Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Sox Therapy > Discussion
Sox Therapy
— Where Thinking Red Sox Fans Obsess about the Sox

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.

   1. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: December 24, 2010 at 02:57 PM (#3717309)
There seems also to be a lot of skepticism of Saltalamacchia's projection. I don't entirely get it - I haven't watched him hit much, but he seemed like a mediocre hitter. The best reading of his numbers is that he's a below average hitter, about average at catcher, with a big platoon split. I'm certainly open to arguments, external to the numbers, that show that he's actually worse than that.

There's a case that Saltalamacchia's projection has wider error bars than a normal projection, since it's based on incomplete seasons and depends on some MLEs. That's far, but we should remember that error bars go both ways, and the projection should be at the 50% mark. If you're arguing his numbers are variable, you have to remember they are basically just as likely be variable upward as downward.
   2. dave h Posted: December 24, 2010 at 05:19 PM (#3717359)
MCoA, on the other thread there was discussion about trends, and their predictive value. You said research has shown them to be useless, and I was wondering about the details of that. I don't disagree that they are useless in fact, given the rest of our knowledge. There's a lot of noise in these studies however, so "adding trend information doesn't improve our projection" and "players don't follow trends" aren't equivalent statements. I assume that what we know is the former, in which case the question is, can we tell when players might follow trends. Presumably at this point it would be based on some non-statistical observations, which I don't think you would object to. What ones though?

As for the Sox situation, it feels like a black hole, which is most people's problem I think. We've been convinced for years that Varitek is done, and Salty never was. Given that the baseline for catcher is so low though, it's hard to give up too much so I don't think this is a huge problem. The platoon is an interesting prediction, we'll see if they go that way.
   3. TVerik, the gum-snappin' hairdresser Posted: December 24, 2010 at 05:45 PM (#3717367)
I've been a Yankee fan mostly during the Posada era. So maybe I don't have this experience. But do teams usually platoon catchers based on righty/lefty matchups?
   4. Jose Can Still Seabiscuit Posted: December 24, 2010 at 05:56 PM (#3717373)
That gives the Red Sox slightly below average offense from catcher if you just add them together.


So "slightly below average offense" combined with below average defense makes the Sox catching combination pretty bad in my opinion. I will concede two points though;

1. If the Sox aggressively platoon them I'm probably going to lose our bet. I don't feel confident of that being feasible because it is tough to platoon to maximum advantage throughout a season, relievers and injuries (a significant problem given Varitek's age) combine to make that a problem. If the two stay healthy AND Francona platoons them very well then they will be better off.

2. You clearly have a higher opinion of Saltalamacchia's defense than I do. I won't pretend I've seen a lot of him but in fairly limited action I thought he looked poor generally and like a player who lacked instincts for the position. That's based on a very small sample admittedly but there have always been doubts about his defensive ability (not Montero-level doubts, but doubts nonetheless).

Having caught up on yesterday's thread I think in general we were arguing a bit past each other a bit. I'm not saying Saltalamacchia WILL be a bust, I just think he is more likely to bust than to boom.

You made a point in the other thread that (if I read it right) if the argument is "the league has figured him out" or "he has regressed as a hitter" that is fine but just using the trends is silly. I'm fine with that but then I just expressed myself poorly. I believe that the reason Saltalamacchia has done poorly is something of that nature. I won't pretend to know what it is, but when I see a guy failing to deliver across several seasons I'm going to assume that something has happened that makes what we knew about him 4-5 years ago less meaningful.

As for your point about statistical analysis being "hard", I'm on board with that. You keep talking about using the projection as a baseline. That is exactly what I am doing though. I'm taking a baseline of .690-.710 (depending on how your forecast accounts for Fenway) and then accounting for a player who;

a. has defensive issues that could come to the plate with him, potentially explaining his offensive performance the last two years
b. has failed to produce at the level of the projection in a couple of years
c. just doesn't "look" like a hitter. He pops up often and he swings and misses a lot

I'm willing to concede I might be proven wrong but you seem to think I (and others, I don't think I'm alone on this expectation level of Saltalamacchia) are predicting a .524 OPS or something like that. That's not the case, I just think the forecasts are a bit high skewed by data that is no longer relevant from 3-4 years ago.
   5. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: December 24, 2010 at 06:01 PM (#3717375)
I've been a Yankee fan mostly during the Posada era. So maybe I don't have this experience. But do teams usually platoon catchers based on righty/lefty matchups?


