Sox still pursuing Tek

[Papelbon58]

Jeff Wilson of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram notes that the signing of Jason Varitek "should end any more talk of Jarrod Saltalamacchia or Taylor Teagarden being traded to Boston."

 

I'm not exactly sure how he arrived at that conclusion, but he has said it. It already appeared unlikely that the Sox could grab one of the Rangers' catchers, but it may be getting less likely. Miguel Montero might be the best option going forward.

[Dipre]

Well it seems like you never read the underlying study. This is every pitcher that Tek has caught 5 times or more that also has pitched elsewhere. That way good or bad that does not matter.

 

Your problem is your lazy. Actually read the information before instantly complaining about it becasue it goes against what ever you think is correct. After reading it try to make and intelligent argument. Until you can do that, you just sound like a child that is unwilling to believe in something becasue it goes against what you think is right.

 

Yawn.

 

Your problem is you take what any idiot takes as "instant truth" and YOU'RE the one who doesn't go deep into the information.

 

Just to prove my point and shut you up (just because i'm childish), let's take 2008 as the prime example of 'Tek's effectiveness as a game caller, since his catcher ERA was 3.67, of course, since i am, after all, lazy, i'll let you do the math how awful the other catchers were compared to him since the Sox' overall ERA was 4.01, even though he caught all of the awesomeness pitched by Mike Timlin and Clay Bucholz last year, as compared to 2005, when he was catching to masters of awesomeness such as David Wells, and whatever was the Sox bullpen, and surprisingly, his CERA was 5.01.

 

Because being stupid and taking the "black hole" years of Sox pitching (with stars of the caliber of John Burkett, Casey Fossum and Jeff Suppan), and adding to that the fact that Wakefield had his "personal caddy' which caught all of those above league-average innings

instead of gems like last year's Mike Timlin suggests to me that you are merely a "sheep" following a douchy sportswriters' article and not using the very important tool that is common sense.

 

These FACTS bring me to two points:

 

1) CERA is a USELESS stat, since it depends completely on the staff you're catching,(John Buck says hello).

 

2) You are a complete and utter tool for believing the ******** that is spewed from the keyboard of such an idiot, when the Sox FO (you know, the ones who actually make the baseball decisions and have a complete scouting team), 2 HOF caliber pitchers, and an assortment of veterans and young, promising pitchers alike all sing praises to Jason Varitek's gamecalling.

 

So in conclusion, measure a stat and its usefulness before coming here and looking like an idiot.

 

Thank you, and good night.

[JimEdHOF2009]

That is an interesting stat lax.

 

Of course it was...to a Yankee-ballwashing, simpleton such as yourself..as is any other stat you think may shed a negative light on the Sox... Problem here is you took the bait and just looked at the "cherry-picked" numbers and had no idea how many innings were being used in the comparison. You have heard of the term "sample-size" right sport? I mean, even a bitchy little queef like you can read..right? You are truly too stupid to live.

[Keeper]

Come one, let's not overreact too much.

[THE ARS]

Tonto, who do you work for?

 

Your insight makes me think you are not the average fan.

 

Hey, JimEd, why don't you go f*** yourself? You don't know s*** about baseball.

 

Please go away.

 

 

Tom

[Jacoby_Ellsbury]

lol

[laxtonto]

Yawn.

 

Your problem is you take what any idiot takes as "instant truth" and YOU'RE the one who doesn't go deep into the information.

 

Just to prove my point and shut you up (just because i'm childish), let's take 2008 as the prime example of 'Tek's effectiveness as a game caller, since his catcher ERA was 3.67, of course, since i am, after all, lazy, i'll let you do the math how awful the other catchers were compared to him since the Sox' overall ERA was 4.01, even though he caught all of the awesomeness pitched by Mike Timlin and Clay Bucholz last year, as compared to 2005, when he was catching to masters of awesomeness such as David Wells, and whatever was the Sox bullpen, and surprisingly, his CERA was 5.01.

 

Because being stupid and taking the "black hole" years of Sox pitching (with stars of the caliber of John Burkett, Casey Fossum and Jeff Suppan), and adding to that the fact that Wakefield had his "personal caddy' which caught all of those above league-average innings

instead of gems like last year's Mike Timlin suggests to me that you are merely a "sheep" following a douchy sportswriters' article and not using the very important tool that is common sense.

