piazza not worth what he's asking
Sam4174
piazza is not even the best at his position...it's pay pudge more than him
Dan Szymborski
In article <199805160336...@ladder03.news.aol.com>, Sam4174
says...
> piazza is not even the best at his position
Sure he is.
> .it's pay pudge more than him
Why? Piazza's an overall better player than Rodriguez. It's not even
all that close.
--
Dan Szymborski-Founder of the Doug Mientkiewicz Fan Club
"As a statistic RBIs were not only misleading but
dishonest. They depended on managerial control, a hitter's
position in the batting order, park dimensions, and the success
of his teammates in getting on base ahead of him. That left
two measurable factors - on base average and power -- by which
to gauge the overall offensive worth of an individual."
-Branch Rickey, August 2, 1954, Life Magazine
www.baseballstuff.com - For great baseball stuff
www.stathead.com, www.baseballprospectus.com, and
www.strikethree.com - For great baseball stuff that I had
absolutely no part in writing
ches...@feist.com
In article <MPG.fc755791...@news.earthlink.net>,
Cze...@earthlink.com (Dan Szymborski) wrote:
>
> In article <199805160336...@ladder03.news.aol.com>, Sam4174
> says...
> > piazza is not even the best at his position
>
> Sure he is.
>
> > .it's pay pudge more than him
>
> Why? Piazza's an overall better player than Rodriguez. It's not even
> all that close.
>
but how do you analyze the extra offensive contribution of Piazza compared to
the extra defensive contribution of Rodriguez?
Jerry Weaver
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Nelson Lu
In article <6jkv3s$j35$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, <ches...@feist.com> wrote:
>In article <MPG.fc755791...@news.earthlink.net>,
> Cze...@earthlink.com (Dan Szymborski) wrote:
>> Why? Piazza's an overall better player than Rodriguez. It's not even
>> all that close.
>>
>I would like to see some justification for this statement. You may be right,
>but how do you analyze the extra offensive contribution of Piazza compared to
>the extra defensive contribution of Rodriguez?
This is what I posted about two weeks ago on alt.sports.baseball.calif-angels.
See what you think of it... (It promptly got a "I don't care about your stupid
stats!" type of response.)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In article <6i84ds$4...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>,
NOEL ROGERS <DERM...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>There's nothing arguable about Pudge---he is by far
>the best catcher (defensive+offensive) in baseball.
That's more than definitely arguable. In fact, there is pretty much no way
that Rodriguez's defensive superiority makes up for the absolute offensive
dominance of Mike Piazza (or even of Todd Hundley, for that matter, when
Hundley is healthy).
Last year, Piazza allowed 112 runners (out of 155) to advance on stolen bases.
That's not good. He also had 10 passed balls and 16 errors. All this he did
in 152 games.
However, when you compare this to Rodriguez's shining defensive numbers, you
see that allowed 37 (of 84) runners to advance on stolen bases. He had 3
passed balls and 7 errors. He accomplished these great numbers in 150 games.
This means that, overall, Piazza gave up 85 more stolen bases, had thrown out
4 fewer runners, and had 7 extra passed balls and 9 extra errors. Sounds bad,
doesn't it?
However, when you look at the offensive comparison:
Piazza: 556 AB, 201 H, 32 2B, 1 3B, 40 HR, 69 BB
Rodriguez: 597 AB, 187 H, 34 2B, 4 3B, 20 HR, 38 BB
Are you really willing to get that defensive difference at the price of 14
hits, -2 2B, -3 3B, 20 HRs, and 31 walks? If you are, then your team will win
less -- a lot less, actually. And this is a comparison *before* accounting for
the park difference.
Ob. Angels: And this is the reason why it doesn't make sense to play Matt
Walbeck when Todd Greene is ready; Greene might be defensively deficient, but
he will be so much above Walbeck offensively that it won't be close as to whom
the Angels should be playing.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
===============================================================================
GO ANAHEIM ANGELS!
===============================================================================
Nelson Lu (n...@cs.stanford.edu)
Colin T. William
On 16 May 1998, Nelson Lu wrote:
> This means that, overall, Piazza gave up 85 more stolen bases, had thrown out
> 4 fewer runners, and had 7 extra passed balls and 9 extra errors. Sounds bad,
> doesn't it?
> However, when you look at the offensive comparison:
> Piazza: 556 AB, 201 H, 32 2B, 1 3B, 40 HR, 69 BB
> Rodriguez: 597 AB, 187 H, 34 2B, 4 3B, 20 HR, 38 BB
> Are you really willing to get that defensive difference at the price of 14
> hits, -2 2B, -3 3B, 20 HRs, and 31 walks? If you are, then your team will win
> less -- a lot less, actually. And this is a comparison *before* accounting for
> the park difference.
I do believe Piazza is worth more overall, but I was wondering if I could
get you to clarify this some: in the overall picture, Pudge saves his team
about 100 bases defensively as opposed to Piazza, but Piazza gains only
60-70 bases offensively over Pudge. Put another way, Piazza allowed the
opposition 100 more bases than Pudge while adding about 70 bases on
offense over Pudge.
I understand park effects play a large role here, I understand that the
mere act of getting on base is worth more than a base by itself. But
still, is the difference as huge before park effects as you suggest? How
so? Is the difference large enough to justify Piazza's demanding almost
twice as much in salary as Rodriguez is getting?
Not being antagonistic, just wanting to understand this mroe clearly. As
I said, i think Piazza is mroe valuable, just wanted you toe explain this
difference here.
Colin
Nelson Lu
In article <Pine.GSO.3.96.98051...@larry.cc.emory.edu>,
Colin T. William <cwi...@emory.edu> wrote:
>On 16 May 1998, Nelson Lu wrote:
>
>> This means that, overall, Piazza gave up 85 more stolen bases, had thrown out
>> 4 fewer runners, and had 7 extra passed balls and 9 extra errors. Sounds bad,
>> doesn't it?
>> However, when you look at the offensive comparison:
>> Piazza: 556 AB, 201 H, 32 2B, 1 3B, 40 HR, 69 BB
>> Rodriguez: 597 AB, 187 H, 34 2B, 4 3B, 20 HR, 38 BB
>> Are you really willing to get that defensive difference at the price of 14
>> hits, -2 2B, -3 3B, 20 HRs, and 31 walks? If you are, then your team will win
>> less -- a lot less, actually. And this is a comparison *before* accounting for
>> the park difference.
>
>I do believe Piazza is worth more overall, but I was wondering if I could
>get you to clarify this some: in the overall picture, Pudge saves his team
>about 100 bases defensively as opposed to Piazza, but Piazza gains only
>60-70 bases offensively over Pudge. Put another way, Piazza allowed the
>opposition 100 more bases than Pudge while adding about 70 bases on
>offense over Pudge.
