Replacing the Captain

[jacksonianmarch]

f***in a. Dude, I always work. You know the drill. 2yrs 2months, 26 days til freedom.

[Jayhawk Bill]

You consider what you said reasonable? I respect most of your baseball opinions' date=' but on this one, you totally s*** the bed.[/quote']

 

I do consider it reasonable. I said, "3-7 years," and I consider that very reasonable. As an outside range, seven more years from Jason Varitek is quite plausible--Fisk did even better.

 

You truly expect Varitek to be starting catcher at the age of 42?

 

Possibly. Varitek is, and has been, extraordinarily fit for an MLB player, particularly for an MLB catcher. He caught comparatively few professional games in his twenties for a player of his caliber--unlike Posada, it seems that he's still competent behind the plate. Remember that I posted "starting:" certainly he'll catch fewer than four out of five games if he's "starting" at age 42. The big issue, of course, is bat speed.

 

The guy is an old 35. His bat speed has decreased drastically. He hit .238 and .255 in the last two seasons, respectively. He will not get better, he will continue his decline. By age of 42, he'd be lucky to break .200.

 

Dude, he only hit .253 at age 26 and .248 at age 28. He hit higher than that in 2007. Tek was worth more at age 35 than he was in any year in his 20's (Metric WARP1/WARP3)--I think criticisms of his bat speed are WAY premature.

 

Where I have a lot of respect for him as a player, I don't have any believe he has a chance in hell of being a starting catcher in seven years. For any team in baseball. I caught for a season. I ached every day. I was also 16.

 

:lol:

 

Gom, who cares? You're not an MLB-caliber All Star catcher paid $10 million a year to catch. Your experience in Little League or whatever is practically irrelevant.

 

Some bodies can't endure catching. Tek has caught in MLB for a decade--it seems that he has conditioned his body to endure the strain.

 

Posada can be a starting catcher at 40 because he can hit.

 

Barry Bonds can hit, too. Nobody seems interested in signing him as a catcher. :dunno:

 

Posada was probably the worst defensive starting catcher in the AL in 2007. Varitek was among the best. That matters regarding forecasting.

 

Varitek is quickly becoming an offensive liability, and at that age, he will be a defensive liability.

 

Varitek was, by VORP, the fifth-best MLB catcher at the plate in 2007. That's far removed from "liability."

 

Most good catchers fade away because they lose their ability to hit, not their ability to crouch. Bad catchers move to first base, just as bad shortstops move to third or second base...good catchers catch into their 40's if they can hit .200.

 

That's like Yankee fans saying that Jeter will be the starting Yankee shortstop when he's 45. When that happens, then Varitek will be a starting catcher at 42.

 

But Jeter should've moved to third base a decade ago.

 

I for one, hope he is your starting catcher for the next seven years. That means you are playing for fourth place and that your farm system is outright terrible.

 

Boston will contend as long as John Henry owns the team. The farm system has thrived since 2004, and I expect that to continue.

 

Regarding Jason Varitek, be careful what you wish for.

[ksushi]

I do consider it reasonable. I said' date=' "3-7 years," and I consider that very reasonable. As an outside range, seven more years from Jason Varitek is quite plausible--Fisk did even better.[/quote']

 

 

I don't think you can go by one players career and use it to project another players longevity. How long someone can stay in the game depends on their own personal decisions to maintain their body. You don't know what Fisks work ethic was like as compared to Varitek. Not to mention everyone has a different make up biologically and has different specific playing styles. Comp players might predict stats - maybe, thats also debatable I think there are much safer metrics out there - but they definitely don't predict longevity. Fisk played for something like 25 years. Thats extraordinary. No one does that. Varitek certainly won't. I think 3-5 is a reasonable range for how much longer he'll be playing. 7 isn't in the cards.

[Jayhawk Bill]

Comp players might predict stats - maybe' date=' thats also debatable I think there are much safer metrics out there - [/quote']

 

"Metrics," plural. Name two safer metrics, please.

