schneider@vlnvax.DEC (08/23/85)
[Summary: David Rubin made disparaging remarks concerning the Batting Average statistic, basically saying it was inept when compared to On Base Percentage]. >> BA and OBA measure different aspects of the game. Inherently they are >> correlated, but neither can do justice in explaining a player's >> offensive contribution... > What OB measures is more closely associated with runs produced that > what BA measures... > ...OB and SA, when taken together, outshine > any other combination of official stats. The second sentiment is not true. In my mind, batting average is not a primary tool to describe a players runs produced. It has another task, and I'm quite happy with it. On Base Percentage fits in the same mold. That someone has developed their own method of approximating runs produced using OB does not justify the abuse which you are giving BA. Bill James' Runs Created Formula outshines "OB and SA [...] taken together", but this does not render OB meaningless (nor SA). >> .... But Pena has quite a few years on Carter, giving him the edge >> in current value in my book. It depends on the team, but in general I'll >> take the younger Pena. > ...Pena is 28, Carter 31. I thought Pena was younger; I may have to reassess. > Carter will probably catch until, say, 34; Pena, while having a longer > way to go, appears durable (defensively), and so we'll assume the > same. That's 3 more for Carter, 6 for Pena. Carter is so productive > offensively, though, that he will continue to play everyday even after > he stops catching (I expect him to be Foster's successor in left > field); Obvious DH material. Maybe by that time, the NL will realize the folly of its obstinence (:^). > Pena may have a tough time establishing himself as an > outfielder or first baseman after he's through as a catcher. Even in > his best year (1984), Pena was less productive at the plate than most > NL outfielders, although this would not preclude him from playing with > a weaker team. Perhaps. I was wrong about his age; maybe its because while its only three years, its more than three seasons of catching. If so, my case gets stronger. Carter should already be catching less games as a matter of course to extend his (catching) career. Knowing the Mets haven't had a decent catcher since Stearns was healthy (I don't remember the year), they may not be so willing to allow this, especially since they may be involved in pennant races for the next few years. > Thus, for the next three (or so) years, both Carter and Pena will > remain top catchers; for the three years after that, Carter will be a > premier outfielder and Pena an ace catcher; for the three years > after that, Pena may be a benchman for a good team or a starting > outfielder/firstbaseman for a weaker one. Carter's value will drop > off more rapidly than Pena's in the future, as Carter approaches his > likely retirement, but the above description suggests to me that > Carter might still have more current value. To decide on how much career is left, I'd rather look at number of games played at catcher. I believe Yogi is tops in this field with around 2000, though Jim Sundberg may extend that if he can hit his weight. As I said, I think there is more than a three year difference in these terms. Also I don't see Carter being a full-time outfielder in the NL, much less a "premier" one, unless they go around tearing up the phony-turf and replacing it with the real green. After your anticipated three more years behind the plate, he'll be one slow outfielder with knees that will force him to miss quite a few games on some of those road trips. I can't speculate on Pena's post-catching career. I would predict that his offensive performance will continue to rise, particularly if the Pittsburgh franchise can straighten itself out or Pena can get out. > ...He will, in my opinion, > be more valuable in the first period, and obviously less valuable in > the third; the question hinges on whether and to what extent it is > better to have an excellent hitting outfielder with a great arm and > limited range or a superb defensive catcher with a good bat albeit > with limited power. > David Rubin > {allegra|astrovax|princeton}!fisher!david It would be interesting to compile a list showing how other "offensive" catchers deal(t) with their "advanced" baseball age. Those who come to mind are: Yogi Berra - successfully shifted to left field in a platoon role, while still catching some. I doubt whether the same feat could be performed today. Johnny Bench - Remember he demanded that the Reds play him elsewhere. Didn't really have it in the field and was losing it at the plate when he retired. Thurman Munson - For a few years was trying to find a new position as his body was starting to betray him. Probably had no more than two or three years left (not much catching) when his plane crashed. Carlton Fisk - Remarkably has returned from various injuries and is still catching and leading the league in HRs to boot! 37 years old. Feel free to add more to this list. Remember I'm talking about catchers who would bat in the middle of any lineup. {decvax}!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-vlnvax!schneider Daniel Schneider