 

These FACTS bring me to two points:

 

1) CERA is a USELESS stat, since it depends completely on the staff you're catching,(John Buck says hello).

 

2) You are a complete and utter tool for believing the ******** that is spewed from the keyboard of such an idiot, when the Sox FO (you know, the ones who actually make the baseball decisions and have a complete scouting team), 2 HOF caliber pitchers, and an assortment of veterans and young, promising pitchers alike all sing praises to Jason Varitek's gamecalling.

 

So in conclusion, measure a stat and its usefulness before coming here and looking like an idiot.

 

Thank you, and good night.

 

Of course it was...to a Yankee-ballwashing' date=' simpleton such as yourself..as is any other stat you think may shed a negative light on the Sox... Problem here is you took the bait and just looked at the "cherry-picked" numbers and had no idea how many innings were being used in the comparison. You have heard of the term "sample-size" right sport? I mean, even a bitchy little queef like you can read..right? You are truly too stupid to live.[/quote']

 

 

Considering I am about to finish my Bachelors in Decision Science and Statistical Analysis, I know all about sample size, and would probably wager I know a hell of a lot more about statistical techniques and tendancies than you do.

 

There is a reason why using a 23 different pitchers over a span of 11 years, then normalized each of those guys ERA to remove the problems that Vartek's overwhelming career superiority of getting the favorable guys to catch. The problem is that your unwilling to actually think that possibly Tek's lone selling point, his gaming calling and leadership, is no where near as valuable as what Boras sold you on.

 

The problem is that it seems like none of you guys are willing to read the underlying article that Neyer did not write. All that dumb bastard did was piggyback off another guys article.

 

That huge section on Neyer's article that says "--snipping all the data-- " is the actual important part.

 

Since it seems like you are unwilling or unable to follow links, ill help you out.

 

All that said, the big claim of the Varitek defenders is that his defensive contributions vastly outweigh his offensive deficiencies. He "calls a great game." He's a "master of handling the pitching staff." He "makes the pitchers on the staff better." We've heard it for years.

 

But is it true? I've long been skeptical, but I don't know how you'd measure it. I know that the pitchers tend to rave about him, but they raved about Alex Gonzalez, too. I know that somehow, other teams have good pitchers and good pitching staffs without Jason Varitek. I know that the Red Sox have tremendous resources involved in advance scouting and game planning. And I know that, in the end, the pitch doesn't get thrown if it isn't what the pitcher wants to throw. So, as I say, I've long been a skeptic on the extent of Varitek's influence behind the plate.

 

In order to try to get some kind of feel for it, I tried to pull some data. It's a difficult thing to do, but I came up with a approach that seems to make sense, and can be done without too much difficulty. Using the marvelous day-by-day database at David Pinto's Baseball Musings, I downloaded Jason Varitek's game-by-game stats as a member of the Red Sox, and the Red Sox starting pitcher numbers for the same period. I then broke the pitching stats into two sets of numbers - those for when Varitek started at catcher and those for when someone else started at catcher. If Varitek really is an "elite game caller," AND if the catcher has a significant impact on the pitching performance, then we should be able to see it in the numbers.

 

At the first breakdown, there does seem to be a difference. Over the last 11 years, Red Sox starting pitchers have put up a 4.19 ERA in 1182 Varitek starts, compared with a 4.38 ERA in 624 starts by other Red Sox catchers. That's a difference of about 30 runs over the course of a season, or about 3 wins. Which is pretty significant.

 

It doesn't take much consideration, though, to recognize that this isn't an acceptable answer. [bT]he catchers haven't caught all of the same pitchers. Varitek caught 57 of Bronson Arroyo's 61 Red Sox starts, but only 2 of David Cone's 25. He caught all 16 of Wade Miller's starts, but only one of David Pauley's five.[/b]

 

So the next thing I did was winnow the data a little bit, and look at just those pitchers who made at least five starts with Varitek and at least five starts with other Red Sox catchers. That gives us a data set of 23 pitchers. 11 compiled lower ERAs with Varitek behind the plate. 12 compiled lower ERAs with other catchers behind the plate. Despite that, looking at the cumulative numbers Varitek looks even better, putting up a 4.02 catcher's ERA vs. 4.31 for his backups.