>
>I understand park effects play a large role here, I understand that the
>mere act of getting on base is worth more than a base by itself. But
>still, is the difference as huge before park effects as you suggest? How
>so? Is the difference large enough to justify Piazza's demanding almost
>twice as much in salary as Rodriguez is getting?
Essentially, I think one thing you are not noticing is that there are two
components to scoring -- the "OBP component" and the "SLG component." The
SBs that Piazza allows certainly fit under the SLG component but not the OBP
component -- in other words, his defensive liability only fits under one part
of the equation. The hits that he gets, however, fits under both components
and therefore have to count at least double. Further, SBs don't move other
people, while hits do.
Further, I'm not sure what you are getting with only 60-70 bases for Piazza.
The 20 HRs are 60 bases already right there. The walks add another 30. That's
at least 100 -- and then you have to about double it to get Piazza's actual
offensive contribution over Rodriguez before you can compare it to Rodriguez's
SBs prevented.
Dan Schmidt
"Colin T. William" <cwi...@emory.edu> writes:
| On 16 May 1998, Nelson Lu wrote:
|
| > This means that, overall, Piazza gave up 85 more stolen bases, had thrown out
| > 4 fewer runners, and had 7 extra passed balls and 9 extra errors. Sounds bad,
| > doesn't it?
| > However, when you look at the offensive comparison:
| > Piazza: 556 AB, 201 H, 32 2B, 1 3B, 40 HR, 69 BB
| > Rodriguez: 597 AB, 187 H, 34 2B, 4 3B, 20 HR, 38 BB
| > Are you really willing to get that defensive difference at the price of 14
| > hits, -2 2B, -3 3B, 20 HRs, and 31 walks? If you are, then your team will win
| > less -- a lot less, actually. And this is a comparison *before* accounting for
| > the park difference.
|
| I do believe Piazza is worth more overall, but I was wondering if I could
| get you to clarify this some: in the overall picture, Pudge saves his team
| about 100 bases defensively as opposed to Piazza, but Piazza gains only
| 60-70 bases offensively over Pudge. Put another way, Piazza allowed the
| opposition 100 more bases than Pudge while adding about 70 bases on
| offense over Pudge.
Almost all of the extra bases Piazza gives up on defense are advances
from first base to second base.
But many of extra bases Piazza gets on offense are getting from home
plate to first base, and getting from third base to home plate.
First (actually getting on base instead of making an out) and home
(scoring a run) are much important bases to gain than second.
I'm not going to bother to try to back that up statistically, but
hopefully it makes some sense...
--
Dan Schmidt -> df...@harmonixmusic.com, df...@alum.mit.edu
Honest Bob & the http://www2.thecia.net/users/dfan/
Factory-to-Dealer Incentives -> http://www2.thecia.net/users/dfan/hbob/
Gamelan Galak Tika -> http://web.mit.edu/galak-tika/www/
Colin T. William
On 17 May 1998, Nelson Lu wrote:
> Essentially, I think one thing you are not noticing is that there are two
> components to scoring -- the "OBP component" and the "SLG component." The
> SBs that Piazza allows certainly fit under the SLG component but not the OBP
> component -- in other words, his defensive liability only fits under one part
> of the equation. The hits that he gets, however, fits under both components
> and therefore have to count at least double. Further, SBs don't move other
> people, while hits do.
Okay, that was the clarification I was looking for (like I said, not being
argumentative, just trying to understand better).
> Further, I'm not sure what you are getting with only 60-70 bases for Piazza.
> The 20 HRs are 60 bases already right there. The walks add another 30. That's
> at least 100 -- and then you have to about double it to get Piazza's actual
> offensive contribution over Rodriguez before you can compare it to Rodriguez's
> SBs prevented.
It was bad math in my head, should have written things down. what I have
now is:
Piazza: 556 AB, 201 H, 32 2B, 1 3B, 40 HR, 69 BB
Rodriguez: 597 AB, 187 H, 34 2B, 4 3B, 20 HR, 38 BB
I count this as 424 bases for Piazza to IR's 327; he got on base 45 more
times, so since you count getting on base as twice as valuable as one SB,
then add another 45. 142 more than Rodriguez.
Rodriguez saves his team 85 SB over Piazza, plus has 7 fewer passed balls
and 9 fewer errors. so that's 101 bases saved. Threw out 4 more
baserunners too, so count that as taking 2 points each, one SLG and one
OB, so add another 8. 109 total.
So Piazza's hitting advantage here seems to be 142 to IR's defensive
advantage of 109, a difference of 33.
Again, I'm just trying to figure out reasoning here, and I know this is a
highly simplistic way of looking at things. I see the difference,
especially given the park effects and value of moving runners over with
hits via not doing so with SB. Still, i do wonder if the difference
before parke ffects is as huge as suggested. Anyway, thanks for clearing
up the reasoning there.
Colin
Jason Kassa
Colin T. William wrote:
> On 16 May 1998, Nelson Lu wrote:
>
> > This means that, overall, Piazza gave up 85 more stolen bases, had thrown out
> > 4 fewer runners, and had 7 extra passed balls and 9 extra errors. Sounds bad,
> > doesn't it?
> > However, when you look at the offensive comparison:
> > Piazza: 556 AB, 201 H, 32 2B, 1 3B, 40 HR, 69 BB
> > Rodriguez: 597 AB, 187 H, 34 2B, 4 3B, 20 HR, 38 BB
> > Are you really willing to get that defensive difference at the price of 14
> > hits, -2 2B, -3 3B, 20 HRs, and 31 walks? If you are, then your team will win
> > less -- a lot less, actually. And this is a comparison *before* accounting for
> > the park difference.
>
> I do believe Piazza is worth more overall, but I was wondering if I could
> get you to clarify this some: in the overall picture, Pudge saves his team
> about 100 bases defensively as opposed to Piazza, but Piazza gains only
> 60-70 bases offensively over Pudge. Put another way, Piazza allowed the
> opposition 100 more bases than Pudge while adding about 70 bases on
> offense over Pudge.
I count 102 more bases on offense and 105 less bases on defense.
Spike White
Dan Szymborski (Cze...@earthlink.com) wrote:
: In article <199805160336...@ladder03.news.aol.com>, Sam4174
: says...
: > piazza is not even the best at his position
: Sure he is.
Not so far this season.
: > .it's pay pudge more than him
: Why? Piazza's an overall better player than Rodriguez. It's not even
: all that close.
You need to check out Rodriguez's OPS this season. Then compare it
to Piazza's.
Now I'll grant you, I don't think Pudge will continue to play at this
level -- I expect a regression to the mean. And I don't expect Piazza
will continue to play at his level -- I expect he'll go up a notch.
But right now, Piazza is not the best at his position.
--
Spike White | | Dilbert and Drew Carey
Tivoli Systems | spike...@tivoli.com | -- separated at birth?
