A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    Pitch framing is not "one of the biggest factors of CERA".
    It is but one lone element. It may only equate to one win a year.
    CERA is but a part of the whole that constitutes a catcher's relevance.
    Read Tom's post carefully.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from StatsFromLouie. Show StatsFromLouie's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II:
    [QUOTE]Pitch framing is not "one of the biggest factors of CERA". It is but one lone element. It may only equate to one win a year. CERA is but a part of the whole that constitutes a catcher's relevance . Read Tom's post carefully .
    Posted by harness[/QUOTE]
    Any evidence to back this up?
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from jidgef. Show jidgef's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    Boom, you're right about our farm system not producing catchers, at least not since Tek. But Salty may well make that a moot point as he is living up to the promise and could be holding down that spot for the next 6-8 years. I told you not to be so quick to dismiss this kid! How long ago was 2-10??? Gotta love it!
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from StatsFromLouie. Show StatsFromLouie's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II:
    [QUOTE]Boom, you're right about our farm system not producing catchers, at least not since Tek. But Salty may well make that a moot point as he is living up to the promise and could be holding down that spot for the next 6-8 years. I told you not to be so quick to dismiss this kid! How long ago was 2-10??? Gotta love it!
    Posted by jidgef[/QUOTE]
    Your farm system didn't produce Tek.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II : Any evidence to back this up?
    Posted by StatsFromLouie[/QUOTE]

    Referenced from the (last) Tom-UK post.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from jidgef. Show jidgef's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    Framing is a very important skill and can have may implications beyond the simple balls and strikes. Pitchers can work corners more effectively and throw fewer pitches. It's difficult to quantify just exactly what a good pitch framer brings in terms of wins or losses or ERA. But framing is NOT one of Tek's better skills. If anything he is occasionally guilty of umpire baiting by moving the glove at the last instant into the strike zone and holding there. A good framer does not move his glove but rather subtly moves his body so he's always catching the ball in the middle of his body, giving the impression that the ball is right in the middle of the strike zone.
     Tek's great track record is a sum of all his parts; great preparation, knowledge of how to set up hitters, an innate sense of what pitch will work best for that particular pitcher against a particular hitter at a particular point in the game, and a supreme knowledge of his pitcher's strengths and weaknesses. Add all that to better than normal hands, decent framing ability, and for much of his career, above average offense from the catcher position and you have a guy who's won world titles and caught four no-hitters.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II:
    [QUOTE]Pitch framing is not "one of the biggest factors of CERA". It is but one lone element. It may only equate to one win a year. CERA is but a part of the whole that constitutes a catcher's relevance . Read Tom's post carefully .
    Posted by harness[/QUOTE]

    We Disagree Harness.

    You know, I don't like to be talked to like a 5th grader.  Underlines intended.

    CERA is a data point right. There are lots of factors which together, comprise the data in that data point. Lot's of difficult to quantify factors of why a pitcher's ERA is lower with one catcher rather than another. We can disagree on what those component factors are, and their relative importance, but there are lots of factors which go into CERA and I'm pretty sure pitch calling, pitch framing, the level of coordination between pitcher and catcher, and overall catcher defensive ability as in throwing out runners etc, are all factors which go into the compilation of the CERA data point. Among other factors I'm sure.

    One factor sometimes not discussed, but which is probably the most important factor, is "luck". If a guy catches a John Lackey, for example, when he's heathy that's a plus. When he has control that's a plus. When he is against a weak hitting team...etc. When he has a strong defense behind him...etc.

    Being able to frame a pitch is something the catcher can control. 1 win a year from 1 CERA component factor is a lot. If you add up all the factors involved, if we got 1 win from each of them that would be huge right. Pitch framing is one of the most important skills a catcher can have. It helps to get 3-4 strike calls a game we wouldn't have gotten and if those add up to one win a year from that one catcher skill alone that is a lot.

    Feel free to disagree but I'm not digging the preaching and it seems like I'm not alone in that regard. Read my post carefully ok!
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from jidgef. Show jidgef's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    Louie, I know Tek came from Seattle but he's never played an MLB game for anyone but Boston. And from the time he got here until recently, our farm system didn't need to produce another front-line catcher. That was my point.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    5th graders are willing to learn.
    There was a 1300 post thread last year dedicated to this very subject matter. You never read it or took part in it. A lot of information in 1300 posts.