 

(If you're emotionally committed to the theory of Varitek as indispensible behind the plate, this is probably a good time to clap your hands together and leave...)

 

We still don't have a good data set, though. As we all know, Varitek has caught Tim Wakefield very little over the years, with most of Wakefield's starts going to the backup catchers. The Red Sox have also had some of the best pitchers in baseball, and the starts of Pedro Martinez, Curt Schilling and Josh Beckett have been predominantly caught by Jason Varitek. So there's a little more to be done. Let's face it - any catcher who caught a lot of Pedro Martinez starts in 1999 and 2000, as Varitek did, is going to look fantastic in a catcher's ERA comparison. Catching Tim Wakefield doesn't have the same advantage.

 

So what I did next was normalize everyone's statistics, multiplying or dividing to produce a stat line for 50 innings pitched. That is, both Varitek and the backups are credited with 50 innings of Wakefield, 50 innings of Pedro, etc.

 

And now the numbers look a little bit different.

 

 

 

Red Sox "Catcher ERA" - 1998-2008 ERA WHIP

 

Varitek 4.77 1.4

 

Other Catchers 4.66 1.41

 

 

Let's make one more tweak to the data. Including Tim Wakefield would tend to mitigate against Varitek's presumed game-calling skill. So I pulled him out of the data.

 

 

 

Red Sox "Catcher ERA" - 1998-2008 (Starters w/out Tim Wakefield) ERA WHIP

 

Varitek 4.8 1.41

 

Other Catchers 4.63 1.4

 

 

All of a sudden that "makes the pitchers better" doesn't look like a very compelling argument.

 

 

I don't want to pretend that this "proves" that Varitek's game-calling is worse than anyone else's. I don't know. There's a ton of noise in this data set, no matter how you parse it. I will say this - I've long felt that Varitek's importance behind the plate was over-stated and over-rated, and this data seems to support that position.

 

Is there an obvious flaw in this analysis? Beyond the noise, I don't see one. This is what the pitchers who have started at least five games in Red Sox uniforms with Varitek starting behind the plate, and at least five games in Red Sox uniforms with some other catcher starting behind the plate have done during Varitek's Red Sox career, normalized for innings pitched. I'm open to any and all methodology criticisms (though I'm not going to wade through box scores and do relievers and catching replacements without signficant monetary inducement.)

 

Bottom line? The Red Sox should have a good-to-excellent pitching staff in 2009, and there's no compelling evidence to suggest that Jason Varitek's presence is required for that to be the case.

 

 

The problem with your argument that Tek will always get the benefit of the doubt becasue in the last 11 season the Sox has had a team ERA and league rankings of:

 

2008 4.01 (9th)

2007 3.87 (2nd)

2006 4.83 (26th)

2005 4.74 (24th)

2004 4.18 (11th)

2003 4.48 (17th)

2002 3.75 (7th)

2001 4.15 (9th)

2000 4.23 (5th)

1999 4.00 (5th)

1998 4.19 (9th)

 

Even if he does get one or two poor starters, the overall team ERA will drag down those numbers. It falls right back to a sample size issue that you keep thinking you are using in the right context.

 

Timlin (35.1) and Buchholz (67.2) pitched a combined 103 innings of the 1041 inning that Tek caught last year. For less than 10% of his innings caught to make a major difference to really sway his CERA for even .25 of a point would require both to have an ERA 2.46 points higher than the staff ERA. The problem is the inverse is true as well. The team has 950 inning pitched that fell below the team's ERA.

 

So Tek should get credit for the great starts of very good pitchers, but does not get blamed for the bad ones by medicore pitchers? How do you explain Buchholz from 2007 and 2008? He was great in 07 and horrible in 08. Did Tek just forget how to call a game fir him all of the sudden? If not and Buchholz poor year last year the pitchers failling, then Tek's game calling had to effect on the game.

 

You can't have it both ways. Either those poor pitcher's that Tek got stuck with were not any good and therefore they had a high ERA and therefore Tek has no impact with calling the game, or Tek failed at game calling with them but didn't with other members of the staff.

