But if Posada is worth some $13 million annually, surely Varitek can’t be too far behind.

I agree. The Sox should lock him down ASAP, 3 years, 30 million.

Varitek hit much better than I expected last year, but that was still for "only" a 103 OPS+ (yes, good for a catcher), he's going to be 36 in November (apparently a lot younger than Pudge?), and he frankly looks awful during so many at bats. Though that's probably why I'm amazed that he managed a 103 OPS+.

I know Gregg Zaun is hoping Varitek will sign soon, so he'll have a comparable player to point to in his extension negotiations.

Varitek hit much better than I expected last year, but that was still for "only" a 103 OPS+ (yes, good for a catcher),

Varitek was the 5th best C in MLB by VORP last year; the 23.4 he put up was behind only Possada, Victor Martinez, Russell Martin, and Joe Mauer, and just edging out Brian McCann, Josh Bard, and Kenji Johjima.

With C so weak across baseball right now, Texas is really sitting pretty with their stock of young receivers.

At least Tek has good "old player" skills.

Possada, Victor Martinez, Russell Martin, and Joe Mauer,

I'm not sure of Martin's recieving skills, but Tek is much better defensivly than Posada and Martinez, I mean miles better. Sure I'd rather have those guys, but I'm just saying. The people on this board have by and large underrated Varitek by boat loads over his carrer. Hell, his last contract was considered a disaster by many. If he gets hurt in the spring and misses the entire year he was STILL worth the deal.

I'd sign him during the season to 2 and 25.

I'd sign him during the season to 2 and 25.

I'm sure you would. And Theo would too. But why would Varitek ever sign that contract? Posada got two additional years and a $27.4 million on top of that.

Varitek isn't getting that contract, but he'll do way better than $25 over 2*

*Of course, if he has another 2006, that changes things, but I'm giving him credit to not bottom out once more.

What? No. And I don't really see how could read my post as such. I said pretty clearly that Varitek isn't getting Posada's contract. In the limited context of worth meaning a player's value to a particular team at a particular moment, Varitek's position this off-season will be similar to Posada's in the last. But Posada had more leverage then, which is why Varitek isn't topping his deal.

RB, my got was he would be getting more than that as well, yet this offseason I seemed to be comming in consistantly high on most bigger contracts so I reeled it in some. It wouldn't suprise me if Tek, got 3 years - 39mm or something like that either.

I'm not sure of Martin's recieving skills, but Tek is much better defensivly than Posada and Martinez, I mean miles better.

Except that he can't throw basestealers out. And his team doesn't trust him to catch their knuckleballer ever to the point where the preserving the franchise catcher reasoning seems a little hollow. And I've seen Sox fans on this board complain about his pitch selection. So I don't see any reason to accept that Varitek is miles better than those two defensively, even though they are poor defensive catchers. He's better than Posada behind the plate, because Posada has 12 PB a year. Martinez reportedly took a big step forward this year, but was certainly worse than Tek before. But there is nothing I'm aware of to suggest that he's way better or even above average. It's not like he looks impressive in the games and as far as I can tell, there is nothing to point to statistically.

But Posada had more leverage then, which is why Varitek isn't topping his deal.

That and Posada's a better player.

Yeah, Posada doesn't seem like a very good comp. For a short time, Varitek was as good as Posada. Posada has remained very good, and last year had the best season of his career. Varitek has become worse. I don't see that coming up much in negotiations.

I will say, though, that the Varitek contract has turned out well for the Red Sox. They got one all-star season, one well above average season, and one shortened, but about average season. He's already just about paid off that $40M in production. All he has to do is not die during the next season, and it will have been a successful contract.

He's just coming off a 4 yr 40 million contract, and you think he'll get 3 and 39, MHS? I would be shocked.

Posada is a far, far better player than Varitek. To assert otherwise is to cut oneself off from reality. Posada has been 40 runs better with the bat than Varitek in each of the last two seasons. Jason Varitek is a somewhat better receiver than Posada, but neither are particularly great. It isn't close to being close.