Not much anymore. It seems teams like to have a designated starter/backup system when it comes to catcher. The Jays did it years ago with Ernie and Buck (then again, they also platooned Hosken and Jesse and Garth and Rance, so it's possible they just liked fun-sounding pairs).

Seeing Salty's splits, it does seem like a good plan for the Sox. Varitek's recent history suggests he's most likely to contribute in a very limited role, and playing only against lefties would seem to do the trick.
   6. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: December 24, 2010 at 06:57 PM (#3717410)
MCoA, on the other thread there was discussion about trends, and their predictive value. You said research has shown them to be useless, and I was wondering about the details of that. I don't disagree that they are useless in fact, given the rest of our knowledge. There's a lot of noise in these studies however, so "adding trend information doesn't improve our projection" and "players don't follow trends" aren't equivalent statements. I assume that what we know is the former, in which case the question is, can we tell when players might follow trends. Presumably at this point it would be based on some non-statistical observations, which I don't think you would object to. What ones though?
This is well said. It is obviously the case that particular players have had recent performance that is a better guide to their future performance than a weighted mean of more and less recent performance. However, to identify those players, the fact that their stats have a trend is insufficient evidence. We need other sorts of evidence. I don't really want to restrict in advance what sort of non-statistical evidence would suffice - if someone wants to make an argument, I'd listen to it.
I won't pretend to know what it is, but when I see a guy failing to deliver across several seasons I'm going to assume that something has happened that makes what we knew about him 4-5 years ago less meaningful.
This is the problem. As long as you have no other evidence than the "trend" in statistics, you have no evidence. This has been shown. Why persist in rejecting that?

On the platoon, I can see the reasonable case that the Sox won't platoon, but I'll bet that by the end of the season - barring injury or cliff-diving - Varitek and Saltalamacchia will have quite pronounced tendencies to start against the proper handed pitching opponents. Tito has run platoons in the past when it made sense, and this seems like an obvious place to do it.
   7. John DiFool2 Posted: December 24, 2010 at 07:02 PM (#3717414)
I don't understand why people switch-hit when their platoon differential ends up being greater than average. Tek has an 830/758 OPS split (72 point difference), when a typical split for a RH hitter would be about 42 points. But he'd have to learn how to hit RH breaking balls as a RH hitter, and it may be too late to do that.
   8. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: December 24, 2010 at 07:03 PM (#3717416)
c. just doesn't "look" like a hitter. He pops up often and he swings and misses a lot
This seems like the sort of thing we'd want to take into account when challenging statistical projections. If something's wrong with Salty's swing, or his approach, that has made him struggle more recently, then he's likely ot continue struggling going forward. That I'm open to.

My problem is with starting from the presumption that there is something behind a "trend." Since it has been shown that "trends" are not predictive, we should not start from that presumption.

It's fair to take a trend as a spur to looking at a guy more closely, but that doens't mean the trend itself is evidence that a player will continue on his recent trajectory, beyond the normal weighting of recent performance.
   9. dave h Posted: December 24, 2010 at 09:03 PM (#3717465)
Well there is one "trend" that we know helps a projection, and that's the aging curve. Salty's on the right side of that though.
   10. Pingu Posted: December 24, 2010 at 09:57 PM (#3717487)
Do you guys really think Tito will platoon the two? I'm much more inclined to think you'll see Varitek always catching Beckett, and getting a handful of starts against lefties when other guys are pitching. So you'll prob see Salty play 3/5th the games or something with nothing resembling a strict platoon. And with the number of lefties in the AL East, you'll see Salty get a good number of ABs against them.

Have to admit, I've never seen Salty's platoon split before, or if I did, I ignored it. I'm hopeful that it is real. But it remains to be seen how much they'll be able to use that advantage.

I'm not saying Saltalamacchia WILL be a bust, I just think he is more likely to bust than to boom.


Thats pretty much where I'm at as well.
   11. Colonel Lagis Posted: December 24, 2010 at 10:21 PM (#3717503)
Assuming a fat-tailed distribution of talent, I'm not sure if comparing to league average is the most useful exercise. For example, last year there were 13 catchers in the AL who accumulated at least 250 at-bats. The median OPS was .695, so a .700 OPS seems okay.

