ok guys bj is a better player than cc but cc is a top notch player so who really cares because they are both 2 of the best players in the league

= idiot

Crawford has clearly been anything but a disappointment this season. His defense alone makes that a foolish statement

I do not like Neyer as much as many do, although I enjoy his books. I often disagree with him and find his reasoning flawed or oversimplified. And I can sympathize with anyone who considers his statement about why Crawford was chosen to be foolish. We know why, and it is a perfectly legitimate reason. Nobody who grew up with this team can argue that Crawford does not represent the franchise to the baseball world.

Even though I think that Upton is a better player, I am not prepared to deny Crawford his place as the primary figure in the Rays universe. That is emotional and I think entirely proper.

I do wish that we could write that a statement is idiotic rather than the author is though. Neyer is emphatically not an idiot. And as a matter of fact, the substance of his statement is not idiotic either. It is debatable, not stupid.

Crawford has contributed a great deal despite his poor numbers. The problem is we do not know what he has failed to contribute. Suppose he were on base 35% of the time rather than 31.5%? How many runs would he have scored and Upton driven in? How many of those 20 losses would be wins? This is not idle speculation. It is based on legitimate expectations of Carl himself based on his career record.

I agree we should appreciate Crawford for what he has done and not diminish him because his numbers belie his importance. But it is fair to note that by his own standards he is not performing particularly well. It is fair to comment that so far Crawford has not been the player we expect him to be. It may not be legitimate to argue that in the context of that cover, but it is a worthwhile point to consider.

Why do stat junkies default to OPS or VORP or whatever, when evaluating EVERYTHING ? ...Stats do tell a compelling story, most of the time, but rarely are they THE story.

Why is Neyer regarded as “not an idiot” and who exactly is it that regards him as such ? I would submit that anyone who agrees with his black and white analysis of the “stats” thinks he’s a good baseball writer, and those who don’t, don’t. Assuming you believe he is a valued source for analytics…why does that makes him a “writer” with the ability to provide insight that transcends statistics ? It doesn’t.

CC is on the cover for the very reason that his pre-season comments garnered pages of dialoge on this very site—-He was, and is, the face of this franchise. It shouldn’t be a surprise that Verducci understands this.

neither Neyer nor any stats oriented person uses stats to evaluate EVERYTHING. In fact, a fundamental point stats people make is that they cannot evaluate everything, only inform opinions about those things that are stat based.

If you read Neyer’s work, you should recognize that his analysis is rarely black and white and that he considers many factors besides stats to interpret the game. His most recent book is a perfect example of his very broad approach to the game.

Finally, the real argument is often not between people who rely on stats and those who don’t but rather between those who use one set of stats and those who stress others. The argument is usually both which are the more telling stats and how best to interpret the stats.

Watch any TV broadcast or read any traditional reporter or columnist and you will see, from the beginning of baseball history, a blizzard of stats: BA, home runs, RBIs, runs scored, stolen bases, won-lost records, ERA, Ks, fielding %, BA against a particular pitcher or at night or in home games or for the last 3 games and on and on. That is nothing new. The question is whether they really tell us much or whether others might be more helpful.

And finally, few of the people with whom we disagree are themselves idiots. I will include therein, reluctantly, even the most egregious examples of obstinate narrrow-mindedness such as Plaschke and Conlin. What they say may be labeled idiotic, but not the people themselves, and while I understand the rhetoric is not always intended to be taken literally, I don’t think it helps matters to fail to make that distinction.

“and not having a good year”
\
well then I can only assume you fall in the same group as your buddy Neyer. I wonder how many games HE has watched, or if he just drew all his conclusions off of Carls OBP like others do

You are an idiot if you think a guy who is batting 2n din the lineup and on pace for .300, 120, 15, 100, and 50 SB and playing gold glove defense is having a bad year. —None of these wonderful stats even explain what he adds to the team by his speed presence alone. These are tyhings I woudln texpect the typical stat junkie to get

“You are an idiot if you think a guy who is batting 2n din the lineup and on pace for .300, 120, 15, 100, and 50 SB and playing gold glove defense is having a bad year.”

Who is being a stats junkie? I read 5 stats in one sentence as well as a contextual point for those stats (very “stats junkiesh”).

If you really mean that someone who makes that assertion is an idiot, then you are making an idiotic judgment about someone you likely do not know. If you simply mean you think it is an idiotic statement, I wonder why you do not say that.