A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from BurritoT. Show BurritoT's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I : Are you saying the team missed the PO's because of Tek? Please provide some back-up if this is UR position.
    Posted by harness[/QUOTE]

    If people are not willing to axe a couple of old players than they must not want to win that is all. Their specific inabilities don't matter anymore, what matters is bringing in youth and change.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    [QUOTE]" Their specific inabilities don't matter anymore, what matters is bringing in youth and change." Today's lesson Burrittooo: When two independent clauses are connected by only a comma, they constitute a run-on sentence. When you use a comma to connect two independent clauses, it must be accompanied by a little conjunction (and, but, for, nor, yet, or, so). Have a good day in your third grade class. Don't let harnass bully you and steal your lunch money. Tell an adult.
    Posted by 2004Idiots[/QUOTE]

    It's time you were banned. 
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    I DID make that bet with Moon, shortly after he offered it. It was like 6 to 1 odds. I rarely bet unless the odds are in my favor. My father gave me a total of $20 help going to college when he won at the track one day. I am not generally a gambler. I remember him pulling the $20 bill out of his pocket that day. It wasn't to help me. It was to show off his winnings. I had to work 2 and 3 jobs at a time to get through college. It is a lesson I remembered the rest of my life and never put my kids in that situation. Anyway, there should be a record that I did take that bet. I think Moon proposed it to be $20 with the payout to me of $120 if I won. And I mentioned that I didn't think Tek would be with the team anyway.

    Yes, boom did take the bet several weeks ago. We may not get a chance to see what happens, since softy's poll will determine that he will not be back. (Only popular players are brought back according to softy: Damon and Pedro were hated by fans.)
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I : If people are not willing to axe a couple of old players than they must not want to win that is all. Their specific inabilities don't matter anymore, what matters is bringing in youth and change.
    Posted by BurritoT[/QUOTE]

    Must not want to win?

    We were 42-22 with VTek catching. He hit better than about half MLB starting catchers in 2011. Yeah, he's the reason we lost. Most teams win way more with their back-up catcher playing.

    Wake was our 6th starter forced to pitch lomger than he should have been. We still went 12-11 with him. Yeah, he's the second reason we lost. Most teams have 15-8 number 6 guys.

    Their "inabilities" do matter. Nobody says they are perfect. Nobody wants Tek to catch 100+ games or Wake to be the 4th starter. What we are saying is that both have abilities that outweigh their inabilities enough to be very serviceable players for the roles they fill. There are other options out there, but some may be too costly of have their own set of inabilities.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    For the record, the Angels had issues with Napoli, namely Scioscia didn't care for him. They didn't want to pay for him to be a 1b-DH because they didn't want him to catch. With that said, I still liked him as a dangerous power hitter and he has a tremendous upside. Sometimes there are too much made of a catcher's skills behind the dish-as they aren't easily "graded." There were times I thought VMART was a good enough defensive catcher, but that was exposed over time even with Sox.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from BurritoT. Show BurritoT's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    Surely moon we are 42-22 with a lot of different players in the line-up.  Are we at least 42 and 22 with Pedey in the line-up?  How about AGon? Surely we must be a minimum of 42-22 with even Crawford in the line-up?

    It is ridiculous you would even try to justify his presence with such a silly stat.

    league's best offense and you act like Tek is a factor in our wins?  LOL. Common now. If he were a pitcher based on your logic he would be 20-10 with an ERA of 7.50 and you would say it was a good thing. Try counting on that pitcher come go time... same as Tek, he won't get you a WSC any more than Ed Jurak.

    Please ... your one of the brightest people here, don't keep up this lame argument any longer.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    If Tek were not worth a pick I'd want him back. I'm taking the pick if he declines arb. He may not even be offered arb but I think he will still catch on somewhere, if not here. He's in tremendous shape.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    For the record, the Angels had issues with Napoli, namely Scioscia didn't care for him. They didn't want to pay for him to be a 1b-DH because they didn't want him to catch. With that said, I still liked him as a dangerous power hitter and he has a tremendous upside. Sometimes there are too much made of a catcher's skills behind the dish-as they aren't easily "graded." There were times I thought VMART was a good enough defensive catcher, but that was exposed over time even with Sox.

