the numbers and I think it does make a difference for a guy like Crede. You can take some of the great hitters in the league and find similar slumps. Yet what separates them from Crede is that those guys have the ability to go off and have a monster month, balancing out the horrible month. Crede is most likely never going to have those monster months. He might never be a great offensive player so when he goes into a cold streak, it really kills his overall numbers more than others.

Take Eric Chavez for example. Chavez had an awful first month. His line was .194/.276/.312/.588. Now that's pretty bad. Yet you look at this overall line now and it's .274/.337/.447/.784. Hell, Chavez even had a bad second month going .239/.276/.321/.597. Chavez had two bad months to Crede's one bad month. So how are Chavez's numbers better? Well, like I said, Chavez has that ability to put up a monster month to balance out the bad months. And he did just that in June posting an unbelievable line of .379/.440/.699/1.139. Crede is most likely never going to post a 1.100 OPS in a single month. So when he had one poor month, it really skews his overall numbers because he doesn't have the ability, at least at this point, to make up for a sub-par month with one explosive month.

maurice
07-21-2005, 11:24 AM
If Crede could ever maintain a .330+ OBP, he'd be a very good player. Until then, he's a nice complimentary player. In any event, the chances of a healthy Crede returning next season >>>>> the chances of Konerko returning next season. Obviously Konerko is a better hitter, but Crede will be much cheaper and his glove >>>>>>>>>> Konerko's glove.

fquaye149
07-21-2005, 11:59 AM
Actually, I wouldn't be because I've been saying this for a while. In an effort to try to bring this thread back to just being about Crede....

I do agree that you can't necessarily just chop off a players worst month and count the rest as his overall numbers. Crede did have an awful May and it does count. However, I think you do have to look at it as how this month drags down his statistics, skewing his overall numbers.

You look at his overall OPS of .740 and his average/OBP of .248/.302/.439. Now that doesn't look too impressive. However going .155/.211/.286/.496 in May just kills the numbers and I think it does make a difference for a guy like Crede. You can take some of the great hitters in the league and find similar slumps. Yet what separates them from Crede is that those guys have the ability to go off and have a monster month, balancing out the horrible month. Crede is most likely never going to have those monster months. He might never be a great offensive player so when he goes into a cold streak, it really kills his overall numbers more than others.

Take Eric Chavez for example. Chavez had an awful first month. His line was .194/.276/.312/.588. Now that's pretty bad. Yet you look at this overall line now and it's .274/.337/.447/.784. Hell, Chavez even had a bad second month going .239/.276/.321/.597. Chavez had two bad months to Crede's one bad month. So how are Chavez's numbers better? Well, like I said, Chavez has that ability to put up a monster month to balance out the bad months. And he did just that in June posting an unbelievable line of .379/.440/.699/1.139. Crede is most likely never going to post a 1.100 OPS in a single month. So when he had one poor month, it really skews his overall numbers because he doesn't have the ability, at least at this point, to make up for a sub-par month with one explosive month.

As much as I like Crede - here's what worries me: Crede has always been a hot cold hitter. Much like Konerko (and I don't mean this in a Frater way) he lets cold snaps get in his head. A lot of people have said that Konerko and Crede might be the smartest players on the Sox. In the past we have seen that work to Crede's disadvantage as slumps tend to rattle around in his head. Because of this it seems like he gets red hot for long snaps, blue cold for others.

While we can look at May as a bringdown and say Crede's a good hitter besides May...I believe that more than most other players, May is as emblematic of Crede as a hitter as anything else he's done. That is, like with Konerko, we have to EXPECT months like May from Crede, because in the past two years of playing full time he's HAD stretches like May every year.

That is, he might be a pretty good hitter excepting May...but while you might be able to except May for Chavez, Jeter (last year), or whomever else, you can't do it for Crede, because that's as much a part of his player as Dye's slow starting is, or Kevin Brown's poor Septembers, whatever.

IDK.

Frater Perdurabo
07-21-2005, 01:33 PM
Can you possibly go, say, 10 posts without mentioning Konerko? Give it a try. Just once.

The original post only mentioned Crede's offensive production. I think it is quite telling that Crede's one terrible month offset what otherwise has been quite good offensive production that's very similar to another certain Sox infielder who made the All-Star team. I won't name the other player in this reply. :tongue:

I think this speaks to Crede's value to the team, considering that in addition to this respectable offensive production, he also brings Gold Glove-caliber defense to a very significant position, some timely clutch hitting, and has done it all with a bad back!

I think it's entirely possible and plausible Crede's long swing may be a direct result of having back problems - problems that he may not have thought were serious enough to warrant treatment because they didn't cause as much pain in previous seasons. Now that he (and Herm Schneider) knows he has disk problems and already has begun an exercise regimen, I would not be at all surprised if later this year or in 2006 Crede's swing mechanics dramatically improve and he begins to hit for a much higher average and OPS without a loss in power. I definitely could see him hitting .275 with 30 homers and 30 doubles every year if this new exercise regimen is successful.

If the Sox also see this and think his back will improve with proper exercise, I think Crede not only should be the full-time starting 3B on this team, but also merits much more patience and a substantial salary increase in a long-term contract.

So.ILSoxFan
07-21-2005, 02:52 PM
Is this directed at me? If so, you need to read the whole thread. I don't hate Crede and I'm not saying he should be replaced. I'm just saying the original post dissed Konerko using an invalid comparison.

Frankly I don't understand either the Crede or Konerko haters.

This wasn't directed at you, just the number of those here who cannot admit when they have beat a dead horse to death again....The rant was inspired by the sight of another Crede thread, which upon further reading really was not about trading anyone....my apologies!

:cool:

scottjanssens
07-21-2005, 02:55 PM
This wasn't directed at you, just the number of those here who cannot admit when they have beat a dead horse to death again....The rant was inspired by the sight of another Crede thread, which upon further reading really was not about trading anyone....my apologies!

Ah, ok, no worries then. I just didn't see who else it could apply to.

As for beating a dead horse, there's not much else to do until game time.

1951Campbell
07-21-2005, 03:39 PM
To paraphrase Ricky Pitino, Robin Ventura's not walking through that door. Joe Randa's not walking through that door.

And what does Crede cost, like 400K?

Sheesh.

Randar68
07-21-2005, 03:51 PM
Sox wouldn't be anywhere near where they are right now without Paulie. At any rate neither player will be back next year so don't too attached.

:whoflungpoo

As usual from Scotty...