 

but they definitely don't predict longevity.

 

They most certainly do.

 

Check BP seven-year projections: they predict "out of baseball" at some point in the next seven years for around half of all players forecast.

 

I don't think you can go by one players career and use it to project another players longevity. How long someone can stay in the game depends on their own personal decisions to maintain their body. You don't know what Fisks work ethic was like as compared to Varitek.

 

I know that Varitek doesn't do tobacco ads during his playing career, as Fisk did.

 

Not to mention everyone has a different make up biologically and has different specific playing styles. Fisk played for something like 25 years. Thats extraordinary. No one does that. Varitek certainly won't.

 

Did you read my very lengthy post? I didn't pick Fisk out of thin air--I picked him as one of just two valid PECOTA comparables. Varitek's longevity is already practically unique--Fisk is our only hint of how such a player might perform in his late 30's and early 40's.

 

And Fisk didn't have 21st Century sports medicine, either. Nor hGH.

 

I think 3-5 is a reasonable range for how much longer he'll be playing.

 

I think that it's a big part of the reasonable range, too.

 

7 isn't in the cards.

 

I respectfully disagree...we'll see.

[ksushi]

I just don't buy comp. players as predicting longevity. There are too many factors that go into determining the length of a career.

[SCM33]

Agreed.

 

And like I said before, Im a big numbers guy as well.....but sometimes there are circumstances, where the numbers dont tell the whole story.....you cant put numbers on what you see.

 

Some people use numbers as a complete way of evaluating a player....but a Braves assistant GM Roy Clark once said, "There's nothing wrong with looking at stats as a tool, but when you go strictly by that, then you're saying anybody can scout. The old school guys, the veteran scouts, they didn't have the radar guns and they didn't have all the stats they have today. But they could tell you who was going to be a major leaguer."

[Jayhawk Bill]

Agreed.

 

And like I said before, Im a big numbers guy as well.....but sometimes there are circumstances, where the numbers dont tell the whole story.....you cant put numbers on what you see.

 

Some people use numbers as a complete way of evaluating a player....but a Braves assistant GM Roy Clark once said, "There's nothing wrong with looking at stats as a tool, but when you go strictly by that, then you're saying anybody can scout. The old school guys, the veteran scouts, they didn't have the radar guns and they didn't have all the stats they have today. But they could tell you who was going to be a major leaguer."

 

If the old school scouts knew exactly who was going to be a major leaguer, why did so many top-ranked prospects wash out in the days before radar guns?

 

***

 

If you'll look back at what I've done to evaluate Tek, though, I DIDN'T use PECOTA as the "complete way of evaluating a player." I looked at the comparables and described why 18 out of 20 didn't really apply:

 

- 15 weren't starting catchers...Tek is so good a hitter so late in his career that 3/4 of his closest comparables aren't even everyday catchers. The trouble with that is that those other hitters were mostly 1B/DH types by the time that they were Tek's age. Their defensive skills were almost gone. Conversely, Tek is still able to catch roughly as well as the average starting MLB catcher. Tek can be expected to last longer than those players--he hits roughly as well, but he fields much better.

 

- 3 weren't established starting catchers of Tek's caliber at age 35. Parrish and Robinson had already declined steeply before they were Tek's age; Ashby was a career back-up who had a couple of good seasons late.

 

- That left Posada, whose future is unknown but whose catching skills are already the worst among AL starting catchers--Tek is different. That left only Fisk, who played until age 45...so I gave Tek a subjective chance of playing through age 42, as well as a chance of tailing off as early as age 38.

 

***

 

Almost all players leave baseball for one reason: their skills are no longer adequate. Pitchers leave because they can no longer get guys out. Position players leave because they can't hit well enough to justify remaining in MLB at a position at which they're competent to play. More rarely, they leave because they choose to do other things, but that's an exception.