 

As far as the beliefs of former players promoting Tek's good virtues, why wouldn't they. They are his friends and teams mates. Of course they are going to want Tek get paid in his last few years before retirement, especially after his divorce. If Tek's game calling was such a superior skill why did the Sox wait till 2 weeks before ST starts to offer him a new deal? If Tek game calling skills where such a big deal why did he have no other offers?

 

If Tek had a direct control on the ERA of team becasue of his extreme ability to call a game, why would the normalized ERA not be even more in his favor. If it is a definable skill that he is superior at, that would lead to a measurable difference, normalized data would still skew heavily towards Tek. All normalization does is help overcome the sample size error becasue Tek is the primary catcher that catches roughly 130 games a year.

[TheKilo]

Considering I am about to finish my Bachelors in Decision Science and Statistical Analysis, I know all about sample size, and would probably wager I know a hell of a lot more about statistical techniques and tendancies than you do.

 

There is a reason why using a 23 different pitchers over a span of 11 years, then normalized each of those guys ERA to remove the problems that Vartek's overwhelming career superiority of getting the favorable guys to catch. The problem is that your unwilling to actually think that possibly Tek's lone selling point, his gaming calling and leadership, is no where near as valuable as what Boras sold you on.

 

The problem is that it seems like none of you guys are willing to read the underlying article that Neyer did not write. All that dumb bastard did was piggyback off another guys article.

 

That huge section on Neyer's article that says "--snipping all the data-- " is the actual important part.

 

Since it seems like you are unwilling or unable to follow links, ill help you out.

 

 

 

 

The problem with your argument that Tek will always get the benefit of the doubt becasue in the last 11 season the Sox has had a team ERA and league rankings of:

 

2008 4.01 (9th)

2007 3.87 (2nd)

2006 4.83 (26th)

2005 4.74 (24th)

2004 4.18 (11th)

2003 4.48 (17th)

2002 3.75 (7th)

2001 4.15 (9th)

2000 4.23 (5th)

1999 4.00 (5th)

1998 4.19 (9th)

 

Even if he does get one or two poor starters, the overall team ERA will drag down those numbers. It falls right back to a sample size issue that you keep thinking you are using in the right context.

 

Timlin (35.1) and Buchholz (67.2) pitched a combined 103 innings of the 1041 inning that Tek caught last year. For less than 10% of his innings caught to make a major difference to really sway his CERA for even .25 of a point would require both to have an ERA 2.46 points higher than the staff ERA. The problem is the inverse is true as well. The team has 950 inning pitched that fell below the team's ERA.

 

So Tek should get credit for the great starts of very good pitchers, but does not get blamed for the bad ones by medicore pitchers? How do you explain Buchholz from 2007 and 2008? He was great in 07 and horrible in 08. Did Tek just forget how to call a game fir him all of the sudden? If not and Buchholz poor year last year the pitchers failling, then Tek's game calling had to effect on the game.

 

You can't have it both ways. Either those poor pitcher's that Tek got stuck with were not any good and therefore they had a high ERA and therefore Tek has no impact with calling the game, or Tek failed at game calling with them but didn't with other members of the staff.

 

As far as the beliefs of former players promoting Tek's good virtues, why wouldn't they. They are his friends and teams mates. Of course they are going to want Tek get paid in his last few years before retirement, especially after his divorce. If Tek's game calling was such a superior skill why did the Sox wait till 2 weeks before ST starts to offer him a new deal? If Tek game calling skills where such a big deal why did he have no other offers?

 

If Tek had a direct control on the ERA of team becasue of his extreme ability to call a game, why would the normalized ERA not be even more in his favor. If it is a definable skill that he is superior at, that would lead to a measurable difference, normalized data would still skew heavily towards Tek. All normalization does is help overcome the sample size error becasue Tek is the primary catcher that catches roughly 130 games a year.

 

Fantastic post.

 

I too feel Varitek's gamecalling abilities are far too overblown and it's probably unreasonable to expect any kind of bounceback season offensively from Varitek.

 

I think this deal as currently constructed is an overpay - I do not feel any other team would have come close to a $5 million offer.