Randar68
07-21-2005, 03:54 PM
because that's as much a part of his player as Dye's slow starting is, or Kevin Brown's poor Septembers, whatever.

Bad example. Dye has never been a slow starter before this year. Rowand might be a more apt comparison, though...

Iguana775
07-21-2005, 05:09 PM
Excellent point. This thread originally was a thread about Crede. Though the hijack occured in the second post, it was still a hijack.

The fact is that the original post talked about Crede's monthly splits and didn't mention PK at all.

In honor of the ORIGINAL intent of this thread, I will chime in with my views. Crede is a solid contributor to this team. His defensive ability have led to the Sox having their best defensive squad in years and made the infield defense as good as I can ever remember.

His hitting is streaky, but his projections for the year - .248/23/71/.740 OPS aren't that far off from the numbers thrown around earlier in the thread and the fact is he has been better the last two months when healthy. Comes a point in time the hate is just hate and doesn't match the value Joe has brought to the team.

Thanks Voodoo. i think this was the only 3rd post actually pertaining to my original post.

I think Crede will be just fine and we don't need an upgrade there. There are other things that need upgrading.

scottjanssens
07-21-2005, 05:44 PM
:whoflungpoo

As usual from Scotty...

I think I spoke too soon when I told another member this board had a higher maturity level than the boards at espn.

scottjanssens
07-21-2005, 05:45 PM
Thanks Voodoo. i think this was the only 3rd post actually pertaining to my original post.

I think Crede will be just fine and we don't need an upgrade there. There are other things that need upgrading.

Well, if you'll look carefully, you'll see I said the same thing.

RallyBowl
07-21-2005, 06:27 PM
This has to be a historic thread. Apaulogists vs.FOJC? I don't think I've seen this one yet. I'm putting my money on Crede's Crew, but I'll stay out of it... for now.

fquaye149
07-21-2005, 06:57 PM
Bad example. Dye has never been a slow starter before this year. Rowand might be a more apt comparison, though...

Are you serious? I haven't done the numbers...but what I heard from everyone on this board while Dye was struggling is that he has historically been a slow starter

fquaye149
07-21-2005, 06:59 PM
I think I spoke too soon when I told another member this board had a higher maturity level than the boards at espn.


don't fling poo and you won't get called on it.

even if we admit that Konerko is "THE REASON WE'RE IN FIRST PLACE" (which most people, even the apaulogists won't admit)... You still claim Crede will be gone next year? My hairy art. Who are we trading him to? He's ours through next year if we don't deal.

SillyChiSoxChick
07-21-2005, 07:32 PM
Crede really isn't that bad. I'm just a bit concerned about his back, and if it gets any worse we are going to have our hands tied. As it is Pablo Ozuna is playing almost every game because we constantly have to give someone a day off and pablo is the only backup we have who can play the left side of the infield.

Numbers aside, Crede has helped the sox win many a game in the 05 season. He is a solid contributor and I would hate to see the sox lose his contributions and not have another play should he go down.

I totally agree after watching Ozuna play 3rd base one game I was praying for Crede to come back because after all Pablo gets way more errors than Joe. I think Crede's a pretty good clutch hitter and he's been doing really well lately, so I have no problems with him what so ever.

shoota
07-21-2005, 10:26 PM
The original post only mentioned Crede's offensive production. I think it is quite telling that Crede's one terrible month offset what otherwise has been quite good offensive production that's very similar to another certain Sox infielder who made the All-Star team. I won't name the other player in this reply. :tongue:

I think this speaks to Crede's value to the team, considering that in addition to this respectable offensive production, he also brings Gold Glove-caliber defense to a very significant position, some timely clutch hitting, and has done it all with a bad back!

I think it's entirely possible and plausible Crede's long swing may be a direct result of having back problems - problems that he may not have thought were serious enough to warrant treatment because they didn't cause as much pain in previous seasons. Now that he (and Herm Schneider) knows he has disk problems and already has begun an exercise regimen, I would not be at all surprised if later this year or in 2006 Crede's swing mechanics dramatically improve and he begins to hit for a much higher average and OPS without a loss in power. I definitely could see him hitting .275 with 30 homers and 30 doubles every year if this new exercise regimen is successful.

If the Sox also see this and think his back will improve with proper exercise, I think Crede not only should be the full-time starting 3B on this team, but also merits much more patience and a substantial salary increase in a long-term contract.

If Crede fans want to celebrate and embrace .240, 25, 75 hitting player, fine. But I take issue with people who say this .240, 25, 75 hitter is great because of the numbers he may put up in future seasons.

Your theory that Crede's long swing is a result of back problems is incorrect speculation. Crede has had a long swing the entire time he's been on the Sox. If there is a correlation between his long swing and bad back, it's that his injury was partly caused by his long swings and misses.

Frater Perdurabo
07-21-2005, 10:46 PM
Your theory that Crede's long swing is a result of back problems is incorrect speculation. Crede has had a long swing the entire time he's been on the Sox. If there is a correlation between his long swing and bad back, it's that his injury was partly caused by his long swings and misses.

OK, I'm willing to admit that my hypothesis about his long swing being a result of his disk problem is pure speculation that happens to fit the facts. I don't know how long he's lived and played with discomfort in his back, but neither do you. So your theory also is pure speculation.

I think you get a bad rap around here, shoota, but sometimes you are just over the top with your Crede hating. There's a reason the mods have christened you "Glenn Close," and trust me, it's not for your screen acting ability.

shoota
07-21-2005, 10:59 PM
OK, I'm willing to admit that my hypothesis about his long swing being a result of his disk problem is pure speculation that happens to fit the facts. I don't know how long he's lived and played with discomfort in his back, but neither do you. So your theory also is pure speculation.

I think you get a bad rap around here, shoota, but sometimes you are just over the top with your Crede hating. There's a reason the mods have christened you "Glenn Close," and trust me, it's not for your screen acting ability.

:rolling:

Frater Perdurabo
07-21-2005, 11:03 PM
:rolling:

Crede with the RBI double to tie the game!

:supernana:

shoota
07-21-2005, 11:06 PM
Crede with the RBI double to tie the game!

:supernana:

:redface:







:D:

bigdommer
07-21-2005, 11:07 PM
Crede...gotta have it.

soltrain21
07-21-2005, 11:11 PM
And this topic starts back up! But now it questions his defense....hooray!