He's a better hitter. You can't say he's a better player. Most of a catcher's value is tied up in what he does when he doesn't have a bat in his hands.

Are you arguing that Varitek is the better player? If so, do you think the Red Sox should pay 60 million over 4 years to hold onto the better player?

You can't say he's a better player. Most of a catcher's value is tied up in what he does when he doesn't have a bat in his hands.

Wow, way to trot out the musty old cliches there, kevin. MOST catchers' "value" has to be talked about in terms of their defensive contribution because . . . well, because most of them can't hit. Defense is just about all the value most of 'em have. But that doesn't mean we ignore the value of a catcher who CAN actually hit like a damned all-star first baseman. Of course Posada is a better player than Varitek. By far and away.

I can't wait to trot out Kevin's arguments at Posada's Hall of Fame induction ceremony.

It is generally acknowledged that Varitek is a critical part of the Red Sox success.

Except in SOSH gamethreads where every walk, home run, and screaming line drive is blamed on Varitek.

Because so much of the value of a catcher is wrapped up in what they do when they aren't on offense, saying one catcher is better than another just because he can outhit him is way off the mark. It's akin to saying one basketball is better than another because he scores more points.

Wow; just, wow.

I think Posada is a better player than Varitek. I don't think it's particularly close, despite that I will say that I agree with Kevin on his interpertation of:

1) The importantce of catcher defense.
2) The importantce of Varitek to the Red Sox run prevention.

I have never, seen a player get lauded so consistantly by every pitcher he works with. The accolades are near uninamous. I see little reason to give that more weight than some dummy's wining about him calling too many fastballs with Josh Beckett on the mound, or for him "allowing" too many 2-0 HR's, despite when looking at the data he wasn't an outlier.

After watching Posada play 20 games at the stadium last year, I can say with great confidence that he is the worst regular reciever I have ever seen. I don't mean in terms of throw, but the catch part. He just consitanly looks foolish back there, and it shocked me because when he was younger his recieving skills while never great they weren't poor. I mean he was Hatteberg level poor behind the plate.

Martinez looked better when I saw him this year, but he has been so bad in the past that better means fair rather than better means average.

Aren't you missing something rather obvious here, Sam? Their defensive value and responsibilities don't change no matter how well or how poorly they hit.

Their defensive value doesn't change, but their overall value includes their offensive contribution. And if Posada (or to an even much greater degree, Piazza in his prime) hit extremely well, then it is just nonsense to say that -- because MOST catchers' principal value is defensive -- ALL catchers principal value must be defensive. That is just ridiculous. There is no sense -- literally, none -- in which Mike Piazza was a "liability" when he was the greatest hitting catcher in MLB history. To the contrary, Piazza was so much greater as a hitter than any other catcher to play major league baseball that he is, defense included, the greatest catcher ever.

The obvious reason that so many catchers can't hit is that they aren't selected, in general, for their offensive ability. Teams recognize the overriding value of defense in their catchers and select them on that basis. If you are lucky enough to get good offense from your catcher, that's considered a bonus. Piazza can still outhit most catchers (and for a while could outhit just about anybody) but is considered a liability anyway because of his poor defense.

It's only considered a "bonus" by people who talk in silly cliches like Tim McCarver. It's no more a bonus than it is a "bonus" when you have a slugging shortstop like Nomar. It's his profile (or it was); his value happened to come in a different shape than Omar Vizquel or Adam Everett -- but it's no more a "bonus" than saying that Keith Hernandez's glove is a "bonus" from a first baseman. Value is value.

Piazza wasn't a liability because, for most of his career, he wasn't really a bad defensive catcher. He couldn't throw runners out and that's the most measurable part of catcher defense, so he got a bad rap, but he wasn't hurting his team behind the plate in other areas. If he really couldn't catch he might have been a problem, but he could.

Because so much of the value of a catcher is wrapped up in what they do when they aren't on offense, saying one catcher is better than another just because he can outhit him is way off the mark. It's akin to saying one basketball is better than another because he scores more points.

