dpb@philabs.UUCP (Paul Benjamin) (07/15/85)
David Rubin writes: > > c Carter NY 4 > c Pena Pit 3 > >Obviously a two horse race from the start, this ended much more >closely then I expected. I don't believe Pena's defense, at most >marginally better than Carter's, makes up for what Carter has thus >far done with the bat. Good thing I didn't disqualify myself from >voting. Looks like Pena has enough support to expect to be inserted >in the seventh inning. Of course, you are entitled to your opinion, as incorrect as it is. Pena's defense leaves Carter, and the others, in the dust. Every time I listen to a game, the announcers are saying, "... so-and-so, one of the best defensive catchers in the game." Just last weekend, I heard this about Yeager, Pena, Carter, and Jody Davis. Not every- body can be one of the best. In fact, Yeager and Davis are good, Carter is very good, and Pena is the best defensively in the NL (I can't speak about the AL as I don't see them as much.) I watch every Met game, nearly every Braves game, and nearly all Cub games on Cable TV, so I see Carter, Davis and Pena a lot. Pena's arm is by far the best. His overall defense is better. The stops he makes of bad pitches are amazing. In addition, his offense is slighted. He hits for higher percentage than the others, and has good extra-base power. His speed on the basepaths is much better than the others - perhaps you might have read that he scored from first-base on a single a few games ago? How many catchers do that? He is a .300 hitter with 15 or so homers a year, bat- ting in a terrible lineup. Over the last few years, he usu- ally batted sixth or seventh, often with only Dale Berra (!) behind him. Don't ask me why he was batted there, ask Chuck Tanner. Two years ago, when Madlock, Thompson, etc. were still hitting OK, Pena led the team in game-winning hits. Maybe that is why he was left in that spot - he produces. (Last year, they didn't win enough games for anyone to get many game-winning hits.) The point is that if he were hitting third or fourth, ahead of people like Strawberry and Foster, his stats would obviously improve. (At this point in the season, Carter has a some extra HRs and a few more RBI, while batting in a clearly better lineup. Big deal.) If you didn't expect it to be this close, it's because you don't really perceive Pena's ability. The Gold Glove voters do, because they gave it to Pena, when it would have been easy to stick with the previous consensus winner - Car- ter. Pena is the most entertaining player I've seen in quite a while. His all-out performance and obvious enjoyment of the game are great to watch. It's too bad he plays for Pittsburgh, for if he played in a media center, he'd be a much bigger star.
david@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin) (07/19/85)
[>>=Rubin, >=Benjamin, =Rubin II] >>........................ I don't believe Pena's defense, at most >>marginally better than Carter's, makes up for what Carter has thus >>far done with the bat. ......................................... > ...................... Pena's defense leaves Carter, and the > others, in the dust. ....................................... > ............. Pena's arm is by far the best. His overall > defense is better. The stops he makes of bad pitches are > amazing. The most important measured defensive contribution a catcher makes is the slowing of the opposition's running game. Two teams have consistently been the toughest to run on the past few years. They featured veteran pitching staffs of high quality and rifle-armed catchers behind the plate. They were, of course, Montreal and Pittsburgh. No objective difference between the two club's ability to shut down an opposition running game are discernible (Montreal was a wee bit tougher); thus, no difference between the two catcher's abilities in this respect are demonstrable. Somewhat less critical is the number of bad pitches stopped by the catcher. I have watched both Pena and Carter with equal frequency (up until this year). I can see no difference. I doubt anyone really can. I will admit that Pena covers a little more ground in foul territory, and gets to the ball in front of home plate a wee bit quicker. However, those attributes are unlikely to be decisive in more than one game every decade, at least in the differences in ability we are discussing here. I stand by my choice of the word "marginal". Finally, the catcher's most important defensive contribution is unmeasured: the call of the game. Because it is unmeasured, it is often neglected. That is, of course, leads to a distorted view of a catcher's defensive value. However, because it is unmeasured, I will ignore it for the purposes of this discussion, satisfying myself with noting that, while many disinterested observers claim Carter is the best at calling a game in the majors today, few claim that distinction for Pena. > In addition, his offense is slighted. He hits for > higher percentage than