(drowsy Madden-speak ahead) BAH!...These catchers today ain’t a dalrymple on the…
It so happens that right now we’re blessed with a number of catchers who meet all those requirements and then some. In fact, it’s worth pondering whether baseball is on the cusp of a new “golden age” of catchers. The 1920s and ‘30s gave us Mickey Cochrane, Bill Dickey, Gabby Hartnett and Ernie Lombardi. The ‘50s gave us Yogi Berra and Roy Campanella. The ‘70s gave us Johnny Bench, Carlton Fisk, Thurman Munson, and Gene Tenace. The ‘90s gave us Ivan Rodriguez and Mike Piazza.
These days, of course, the names and styles are different, but the current era, by the time it draws to a close, may compare favorably to any other period in baseball history when it comes to excellence at the catcher position.
Brian McCann: The 24-year-old McCann has a career SLG of .496, and this season he’s slugging .540 and on pace for 83 extra-base hits. Offensively, he’s got the most upside of any active catcher. Also, if you look at Similarity Scores, which measure statistical likenesses among hitters, you’ll find that McCann’s most similar hitter through age 23 is none other than Hall of Famer Tony Lazzeri.
Geovany Soto: You saw Soto touted in this space as the Rookie of the Year favorite in the NL. He’s lived up to that and then some. His power is for real, and he’s wasted no time in adapting to the highest level. At this writing, Soto is hitting .349 AVG/.442 OBP/.651 SLG and is on target for 31 homers and 67 doubles. Obviously, he’s not likely to maintain such a pace, but he could still find himself in the NL MVP discussion this season. Soto’s the real thing.
Repoz
Posted: May 12, 2008 at 08:22 AM |
114 comment(s)
Related News:
General,
History
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Bench, Fisk, Munson and... Gene Tenace? Where is the love for Jim Sundberg? Wherefore art thou Bob Boone? And what of Ted Simmons?
Seriously, Tenace was a decent player and all, but he doesn't really belong in this sentence.
Really, as he played an awfully high percentage of his games at 1B.
And if McCann has more upside than Soto, it's because Soto will have difficulty finding an upside to .442/.651.
Must have sat on this story for a week, Soto was at this level after May 6th. Soto's been 0 for 12 with 3 walks since then.
He's "on target for ... 67 doubles"? Wow! I wonder if Chase Utley is going to hit 70 HRs?
I think this type of analysis should clearly select Ryan Ludwick for the MVP.
He caught 900 games with an OPS+ of 136. Yes, he played some 1B (625 g), but not because he was a bad catcher but rather because they had a reputed excellent catcher.
Simmons > Tenace > Munson
McCann hit .265 .359 .476 .835 as a 22 yo in AA. That's a good idea of his talent level, IMO.
After his 2006 season, I got to hear about how McCann is a true talent .330 hitter. Yes, they said that. McCann's true talent resides about right here: .270 .320 .452 .772 (OPS+ 100). He doesn't walk, and he's fat and slow. Yes, sometimes he'll have slightly better seasons, but he's not Gene Tenace or Johnny Bench. He's going to have a nice career, but his OPS+ is going to be about 100-105, not 125-135.
Because hitters peak at age 22, naturally.
McCann's true talent resides about right here: .270 .320 .452 .772 (OPS+ 100).
As long as we're wildly guessing, I'd go with .297 .354 .498 .852 (OPS+ 119) myself.
His minor league stats count for nothing in your book?
He was only 21 (Feb 20, 1984) and it was a total of 166 AB's. Why are you sure that is his "true talent level" whe he's got over 1000 ABs at the major league since then that are at a better rate?
Yep. Those 166 AA at-bats definitely mean more than the 1200+ he's had at the big league level. You're a clown.
I thought you heard the exact opposite.
1. I'm not "so sure". It's what I think.
2. He has about 600 PAs at a higher rate, and about 600 PAs at a worse rate. At the end of 2008, he'll have 500 PAs at a higher rate and about 1250 at a worse rate.