However, the 25th percentile OPS was .803 (15.5% better than the median) and the 75th percentile OPS was .670 (3.6% worse than the median). As you can see, OPS among such catchers does not appear to be normally distributed, which skews what it means to be "average." In this scenarion, having an "average" catcher is just barely better than having one of the worst catchers and significantly worse than having one of the best catchers.

It's similar to talking about something like rankings of top universities, which is also heavily skewed. Consider the group consisting of the top 25 universities (according to US News). Johns Hopkins and Washington University are tied for 13th - right in the middle of the top 25. However, for a top 25 school, they're also pretty much something along the lines of replacement level. Are they really any different from UCLA (#25), or even, for that matter, Michigan (#29), NYU (#33) or Wisconsin (#45)? On the other hand, nobody is confusing Hopkins or Wash U with Harvard, Princeton or Yale (#s 1, 2 and 3).
   12. Fancy Pants Handles lap changes with class Posted: December 24, 2010 at 10:58 PM (#3717516)
In this scenarion, having an "average" catcher is just barely better than having one of the worst catchers and significantly worse than having one of the best catchers.

And since Posada is now apparently a DH, none of those catchers are now in the AL east.

So essentially what you are saying is that the Red Sox catching situation is basically the same as everyone else's. I don't see how this qualifies as a black hole of suck.
   13. Joe Bivens, Minor Genius Posted: December 24, 2010 at 11:33 PM (#3717530)
The Red Sox will add a catcher by spring training, one that will make the team.
   14. Colonel Lagis Posted: December 25, 2010 at 12:15 AM (#3717564)
And since Posada is now apparently a DH, none of those catchers are now in the AL east.

So essentially what you are saying is that the Red Sox catching situation is basically the same as everyone else's. I don't see how this qualifies as a black hole of suck.


Well, unless the Sox are just shooting for the AL East championship and not a World Series, I don't think comparing the Sox catching situation with only other AL East teams really makes sense.

In any event, I never said the Sox catchers were a black hole of suck. My post was, more than anything, a comment on the following statement in the intro:

First, I think our baselines should be statistical projections and league averages.


The question is, why should our baseline be average? We are used to using averages as a meaningful indicator because we are used to phenomena around us being distributed normally. However, where that is not the case, average does not mean what it generally means to us. This can lead to situations where the gulf between two persons' opinions/projections of a player may appear much larger than it actually is because one says a player is average and the other says the same player is pretty bad. Average and bad are generally fairly distinct in populations that are distributed normally, so our instinct is to think of them as such, even in scenarios such as the one in question where the difference between average and bad is minimal as compared to the difference between average and good.

You can also think about the above in the following terms: assuming the Sox catchers have "true talent" levels somewhere around the projections above and that there will be random season-to-season variation in results, it is much more likely that the Sox catchers will be very bad than that they will be very good. However, when you say they are average, it is natural to think they are just as likely to be good as they are to be bad (that's certainly my first instinct). So, the concept of average can be highly misleading.
   15. Fancy Pants Handles lap changes with class Posted: December 25, 2010 at 12:48 AM (#3717577)
You can also think about the above in the following terms: assuming the Sox catchers have "true talent" levels somewhere around the projections above and that there will be random season-to-season variation in results, it is much more likely that the Sox catchers will be very bad than that they will be very good.

This is just flat out wrong. You are bascally claiming that average catchers are bad. They aren't, they are average. A "true talent" .700 OPS player is no more or less likely to put up a .650 or .750 OPS, just because the telent at the position is distributed unevenly.
   16. fret Posted: December 25, 2010 at 02:21 AM (#3717609)
MCoA, on the other thread there was discussion about trends, and their predictive value. You said research has shown them to be useless, and I was wondering about the details of that.

Is this actually well-established? I tried to find a study on the topic (surely someone has looked at it before!) but came up empty. I don't mean to be argumentative, just hoping that someone has better knowledge than I do.
   17. Jim Wisinski Posted: December 25, 2010 at 02:45 AM (#3717612)
But do teams usually platoon catchers based on righty/lefty matchups?