the others, and has good extra-base > power. If by higher percentage, you mean a higher batting average, some years yes, some years no. If you mean a higher on base percentage, you are dead wrong: Tony Pena doesn't know the meaning of the words "base on balls" (odd, for a catcher, isn't it?). Finally, Carter's power and Pena's power are of different orders of magnitude. Remember also that Pena's stats were generated in a park moderately favoring hitters, while Carter's were generated in a park second only to the Astrodome (before dimension changes of this year) in depressing hitting statistics. > His speed on the basepaths is much better than the > others - perhaps you might have read that he scored from > first-base on a single a few games ago?....................... He does have better speed. Excellent for a catcher, unremarkable for anyone else. Again, this does not win many ballgames. > ..... He is a .300 hitter with 15 or so homers a year, bat- > ting in a terrible lineup. He is not a .300 hitter, and he doesn't hit 15 or so homers a year. If my memory serves me well, he's more a .280 hitter who hits 12 or so homers a year. A thin .280, too -- few walks. If you wish to contest me on this point, I will actually look it up. The Pirate lineup hasn't been as bad as you make it out to be. Pittsburgh lost it's oomph in the last few years. Chuck Tanner also had a damn good reason to bat Pena sixth instead of third -- he swings at everything. Mangers prefer the more disciplined hitters to precede the unreconstructed free swingers. The fact that Pena is finally batting third is due in no small measure to the abysmal performance of the rest of the team so far. Before this season (and last), Pena had played on generally good offensive teams. Certainly better than the Expos of the first half dozen years of Carter's career. > Two years ago, when Madlock, Thompson, etc. were still > hitting OK, Pena led the team in game-winning hits. Game winning rbi's is the silliest statistic yet invented. It's a random crap shoot among people batting in the middle of good line ups. > ............................ It's too bad he [Pena] plays for > Pittsburgh, for if he played in a media center, he'd be a > much bigger star. Carter made HIS reputation in a foreign country.... David Rubin {allegra|astrovax|princeton}!fisher!david
dpb@philabs.UUCP (Paul Benjamin) (07/23/85)
*** REPLACE THIS NEWSGROUP WITH NET.SPORT.BASEBALL.STRIKE *** [Rubin, Benjamin, Rubin II, Benjamin II] > The most important measured defensive contribution a catcher makes > is the slowing of the opposition's running game. Two teams have > consistently been the toughest to run on the past few years. They > featured veteran pitching staffs of high quality and rifle-armed > catchers behind the plate. They were, of course, Montreal and > Pittsburgh. No objective difference between the two club's ability > to shut down an opposition running game are discernible (Montreal was > a wee bit tougher); thus, no difference between the two catcher's > abilities in this respect are demonstrable. Some statistics, please, for these assertions? Even if the stats are true, the fact that Montreal has a much faster team than Pgh (check the stats for last year and this one) means that Pgh faces a tougher average opponent than Montreal, as far as speed is concerned). Thus, if there is "no objective difference" in how they stop thefts, then Pgh is clearly better at stopping the running game. (If you want me to add the thefts for the league without Pgh vs. the league vs. Montreal, figure the percentage difference, and post it, just yell.) > Somewhat less critical is the number of bad pitches stopped by the > catcher. I have watched both Pena and Carter with equal frequency (up > until this year). I can see no difference. I doubt anyone really > can. I hate to point this out again, but the Gold Glove voters obviously can see a difference. They probably know more than you or I do about the relative strengths of their arms, and their ability to stop bad pitches. What I have read is that Pena's arm is much better. It looks that way on the tube, too. By the way, where is evidence for your statement that this is less critical than throwing out runners? I might agree on this, but without evidence, it is just unsupported opinion. > If by higher percentage, you mean a higher batting average, some years > yes, some years no. If you mean a higher on base percentage, you are > dead wrong: Tony Pena doesn't know the meaning of the words "base on > balls" (odd, for a catcher, isn't it?). Finally, Carter's power and > Pena's power are of different orders of magnitude. Pena's batting averages for the four years he has played are .300, .296, 25 points higher than Carter. Do you have fig- ures to support your statement that Carter more than makes up the difference in on-base pct? Pena hit 15 HRs each of the last two years. Carter has aver- aged about 23 HRs a year, including seasons of 