Ross signs 2 year deal; Paul Wilson signs minor league deal

[Falls City Beer]

Not that it matters all that much, but why 400 plate appearances?

[jojo]

Originally Posted by Falls City Beer

Not that it matters all that much, but why 400 plate appearances?

sample size issues

[Falls City Beer]

Originally Posted by jojo

sample size issues

I understand that, but why not 375? How much does the picture open up with 375, say?

[jojo]

Originally Posted by Falls City Beer

I understand that, but why not 375? How much does the picture open up with 375, say?

yes, but the square root of 400 is a whole number....

[Falls City Beer]

Originally Posted by jojo

yes, but the square root of 400 is a whole number....

True. Like I said, it's not a huge deal--just wondered why the frame was somewhat restrictive.

[westofyou]

Originally Posted by Falls City Beer

Not that it matters all that much, but why 400 plate appearances?

Because it touches beyond the realm of being a backup. It represents about 58% of the total trips to a plate by a catcher for the Reds in 2006 and over 50% for every team in the NL aside from the Padres.

PLATE APPEARANCES               PA     
1    Padres                      838   
2    Nationals                   761   
3    Mets                        737   
4    Reds                        727   
5    Cubs                        710   
6    Astros                      689   
7    Braves                      687   
8    Dodgers                     679   
9    Diamondbacks                673   
10   Phillies                    670   
11   Giants                      663   
12   Rockies                     653   
13   Marlins                     642   
14   Cardinals                   640   
15   Brewers                     638   
16   Pirates                     611

[westofyou]

Originally Posted by Falls City Beer

I understand that, but why not 375? How much does the picture open up with 375, say?

Adds one player (2000 Brent Mayne), 350 ab's adds three more, 325 adds one more after that, 300 doesn't add any. So since 2000 in the NL only 33 catchers out of 98 have had an OPS of .775 or better with at least 300 PA's. That's about 1/3rd of the seasons.

This tells me to not bank on offense from my catcher, and if another brings some latch onto that one for the brief ride.

[jojo]

Originally Posted by westofyou

Adds one player (2000 Brent Mayne), 350 ab's adds three more, 325 adds one more after that, 300 doesn't add any. So since 2000 in the NL only 33 catchers out of 98 have had an OPS of .775 or better with at least 300 PA's. That's about 1/3rd of the seasons.

This tells me to not bank on offense from my catcher, and if another brings some latch onto that one for the brief ride.

Here's another way to benchmark the position:
2006 major league average at catcher: .268/.326/.413 OPS: .739

only two positions had a lower OPS' than catcher last season:
2B: .738
SS: .735

The defensive spectrum strikes again....

[Blimpie]

Originally Posted by dfs

There were only 5 other catchers in MLB who got 300 at bats and put up an OPS above 800. Lower the AB threshold to 100 and you still only have 12 guys that did that.

If he does that and the team feels he does well enough in the field, he's not a problem. Certainly not at that salary.

There's the rub. Even if his batting numbers are on par with last year (granted a BIG if), his defense would still give the devil nightmares.

That is, unless, the devil likes dreaming about throws from the outfield skipping under the catcher's shinguards.