The Rays did so with Shoppach and Jaso this year. I expect more of the same in 2011 but maybe with Jaso getting some of the starts against lefties as well to see if he can handle them well enough to be a future starter against them. He only had 58 PAs against them in 2010, hitting .191/.333/.277 with a 10/10 BB/K ratio, so there's some potential for adequacy.
   18. Colonel Lagis Posted: December 25, 2010 at 03:11 AM (#3717624)
This is just flat out wrong. You are bascally claiming that average catchers are bad. They aren't, they are average. A "true talent" .700 OPS player is no more or less likely to put up a .650 or .750 OPS, just because the telent at the position is distributed unevenly.


You are falling into the exact trap I was talking about. That is, you are equating statistical average with colloquial average. Catcher talent in MLB is not distributed normally. So, yes, I am saying there is not much of a difference between a statistically average catcher and a statistically crappy catcher - much less of a difference than between a statistically average catcher and a statistically good catcher. Therefore, even granting that a .700 OPS catcher is equally likely to put up a .650 OPS or a .750 OPS (and I did not state otherwise above, though I don't know if that's true - the likelihood of raising OPS versus that of lowering OPS likely depends on the starting point), my statement stands, as a catcher with .650 OPS is likely to be among the worst catchers, while one with a .750 OPS will be good, but still below the performance of the best catchers.

Just think about it - do you think Varitek/Salty are closer to (a) Jason Kendall/Matt Treanor or to (b) Joe Mauer/Buster Posey?
   19. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: December 25, 2010 at 05:30 AM (#3717661)
I don't understand the point.

I certainly agree that major league baseball players are not arranged on a normal distribution curve, but instead are the very thin end of the tail. This is why the best players in baseball put up 10 WAR seasons, but the worst end up around -3 WAR.

It does not follow in any clear way from this fact that either average or replacement level is a bad point of comparison. Are you suggesting that because Joe Mauer is really really great, that average catchers are not worth the money they're paid? Or that a ballclub should be unhappy with having an average player? In neither case do I agree, and in neither case does the distribution of MLB talent serve as evidence for the point.

You're making a good case for paying Joe Mauer truckloads of cash - because he's so much better than the average catcher, and such a rare baseball performer. The expected salary difference between average and replacement level is about ~$9M per year, and the difference between average and the best player in the league is something like $20-30M per year. This is well established. However, since baseball players are the thin end of the tail, there are very few ballplayers who are better than league average, and league average production is worth a solid investment of money and does not hold a team back from contention.

Are you arguing that a league average player is (a) not worth his expected contract, or (b) a hindrance to competing for the playoffs? Doesn't that seem really, really unlikely, when you think about it?
   20. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: December 25, 2010 at 05:53 AM (#3717668)
Is this actually well-established? I tried to find a study on the topic (surely someone has looked at it before!) but came up empty. I don't mean to be argumentative, just hoping that someone has better knowledge than I do.
No, this is bugging me, too. I have a frustratingly specific memory of a study by Tango or MGL that I remember thinking established the point entirely, but I can't google it up. I've tried every few hours today. I could say that the fact there is no projection system takes tends into account beyond a weighted mean serves as indirect evidence of the point, but I am growing embarrassed about the way I keep throwing around the word "established" without good links.
   21. Petunia inquires about ponies Posted: December 25, 2010 at 05:53 PM (#3717756)
Are you suggesting that because Joe Mauer is really really great, that average catchers are not worth the money they're paid? Or that a ballclub should be unhappy with having an average player? In neither case do I agree, and in neither case does the distribution of MLB talent serve as evidence for the point.

It seems fairly clear to me that he is suggesting that 'an average catcher' is not a particularly useful concept here, because the population making up the world of MLB catchers is composed of a very small number of outstanding players and a big group of everyone else, the latter of whom are more or less qualitatively similar to each other, especially when compared against the really good ones. So in other words your 'league average AL catcher' in the original post is a fictional construct against which it's not terribly helpful to compare. At least that's how I read it, and I think it's a great point.

Merry Christmas Therapudlians!
   22. Joe Bivens, Minor Genius Posted: December 25, 2010 at 06:26 PM (#3717763)
Same to you.

I don't care if the catchers are "average", I just want them to be "good enough". Varitek was "good enough" in '04 and '07. I'll settle for that (the Varitek of '07, not the Varitek of '11). Who that is remains to be seen.
   23. Fancy Pants Handles lap changes with class Posted: December 25, 2010 at 06:35 PM (#3717766)
So, yes, I am saying there is not much of a difference between a statistically average catcher and a statistically crappy catcher - much less of a difference than between a statistically average catcher and a statistically good catcher.

