In response to RedsoxProspects's comment:
Statistics experts have said that the amount of data is insufficient to even quantify a noticeable difference in a CERA on a statistically relevant basis. I don't want to beat a dead horse over and over and over but that is what this issue is. Small sample size insight. In the same token that JBJ looks like an all star outfielder right now, given the data we have to work with for him. He may well end up an all star outfielder or he may be the second coming of Eric Hinske for all we know. The math does not give us definitive data. There are statistical axioms we just cannot wish away. Yeah, I do respect the guys who can really do the math. I personally cannot do all of it but I have definitely seen the benefits of people who can really do the math in my life. There is a huge difference between the top 1% in math and the top 20% and if people are not aware of that, after repeated explanations, then what else is there to say?
I get into discussions sometimes with people sending me conservative email after conservative email and sometimes I politely tell them that it's ok to be conservative but do you have to spread lies on a daily basis? Is it not relevant for such emails to actually be true? If the analysis is just flat out incorrect then don't spread it. Period.
Sometimes what appears to be true just isn't supported by the facts? For example, who doesn't respect Tek? At the same time, have we not all seen people in life who have gotten more accolades than they deserved because of the effort they put in? Because of their personal integrity. As quality people even more than their performance as baseball players.
I have TREMENDOUS respect for the personal integrity of Chuck Hagel. Stand up guy to the max. War hero. Honest...etc...but even I have some doubts about his ability to run a huge organization like the defense department. In the same manner, Tek was a really good catcher for several years but was he the primary reason we won 2 WS? Probably not.
Would I rather have Yadier Molina during those years, rather than Tek? I'm pretty sure that's a given. Or even Miguell Montero but he gets nowhere near the respect of Tek. Sometimes just being part of a winning team gets you a ton of respect. The same can be true of guys catching a good group of pitchers. And there are tons of variables even between 2 catchers on the same team. Variables beyond the control of the catchers involved. Too many to be statistically relevant without huge data samples and even those are fraught with potentially huge statistical skewing errors. Was there a starting catcher and a back up catcher situation where the starter plays against the better teams? Was the pitcher injured for even one start if it involves 8 runs given up for example as that alone can make a huge difference. Does one guy get stuck with Wakefield only because he is willing to do it? Do some pitchers just like one guy over another interpersonally? Does one catcher just get lucky and catch a pitcher when he is hot and the other guy catch him when he is slumping? There just are a lot of variables, which are often completely beyond the catchers control.
There is ample evidence to compare some catchers to another on the same team and make a definitive judgement about who gets more from the individual pitchers. The small sample sizes add up and do become significant when you see that year after year they almost always come to the same result: VTek got better results from the same pitchers than the other Sox catcher.
I truly believe we do not win the WS in 2004 or 2007 with an average CERA-related catcher behind the plate (not to mention VTek at bat). Sure, we might have won with Yadier or others, but VTek was a big part of those 2 wins.