Is Mike Scioscia really this stupid?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from redsoxfan791. Show redsoxfan791's posts

    Re: Is Mike Scioscia really this stupid?

    And while Scioscia looks at it on an individual basis, he's obviously not blind to the overall affect Mathis has had on his pitchers. Napoli can't make up the difference with his bat. No catcher can when the variance is this great
    It's reflected year after year with these two receivers catching the same pitchers.
    It's reflected in a 61 point win-loss disparity between 2007-2010.

    As 791 alluded, Mathis is horrid with the bat. No way he stays in the majors unless his impact is greater elsewhere - and it has been.

    Really?  Napoli can't make up the difference with the bat?  What exactly are you basing this off of?  Napoli is a significantly better hitter than Mathis, by about 300 points.  If we look at wOBA and weight runs above average (wRAA), here's how the two catchers look between 2007-2010:

    Mike Napoli - 1479 PA; wRAA - +38.6 runs ABOVE average

    Jeff Mathis - 1013 PA; wRAA - 59 runs BELOW average

    Over that four year period, the difference between these two catchers in terms of run creation was 97.6 runs.  97.6 RUNS!  (Not yelling at you, just showing a level of excitement).  That's a massive difference. 

    If you extrapolated Mathis's performance out to where he and Napoli both had 1479 PAs, he would project to be worth 86 runs BELOW average; thus widening the gap between the two catchers to a whopping 125.6 runs. 

    There's absolutely no way Mathis could make up for that kind of gap (either of them actually) behind the plate.  With defense only accounting for approx. 11% of the game (per Bill James), it's impossible for Mathis to generate that much value on defense.  I'm not saying that he's not more valuable defensively than Napoli.  He might be.  I don't know.  All I'm saying is that you're grossly overvaluing (in terms of runs and wins, not in terms of intangible) catcher defense. 
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from redsoxfan791. Show redsoxfan791's posts

    Re: Is Mike Scioscia really this stupid?

    In Response to Re: Is Mike Scioscia really this stupid?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Is Mike Scioscia really this stupid? : Harness, One benefit of having Scioscia call the pitches is that the pitcher is far less likely to shake it off.  I think it helps when the pitcher and catcher are in sync, but on the Red Sox that doesn't always happen.  My favorite recent example was Lester in his last start--a brilliant 7 innings, 11 K's, 1 run.  But in the first inning he had like a 1-2 count and Salty signaled three fingers, which must have been a breaking ball, because the previous one had worked well.  Lester shook him off until he signalled a high fast ball, which the batter promptly put over the green monster.   
    Posted by maxbialystock[/QUOTE]

    Not for nothing, but that was likely due to the fact that Lester missed his spot--not that the two weren't in sync or that Salty wasn't calling a good game. 
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: Is Mike Scioscia really this stupid?

    To Max: Having a manager/bench coach call pitches to induce additional agreement with a starting pitcher may in fact have a negative result.

    Pitchers often shake off signs because they don't feel good about throwing a certain pitch - or throwing it in a certain situation.

    You can use any many examples of pitcher error in judgement as you wish, and I'll show you others that illustrate just the opposite.

    Furthermore, I'd like to see absolute proof that Scioscia calls pitches for his catchers. I've never seen any indication of this in any game.
    The variance between the Angel's staff with Mathis as opposed to with Napoli is too large and too consistent to be the voice of one.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: Is Mike Scioscia really this stupid?

    To 791: Here's some quick data off Moon's Realistic thread:

    Lackey w/Mathis:            261 IP  3.21 ERA
    Lackey with Nalopi:       279 IP  3.79 ERA

    J. weaver w/Mathis:         322 IP  3.63 ERA
    J. WEAVER W/NAPOLI:  213 IP  4.56 ERA

    E. SANTANA W/
    MATHIS:     315 IP  3.80 ERA
    E. Santana w/Napoli:       118 IP  4.59 ERA

    This covers 2007-2009. Personally, I like to go year by year, as using the cumulative is subject to yearly form/injury/defense/etc.
    But this should give you a rough idea of what Napoli cost his pitching staff.
    And this only covers 3 starters.

    Now, we both know stats are flawed, so the actual difference may be greater, or less. But for the sake of argument, just a half run difference - on the average - with each pitcher results in what, 80 runs annually? That's just one year.
    The offensive difference between the two over a 3-4 period was how much? About a 100 runs total?

    From this data (2007-9) alone, the Angels were 129 - 66 (.661) with Mathis starting.  They went 141 - 94 (.600) with Napoli.

    Common sense tells us that a weak-hitting Mathis was involved with these three key starters in almost 900 innings - compared to a little over 600 IP with Napoli - for a reason.

    What's more, it greatly reduces any chance that such a variance came from one source...sitting in the dugout.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from TheGreatAnton7. Show TheGreatAnton7's posts

    Re: Is Mike Scioscia really this stupid?

    cgmggm
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from eggplants. Show eggplants's posts

    Re: Is Mike Scioscia really this stupid?

                              Part of it is defensive configuration. This year the only team in the AL East configured correctly is the BRS. Try this stat for the LAA's. They don't have a left handed thrower on their 25 man roster other than pitchers. The RS have (4) starters that throw left handed and they aren't pitchers. The LAA's are misconfigured at 1B and LF. It makes a difference. In the last Balt. series, last game of the set CC legs a leadoff double in the gap between CF and RF. The ball was fielded by Nick Markakis. They say he's got a great arm. If you can see the replay of that play, he does a 360 turn after he fields the ball cleanly. He makes a nice throw slightly off line and little late. Crawford is safe and we go on to have a big inning eventually winning the get away game. How about Bobby Jencks and Seattle. "T" leaves him in to pitch with the go ahead run at 3B. The guy ropes one down the line in left field. CC makes a nice catch glove side on that ball to keep it tied. Then the sun comes out and sox win. A right handed thrower could not have caught that ball. Chalk one up for Theo. 
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: Is Mike Scioscia really this stupid?

    Nick Markakis does have a great arm.
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share