3. I watch him - he's fat and slow. He has a long and relatively slow swing. He's going to age poorly.
4. He doesn't control the strike zone. That doesn't bode well. He's already had an ankle injury. That doesn't bode well.
5. His BA isn't going to be 310-330; he's not that good of a hitter, which means he'll his 270/320/450 *most* of the time, and when he hits well, he'll hit 310/350/500. But that's not going to be his typical season.
Money where your mouth is?
Well, not exactly. He hit the same the previous season and a little worse prior to that. He's got 1100 minor league ABs. That line just looks like what I expect him to do (and what he did in '05 and '07).
I doubt he's a clown. I've never once heard him claim that everything floats in BTF.
For someone who is not "so sure", that reads like an awful sure prediction of the future. You know what he's hitting so far this year, yet you're still so sure his true talent is what he hit last year at 23. It's hardly a conventional evaluation.
4. He doesn't control the strike zone. That doesn't bode well.
51 BB to 64 Ks his rookie year. 14 BB to 10 Ks this year. His career is 108 BBs to 164 Ks. Other than his second year in the majors and his 19 year old season in 2003, he's been pretty good with the strike zone. Seems like you made that up.
5. His BA isn't going to be 310-330; he's not that good of a hitter, which means he'll his 270/320/450 *most* of the time, and when he hits well, he'll hit 310/350/500. But that's not going to be his typical season.
He's already out hit what you consider his ceiling at 22. What you think he's going to hit most of the time has been the floor of his major league performance so far. And all of this about a hitter who's been a way above average hitter in his ages 22-24 seasons so far. Why should anyone take that seriously?
He definitely missed Posada in his review of the 90s catchers.
What Chris said about his weight and swing seem true to me. I never quite understand how he gets it done, which makes it seem surprising that he ever had a .336 BA season.
What exactly are we betting on? I don't think McCann is Johnny Bench either, but using 166 AA at-bats as logic was a little silly. His minor league power ratios always indicated that he'd be a pretty good big league hitter. Yes, his walk rate is subpar, but he doesn't strike out (career contact rate of 87%). His swing might not be easy on the eyes but he does have a pretty good idea of what he's doing up there.
I'd say an OPS+ of 110-115 is probably his true talent, but who really knows.
Uh, no. Not striking out has nothing to do with controlling the strike zone (AFAIC). He swings at too many pitches out of the strike zone. His walk rate is too low. Putting the ball in play isn't controlling the strike zone - not swinging at balls is controlling the strike zone.
Bench was a very good regular at 20, played at a high level until he was 33, retired after his age 35 season.
Berra was a very good regular at 22, played at a high level until he was 36, retired (for the first time) after his age 38 season.
Piazza was a very good regular at 24, played at a high level until he was 37, and appears to be retired after his age 38 season.
Fisk was a very good regular at 24, played at a high level until he was 42, and retired after his age 45 season.
Rodriguez: 21, 32 (arguably), ??
Cochrane: 22, 32, 34
Campanella: 26 (for different reasons), 33, 35 (for different reasons). Not a very predictable career path.
Carter: 21 (maybe 23), 32, 38
Dickey: 22, 32, 39 (remained at a high level as a part-time player)
Hartnett: 23, 38, 40
I agree with some of what DL says, but I think there are other paths to success. Piazza, Fisk, and Hartnett provided very little value before age 24, but aged well and had great careers. I agree that you can't expect a catcher to last that long, but you also can't rule out that possibility entirely. Posada was 26, Varitek was 27 when they became productive full time players. They also rank pretty well historically.
That's a bit much for me to calculate. I'll bet his OPS+, which today is 119 (career), is lower than that at the end of the season. He's got a good headstart on this season, and there is some considerable injury factor. I mean, he is just 24, so you have to think his season (and next) will be improved.
I'll also add that whatever his career OPS+ ends up after this season is even lower after next season. What you are going to see from McCann is a constant decrease from his big year down. He won't best a 142 again.
I wasn't doing that, so it doesn't matter.
