Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site philabs.UUCP Path: utzoo!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!cmcl2!philabs!dpb From: dpb@philabs.UUCP (Paul Benjamin) Newsgroups: net.sport.baseball Subject: NL catchers Message-ID: <391@philabs.UUCP> Date: Tue, 23-Jul-85 15:13:01 EDT Article-I.D.: philabs.391 Posted: Tue Jul 23 15:13:01 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 24-Jul-85 12:04:14 EDT Distribution: na Organization: Philips Labs, Briarcliff Manor, NY Lines: 172 *** REPLACE THIS NEWSGROUP WITH NET.SPORT.BASEBALL.STRIKE *** [Rubin, Benjamin, Rubin II, Benjamin II] > The most important measured defensive contribution a catcher makes > is the slowing of the opposition's running game. Two teams have > consistently been the toughest to run on the past few years. They > featured veteran pitching staffs of high quality and rifle-armed > catchers behind the plate. They were, of course, Montreal and > Pittsburgh. No objective difference between the two club's ability > to shut down an opposition running game are discernible (Montreal was > a wee bit tougher); thus, no difference between the two catcher's > abilities in this respect are demonstrable. Some statistics, please, for these assertions? Even if the stats are true, the fact that Montreal has a much faster team than Pgh (check the stats for last year and this one) means that Pgh faces a tougher average opponent than Montreal, as far as speed is concerned). Thus, if there is "no objective difference" in how they stop thefts, then Pgh is clearly better at stopping the running game. (If you want me to add the thefts for the league without Pgh vs. the league vs. Montreal, figure the percentage difference, and post it, just yell.) > Somewhat less critical is the number of bad pitches stopped by the > catcher. I have watched both Pena and Carter with equal frequency (up > until this year). I can see no difference. I doubt anyone really > can. I hate to point this out again, but the Gold Glove voters obviously can see a difference. They probably know more than you or I do about the relative strengths of their arms, and their ability to stop bad pitches. What I have read is that Pena's arm is much better. It looks that way on the tube, too. By the way, where is evidence for your statement that this is less critical than throwing out runners? I might agree on this, but without evidence, it is just unsupported opinion. > If by higher percentage, you mean a higher batting average, some years > yes, some years no. If you mean a higher on base percentage, you are > dead wrong: Tony Pena doesn't know the meaning of the words "base on > balls" (odd, for a catcher, isn't it?). Finally, Carter's power and > Pena's power are of different orders of magnitude. Pena's batting averages for the four years he has played are .300, .296, 25 points higher than Carter. Do you have fig- ures to support your statement that Carter more than makes up the difference in on-base pct? Pena hit 15 HRs each of the last two years. Carter has aver- aged about 23 HRs a year, including seasons of 16, 17 and 19. You call the difference between 15 and 23 an order of magnitude? Perhaps you should study a bit more math :-) By the way, Carter hit 31 HR's in '77, promising a great power career, but never hit 30 again! If you want a power-hitting catcher, try Parrish - he averages about 30 a year, and is improving. (That means that Parrish outpowers Carter by about the same margin that Carter outpowers Pena.) > Remember also that > Pena's stats were generated in a park moderately favoring hitters, while > Carter's were generated in a park second only to the Astrodome (before > dimension changes of this year) in depressing hitting statistics. I see. Park matters more than surrounding lineup. Where is your evidence for this? I disagree completely. I think it varies on a situational basis. In the Pirate lineup, the only two hitters that represent threats (Jason Thompson and Pena) are constantly pitched around. Hence, try to put them together in the lineup. But, as you point out, Pena is not a good #3 hitter - he doesn't make enough contact to bat third (neither does Carter), so this was abandoned. However, Pena is still hitting as well as he did at this point two years ago, when he finished at .300 and 15 HRs. Like many latin players, he heats up when the weather does. At any rate, Pgh's park is hardly a great hitter's park. ERA championships are not won by teams in hitter's parks. > He does have better speed. Excellent for a catcher, unremarkable for > anyone else. Again, this does not win many ballgames. Wrong again! As just one example, do you remember the 1982 St. Louis team? They were a speed team, crafted for their park, but they won anywhere. Speed is a crucial factor in baseball. By this, I do not mean just stolen bases, but speed, e.g., going first to third on a single, causing an infielder to rush a throw, avoiding a double play, etc. The opinions of many baseball people that I have read recently seem to agree that speed is becoming more and more impor- tant, especially with the advent of artificial turf. (Also check out this year's St. Louis team.) > He is not a .300 hitter, and he doesn't hit 15 or so homers a year. > If my memory serves me well, he's more a .280 hitter who hits 12 or so > homers a year. A thin .280, too -- few walks. If you wish to contest > me on this point, I will actually look it up. You'd better look it up. Perhaps your disks need rebooting! To put Pena's offensive ability in focus, perhaps we might contrast it in two ways: 1) with Dave Parker last year (his stats are on the same page): AVG R HR RBI SB Parker .285 73 16 94 11 Pena .286 77 15 78 12 despite Parker's getting 10% more at bats, and hitting in a stronger lineup. (Everybody who didn't play for Pgh. hit in a stronger lineup!) If Dave Parker had been a Gold Glove catcher last year, you'd have heard a LOT about it! But Pena plays in Pittsville for a lousy team, so you hear relatively little. 2) with Carter last year (Carter's best all-around offensive year) Carter .294 75 27 106 2 Pena .286 77 15 78 12 Carter does have the HR's, but in total runs (R + RBI - HR) we see: Carter 154 Pena 140 This reflects the contribution to the team's scoring, which is the ONLY important thing for winners. If you look at Montreal's scoring versus Pgh last year, you see (once again) that Montreal outscored Pgh by much more than 10%, so that Pena contributed a great deal to Pgh's offense. It requires great obstinacy to say that if Pena had batted in a good lineup, that he wouldn't have gotten 14 more total runs. Thus I reiterate, "If Pena played on a good team, he would be a star." > The Pirate lineup hasn't been as bad as you make it out to be. > Pittsburgh lost it's oomph in the last few years. But Pena has played only the last few years. And the Pirates have more than lost oomph, the offense has disintegrated. Only the Giants are worst in scoring runs, and by a decimal point. The good offenses in the NL are outscoring the Pirates by well over a run a game. You seem to underplay the importance that the surrounding lineup means to a player's stats. > Before this season (and last), Pena had > played on generally good offensive teams. Certainly better than the > Expos of the first half dozen years of Carter's career. So, you admit the importance of the surrounding lineup! Again, Pena has played fulltime for only the last 3 years, and parttime for one year before that. Also, you seem to be blithely ignoring the fact that Carter was part of those Expo teams that were supposed to win it all for a few years in a row, but failed every time. Those were very talented teams. > Game winning rbi's is the silliest statistic yet invented. It's a > random crap shoot among people batting in the middle of good line ups. Where are your numbers to support such a statement? When a player makes a relatively heavy contribution to a team's scoring, and drives in so many game-winners, it CAN'T be ignored, (unless you really are trying hard :-) ).