    As much as I value CERA and "catcgher relevance compared to many others, I was big on trying to get Napoli last winter, as a PT catcher/PT 1B-DH and our FT DH from 2012 on.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    Surely moon we are 42-22 with a lot of different players in the line-up.  Are we at least 42 and 22 with Pedey in the line-up?  How about AGon? Surely we must be a minimum of 42-22 with even Crawford in the line-up?

    1) I doubt any positional player has a better winning% when they play than Tek.
    2) It's not the only stat I use to defend VTek. I used CERA, OPS against when he catches the same pitchers as compared to Salty. I used his offense (OPS) compared ot other MLB catchers (he ranked 16th out of 60), and found that he was better than about half the full-time catchers, yet all i hear is he can't hit... well duh! Most catchers can't, but VTek is at least better than most in that area. Other players can effect how well a pitcher does, but not as much as the guy calling the pitches, location, and more.

    It is ridiculous you would even try to justify his presence with such a silly stat.

    It's not silly when the trend continues year after year after year for a decade.

    league's best offense and you act like Tek is a factor in our wins?  LOL. Common now.

    We had the same offense when Salty caught, but lost more than we won, even though Salty was better offensively. The same happened with VMart, who was way better offensively. We won more with Tek. Even if you throw out the Beckett games, we still win/won more.

    It's not a fluke. It is directly related to the fact that when Vtek catches the same pitchers as Salty, Vmar, Kottaras, and on and on,  the pitchers do better (some do way better), and of course that leads to wins.

    If he were a pitcher based on your logic he would be 20-10 with an ERA of 7.50 and you would say it was a good thing. Try counting on that pitcher come go time... same as Tek, he won't get you a WSC any more than Ed Jurak.

    ERA of 7.50? Where do you get that from? We win with Vtek for several reasons:
    1) He's not as bad of a hitting catcher as many think. In fact his OPS was better than 22 team catcher OPS in 2011.    22 teams had a worse hitting catcher OPS!!!
    2) Our pitchers do better whn he catches them, despite the worse CS%.

    This is not some silly small sample size fluke. VTek caught more innings than all but 2 back-up MLB catchers. VTek has repeated the same thing for nearly a decade. Call it luck. Call it Voodoo. Call it "silly". But, when it happenes every year, I'm going to chalk it up to skill not luck. A repeatable skill. A projectable skill.
    Please ... your one of the brightest people here, don't keep up this lame argument any longer.

    The win-loss argumant is just a small part of my case I have made. You may not like to read numbers and just skip over them, but i have presented a lot of data to show that the wins are based on clear differences between VTek and his teammate catchers through the years. Very clear and consistent disparities. You and others want to ignore the facts and call me "lame", fine. I'm sticking to my solid argumant of what Vtek has done. I realize at his age, it could all turn sour any day or minute, but the skills VTek possesses are not really age-related, so I don't see a decline in sucess, unless he gets hurt.

    When VTek catches, we are more likely to let up less runs: that improves our odds of winning, and the odds pay off every year.

    Care to take the 6:1 odds I gave Boom on $20?
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from jidgef. Show jidgef's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    Napoli is having a great season and an even better post season. I do think the Cardinals are making him look like a little better thrower than he is, but he does have a pretty good arm and fairly quick release. I do also believe that he ran a bit afoul of Scocia in LA while Scocia was falling in love with Mathis, which made him expendable. Toronto also had him for a week or so in the winter and they could certainly have used him. I just love the way he mashes high fastballs which would get most hitters to swing and miss. I also like it when fat catchers can become world Series heroes; makes me feel like I cuddah been that guy!
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    I do also believe that he ran a bit afoul of Scocia in LA while Scocia was falling in love with Mathis, which made him expendable.