Wow; just, wow.

I often disagree with kevin, but there's literally nothing objectionable here, WJ.

kevin: just for the hell of it, do you have a ratio in mind regarding the value of catcher defense to catcher offense?

some dummy's wining about him

Hey!

Posada hits into a fairly high # of DP's, and just how bad is his baserunning? The eyes say pretty horrible.

You have no idea how badly Piazza's poor defense adversely affected his team.

Staff RA+ while he catches, vs his backups, over a long period?

I have yet to see any defensive metrics/stats that adequately measure a catchers defensive value. The things that catchers do are very difficult to capture statistically.

Then how do you know Posada's not a great catcher? Maybe he's awesome at all the stuff we can't measure: working with pitchers, calling a game, etc.

I think the 60-70% defense is laughable. Look at the HoF. (I don't usually consider them as great arbiters of baseball talent, but if anyone was going to by an "intangibles, old school" argument like this, it's HoF voters). There are 2 catchers (out of 14) with OPS+ below 115. Rick Ferrell, who is widely viewed as a mistake induction at 95, and Ray Schalk at 85.

If anyone, ever, considered catcher defense to be that important, wouldn't we see a distribution more like SS, where we have a ton of below average offense players who are in for their glove? FYI, there are eight HoF SS with OPS+ <100 out of 22. 2B also has more "defensive" players, 5 out of 20.

A little tidbit from Nov 2004 when the Red Sox brought back Doug Mirabelli:

The baseball world got a sense of the challenge Mirabelli faces in catching Wakefield when Varitek committed three passed balls working with the knuckleballer in the 13th inning of Game 5 of the American League Championship Series against the Yankees. But for all his work with Wakefield, Mirabelli also caught every other regular Sox pitcher last season, including Curt Schilling, who logged a 1.17 ERA in 15 1/3 innings with Mirabelli behind the plate, Alan Embree (0.69 ERA in 13 2/3 innings), and Keith Foulke (2.30 ERA in 15 2/3 innings). Sox pitchers posted a 4.19 ERA with Varitek and a 4.26 mark with Mirabelli.

***

I am sure the career ERA with/without Varitek numbers for his career are somewhere on-line. I also saw an article from 2006 saying the Red Sox pitching went in the crapper without Varitek, but there were no stats.

This has been erroneously assigned to the pressure on NY, IMO, and has shifted the sporlight away from Posada's battery shortcomings.

Well, there are many factors that have been brought up:

Bad team defense
Age of the pitchers
Indifferent coaching by Stottlemyre
Quirky staff management by Torre
Differences in league quality

I am prepared to believe that Posada may be a poor handler of pitchers, but I find it hard to believe that this is the #1 factor in Yankee run prevention issues, if that is what you are suggesting.

There are 2 catchers (out of 14) with OPS+ below 115. Rick Ferrell, who is widely viewed as a mistake induction at 95, and Ray Schalk at 85

This is an interesting discussion because I can see both sides: catcher defense is hard to quantify, and may be a lot more significant than it looks on paper, but I am more persuaded by Sam's argument, which gives a lot of credit to a guy who can simply hold down the job of catcher. Mike Piazza may have been a Calphalon candidate, but he was not Rudy York; he was able to be an everyday catcher for a pennant winner at the age of 31, so how much could that bad defense actually have hurt his team?

The HOF likes hitting catchers, but the list of long-career catchers (it's an approximation, because Sean has yet to grant us fielding leaderboards :) is interesting, because catchers who put together really long careers are a mix of hitters and non-hitters. It may be hard to explain why Luis Aparicio and Rabbit Maranville are in the Hall while Bob Boone and Jim Sundberg are not. By definition, you can win a World Series with Boone or Sundberg as your starting catcher, even when they are in their 30s and not hitting much at all.

Good glove, no-hit, 30-something catcher: an experiment that the Mets are about to embark on ...

Prove it.

