If its $3 million then I'm ok with it.Originally Posted by Falls City Beer
If its $3 million then I'm ok with it.
I don't know, but no MLB team should operate with two weiner bats at catcher. Not in this age.
“And when finally they sense that some position cannot be sustained, they do not re-examine their ideas. Instead, they simply change the subject.” Jamie Galbraith
I don't think that's a fair statement at all.
First, I don't think any true "projections" ala PECTOA have been made on Hanigan. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think they are out yet. They certainly aren't on the website yet.Code:YEAR NAME AGE LG PA EqA OBP SLG OUTR VORP RAR RAP 2008 Ramon Hernandez 32 AL 507 .252 .308 .406 0.68047 8.3 11.2 -0.9 2008 Ryan Hanigan 27 NL 98 .260 .367 .365 0.60204 2.8 2.8 0.7
More importantly, you'd have to believe that Hanigan 98 plate appearances are indicative of what he can really do over an entire season. That's a big, big stretch. Even in the soft NL Hanigan's numbers are far more likely to go down when he's exposed for an entire year (see: Keppenger, Jeff). There's a reason why he "broke" into the major leagues at age 27.
Meanwhile Hernandez is going from the appreicably harder AL, facing the Yankees, Redsox and Tampa Bays of the world. He, in theory, should have an easier time transitioning to the NL than Hanigan will transitioning to playing a full year. The pitchers will figure him out and eat him alive.
Hey, you may be correct. I was basing my statement on this comment from a friend of mine:
These are projected 2009 performance, first Bill James’s projection then Marcel.
Projected OPS
James/Marcel
na/.762 Castillo
.739/.748 Hanigan
.741/.742 Hernandez
essentially Hernandez is projected to hit almost identical to Hanigan.
Chad D
Redleg Nation: A Cincinnati Reds Blog, Fan Community, and Therapy Group
I like Hanigan, and I think he'll perform fine. Thing is, catcher is the one spot where having two capable guys really gives you an advantage. Backup catchers still get a decent chunk of playing time, more than typical backups elsewhere. The Reds have two decent catchers now, which means they can now start every game with a capable backstop. That's a nice advantage to have over most of the rest of the league.
The Lost Decade Average Season: 74-88
2014-22 Average Season: 71-91
That's a very valid point and just another reason to like Reds step up over what was the dreck at that position last year.
Keep going Walt!
Rem
Doh!
Shows you what I know.
To be fair, Marcels thinks it's nailed Hernandez (reliability=.96) but isn't so sure with Hanigan (reliability=.46).
"This isn’t stats vs scouts - this is stats and scouts working together, building an organization that blends the best of both worlds. This is the blueprint for how a baseball organization should be run. And, whether the baseball men of the 20th century like it or not, this is where baseball is going."---Dave Cameron, U.S.S. Mariner
I think the catcher position is one of the more poorly analyzed aspects of baseball in general.
One of the things you always hear is the importance of managing a staff, and yet, where is the study showing that catchers have a large impact on pitcher's performance? It wouldn't be that hard, all you need to do is compare the pitchers' performances with a given catcher relative to their career averages with other catchers. Use any stat or combination of stats you like, be it ERA, FiP, or what have you. If the numbers show that certain catchers cause pitchers to overperform or underperform their career averages, then you have something, but my suspicion is that any difference is going to be negligible.
I think the HUGE importance that's put on a catcher's defense is misplaced. When you count outs, I just doubt it adds up (although I haven't done the math), at least not relative what teams tend to lose offensively relative to other positions. I think the real problem with catchers is a developmental one. Young kids don't want to play catcher, so they don't. That makes the pool shallow. Then, organizations don't want to convert players to catcher because there's a lot of time involved in learning the nuances. You have to be a field manager, change the way you throw, there's footwork that's unique to the position (having played both catcher and 2B, I found that throwing to 2B was more difficult than turning a double play), blocking pitches, and just overall becoming accustomed to a whole new approach to fielding. It's not ground balls and fly balls anymore, it's squating and blocking. Your view of the field is reversed. Catcher is so unique in every aspect that skills taken from other positions won't translate. Heck, even pop-ups for the catcher are more difficult, because you're dealing with a lot of unpredictable backspin and your view of the ball is almost entirely vertical.
Still, these are just learned skills. It takes time to master but it doesn't require any special physical ability. People say anybody can play LF, well, I think anybody can play catcher, too. It just takes more repetition to get it down, and nobody is going to put any their well-thought-of prospects through that. It slows down arrival times when you're trying to speed things up. Plus, what kind of quality prospect is really going to put themselves into a conversion when they know they can make it faster and more easily as a 1B or OF? The net result is that catchers can't hit. Then the teams explain that away post-hoc by saying it's a defense first position. But again, where is the study showing catchers contribute a lot of outs to your defense? I can't imagine it compares to SS, 2B or CF.
Those studies have been done. The results have been that the catcher who makes all of his pitchers better is largely a myth. Also, managers/pitching coaches call a significant number of pitches in the modern game.
I'm not a system player. I am a system.
“I don’t care,” Votto said of passing his friend and former teammate. “He’s in the past. Bye-bye, Jay.”
Farney doesn't look too happy.
sorry we're boring
The Astros have trotted Brad Ausmus out for years because of his alleged wizardry with the pitching staff. The story was that his skilz working with the staff made up for his hideous bat.
That experiment didn't work out so hot.
Really? They've had some fine pitching staffs in Houston (and the bottom 3's in their rotations have been making silk purses out of sow's ears), and have routinely executed on the field whereas the Reds haven't. Same thing with Molina in St. Louis.
“And when finally they sense that some position cannot be sustained, they do not re-examine their ideas. Instead, they simply change the subject.” Jamie Galbraith
So what exactly did Ausmus do to improve Roger Clemons and Andy Pettit? Did he help Roy O figure out some hitherto unrealized pitching secret?
And if Aumus somehow helped improve Clemons, Pettit and Oswalt why didn't he use the same skilz with Wandy Rodreiguez?
Having the all-knowing sage catcher ala Tom Berringer in Major league is nice, but the tallent comes from the mound, not pep talks during visits too the mound.
Posting Permissions
|
Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please. |
Reply With Quote