Red Sox deal almost certainly means that Reed stays

DMZ · January 23, 2006 at 12:26 am · Filed Under Mariners 

I made a pretty flippant “Dealing Marte for Crisp is crazy” comment in another thread, and on further thought this warrants a bit of a post. My initial reaction came mostly from my belief that Marte’s an absolute blue-chip stud prospect, and Coco Crisp is a good player. But this makes a lot of sense.

There appears to be a contingent deal in place that would go:
Red Sox get Coco Crisp (and sign Alex Gonzalez, formerly of the Marlins)
Indians get Andy Marte and Guillermo Mota

The Red Sox have other third base options and it wasn’t really clear how they were going to sort them out while they certainly had a huge hole in center field. They’re trying to compete for a playoff spot, and while Marte’s a huge prospect, a good patch in center field might get them there now.

And that’s the thing — in the last few years, Coco Crisp went from being an interesting outfielder to being a pretty good player, somone you might count on next year for a .340+ OBP and some power to boot, while playing good defense. Historically as a center fielder he’s rated out decently.

Here’s the thing: .340 plus some power and average defense in center is Damon, except significantly younger.

Marte’s a great prospect, years younger, but next year he’s going to put up numbers a lot like Crisp’s: .340 OBP with some power. Likely more power, but also while playing third (or, if the Sox moved him, left) instead of center.

In terms of present value, this makes a lot of sense for the Red Sox, even as I rant about how Marte’s a special prospect with amazing talent and I wouldn’t trade him for the moon and all the He-3 on it.

The other side of this is that, right or wrong, this is going to contribute to the gossip that something’s wrong with Marte’s arm — what top prospects have ever been pursued, acquired, and discarded by any team, much less one as astute as the Red Sox?


41 Responses to “Red Sox deal almost certainly means that Reed stays”

  1. JMB on January 23rd, 2006 12:45 am

    Though I do see your point about the Red Sox, and this deal doesn’t look as bad as I thought it did, I love this move for the Indians. They’ve got Sizemore in CF and don’t need Crisp, who played LF last year; they can find a corner OF no problem. Meanwhile, they net a top prospect in Marte and a solid reliever (or closer, even) in Mota.

    The Indians are stocked with good, cheap players — Peralta, Mota, Sizemore, Martinez, Hafner, even Belliard — allowing them to spend money on a stud somewhere in the near future if they see fit. Man, what a good thing they’ve got going there.

  2. Baseline on January 23rd, 2006 1:44 am

    #1- Marte’s a stud and should be starting some where. But, I have this feeling that they’ll send him to AAA, as Aaron Boone pretty much has 3B locked down for the Tribe.

  3. Paul Covert on January 23rd, 2006 3:15 am

    Yeah, I agree with Jason: I can kinda-sorta see it from Boston’s point of view if I squint hard enough (after all, with their budget, pre-arbitration players have less relative value to them than to Cleveland or Oakland); but what Cleveland is doing just looks flat-out scary.

    (But no, if Marte’s ready, I can’t see Cleveland planning his career around Aaron Boone’s. Otherwise, it’s “Mr. Martinez, meet Mr. Presley” all over again.)

  4. J.L. on January 23rd, 2006 8:00 am

    #2: I think I can safely say that Aaron Boone has not, and probably never will, lock third base down. Oh, he’ll probably start at third in Cleveland this year, until Marte is ready, but……c’mon, HE’S AARON BOONE!

  5. amarshal2 on January 23rd, 2006 8:29 am

    This one is killing me! I have enough faith in the sox front office to the point where I’m trying to act rationally and assume there is a reason that I am unaware of for this move. If you remove all that, it’s just plain scary. I am not pleased with trading blue-chip prospects for above average regulars. With the uncertainty of prospects I would still venture a guess that this trade works out in the red sox favor (say 55/45 o r60/40). However, the possibility that it is a COLLOSAL mistake is too much to ignore. To think we (Boston fans) were all gloating about a possible Arroyo/Clement for Reed deal only to end up here!