    It makes you wonder why, doesn't it?

    I mean Mathis has never even had an OBP higher than .288. His highest BA? .211.

    From 2007 to 2011, Jeff had the worst catcher OPS in MLB (.579) out of 41 catchers with 700 PAs or more.  Jose Molina was 2nd worst at .606, and the next guys were over .629. He was about in a class all by himself in positional comparative analysis, and yet, the Angels chose to trade Napoli and gave Mathis almost 700 innings behind the plate in 2011.

    As a hitter, he makes Tek look like Fisk.

    Contrast that with Napoli's very good hitting in LA, and we know there's at leat one manager who believes in "catcher relevance".
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    If Tek were not worth a pick I'd want him back. I'm taking the pick if he declines arb. He may not even be offered arb but I think he will still catch on somewhere, if not here. He's in tremendous shape.

    And if he turns down arb, that pick may prevent teams from making an offer as well, thereby swelling softy's head by falsely making him believe no "sane GM" would want Tek in 2012 for $1M.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from fivekatz. Show fivekatz's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    [QUOTE]If Tek were not worth a pick I'd want him back. I'm taking the pick if he declines arb. He may not even be offered arb but I think he will still catch on somewhere, if not here. He's in tremendous shape. And if he turns down arb, that pick may prevent teams from making an offer as well, thereby swelling softy's head by falsely making him believe no "sane GM" would want Tek in 2012 for $1M.
    Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE]Isn't it a sandwich pick at this point unlike after 2008 when Tek's longer body of work calculated him as a Type A?
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    [QUOTE]Tampa Bay is a 2nd rate contender, you blithering bozo. 

    You said Texas was a 2nd rate contender on a thread rating the PO teams before the PO's began. That was what I was alluding to...and you know it.


    You claimed over and over that Napoli was playing first because of his CERA.

    How many games has Napoli caught this season, brightbulb?
    Given the Texas staff and facing the likes of the Rays/Tigers/Cards, the staff has given up 43 runs in 11 games. Is this so hard to comprehend? 

    You cherry-pick a few games against an N.L. team. Cheap, loser tactics you are known for. You want a short sample against a better CARDINAL team?

    Tek vs. Cards in 2004 series: 0.90 ERA.
    Let me repeat:



    Tek: 0.90 CERA


    His CERA for the year was 4.18. Am I getting thru that thick skull? It was a short sample size.


    Varitek was on the shelf which forced Lavarnway to enter a do or die playoff situation.

    Dice was on the shelf most of the year. Players get hurt, fool.


    Your comments on Napoli are completely delusional.
    Posted by hankwilliams

    Your lack of understanding of the concept exposes your lack of intellect regarding pitching/catching/pitcher-catcher equation.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    Isn't it a sandwich pick at this point unlike after 2008 when Tek's longer body of work calculated him as a Type A?

    Yes, I believe so, but I have also heard sandwich pick's monetary value is about $5M, so if that number is even close to correct, who would give that up for a $1M catcher?

    My point is that if the draft pick is at stake, VTek not getting any or many offers would not be a sign that no GM wants him.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from fivekatz. Show fivekatz's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    [QUOTE]Isn't it a sandwich pick at this point unlike after 2008 when Tek's longer body of work calculated him as a Type A? Yes, I believe so, but I have also heard sandwich pick's monetary value is about $5M, so if that number is even close to correct, who would give that up for a $1M catcher? My point is that if the draft pick is at stake, VTek not getting any or many offers would not be a sign that no GM wants him.
    Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE]Is the $5M hard money or opportunity cost? My undertsanding has always been a supplementary round and that the team signing the player doesn't lose anything. It is a very different kettle of fish to say a sandwich pick is worth $5M to the team getting it than it is to say it worth $5M to the team signing a Type B.