No kevin, you pulled the random number out of your ass, you prove it.

Even having said that, the catcher is a much more important and demanding defensive position than SS is, IMO.

I just can't see that as being possible. Adam Everett can save 25 runs above an average SS. I find it hard to see how a C can do that.

If a C was really bad at calling a game, or working with pitchers to plan a game, a coach, or the pitcher himself could take over that responsibility. Billy Martin was famous for calling the game from the dugout.

Also, the Yankees under Posada have had a history of signing pitchers who looked to be good and ended up sucking, or at least being disappointments: Clemens, Brown, Vasquez, Weaver, Contreras, Johnson. You could even make a case that Mussina has been something of a disappointment. All the other guys either got worse when they came or got better once they left or both. This has been erroneously assigned to the pressure on NY, IMO, and has shifted the spotlight away from Posada's battery shortcomings.

I'd point to the poor IF defense.

Finally, the Yankees got worse once they made Posada the fulltime catcher. The 2000 team was noticeably worse than the 1999 team. They gave up a run a game more once Posada stopped sharing the job with Girardi and became the fulltime catcher.


That is hideous cherry picking, and totally misleading. The 2000 team gave up 83 more runs. 40 of those come from David Cone imploding. Cone went from a 137 ERA+ to a 70, and his career was basically over. Can't blame that on Posada.

Pettitte and Clemens both pitched better w/ Posada in 2000 than they did in 1999. El Duque was just a shade worse.

That catcher has an influence on how well the pitcher pitches.

How? How does he influence it? Where is the evidence?

Don't care to respond to my deconstruction of your 1999/2000 comparison?

Even having said that, the catcher is a much more important and demanding defensive position than SS is, IMO.

I just can't see that as being possible. Adam Everett can save 25 runs above an average SS. I find it hard to see how a C can do that.

I don't think there's any doubt that catcher is the more demanding position. If nothing else, the average length of a catcher's career is pretty good evidence. I'd also guess it's the most important because of the responsibilities required with every pitch.

But I'd also be willing to bet that there is the least amount of variance between the best and worst catchers at the big league level. You can't just stick anybody back there (and in fact, you really can't stick anyone back there but people who have played the position), but for guys who get to the big leagues as catchers, there is not as much difference in defensive ability and the capacity to save runs as there is between MLB shortstops.

I don't think there's any doubt that catcher is the more demanding position. If nothing else, the average length of a catcher's career is pretty good evidence.

Physically demanding you mean? In terms of wear and tear. I think everyone agree with that.

I think this point to a huge source of Posada's value. He not only provides superior offense, but he plays every damn day. 135 G/year at catcher for 8 straight years is phenomenal.

But I'd also be willing to bet that there is the least amount of variance between the best and worst catchers at the big league level. You can't just stick anybody back there (and in fact, you really can't stick anyone back there but people who have played the position), but for guys who get to the big leagues as catchers, there is not as much difference in defensive ability and the capacity to save runs as there is between MLB shortstops.

I agree with this also. The impact of a "bad" catcher like Posada, is much, much less than a bad SS, like Jeter.

Did you read this before you wrote it? First of all, how do you know Cone imploding had nothing to do with Posada? The following year, pitching to Varitek, Hatteberg and Mirabelli, he bounced back to 105. So saying you can't blame that on Posada is a spurious argument. Secondly, you haven't accounted for the other 43 runs yet.

Cone's ERA in Boston was a complete fluke. He had a WHIP of 1.51. He was toast. And I'm a huge Cone fan.
Do you really think a veteran like Cone would be so affected by a different catcher, especially one who had already been with the team? Come on now.

20 R is due to league environment. 5.3 R/G in 2000 AL vs. 5.18 R/G in 1999.

Of the pitchers who had significant IP in both years, Clemens,Pettitte, Nelson and Stanton got better, El Duque was a little worse, and Rivera decline from other wordly to simply great. No appreciable trend.