 

I also have no problem with the signing under the right circumstances. Francona needs to be specifically instructed that Varitek should not catch more than 80 games this season. I think there is a valid argument to the concerns that many pitchers on this staff simply feel more comfortable throwing to Jason Varitek.

 

DiceK will have one week of spring training to get ready for the 2009 season. Would that have been enough time to have a new catcher get acquainted with a pitcher who speaks another language? When John Smoltz, Brad Penny and Takashi Saito signed their deals were they under the impression they would be throwing to Jason Varitek?

 

I don't think anyone knows the question - I do not feel this deal is completely ridiculous nor do I find it team friendly like Pedroia's or Youkilis's. If Varitek is catching 120 games for the next two years there is a serious issue. But if used correctly, this has the potential to be a successful move for the Sox, even if it measured in intangibles (can't believe I wrote that sentence).

 

Now Theo needs to trade for Montero or Salty (regardless of what some schmuck says at the Fort Worth Star Telegram) and I think we can call it a night.

[JimEdHOF2009]

Tonto, who do you work for?

 

Your insight makes me think you are not the average fan.

 

Hey, JimEd, why don't you go f*** yourself? You don't know s*** about baseball.

 

Please go away.

 

 

Tom

1st post aye sport? And yet you have deduced I know nothing about baseball>? My what a brilliant cursory appraisal! You are a GEM! I bet dimes to dollars you are a TROLL of someone I have smacked around a bit on these boards... Let me guess.."I have been here for umm..a long time...YEAH, YEAH, that's the ticket! I have only just today decided to post after years of perusing this board"? If your 1st post is any indication of what is to come from you, I suggest you follow this golden rule.."Read more..post less".

 

Sooooo, how is the weather down there under Tonto's ballsack?

 

Secondly, having played professionally, instructed professionally, and scouted professionally I find your appraisal of my baseball knowledge quite amusing..

 

Tonto seems to know the statistical side, as do I...props to him... Has he ever played, scouted, or instructed professionally? I don't know..but I highly doubt it. He seems to stand firmly on the side which views baseball as purely a numerical stat-game.. If you played the game, you are privy to tendencies and game strategy that cannot be quantified. I value statistical analysis as it helps me in evaluating a player... I use it as a tool... If stats were the only determining factor, I would have never been paid to go and watch kids play.

[THE ARS]

"There is a reason why using a 23 different pitchers over a span of 11 years, then normalized each of those guys ERA to remove the problems that Vartek's overwhelming career superiority of getting the favorable guys to catch...." - Tonto

 

Wake is a good pitcher man. I mean, given the opportunity, a real MLB catcher would obviously pass on the knuckler, or the horrific fastball of JmEdHOF09.

 

I don't see how you can count this against him when it is such a clear opportunity to give your starter a rest?

 

Now, who do you work for, Tonto?

 

 

Tom

[TheKilo]

"There is a reason why using a 23 different pitchers over a span of 11 years, then normalized each of those guys ERA to remove the problems that Vartek's overwhelming career superiority of getting the favorable guys to catch...." - Tonto

 

Wake is a good pitcher man. I mean, given the opportunity, a real MLB catcher would obviously pass on the knuckler, or the horrific fastball of JmEdHOF09.

 

I don't see how you can count this against him when it is such a clear opportunity to give your starter a rest?

 

Now, who do you work for, Tonto?

 

 

Tom

 

lol awesome

[THE ARS]

Secondly, having played professionally, instructed professionally, and scouted professionally I find your appraisal of my baseball knowledge quite amusing.. :lol:

 

... I use it as a tool...

 

- JimEdHOF

 

 

 

You ARE a tool, JimEdHOF, you throb hands and make an ass of yourself on the intraweb.

 

I'm sure your daddy is proud.

 

 

Tom

 

 

EDIT: emphasis

[example1]

Is there an obvious flaw in this analysis? Beyond the noise, I don't see one. This is what the pitchers who have started at least five games in Red Sox uniforms with Varitek starting behind the plate, and at least five games in Red Sox uniforms with some other catcher starting behind the plate have done during Varitek's Red Sox career, normalized for innings pitched. I'm open to any and all methodology criticisms (though I'm not going to wade through box scores and do relievers and catching replacements without signficant monetary inducement.)

