Casali vs Barnhart

[757690]

The only way this can be looked at is in a vacumn. A team of all 0 WAR players will win around 60 games. So as you keep adding 0 WAR players to a 25 man roster this “vacuum team” trends in the direction of 60 wins. That’s not good.

And just because a player is the “first” player to be added to this team, it does not mean he isn’t hurting the team.

If you want to go around the league and use specific examples you can. But anytime you swap out a 0 WAR player in place of a positive WAR player, it is hurting that team. (In terms of that team’s amount of wins given the current roster). But you still need higher
WAR guys to field a competitive club. 0 doesn’t cut it in that case.

The point of WAR is to provide what value is "in a vacuum" void of all circumstances and situations. It's a value that is the same for all teams, no matter where they are, no matter how good they are.

And yes, anytime you replace a 0 WAR player for a positive WAR player, you are hurting the team. But that assumes that positive WAR players are easy and free to find, and that teams have an abundance of them. When the Reds were running out the Tim Aldeman's of the world the last few years, it was because they didn't have any other options, and weren't willing to pay to get a better player. It wasn't because they had a 2 WAR pitcher they were hiding, bu wanted to pitch Aldeman anyway.

There were over twice as many players in MLB last year with a 0 or negative WAR than with a positive WAR. That should tell you a lot.

And again, what "competitive" means to one club may not mean "competitive" to another. That is why WAR needs to be looked at in a vacuum.

[Griffey012]

I understand both of you guy's perspective, but you're missing the point, and to be honest, most fans do not understand this point.

This isn't about what your goal is. Every team has different goals, depending on their situation.

For some teams, the goal is to win the World Series, so adding a 2 WAR player that won't help them much in the playoffs can be considered "hurting" the team.
For some teams, the goal is to get to the playoffs, so a 2 WAR player that only helps them get to .500 can be considered to be "hurting" the team.
For some teams, the goal is to get to the .500, so a 2 WAR player that only helps them get 75 wins can be considered to be "hurting" the team.
For some teams, the goal is to get to the 75 wins, so a 2 WAR player that only helps them get 68 wins can be considered to be "hurting" the team, and so on...

It's not the team's goal that WAR is about, it's about where they are starting from, and in theory, all teams start at the expansion level. So adding wins is about getting a team further and further away from the very start, from expansion level.

One more way to look at it: You have 24 slots on your team roster set. That team will win 82 games as is. If you add a 0 WAR player, the team will still win 82 games. That player is not hurting the team. He's not helping the team, but he's not hurting the team. Does that make sense?

Your hypothetical team only wins 82 games if he replaces another 0 WAR player. If he replaces anyone above 0 WAR, he is hurting the team.

Barnhart is hurting the team if for nothing else than the fact he is performing well under what were already low expectations thus far.

[757690]

I would think the benchmark for any team in the majors that is actively trying to win games would be at minimum .500.

That was the goal of the Reds the last five years. Nor is it the goal of many teams this season.

[757690]

Your hypothetical team only wins 82 games if he replaces another 0 WAR player. If he replaces anyone above 0 WAR, he is hurting the team.

Barnhart is hurting the team if for nothing else than the fact he is performing well under what were already low expectations thus far.

In the hypothetical, he’s the only option.

But again, you are assuming the positive WAR player was free and easy to find. They are not. The last five years of Reds baseball proved how hard they are to find.

[Patrick Bateman]

That was the goal of the Reds the last five years. Nor is it the goal of many teams this season.

Great - so Barnhart, at 0 WAR, has value to teams actively not trying to win. I can get on board with that.

[OGB]

You said he doesn't offer much of anything.

I said he offers strong defense.
I have presented a plethora of evidence that shows that he is a strong defender.
When I did, you literally told me you didn't need to see it.
So you literally refused to look at the evidence.

Have you though?
I've read this whole thread and don't recall you bringing up much of anything beyond:
His pitch framing numbers are better than last year
His offense is bad but he's at zero WAR, so his defense must be good.