    Anyways, I agree with all of you on the Tribe. I can’t help but think they made a lateral move in LF (with Michaels) and just added Marte for nothing! Shapiro looks like a genius.

    Congrats on your Seahawks, the fan base deserves it. 30 years is long enough. I don’t like Mike Holmgren but couldn’t hold it against everybody in the North West (nor could I root for Pitt).

  6. David J. Corcoran on January 23rd, 2006 9:31 am

    Shiggy has retired

  7. Trev on January 23rd, 2006 10:32 am

    What should be a bigger deal is why Gillick traded a 29-year old OF with a career 291/380/442 line for Arthur Rhodes.

    It’s as if the spirit of Ed Wade has never left the Phillies.

  8. marc w on January 23rd, 2006 11:08 am

    It’s not a terrible move for the Sox, if you see it as overpaying a bit for a chance to win now. Marte – probably – does the sox no good for 2006, though Crisp clearly fills a need. He’s a very good defender (though I think the questions about how his LF performance translates to CF are valid), can steal a base w/o killing the team, and has developing power. He’s at least as good as the guy’s he’s replacing, Johnny Damon. A season like Damon’s 2004 is certainly within Crisp’s grasp, and that would make Boston a contender this year – Schilling’s last go-round, and probably Wells’ too.
    Marte’s special, but I can certainly see the logic here – and of course, I see the logic from Cleveland’s point of view too. This trade benefits both teams.
    Oh, and I agree with #4. I don’t think Aaron Boone can lock his front door at this point, much less a starting job on one of the AL’s best teams.

  9. colm on January 23rd, 2006 11:23 am

    Aren’t the sox still short of a shortstop, or are the planning to play Alex Gonzalez?

    Which Alex Gonzalez is that? The mediocre one or the truly horrible one who does impressions of Neifi Perez at the plate?

  10. Mr. Egaas on January 23rd, 2006 11:31 am

    ex-Marlin Alex Gonzalez, not ex-Cubbie and ex-Devil Ray Alex Gonzalez. The better of the two, if there is a better of the two.

    And goddamn, yes they have a good thing going there in Cleveland. That’s a successful rebuild, for sure.

  11. BobbyRoberto on January 23rd, 2006 11:38 am

    My biggest question about Marte is why both the Braves and the Red Sox, two good organizations, would move him.

  12. Mr. Egaas on January 23rd, 2006 11:42 am

    Both had immediate needs? Two contending teams, one missing a shortstop, one missing a centerfielder, two important pieces.

    Last night it looked like Cleveland would have to give up Riske in the deal, now it looks like it’s Marte and Mota for Crisp. That’s even better, seeing how a kid named Martinez is manning the area behind the plate for the forseeable future and they don’t really need Shoppach anyway.

    Then they proceed to molest Pat Gillick for a solid corner outfielder. Shapiro is the next Billy Beane.

  13. eponymous coward on January 23rd, 2006 11:44 am

    This is good news if you like Jeemy Reed as a Mariner…but Cleveland looks tough.

    The funny is that they managed to rebuild in 3 years (2002-2004)…and didn’t go THAT far under .500 to do it (only one year as a 90 loss team). Meanwhile, the Mariners managed to spend an assload more money for far less in the way of results in THEIR rebuild…and they aren’t close to done yet.

  14. Baseline on January 23rd, 2006 11:50 am

    #11 – At least with the Braves, that’s the reason they stock pile prospects. Yes, some of them will make it to the Braves, the others are trade bait.

    Bill Shanks book – Scounts Honor, explains the whole trading top tier prospects and what not.

  15. Dave on January 23rd, 2006 11:51 am

    Trades like this one are why I’ve been calling the Indians the best run franchise in baseball for three years. They’re just way ahead of the curve.