 

1) This is one analysis among many potential ones. This particular one doesn't have huge holes, but it isn't very far-reaching either. 2) "wading through box scores", including RPs, etc., is precisely what it would take to even approach an answer to the question.

 

The LyfLines guy gets that this is just a fun sort-of thought experiment. The type that many do here on a daily basis.

 

Neyer-

Yes, there is a great deal of noise in the data. Yes, there probably is a more sophisticated way to study the issue. But it's hard to argue with the notion that if Red Sox pitchers were better with Varitek behind the plate, we would expect to see different results than we're seeing here. Of course, it's notoriously difficult to find any catcher with a measurably positive impact on his pitchers, while at the same time it's intuitively and anecdotally hard to deny that some catchers do make a real difference.

 

Why look just at ERA? Why not look at WHIP, or OBP, or OPS and ERA? With Tek's 1000+ innings, for that matter, why not look too at W-L, as that is ultimately what matters most?

 

What about the possibility that a good pitcher with a decent catcher is good, but a good pitcher with a good catcher is great? I've heard good pitchers say that Jason studies hitters better than anyone else they've played with. Pitchers spend little time shaking him off, even the better pitchers. A pitcher with command is like a finely tuned gun and Tek tells it where to fire. He implements his game plan with their stuff. Young pitchers with good stuff just have to put themselves into auto-mode and let him do the thinking. We've seen two no-hitters by guys in their early 20's who said after the game that they were just throwing what Tek told them to throw.

 

Measuring the defensive impact of a catcher is very difficult, and Neyer admits the same himself. The catcher potentially touches every pitch and touches the ball multiple times per-out. A mistake on the simplest of chores--catching a curveball in the dirt with runners on--can result in a team's loss. Neither of these analysts look very deeply into the question in my opinion. A good way to look at this problem would be to isolate the results from the execution. Is there some way to know that the game he is calling is a better one than another catcher would call? The pitcher tries to execute what Tek calls for, but how well he does it is largely not Tek's responsibility.

 

I still think Tek is a very solid fielder. If there is a a man coming around 3rd in the pivotal moment of the ALCS, there's nobody I have more faith in making the play to tag him out than Tek. I'm glad he'll be back.

[italstallianion]

Damn I missed quite the intellectual battle. People overhyping their own intelligence/education in an attempt to accentuate their own argument....name calling...and statistical manipulation. Sometimes I hate being 5 hours ahead or I would have been able to catch most of this.

[Dipre]

Considering I am about to finish my Bachelors in Decision Science and Statistical Analysis, I know all about sample size, and would probably wager I know a hell of a lot more about statistical techniques and tendancies than you do.

 

That's not relevant, if the statistic is flawed, it's flawed even if you're the godfather of statistical analysis.

 

There is a reason why using a 23 different pitchers over a span of 11 years, then normalized each of those guys ERA to remove the problems that Vartek's overwhelming career superiority of getting the favorable guys to catch. The problem is that your unwilling to actually think that possibly Tek's lone selling point, his gaming calling and leadership, is no where near as valuable as what Boras sold you on.

 

The problem is that it seems like none of you guys are willing to read the underlying article that Neyer did not write. All that dumb bastard did was piggyback off another guys article.

 

That huge section on Neyer's article that says "--snipping all the data-- " is the actual important part.

 

Since it seems like you are unwilling or unable to follow links, ill help you out.

 

Oh, i follow links, i can also use common sense and investigate team tendencies and actually check on the stats myself instead of listening to some blowhard who wrote that on his blog 'cause the offseason has been slow, i read the whole article, and laughed at the "Varitek lovers, stop here, part" still, it's the use of a flawed stat to quantify something that can't really be quantified.

 

 

The problem with your argument that Tek will always get the benefit of the doubt becasue in the last 11 season the Sox has had a team ERA and league rankings of:

 

2008 4.01 (9th)

2007 3.87 (2nd)

2006 4.83 (26th)

2005 4.74 (24th)

2004 4.18 (11th)

2003 4.48 (17th)

2002 3.75 (7th)

2001 4.15 (9th)

2000 4.23 (5th)

1999 4.00 (5th)

1998 4.19 (9th)

 

Even if he does get one or two poor starters, the overall team ERA will drag down those numbers. It falls right back to a sample size issue that you keep thinking you are using in the right context.