 

As cases in point, let's first look at the other MLB catchers who got at least 100 PA at age 27 the year that Tek was 27, 1999:

 

Jorge Posada remains an All Star-caliber batter. His defense, however, is fading, and he may be moved to first base or DH.

 

Ivan Rodriguez, the best catcher in the AL in 1999, is still starting for a team that believed itself to be a pennant contender before the season began. His defense has gone from sterling to maybe a bit above average, and his batting average is still high but pretty empty--his strike zone discipline appears to be gone.

 

Mike Lieberthal, maybe the second-best NL catcher in 1999 (behind Mike Piazza), appears to be out of MLB. He's still an adequate catcher, but he hit .234/.280/.260 in 2007. LA didn't pick up his option, and Lieberthal chose not to pursue free agency, saying that he'd made enough money.

 

Charles Johnson, who looked promising as a youngster, had career-long injury troubles and lost his skills early. He extended his career two years by playing in Colorado. Away from the mountain air, he was completely washed up in 2005 at age 33, unable to hit .200.

 

Paul Bako, a career .234/.306/.315 hitter, still has a job despite barely clearing .200 two years running. :dunno:

 

Paul LoDuca, who hit his peak at age 29 and flourished through his early thirties, has hit a brick wall thus far in 2008 with the Nats. Notably, though, he'd already had two seasons where his OBP was lower than Tek's was in his miserable injury-marred 2006 season, and his once-renowned defense had tailed off considerably. He still has a job.

 

Henry Blanco, an excellent catcher, appears to be unable to hit any more. He hit .167/.193/.222 in 2007, and it appears that the Cubs are searching for a better option after his contract ends.

 

***

 

Now, for a better look at how old catchers fade away, those catchers from 1999 with 100+ PA who were 35 and older that year:

 

Tom Lampkin caught through age 38, retiring after two seasons of roughly .220/.310/.360 hitting and average catching.

 

Jim Leyritz, never an adequate catcher, retired after one more year when his average dropped to around the Mendoza Line. He now drives drunk in Florida.

 

Mike MacFarlane retired immediately after 1999, when his OPS had dropped below .700 for the first time.

 

Jeff Reed caught very badly in 1999. He did a little better defensively in 2000, but his batting average dropped to .214, and that was the end.

 

Terry Steinbach's catching skills, never regarded as great, declined further in 1999, his last year in MLB. He was still an excellent batter.

 

***

 

There's a pattern here: if you can hit around .200--more to the point, if you can keep your EqA around or over .200--you can keep a catching job in MLB. The three big exceptions were Lieberthal, Macfarlane and Steinbach, all of whom had career earnings of eight digits when they chose not to bounce to another team to continue their careers as bench players.

 

There's nothing suggesting that Tek won't be able to hit .200 in the near future. PECOTA has him retiring after 2011 having hit .241 (EqA .255) his last year, but that probably won't happen: remember, PECOTA compared Tek to lots of 1B/DH types, and one has to hit better than .241 or .255 to stay in MLB at first base.

 

I'll concede that Tek's batting might dip precipitously--but it's not likely. It's more likely that he would choose to pursue other interests, such as coaching--but Tek still seems to love his role from what I read and see.

 

I consider the reasonable range for Tek to be 3-7 years. I may be among a minority who see seven more seasons as possible, but I have my reasons.

 

As always, YMMV.

[RobZombie]

Can I find small sample sizes supporting Tek's greatness as a game caller? Probably. They might reflect pitcher-catcher rapport and synergy--but a whole lot of better stats guys than me have looked at catchers' game calling as a factor and they've disproven that it makes a difference.

 

To be fair. You are yet again wrong.

 

The only way that a statisician could even come close to dissproving that game calling doesn't matter is to have the same set of pitchers pitch to different catchers for an entire season at the same time. This is of course impossible.