    To be honest I couldn't find anything one way or the other in a quick search so I was wondering if you knew more about that valuation. Considering how many utility and relievers get signed as Typr B often with no promise of making the team I don't the sandwich pick would be quite the road block that it was for a team to give up their first round pick and deal with Boras' inflated valuation of Tek's value after 2008.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    You claimed over and over that Napoli was playing first because of his CERA.

    How many games has Napoli caught this season, brightbulb?


    Allow me the honors, harness...

    Napoli started 57 games at catcher (35%). Varitek caught 40%, and softy rails on him for getting hurt for 3 games of the year.

    Imagine this: the Rangers started a catcher with a worse OPS than VTek more times than Napoli!
    I repeat, Texas started a catcher who hits worse than VTek over Napoli more times than not. 
    Napoli:     1.046
    Torrealba: .705
    (If you figure in Treanor's PAs, the other catcher's OPS was under .700)
     
    Enough said?
    Hardly. I'll go on to tell the real story:
    Torrealba

    Innings by position:
    C: Torrealba  824
         M. Napoli  506 (35% : remember VTek played in 40%)
         Others      111

    1B: Moreland  799
           M. Young  302
           M. Napoli  246 (17%)
           C. Davis      94

    DH: (by PAs)
           Young  45%
           Napoli  11%
           Others 44%

    The manager pretty much had an even choice: play C-Torrealba (.705), 1B-Moreland (.733), or Murphy (.729) at DH when Young was playing 3B during Beltre's injury. Let Napoli play where he was best suited.
    He chose to let Napoli catch only 56% of his PAs.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    Is the $5M hard money or opportunity cost?

    I'd guess "opportunity cost". I remember a reputable poster wrote the value was about $5M on average, but I can't find any data to support that claim. Even if the pick was worth $1-2M, it would probably be enough to prevent many teams from signing VTek.

    My undertsanding has always been a supplementary round and that the team signing the player doesn't lose anything. It is a very different kettle of fish to say a sandwich pick is worth $5M to the team getting it than it is to say it worth $5M to the team signing a Type B.

    You may be right, but I thought I remembered we lost a second round pick when we signed type-B Scutaro.

    To be honest I couldn't find anything one way or the other in a quick search so I was wondering if you knew more about that valuation. Considering how many utility and relievers get signed as Typr B often with no promise of making the team I don't the sandwich pick would be quite the road block that it was for a team to give up their first round pick and deal with Boras' inflated valuation of Tek's value after 2008.

    If you are right, then I expect VTek to get several offers.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from hill55. Show hill55's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    The current Elias projections have Jason Varitek as the lowest-ranked Type B catcher. If that ranking holds up, the Red Sox would get a sandwich pick if Varitek declines an offer of arbitration and signs elsewhere. The signing team would not surrender a draft pick.

    http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2011/09/2010-11-reverse-engineered-elias-rankings.html
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    Yes, you are right. Team's do not lose picks if they sign a type B or lower. Scutaro was a type-A.
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I : I'm uploading a video file right now so I don't have time to look up everything again but I believe just a page or so ago I posted that in Young's entire 7 year career as A's pitching coach his staff had the BEST ERA IN the AL or the BEST ERA IN THE MAJORS (I can't remember) over that period. That is 7 years. That is not a fluke.Of course he had venue advantages. Who amoung us doesn't know that Oakland is a pitchers park? Nonetheless, over 7 years they ended up with at least the best ERA in the AL. And they did it with very little money.  

                                                               Posted by Boomerangsdotcom


    I'll try again. You are talking about  rating and stats that are primarily  due to venue.
    I'll post this again:

    {If you were fully  aware of venue issues, you'd know why the A's pitchers have league-leading numbers.
    Since 2003, this "tremendous" A's pitching staff has an ERA of 6.00 in Boston.
    Facing the RedSox in Oakland, it's 3.58. Get it? That's a 2 & 1/2 run disparity.
    Was Young's "management performance" at play here also?}

    Here's more:

    {Pitching cornerstones PO contenders. The A's have finished last or 2nd to last 4 of the last 5 years. That proves their pitching numbers are venue driven.