Wieters has allowed one passed ball and thrown out over 40% of basestealers so far.
He's really just embarassing the Carolina league at this point. He's crushing the ball from both sides of the plate (.930 OPS as LHB, 1.385 OPS as RHB).
A quarter of his BB's have been intentional, so I'd like to see him moved up to a level where he'll be challenged ASAP.
Dial can't shake his irrational belief that Soto's a mediocrity, and will present any absurd example to "prove" said belief.
There's a reason Dial's relying on pieces of data instead of the whole package, and there's a reason he's now unwilling to take a bet anywhere near the terms he initially established. He knows his projection for McCann is more hunch and hope than analysis.
Edit: filled in a couple missing words...
The major league record for doubles by a catcher in a season is 47. I think it's noteworthy that Soto is so far ahead of that pace.
I'm happy to do the calculation for you and have someone independently verify it to your satisfaction. All I'm asking you to do is to "put your money where your mouth is."
So you are making the same bet as me, but setting the over/under target at 119 OPS+ instead of 105. Why would you set such a high target when you stated with confidence that he's a 100-105 OPS+ true talent? Who isn't putting his money where his mouth is now?
Let's say he ends up at 116 or so this year (because he actually has a true talent level of 100-105 like you think). This new wrinkle of yours sets the over/under for 2009 at 116 - again, well above what his true talent is according to you.
I'll repeat my previous offer: 105 OPS+ from the start of tonight's game (since they've already started today's double-header) until the rest of the season. $25 BBref sponsorship. Take it or leave it.
Wow, you learned from Backlasher well.
Here's a free tip about betting. Don't let any one person set the terms.
What do *you* think his true talent level is? 119?
Don't make accusatory posts like that.
Why is that absurd?
Danny, are you refuting that with this:
"we know that McCann swings at a league average percentage of pitches outside of the strike zone, and that he makes contact with these pitches much more often than average."
Because it doesn't.
Anyways, you listed swinging at too many pitches outside of the strikezone as being McCann's weakness. But if he's league average at his weakness, and he's better than league average in other areas (power, contact), shouldn't we expect him to be an above average hitter?
It is *a* weakness. He's also fat and slow, and has a long and slow swing. He's also a catcher and won't age well, and he can't layoff pitches that are tougher to hit. Provide a link to where you think Fangraphs shows what you claimed, please.
THis borders on nonsense. Every batter hits better on pitches in teh strike zone. When a batter has the option to tee one up, or take BP, or throw it up and hit it, none of them do it outside of the strike zone. There are only a million other factors on why you might find a small sample where someone hit's one off his shetops better than some other subsection of the strike zone, but swing mechanics pretty much dictate where the best baseball hitting zone is.
I'd rather not swerve off into some goofy golf swing vs baseball swing analysis, but your comment is for all intents and purposes, bunk.
I suspect there is a "Hot Zone" diagram for McCann, and he hits best right down the pipe.
HA
HA
HAHAHAHA
Wow. What?
Aren't we talking about catchers here?
We are ignoring if McCann is great at his position BECAUSE OF his position?
What?
Seriously. This is non sensical
For example, Ichiro: In addition, with the way I bat, I might swing at a pitch that is way out of the strike zone. However, that's because I feel that that pitch is in my hitting zone and that's the way I play."
As for the data, Fangraphs shows McCann swinging at about 24.5% of pitches outside the zone for his career (he's at 22% this season). MLB average was 25% last year.
Those are exceptions, not the practical practice.
While I agree with this statement, I don't think it refutes what Chris is saying. I don't hear anyone saying that the prime pitch to hit is a curveball on the corner. Even your language hedges against the "out of the zone" argument from before ("on the edge"). I think the maxim is as simple as this: as a rule, pitches in the strike zone are easier to hit than pitches out of the strike zone. I don't think you can make a generalization about the quality of pitch thrown in or out of the zone. More over, there is enough evidence for enough players to make it foolish to argue that there are guys who are actually better at hitting a ball out of the zone than the corresponding one in the zone.