 

Timlin (35.1) and Buchholz (67.2) pitched a combined 103 innings of the 1041 inning that Tek caught last year. For less than 10% of his innings caught to make a major difference to really sway his CERA for even .25 of a point would require both to have an ERA 2.46 points higher than the staff ERA. The problem is the inverse is true as well. The team has 950 inning pitched that fell below the team's ERA.

 

No major difference, but 10% is still a significant number, and besides that, your "stat" holds no significance in 2008, when Varitek actually lead in CERA by a LOT even though the staff was heavily in favor of the backup catcher as in, the backup mostly caught Wake's 4.13 ERA, and not gems like Aardsma, Bucholz and Timlin, whose near 15% of innings of Varitek's catched innings are actually a significant number.

 

Not only that, but you admit team ERA directly affects his CERA rating, making me ask you, isn't that why most people say RBI's are overrated since it's such a teammate-dependent stat, then how about the speeding train of awesomeness that is a stat based on a whole pitching staff?

 

Wow, i'm flabbergasted.

 

So Tek should get credit for the great starts of very good pitchers, but does not get blamed for the bad ones by medicore pitchers? How do you explain Buchholz from 2007 and 2008? He was great in 07 and horrible in 08. Did Tek just forget how to call a game fir him all of the sudden? If not and Buchholz poor year last year the pitchers failling, then Tek's game calling had to effect on the game.

 

Yeah, he's to blame for Bucholz' lack of command, Aardsma's lack of command, and Timlin's decline.

 

You're a genius, the NASA should hire you.

 

You can't have it both ways. Either those poor pitcher's that Tek got stuck with were not any good and therefore they had a high ERA and therefore Tek has no impact with calling the game, or Tek failed at game calling with them but didn't with other members of the staff.

 

Because CERA is a staff-dependent stat, but apparently you just can't see it while others can, i wonder why..........

 

As far as the beliefs of former players promoting Tek's good virtues, why wouldn't they. They are his friends and teams mates. Of course they are going to want Tek get paid in his last few years before retirement, especially after his divorce. If Tek's game calling was such a superior skill why did the Sox wait till 2 weeks before ST starts to offer him a new deal? If Tek game calling skills where such a big deal why did he have no other offers?

 

Because he can't hit anymore.

 

And about a catcher not getting rave reviews on his game-calling and handling of the pitching staff,Victor Martinez says hello........

 

If Tek had a direct control on the ERA of team becasue of his extreme ability to call a game, why would the normalized ERA not be even more in his favor. If it is a definable skill that he is superior at, that would lead to a measurable difference, normalized data would still skew heavily towards Tek. All normalization does is help overcome the sample size error becasue Tek is the primary catcher that catches roughly 130 games a year.

 

The problem is, you keep trying not to take into account the advantage backups in Boston have had over the last few years being Wake's "caddies", i might take this stat a bit more seriously if you pointed it out to me in a staff where the main/backup catcher present a bit more of parity in the amount of games caught, because there is no overcoming the sample size when one catcher has to catch some good, but some AWFUL pitchers, but the other only catches one extremely consistent pitcher, and once in a month, maybe a good, maybe a bad one.

 

Besides that, who the hell said he can have direct control on a staff's ERA, that's just a strawman argument, we're discussing the relevance of CERA, and my point is, that it's a stupid stat because it's entirely staff-related, and you counter with "i have a degree in statistical analysis", as if that has any relevance.

 

And if you really want your "stat" to have any relevance, then i need you to explain to me how one of the best defensive catchers, and one of the most respected game-callers in the last 3 decades, Mike Matheny, had a 3.48 CERA on the 2002 Cardinals, and then a 4.60 CERA on the injured and ineffective 2003 Cards squad, then a 3.86 CERA on the WS 2004 squad, but then a 4.46 CERA on the contender for team ERA lead that was the 2005

San Francisco Giants.

 

Again, sir, you need to read deep into things,because you can't try to judge a skill based on stat that wildly fluctuates depending on the staff you're catching, but hey, what do i know, i don't have a degree on statistical analysis.

