Is Victor Martinez the solution at catcher

[yeszir]

Place reasonable discussion here.

[bsox0407]

I think that V-mart is an offensive catcher that after this year could transition into a nice DH. If we could get Gonzo. I would like to move Youk back to his original position of 3B and put Gonzo at first.

 

Beltre was only given a one year deal so he could pack his bags if we got Gonzo. Or if Beltre continues to hit like he is then f*** it. Leave V-mart as our catcher and bring back the years of Power hitting no defense catchers.

[TheMino007]

V-Mart won't be a catcher forever. His transition to 1st base began in Cleveland. He has never been a great defensive catcher anyway, but at some point you have to take into the account that catching too many games will affect his ability to hit. His ability be an offensive threat, actually a top 3 offensive catcher, is where he makes his $. Depending on the progress of guys like Expositio and Wagner, I would like to see V-Mart here for another 3 years. The Sox have to watch how many games he starts behind this dish, b/c he can't be catching too many. In the future you could have V-Mart split time with Exposito and have him DH or play 1st b/c by then Ortiz and Lowell will be gone.

[Gom]

My whole point is this:

 

A bad defensive catcher will give away as many runs, if not more, with his poor fielding. The catcher is the most important defensive position in the game.

 

As a Yankee fan, we have suffered with Posada behind the plate. The ignorant among us believe Posada has a great bat, giving offense out of a position that normally does not, without realizing that they often will cost a team more runs than they create.

 

Red Sox fans this season will see this in the 2010 season. The only question is whether Martinez will give up more than he creates.

 

Sadly, there is no great metric for catcher defense. UZR, quite possibly the most flawed statistical metric ever quoted here, got it right for once. They simply don't have a metric for catchers. This means that people here have to, inconceivably, actually watch the game and determine for themselves how good a player is. They aren't spoon-fed information to make them feel smart.

 

However, this is not that difficult. By far, the easiest defensive position to determine on television is catcher. That's because the camera is on the catcher nearly all of the time. So watch how the catcher sets up. Watch how they frame a pitch, and then watch the opposing catcher. You'll start to see how much an effect the catcher has on a game.

 

For all of you that have MLB Network, watch the highlights where they break down CJ Wilson. Wilson threw 4 strikes to Nick Johnson, and each one was called a ball. Get past Mitch Williams commentary, and you will see what I mean. Their catcher was terrible. He lost a third strike call on Granderson, and the next pitch resulted in an error in which two runs scored.

 

Some people here will refuse to believe in something that can't be quantified, however incorrectly. I don't watch Martinez anywhere near as much as you do, or will. So chime in here, AFTER you've watched how good/bad he is behind the plate, and throw in your two cents.

 

The final thing I'll say about Martinez is this...if he is anywhere close to how bad Posada is, you'll be lucky to be in the playoff hunt this year. Your team simply doesn't have the offense to make up for it.

[MIKE BIBBYS BIGGEST DAD]

Red Sox should do following

Trade Ortiz

Make Vmart DH

Acquire a good defensive catcher such as Kurt Suzuki, Jason Kendall. Chris Snyer or someone along the lines of those catchers. This will 1. Keep V-marts bat in the lineup. 2. rid the Sox of Ortiz contract. 3 fix the defensive problem without taking a hit offensively as those catchers cant possibly as bad as ortiz has thus far in 2010.

[Lester82]

Kidnap Joe Mauer?

[Lester82]

The final thing I'll say about Martinez is this...if he is anywhere close to how bad Posada is, you'll be lucky to be in the playoff hunt this year. Your team simply doesn't have the offense to make up for it.

 

- Spoken by Gom

 

Therefore the opposite will happen.

[Dipre]

So many things wrong with this post.

 

Sadly' date=' there is no great metric for catcher defense. UZR, quite possibly the most flawed statistical metric ever quoted here, got it right for once. They simply don't have a metric for catchers. This means that people here have to, inconceivably, actually watch the game and determine for themselves how good a player is. They aren't spoon-fed information to make them feel smart.[/quote']

 

You don't know how UZR works. Your knocking it is downright humorous. In fact, IIRC, you thought it was kind of a counting stat. If you don't understand something, admit you don't, shut up about it, and move on. You're also stupid to say that some of the people who believe metrics because they know that the T.V isn't an accurate way to measure defense, which is why you miserably fail in about 90% of your assesments on anything, and let me prove it by destroying your Texas argument.

 

However, this is not that difficult. By far, the easiest defensive position to determine on television is catcher. That's because the camera is on the catcher nearly all of the time. So watch how the catcher sets up. Watch how they frame a pitch, and then watch the opposing catcher. You'll start to see how much an effect the catcher has on a game.