SpartanSoxFan
07-21-2005, 11:12 PM
I love how he hits the game-tying double in the gap, only to drop an easy foul fly ball off Manny Ramierez later in the inning while showboating, allowing Ramierez the chance to jack the go-ahead HR.

DAMN YOU JOE CREDE!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :angry: :angry: :angry: :angry: :angry: :angry: :angry: :angry:

gobears1987
07-21-2005, 11:13 PM
I Want Randa!!!!

pczarapa
07-21-2005, 11:15 PM
Let's see, had a chance in the sixth to do something, looked horrible. Ties the game with a double, then tries to get cute with an Ivan Calderon type catch and screws us. Yeah, he's not that good.

RavenswoodFan
07-21-2005, 11:28 PM
[QUOTE=pczarapa]Let's see, had a chance in the sixth to do something, looked horrible. Ties the game with a double, then tries to get cute with an Ivan Calderon type catch and screws us. Yeah, he's not that good.[/QUOTE


Yeah, I'm really :angry:! That was really bad! I like Crede, but man, wt* was he thinking? Oh, well hopefully they can bounce back and take the series.

shoota
07-21-2005, 11:28 PM
:redface:







:D:

Well, I'm not blushing any more. I'm :angry: at Crede. The half inning after he ties the game on a double, he drops an easy Manny Ramirez pop up in foul ground that hit his glove. Manny then hits the game-winning home run.

Chalk up another unofficial Crede error in the shoota scorebook. :mad:

shoota
07-21-2005, 11:29 PM
To answer the question asked in the title of this thread, yes.

WhiteSox = Life
07-21-2005, 11:32 PM
Well, I'm not blushing any more. I'm :angry: at Crede. The half inning after he ties the game on a double, he drops an easy Manny Ramirez pop up in foul ground that hit his glove. Manny then hits the game-winning home run.

Chalk up another unofficial Crede error in the shoota scorebook. :mad:

Yeah, but only this time it's official.

bennyw41
07-21-2005, 11:57 PM
Did you see how white he got when he dropped the ball? He looked like he saw a ghost.

Jjav829
07-22-2005, 12:01 AM
To answer the question asked in the title of this thread, yes.

Yes, one bad play determines all. Forget the fact that he's played gold glove defense all year long, given us decent hitting out of the #8 spot, and even had some big hits. He dropped Manny's foul popup. He sucks. :rolleyes:

LuvSox
07-22-2005, 12:07 AM
Did you see how white he got when he dropped the ball? He looked like he saw a ghost.

Joe's a good guy. He realized what happened, probably afraid of what Ozzie would do to him.

illinibk
07-22-2005, 12:09 AM
Yes, one bad play determines all. Forget the fact that he's played gold glove defense all year long, given us decent hitting out of the #8 spot, and even had some big hits. He dropped Manny's foul popup. He sucks. :rolleyes:

Man, why do you have to bring up old stuff? Seriously JJav, when has shoota ever let facts get in the way of his hatred for Crede?

Region Sox
07-22-2005, 12:10 AM
I really never have liked him. Seems like every time I have put down good money ($30 a game for the sake of arguing) X 7 times a year X 4 years, I think he has gone 0fer 18 times, 1fer 4 times, 2fer or better 2 times, and DNP 4 times. I will not shed a tear if he ever does leave town.

illinibk
07-22-2005, 12:12 AM
I really never have liked him. Seems like every time I have put down good money ($30 a game for the sake of arguing) X 7 times a year X 4 years, I think he has gone 0fer 18 times, 1fer 4 times, 2fer or better 2 times, and DNP 4 times. I will not shed a tear if he ever does leave town.
Ok, and what are the numbers for the other eight hitters? What about the pitchers? I'm sure Crede was solely responsible for all those losses.

Region Sox
07-22-2005, 12:20 AM
And personally I don't see why this entire board has a Joe Crede hard on. he has consistently been a subpar hitter. I don't like the fear in his eyes. I don't like the pop ups. I don't like that he can't lay down a bunt. I don't like people making excuses for him. I don't like that the Cubs have a guy that is remarkably better. I loved Herbert in 2000, but I knew that was a one year wonder.

So in conclusion... I don't like Joe Crede. That is my opinion and I have a damn right to feel that way.

PS how did that NCAA National Championship game treat you?

shoota
07-22-2005, 12:42 AM
I really never have liked him. Seems like every time I have put down good money ($30 a game for the sake of arguing) X 7 times a year X 4 years, I think he has gone 0fer 18 times, 1fer 4 times, 2fer or better 2 times, and DNP 4 times. I will not shed a tear if he ever does leave town.

Ironically, I've been to many games where Joe has hit home runs right at me or had important sacrifice flys.

PS how did that NCAA National Championship game treat you?

:rolling:

:cheers:

Chisox003
07-22-2005, 12:47 AM
And personally I don't see why this entire board has a Joe Crede hard on. he has consistently been a subpar hitter. I don't like the fear in his eyes. I don't like the pop ups. I don't like that he can't lay down a bunt. I don't like people making excuses for him. I don't like that the Cubs have a guy that is remarkably better. I loved Herbert in 2000, but I knew that was a one year wonder.

So in conclusion... I don't like Joe Crede. That is my opinion and I have a damn right to feel that way.

PS how did that NCAA National Championship game treat you?

Dont like the fear in his eyes?

Yikes :rolleyes:

I'd love to see your suggestions for a possible replacement 3B better than Crede....

Region Sox
07-22-2005, 01:09 AM
Dont like the fear in his eyes?
I'd love to see your suggestions for a possible replacement 3B better than Crede....

I don't know... give this Fields kid a shot but don't wait too long. I guess free agency will be the only realistic option.

scottjanssens
07-22-2005, 01:17 AM
Give Joe a break. Lot's of the Sox messed up tonight and that drop was a tough play. I was there. The ball was over the crowd when it started its descent. Should Joe have caught the ball? Yes. Should Viz have picked up Crede and not tossed a HR ball? Yes. Should Iguchi, Pierzinski, and Rowand made plays they didn't? Yes. You win as a team you lose as a team, and just about everybody contributed to this loss. This was easily the second worst game they've played this season. They gave up three unearned runs while missing two starters and still only lost by one.

It's time to flush the toilet and start timing knuckleballs.

SouthSide4Life
07-22-2005, 01:20 AM
does anybody find it strange that after one yes one error on Joes part there is a thread with a title like this ones? ridickerous

Jjav829
07-22-2005, 01:20 AM
does anybody find it strange that after one yes one error on Joes part there is a thread with a title like this ones? ridickerous

This thread was started earlier in the day. It had nothing to do with Crede's game today.

scottjanssens
07-22-2005, 01:22 AM
This thread was started earlier in the day. It had nothing to do with Crede's game today.