    Crisp, by the way, not a great defensive player, especially in center. He’s fast, but he doesn’t take very good routes, and he has a poor first step. Most comparable player, in my mind: Randy Winn.

  16. amarshal2 on January 23rd, 2006 11:57 am

    #8 I see the rationale, but I think they could have resolved this problem effectively without trading Marte.

    #12 there are 3 or 4 different (reasonably) credible sources giving scenarios for the trade. Is the one you are referencing new, or is it the Plain’s Dealer, Herald, or Globe?

    The amazing thing about rebuilding in 3 years is that they may have a rather long window of opportunity. The only major obstacle I see is Sabathia reaching free agency in two years, other than that they have the core of that team + Marte, Miller, Carmona, and Sowers for years to come. This team may actually be better than the mid-late 90’s powerhouse.

  17. Mr. Egaas on January 23rd, 2006 12:15 pm

    16 – This latest one comes from Ken Rosenthal of, including the deal with the Phillies contingent on the deal with the Red Sox.

    Cleveland really has rebuilt how a team should rebuild. If the M’s are rebuilding, they are doing it all the wrong way, or since they figure they have money, they might as well spend it, but we aren’t really bringing up a ton of young talent like a rebuilding team should be. I guess they’re trying to keep fans and revenue, but I really like what Cleveland has done/is doing.

    I guess when you don’t have anything worth trading off to get any young talent to bring up, it makes it difficult. But, as a whole, Bavasi is doing a decent job rebuilding the system as a whole, at least stockpiling some solid young arms.

  18. Joe on January 23rd, 2006 12:56 pm

    The M’s have brought up all the young talent that was available to be brought up. Have you noticed the middle infield? The homegrown arms in the rotation? (I didn’t say it was good talent, just what was there). The problem is that the Gillick years, with all those draft picks lost in trades, trades of prospects for “proven” vetrans, etc, has left the M’s with a poorly-stocked farm. Bavasi is fixing that, but it can’t be turned around overnight and it’s likely going to be the next GM who will reap the rewards (and be branded a genius for bringing up all the cheap young talent he didn’t sign).

  19. msb on January 23rd, 2006 12:57 pm

    Cleveland (sadly) is one reason I think the M’s ARE doing it the way they are– the Indians are still trying to get their fanbase back after they made the decision to slash and burn… they went from averaging 42,670 in 2000 to just 21,358 three years later.

  20. eponymous coward on January 23rd, 2006 1:31 pm

    Oh, and while I’m at it, compare Crisp’s age 23 stats to Reed’s age 24 year- and keep in mind that Reed was only 5 months older during his age 24 year than Crisp was for his age 23 year.

    Let’s just say that Crisp’s last two years of .300 BA/.800 OPS don’t strike me as completely out of Reed’s grasp, especially comparing minor league stats.

  21. eponymous coward on January 23rd, 2006 1:46 pm

    Cleveland (sadly) is one reason I think the M’s ARE doing it the way they are– the Indians are still trying to get their fanbase back after they made the decision to slash and burn… they went from averaging 42,670 in 2000 to just 21,358 three years later.

    Right, but they also took out their payroll numbers as well. Seattle paid about $60 per head in extra payroll in the difference between their attendance and Cleveland’s.

    Keep in mind, also that attendance is usually a LAGGING indicator to performance. Teams usually have their best attendance the year AFTER winning a championship, and the 1996 Mariners drew far better than the 1995 Mariners. This means that Cleveland’s likely to improve their attendance next year, while I suspect the M’s will sag some more into the 2.4-2.6 realm (absent a compelling pennant race at the end to boost attendance), which probably is a floor for them, since similar markets where the team rarely contends in new ballparks and large metro areas (Dallas and Baltimore) usually hang out around there.

  22. Mat on January 23rd, 2006 1:54 pm

    “Most comparable player, in my mind: Randy Winn.”

