Crawford and Gonzalez

I’m pretty whipped after four tiring days in Orlando, so today’s post isn’t going to be a complete argument as much as it is an interesting tidbit to digest. Using the ridiculously awesome new mutli-year capabilities of the leaderboards, I decided to filter my personal dashboard for position players to show the 2006-2010 years, giving us the best players in the game over the last five years. This is what it looks like (click to expand).

It’s the usual names at the top, though you might be surprised how highly Matt Holliday ranks. But, this isn’t about the Cardinals left fielder. Go down to the bottom, where I’ve cut the screenshot off after the 18th spot on the list. You might notice the last two names have something in common – they were both acquired by the Boston Red Sox this week. That’s right, over the last five years, Adrian Gonzalez and Carl Crawford have been virtually identical in value.

They’re nine months apart in age. Gonzalez has a shoulder problem that required surgery this winter, and he also cost the team three of their better prospects to acquire in addition to all the money they’re going to owe him in a long term extension. And yet, Crawford is seen as the guy who cost too much. Interesting, no?

This all comes back to the different perceptions of skillsets. Gonzalez has been labeled a high on base slugger, while Crawford has gotten tagged with the slap-hitting speedster label. These labels do more to obfuscate the truth than anything else. Crawford’s skills produce value in a different way than Gonzalez’s skills, but they do produce value. Given Gonzalez’s shift out of Petco, and Crawford’s potential move in front of the Green Monster, I’d expect the first baseman to outproduce the left fielder over the next five years, but the prices Boston paid also reflect that expectation.

Our reactions to these deals should be similar. If you liked the Gonzalez acquisition, you should like the Crawford one too. If Crawford was too much money for the expected production, than so is the upcoming Gonzalez contract. They are more similar than they have been portrayed.

You Aren't a FanGraphs Member
It looks like you aren't yet a FanGraphs Member (or aren't logged in). We aren't mad, just disappointed.
We get it. You want to read this article. But before we let you get back to it, we'd like to point out a few of the good reasons why you should become a Member.
1. Ad Free viewing! We won't bug you with this ad, or any other.
2. Unlimited articles! Non-Members only get to read 10 free articles a month. Members never get cut off.
3. Dark mode and Classic mode!
4. Custom player page dashboards! Choose the player cards you want, in the order you want them.
5. One-click data exports! Export our projections and leaderboards for your personal projects.
6. Remove the photos on the home page! (Honestly, this doesn't sound so great to us, but some people wanted it, and we like to give our Members what they want.)
7. Even more Steamer projections! We have handedness, percentile, and context neutral projections available for Members only.
8. Get FanGraphs Walk-Off, a customized year end review! Find out exactly how you used FanGraphs this year, and how that compares to other Members. Don't be a victim of FOMO.
9. A weekly mailbag column, exclusively for Members.
10. Help support FanGraphs and our entire staff! Our Members provide us with critical resources to improve the site and deliver new features!
We hope you'll consider a Membership today, for yourself or as a gift! And we realize this has been an awfully long sales pitch, so we've also removed all the other ads in this article. We didn't want to overdo it.




Dave is the Managing Editor of FanGraphs.

93 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Mike G.
14 years ago

Anyone who plays Roto wouldn’t be surprised by Holliday’s ranking in the least.

Scout Finch
14 years ago
Reply to  Mike G.

Anyone who is familiar with Coors Field wouldn’t be surprised either.

There is only one name on that list with a higher BABIP: Ischiro Suzuki, and no one on that list has a lower BB% than he.

A fine 2010 for Holliday that was certainly redemptive for his short stay in Oakland. Let’s see what 2011 brings.

Don
14 years ago
Reply to  Scout Finch

I don’t think we need to wait for 2011: Holliday is a very good offensive player. While he wasn’t great in Oakland, particularly power-wise (.286/.378/.454 in 400 PAs), he hit .353/.419/.604 in St. Louis in the 235 PAs he got with them in 2009, which he followed up with a very strong .312/.390/.532 line in 2010. That line is almost identical to his career average, which sits at .316/.388/.543 over 4,300+ PAs. I think we know what kind of player Holliday is.

jim
14 years ago
Reply to  Scout Finch

I see 6 guys on that list that have a lower BB% than Holliday, which over the past 3 seasons has been over 10% each year. His BABIP of .331 in 2010 is probably more in line with what I would expect going forward.

fredsbank
14 years ago
Reply to  Scout Finch

i remember my first time hating a member of the rockies for playing at coors field

fredsbank
14 years ago
Reply to  Scout Finch

career .360 wOBA away, 115 wRC+… yeah he’s not the monster he was at coors, but he’s hardly a slouch

greg
14 years ago
Reply to  Mike G.

Head-to-head is better

greg
14 years ago
Reply to  Mike G.

There’s Chase Utley! World’s greatest defender who also got the Yips in the last two postseasons! That guy is smooth as silk. It’s no wonder he’s so high on all the untested metrics boards, I mean–advanced metrics. The advanced metrics boards.

Chase Utley
14 years ago
Reply to  greg

Yip yip.

B N
14 years ago
Reply to  greg

Untested metrics? I will admit, there are plenty of issues I can bring up about linear-weighted metrics but untested isn’t one of them. These metrics are SPECIFICALLY trained for their projection value, i.e. their ability to determine the best fit from the inputs. You literally use a train/test approach to make these weights. I fail to see how much more one could ‘test’ such metrics.

There are plenty of things you can complain about that linear weights are a dumb “rough approximation” of things. But untested? There’s a laugh.