And ironically it was a thread about offense.

Lip Man 1
07-22-2005, 01:25 AM
It's interesting the way the Sox announcers described the play isn't it?

Both DJ and Hawk sort of got on Crede for attempting to make a 'swipe' with the glove to catch the pop up. Melton however defended the move on the post game show saying he had to do that because the wind brought it back.

Bill knows first hand about embarassing pop up's. He lost a ball in the lights at Baltimore one time and it hit him square in the nose. I think it broke it because there was blood everywhere.

Lip

SouthSide4Life
07-22-2005, 01:33 AM
This thread was started earlier in the day. It had nothing to do with Crede's game today.has he honestly been lacking as of late? i hardly think Joe is who we should be worried about now.

fquaye149
07-22-2005, 02:35 AM
I don't know... give this Fields kid a shot but don't wait too long. .

well, your opinion officially is informed and relevant.

fquaye149
07-22-2005, 02:37 AM
All it takes is a day like this to prove many white sox fans are as ridiculous as Cub fans.

(already prepared for the inevitable dark cloud retort: "and those fans are YOU with your optimism, blah blah blah")

TaylorStSox
07-22-2005, 02:38 AM
well, your opinion officially is informed and relevant.


Right. Fields? ***. Have you seen him play? He's a legit prospect, but he's not in Joe's league. Josh Fields is a kid that's going to hit but plays NO DEFENSE.

jabrch
07-22-2005, 03:03 AM
I was told here that OPS is bulls--t.

OPS is a mathematically illegitimate non-statistic. You can not take two fractions with different denominators, add the numerators, and get a legitimate, mathematical number.

Adding X/A to Y/B can not be done unless you conver the A and B to a common number. That's why people say that OPS is not a legit stat. Is it an indicator - sure it is. But it needs to be used very carefully. First - you can't compare OPS of guys who are asked to do different things. I don't care what the heck my 1 or 2 hitters OPS is since I don't give a damn what their SLG is. I also don't care about the OPS of my 7/8/9 hitters as much as I do care about how they can do little things including play defense (since that usually is a SS and a Catcher), move pick up RISP and move runners when needed. Few teams (short those with top payrolls) have guys in those spots who have OPS that would be statistically significantly better (if such a thing existed given the lack of statistical significance of OPS).

Compare a 3/4 to a 3/4 and you may have something - but even still you don't. A guy who gets on at a .285 clip with 40 HRs and 150+ Ks is not worth anything close to what a guy with a similar OPS but a more balanced approach to the plate.

OPS, like any other number, is just one data point. It is not usable on its own. It doesn't tell anything close to the whole story. And in the particular case of OPS, it is misused and misunderstood by many - including those who think that it holds any legitimate mathematical significance.

Norberto7
07-22-2005, 09:44 AM
There's a reason the mods have christened you "Glenn Close," and trust me, it's not for your screen acting ability.

I saw that, and I wondered about it. I don't know enough about Glenn Close to "get it"...any help? :?:

Frater Perdurabo
07-22-2005, 10:00 AM
I saw that, and I wondered about it. I don't know enough about Glenn Close to "get it"...any help? :?:

Honestly I don't "get it" either. :redface: Maybe one of the Mods can explain? :D:

voodoochile
07-22-2005, 10:27 AM
OPS is a mathematically illegitimate non-statistic. You can not take two fractions with different denominators, add the numerators, and get a legitimate, mathematical number.

Adding X/A to Y/B can not be done unless you conver the A and B to a common number. That's why people say that OPS is not a legit stat. Is it an indicator - sure it is. But it needs to be used very carefully. First - you can't compare OPS of guys who are asked to do different things. I don't care what the heck my 1 or 2 hitters OPS is since I don't give a damn what their SLG is. I also don't care about the OPS of my 7/8/9 hitters as much as I do care about how they can do little things including play defense (since that usually is a SS and a Catcher), move pick up RISP and move runners when needed. Few teams (short those with top payrolls) have guys in those spots who have OPS that would be statistically significantly better (if such a thing existed given the lack of statistical significance of OPS).

Compare a 3/4 to a 3/4 and you may have something - but even still you don't. A guy who gets on at a .285 clip with 40 HRs and 150+ Ks is not worth anything close to what a guy with a similar OPS but a more balanced approach to the plate.

OPS, like any other number, is just one data point. It is not usable on its own. It doesn't tell anything close to the whole story. And in the particular case of OPS, it is misused and misunderstood by many - including those who think that it holds any legitimate mathematical significance.

OPS is relevent not because it tells us something specific but because of the distribution of players with high OPS are all great players. For example, every eligible player with a career OPS over 1.000 is in the HOF.

Not hard to realize that a player who both reaches base at a high percentage AND hits for power is going to be a star. Saying it is irrelevent is silly. It does make an excellent analytical tool for seperating the great players from he merely good players...

Tragg
07-22-2005, 10:35 AM
OPS is a mathematically illegitimate non-statistic. You can not take two fractions with different denominators, add the numerators, and get a legitimate, mathematical number.

Adding X/A to Y/B can not be done unless you conver the A and B to a common number.

Not true: I can add 1/3 and 2/5 without converting to a common number.
1/3 = .333; 2/5 = .40 and together they equal .73. Nowhere did I convert to a common number. We're not dealing with X and Y; we're dealing with known numerals. And aren't the denominators the same anyway? Total at-bats?

Now it may be invalid in the sense that you're giving equal weight to OPS and SLG, when perhaps they don't deserve equal weight; it may be invalid because it's easier to earn one stat or the other (for example, saying that the RedSox were 5 times better than the Patriots last year because they won 5 times as many games).

fquaye149
07-22-2005, 10:43 AM
I saw that, and I wondered about it. I don't know enough about Glenn Close to "get it"...any help? :?:

I'm only guessing but in the movie fatal attraction Glenn Close has an affar w/ Michael Douglas. He refuses to continue to see her so she goes ****crazy and hates him to the point where she tries to kill him.

I would assume that one of the mods (west, probably) has decided that shoota has the same sort of fatal attraction to Crede.

certainly would explain his unhealthy obsession with him

fquaye149
07-22-2005, 10:52 AM
OPS is relevent not because it tells us something specific but because of the distribution of players with high OPS are all great players. For example, every eligible player with a career OPS over 1.000 is in the HOF.