    Preaching is for preachers. And accusations of such seem to come from Softlaw/Burrito. R U hanging UR hat on them?
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II:
    [QUOTE]Framing is a very important skill and can have may implications beyond the simple balls and strikes. Pitchers can work corners more effectively and throw fewer pitches. It's difficult to quantify just exactly what a good pitch framer brings in terms of wins or losses or ERA. But framing is NOT one of Tek's better skills. If anything he is occasionally guilty of umpire baiting by moving the glove at the last instant into the strike zone and holding there. A good framer does not move his glove but rather subtly moves his body so he's always catching the ball in the middle of his body, giving the impression that the ball is right in the middle of the strike zone.  Tek's great track record is a sum of all his parts; great preparation, knowledge of how to set up hitters, an innate sense of what pitch will work best for that particular pitcher against a particular hitter at a particular point in the game, and a supreme knowledge of his pitcher's strengths and weaknesses. Add all that to better than normal hands, decent framing ability, and for much of his career, above average offense from the catcher position and you have a guy who's won world titles and caught four no-hitters.
    Posted by jidgef[/QUOTE]

    You just made my point.
    If "framing" equates to one win a year, the entire body of a catcher's relevance can easily affect 10 times that.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    We Disagree Harness.

    You know, I don't like to be talked to like a 5th grader.  Underlines intended.

    CERA is a data point right. There are lots of factors which together, comprise the data in that data point. Lot's of difficult to quantify factors of why a pitcher's ERA is lower with one catcher rather than another. We can disagree on what those component factors are, and their relative importance, but there are lots of factors which go into CERA and I'm pretty sure pitch calling, pitch framing, the level of coordination between pitcher and catcher, and overall catcher defensive ability as in throwing out runners etc, are all factors which go into the compilation of the CERA data point. Among other factors I'm sure.

    Well put boom, but I want to say one thing: CERA is just one factor of a "catcher's relevance" and has become the "talking point" as if it is the final result or "data point" of several factors. While you are correct, many factor effect what acatcher's CERA is, CERA is not and never has been the only data point anyone should use to jusge a catcher's true overall value. Plus, CERA should only be used in a very specific manner that severely restricts it's usage. It should only be used to judge catchers on the same team who catch the same pitchers in a given year. This alone, makes it a very targeted data point with limited significance. Over years and years of looking at the comparative data, one can begin to determine a catcher's value as compared to other team's catchers, but it is a slippery slope.

    One factor sometimes not discussed, but which is probably the most important factor, is "luck". If a guy catches a John Lackey, for example, when he's heathy that's a plus. When he has control that's a plus. When he is against a weak hitting team...etc. When he has a strong defense behind him...etc.

    Boom, is Papi a "lucky" hitter? Maybe he just gets lucky and faces pitchers when they are not healthy or on their game. Of course Papi is not "lucky". Large sample sizes factor out luck. Pitcher's sample sizes are large. When you compare one pitcer's numbers with one catcher vs another catcher, several things are more constant than when comparing Papi to say, Vladdy. The defense behind them is usally pretty close to the same, the park is the same half the games, and the opponents are similar in the sense tht more so than hittrs on different tams and divisions are compared to each other.

    Does Lackey have a srong defense behind him when VTek catches him, but a weak one when Salty catches him?

    Being able to frame a pitch is something the catcher can control. 1 win a year from 1 CERA component factor is a lot. If you add up all the factors involved, if we got 1 win from each of them that would be huge right. Pitch framing is one of the most important skills a catcher can have. It helps to get 3-4 strike calls a game we wouldn't have gotten and if those add up to one win a year from that one catcher skill alone that is a lot.

    I think pitch framing is very important, and it could make a difference in a win or two a year, maybe more, but to me, it is not even close to the effect pitch calling has on a pitcher's and game's result. Blocking the plate, fielding hit balls, and throwing are also big factors. Settling down a shaky pitcher and keeping a strong one strong are also skills not easily discernable, but very important nonetheless. Many factors effect a CERA, and many factors that don't effect CERA could also make a difference in wins and losses or a pitchers psyche.

    Feel free to disagree but I'm not digging the preaching and it seems like I'm not alone in that regard. Read my post carefully ok!