But this is not actually true. What it actually meaans is that there aren't really many statiscally crappy catchers. Evan Kendall and Treanor arent that terrible. Running them out there isn't costing you that many runs. It's not killing you to the same degree that running Pedro Feliz or Casey Kotchman are at other positions.

What you're doing is defining slightly below average as terrible, because there isn't anybody worse. And then you are using that as reference point for everyone. And that makes no sense. The value of an individual player is not defined by the worst player (or the best) in the population. It's defined by the entire population. If say Kendal and Treanor are 2 wins worse, and Napoli and Wieters are 2 wins better, Salty/Tek don't suddenly become more valueable.
   24. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: December 25, 2010 at 07:42 PM (#3717784)
because the population making up the world of MLB catchers is composed of a very small number of outstanding players and a big group of everyone else, the latter of whom are more or less qualitatively similar to each other, especially when compared against the really good ones. So in other words your 'league average AL catcher' in the original post is a fictional construct against which it's not terribly helpful to compare.
That's how I read it too. The problem is that I don't understand how B follows from A. The population of baseball talent in MLB is not normally distributed because it represents the end of the tail of baseball talent in the world population. That's clear. I don't see how you move from there to dismissing "league average" or "replacement level". It's not self-evident. I'm open to having this explained to me, but I haven't seen an argument - the claim seems to move from demonstrating the non-normal distribution of talent to dismissing "league average" without explaining the connection between the fact and the conclusion.

I'm comparing to average to have a good basis for arguing that Salty/Tek should be acceptable catchers and should make quite a good platoon pair. People are rejecting "league average" for reasons I don't fully understand, and toward a purpose I don't fully understand. Is there some other reasonable standard of acceptable performance, higher than league average, that you want to point to in order to reject hte acceptability of Salty/Tek?

if we do reject "league average" as a construct, should we then say that only very good players (ie, guys in that 75th percentile and up) are useful players, and everyone else is unacceptable? No team has ever been built out of only 75th percentile players. That's a completely lunatic level of performance to consider as a baseline.

Or is this a purely academic argument - there's no disagreement that Salty and Tek are broadly acceptable catchers, but you're arguing I should show it by other means than league average? If so, what means would you recommend?

And a blissfully happy or appropriately solemn generic non-offesive celebratory day to all, as well.
   25. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: December 25, 2010 at 07:46 PM (#3717786)
What it actually meaans is that there aren't really many statiscally crappy catchers.
To be precise, of course there are tons of crappy catchers. Everyone catching in the Sally League would make a crappy MLB catcher. Most everyone catching in AA or AAA would make a crappy MLB catcher. I would make a legendarily crappy MLB catcher, as would Sandra Bullock. Most players who are that terrible don't get a chance, because the population of possible catchers includes lots of guys who are better than them, and will play for league minimum - that's where the idea of "replacement level" comes from. It's that level of performance for which the population of players is large enough that one of them can be acquired at nominal cost.

League average sits a couple wins above replacement level. It's a useful construct because it can be easily derived, and it sits a good couple steps above replacement level, so we know that players at that level are reasonably difficult to replace.
   26. Fancy Pants Handles lap changes with class Posted: December 25, 2010 at 08:49 PM (#3717808)
To be precise, of course there are tons of crappy catchers.

We were talking about the 13 AL catchers who had at least 250 AB's in 2010. I thought that was evident, but I should have been more careful with my wording.

By the way, that's not a particularly relevant group to use, when talking about 2011. Of those 13 I'd imagine there'll likely be about 8-9 that stil have 250 AB's in the AL next year, possibly less. Why are we ignoring NL catchers? Why are we ignoring the backup catchers with between 100 and 250 AB's that virtually all teams have?

When you are using that small a sample, you are practcally inviting irregular distribution in any case.
   27. pkb33 Posted: December 25, 2010 at 10:36 PM (#3717845)
This is the problem. As long as you have no other evidence than the "trend" in statistics, you have no evidence. This has been shown. Why persist in rejecting that?

Not sure what you are trying to say here, but if it is that we can't look at multi-year statistical patterns and draw conclusions I do not think there is evidence to support you here.