    In 2010, their best year in the last 5, they finished 81-81.
    Home: 3.04 ERA    1.162 WHIP     .629 OPP OPS
    Road: 4.15 ERA    1.397 WHIP    .756 OPP OPS}.




    Of course it's no fluke that it's existed 7 years. Likely longer.
    It's because of where they play and who they play.

    Here are the 2011 A's pitching numbers...without Young:
    Home 3.18 ERA  1.229 WHIP  OPP OPS .650
    Away: 4.18 ERA  1.398 WHIP  OPP OPS .740

    119 of the A's 162 games (73%) are played in Oakland/CA/Seattle: ALL PITCHING VENUES! Boston plays 117 of 162 games in Fenway/NY/Toronto: ALL HITTING VENUES.

    Here's the RedSox H/A this year:
    Home: 4.48 ERA  1.380 WHIP  OPP OPS  .741
    Away: 3.90 ERA  1.233 WHIP  OPP OPS  .684

    Here's the A's pitching in Boston/Toronto/NY this year: 118 ER in 158.6 IP 6.07 ERA. Repeat: 6.07 ERA.

    The proper way to measure this criteria is away from home venue and taking into consideration the unbalanced schedule and the level of comp. faced. Rating the A's staff against the rest of the league at face value is as faulty as rating the RedSox hitting against the rest of the league.

    In other words, if the A's and the RedSox switched divisions and ball parks, Boston's pitching would be ranked number one, and The A'sa staff would be lower tier. At the same time, Boston would not lead the league in hitting, and the A's hitting would be ranked much, much higher than it is now.

    That is why over the last 8 years - seen as the RedSox juggernaut hitting years, both the A's and the M's hitting at Fenway have clearly outhit Boston hitting in Oakland and Seattle.


    Away from home venue, Boston clearly had the better pitching staff, despite the injuries and playing in more hitting venues. Where were they ranked???

    Even with the Redsox, upon close examimantion we find that the relievers WHIP was the best in the league. We know that Beckett and Lester were good. Buchholz and Matsuzaka got hurt and I doubt if few us us blame Young for that. What is left? Lackey who single handedly killed the staff's ERA apparently because he pitched hurt. Wakefield who was less than ideal and guys like Wieland who had no business being with the mlb club in the first place and Miller who has failed miserably with every club he has pitched for. When we drill down to the details, it was mainly injuries and a lack of quality starting pitching depth which killed the staff. Theo was as much to blame as Young IMO but the main factor was clearly injuries.Matsuzaka, Buchholz and Lackey. Even some with Bedard, Beckett, and some of the relievers like Hill, Jenks...etc. If we seriously examine the situation, it was mainly injuries which killed the pitching staff.
    Posted by Boomerangsdotcom