    I read it very carefully. I'm not trying to preach. I know luck is a factor in ny sport, but over a large sampel size, wouldn't you expect the numbers to even out just one year? The trends have been overwhelmingly one-side for over a decade. With pitchers that hve been caught by two catchers in significant sample sizes, VTek gets way more out of them then his counterpart.
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from StatsFromLouie. Show StatsFromLouie's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II : Referenced from the (last)  Tom-UK post.
    Posted by harness[/QUOTE]
    • Do you have any proof to back that up?
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    Moon, as I recall an the tail end of the CATCHER'S RELEVANCE thread, we statistically tried to figure out how many games were lost to injury, and how many were lost by using VMART over Tek at the catcher position.

    I believe we both came up with 8 games - with 3-4 weeks left in the season.
    Do you recall this?
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    To stats from Louie:  Do you have a reading comprehension problem?
    Go  to  Tom's  post  on  page  116  of  this  thread.
    The reference links are there.

    Do you think you can navigate there all by yourself?
    Or will you require a cyberspace seeing-eye dog?
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    I think CERA is significant and of course catcher relevance is important. We disagree some in terms of how important it is, as most people would, but it's shades of grey rather than black versus white.

    My post was directed to Harness. I can't communicate my shades of grey position without getting underlined pay attention and learn type comments sometimes. And they are not warranted.

    Here is what I said:

    "Catcher's framing a pitch is one of the biggest factors of CERA"

    1 win a year only from a catcher's ability to frame a pitch is big. 1 win a year from 1 player's singular defensive attribute is of course big. Do we also get potentially 1 win a year from a catcher's ability to throw out runners? From pitch calling? From his overall defense...etc. Even major players like Youk or Adrian have a WAR of 7 - 9 Wins per year, and that's defense and offense. If a catcher can contribute 1 win a year just from their framing of a pitch that is of course "one of the biggest factors of CERA".

    I'm not saying something which requires instructional criticism from anyone here. I don't need someone to tell me to read more carefully...etc.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    Moon, as I recall an the tail end of the CATCHER'S RELEVANCE thread, we statistically tried to figure out how many games were lost to injury, and how many were lost by using VMART over Tek at the catcher position.

    I believe we both came up with 8 games - with 3-4 weeks left in the season.
    Do you recall this?

    Yes, but also by using VMart at catcher instead of 1B when Youk got hurt would have kept his bat in the line-up and Vtek's "catcher relevance" in play as a "best of both worlds" situation. Even if it was just 4-6 gmes, it would hae changed the whole way Tito managed the last part of the year.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    Using VMART at first in August/Sept. was figured into the equation.
    We both felt Tito deployed his available personnel poorly.
    The only element we left out was the affect defense would have been improved w/o all the injuries. That was hard to quantify - especially when considering a "normal" amount of injuries have to be anticipated.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    Maybe VTek was hurt more than we knew.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II:
    [QUOTE]I think CERA is significant and of course catcher relevance is important. We disagree some in terms of how important it is, as most people would, but it's shades of grey rather than black versus white. attention and learn My post was directed to Harness. I can't communicate my shades of grey position without getting underlined pay  type comments sometimes. And they are not warranted. Here is what I said: "Catcher's framing a pitch is one of the biggest factors of CERA" 1 win a year only from a catcher's ability to frame a pitch is big. 1 win a year from 1 player's singular defensive attribute is of course big. Do we also get potentially 1 win a year from a catcher's ability to throw out runners? From pitch calling? From his overall defense...etc. Even major players like Youk or Adrian have a WAR of 7 - 9 Wins per year, and that's defense and offense. If a catcher can contribute 1 win a year just from their framing of a pitch that is of course "one of the biggest factors of CERA". I'm not saying something which requires instructional criticism from anyone here. I don't need someone to tell me to read more carefully...etc.
    Posted by Boomerangsdotcom[/QUOTE]

    Look, Boom, I have no idea how you or anybody else is gonna interpret the one-dimensional written word. I underline or italicize or use the bold tab to draw attention to a certain area.

    Now, if I said "TRY READING THIS CERA-RELATED PIECE. YOU SURE AS HELL DIDN'T READ OR GET INVOLVED IN THIS SUBJECT MATTER WHEN IT WAS DISCUSSED AT LENGTHLAST YEAR, DESPITE SEVERAL ATTEMPS URGING YOU TO..."

    then I can see how you'd react to that accordingly.
    But to accuse me of preaching when I underline a given word is ridiculous.
    You stated "I'm not digging the preaching and it seems like I'm not alone in that regard    [Did you get the underlined passage? good.]