16, 17 and 19. You call the difference between 15 and 23 an order of magnitude? Perhaps you should study a bit more math :-) By the way, Carter hit 31 HR's in '77, promising a great power career, but never hit 30 again! If you want a power-hitting catcher, try Parrish - he averages about 30 a year, and is improving. (That means that Parrish outpowers Carter by about the same margin that Carter outpowers Pena.) > Remember also that > Pena's stats were generated in a park moderately favoring hitters, while > Carter's were generated in a park second only to the Astrodome (before > dimension changes of this year) in depressing hitting statistics. I see. Park matters more than surrounding lineup. Where is your evidence for this? I disagree completely. I think it varies on a situational basis. In the Pirate lineup, the only two hitters that represent threats (Jason Thompson and Pena) are constantly pitched around. Hence, try to put them together in the lineup. But, as you point out, Pena is not a good #3 hitter - he doesn't make enough contact to bat third (neither does Carter), so this was abandoned. However, Pena is still hitting as well as he did at this point two years ago, when he finished at .300 and 15 HRs. Like many latin players, he heats up when the weather does. At any rate, Pgh's park is hardly a great hitter's park. ERA championships are not won by teams in hitter's parks. > He does have better speed. Excellent for a catcher, unremarkable for > anyone else. Again, this does not win many ballgames. Wrong again! As just one example, do you remember the 1982 St. Louis team? They were a speed team, crafted for their park, but they won anywhere. Speed is a crucial factor in baseball. By this, I do not mean just stolen bases, but speed, e.g., going first to third on a single, causing an infielder to rush a throw, avoiding a double play, etc. The opinions of many baseball people that I have read recently seem to agree that speed is becoming more and more impor- tant, especially with the advent of artificial turf. (Also check out this year's St. Louis team.) > He is not a .300 hitter, and he doesn't hit 15 or so homers a year. > If my memory serves me well, he's more a .280 hitter who hits 12 or so > homers a year. A thin .280, too -- few walks. If you wish to contest > me on this point, I will actually look it up. You'd better look it up. Perhaps your disks need rebooting! To put Pena's offensive ability in focus, perhaps we might contrast it in two ways: 1) with Dave Parker last year (his stats are on the same page): AVG R HR RBI SB Parker .285 73 16 94 11 Pena .286 77 15 78 12 despite Parker's getting 10% more at bats, and hitting in a stronger lineup. (Everybody who didn't play for Pgh. hit in a stronger lineup!) If Dave Parker had been a Gold Glove catcher last year, you'd have heard a LOT about it! But Pena plays in Pittsville for a lousy team, so you hear relatively little. 2) with Carter last year (Carter's best all-around offensive year) Carter .294 75 27 106 2 Pena .286 77 15 78 12 Carter does have the HR's, but in total runs (R + RBI - HR) we see: Carter 154 Pena 140 This reflects the contribution to the team's scoring, which is the ONLY important thing for winners. If you look at Montreal's scoring versus Pgh last year, you see (once again) that Montreal outscored Pgh by much more than 10%, so that Pena contributed a great deal to Pgh's offense. It requires great obstinacy to say that if Pena had batted in a good lineup, that he wouldn't have gotten 14 more total runs. Thus I reiterate, "If Pena played on a good team, he would be a star." > The Pirate lineup hasn't been as bad as you make it out to be. > Pittsburgh lost it's oomph in the last few years. But Pena has played only the last few years. And the Pirates have more than lost oomph, the offense has disintegrated. Only the Giants are worst in scoring runs, and by a decimal point. The good offenses in the NL are outscoring the Pirates by well over a run a game. You seem to underplay the importance that the surrounding lineup means to a player's stats. > Before this season (and last), Pena had > played on generally good offensive teams. Certainly better than the > Expos of the first half dozen years of Carter's career. So, you admit the importance of the surrounding lineup! Again, Pena has played fulltime for only the last 3 years, and parttime for one year before that. Also, you seem to be blithely ignoring the fact that Carter was part of those Expo teams that were supposed to win it all for a few years in a row, but failed every time. Those were very talented teams. > Game winning rbi's is the silliest statistic yet invented. It's a > random crap shoot among people batting in the middle of good line ups. Where are your numbers to support such a statement? When a player makes a relatively heavy contribution to a team's scoring, and drives in so many game-winners, it CAN'T be ignored, (unless you really are trying hard :-) ).