1) He swings at fewer pitches than average out of the strike zone.
2) Of the ones he chooses to swing at, he hits them with greater frequency than average.
3) These two data points indicate McCann has a very good idea of what pitches he can handle and which ones he can't.
Chris thinks that because he doesn't walk at a high rate, he doesn't control the strike zone well, but that simply isn't true. McCann isn't a hacker - he just doesn't swing and miss much. Because of this, he doesn't get deep into counts and see enough pitches to walk with a high frequency. Perhaps a player who did swing and miss more but consequently walked more would be more valuable, but McCann isn't that player.
---
Chris, I'm sorry you don't like my terms, but they were shaped by your own words. If you're willing to stipulate that you think McCann is really a true talent 119 OPS+ right now (since that's where you wanted the over/under line set), I'll just agree with you and go about my way - there's no need for me to bet in that case. I just think it's disingenuous to loudly proclaim McCann to be a 105 OPS+ hitter, challenge anyone who disagrees to bet you, and then shy away from the opportunity when it arrives. I dunno, it kinda makes it seem like you're shutting up rather than putting up, if you'll pardon the expression.
Chris, I think you're surrounded on this one. Better surrender now and hope you can negotiate your way out of a hangman's noose.
I don't know if I'm on Dial's side in his overall assessment of McCann, but no one has demonstrated that McCann really does command the strike zone better than Dial has stated.
Well, that depends on what Dial meant when he said that McCann doesn't control the strike zone. He defined controlling the strike zone as, "Putting the ball in play isn't controlling the strike zone - not swinging at balls is controlling the strike zone."
So if McCann swings at balls at a league average rate, which he does, does that mean he doesn't control the strike zone? I guess one could argue that the average player doesn't control the strike zone, but it seemed to me Dial was saying McCann is below average at it.
Chris is just sour that the Mets don't have a McCann type player behind the plate.
Brian McCann doesn't do either of those things. The argument now seems to be that his ability to put pitches out of the strike zone into play isn't necessarily a point in his favor. I suppose there's some likelihood of that being true that I can't verify without more data -- maybe by putting those pitches into play, he's grounding into lots of DPs or just preventing himself from getting a better pitch to hit deeper in the count. On balance, though, there's a lot more good that can come out of swinging and connecting versus swinging and missing (I think!).
If you recall, (review posts 13 through 15), when YOU said he was a 119 OPS+ hitter, (and DCA followed suit), that's when I asked if you wanted to bet. So, it's not nearly the "You said 105 so take it or leave it" you are claiming. So, you claimed 119, and I claimed 105. So splitting the difference 112 - that'll be the bet - you get 112+ and I'll take 111 down (I'm even giving you the middle!). From here moving forward (Games on May 13 on).
Sound more like the middle of our disagreement? Besides, I specifically said in his good years he'll be better. He's not going to hit 105 every season. There will be some years at 111, and some at 99.
Uh, no.
Well, I think it is. He walks at a below average rate.
McCann, if he only swung at strikes, would see all his rate stats increase. ALL OF THEM. You gets hits a lower rate on balls out of the strike zone, you hit the ball less distance out of the strike zone, and you walk less if you put balls in play out of the strike zone.
Swinging at balls is bad, not good.
This comment is worse than what it seeks to critique, since the author's next sentence was "Obviously, he’s not likely to maintain such a pace"
It isn't. It is about swinging at balls in the strike zone. That doesn't mean you have to swing at any pitch in the strike zone, but only swinging at pitches in teh strike zone. Swinging at balls is the wrong thing to do.
What do you suppose McCann hits on pitches he swings at out of the strikezone? Better or worse than balls in the strikezone? How much better r worse? The rule of thumb is *ALOT* worse.
That has nothing to do AT ALL with controlling the strikezone.
Swinging at pitches that are balls is always bad. Even if you hit a HR on that pitch. You are not controling the strikezone.
But there's a HUGE benefit to not swinging at balls versus swinging at balls that you cannot put in play with authority.