 

There are several things in the game like this. Clutch hitting/choking. The real effect of speed on the game. The effect of playing at Fenway and dozens of other things. For these things which cannot be measured you have faith. Either you believe it or you don't, there is no provable answer.

 

Statistics by and large are used to prove something, NOT to dissprove something.

[Jayhawk Bill]

To be fair. You are yet again wrong.

 

The only way that a statisician could even come close to dissproving that game calling doesn't matter is to have the same set of pitchers pitch to different catchers for an entire season at the same time. This is of course impossible.

 

There are several things in the game like this. Clutch hitting/choking. The real effect of speed on the game. The effect of playing at Fenway and dozens of other things. For these things which cannot be measured you have faith. Either you believe it or you don't, there is no provable answer.

 

Statistics by and large are used to prove something, NOT to dissprove something.

 

To be fair, you are yet again ignorant.

[SCM33]

To be fair' date=' you are yet again ignorant.[/quote']

 

Dont worry, hes getting under my skin too, and from what Ive seen since I started posting here again, we are not the only ones.

 

I appreciate the value of the arguments we make back and forth Bill, hes just some smart ass kid who destroys threads which people put time and effort in to with ignorant comments.

[RobZombie]

To be fair' date=' you are yet again ignorant.[/quote']

 

To be fair, I am absolutely 100% right. NO STATISTICAL STUDY CAN DISPROVE THE EXISTANCE OF GAME CALLING ABILITY.

 

I regret that you post baloney and then throw stones when called upon it.

[RobZombie]

Dont worry, hes getting under my skin too, and from what Ive seen since I started posting here again, we are not the only ones.

 

I appreciate the value of the arguments we make back and forth Bill, hes just some smart ass kid who destroys threads which people put time and effort in to with ignorant comments.

 

 

No I just call a baloney sandwich a baloney sandwich. My guess is that I'm older than you too. Defintely smarter :-).

[Jayhawk Bill]

To be fair' date=' I am absolutely 100% right. NO STATISTICAL STUDY CAN DISPROVE THE EXISTANCE OF GAME CALLING ABILITY.[/quote']

 

Except for this study from 1999:

 

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=432

 

Followed up and verified in 2000

 

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=436

 

And again in 2002

 

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=1489

 

Woolner did offer that a catcher might save as much as 1.6 runs per year for his team without his work having detected it--but if the difference is under two runs per team per year...under one-onehundredth of a run per game...we're essentially looking at no impact.

 

I regret that you post baloney and then throw stones when called upon it.

 

I guess that it's a semantic difference. What you call "baloney" I call "research;" what you call "stones" I call "links."

[Mr Crunchy]

tek has had no leg issues that i know of

he missed part of a season in 02? i think when he busted his elbow up but outside that i dont recall him missing any time to knee or other leg injuries which generally spell doom for MLB catchers.

as bill pointed out

his batting avg is where it was 10 years ago so there is no decline to speak of.

3-7 more years?

i lean toward the 3 more than the 7 because nobody can predict when he will fall apart and lets face it,catchers do breakdown,some over time slowly,others all at once and i figure when tek does go he'll be too proud to hang on playing the backup role.

[Jayhawk Bill]

3-7 more years?

i lean toward the 3 more than the 7...

 

A whole lotta folks agree with you, Mr. Crunchy.

 

Most catchers decline by Tek's age, and few play as late as age 42. Here's an interesting list: the number of players still catching in 50% of their games, 1947-2008, by age:

 

[table]Age | Players

35 | 133

36 | 84

37 | 51

38 | 38

39 | 22

40 | 11

41 | 6

42 | 5[/table]

 

Certainly, leaning to 3 more than 7 makes sense knowing those odds.

 

But, then again, how many players caught 50% or more of their games AND had enough PA to qualify for the batting title at age 35, as Tek did, over that same time period? Just seven...and Tek is one of those seven guys.

 

I continue to post that age 42 is possible, given that Tek is already in a group roughly as small as the group that caught 50% of the time at age 42. Of course, YMMV.