    Speaking of comparables, I decided to take a gander at Crisp’s PECOTA comparables before the 2005 season. Randy Winn does indeed show up, as his year 2000 season being the 10th most comparable player-season. And interestingly enough, Johnny Damon, 1999, comes in as Crisp’s #11 comparable. Mark Kotsay, 2001, comes in at #8, and Carlos Beltran, 2002, comes in at #4. And then, of course, there are the usual bunch of players that I’ve never heard of or don’t know much about. I wouldn’t expect that Crisp’s offense will make the Sox regret making this trade too much.

  23. marc w on January 23rd, 2006 2:22 pm

    What do you make of Crisp’s +38 UZR rating as a LF? That’s an elite level, and while I’m certainly not one to take a defensive metric as gospel (i’m still shocked how highly it rates Burnitz), you’ve got to admit, even if you halve that number, it’s still impressive. No, it doesn’t say how that would translate to Boston’s weird CF, and everyone says he’s got a Winn/Damon arm. But I think it’s probably fair to say that he’s BEEN a great defender, and that it’s possible he’ll be an above-average CF.
    As for the Winn comparisons, I kinda see what you mean, given a similar average and OBP, but it’s pretty clear that Crisp has more power. Winn didn’t get into double digits in HR’s until his age 28 season. Crisp is coming off 15 and 16 HRs and is going into his age 26 season. Crisp is better than Winn right now (freakish power surge in SF notwithstanding), and is only going to get better.
    I would be thrilled if Jeremy Reed matches Crisp’s age 24 season; I’m not counting on it, but that would be huge for the M’s offense.

  24. Dave on January 23rd, 2006 2:36 pm

    I don’t agree with the assertion that Crisp is “only going to get better”. He’s already blown his minor league performances out of the water, and it’s not like he was a house on fire in his rookie year either. I’m not saying he’s going to collapse, but based on his past performances and his player type (including his physical build), I just don’t see any real room for improvement. I think the Coco Crisp of the past two years is about as good as he can possibly be. There’s a lot more downside than upside.

    And yea, his UZR was awesome, but that’s the outlier among the good defensive metrics, and when you see one that stunningly good, it’s best to take it with a grain of salt unless it’s supported by a mound of evidence. He doesn’t have anything like that kind of track record defensively, and the other systems don’t back up UZR on this one. It’s well within reason to think it may have just been a fluke, or exposing some sort of flaw in UZR.

    Crisp, as an LF, is probably something like +10 to +15 in my mind. That makes him Jacque Jones, Randy Winn, someone like that, in left field. Certainly his defense is valuable in left, but assuming that he’ll be above average in CF is a leap, in my opinion.

  25. Andrew on January 23rd, 2006 3:18 pm

    “Historically as a center fielder he’s rated out decently. ”

    What?! As a CF, he’s got a career Rate2 of 94 in center. His career range factor in center is 2.32, against a league average of 2.40. He’s a BELOW average center fielder! If he can hit .300/.340./.450, then he can emulate Damon with the bat, but he’s no Captain Caveman in the field. And that can easily hurt the Red Sox tremendously. They’ve got Manny in left, Nixon in right and a very flyball-heavy pitching staff. I’d rather have Andy Marte, thanks.

  26. NBarnes on January 23rd, 2006 3:24 pm

    It’s a goddamn disaster for the Red Sox. They’ll need somebody in the lineup to provide big wood for cheap when Ortiz gets expensive and Manny declines, and I guess Marte was just too easy for them.

    The Braves gave Marte away in desperation to fill a hole, and now the Red Sox are doing the same. Having gotten Marte on the cheap, they don’t value what they stole. It’s tragic.

    Don’t take this as me not liking Crisp. The comparisons to Damon are entirely justified; I expect them to be very similar in performance in 2006 and Damon’s decline and Crisp’s peak should make the Yankees regret Damon’s contract. However, the price of this seems to be the Sox’s reliance on Mike Lowell bouncing back to be something more like his pre-2005 self and manning 3b. I wouldn’t count on it.