All that means is the author writes "Ludwick should be in teh MVP discussion. Obviously he's not likely to continue this pace".
It's nonsense. If you are going to extrapolate present numbers, just throw Ludwick in there.
well, since you've called me out.
(1) I didn't follow suit -- the postings were simultaneous, the last message was yours when I started typing.
(2) I still don't get what you're saying: if McCann doesn't control the strike zone means that he swings at too many pitches out of the strike zone, and he actually swings at a slightly lower percentage of balls out of the strike zone than the league as a whole, how does that add up to a weakness? Either you trusted your eyes and then cried FUD (how that's for channeling Backlasher?) when the data contradicted you, or you haven't explained at all clearly what you mean.
(3) OPS+ 109.5 or better from tomorrow to the end of the season? You're on. You even get to avoid his HR from the game today. You cherry-picked his bad season to say 100, we cherry-picked his whole career to get 119, you don't get to later redefine yourself upward to 105 and claim you're playing fair.
(4) My real guess as to McCann's true talent right now ... probably about 120-125, though with more like a 90-155 level of precision for a 95% CI on what's likely to be about 100 games played ... so while 112.5 would be the "midpoint" for our range statements, but I have no interest in making a split the difference bet since I wasn't the who was all "oh yeah, you think you're so smart, why don't you back it up with something?"
(5) Yes, after 2.5 seasons of MLB performance, his minor league stats (1/3 of a season above A ball) at age 21 or younger are essentially meaningless for predicting quality of future performance -- shape yes, quality no.
He may look ugly doing it, and I too thought he was going to be an averagish hitter when he first came up, but over the last 3 years it's become pretty clear that McCann can hit a little.
Sorry, I didn't mean to hit a sensitive spot.
Here's what I mean (and I'm surprised I have to explain it): Swinging at balls is bad. McCann does it at too high of a rate to be a consistently good hitter (Say, top 50 hitters), you have to swing at strikes. McCann has his pct down *this* season, but it's early. The data DOESN'T contradict me. I said he swings at "too many balls", not "swings at more balls than average". Really good hitters get good pitches to hit. Hitters that have career OPS+ marks of 126 (like Bench) don't swing at balls at "leaguie average" rates. They take pitches.
Ichiro forinstance only has a career OPS+ in the 118 range.
Well, before 13-15, I said he's a 100-105 hitter (post 10), so I did nothing of the sort of which you accuse. I said "100" is "about" right. I'll give you 125 and take 100. There - 112 again.
Sure you were. Read your tone in 14.
Yes, and a 100-105 OPS+ for a catcher is a good bit.
Do you have an actual example or are you just a BRaves fan?
Here's what I mean (and I'm surprised I have to explain it): Swinging at balls is bad. McCann does it at too high of a rate to be a consistently good hitter (Say, top 50 hitters), you have to swing at strikes. McCann has his pct down *this* season, but it's early. The data DOESN'T contradict me. I said he swings at "too many balls", not "swings at more balls than average". Really good hitters get good pitches to hit. Hitters that have career OPS+ marks of 126 (like Bench) don't swing at balls at "leaguie average" rates. They take pitches.
So basically DCA defines "good control of the strikezone" as a player being better than league average in terms of avoiding swinging at balls out of the strikezone. Dial defines "good control of the strikezone" as a player better much better than league average--albeit at some, unspecified level.
So basically this whole disagreement boils down to whether one should define "good" as simply "above-average" or something "better than above-average."
In the hopes of advancing beyond the pissing match in semantics... Chris, if "good" indicates something better than above-average (~50th percentile), what do propose that such level a level? 75th percentile? What's the justification for setting the bar so high? At some point shouldn't we expect to see diminishing returns on that particular performance metric, all other things being equal?
Except that isn't what I said. But represent it anyway you want. Read #10.
Javy Lopez didn't have a ton of command of the K zone and he was at 112 OPS+ career. And though I love Javy, McCann looks like a better hitter to me. Also remember McCann was banged up in 2007 thanks to a failed bunt attempt. That bothered him at the plate for a while.