Austin, TX | '87 BMW K75S (motorcycle)|
Disclaimer: The guys down the hall disagree with everything I say. Guess
who speaks for the company!
ches...@feist.com
In article <6jl229$j0m$1...@nntp.Stanford.EDU>,
n...@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Nelson Lu) wrote:
>
> In article <6jkv3s$j35$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, <ches...@feist.com> wrote:
> >In article <MPG.fc755791...@news.earthlink.net>,
> > Cze...@earthlink.com (Dan Szymborski) wrote:
> >> all that close.
> >>
out
> 4 fewer runners, and had 7 extra passed balls and 9 extra errors. Sounds
bad,
> doesn't it?
>
> However, when you look at the offensive comparison:
>
> Piazza: 556 AB, 201 H, 32 2B, 1 3B, 40 HR, 69 BB
> Rodriguez: 597 AB, 187 H, 34 2B, 4 3B, 20 HR, 38 BB
>
> Are you really willing to get that defensive difference at the price of 14
> hits, -2 2B, -3 3B, 20 HRs, and 31 walks? If you are, then your team will
win
> less -- a lot less, actually. And this is a comparison *before* accounting
for
> the park difference.
>
this "bean-counter" approach just doens't tell the whole story here. What
about calling a better game? What about better leadership on the field? What
abouut the fact that pitchers will have more confidence in throwing all their
pitchers, knowing Pudge (or Johnson) will catch them, even with a man on
third? The recent comment by a Dodger ptcher reinforces this reality, but we
should have all known this anyhow. Enough with the bean-counting already!
Ted Frank
In article <6jvp80$kg$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, <ches...@feist.com> wrote:
>What
>abouut the fact that pitchers will have more confidence in throwing all their
>pitchers, knowing Pudge (or Johnson) will catch them, even with a man on
>third?
No doubt this is why the Rangers' pitchers have exhibited such consistent
success in the last several years, compared to such nobodies as Nomo,
Martinez, and Valdes. The fear of those extra half-dozen passed balls a
year really hurt them, and cost them more than the additional 20-30 home
runs a year Piazza provided on offense.
--
http://www.radix.net/~moe
you don't win friends with salad
David B.
Nelson Lu wrote in message <6jvtmg$bal$1...@nntp.Stanford.EDU>...
>
>As for leadership -- what about it? You can't prove one way or the other
>whether Piazza is a good leader or not, or whether such leadership (or lack
>thereof) actually help or hurt the team on the field.
How does that invalidate the argument? I'm not jumping into the middle of
the specific argument in relation to Piazza here... but in general, the
whole dismissal of "leadership" and a team's or player's mood/confidence
level/etc. is taken too far in this newsgroup, IMO. Y'know, it's just
conceivable that Brett Butler was right about Piazza. Maybe he wasn't. But
I think folks here tend to be too quick to dismiss such arguments as hokem
when they might be valid.
David B.
Spike White
Nelson Lu (n...@Xenon.Stanford.EDU) wrote:
: Calling the evidence "bean-counting" isn't going to make it go away. I
: suppose you can ostrichize your arguments; that doesn't make them any more
^^^^^^^^^^
ostracize (or maybe you did mean "ostrichize" -- i.e.,
to stick your head in the sand).
: persuasive.
I love your "bean-counting" argument.
My complaint is that you're counting last year's beans. If you want to
argue that _last year_ Piazza was better than Pudge, fine. He was. His
superior offense more than compensated for any difference in defense.
This year, Pudge Rodriguez is better offensively than Piazza. Check the
stats -- even your RC/25's say that. And Pudge has always been better
defensively than Piazza. Therefore, (so far) this year Pudge is the better
catcher.
David Marc Nieporent
In <6jvp80$kg$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, <ches...@feist.com> claimed:
[Analysis of how there's no way Rodriguez's alleged defensive excellence
could outweigh Piazza's clear offensive superiority.]
>The problem with this (and with the responses to it in this thread), is that
>this "bean-counter" approach just doens't tell the whole story here. What
>about calling a better game? What about better leadership on the field? What
>abouut the fact that pitchers will have more confidence in throwing all their
>pitchers, knowing Pudge (or Johnson) will catch them, even with a man on
>third? The recent comment by a Dodger ptcher reinforces this reality, but we
>should have all known this anyhow. Enough with the bean-counting already!
Um, fine. Forget "bean-counting."
Also forget anecdotal crap, however.
Try looking at the *track record* of Piazza's pitching staffs over the
years and Rodriguez's, and then give me imaginary bullshit about
Rodriguez's "calling a better game" and "leadership on the field" and
such.
Let's face it, there's not the slightest shred of evidence Rodriguez does
any of those things better than Piazza. He *throws* better. That's it.
--
David M. Nieporent "Mr. Simpson, don't you worry. I
niep...@alumni.princeton.edu watched Matlock in a bar last night.
2L - St. John's School of Law The sound wasn't on, but I think I
Roberto Petagine Appreciation Society got the gist of it." -- L. Hutz
David Marc Nieporent
In <6jvtmg$bal$1...@nntp.Stanford.EDU>,
Nelson Lu <n...@Xenon.Stanford.EDU> claimed:>> n...@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Nelson Lu) wrote:
>[My article arguing that Piazza, despite defensive shortcomings, is still
>better than Rodriguez, deleted]
>>The problem with this (and with the responses to it in this thread), is that
>>this "bean-counter" approach just doens't tell the whole story here. What
>>about calling a better game? What about better leadership on the
>>field? What
>What about calling a better game? Piazza had one of the best catcher ERAs in
>the game. If you argue that that's because of a good pitching staff that he's
>catching, or the park that he's in, that's fine -- except that Ivan Rodriguez
>and Charles Johnson, the two catchers mentioned mentioned in this thread, had
>CERAs worse than their backups, which suggest that their pitch calling isn't
>what it's cracked up to be.
Actually, forget that response, Nelson. If he claims that it's because of
a good pitching staff, well, then, that just rests your case. It doesn't
matter why. Either Piazza is hurting his pitching staff or he isn't. If
they're performing well, either Piazza is a good game-caller, etc., or
these things that he does wrong don't matter.
>As for leadership -- what about it? You can't prove one way or the other
>whether Piazza is a good leader or not, or whether such leadership (or lack
>thereof) actually help or hurt the team on the field.
We know Ivan Rodriguez lies to his team; he promises not to play winter
ball, and then he does. What kind of "leadership" does that suggest?
Nelson Lu
In article <6k1nhn$9fk$1...@tivoli.tivoli.com>,
Spike White <spike...@tivoli.com> wrote:
>Nelson Lu (n...@Xenon.Stanford.EDU) wrote:
>: Calling the evidence "bean-counting" isn't going to make it go away. I
>: suppose you can ostrichize your arguments; that doesn't make them any more
> ^^^^^^^^^^
> ostracize (or maybe you did mean "ostrichize" -- i.e.,
> to stick your head in the sand).
