data.3news-bydate.test.rec.sport.baseball.102669 Maven / Gradle / Ivy
From: [email protected] (David M. Tate)
Subject: Re: Young Catchers
Article-I.D.: blue.7977
Organization: Department of Industrial Engineering
Lines: 65
[email protected] (Mark Singer) said:
>In article <[email protected]> [email protected] (David M. Tate) writes:
>
>Well, perhaps if the Braves had no one else worth playing this year it
>would be Lopez in there. But they do have others worth playing, at
>least in *their* opinion.
Catcher is their weakest position, with the possible exception of second base.
They have a chance to simultaneously replace their biggest offensive problem
spot with a well-above-average offensive player *and* acclimate a highly
promising potential star with no pressure on him to carry the team, and they
want to play *Olson* and *Berryhill* instead?!
>>I disagree, in that I don't think it *is* a _tangible_ skill, any more than
>>leadership is. I don't deny that it is a *real* skill, and that some catchers
>>may be much better than others at it, but I really don't see any way that we
>>could ever know who they are. Nichols's Law of Catcher Defense is eerily
>>accurate far too often for me to take defensive assessments of catchers very
>>seriously.
>
>Sorry. New. Don't know Nichols' Law.
"A catcher's defensive reputation will be inversely proportional to his
recent offensive level of performance." Thus, Mickey Tettleton goes (in
the media) from being a no-hit defensive whiz to a slugging thumb-finger
in two short years. The rule doesn't apply to perceived "superstars", who
get the Gold Glove Offensive Transfer effect instead. Greg Olson is probably
considered to be a good defensive catcher precisely because he can't hit.
>Don't believe in catchers'
>era. But I am interested in pitchers' eras with different catchers.
Aren't they the same thing?
>In other words, we know more than they do, so the only logic behind
>a different decision than we would make must be financial.
Either that or just stupidity.
>I presume
>we feel this way about other franchises than Atlanta, no?
Of course.
>>Is it fair to the young players? No. Does it make organizational sense?
>>I think it does.
>
>Well if it does make organizational sense, one can hardly fault them
>for their decisions. I mean, please don't tell me how to run my
>business. Especially when I'm being successful.
One could make the same sort of argument in other cases. Pete Rose, in
pursuing Ty Cobb's record, was a huge gate attraction (and national media
magnet). The Reds made a lot of money off that; they also wasted the prime
of Eric Davis. That may be "good business", but that doesn't mean I don't
loathe them for it.
--
David M. Tate | (i do not know what it is about you that closes
posing as: | and opens; only something in me understands
e e (can | the pocket of your glove is deeper than Pete Rose's)
dy) cummings | nobody, not even Tim Raines, has such soft hands