    I think part of the problem here is the perception that the Red Sox need a leadoff hitter and that Crisp somehow fills that role. Unfortunately, Crisp wouldn’t even be the Sox’s third best leadoff man. With a lineup including Ortiz, Manny, Mike Lowell’s dessicated remains, whatever is left of Trot Nixon, etc, the Sox don’t need speed, they just need men on base for the big wood. Crisp doesn’t get on base all that amazingly well, but Loretta and Youkilis do. Also note Crisp’s fluky BABIP in 2006.

    It’d be a shame to have to start Andy Stern in CF, but Boston can and should live with it if the alternative is giving away one of MLB’s best hitting prospects for Coco Crisp.

    Over at Over The Monster, further details about the additionals to the deal are coming out and they sound amazingly bad for the Sox (Andy Marte, Guillermo Mota, Kelly Shoppach, and Manny Delcarmen for Crisp, David Riske, Josh Bard, and two of the Indians’ low-level prospects). Somehow the Indians also get to walk away with an excellent catching prospet (Shoppach) and an excellent relief prospect (Delcarmen), while adding virtually nothing to the trade (Riske’s BABIP was fluky low, and Bard is replacement-level catching ‘talent’).

  27. Dave on January 23rd, 2006 3:25 pm

    Don’t draw firm conclusions on BP’s defensive numbers, Andrew. It’s about the least credible of the “advanced” defensive statistics we have.

    That said, his ’04 PMR in CF was -2, which isn’t exactly all world. And his ’04 RANGE in CF was -20, so while I think Gassko’s system has some problems, it’s probably fair to guess that he wasn’t a great center fielder the last time he played there.

    An overall view of his defense, when looked through the prism of UZR, PMR, RANGE, Dial’s ZR, Smith’s ZR, BP’s numbers, and then cross-checked against the Indians team numbers published by Studes in the THT annual, show a broad spectrum of opinions with the mean coming out to be in the above average but not great category. When there’s not clear statistical agreement, and scouts have a pretty negative view, then it’s tough to claim that his defense in center is going to be a big positive.

    I think even MGL would tell you that the +38 that UZR credits him with in left last year is nowhere near his true talent level. MGL’s previously stated that he feels the best defensive players in the game are +20 to +25 “true talent”, and anything much above that is just year-to-year noise. And there’s very few people out there who think Coco Crisp is the best defensive LF in the game.

  28. NBarnes on January 23rd, 2006 3:26 pm

    Oh, and, can someone please, please tell me what Alex Gonzales (the Marlin) does for the Sox at SS that Alex Cora doesn’t? The entire idea is crazed. Either you need an SS because you want somethigng better than either of them, or you think that Gonzales is good enough to ‘fill’ that hole, in which case Cora does the same thing.

  29. eponymous coward on January 23rd, 2006 4:06 pm


    OMG. That trade’s VERY good for Cleveland. Wow, me ‘at’s off to the Duke.

    Would that we had a GM who was anywhere NEAR that creative making deals. Of course, it helps to have an actual farm system instead of Gillick-devastated rubble with a few international signings keeping things from total collapse, but still, Shapiro has to be commended for the deals he keeps coming up with- the Colon deal, this one, and so on- and he took a chance on Millwood for his one year deal as well.

  30. deadteddy8 on January 23rd, 2006 4:28 pm

    26 – Ortiz is signed at well below market value through 2007. Manny is guaranteed through 2008 and whichever team has him will decline the option years. That 2008 season is the killer, because that’s potentially the first year that they’d both be paid big money if Boston chooses to retain Papi. Until then, their combined production should match up reasonably with their combined salaries.

  31. Andrew on January 23rd, 2006 4:38 pm

    Thanks David, good to know. If you’re looking for ideas to write stuff on (since there’s still like 20 days until pitchers and catchers report), an explanation of different advanced defensive metrics would be useful. I have no idea how any of them are calculated (BP’s glossary doesn’t explain) or which ones are any good.