Not hard to realize that a player who both reaches base at a high percentage AND hits for power is going to be a star. Saying it is irrelevent is silly. It does make an excellent analytical tool for seperating the great players from he merely good players...

Sort of.

It is probably relevant for the reason you've stated. However, there are a lot of HOFers who have pretty poor OPS's..which is kind of what jabrch was saying. For cleanup hitters, OPS is a very very good measurement. For leadoff hitters, not so much. For instance, Nap Lajoie's OPS is 847. Paul Waner's is 875. Lou Brock's is 753. Looooie's was 654. Nellie's was 711.

These are relatively underwhelming OPS's and while you might say "well of course they are - these weren't power hitters" that's precisely the point. OPS shows one thing. Statheads often want to compare all hitters by it, measuring Podsednik's and Ichiro's OPS and determing, for instance, that Matt Stairs would be a better leadoff hitter. However, while anyone with an OPS over 1.000 is bound to be a legendary hitter, the opposite is not true. Otherwise Paul Konerko would be a better hitter than Nellie Fox. I don't believe that's true.

scottjanssens
07-22-2005, 11:01 AM
That's why people say that OPS is not a legit stat. Is it an indicator - sure it is. But it needs to be used very carefully. First - you can't compare OPS of guys who are asked to do different things.

For reasons already explained, the first part of this isn't quite true (and there's even OPS+ to give weights). I agree whole-heartedly with the rest of the post. No stat is the end-all be-all. Some stats are more useful than others. Most stats just tell you something out of the ordinary is going on and you need to look closer (usually at other stats).

My OPS comment was somewhat sarcastic (but not necessarily in a teal sort of way). The context occured in several other threads. I apologize for confusion cause by not setting up the comment properly. OPS is a useful indicator and in most cases will tell you more than BA. OPS's biggest flaws, IMO, come when evaluating hitters such as Podsednik and Iguchi. Pod's SLG is low so in turn has an OPS below his true offensive value. OPS doesn't take productive outs into account which hurts Iguchi. (Although Iguchi has been slumping at the plate the past few weeks.) By and large OPS is a quick and dirty indicator that's slightly better than simply BA (see Frank Thomas to see why) in the majority of situations. Like all stats it should not be used by itself to draw any conclusions.

scottjanssens
07-22-2005, 11:12 AM
Statheads often want to compare all hitters by it

Just the ones who are lazy and/or ignorant.

Frater Perdurabo
07-22-2005, 11:30 AM
However, while anyone with an OPS over 1.000 is bound to be a legendary hitter, the opposite is not true. Otherwise Paul Konerko would be a better hitter than Nellie Fox. I don't believe that's true.

Shhhh.... don't tell the FOGIDPK..... :tongue:

voodoochile
07-22-2005, 11:35 AM
Sort of.

It is probably relevant for the reason you've stated. However, there are a lot of HOFers who have pretty poor OPS's..which is kind of what jabrch was saying. For cleanup hitters, OPS is a very very good measurement. For leadoff hitters, not so much. For instance, Nap Lajoie's OPS is 847. Paul Waner's is 875. Lou Brock's is 753. Looooie's was 654. Nellie's was 711.

These are relatively underwhelming OPS's and while you might say "well of course they are - these weren't power hitters" that's precisely the point. OPS shows one thing. Statheads often want to compare all hitters by it, measuring Podsednik's and Ichiro's OPS and determing, for instance, that Matt Stairs would be a better leadoff hitter. However, while anyone with an OPS over 1.000 is bound to be a legendary hitter, the opposite is not true. Otherwise Paul Konerko would be a better hitter than Nellie Fox. I don't believe that's true.

Point taken and indeed you are correct. It is also tough to compare hitters across eras as what is commonplace today was not in the 50's.

It isn't the sole means of determining greatness and I would never claim it was, but it definitely has applications...

FielderJones
07-22-2005, 11:35 AM
I saw that, and I wondered about it. I don't know enough about Glenn Close to "get it"...any help? :?:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0093010/

scottjanssens
07-22-2005, 11:36 AM
For instance, Nap Lajoie's OPS is 847. Paul Waner's is 875. Lou Brock's is 753. Looooie's was 654. Nellie's was 711.

These are relatively underwhelming OPS's

I wouldn't say that. Only Aparicio's is poor by the usual OPS standards (that is, considering nothing else), but that's hardly surprising since he was exactly the type of hitter that isn't well covered by OPS. .700 is considered decent, not great, but I wouldn't say underwhelming. .800 is a solid OPS, for most hitters. You'd want more from a 3 or 4 hitter but for most .800 is good.

voodoochile
07-22-2005, 11:38 AM
I wouldn't say that. Only Aparicios is poor by the usual OPS standards (that is considering nothing else), but that's hardly surprising since he was exactly the type of hitter that isn't well covered by OPS. .700 is considered decent, not great, but I wouldn't say underwhelming. .800 is a solid OPS.

Yes, most teams would welcome a player who put up .350/.450 numbers.

PaleHoseGeorge
07-22-2005, 11:39 AM
I don't think Crede as everyday thirdbasemen is a problem per se for the 2005 Sox. The Sox lost last night because Buehrle didn't pitch up to expectations. This team has won a league-leading number of games solely on the strength of the rotation and last night it wasn't good enough to get the job done.

162 games... **** happens.

So blaming the #8 hitter and defensive specialist (or even Iguchi's mishandled balls) is quite disingenuous. The 2005 Sox live and die with the starting pitchers.

If we're serious about "improving" on our league-leading record, hope and pray the pitching staff stays healthy and productive. However if you want insurance, look further up the batting order than #8 to make a difference.

The problem isn't Crede. It's Crede and Uribe combined with a middle of the order of Konerko, Everett, and Rowand that causes the trouble, i.e. lack of run production.

Let's hope Frank gets healthy soon. He's the only dangerous hitter this team can consistently count on.

Randar68
07-22-2005, 11:40 AM
OPS is relevent not because it tells us something specific but because of the distribution of players with high OPS are all great players. For example, every eligible player with a career OPS over 1.000 is in the HOF.

Not hard to realize that a player who both reaches base at a high percentage AND hits for power is going to be a star. Saying it is irrelevent is silly. It does make an excellent analytical tool for seperating the great players from he merely good players...