The challenge, speaking more generally, is that the sample size we need to have a high confidence level exceeds what we get in a single season. This leads some to say (and maybe this is what you are saying) that 'trends' that are comprised are smaller samples are not real. This is, so far as I've seen studied, not the case. Instead, it is that our confidence level in the trend being accurate should be lower. However, it should not be zero, either.
   28. Jose Can Still Seabiscuit Posted: December 28, 2010 at 07:51 PM (#3718972)
So MCoA and I went round and round on "trends" last week. I really don't like actually working for a living so I spent some time with an older version of Sean Lahman's database (1959-2005) to see if I might learn anything. I found;

1252 players had three successive seasons of declining OPS (what Saltalamacchia has done). Of those 1252 they split up as;

264 players did not play in season five (21%)
275 players continued the trend and were worse in season five (22%)
642 players bucked the trend and improved in season five (51%)
71 players had exactly the same OPS in year five as in year four (6%) - all 71 had 12 or fewer PA and at first glance most (if not all) were pitchers

So I guess this supports Matt's opinion that trends are not particularly useful. At a rough glance it's 50/50 between improving and not improving if you assume that players who don't play in season five don't play because of lack of performance.

Of interest to me is that the majority of players who played in year five improved (642 of 988 - 65%). This makes sense. A player with three successive seasons of decline is not likely to be kept around unless he is doing something to impress someone.

This is not something I do a lot of so if someone wants to check my work, by all means knock yourself out. I ran this using Excel so the idea that I might have flubbed something is not out of the question and if someone has done something more thorough I would be interested in seeing it.

I still think Saltalamacchia is going to suck though. Evidence be damned.
   29. Fancy Pants Handles lap changes with class Posted: December 28, 2010 at 08:12 PM (#3718989)
#28 nice legwork, but I don't support all of your conclusions.

if you assume that players who don't play in season five don't play because of lack of performance.


That's a stretch, if you don't play in year x, it's 98% based on your performance in year x-1. I would assume that a sizeable amount of those that were out of the league could have reproduced or improved upon their previous season if given a chance. Whether that would be enough to hold down a job is an entirely different matter.

Of interest to me is that the majority of players who played in year five improved (642 of 988 - 65%). This makes sense. A player with three successive seasons of decline is not likely to be kept around unless he is doing something to impress someone.


To a certain degree, but mostly it just matters whether the performance of the last season was still good enough to get a job. It's certainly possible that this is the case, but otoh a guy who has declined from 1.000 to .900 will definately still have a job (well maybe not if he's Barry Bonds).

Finally, you are completely ignoring aging, which is the one "trend" that is relevant, and will skew the numbers. I don't know anybody that denies that any given player past a certain age is likely to be worse the next season. So you should expect the percentage of players who rebound to decrease beyond a certain age.

Also, I would have used OPS+ over raw OPS, as players moving stadia will certainly impact your ability to identify those who actually had 4 consecutively declining seasons.
   30. Golfing Great Mitch Cumstein Posted: January 01, 2011 at 08:20 PM (#3721368)
As somebody looking from the outside, I think a preliminary question to be answered in regards to the issue of average is whether major league catcher talent is distributed differently than other positions.

Another issue I see is that the average you have posted, I assume the mean, will be better than the majority of catchers because of outliers like Mauer and something of a floor at the bottom end. So yes, average catching production will be closer to bad catchers, but it will still be better than most teams.

Another issue I think is the use of the 13 catchers with 250 AB's. That view doesn't account for the rest of a team's catcher at-bats. The Salty/Varitek situation assumes a certain level of platooning and that those two will account for almost all ab's. The other catchers among the 13 with 250 ab's are going to be spelled by players who are worse. When that is accounted for, the Red Sox situation seems better to me.
   31. Bug Selig Posted: January 04, 2011 at 10:25 PM (#3723402)
But do teams usually platoon catchers based on righty/lefty matchups?


I read a study (James?) that suggested that the optimal arrangement at catcher that combines effectiveness and rest is a platoon in which the better player is the LH-hitting player. Whitt/Martinez comes to mind.
   32. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: January 04, 2011 at 10:56 PM (#3723425)
Ryan Doumit is available.
   33. Paxton Crawford Ranch Posted: January 06, 2011 at 06:40 PM (#3724895)
The Sox claimed Max Ramirez off waivers. Now if Theo can just snag Taylor Teagarden, we'll have the best catching depth of 2008. Maybe they'd be interested in this Buchholz guy...

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Eugene Freedman
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 0.2542 seconds
41 querie(s) executed