>: persuasive.
I did mean "ostrichize," yes.
>I love your "bean-counting" argument.
>
>My complaint is that you're counting last year's beans. If you want to
>argue that _last year_ Piazza was better than Pudge, fine. He was. His
>superior offense more than compensated for any difference in defense.
>
>This year, Pudge Rodriguez is better offensively than Piazza. Check the
>stats -- even your RC/25's say that. And Pudge has always been better
>defensively than Piazza. Therefore, (so far) this year Pudge is the better
>catcher.
Correct; thus far Rodriguez is the better catcher, by far. However, I don't
expect that to last. I would say it's more likely than not that overall for
the year Piazza will be better.
ches...@feist.com
In article <6k1ldv$m...@pluto.njcc.com>,
niep...@alumni.princeton.edu wrote:
>
> In <6jvp80$kg$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, <ches...@feist.com> claimed:
>
> [Analysis of how there's no way Rodriguez's alleged defensive excellence
> could outweigh Piazza's clear offensive superiority.]
>
that
> >this "bean-counter" approach just doens't tell the whole story here. What
> >about calling a better game? What about better leadership on the field?
What
their
> >pitchers, knowing Pudge (or Johnson) will catch them, even with a man on
> >third? The recent comment by a Dodger ptcher reinforces this reality, but
we
> >should have all known this anyhow. Enough with the bean-counting already!
>
> Um, fine. Forget "bean-counting."
>
> Also forget anecdotal crap, however.
>
> Try looking at the *track record* of Piazza's pitching staffs over the
> years and Rodriguez's, and then give me imaginary bullshit about
> Rodriguez's "calling a better game" and "leadership on the field" and
> such.
>
> Let's face it, there's not the slightest shred of evidence Rodriguez does
> any of those things better than Piazza. He *throws* better. That's it.
> --
evidence as to how same pitching staffs perform with each catcher.
Spike White
David Marc Nieporent (niep...@pluto.njcc.com) wrote:
: Try looking at the *track record* of Piazza's pitching staffs over the
: years and Rodriguez's, and then give me imaginary bullshit about
: Rodriguez's "calling a better game" and "leadership on the field" and
: such.
: Let's face it, there's not the slightest shred of evidence Rodriguez does
: any of those things better than Piazza. He *throws* better. That's it.
We can look and see who has less PB's, E2's and more putouts at home.
That's also easily-quantifiable defense, but it doesn't require a strong
arm.
You'd have to subtract PB's from knuckleballers, I'll give you that.
I'm just interested in whether E2's, CREA, PB's, WP's, and PO's go down w/
Johnson, or up.
Spike White
Nelson Lu (n...@Xenon.Stanford.EDU) wrote:
: Correct; thus far Rodriguez is the better catcher, by far. However, I don't
: expect that to last. I would say it's more likely than not that overall for
: the year Piazza will be better.
That's going to be very interesting to watch. I don't think Rodriguez
will match Piazza's SLG once Piazza starts swinging like his old self.
(But I'd be surprised if Piazza put up the same incredible numbers he
put up last year. So far he's slumping in FLA even worse than he slumped
in LA.) The longer Pudge is hot and the longer Piazza slumps, the harder
it'll be for Piazza to win "year's best catcher". I'm sure knowing he's
the Marlins "revolving door player" doesn't help him concentrate on hitting.
Pudge had a big-time slump late last year, before his contract status was
resolved. I expect the same from Piazza.
Right now, Pudge is neck-and-neck w/ Piazza's best year ever, 1997. I
expect Pudge's SLG to drop dramatically -- he's never been much of a
long-ball hitter before, just a doubles hitter. But I expect his OBP
to slowly decline, he's always been consistent w/ OBP (mainly due to BA).
So, I don't expect Piazza to match Rodriguez's other-worldly OBP.
Pudge would have to decline and Piazza would have to have another '95-'97
season.
Piazza w/ higher SLG, Pudge w/ higher OBP. Who'll have the higher OPS?
Last year, Piazza was indisputably the best catcher only because his
offensive numbers were so great and Pudge's were merely good. This
year, we'll see. Pudge doesn't have to match Piazza's offense, just
close -- since his defense is better.
Don Malcolm
Spike White wrote:
>
> Nelson Lu (n...@Xenon.Stanford.EDU) wrote:
> : Correct; thus far Rodriguez is the better catcher, by far. However, I don't
> : expect that to last. I would say it's more likely than not that overall for
> : the year Piazza will be better.
>
> That's going to be very interesting to watch. I don't think Rodriguez
> will match Piazza's SLG once Piazza starts swinging like his old self.
> (But I'd be surprised if Piazza put up the same incredible numbers he
> put up last year. So far he's slumping in FLA even worse than he slumped
> in LA.) The longer Pudge is hot and the longer Piazza slumps, the harder
> it'll be for Piazza to win "year's best catcher". I'm sure knowing he's
> the Marlins "revolving door player" doesn't help him concentrate on hitting.
> Pudge had a big-time slump late last year, before his contract status was
> resolved. I expect the same from Piazza.
>
> Right now, Pudge is neck-and-neck w/ Piazza's best year ever, 1997. I
> expect Pudge's SLG to drop dramatically -- he's never been much of a
> long-ball hitter before, just a doubles hitter. But I expect his OBP
> to slowly decline, he's always been consistent w/ OBP (mainly due to BA).
>
> So, I don't expect Piazza to match Rodriguez's other-worldly OBP.
> Pudge would have to decline and Piazza would have to have another '95-'97
> season.
>
> Piazza w/ higher SLG, Pudge w/ higher OBP. Who'll have the higher OPS?
Don't know for sure, but the YEPS projection tool we use at BBBA comes
up with the following comparison:
Player G AB R H D T HR RBI BB SO SB CS BA OBP SLG OPS
Ivan 147 587 100 196 47 2 22 91 37 77 5 1 .333 .372 .535 .908
Mike 142 543 87 176 21 1 35 114 56 89 1 1 .324 .387 .561 .948
The details of how YEPS (short for Year-End Projection System) works
are at the BBBA site, but it basically uses the last three years of
a player's career as a basis, factors in what they've done to date
in the present year, and tries to factor in playing time and any
other special considerations.
Given Pudge's rather consistent pattern of not walking, his OBP is
projected by YEPS to drop about sixty points by season's end. His
SLG, as you suggest above, should decline more.
If the final numbers are anything close to this, one could make a
pretty good case for Pudge this year.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The BBBA home page---the web site baseball deserves
http://www.backatcha.com
This week in Thoughts Out of Season: the Year-End Projection
System Rides Again!; "the Trade"; Wells' perfect game up close
Ivan Weiss
On 21 May 1998, David Marc Nieporent wrote:
> Also forget anecdotal crap, however.