The Problem with OPS is that it is explicitly weighted to give greater measure to power versus OBP. In a true sense, one should take the average All-time OBP in the majors versus the average all-time SLG% in the majors and weight them based on how they compare (although standard deviation of these numbers should also probably be considered). That would be converting them to give equal weight.

However, if one likes to give greater weight to SLG%, which I think is a very real desire, then I still think the way OPS is currently weighted is over-the-top in-benefit-of high-SLG% hitters.

It should probably be somewhere between that All-Time average method and the current one.

Some have proposed simple methods such as 1.25*OBP + SLG%, and that may in-fact be close to a compromise, but it should be studied more-closely.

GREAT lead-off and #2 hitters do not appear to be great hitters at all when measured by OPS. I have never looked it up, but I would be curious to see what Nellie Fox, Pete Rose, and Ty Cobb's OPS were...

Randar68
07-22-2005, 11:45 AM
The 2005 Sox live and die with the starting pitchers.

I would add that our league-leading defense is symbiotic with the pitching, and that is what REALLY let us down last night IMO. Every time the pitching got in a jam, they struggled like hell to get out of it with minimal damage, but a few badly timed defensive lapses really hurt what would have been inning or rally ending chances...

If we're serious about "improving" on our league-leading record, hope and pray the pitching staff stays healthy and productive. However if you want insurance, look further up the batting order than #8 to make a difference.

The problem isn't Crede. It's Crede and Uribe combined with a middle of the order of Konerko, Everett, and Rowand that causes the trouble, i.e. lack of run production.

Let's hope Frank gets healthy soon. He's the only dangerous hitter this team can consistently count on.

Agree with all of this. #8 and #9 hitters are not where any angst should be directed. We're a team hitting ~.260 because out middle of the order is full of .250-.275 hitters...

IMO, this team does not need more pitching unless they can add a legit bullpen arm like Wagner or MAYBE Guardado. This team needs more middle-of-the-order production, and I would really love to see a Griffey or Thome (IF HEALTHY) or someone of that nature acquired if it is at-all possible

nug0hs
07-22-2005, 11:47 AM
Some times I just do not understand a lot of our fans logic towards bashing Uribe or Crede. In a lot of cases I think people should just shut their mouths about their batting woes and get over it. NO LINEUP is going to have 9 hitters to are consistently smacking the ball for base hits and RBIs. I have never really gotten upset this season about Crede/Uribe's "below average" hitting because I know that they will make up for it in the field at some point in the game...or come pretty close. Is it that hard for you people to just suck it up and realize that these guys are here for their gloves and not their bats?

scottjanssens
07-22-2005, 11:52 AM
What's the board's way of giving an 'atta boy to a great post? Randar68's post above is excellent.

scottjanssens
07-22-2005, 11:53 AM
NO LINEUP is going to have 9 hitters to are consistently smacking the ball for base hits and RBIs.

Just playing Devil's Advocate: take another look at the Red Sox lineup.

Still, I'd take the Sox pitching staff over the Red Sox linup any day. I'm still unconvinced the Red Sox will make the playoffs. 60/40 I'd say right now.

fquaye149
07-22-2005, 12:00 PM
I wouldn't say that. Only Aparicio's is poor by the usual OPS standards (that is, considering nothing else), but that's hardly surprising since he was exactly the type of hitter that isn't well covered by OPS. .700 is considered decent, not great, but I wouldn't say underwhelming. .800 is a solid OPS, for most hitters. You'd want more from a 3 or 4 hitter but for most .800 is good.

Clearly they're solid OPS'. They just aren't great OPSThe point is if you use OPS as a barometer a player like Vernon Wells would appear to be better than these HOFers. Like I said, I'll take Lajoie or Waner

FielderJones
07-22-2005, 12:06 PM
I don't think Crede as everyday thirdbasemen is a problem per se for the 2005 Sox. The Sox lost last night because Buehrle didn't pitch up to expectations. This team has won a league-leading number of games solely on the strength of the rotation and last night it wasn't good enough to get the job done.

But Buehrle was good enough to get the job done last night.

I understand that getting the leadoff man makes it easier to pitch scoreless innings. Nonetheless, if you make enough good pitches to get three outs before a runner scores you've done your job. Mark made pitches later in the inning that normally would have gotten the job done. Rowand hosed a fly ball that he normally catches. Iguchi hosed a ground ball that he normally plays flawlessly. Buehrle depends on his defense to make outs. If the defense gives your opponents extra outs and extra bases, good pitches are wasted.

fquaye149
07-22-2005, 12:08 PM
GREAT lead-off and #2 hitters do not appear to be great hitters at all when measured by OPS. I have never looked it up, but I would be curious to see what Nellie Fox, Pete Rose, and Ty Cobb's OPS were...

Ty Cobb's OPS is a stout 945. Of course he hit nearly 300 triples in an era when outfields were huge and outfielders not so great.

You can see Nellie Fox's OPS in my earlier post

Rose's OPS is 784

Ricky's is 820

Obviously the great leadoff hitters have good OBP's...but comparable to very mediocre power hitters:

Kong: 780
Dave Parker: 810
Rob Deer: 766
and of course:
Matt Stairs: 853

Fake Chet Lemon
07-22-2005, 12:11 PM
Crede's agent is $cott Bora$. So anyone who thinks Crede will be around LONG TERM is kind of clueless. So it's inevitable he'll leave once he is able to make any money.

maurice
07-22-2005, 12:18 PM
That was a horrible defensive game. Please don't say that Crede's popup was a "tough play." That's just about the easiest play a 3B ever is asked to make. He routinely makes plays that are 100 times harder. The popup did not go over the crowd and blow back into play. It was coming down in play and then blew a bit. He just misread it and initially thought it was near the rail, unlike Uribe who was in the correct position the whole time and would have made the play if Joe asked for help.

The good news is, Crede (and Rowand and Iguchi) probably won't flub a play that badly for a long time. You can question whether true Gold Glove players would have messed up that badly, but you can't trash overall defensive ability using individual examples. The defense and pitching should rebound starting today.

PaleHoseGeorge
07-22-2005, 12:21 PM
But Buehrle was good enough to get the job done last night.

I understand that getting the leadoff man makes it easier to pitch scoreless innings. Nonetheless, if you make enough good pitches to get three outs before a runner scores you've done your job. Mark made pitches later in the inning that normally would have gotten the job done. Rowand hosed a fly ball that he normally catches. Iguchi hosed a ground ball that he normally plays flawlessly. Buehrle depends on his defense to make outs. If the defense gives your opponents extra outs and extra bases, good pitches are wasted.