[RobZombie]

Except for this study from 1999:

 

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=432

 

Followed up and verified in 2000

 

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=436

 

And again in 2002

 

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=1489

 

Woolner did offer that a catcher might save as much as 1.6 runs per year for his team without his work having detected it--but if the difference is under two runs per team per year...under one-onehundredth of a run per game...we're essentially looking at no impact.

 

 

 

I guess that it's a semantic difference. What you call "baloney" I call "research;" what you call "stones" I call "links."

 

Jayhawk Bill-

 

I think sabermetrics is a great thing. But even James admits that its NOT holly grail. No statiscial study can give you all of the answers. You seem to think that it does. I do not think that statisitics or statistical studies are "baloney". But your use of them certainly is.

 

I think you may want to read the "conclusions" portion of the study. No where does it say that game calling ability is "disproven". It just says that it isn't detectable by statistics. IOW, it isn't statiscially significant. Anyone who has taken a beginning statistics class can tell you that there is a huge difference between a "lack of statistical signifigance", and proof that hypothesis is false. That is the case here.

 

In the conclusions they readilly admit that there are things that a catcher could do to effect the game that may not be detectable by the study. They include increased ptich efficiancy and possible increase in clutch performance. I'd also include that it may help for certain pitchers at certain times and not others. Though this cannot be detected by statistics, it could easilly add up to wins. Maybe even playoff wins. In Jason Varitek's case, there's no way tell through statistics if his experience and knowledge helped get a player out in a key situation. In general I would think that knowledge and experience would be something that you would want from an employee in a difficult situation for any company.

 

In the end, statistics are and by extension sabermetrics, are nothing more than just a tool. Like any tool they are useless if they are applied incorrectly. You are very good at finding studies, but you think that these studies give you answers when in fact they don't always.

 

As I said, read the studies and especially their conclusions before you post baloney.

[Ray10]

I dunno he may be an offensive liability but who else on the team are you gonna give the Captain title too. I mean who is a better team leader then Tek.? There really is noone better on the Red Sox roster to have in the lockeroom then this guy. He's the kinda guy I can see coming back as a coach once his playing days are over.

[Jayhawk Bill]

Jayhawk Bill-

 

I think sabermetrics is a great thing. But even James admits that its NOT holly grail. No statiscial study can give you all of the answers. You seem to think that it does. I do not think that statisitics or statistical studies are "baloney". But your use of them certainly is.

 

I think you may want to read the "conclusions" portion of the study. No where does it say that game calling ability is "disproven". It just says that it isn't detectable by statistics. IOW, it isn't statiscially significant. Anyone who has taken a beginning statistics class can tell you that there is a huge difference between a "lack of statistical signifigance", and proof that hypothesis is false. That is the case here.

 

Pardon.

 

Though we would colloquially say that game-calling doesn’t exist, it’s more accurate to say that if there is a true game-calling ability, it lies below the threshold of detection. There is no statistical evidence for a large game-calling ability, but that doesn’t preclude that a small ability. For example, a genuine game-calling ability that reduces a pitcher’s ERA by 0.01, resulting in a savings of about 1.6 runs per year for the entire team and could be masked by the statistical variance in the sample size we have to work with. Players would need to play thousands more games than they actually do to have enough data to successfully detect such a skill statistically.

 

The level of significance cited was 1.6 runs per year--a hundredth of a run per game. There may be an effect below that. Everything that you posted, where semi-factual, was within the context of an effect that small.

 

Is that your f***ing point? You think that the one-onehundredth of a run per game is so critical as to try to make it your point? An effect unproven even at that level, but not yet disproven at that level of insignificance?

 

As I said, read the studies and especially their conclusions before you post baloney.

 

I will continue to do so. In your case, it is too late.

[RobZombie]

Pardon.