>
> Try looking at the *track record* of Piazza's pitching staffs over the
> years and Rodriguez's, and then give me imaginary bullshit about
> Rodriguez's "calling a better game" and "leadership on the field" and
> such.
>
> Let's face it, there's not the slightest shred of evidence Rodriguez does
> any of those things better than Piazza. He *throws* better. That's it.
Are you saying, then, that throwing is the only thing Rodriguez does
defensively better than Piazza? Or just that there's no way to determine
who "calls a better game, etc.?"
Ivan Weiss "I never keep a scorecard or the batting averages.
Vashon WA I hate statics. What I got to know I keep in my head."
-- Dizzy Dean
Spike White
Don Malcolm (dmal...@backatcha.com) wrote:
: Don't know for sure, but the YEPS projection tool we use at BBBA comes
: Player G AB R H D T HR RBI BB SO SB CS BA OBP SLG OPS
: Ivan 147 587 100 196 47 2 22 91 37 77 5 1 .333 .372 .535 .908
: Mike 142 543 87 176 21 1 35 114 56 89 1 1 .324 .387 .561 .948
: The details of how YEPS (short for Year-End Projection System) works
: are at the BBBA site, but it basically uses the last three years of
: a player's career as a basis, factors in what they've done to date
: in the present year, and tries to factor in playing time and any
: other special considerations.
Like slumps, due to contract negotiations and being traded (probably
twice)?
: Given Pudge's rather consistent pattern of not walking, his OBP is
: projected by YEPS to drop about sixty points by season's end. His
: SLG, as you suggest above, should decline more.
: If the final numbers are anything close to this, one could make a
: pretty good case for Pudge this year.
If the OPS ends up that close, I'd give the "top catcher" award to Pudge
due to superior defense.
David Marc Nieporent
In <Pine.GSO.3.96.98052...@blaze.accessone.com>,
Ivan Weiss <iv...@blaze.accessone.com> claimed:
>On 21 May 1998, David Marc Nieporent wrote:
>> Also forget anecdotal crap, however.
>> Try looking at the *track record* of Piazza's pitching staffs over the
>> years and Rodriguez's, and then give me imaginary bullshit about
>> Rodriguez's "calling a better game" and "leadership on the field" and
>> such.
>> Let's face it, there's not the slightest shred of evidence Rodriguez does
>> any of those things better than Piazza. He *throws* better. That's it.
>Are you saying, then, that throwing is the only thing Rodriguez does
>defensively better than Piazza? Or just that there's no way to determine
>who "calls a better game, etc.?"
The latter.
I'm saying that throwing is the only thing we *know* that Rodriguez does
better than Piazza. (Defensively or offensively.) Though I'll also say
that Piazza's throwing problems are overstated; most of his career, he has
caught Candiotti and Nomo, neither of whom could hold a crippled Cecil
Fielder on first.
Ivan Weiss
On 27 May 1998, David Marc Nieporent wrote:
> In <Pine.GSO.3.96.98052...@blaze.accessone.com>,
> Ivan Weiss <iv...@blaze.accessone.com> claimed:
> >On 21 May 1998, David Marc Nieporent wrote:
>
> >> Also forget anecdotal crap, however.
> >> Try looking at the *track record* of Piazza's pitching staffs over the
> >> years and Rodriguez's, and then give me imaginary bullshit about
> >> Rodriguez's "calling a better game" and "leadership on the field" and
> >> such.
> >> Let's face it, there's not the slightest shred of evidence Rodriguez does
> >> any of those things better than Piazza. He *throws* better. That's it.
>
> >Are you saying, then, that throwing is the only thing Rodriguez does
> >defensively better than Piazza? Or just that there's no way to determine
> >who "calls a better game, etc.?"
>
> The latter.
>
> I'm saying that throwing is the only thing we *know* that Rodriguez does
> better than Piazza. (Defensively or offensively.) Though I'll also say
> that Piazza's throwing problems are overstated; most of his career, he has
> caught Candiotti and Nomo, neither of whom could hold a crippled Cecil
> Fielder on first.
Well, I happen to *know* that Rodriguez has quicker feet than Piazza, more
range on pop flies, digs pitches out of the dirt better, and covers bunts
better. If you don't *know* that by now, either you have never seen these
men play, or your credibility is through the floor, through the
sub-basement, through the topsoil, and approaching the earth's molten core
at the speed of light.
I saw Berra, Campanella, Bench and Fisk, all in their primes. Rodriguez is
better than all of them, probably the best-ever defensive catcher. It
doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out.
Spike White
Ivan Weiss (iv...@blaze.accessone.com) wrote:
: I saw Berra, Campanella, Bench and Fisk, all in their primes. Rodriguez is
: better than all of them, probably the best-ever defensive catcher.
Just to be fair, have you seen Charley Johnson? Seems comparable
(defensively) to Pudge.
Ivan Weiss
On 28 May 1998, Spike White wrote:
> Ivan Weiss (iv...@blaze.accessone.com) wrote:
> : I saw Berra, Campanella, Bench and Fisk, all in their primes. Rodriguez is
> : better than all of them, probably the best-ever defensive catcher.
>
> Just to be fair, have you seen Charley Johnson? Seems comparable
> (defensively) to Pudge.
Sure I've seen Johnson. He's terrific. But I haven't seen him often enough
over a long enough period to get a feel (I'm ducking) for his game as much
as I have Rodriguez.
For example, a couple weeks ago I saw Rodriguez pick a sharp breaking
ball, off to his right, on one hop, with one hand, backhanded, and with
one motion, throw a strike to third base (around a right-handed batter)
trying to catch a stealing Mariner runner. They called the runner safe;
the M's announcers and all instant replays showed he was really out.
Not only could Mike Piazza not make that play in his dreams, Johnny Bench
couldn't, either -- not as bang-bang and effortlessly as Rodriguez did it.
And I take nothing from Bench, who IMO was the best defensive catcher I
had seen -- till Rodriguez.
Before Bench the best I had seen, defensively, was Yogi Berra. I don't
think people today have a sense of how dominant Berra was defensively.
Campanella could catch and throw as well as Berra -- he had great hands --
but Berra was much quicker afoot than anyone else -- till Bench and
Rodriguez.
This of course is all IMO and unverified by statistics, so it probably
should be killfiled without further ado.
Spike White
Ivan Weiss (iv...@blaze.accessone.com) wrote:
: For example, a couple weeks ago I saw Rodriguez pick a sharp breaking
: ball, off to his right, on one hop, with one hand, backhanded, and with
: one motion, throw a strike to third base (around a right-handed batter)
: trying to catch a stealing Mariner runner.
Rich Amaral. Pinch runner for someone (Glenallen Hill?).