  32. marc w on January 23rd, 2006 5:16 pm

    Since you bring up Gassko, did you see Crisp was at +34 there? What’s really bringing him down; where are the strong negatives that end up averaging Crisp to ‘slightly above average?’ I’m genuinely curious. Given the strong correlation btwn Gassko’s number and UZR (the latter especially being regarded as the best of the defensive metrics), I’d basically considered the case closed – not that he was 36 runs above average, but somewhere around 20 or so. If other metrics have him at 0 or +2 or something, I’d like to know why. I love these test cases that really highlight differences in the methodologies people use.

    I’ve heard conflicting reports if the other players (Shoppach, Riske, etc.) are involved or not. Anyone know for sure? Dave?
    As for the bit about Crisp not improving, that’s certainly a possibility. But you’ve got to admit that he’s shown more power, at a younger age, than Winn. He didn’t show it as much in the minors, though I suppose it’s not exactly newsworthy if a player adds power throughout his early 20s. It’s not a career arc that screams fluke, at least to me.
    If he stays right exactly where he is through his age 29 season, then that’s 4-5 seasons, each about equal to Randy Winn’s peak value (his 2002 season). If he takes a few more walks or gets a few more doubles, he’s clearly the better player, at least on the offensive side. And on defense, well, at least a few of the better-known defensive metrics have it in Crisp’s favor as well. And it’s at least possible that he’s a better CF than Winn and Damon, etc. If he DOES manage to improve from age 25 to age 28 or so, then this trade clearly benefits both teams, no one got taken for a ride, much less ‘raped.’
    Look, I think Cleveland did ‘better’ in this trade in terms of who they gave up and who they got. But I understand why Boston did what it did, and I just think we may be selling Crisp a bit short.

  33. Dave on January 23rd, 2006 5:55 pm

    Since you bring up Gassko, did you see Crisp was at +34 there?

    Yea, but that’s not really a surprise, since Gassko’s measure of whether or not his system was “working” was correlation to UZR. Basically, his premise was that UZR is probably right, so he wanted to get his system to match it as closely as possible. And things like Kelly Johnson being +22 in half a season in left field throw up giant red flags that RANGE has some issues.

    I’d basically considered the case closed – not that he was 36 runs above average, but somewhere around 20 or so.

    One year of defensive data, no matter how good the metric is, should never be enough to consider a case closed. Flukes happen. Brady Anderson hit 50 home runs. The fact that Crisp may have had a fantastic year defensively in left field is significantly different than stating that he’s definitely a great defensive left fielder. At minimum, you need two years of consistent performance varified by several forms of devensive metrics to have strong confidence in a player’s skills. We don’t have that with Coco.

    As for the bit about Crisp not improving, that’s certainly a possibility. But you’ve got to admit that he’s shown more power, at a younger age, than Winn. He didn’t show it as much in the minors, though I suppose it’s not exactly newsworthy if a player adds power throughout his early 20s. It’s not a career arc that screams fluke, at least to me.

    I think there’s a pretty big area between fluke and expect improvement. I happen to think Crisp has peaked as a hitter. Not every player follows the same improve-til-27-then-decline arc. I think Crisp has maxed out his skills already.

    He’s also clearly not Johnny Damon defensively, by the way. Damon is legitimately a well above average CF.

    Crisp is a solid player, and still cheap enough to be valuable. He’s certainly better than what the Red Sox had, and there are legitimate reasons for the Red Sox to make this deal. But he’s not a great defensive player, and I think he’s reached his offensive potential, so he’s probably not as good as Boston fans will hope for, especially considering the price paid.

  34. Jonathan on January 23rd, 2006 8:29 pm

    Just happy we’re keeping Reed.

  35. westfried on January 23rd, 2006 9:01 pm

    Too bad the Mariners are on record saying they do not want to follow a “Cleveland-like” rebuild.