 

Well, you live by your stat, it's not your fault you don't like to analyze things yourself.

[BSN07]

1st post aye sport? And yet you have deduced I know nothing about baseball>? My what a brilliant cursory appraisal! You are a GEM! I bet dimes to dollars you are a TROLL of someone I have smacked around a bit on these boards... Let me guess.."I have been here for umm..a long time...YEAH, YEAH, that's the ticket! I have only just today decided to post after years of perusing this board"? If your 1st post is any indication of what is to come from you, I suggest you follow this golden rule.."Read more..post less".

 

Sooooo, how is the weather down there under Tonto's ballsack?

 

Secondly, having played professionally, instructed professionally, and scouted professionally I find your appraisal of my baseball knowledge quite amusing..

 

Tonto seems to know the statistical side, as do I...props to him... Has he ever played, scouted, or instructed professionally? I don't know..but I highly doubt it. He seems to stand firmly on the side which views baseball as purely a numerical stat-game.. If you played the game, you are privy to tendencies and game strategy that cannot be quantified. I value statistical analysis as it helps me in evaluating a player... I use it as a tool... If stats were the only determining factor, I would have never been paid to go and watch kids play.

 

This isn't ground breaking news...

[JimEdHOF2009]

This isn't ground breaking news...

 

Coming from you...Mr. Vanilla, that means..well...

 

..nothing.

[jacksonianmarch]

JimEd is quickly becoming the forum pariah. I expect a ban in about a month.

[BSN07]

Mr. Vaniila?:lol

 

 

Well if we are going for nicknames, I'll call you "Snack Pack"....

[SCM33]

Mr. Vaniila?:lol

 

 

Well if we are going for nicknames, I'll call you "Snack Pack"....

 

Fruit cake.

[BSN07]

Na, " Snack Pack", cause he's soft like pudding...

[italstallianion]

Is anyone else hungry?

[Dipre]

Got vanilla?

[JimEdHOF2009]

Na' date=' " Snack Pack", cause he's soft like pudding...[/quote']

 

Wow, that's original. I call you Vanilla because you bring absolutely nothing to the table and just pop in from time to time with tired, regurgitated, bland musings which I believe are intended to be witty and humorous.... Newsflash, your blitherings are neither... You just look like a toothless gelding.

[BSN07]

Wow' date=' that's original. I call you Vanilla because you bring absolutely nothing to the table and just pop in from time to time with tired, regurgitated, bland musings which I believe are intended to be witty and humorous.... Newsflash, your blitherings are neither... You just look like a toothless gelding.[/quote']

 

Outch... Ya cut me deep.... real deep....

 

 

 

 

 

Ass clown...

[Jacoby_Ellsbury]

Oh dammit where's Coco's popcorn gif?

[BSN07]

Wow' date=' that's original. I call you Vanilla because you bring absolutely nothing to the table and just pop in from time to time with tired, regurgitated, bland musings which I believe are intended to be witty and humorous.... Newsflash, your blitherings are neither... You just look like a toothless gelding.[/quote']

 

Anyone else feel this way?

[JimEdHOF2009]

JimEd is quickly becoming the forum pariah. I expect a ban in about a month.

 

Tell me again about Varitek's ERA compared to Cash's? Plllleeeeeeeeeeeeez!

 

I could give two shits less if I am banned.. I actually bring some flavor and actual baseball know-how to this forum. Judging by the small number of people who actually post here... This site needs me more than I do it. I have an account at royalrooters as well.

 

As long as I am here..I will continue to point out your BLATANT lack of knowledge and disregard for the game of baseball.

[Jacoby_Ellsbury]

Not me bosoxnation.

[Jacoby_Ellsbury]

Tell me again about Varitek's ERA compared to Cash's? Plllleeeeeeeeeeeeez!

 

I could give two shits less if I am banned.. I actually bring some flavor and actual baseball know-how to this forum. Judging by the small number of people who actually post here... This site needs me more than I do it. I have an account at royalrooters as well.

 

As long as I am here..I will continue to point out your BLATANT lack of knowledge and disregard for the game of baseball.

 

I grant you bring flavor... the cheesy kind of flavor that makes us nauseous.