 

 

 

The level of significance cited was 1.6 runs per year--a hundredth of a run per game. There may be an effect below that. Everything that you posted, where semi-factual, was within the context of an effect that small.

 

Is that your f***ing point? You think that the one-onehundredth of a run per game is so critical as to try to make it your point? An effect unproven even at that level, but not yet disproven at that level of insignificance?

 

 

 

I will continue to do so. In your case, it is too late.

 

My point is that you are such only a complete moron like yourself would talk about statistical studies that he doesn't understand. Its pretty clear that you have never taken a statistics class.

 

Unfortunately not everything can be proven or dissproven through the use of statistics. There are many many effects in life which we know exist even in the absence of statistical evidence. This is especially true in baseball where only, its impossible to run a controlled experiment.

 

The question is....is it possible for catcher game-calling to be an actual ability despite that there is seemingly no statistical evidence for it? If so, could this game calling ability lead to a difference in wins and losses? The answer to this question is unequivocally yes. If the answer to this is yes, then its something a team would want to pay for.

 

Lets say that the other teams best hitter is at the plate with the bases loaded in the 8th inning with two outs. The catcher conferences with the pitcher and they come up with a plan of attack. What you are saying is that the catcher's knowledge and experience regarding this hitters strength and weaknesses will make no difference in the outcome of this at bat which will likely determine the outcome of the game. That argument just defies all common sense. There are of course several factors that will influence the at-bat including luck, and the pitchers execution of the selected pitch. Even if the catcher was 100% responsible in this situation for the outcome of the at-bat IT STILL would not show up in any statistical study. This even though his contributions led directly to a win.

 

In the end, I believe that Jason Vartek's knowledge and experience HAS helped the Red Sox win games important games in the past. Its also likely something that the Red Sox have wisely paid for in the past and any the team that Varitek plays for next year should pay for as well.

 

People who assume that statistical studies tell them everything they need to know and give them all the answers just don't understand statistics very well. Statistical studies are only meant to be useful tools, but they are not meant to give you definitive answers in many cases.

[Jayhawk Bill]

My point is that you are such only a complete moron like yourself would talk about statistical studies that he doesn't understand.

 

"I'm smarter than you are" attempted put-downs are often more effective when proper grammar is used.

 

Its pretty clear that you have never taken a statistics class.

 

[TheKilo]

My point is that you are such only a complete moron like yourself would talk about statistical studies that he doesn't understand. Its pretty clear that you have never taken a statistics class.

 

Unfortunately not everything can be proven or dissproven through the use of statistics. There are many many effects in life which we know exist even in the absence of statistical evidence. This is especially true in baseball where only, its impossible to run a controlled experiment.

 

The question is....is it possible for catcher game-calling to be an actual ability despite that there is seemingly no statistical evidence for it? If so, could this game calling ability lead to a difference in wins and losses? The answer to this question is unequivocally yes. If the answer to this is yes, then its something a team would want to pay for.

 

Lets say that the other teams best hitter is at the plate with the bases loaded in the 8th inning with two outs. The catcher conferences with the pitcher and they come up with a plan of attack. What you are saying is that the catcher's knowledge and experience regarding this hitters strength and weaknesses will make no difference in the outcome of this at bat which will likely determine the outcome of the game. That argument just defies all common sense. There are of course several factors that will influence the at-bat including luck, and the pitchers execution of the selected pitch. Even if the catcher was 100% responsible in this situation for the outcome of the at-bat IT STILL would not show up in any statistical study. This even though his contributions led directly to a win.

 

In the end, I believe that Jason Vartek's knowledge and experience HAS helped the Red Sox win games important games in the past. Its also likely something that the Red Sox have wisely paid for in the past and any the team that Varitek plays for next year should pay for as well.

 

People who assume that statistical studies tell them everything they need to know and give them all the answers just don't understand statistics very well. Statistical studies are only meant to be useful tools, but they are not meant to give you definitive answers in many cases.