Buehrle gave up 3 runs in 6 innings pitched. His ERA after the game was still 2.66. I said it wasn't a good enough effort to get the job done. Do the math. In spite of everything else, the Sox only lost by 1 run.

This team isn't good enough to regularly overcome sub-standard performances by our otherwise excellent starting rotation. It's been like this all season long. I'm hardly blazing new trails making such a statement. So where the hell have you been?
:?:

maurice
07-22-2005, 12:22 PM
Ty Cobb's OPS is a stout 945. Of course he hit nearly 300 triples in an era when outfields were huge and outfielders not so great.

He also hit with a split grip, did not try to hit HR, and ridiculed Ruth for trying to hit HR. In fact, HR wasn't even a triple crown stat back then.

fquaye149
07-22-2005, 12:32 PM
He also hit with a split grip, did not try to hit HR, and ridiculed Ruth for trying to hit HR. In fact, HR wasn't even a triple crown stat back then.

Yet still hit 100+ HR.

If a triple is 3/4 a homerun by sabr standards (or slg standards) then Cobb hit over 300 career homeruns because of God knows how many triples he hit that would have been doubles in the post wwI era (or singles or outs for that matter)

edit: don't get me wrong - i'm not disparaging Cobb - he's one of my favorite ballplayers (on the field). It's just that his slg numbers don't really coincide with the point I'm trying to make because triples were so much easier to hit back then (I would say the same about sluggers in the 1920's in the live ball/short porch era and their power numbers).

I guess I am more like BP than I like to admit with my throwing out numbers that don't fit my point.:redface:

maurice
07-22-2005, 12:36 PM
Yet still hit 100+ HR.

I wonder how many of those were inside-the-park. The dude was very fast.

scottjanssens
07-22-2005, 12:37 PM
I wonder how many of those were inside-the-park. The dude was very fast.

46.

He holds the AL single season record with 9 in 1909. Sam Crawford holds the single season record with 12 in 1901.

fquaye149
07-22-2005, 12:40 PM
I wonder how many of those were inside-the-park. The dude was very fast.

I remember the apocryphal story of Cobb saying homers were crap and anyone could do it if they tried to. He went out that day and hit three or something then went back to hitting like usual the next day.

the same kind of stories you hear about Ichiro launching rockets in BP.

I mean, you're right, Cobb was great - I don't mean to disparage him: he could really hit (obviously :redneck) but I mean he was still in the era when outfields were huge, outfielders were slow. Heck - correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't some of the fields not even have fences?

maurice
07-22-2005, 12:42 PM
Yeah, Cobb obviously could have hit more if he tried, and so could a lot of good top-of-the-order players like Suzuki and our own tandem of Pods and Tad. It's ridiculous for the BP idiots to punish these guys for playing their role well. Besides, imagine how many points you'd have to add to the SLG of players like Cobb, Pod, and Suzuki if you gave them extra-base credit for all those SBs.

Randar68
07-22-2005, 12:52 PM
Yeah, Cobb obviously could have hit more if he tried, and so could a lot of good top-of-the-order players like Suzuki and our own tandem of Pods and Tad. It's ridiculous for the BP idiots to punish these guys for playing their role well. Besides, imagine how many points you'd have to add to the SLG of players like Cobb, Pod, and Suzuki if you gave them extra-base credit for all those SBs.

What about Ricky? Add all those doubles to his totals (would have to turn SB's into outs as well, though)

Hangar18
07-22-2005, 01:02 PM
This team isn't good enough to regularly overcome sub-standard performances by our otherwise excellent starting rotation. It's been like this all season long. I'm hardly blazing new trails making such a statement. So where the hell have you been?


Buehrle gave up 3 runs in 6 innings ...... if Konerko can keep a rally going,
or if Crede can stop striking out, which they both helped STOP rallies, we
probably win that game. HECK, they intentionally walked someone to PITCH TO KONERKO. That tells you theyre not afraid of him ...... he'll get himself out.
Ive been saying this too:

Good Pitching & Good Hitting BEATS Good Pitching and So-So Hitting

maurice
07-22-2005, 01:08 PM
What about Ricky? Add all those doubles to his totals (would have to turn SB's into outs as well, though)

No kidding. The reason I excluded him is because he hit almost 300 HR anyway. Just an incomparable offensive player.

Cowhead418
07-22-2005, 01:13 PM
Buehrle gave up 3 runs in 6 innings ...... if Konerko can keep a rally going,
or if Crede can stop striking out, which they both helped STOP rallies, we
probably win that game. HECK, they intentionally walked someone to PITCH TO KONERKO. That tells you theyre not afraid of him ...... he'll get himself out.
Ive been saying this too:

Good Pitching & Good Hitting BEATS Good Pitching and So-So Hitting
I don't know what world you live in that you think Boston has good pitching. Good pitching and so-so hitting should beat so-so pitching and good hitting.

fquaye149
07-22-2005, 01:14 PM
Buehrle gave up 3 runs in 6 innings ...... if Konerko can keep a rally going,
or if Crede can stop striking out, which they both helped STOP rallies, we
probably win that game. HECK, they intentionally walked someone to PITCH TO KONERKO. That tells you theyre not afraid of him ...... he'll get himself out.
Ive been saying this too:

Good Pitching & Good Hitting BEATS Good Pitching and So-So Hitting

if you think the Red Sox pitching is equal to our pitching, you need to wake up.

Our pitching is light years beyond the BlowSox'

fquaye149
07-22-2005, 01:16 PM
No kidding. The reason I excluded him is because he hit almost 300 HR anyway. Just an incomparable offensive player.

Yet his OPS suffers to Matt Stairs, making me question the true value of OPS.

Honestly. I mean, Ricky got on base a lot, stole a ****load of bases and hit for power.

I remember a pitcher saying he was the toughest guy he ever faced - put it out of the strikezone he wouldn't swing and you'd have walked a double...maybe even a triple.

Put it in the strike zone and he's smack it over the fence.

scottjanssens
07-22-2005, 01:33 PM
Yeah, Cobb obviously could have hit more if he tried, and so could a lot of good top-of-the-order players like Suzuki and our own tandem of Pods and Tad. It's ridiculous for the BP idiots to punish these guys for playing their role well. Besides, imagine how many points you'd have to add to the SLG of players like Cobb, Pod, and Suzuki if you gave them extra-base credit for all those SBs.