The remainder of the run difference appears to be guys like Todd Erdos and Allen Watson who pitched well in limited IP in 1999 and sucked in 2000.

i.e. absolutely no evidence that Posada caused a staff wide decline.

He calls the pitches, he frames the location of the pitches, he directs and positions the defense, he sets the tempo for the pitcher, he catches the ball and guards the baserunners, he gameplans with the pitcher even before the game.

You neglected to mention that he also throws out (or doesn't) baserunners. I have to agree with the idea that a catcher who excels in all these areas might very well save 25 runs a season over a catcher who is just average in these areas--and, of course, we can quantify some of the above to some degree.

As for quantifying such as gamecalling ability, in addition to catcher ERA, studies can be done. There'd be a lot of hyperbole to wade through, but I'd be very, very interested in interviews with eloquent pitchers and what they have to say about the matter--did they think a catcher's gamecalling ability improved their pitching, in what cases, and by how much. I'd also be interested in what catchers had to say: how do they believe their gamecalling skills saved runs, and so forth. I have to think that we can know more than we do.

He had a WHIP of 1.51.

But that's a magic WHIP. Were it not wielded by anyone less than The Great Tek, Cone's ERA would've been around the expected 5.25 instead.

Also, everyone knows that the value of a catcher is 36.89 percent defensive, 49.91 percent offensive, and 13.2 percent whatever I need to win the argument.

This statement is self-contradictory. It is saying that the defensive skills of catching rare and unrare at the same time.

No it isn't. Catching is a rare skill, possessed by only a handful of players at the big league level. There are more guys playing in the big leagues who can play shortstop, in a pinch, then there are guys who can catch. You can't ask anyone besides your emergency catcher to get behind the plate, and even then, you're almost assuredly looking at a loss. I think catching is truly the most important defensive position due to daily requirements that dwarf every other position's.

But for those hundred or so guys who are MLB-caliber catchers, I think there's little variance between their ability to impact run-scoring, particularly compared to a position such as shortstop.

Did it ever occur to you that Varitek might have had something to do with the low ERA despite the high WHIP?

HTF would a catcher do that? Varitek was able to prevent him giving up runs but not able to prevent him giving up hits and walks? Did he build a brick wall in front of home plate?

You have no basis at all to make that statement. You haven't even looked for evidence yet.

I showed a lot more evidence than you, and you're the one that made the assertion about Posada's impact in 2000.

I've shown 25% of the change in RA was due to league context, 50% due to the implosion of David Cone, and the rest largely to fringe pitchers failing to repeat good performance in limited innings.

I've also pointed out that the six main returning pitchers showed no decline as a group.

I'm going to stop now, b/c I've remembered that arguing with you is pointless, b/c you have no interest in evidence.

There'd be a lot of hyperbole to wade through, but I'd be very, very interested in interviews with eloquent pitchers and what they have to say about the matter--did they think a catcher's gamecalling ability improved their pitching, in what cases, and by how much.

Wouldn't tell us much, though, given the amount of politicking it would necessarily involve. I mean, if we're talking to current pitches -- eloquent or otherwise -- they know their remarks will be interpreted by anyone they work with.

Plus, there's the likely chance that people aren't able to accurately account for their own productive. For example, Santana will likely find it easy to have Schneider as a battery-mate this year, and may consider any improvement he has to the quality of that relationship, instead of 1) shutting down the only viable power alley in Shea by being tough on lefties and 2) moving to the NL. He may credit -- and genuinely believe -- that Schneider is responsible, despite the host of other factors.

In fact, there's one very easy way to discount the importance of catchers as signal-callers: look at the remarkable consistency of pitchers moving from one team to another once you've factored out league and park variables.

kevin, as a great man recently said, "You're just wasting bandwidth anyway with your complete fanboy responses." Why not stop while you're behind?

No it isn't. Catching is a rare skill, possessed by only a handful of players at the big league level. There are more guys playing in the big leagues who can play shortstop, in a pinch, then there are guys who can catch. You can't ask anyone besides your emergency catcher to get behind the plate, and even then, you're almost assuredly looking at a loss. I think catching is truly the most important defensive position due to daily requirements that dwarf every other position's.