 

Quick question - how many games do you think have been won during Varitek's tenure that were a direct result of his playcalling?

[ksushi]

Teks knowledge and experience in game calling, over the long haul, probably benefit the pitching staff greatly. But the amount of impact it has on a game by game basis is probably minimal. Its definitely a big plus for the pitching staff, but probably not a plus that can be directly measured statistically. Over a starting pitchers say 30+ starts, the preparedness and experience of the catcher probably affects the body of work more than any individual game. If a pitcher trusts Tek's ability to call pitches for him, if Tek is doing a significantly better job than you're average game caller, the pitcher will likely benefit provided he holds up his end of the bargain by executing the pitches. I don't know if it is worth paying top dollar for, however, being a joint effort on the part of the pitcher and catcher and given the fact that game calling is an ability that can be learned. I think most major league catchers are prepared and aware of the scouting reports, and take advantage of hitters weaknesses. I think that an extension will be reached to bring tek back prior to his hitting the market, but I just don't see them not exploring other avenues in hopes of bringing in his future replacement sooner rather than later. I don't feel comfortable talking about Tek as the everyday catcher beyond next year. Regular catching duties are having a more significant impact on his late-season play than in the past, and while there is no way to clearly quantify game calling in terms of wins and losses, it seems to be a big part of his overall value, and I am of the belief that it is an acquired skill. Having said that, I think game calling is pretty low on the totem pole of crucial skills for a major league catcher. I think hitting approach and ability, and defensive skill rank a little higher. Those are the parts of variteks game that are most obviously diminished at this point, especially late in season.

 

I think given void of talent at the catching position across baseball, they re-up for two more years, but into that second year I bet Tek will be seeing some time at 1B and there will be a replacement in the wings. Catcher has to be on Theo's mind at this point.

 

Game calling and knowledge of the opposition is a big deal, sure, but its a big deal that can be impressed on a younger catcher by the coaching staff and doesn't have to be a tool that a younger replacement already has mastered. Whether it can be accounted for statistically or not, it helps. Otherwise, tek would not be lauded by the pitching and coaching staff the way he is. Its just whether you see it as something that makes a difference every night, or whether you look at it as a small facet in the catcher/pitcher relationship that benefits us over 162 games more than it does over 9 innings on any given day.

[TheKilo]

Bump for discussion.

 

If CHB is accurate, which I know is a big if, Tek might be on his way out the door:

 

http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/articles/2008/10/13/bursting_at_the_seams/?page=2

 

# Do not underestimate the residue of hard feelings in the wake of Francona hitting for Jason Varitek a second time in these playoffs. Tito lifted Varitek for J.D. Drew against Dan Wheeler in the ninth inning of Game 2. It's refreshingly bold given Tito's reputation at a "player's manager" and it makes good sense, but be assured the captain sees this as an act of abject betrayal.

 

Before we jump on Shaughnessy, pleas be aware Varitek has voiced his displeasure of being PH for this offseason.

[Cocos Disciples]

Sorry it offends him that we're trying to win baseball games. There are some situations (many) in which it helps the team to use someone in his place.

[a700hitter]

Has he seen how bad hie looks in his ABs?

[jacksonianmarch]

This will be an easy way to sell Vtek's release to the populace. For once, the sox PR machine doesnt need to spin. This performance is all they need

[Cocos Disciples]

Yeah, a .672 OPS should do the trick.

[jacksonianmarch]

and then being beyond awful in the post season on both sides of the ball helps the PR machine. If Tito hits for Vtek, he's betraying the player. If he lets Vtek hit, he's betraying the fans

[Cocos Disciples]

I think he's gone. Maybe a trade for a Texas catcher.

[jacksonianmarch]

If I were the sox, I'd go after Laird. Salty cannot catch in the bigs. He's been awful on D, has a bad elbow and has also shown he has a ton of holes on offense. Laird is the right kind of player. Solid D, some pop, good staff kind of guy