How exactly is BP punishing these hitters. One stat does not tell an entire story. BP uses many many stats to evaluate and rate players. Nothing wrong with disagreeing with their methods, but it's wrong to think OPS is the only stat BP is concerned about.

As for credit for steals, I had a discussion about that a month ago. A quick and dirty way would simply be to add steals to TB.

illinibk
07-22-2005, 02:26 PM
And personally I don't see why this entire board has a Joe Crede hard on. he has consistently been a subpar hitter. I don't like the fear in his eyes. I don't like the pop ups. I don't like that he can't lay down a bunt. I don't like people making excuses for him. I don't like that the Cubs have a guy that is remarkably better. I loved Herbert in 2000, but I knew that was a one year wonder.

So in conclusion... I don't like Joe Crede. That is my opinion and I have a damn right to feel that way.

PS how did that NCAA National Championship game treat you?
I think Crede gets a lot of flack from people because he is not Robin Ventura. He came up with all this hype, but his average and long swing have made him an easy target. And don't get me wrong, I am not really a fan of Joe's long swing either. But he has been one of the better clutch hitters on the Sox, and his defense speaks for itself.

I think a lot of Sox fans would be pissed if Brooks Robinson was playing the hot corner because he didn't hit for enough power or whatnot.

And since you asked, the National Championship game treated me just fine. I was lucky enough to be there to see it, and the shots just didn't fall when they had to. Finishing 37-2 and losing by only 5 to a team with four lottery picks is nothing to be upset about.

MsSoxVixen22
07-22-2005, 02:54 PM
I think Crede's underestimated and there's alot more **** talked about him than about other players that really deserve it. He's a great 3rd baseman-aside from an error. But those are few and far between. I can overlooks his few errors as long as he puts the bat on the ball and hopefully he stays healthy

maurice
07-22-2005, 02:55 PM
How exactly is BP punishing these hitters.

I didn't say it was. I said "BP idiots" punish them -- guys like Sheehan who like to base arguments on a single statistic and willfully ignore all other relevant factors. Lots of SABR guys try to be comprehensive and scientific, but there are limits. Even Bill James admits that non-quantifiable factors significantly affect W/L . . . and criticizes the idiots who deny this fact.

maurice
07-22-2005, 02:58 PM
I think Crede gets a lot of flack from people because he is not Robin Ventura.

I agree. He was billed as the second coming, but everything Crede does well, Ventura did better . . . and some of the things Crede does poorly (like drawing walks), Ventura did well.

scottjanssens
07-22-2005, 03:58 PM
I didn't say it was. I said "BP idiots" punish them

Ah sorry, I misread that to mean all BPers are idiots rather than the idiots who happen to be among BPers (isn't English fun!). It's a sentiment I've encountered a lot and I leaped to the wrong conclusion.

TornLabrum
07-22-2005, 04:50 PM
Not true: I can add 1/3 and 2/5 without converting to a common number.
1/3 = .333; 2/5 = .40 and together they equal .73. Nowhere did I convert to a common number. We're not dealing with X and Y; we're dealing with known numerals. And aren't the denominators the same anyway? Total at-bats?

Don't tell anybody, but when you converted to decimals and rounded, you made a common denominator of 100.

jabrch
07-24-2005, 12:35 PM
Not true: I can add 1/3 and 2/5 without converting to a common number.
1/3 = .333; 2/5 = .40 and together they equal .73. Nowhere did I convert to a common number. We're not dealing with X and Y; we're dealing with known numerals. And aren't the denominators the same anyway? Total at-bats?

Now it may be invalid in the sense that you're giving equal weight to OPS and SLG, when perhaps they don't deserve equal weight; it may be invalid because it's easier to earn one stat or the other (for example, saying that the RedSox were 5 times better than the Patriots last year because they won 5 times as many games).

Are you kidding me? Do you know how you just arrived at .73repeated? You did it by converting fractions to decimals. What's a decimal? It's a fraction converted to a demominator of 100.

And no - the demominators of OBP and SLG are not the same. (AB+BB+SF+HBP) is not equal to AB.

OBP is a great stat to measure how much a guy gets on base.

SLG is a great stat to measure how many bases he generates.

OPS doesn't tell you either. Pods has a .705 OPS. AJ has a .729 OPS. Tell me what that number tells you about AJ vs Pods... NOTHING since you have no idea by looking at the number what the components of that number are.

Single stats trying to measure multiple characteristics at one time, as far as sports go, are often silly and pointless. Anyone a fan of the BCS computer system? How about NFL QB ratings? All these composite stats are equally uninformative and inaccurate unless all the components are decomposed and utilized in the analysis, in which case you didn't need to combine them to begin with.

jabrch
07-24-2005, 12:44 PM
OPS is relevent not because it tells us something specific but because of the distribution of players with high OPS are all great players. For example, every eligible player with a career OPS over 1.000 is in the HOF.

Not hard to realize that a player who both reaches base at a high percentage AND hits for power is going to be a star. Saying it is irrelevent is silly. It does make an excellent analytical tool for seperating the great players from he merely good players...

VC - for the record, I don't think I said it is not relevant - only that it is not a legitimate statistic in the mathematical sense of that word.

I agree with you point that anyone with an OPS over 1.000 is going to be great. But that doesn't necesarily mean that having an OPS of .750 makes a player any amount better than a guy with an OPS of .700. You can't tell me a single thing about those two players based on that number, so you can't evaluate them. Also, the construction of that number, from the perspective of a mathematician, is flawed.

It is one of many datapoints. Clearly there is an upper limit - where you know that both components have to be high. Few hit over .400, and few slug over .600, so an OPS over 1.000 ranks in the few. If that's the only application of the tool (OPS) then that's fine. But that's not close to how it is used by propellerheads. It is sometimes used to compare a #4 hitter who's job it is to both get on base at a decent clip and to generate Total Bases to a leadoff hitter who's job it is to get on base and score runs - something only measured by 1/2 of OPS.

If you take two players who are evaluated on the exact same skill criteria, and you use OPS, then it is fine (albeit still not mathematically legitimate). You can then say Podsednik vs Pierre and say that Pods with his .704 OPS is better than Pierre with his .673. Or you can do it with more all around balanced players and compare A-Rod to Pujols (1.004 to 1.038). You can do it with big sluggers like Sexson and PK (.888 to .839) But even in doing that you have a comparison that tells you very little, unless you break down the componentry that got you to that conclusion.