  36. LF Monster on January 24th, 2006 12:47 am

    Has there been a profile here on our new hitting coach. He’s worked with quite a few young hitters that went on to become superstars and if there’s one thing we’ve got it’s quite a few young hitters.

    I would be thoroughly excited about the prospect of this trade if I were a tribe fan. How could they not give Marte every chance to make the team out of the spring? Boone has no chance of keeping him from making the team (baseball playing wise.) I mean he could kidnap or kill Marte, but otherwise if Marte has a good Spring he should start at third.

    Hopefully our next GM will be able to do things like Shapiro with what Bavasi has been building, because a GM like that would’ve been worthless following Gillick.

    Crisp = Marte + ? How could a team that thinks that not trade Arroyo and Lester for Reed? Neither Arroyo or Lester have projected out , hell combined they don’t project out like Marte! If I were building a team and could start with Marte or Arroyo and Lester it’d be Marte. Maybe they don’t really beleive Reed, a consideravly better defender than Coco, will improve much offensively this year. I don’t know that I’d rather have Arroyo and Lester than Reed, but I like Lester quite a bit.

    I’ll be rooting for Pentlands golden touch to spring Reeds bat to life in 06. And Beltre’s for that matter…

  37. BelaXadux on January 24th, 2006 3:34 am


    Boston’s outstanding offseason just hit a bridge abutement at 75 mph, here.

    Who would you rather have: Marte, Lester, or Papelbon? Easy choice. The Sox are so in love with the guys they drafted that they can’t do a rational eval here, to me.

    What a steal for Cleveland, just as sweet as picking up Sizemore AND Cliff Lee AND a guy supposedly better than either for a man the team was certain to lose.

  38. eponymous coward on January 24th, 2006 9:03 am

    Go ask the Royals what “Pentland’s golden touch” did for them. If he gets points for Sosa, why don’t I get to deduct them for taking an average offensive team into the toilet, and seeing Angel Berroa regress horribly?

    I’ll put it this way…this isn’t Charlie Lau we’re talking about here.

  39. David Gassko on January 24th, 2006 5:54 pm


    While I do use UZR to validate Range, Range is not “built up” from UZR; that is, never in the development of Range did I use UZR to build my algorithm. I think Crisp is a good left fielder, though obviously not a 30+ true talent. His struggles in CF (his 2004 UZR, if you don’t trust Range, was -10 runs per 150 games) were very real, but I think he’ll probably be average to above average next season, somewhere between 0 and +10, which is actually very good considering he’ll be in CF.

    As a Sox fan, I like this trade. I like Crisp and I just don’t think Marte’s enough of a sure thing (and I’m even less sure about his future star status) to make me want to hold onto him no matter what. I’d say, off the top of my head, Marte’s best comp going into the future (this is based purely on opinion) would be Mike Lowell.

  40. Dave on January 24th, 2006 6:47 pm


    I realize that RANGE is a completely different formula from UZR. But, correct if I’m wrong, you’ve stated that UZR is “the gold standard”, and you adjusted the tweaks to your formula in an effort to get the Range-UZR correlation as high as possible.

    To me, that raises some red flags, since I’m not convinced that UZR is the gospel. It’s almost certainly the best we have, but I’m not in love with we have.

  41. David Gassko on January 24th, 2006 8:19 pm

    I do believe that UZR is the gold standard. I think it gives out a couple erroneous ratings each year, but I’m also convinced that they have to do with *bad* scoring or database errors in Stats Inc. I didn’t do any tweaks to better correlate with UZR, though they were “inspired” by my low correlation with UZR in RF and at 1B. In the Outfield, I fixed one (stupid) bug I had, and came up with a more accurate estimate of LDs caught while at 1B, I used gbOuts by first basemen instead of estimated independent putouts which is obviously better (any time you get rid of the word “estimated” you’ve improved your model!)

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.