: They called the runner safe;
: the M's announcers and all instant replays showed he was really out.
Clearly out. Amaral was quiet during that ensuing ump/manager sorte, he
knew he was out also.
Jonathan Bernstein
Ivan Weiss (iv...@blaze.accessone.com) wrote:
: Well, I happen to *know* that Rodriguez has quicker feet than Piazza, more
: range on pop flies, digs pitches out of the dirt better, and covers bunts
: better.
Without challenging this, the question remains: how much does that stuff
matter? The range in wild pitches, for example, in the AL last year went
from 43 (the Orioles) up to 71 (the White Sox; Texas had 55). Even if the
entire difference between them was accounted for by the brilliant Hoiles
and the incompetent Kark, that's thirty runners over a full season moving
up (OK, it's probably more since there's two or three guys on, but...).
Among regular catchers who didn't have Wakefield to deal with, the
difference in PB was from 1 (several guys) to 12 (two guys). In real
life, we know that the pitchers share responsibility for the WPs and WPs,
maybe the bulk of the responsibility. It's just not a big deal.
I suspect the same is true about catching pop ups and covering bunts,
although at least the issue there is the larger one of out/not out. My
guess is that the biggest skill among these, as far as importance to
winning and losing, is blocking the plate/catching throws from
fielders/making the tag; if the difference in that across catchers was in
the 15-25 range a year, that's probably a very large effect on winning and
losing. But the other stuff? Maybe two games a year going from the best
in the league to the worst, but much more likely about a fifth of a game.
The other biggy is skill at working with the pitchers; if it really is
different for different catchers, it could be huge. But we don't really
know anything except for lots of contradictory anecdotes and some very
skimpy stats.
JHB
ttw2000
Jonathan Bernstein <j...@uclink2.berkeley.edu> wrote in article
<6kv85v$f3v$1...@agate.berkeley.edu>...
> Ivan Weiss (iv...@blaze.accessone.com) wrote:
> Without challenging this, the question remains: how much does that stuff
> matter? The range in wild pitches, for example, in the AL last year went
I'll have to disagree with you here.
If you're a pitcher, especially a young pitcher, the difference between a
barely adequate defensive catcher and a terrific one is gigantic. You don't
have to think twice about throwing a forkball with runners on base. You
don't have to worry about throwing a breaking ball with a base-stealer on.
You have a second pitching coach out on the field with you. And you know
you're going to get a lot more borderline strike calls.
Also, I suspect if you broke down the hitting statistics to the same
degree that you have broken down defensive staistics, you might find out
that many of Piazza's hitting statistics aren't as impressive as you think.
How often does he get hits/HRs/RBI in games that are already decided? How
often does he get game-winning RBIs or rally-starting or rally-continuing
hits? How often does he disappear in really important games (like the last
series against the Giants last season, and against the Padres the year
before that)?
-MEC
Ivan Weiss
In article <01bd8ed5$98f03820$9c0737a6@default>, ttw2000 says...
> Jonathan Bernstein <j...@uclink2.berkeley.edu> wrote in article
> <6kv85v$f3v$1...@agate.berkeley.edu>...
> > Without challenging this, the question remains: how much does that stuff
> > matter? The range in wild pitches, for example, in the AL last year went
> > from 43 (the Orioles) up to 71 (the White Sox; Texas had 55)...
>
> I'll have to disagree with you here.
>
> If you're a pitcher, especially a young pitcher, the difference between a
> barely adequate defensive catcher and a terrific one is gigantic. You don't
> have to think twice about throwing a forkball with runners on base. You
> don't have to worry about throwing a breaking ball with a base-stealer on.
> You have a second pitching coach out on the field with you. And you know
> you're going to get a lot more borderline strike calls.
I didn't want to take the time to go into this aspect of it in my
previous post, but having been a (lousy) pitcher, I agree totally. Many
people in this NG will attempt to debunk this line of reasoning because
there's no way to measure it to their satisfaction. It drives them crazy.
--
Ivan Weiss "Yesterday I was lying. Today I'm telling the truth."
Vashon WA -- Bob Arum
Jonathan Bernstein
Ivan Weiss (iv...@accessone.com) wrote:
: In article <01bd8ed5$98f03820$9c0737a6@default>, ttw2000 says...
: > Jonathan Bernstein <j...@uclink2.berkeley.edu> wrote in article
: > > Without challenging this, the question remains: how much does that stuff
: > > matter? The range in wild pitches, for example, in the AL last year went
: > > from 43 (the Orioles) up to 71 (the White Sox; Texas had 55)...
: >
: > I'll have to disagree with you here.
: >
: > If you're a pitcher, especially a young pitcher, the difference between a
: > barely adequate defensive catcher and a terrific one is gigantic. You don't
: > have to think twice about throwing a forkball with runners on base. You
: > don't have to worry about throwing a breaking ball with a base-stealer on.
: > You have a second pitching coach out on the field with you. And you know
: > you're going to get a lot more borderline strike calls.
: I didn't want to take the time to go into this aspect of it in my
: previous post, but having been a (lousy) pitcher, I agree totally. Many
: people in this NG will attempt to debunk this line of reasoning because
: there's no way to measure it to their satisfaction. It drives them crazy.
I explicitly said that ability to handle/work with pitchers may be a huge
difference between catchers. But for most of the stuff originally listed
here (pouncing on bunts, catching pop-ups, throwing out stealers, and I
added blocking the plate/applying tags/receiving OF & IF throws), there's
really not much of a connection between those skills and working with
pitchers.
I'll grant there could be such a connections between WPs, PBs, and working
with pitchers. But, again, there *isn't* much of a difference in WPs and
PBs between teams. So, I think whatever "confidence" pitchers get from
catchers isn't really reflected in these numbers, or else it doesn't exist
as a factor in how those pitchers succeed.
Again, I want to be clear about what I'm saying here. It's two things:
first, that most of the stuff catchers can do well or badly doesn't make
much of a difference in terms of affect on wins and losses; and, second,
that the thing that *may* make a large difference, handling pitchers,
isn't logically connected to those other things, and therefore cannot
logically be extrapolated from them.
So, to return to Piazza/Rodriguez (or Piazza/Johnson), what I would say is
that the stuff that the "good fielding" catchers do better than Piazza
really isn't very important, and that for the stuff that *is* important
there's no way to know who that the "good fielding" catchers are better,
and that it isn't a logical conclusion that they are better.
One more thing: to the extent we have any information about "working with
pitchers", the evidence, IMO, favors Piazza. I think we'd all agree that
this stuff is more likely to matter with young pitchers than old pitchers.