"Good" isn't 0.5% above average. One of the issues with McCann swinging at pitches out of the strike zone is that he puts them in play.
I haven't done a study, but 0.5% better isn't it. Not for good hitters.
As far as I know, there are no diminishing returns for never swinging at balls out of the strike zone. What could be the problem? Ted Williams career? Bonds 2000-08?
Anyway, although you are unable to specify, you are claiming that a player who swings out of the strikezone >50% is superior to a player who swings out of the strikezone at a league average level. Intuitively, that would seem to be the case--although you haven't really quantified what that improvement in overall production would be, although an earlier post of yours seems to indicate that you believe that McCann cannot exceed a 105 OPS+. In other words, a league-average average out-of-strikezone rate indicates, at best, a league-average hitter.
So let's accept your hypothesis that >50% swinging-out-of-strikezone player yields a player that is significantly better overall than a player with a league-average, all other things being equal. For every percentage improvement, will that player improve overall by the same measure? At some point, won't the marginal improvement plateau?
If so, that indicates diminishing marginal returns.
EDIT: Reworded a few things to make it more descriptive.
Anyways, you listed swinging at too many pitches outside of the strikezone as being McCann's weakness. But if he's league average at his weakness, and he's better than league average in other areas (power, contact), shouldn't we expect him to be an above average hitter?
I guess the cognitive dissonance is this: If a player's weakness is something he does slightly better than league average, or even the same as league average, then he's got to be a pretty good hitter. If he were in the neighborhood of an average hitter (as 100 or 015 OPS+ would be), he's either perfectly well-rounded or his weakness would be something he's below average at.
That's not my claim. All things being equal, sure, but not purely, as I mentioned in my last post.
Well, that's clearly not true. Not only is there nothing to "indicate that you believe that McCann cannot exceed a 105 OPS+", I stated CATEGORICALLY that he would in post 22.
FWIW, that's ridciulously pedantic and I'm not sure it is true.
HAven't I been saying since at least post 10 (before anyone else really posted on this) that he was an "above average hitter"?
Diminishing returns certainly implies that there comes a point where it isn't worth doing anymore. AFAICT that is never true wrt swinging at pitches out of the strike zone (wrt a particular player's success).
100-105 OPS+ may be technically above average, but you'll get no complaints from anybody saying that's average, unless you mean average in a negative way (mostly though, people use "mediocre" for this purpose) ... and it's certainly not far enough above average for someone's worst hitting trait to still be above average.
Anyway, according to you, there's some threshold somewhere >50th percentile at which a player needs to be to be a "good" hitter. You don't know where, but you seem positive that it's better than 50th percentile.
How are inquiring the rate of marginal improvement pedantic? You are saying that there is some huge benefit to overall production being at some level above league average versus just at league average (without any empirical justification). Assuming that's correct, is the improvement coming from 25th percentile to 50th percentile equal to that of an improvement from 50th percentile to 75th percentile? How about from 75th percentile to 99th percentile?
Who said it was his worst hitting trait? It's also a problem that he puts those balls in play. He's fat and slow. I wasn't assigning "worst".
Again, I didn't say that. You *can* be a good hitter, but you have to hit for a much higher average than McCann is going to. Sure, if he's going to hit 330, dig in, but I don't think anyone here does think that.
Is it also a problem that he has an above average LD%, BABIP, and ISO? Neat trick for a slow, fat guy who puts too many bad pitches into play.
Well, at least you learned well from the abuse BL heaped on you.
He will struggle to be a good hitter (OPS+ 120 or so - maybe it is 115, I haven't done an exhaustive study) because he's a slow fat guy who puts too many bad pitches into play.
OK guys, here's your bet. If McCann has an OPS+ below 107 the rest of the year, Dial wins and whoever bets against him sponsors b-r for $25. If McCann has an OPS+ above 117 the rest of the year, Dial loses and he puts in the $25 sponsorship (per bet he accepts obviously). If McCann has an OPS+ between 107 and 117 (inclusive), all of you posturing yahoos make a $25 sponsorship of b-r.