    I'm not arguing this point. I've been saying similar over and over and over. That's why I criticized Hohler and all the rest of the garbage that points to other off-field areas as the cause of the collapse.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    [QUOTE]Surely moon we are 42-22 with a lot of different players in the line-up.  Are we at least 42 and 22 with Pedey in the line-up?  How about AGon? Surely we must be a minimum of 42-22 with even Crawford in the line-up? 1) I doubt any positional player has a better winning% when they play than Tek. 2) It's not the only stat I use to defend VTek. I used CERA, OPS against when he catches the same pitchers as compared to Salty. I used his offense (OPS) compared ot other MLB catchers (he ranked 16th out of 60), and found that he was better than about half the full-time catchers, yet all i hear is he can't hit... well duh! Most catchers can't, but VTek is at least better than most in that area. Other players can effect how well a pitcher does, but not as much as the guy calling the pitches, location, and more. It is ridiculous you would even try to justify his presence with such a silly stat. It's not silly when the trend continues year after year after year for a decade. league's best offense and you act like Tek is a factor in our wins?  LOL. Common now. We had the same offense when Salty caught, but lost more than we won, even though Salty was better offensively. The same happened with VMart, who was way better offensively. We won more with Tek. Even if you throw out the Beckett games, we still win/won more. It's not a fluke. It is directly related to the fact that when Vtek catches the same pitchers as Salty, Vmar, Kottaras, and on and on,  the pitchers do better (some do way better), and of course that leads to wins. If he were a pitcher based on your logic he would be 20-10 with an ERA of 7.50 and you would say it was a good thing. Try counting on that pitcher come go time... same as Tek, he won't get you a WSC any more than Ed Jurak. ERA of 7.50? Where do you get that from? We win with Vtek for several reasons: 1) He's not as bad of a hitting catcher as many think. In fact his OPS was better than 22 team catcher OPS in 2011.    22 teams had a worse hitting catcher OPS!!! 2) Our pitchers do better whn he catches them, despite the worse CS%. This is not some silly small sample size fluke. VTek caught more innings than all but 2 back-up MLB catchers. VTek has repeated the same thing for nearly a decade. Call it luck. Call it Voodoo. Call it "silly". But, when it happenes every year, I'm going to chalk it up to skill not luck. A repeatable skill. A projectable skill. Please ... your one of the brightest people here, don't keep up this lame argument any longer. The win-loss argumant is just a small part of my case I have made. You may not like to read numbers and just skip over them, but i have presented a lot of data to show that the wins are based on clear differences between VTek and his teammate catchers through the years. Very clear and consistent disparities. You and others want to ignore the facts and call me "lame", fine. I'm sticking to my solid argumant of what Vtek has done. I realize at his age, it could all turn sour any day or minute, but the skills VTek possesses are not really age-related, so I don't see a decline in sucess, unless he gets hurt. When VTek catches, we are more likely to let up less runs: that improves our odds of winning, and the odds pay off every year. Care to take the 6:1 odds I gave Boom on $20?
    Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE]

    Now I'm laughing! Burrito doesn't believe Tek's a difference maker, but I'll bet he won't touch your bet!!! Money talks. BS walks.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I : This is a very small sample size and statistically irrelevant. BTW, Mathis also became the primary starter because he was hitting better back then in California. The Angels let Napoli go because they had Conger coming up. Napoli has emerged as one of the top catchers in the game this year. Texas has been doing a lot of things right for quite a few years now. 
    Posted by Boomerangsdotcom[/QUOTE]

    Mathias was hitting better than what? He never hit higher than .211, had an OPS higher than .627 or an OBP higher than .276 once he became a regular.
    Yet he got more catching time than Napoli, who hit .251  .346 OBP  .831 OPS.

    What possibly justifies Mathis starting more games than Napoli?

    BTW: Mathis was also the primary starter this year, catching 93 games.
    His offensive numbers: .174 BA  .225 OBP  .484 OPS.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from GhostofTito. Show GhostofTito's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    The Angels always said Mathis was their "defensive/game calling" catcher.
    The tag of good hit, no field was foisted on Napoli almost as soon as he came up.
    Kind of like Lavarnway. Players get labeled and it's tough to change perceptions.
    Sure wish Theo had landed Napoli when he was available. We always knew he could hit in Fenway.

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    [QUOTE]The Angels always said Mathis was their "defensive/game calling" catcher. The tag of good hit, no field was foisted on Napoli almost as soon as he came up. Kind of like Lavarnway. Players get labeled and it's tough to change perceptions. Sure wish Theo had landed Napoli when he was available. We always knew he could hit in Fenway.
    Posted by GhostofTito[/QUOTE]

    Give me a break. It wasn't a matter of labeling. Napoli played for one team for 5 years. Scioscia is a GG ex-catcher who knows how catchers affect pitching staffs.
    The team had a .661 winning PCT. with Mathis catching.
    It was .600 w/Napoli.
     

Share