But for those hundred or so guys who are MLB-caliber catchers, I think there's little variance between their ability to impact run-scoring, particularly compared to a position such as shortstop.

That makes a tremendous amount of sense.

I think it would correspond to a lot of catching ability being learned/knowledge based rather than raw ability. Also, the necessary skills are probably the most disimilar to the skills needed at other positions.

A lot of MLB players probably could have been good catchers if they spent 5 years learning the position, but w/o that learning process, you're toast if you try to play.

The catcher's impact is one item that has challenged the analtyical community for the many variables already mentioned.

For every case FOR a catcher's impact there is the counter. Case in point:

The Texas Rangers in the late 80's really didn't have a "regular" catcher. But if somebody had the label it was Gino Petralli. Petralli could hit a bit and was by all accounts a decent sort. But one thing he was NOT was a good defensive catcher. Petralli was bad in about a 101 different ways behind the plate. Charlie Hough used to joke that Gino's defensive problems probably worked to his favor catching Hough's knuckleball since his mind wasn't clouded with proper technique so his tendency to drop his glove as the pitch was delivered, stab at the ball and pretty much act like a spaz behind the plate might well have been assets when catching Hough's pitch.

Then Ivan Rodriguez shows up. And everyone is all agog over the lad's ability to catch. Now most of that was the cannon for an arm but Ivan WAS (and is) agile behind the plate. Quick as anything to get out of a crouch. Kept himself still when the pitcher was delivering his pitch. Basically everything that Gino was not.

And yet the Rangers had a pretty solid staff in Gino's last year as the nominal regular and were pretty stinkaroo Ivan's next several years.

Now this is just one example. But it is a pretty stark example because you can't get much worse behind the plate than Gino Petralli and folks insist you can't get much better than I-rod.

And yet there isn't anything to show in those years in Texas that Ivan was making a positive difference.

It's a mystery.....

I think it would correspond to a lot of catching ability being learned/knowledge based rather than raw ability. Also, the necessary skills are probably the most disimilar to the skills needed at other positions.

A lot of MLB players probably could have been good catchers if they spent 5 years learning the position, but w/o that learning process, you're toast if you try to play.

Agreed.

Wouldn't tell us much, though, given the amount of politicking it would necessarily involve. I mean, if we're talking to current pitches -- eloquent or otherwise -- they know their remarks will be interpreted by anyone they work with.

Plus, there's the likely chance that people aren't able to accurately account for their own productive. For example, Santana will likely find it easy to have Schneider as a battery-mate this year, and may consider any improvement he has to the quality of that relationship, instead of 1) shutting down the only viable power alley in Shea by being tough on lefties and 2) moving to the NL. He may credit -- and genuinely believe -- that Schneider is responsible, despite the host of other factors.

I'm not as pessimistic as you on this, SEK. While the signal-to-noise rat has to be accounted for, hearing 100 pitchers and 100 catchers on this may well have substantive value

In fact, there's one very easy way to discount the importance of catchers as signal-callers: look at the remarkable consistency of pitchers moving from one team to another once you've factored out league and park variables.

This could well be the case (though you'd need to account as well for aging, overall run scoring, and so on). Can you point me to a study of this kind? kevin may not be as right as he thinks he is, but he makes some good points.

I'm not as pessimistic as you on this, SEK. While the signal-to-noise rat has to be accounted for, hearing 100 pitchers and 100 catchers on this may well have substantive value

Once we enter the realm of sociological study, I agree, something valuable may come of it. The problem is, I doubt any active players will consent to participate. So the participants will be out of the game, their memories clouded by the intervening years, making their conclusions even more dubious.

This could well be the case (though you'd need to account as well for aging, overall run scoring, and so on). Can you point me to a study of this kind? kevin may not be as right as he thinks he is, but he makes some good points.