The fact is that in Piazza's time with the Dodgers, they were awesome at
breaking in new pitches: Valdez, Nomo, Park, Driefert, and maybe one or
two more I forget broke into the league really well during that time. I
don't think Johnson and Rodriguez combined have that many successes, even
if you give them shared credit for Helling and Nen, neither of whom took
to their leagues as readily as the above mentioned Dodgers. Now,
obviously, that ignores input from managers, pitching coaches, and the
original talent level of the pitchers, but to me it represents real
evidence that Piazza is at least adequate at working with pitchers
compared to Johnson and Ivan.
JHB
Spike White
ttw2000 (ttw...@MCI2000.com) wrote:
: If you're a pitcher, especially a young pitcher, the difference between a
: barely adequate defensive catcher and a terrific one is gigantic. You don't
: have to think twice about throwing a forkball with runners on base. You
: don't have to worry about throwing a breaking ball with a base-stealer on.
: You have a second pitching coach out on the field with you. And you know
: you're going to get a lot more borderline strike calls.
How young you talking about? That sounds like an 11-yr old catcher I
know -- can't throw sliders for strike 3, past him every time.
But I'd bet such a catcher would improve his skills or not make the
majors. I can't imagine any "barely adequate defensive catcher" that
lasts in the majors having the atrocious defense you describe.
Sheesh, even Mike Piazza's defense is nowhere as bad as you describe.
Ivan Weiss
On 3 Jun 1998, Jonathan Bernstein wrote:
>
> : I didn't want to take the time to go into this aspect of it in my
> : previous post, but having been a (lousy) pitcher, I agree totally. Many
> : people in this NG will attempt to debunk this line of reasoning because
> : there's no way to measure it to their satisfaction. It drives them crazy.
>
> I explicitly said that ability to handle/work with pitchers may be a huge
> difference between catchers. But for most of the stuff originally listed
> here (pouncing on bunts, catching pop-ups, throwing out stealers, and I
> added blocking the plate/applying tags/receiving OF & IF throws), there's
> really not much of a connection between those skills and working with
> pitchers.
And you know this because . . .
> I'll grant there could be such a connections between WPs, PBs, and working
> with pitchers. But, again, there *isn't* much of a difference in WPs and
> PBs between teams. So, I think whatever "confidence" pitchers get from
> catchers isn't really reflected in these numbers, or else it doesn't exist
> as a factor in how those pitchers succeed.
See previous statement.
> Again, I want to be clear about what I'm saying here. It's two things:
> first, that most of the stuff catchers can do well or badly doesn't make
> much of a difference in terms of affect on wins and losses; and, second,
> that the thing that *may* make a large difference, handling pitchers,
> isn't logically connected to those other things,
You certainly have not demonstrated this to *my* satisfaction. Pitchers
are complex, temperamental creatures, and the intervening variables that
determine pitchers' success defy computational analysis.
and therefore cannot
> logically be extrapolated from them.
I agree totally with this, as it makes my point. You can't know what may
get a pitcher "out of his groove." If a catcher lets his pitcher's
splitter get between his legs, allowing a runner to advance, and the
pitcher grooves a fastball to the next hitter, who hits it out, did the
catcher's fuckup cause the pitcher to groove the fastball?
Maybe it did, maybe it didn't. There's no way to know, and if you say
there is, I for one do not believe it.
> So, to return to Piazza/Rodriguez (or Piazza/Johnson), what I would say is
> that the stuff that the "good fielding" catchers do better than Piazza
> really isn't very important, and that for the stuff that *is* important
> there's no way to know who that the "good fielding" catchers are better,
> and that it isn't a logical conclusion that they are better.
Neither you, sir, nor any numbers you may produce will convince me of
that. I say this without any disrespect intended.
> One more thing: to the extent we have any information about "working with
> pitchers", the evidence, IMO, favors Piazza. I think we'd all agree that
> this stuff is more likely to matter with young pitchers than old pitchers.
> The fact is that in Piazza's time with the Dodgers, they were awesome at
> breaking in new pitches: Valdez, Nomo, Park, Driefert, and maybe one or
> two more I forget broke into the league really well during that time. I
> don't think Johnson and Rodriguez combined have that many successes, even
> if you give them shared credit for Helling and Nen, neither of whom took
> to their leagues as readily as the above mentioned Dodgers. Now,
> obviously, that ignores input from managers, pitching coaches, and the
> original talent level of the pitchers, but to me it represents real
> evidence that Piazza is at least adequate at working with pitchers
> compared to Johnson and Ivan.
Older pitchers are subject to the same emotional ups and downs as younger
ones, and there is no way to measure this empirically. One hopes that age
lends a greater degree of emotional stability, but there's no guarantee.
ddr...@imap1.asu.edu
Ivan Weiss (iv...@accessone.com) wrote:
: In article <01bd8ed5$98f03820$9c0737a6@default>, ttw2000 says...
: > If you're a pitcher, especially a young pitcher, the difference between a
: > barely adequate defensive catcher and a terrific one is gigantic.
: > You don't
: > have to think twice about throwing a forkball with runners on base. You
: > don't have to worry about throwing a breaking ball with a base-stealer on.
: > You have a second pitching coach out on the field with you. And you know
: > you're going to get a lot more borderline strike calls.
: I didn't want to take the time to go into this aspect of it in my
: previous post, but having been a (lousy) pitcher, I agree totally. Many
: people in this NG will attempt to debunk this line of reasoning because
: there's no way to measure it to their satisfaction. It drives them crazy.
I think in a lot of ways, the game we were playing the last time we laced
up the spikes bears very little resemblance to major league baseball (and
I'm including myself in that "we", so please don't anybody get offended).
And I think catcher D is one place where this is particularly true. The
difference between a good high school catcher and a bad one is HUGE, much
larger, I think, than the difference between a good major league catcher
and a bad one.
No, we can't really measure this very well right now, but doesn't the
fact that we can't measure it say something? If they were real
effects, all the things you mentioned *would show up* in a catcher's
ERA. If Ramon Martinez really was afraid to throw his best stuff with
runners on 3rd and Piazza catching, it would result in him getting hit
harder (higher ERA). But it doesn't. If you really got fewer borderline
strikes with Piazza catching, then it would result in a higher ERA. It
doesn't.
CERA is, IMHO, what Ron Johnson would call a "burden of proof" stat.
IOW, I'm not going to use Piazza's consistently good CERAs to argue that
he's great, but if you want to convince me he's lousy, you've got to
explain to me why all the lousy things he does don't show up there.
I think it's perfectly believable that catcher D is hugely important in
high school baseball (and even more so at lower levels), but that doesn't
necessarily mean it's that important at the highest level. Catcher ERA
is a quirky stat. It tends to swing wildly from year to
year, and often doesn't match up with our intuition or with what baseball
people tell us. That in itself is evidence that catcher D isn't as
important as we think it is.