    I noticed you didn't care to back that up.
    Now allow me to return the favor.
    You have a way of taking things very personally. I've seen evidence of it from time to time. You periodically react to things very differently than one would expect.
    Going off on an underlined word is but one instance.

    The most flagrant instance I have observed is when you stated that you wished Softy would die. It was on Moon's REALISTIC thread last year. People were staying clear of it, but I made mention of it. My God, this is a cyberspace baseball discussion board.

    How can you possibly take anything personally? Do you know the folks here personally? Softy might actually be a decent guy by those who know him. This whole thing could be his act. Hell, I could create a despicable character that would purposely try to get under your skin. Would you wish the same thing?
    Man, you really lucked out in that the mods missed it. Otherwise, you'd have been taken out of circulation. I've yet to see anybody else to make such a statement and be allowed to continue to post here.

    On the topic of "CERA", we continue to bump heads. The main reason is because you never care to really get into it. It ends abruptly with "WE'LL JUST HAVE TO AGREE TO DISAGREE". Let me clarify my stance here: I don't agree to disagree.
    I am not we. Not discussing an area of disagreement only means putting it off. Nothing can be learned or discussed through procrastination.

    I claim that your take is based on very limited knowledge in this area. {Bold type intended}. Now, if you wish to challenge me, then let's discuss it. Prove me wrong. We can compare our individual experience and knowledge in this regard.

    I'll talk about what I learned playing and from some very astute coaching. I'll discuss the 2-3 months of in-depth research I did on this subject last year.
    Then you can tell me of your experiences/observation/research.

    Perhaps then we can determine what is and what isn't credible or "the biggest factors". If you wish to do this off-the-board, fine. Obviously, there are some areas that we won't be able to state on a public forum.

    I'm open to this. Are you??
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II:
    [QUOTE]Maybe VTek was hurt more than we knew.
    Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE]


    ...and maybe he wasn't.
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    I do remember reading this sprin somewhere how VTek s saying he was "hurting almost all year long, but now he feels great..." something like that. I'm not saying Tito could not have done better, but maybe there was more to it than what appeared.

    I happen to agree with you on this one. Tito decided VMart was his catcher and stuck with it.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    IMO, Tek has likely been pretty b-a-n-g-e-d up for much of the last few years.
    I also think he's built to withstand a lot of it. I'm not saying Tek didn't have a screw inserted in his foot because he has "stronger feet". Likely a different type of fracture/break.

    But I do know that he has stated he's played with broken bones before.
    Let's face it, what were the alternatives way back then?
    If the team  had felt a similar need to get him in there in the last month, I'll bet he'd have played. He didn't because:

    1) They didn't prioritize what we did.
    2) They threw in the towel prematurely.
    3) They didn't want to risk further injury to him.

    As a guess, I'd say he likely wouldn't have hit much (nor did Lowell), but the pitching staff would definitely have been affected in a positive way.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from betterredthandead. Show betterredthandead's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    I could see Theo trading Iglesias and signing Reyes this winter

    The only problem is that you can't see. No chance this happens, even if Theo is that dumb.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from betterredthandead. Show betterredthandead's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    Backing it up is repeating the same drivel, ad nauseum. This thread is almost exclusively about 2 droning loops:

    1. Wakefield is a quality pitcher, great value, and has earned his active roster spot and any young player is unproven and would undercut essential MLB proven solid pitching depth not to resign Wakefield every year.  

    2. Tek has to be resigned every year or the pitching staff will not free fall, Buch included.

    Not much else on this Astrology thread.
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II:
    [QUOTE]Backing it up is repeating the same drivel, ad nauseum. This thread is almost exclusively about 2 droning loops: 1. Wakefield is a quality pitcher, great value, and has earned his active roster spot and any young player is unproven and would undercut essential MLB proven solid pitching depth not to resign Wakefield every year.   2. Tek has to be resigned every year or the pitching staff will not free fall, Buch included. Not much else on this

    Astrology thread
    .

    Posted by betterredthandead[/QUOTE]

    This better fits UR stagnated Wake/Jake/Lowrie bashing.
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share