Only know of one of its kind, but it's not available online. You can think of it another way: if you grant any weight to the various projection systems -- none of which, to my knowledge, factor in battery-mate -- you have to assume that the catcher has minimal influence over pitcher performance. (Not perceived influence, mind you, but quantifiable.) If we can translate across leagues with any accuracy, that minimizes the catcher's influence.

Now, I'm not saying there's no influence, so if we want to talk about anecdotal evidence, we could always discuss Varitek's inability to catch knucklers and what that says about his hands and mobility ...

Harvey's nailed it really, along with definitive overall defensive metrics, measuring a catcher's value behind the plate would seem to be the holy grail of sabermetrics.

I agree with you Kevin on several levels as to Varitek's value to the Sox, however I'm not sure his value would necessarily translate as well to another team. The Sox seem to have that(and I hate this term) chemistry with him there. Yes, they perform much better when he is playing(well the last 4 years at least)

However, I think Posada is better value overall and if I were owner of any team other then the Red Sox, I'd rather have Posada.

Fair enough, SEK. Good points.

Charlie Hough used to joke that Gino's defensive problems probably worked to his favor catching Hough's knuckleball since his mind wasn't clouded with proper technique so his tendency to drop his glove as the pitch was delivered, stab at the ball and pretty much act like a spaz behind the plate might well have been assets when catching Hough's pitch.

Brilliant! "...his mind wasn't clouded with proper technique..." has me in stitches.

I know this is kind of a freak stat, but only one catcher (Ray Schalk) has caught more no-hitters than Varitek. And according to this article, he (EDIT: Varitek) could've had two more had pitchers not shaken him off at the wrong time.

I'm not bringing it up to suggest that it "proves" anything about Varitek. It's one piece of evidence, and I'm not entirely sure it merits more weight than any other questionable evidence we might fling about. But it does raise another point on the difficulty of measuring catcher influence on a pitching staff: ultimately the pitcher has the last word on what pitch is thrown. We're at the point where we can identify pitch selection in the statistical record, but nowhere is it recorded whose idea it was to go with any given pitch, except in cases like the article I linked - and that kind of notation is rare. Our only option for evidence of this in the present day is the testimony of the pitchers.

When will you guys learn to stop engaging Kevin on Red Sox/Yankee issues? Do you argue w/him b/c you expect to be enlightened, or b/c you like to see how outrageous and contradictory his own claims will be?

JC - #59 answers your question.

There seems to be a signifcant knee-jerk reaction against anything kevin says these days. The progression of posts 24, 25, 29, 34, and 37 are a good example. kevin was asked for his opinion; he gave it; it was called laughable; he demanded proof; and he was told, essentially, that the only opinion demanding proof was his.

Over the years I've found kevin to be able to form pretty sound opinions where objective evidence was scarce, but also very bad at supporting or conveying those opinions in such a way as to gain any level of acceptance. He raises good points here, with some trying to shout him down - partly at his own prompting, but still. I don't really see much of a difference between kevin's debating skills and those of his main detractors.

JC, because its fun, that's why.

I always learn stuff on this site no matter how silly, trivial or banal someones's position may seem.

Did you read this before you wrote it? First of all, how do you know Cone imploding had nothing to do with Posada? The following year, pitching to Varitek, Hatteberg and Mirabelli, he bounced back to 105. So saying you can't blame that on Posada is a spurious argument. Secondly, you haven't accounted for the other 43 runs yet.

If I'm not mistaken, Cone called his own game so I really don't see how his catcher would affect his effectiveness very much at all.

This is one of the more interesting threads that I've seen in a while. A couple of comments:

1. I remember when Al Lopez had the lead in games caught. He's been eclipsed by @ 10 guys in the past 20 or so years (Hartnett must've pinch hit alot.)

2. I thought that it was Geno Petralli.

3. Keith Woolner did a study of Catcher ERA in one of the BPro annnuals (It was titled "Field General or Backstop".) He didn't find much correleation year to year in Catcher ERA. But Bill James made the point in the "Underestimating The Fog" essay that absence of evidence in those studies may not necessarily mean that a skill doesn't exist.

