From: Ruben Safir on
On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 04:22:35 -0800, jonathan wrote:

> Isn't that weird.  A few 100,000 players have played the game since the
> 1870's and all the players most similar to Piazza are catchers....
>
> You don't waste a 900 OPS in the catchers position if you help it.  Like
> Joe Torre, you move them the heck out of there so they can hit.
>
> Ruben

>Again, so you would have moved all of the above players so they would
>have had longer offensive careers and reserve the catching position
>for the likes of Henry Blanco.

>I realize all of the above players did move, but it was at the point
>that their offensive effectiveness was starting to wane. Torre and
>Craig Biggio are the two players that come to mind that were moved.


Pretty much, yeah. I don't need to intentionally go looking for a 240
hitter to play catcher, but I would take the most explosive offense force
in baseball and move him out from behind the plate, or in the case of a
player like Babe Ruth, out from behind the mound. And THEN, they would
not only last longer, but they would hit better.

BTW - in the case of Joe Torre, he certainly wasn't on the wane as an
offensive player. He moved to 3rd base and won an MVP.

Ruben
From: Ruben Safir on
On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 04:48:12 -0800, jonathan wrote:


> I'm sorry Ruben, but I still disagree. Value is a function of what it
> takes to replace that player. Piazza is, to this point, unique in
> baseball history. There is no player who can replace him. That makes
> him incredibly valuable. Lou Gehrig was not unique. Albert Pujols or
> Hank Greenberg could replace him. In today's game, Pujols is unique
> because there is no other player in the game who can do what he does,
> regardless of his position. Because Piazza was a catcher, the Mets are
> gaining offense at a normally offense-deprived position. This
> theoretically would have allowed them to get offense at other positions
> and theoretically be a stronger roster as a result.



It doesn't work like that in the real world. You have nine guys on the
field and the Mets would have been much better off if Piazza was at 1st
base and Todd Zeile was catching.

Ruben
From: Ruben Safir on
On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 04:48:12 -0800, jonathan wrote:

> Arod as a SS was one of the rarest commodities in baseball history.



Your making a mistake. If AROD was still playing SS he'd had likely
played less games and his hitting would be waining. It was a smart move,
regardless of why it was made, and it does support his production and
will extend his career.

Ruben
From: Ruben Safir on
On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 04:48:12 -0800, jonathan wrote:


> Whatever Ruben . . . you're not even listening at this point because
> you're so convinced that you're right you won't hear it.



not at all. I just don't agree with this theory, two of them actually.
The first is that defense is equal to offense. I disagree completely.
First, defense has greater or lesser value depending on the position.
Secondly, for many positions, such as the corner OF positions, as long as
the guy is making the routine plays, he defense is good enough. That is
why you tend to find sluggers in those positions. They are less taxing
on the hitter.

The second theory is that players values go up and down depending on were
they play. Your wasting a very valuable player if he hits a 160 OPS and
your putting him behind the plate where his knees and body are taking a
constant pounding. And your risking and shortening his career.

Ruben
From: jonathan on
On Dec 23, 7:32 pm, Ruben Safir <ru...(a)mrbrklyn.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 04:22:35 -0800, jonathan wrote:
> > Isn't that weird.  A few 100,000 players have played the game since the
> > 1870's and all the players most similar to Piazza are catchers....
>
> > You don't waste a 900 OPS in the catchers position if you help it.  Like
> > Joe Torre, you move them the heck out of there so they can hit.
>
> > Ruben
> >Again, so you would have moved all of the above players so they would
> >have had longer offensive careers and reserve the catching position
> >for the likes of Henry Blanco.
> >I realize all of the above players did move, but it was at the point
> >that their offensive effectiveness was starting to wane.  Torre and
> >Craig Biggio are the two players that come to mind that were moved.
>
> Pretty much, yeah.  I don't need to intentionally go looking for a 240
> hitter to play catcher, but I would take the most explosive offense force
> in baseball and move him out from behind the plate, or in the case of a
> player like Babe Ruth, out from behind the mound.  And THEN, they would
> not only last longer, but they would hit better.
>
> BTW - in the case of Joe Torre, he certainly wasn't on the wane as an
> offensive player.  He moved to 3rd base and won an MVP.
>
> Ruben

Torre and Biggio were not on the wane. They were moved early enough
in their careers. The other group of Hall of Fame catchers you bring
up were only moved once their offensive production had waned.

I guess you would have no catchers in the Hall of Fame.
Interesting . . .
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Prev: Mike Jacobs was release
Next: Adrian Beltre value to Boston