The important thing here is that b-r wins.
I agree with Chris that it's almost never good to swing at a ball. But McCann looks like a good bet to put up a good BA because he does put the ball in play. Given his K-rate, he only needs to hit around 340-350 on-contact to hit 300 overall. Now that's still fairly high so 300 might not be in the cards, but something in the 280-290 range certainly seems to be. (For comparison, Vlad is at 368 on-contact, 323 overall.) There's never been a greater hacker than Manny Sanguillen and he had a 296 career BA (and a fast fade). Of course he had a much lower K-rate. Fisk through 35 (to avoid his lower-BA "decline") had a similar K-rate and a 282 average, but a better walk-rate. The other Pudge Ks a little more than McCann, doesn't walk and has a career BA of 302. Munson K'd a little less, walked about the same and had a 292 BA (and 116 OPS+).
Making contact isn't necessarily a good idea if you have to trade walks and power to achieve it, but it is generally good for BA. Whether that means someone "controls the strike zone" or not is obviously a different matter, but it seems we should expect McCann to hit in the 280-300 range for the next several years. 290/340/490 for a catcher sounds OK to me. :-) And, of course, a 100-105 OPS+ for a C is still mighty nice even if not Johnny Bench.
I do share Chris's concerns about injury and aging. He's been used pretty heavily by now. I remember looking at Kendall when the trade to the A's went down. Kendall was, I think, #8 all-time in games caught by age 30 and all 7 guys ahead of him completely collapsed. Looking more widely at all guys with 800+ games caught through age 30, about 75% saw either a big decline in performance or durability (or both) and that pattern roughly held as you narrowed the focus to good-hitting Cs. Interestingly, Boone and Fisk (the leaders in games caught I believe) were under 800 games caught (in the majors!) through age 30. McCann might well pass 800 games caught through 27 and could push 1200 through age 30 which would put him in Kendall territory.
But that's a long way off.
I'm sorry for interpreting that series of comments as you thinking his OPS+ was closer to 100 than 119. I don't know how that could have happened.
If you would like to split the difference between 119 and 100, I'd be happy to do so. Hell, I'll even give you the difference between 102.5 and 119 (110.25?) if it makes you happy. I'm pretty sure I should get to count tonight's game, but if you think that's unfair, so be it. Now someone bookmark this thread and remind me in October when it's time for me to buy an Oliver Perez sponsorship or something.
I'm not sure what you're going for here, but yeah, I learned it's generally not worth it to engage with the intellectually dishonest.
------
I'm in.
Let's say Player X sees 2500 pitches in a season: 40% are balls and 60% are strikes (ie, 1000 balls and 1500 strikes). Let's assume that he never swings at ball out of the strikezone.
Now he has a teammate (Player Y) who is equal to Player X in every way except he has a league average and swings at 15% of the balls out of the strikezone. In other words, he gives up 150 balls for either swinging strikes or weakly hit balls.
Assuming equal power, contact, etc., I think that we both agree that Player X will perform better overall to Player Y.
But what about Player Q, who swings at 20% of the balls out of the strikezone (assume 25th percentile)? Or Player P, who swings at 10% of the balls out of the strikezone (assume 75th percentile)? Will Player P perform better overall than Player X to the same degree that Player X performs better overall to player Q? Will Player Y perform better overall than Player P to the same degree that Player P performs better than Player X? And so forth...
If there's an substantive advantage, then it's most likely that there will be diminishing marginal benefit to marginal improvement. Assuming that there is any sort of cost associated with improving out-of-strikezone selectivity (eg, reduced power), it might not be to the player's benefit to make that sort of sacrifice. But until you can establish, much less quantify, the benefits of improving strikezone selectivity, that sort of cost-benefit analysis is a few steps ahead of where you want to keep the discussion.
I don't want to "keep the discussion" anywhere. I don't care about that for the purpoises of this discussion.
You *offered* 105.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main