Wow, I had no idea Pudge the Younger (2061) will pass Pudge the Elder (2226) as all-time games caught leader sometime in early 2009 if he hangs around.

Gary:

Correct. The guy couldn't even spell his name properly. Ha!

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=432 is a study on the effect of game-calling. Controlling the running game has a somewhat smaller range of ability found than at other positions I believe.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/sabr2006/index.html (conclusion about +/- 4 runs to average)
and
http://www.tangotiger.net/catchers.html

deal with wild pitches and passed balls.

Thanks very much, user. My quick skim tells me that with regard only to wild pitches and passed balls, the best catcher in tiger's study was 14 runs better than average, and that five catchers were from 10 to 14 runs better than average. This supports kevin's assertion in post 40, albeit indirectly:

I just can't see that as being possible. Adam Everett can save 25 runs above an average SS. I find it hard to see how a C can do that.


[kevin:]Easy. That catcher has an influence on how well the pitcher pitches. 25 runs is only 1 run a week. It's very easy to imagine how a good catcher could save 1 run a week over an average catcher.

After another quick look:

"Basestealing runs for the catcher are -.22*SB + .38*CS.
Piazza: 1303 SB, 410 CS = -131 runs
Pudge: 567 SB, 532 CS = 77 runs"

I'll grant you this isn't an example of a great vs an average catcher in this particular aspect of the job, but we are looking at the best and worst (by reputation), and the difference is about 13 runs per year.

Pretty decent batch of catchers born between November 1970 and May 1972 -- I-Rod, Posada, Varitek, Javy Lopez, Charles Johnson, Paul LoDuca, Mike Lieberthal, Zaun.

Though maybe I'd take June 1947 to September '49 -- Bench, Fisk, Simmons, Munson, Bob Boone, Rick Dempsey,

EDIT: not worth it. sorry

Dumb question -- is Kenji Johjima not a free agent at the end of the year? The Seattle PI seems to think he will be.

Dumb question -- is Kenji Johjima not a free agent at the end of the year? The Seattle PI seems to think he will be.

Well his contract is up, but he'll only have 3 years of service at the time, so barring some deal in the contract that forces the team to decline arbitration (like in Hideki Matsui's), I'd assume Johjima will just be arb-eligible. Cot's doesn't mention anything about a deal, so my current guess is arbitration, but the PI would likely know better than I.

barring some deal in the contract that forces the team to decline arbitration

Yes, that's the question.

the PI would likely know better than I.

Maybe. :-)

the Rangers had a pretty solid staff in Gino's last year as the nominal regular and were pretty stinkaroo Ivan's next several years

The huge turnover in any pitching staff makes this kind of comparison dicey at best. FWIW, Bobby Witt hated throwing to Rodriguez when Pudge first came up, and was ghastly in '91-'92 for Texas after a strong year in '90 throwing to Petralli. But Witt came back to Texas in '96-'97 and did fine, at least for Bobby Witt. Pudge might have matured in the intervening years, or a million other things might have happened.

Comments on the Red Sox catching situation here:

http://www.newenglandsportscountry.com/forum3/viewtopic.php?f=72&t=2833

I'll grant you this isn't an example of a great vs an average catcher in this particular aspect of the job, but we are looking at the best and worst (by reputation), and the difference is about 13 runs per year.

Well, the normal best/worst gap for a position is about 40 runs. Baserunning is likely to be the biggest component. All the catcher ERA analysis has shown no measureable impact on pitcher performance, and, as some one else noted, we have no problem projecting pitcher w/o reference to the C, so there can't be much there, maybe 5-10 runs. There might be another 5 runs to passed balls, blocking the plate etc. Then you have the fact that the best guy won't be the same at each skill, so the maximum gap is going to be less than the sum of these factors.

I think this stat is consistent with the best/worst gap at C in MLB being narrower than other positions, maybe 20-25 runs per season vs. 40-50 at other positions.