Crawford or Byrd

[GotowarMissAgnes]

I have been playing since 1998. I am not saying that Byrd is a bad player, I am just telling the message poster to swap Byrd for Crawford.

Yeah, I was more interested in your comments about unproven players.

The guy (Marlon Byrd) has not surpassed Crawford yet, so untill he does, how can it be said that he is better and more valuable.

All I am saying, is that with Crawford you know what you are getting, a ton of SB's. With Byrd, we are not sure what we are getting, because he has never had a full season as a starter.

How has your standing of not playing into players that are more prospective than proven treated you in the past?

What do you think of Josh Beckett and Miguel Cabrera?

What do you think of the phrase "the next big thing"?

The point Mr. Cocky makes, is simply not defensible on the facts. Minor league numbers, appropriately adjusted, are every bit as useful for predicting a player's future performance in the majors as past major league performance is. So, if we are projecting Byrd and Crawford, it matters not a bit whether that projection is based on "proven" major league numbers or "unproven" minor league numbers.

Which is not to say that Byrd is the better choice..something that seems to have been lost in the discussion. My initial point was not that Byrd should be the choice. As I initially said, it was simply to point out that this call was closer than many people were making it out to be.

Whether Byrd turns out to be the better pick, however, does not depend at all on proven versus unproven. It turns on whether the Phils allow Byrd to run. If so, he's proven that he's a better base stealer than Crawford and could easily come close to matching Crawford in SBs, while crushing him in HRs, scoring 30 more runs, and batting 20-40 points higher, because he's proven he's a better hitter. By the way, which Crawford is the one who is proven...the one who batted .259 in 2002 or the one who batted .281 in 2003.

Longer term, the edge might still go to Crawford, because of his youth, but guys with his poor plate discipline usually fade fast. He could buck the trend, but he's not done so yet.

[Nails]

I think that the best points made were the ones that dealt with what kind of league you are in. It seems to me that so many people in these forums jump to conclusions and say that this player is better than that one.

In this case, Crawford is really only "valuable" in stolen bases. Byrd looks that he can be a more well-rounded ball player. So my outlook is that Crawford is more valuable in a 5x5, but Byrd would be more valuable...in say...my league that is H2H with 9 offensive categories.

I think that you have to look at what categories are being counted before you can say that one player is better than another one. It is kind of like saying Lenny Dykstra is a better player than Barry Bonds......well he is if you are talking about chewing tobacco, but now on the field.

[Purple Haze]

Crawford is a proven stolen base monster, Byrd is not. Byrd will hit 10HR's, Crawford will hit 5HR's. They will both get 80-90Runs. They will both have 50-60RBI's. Both's BA's will hover around .300. They are similar players, but Crawford will get you 40 more steals than Byrd.

Actually, this overstates the case. Byrd is a decent shot to hit 15-20 HRs. Byrd got 86 runs in 100 fewer ABs than Crawford last year. Look for him to out-score Crawford by 20-30 runs if they get the same plate appearances. Crawford is more of a .270-.280 hitter, while Byrd is more of a .290-.310 hitter. He's a good bet to out-hit Crawford by 15 or 20 points.

Finally, Byrd pretty much matched Crawford in SBs at A and AA and had a better SB percentage than Crawford throughout his minor league career (Byrd was 96 for 109 in SBs). The only recent he hasn't stolen in AAA and MLB, is the Phils haven't given him the green light. If they do, he could beat Crawford in SBs.

Glad to see someone actually knows what they are talking about.. Great Post

Byrd is the FAR SUPERIOR talent, and this will be his year to showcase that..

[hybrid]

i personally like crawford more, though you could make a case for either, but to say byrd is "far superior" then crawford is very outlandish and really you have nothing to go on when you say that. a-rod is far superior then crawford, not byrd. byrd had to wait till he was 25/26 to get to the bigs, and don't tell me glanville was in his way cause that isn't a strong arguement. crawford made it when he was 22 and even though the drays promoted him early he would of likely made it soon after anyways. both have almost a full season though byrd didn't play exactly play a full year. both improved a lot in the second half. so i don't know how you think byrd is so much of a greater player then crawford. i guess we'll found out in the oncoming years though. i woul take crawford but i think byrd will be a better value pick since most are high on crawford this year.

[KULCAT]

i personally like crawford more, though you could make a case for either, but to say byrd is "far superior" then crawford is very outlandish and really you have nothing to go on when you say that. a-rod is far superior then crawford, not byrd. byrd had to wait till he was 25/26 to get to the bigs, and don't tell me glanville was in his way cause that isn't a strong arguement. crawford made it when he was 22 and even though the drays promoted him early he would of likely made it soon after anyways. both have almost a full season though byrd didn't play exactly play a full year. both improved a lot in the second half. so i don't know how you think byrd is so much of a greater player then crawford. i guess we'll found out in the oncoming years though. i woul take crawford but i think byrd will be a better value pick since most are high on crawford this year.

This is correct. How is it that Byrd suddenly turned into Carlos Beltran? The reason Crawford is being picked ahead Byrd in every draft ive seen is Byrd is much more of a guess than Crawford. If i were lacking steals id go with crawford cause he stole 55 last year. Byrd might have a green light and might steal x numbers of bases. Ill take the 50 sb´s in this case. Again, it depends on your type of league.

[Jer19G]

i personally like crawford more, though you could make a case for either, but to say byrd is "far superior" then crawford is very outlandish and really you have nothing to go on when you say that. a-rod is far superior then crawford, not byrd. byrd had to wait till he was 25/26 to get to the bigs, and don't tell me glanville was in his way cause that isn't a strong arguement. crawford made it when he was 22 and even though the drays promoted him early he would of likely made it soon after anyways. both have almost a full season though byrd didn't play exactly play a full year. both improved a lot in the second half. so i don't know how you think byrd is so much of a greater player then crawford. i guess we'll found out in the oncoming years though. i woul take crawford but i think byrd will be a better value pick since most are high on crawford this year.

I am in complete agreement with you.

[Gang Green]

I'm in a H2H league where our offensive stats we keep are BA, R, SB, OBP, RBI and HR's. It's not a keeper league. Who would you take between Crawford and Byrd and why?