Doug
Jonathan Bernstein
Ivan Weiss (iv...@blaze.accessone.com) wrote:
: On 3 Jun 1998, Jonathan Bernstein wrote:
: > : I didn't want to take the time to go into this aspect of it in my
: > : previous post, but having been a (lousy) pitcher, I agree totally. Many
: > : people in this NG will attempt to debunk this line of reasoning because
: > : there's no way to measure it to their satisfaction. It drives them crazy.
: >
: > I explicitly said that ability to handle/work with pitchers may be a huge
: > difference between catchers. But for most of the stuff originally listed
: > here (pouncing on bunts, catching pop-ups, throwing out stealers, and I
: > added blocking the plate/applying tags/receiving OF & IF throws), there's
: > really not much of a connection between those skills and working with
: > pitchers.
: And you know this because . . .
First, I don't even know that there's much of an internal correlation
between those things. But, second, for the life of me I can't see why a
catchers' ability to grab bunts, catch throws (not pitches), and catch
popups would make more of an impression on pitchers than a 3Bs or a 1Bs
ability to do those things.
It seems to me there are only two logical places to look: a catchers'
ability to catch pitched balls, and a catchers' ability to work with
pitchers. Everything else should be subject to normal defensive analysis,
same as we look at a third baseman's fielding.
: > I'll grant there could be such a connections between WPs, PBs, and working
: > with pitchers. But, again, there *isn't* much of a difference in WPs and
: > PBs between teams. So, I think whatever "confidence" pitchers get from
: > catchers isn't really reflected in these numbers, or else it doesn't exist
: > as a factor in how those pitchers succeed.
: See previous statement.
I think this is simply a logical progression here. No new claims.
: > Again, I want to be clear about what I'm saying here. It's two things:
: > first, that most of the stuff catchers can do well or badly doesn't make
: > much of a difference in terms of affect on wins and losses; and, second,
: > that the thing that *may* make a large difference, handling pitchers,
: > isn't logically connected to those other things,
: You certainly have not demonstrated this to *my* satisfaction. Pitchers
: are complex, temperamental creatures, and the intervening variables that
: determine pitchers' success defy computational analysis.
Which part?
The first thing I say here is easy to demonstrate from fielding stats;
catchers really don't field very many bunts, you know.
The second part I've argued above, so I'll let you address it there.
: and therefore cannot
: > logically be extrapolated from them.
: I agree totally with this, as it makes my point. You can't know what may
: get a pitcher "out of his groove." If a catcher lets his pitcher's
: splitter get between his legs, allowing a runner to advance, and the
: pitcher grooves a fastball to the next hitter, who hits it out, did the
: catcher's fuckup cause the pitcher to groove the fastball?
: Maybe it did, maybe it didn't. There's no way to know, and if you say
: there is, I for one do not believe it.
Here, we're closer to agreement. I do think it's very plausible that this
matters. But, again, the facts here imply that there is very little
difference among catchers with regard to successfully catching pitches
(that's the small difference in WP and PBs). So, again, either the effect
is very small between (major league) catchers, or pitchers have a huge
reaction to very small differences. The latter is certainly possible, but
seems unlikely to me.
: > So, to return to Piazza/Rodriguez (or Piazza/Johnson), what I would say is
: > that the stuff that the "good fielding" catchers do better than Piazza
: > really isn't very important, and that for the stuff that *is* important
: > there's no way to know who that the "good fielding" catchers are better,
: > and that it isn't a logical conclusion that they are better.
: Neither you, sir, nor any numbers you may produce will convince me of
: that. I say this without any disrespect intended.
I've produced almost no numbers in this thread. It's mostly a logical
argument, working from the few facts we clearly know and should be able to
agree on. I'd like to hear your arguments to the contrary, rather than
assertions of close-mindedness.
: > One more thing: to the extent we have any information about "working with
: > pitchers", the evidence, IMO, favors Piazza. I think we'd all agree that
: > this stuff is more likely to matter with young pitchers than old pitchers.
: > The fact is that in Piazza's time with the Dodgers, they were awesome at
: > breaking in new pitches: Valdez, Nomo, Park, Driefert, and maybe one or
: > two more I forget broke into the league really well during that time. I
: > don't think Johnson and Rodriguez combined have that many successes, even
: > if you give them shared credit for Helling and Nen, neither of whom took
: > to their leagues as readily as the above mentioned Dodgers. Now,
: > obviously, that ignores input from managers, pitching coaches, and the
: > original talent level of the pitchers, but to me it represents real
: > evidence that Piazza is at least adequate at working with pitchers
: > compared to Johnson and Ivan.
: Older pitchers are subject to the same emotional ups and downs as younger
: ones, and there is no way to measure this empirically. One hopes that age
: lends a greater degree of emotional stability, but there's no guarantee.
OK; in that case, Piazza has also done fine by Ramon and Candiotti.
JHB
David Marc Nieporent
In <01bd8ed5$98f03820$9c0737a6@default>,
ttw2000 <ttw...@MCI2000.com> claimed:>> Ivan Weiss (iv...@blaze.accessone.com) wrote:
>> Without challenging this, the question remains: how much does that stuff
>> matter? The range in wild pitches, for example, in the AL last year went
>> from 43 (the Orioles) up to 71 (the White Sox; Texas had 55)...
>I'll have to disagree with you here.
>If you're a pitcher, especially a young pitcher, the difference between a
>barely adequate defensive catcher and a terrific one is gigantic.
I don't think he was disagreeing with this. it is, however,
irrelevant to major league baseball, where you're choosing between the
best defensive catcher in the world and a great defensive one, not betwen
a terrific one and a "barely adequate" one.
I think this is one of the problems a lot of people have -- they project
from their own experiences, which doesn't work when you get to the
super-elite athletes in the world.
>You don't
>have to think twice about throwing a forkball with runners on base. You
>don't have to worry about throwing a breaking ball with a base-stealer on.
>You have a second pitching coach out on the field with you. And you know
>you're going to get a lot more borderline strike calls.
But the point is that these things are different. Just because Piazza
doesn't throw well doesn't mean he's not a "second pitching coach" or
getting borderline strike calls or blocking pitches in the dirt.
>Also, I suspect if you broke down the hitting statistics to the same
>degree that you have broken down defensive staistics, you might find out
>that many of Piazza's hitting statistics aren't as impressive as you think.
>How often does he get hits/HRs/RBI in games that are already decided? How
>often does he get game-winning RBIs or rally-starting or rally-continuing
>hits?
I don't think anybody is doing what you're saying. As for situational
stats, that's a whole 'nother thread, but that aside, we're not talking
about raw numbers. We're talking about the _difference_ between players.
>How often does he disappear in really important games (like the last
>series against the Giants last season, and against the Padres the year
>before that)?
All games are really important. And the answer is -- probably less than
just about any other player in baseball. Given that he hit 310/414/476 in
"Close and Late" situations last year, and over the last five years has
hit 294/381/510 in those situations, I don't see much to complain about.