Here are two actual pieces of evidence.
He is currently at -1 Defensive Runs Saved Above Avg and projected to finish the year at -3.
His CS is currently at 22% which is below last year's career low 24%
Someone else brought up earlier in the thread that his ERA behind the plate is about 1.5 runs or more per game higher than Casali.

So, what are all these super awesome Tucker defensive facts you keep crowing about?

[Griffey012]

In the hypothetical, he’s the only option.

But again, you are assuming the positive WAR player was free and easy to find. They are not. The last five years of Reds baseball proved how hard they are to find.

Iglesias and Dietrich say hi. But seriously, just give Casali the majority of AB's in the platoon and the situation might be solved.

[DocRed]

Casali is crushing RHP this year which is a change from his career stats. His OPS is 1.059 this year vs .679 career. Small sample size (56 PA's) but let's hope he has figured something out just like Scooter Gennett did vs LHP last year.

[OGB]

I just went back to page one of the thread and the only evidence I saw of TB's defensive prowess was 75670 posting that he's +2 in pitch framing.
That's his mountain of evidence.

Meanwhile, on pace to be -3 in defensive runs saved, 22% CS, and ERA 4.04 to 2.99 for Casali.

[757690]

I just went back to page one of the thread and the only evidence I saw of TB's defensive prowess was 75670 posting that he's +2 in pitch framing.
That's his mountain of evidence.

Meanwhile, on pace to be -3 in defensive runs saved, 22% CS, and ERA 4.04 to 2.99 for Casali.

There has been more than one thread about Barnhart. I presented my case in a few of them. The exact conversation I was referring to with Monds was in another thread. But again, thanks for assuming I’m a liar

Per your points:

DRS has him at -1 so far this season, and at +1 overall for his career.

Caught stealing, especially such a small sample size, is as dependent on the pitcher as the catcher. And Tucker is at 33% for his career. He lead the league with 47% in 2017.

Catcher ERA is a meaningless stat. If Barnhart is mostly catching Disco and Casali is mostly catching Castillo, guess what? And backups catch relievers more than starters, due to double switches, and relievers have lower ERA’s than starters. It’s a meaningless star, unless you have the breakdown of how many innings of each pitcher they caught, and even then, it’s doesn't tell us much.

[JCM11]

Catcher ERA is a meaningless stat. If Barnhart is mostly catching Disco and Casali is mostly catching Castillo, guess what?

Tucker has been the starting catcher in 9 of Castillo's 14 starts, and 7 of Disco's 12 starts.

[Tom Servo]

Tucker has been the starting catcher in 9 of Castillo's 14 starts, and 7 of Disco's 12 starts.

“Ah well, nevertheless”

[757690]

Tucker has been the starting catcher in 9 of Castillo's 14 starts, and 7 of Disco's 12 starts.

Tucker has caught 10 out of 13 of Roark's starts and 8 out of 12 of Mahle's.

And there it is.

[kaldaniels]

[OGB]

There has been more than one thread about Barnhart. I presented my case in a few of them. The exact conversation I was referring to with Monds was in another thread. But again, thanks for assuming I’m a liar

Per your points:

DRS has him at -1 so far this season, and at +1 overall for his career.

Caught stealing, especially such a small sample size, is as dependent on the pitcher as the catcher. And Tucker is at 33% for his career. He lead the league with 47% in 2017.

Catcher ERA is a meaningless stat. If Barnhart is mostly catching Disco and Casali is mostly catching Castillo, guess what? And backups catch relievers more than starters, due to double switches, and relievers have lower ERA’s than starters. It’s a meaningless star, unless you have the breakdown of how many innings of each pitcher they caught, and even then, it’s doesn't tell us much.

DRS has him -1 this year. Further proving the point.
CS% in 2018 = 24% 2019 = 22%

As for calling you a liar, I correctly pointed out that the only "facts" you keep crowing about in this thread are the pitch framing numbers you posted 10 pages back.

As far as you making your case in other threads and me calling you a liar--jerk off motion
I'm not going to read thru your entire post history.


If you want to talk about presenting "facts" and call everyone who disagrees with you "Thom," you need to do better than presenting one pitch framing stat in a 13 page thread to prove Tucker is awesome on defense and therefore not a liability.