 

For all of you that have MLB Network, watch the highlights where they break down CJ Wilson. Wilson threw 4 strikes to Nick Johnson, and each one was called a ball. Get past Mitch Williams commentary, and you will see what I mean. Their catcher was terrible. He lost a third strike call on Granderson, and the next pitch resulted in an error in which two runs scored.

 

On TV? Seriously?

 

First off, in the AB that Johnsonn walked, was his first one of the game. In that AB, Gameday easily shows that Wilson threw four clear balls, meaning you're either making this up to prove a point, or you have zero idea of what you're talking about.

 

http://img442.imageshack.us/img442/1917/njab.th.png

 

The only "borderline" pitch was pitch number five, and even that one was suspect. "Believe your eyes, and watch the games" huh?

 

In the Granderson AB, pitch three to Granderson was a ball, and as far as i'm concerned, there's no way for catchers to magically turn balls into strikes. For a catcher to be able to "frame" a borderline pitch, the pitch has to have, you know, a chance to be called a strike.

 

http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/4963/cgab.th.png

 

Unless you can prove me that your eyes are more accurate than MLB's pitch tracking system (Hint: You can't) your argument holds zero water.

 

Besides that, what exactly does this brilliant assesment have to do with Martinez' ability to call a ballgame or frame pitches?

 

Martinez caught some brilliant pitching staffs in Cleveland, and the only complain about him was his weak arm. All of your argument is baseless conjecture, specially based on the fact that it's the middle of April.

 

 

Some people here will refuse to believe in something that can't be quantified, however incorrectly. I don't watch Martinez anywhere near as much as you do, or will. So chime in here, AFTER you've watched how good/bad he is behind the plate, and throw in your two cents.

 

What people here refuse to believe is your ability to concoct an accurate assesment of a catcher's defensive, "framing", and game-calling ability through the television or going to a couple games a year to Yankee Stadium. As proved above, you are usually wrong, and it gives us further reason to not believe your subjective opinion. Besides, you've been talking like you "called" that Martinez was going to be a defensive liability, and it's the middle of April, you have no way of backing up said opinion, since you just admitted here you haven't "watched" Martinez much, that pretty much says you're just talking for the sake of talking. "Watch the gamezzzzzz", then assess Martinez.

 

The final thing I'll say about Martinez is this...if he is anywhere close to how bad Posada is, you'll be lucky to be in the playoff hunt this year. Your team simply doesn't have the offense to make up for it.

 

How can you accurately asses this team's offense in April?

 

Now you didn't "call" on Martinez sucking behind the plate, you're saying he "may or may not suck" behind the plate. I thought it was a fearless prediction, so why the fearful backpedal?

 

Please stop using baseless conjecture as a means to create these types of "opinions" and then making me waste my time proving you wrong.....over......and over......and over.

[YeAuldBroade]

Who screwed up the width of the page? Please delete the graphics.

[Dipre]

Uh-oh. My bad. Let me fix.

[ORS]

The whole "framing pitches" argument is such a joke. Gom is fabricating pitches that would change if the catcher had a higher Molina-factor. There is absolutely no way you can say a pitch would change either way depending on the catcher. It's all a self-serving fabrication. A sham. A sham-wow.

 

ON TOPIC:

 

No, he's not the solution. He has a glaring deficiency in his game. They should always strive for players like Youk and Pedroia who are very good at both the offensive and defensive sides of the game. That said, he is an acceptable option while they try and find a more complete player, be it internally or externally.

[Gom]

 

You don't know how UZR works. Your knocking it is downright humorous. In fact, IIRC, you thought it was kind of a counting stat. If you don't understand something, admit you don't, shut up about it, and move on. You're also stupid to say that some of the people who believe metrics because they know that the T.V isn't an accurate way to measure defense, which is why you miserably fail in about 90% of your assesments on anything, and let me prove it by destroying your Texas argument.

Try to keep things civil if you want to stay here. Just consider it a fair warning. I should know.

 

Quite simply...it does not work. From a scientific point of you, the error range is too great for it to be a significant statistic. Unlike you, if I look at something, and it is so blatantly wrong, I don't delve into the "logic" of why it's right. Maybe the formula is no good. Maybe the way the balls in play are mapped wrong. It is inconsequential. A metric that has three of the 2009 AL Gold Glove winners as being negative, and two of the 2009 NL Gold Glove winners as negative is a joke; a farce.

 

Anyone here care to debate if any of the following players are WORSE than the average Triple-A call-up?

 

Teixeira, Torii Hunter, Adam Jones, Orlando Hudson, Shane Victorino?

On TV? Seriously?

 

First off, in the AB that Johnsonn walked, was his first one of the game. In that AB, Gameday easily shows that Wilson threw four clear balls, meaning you're either making this up to prove a point, or you have zero idea of what you're talking about.

 

http://img442.imageshack.us/img442/1917/njab.th.png

 

The only "borderline" pitch was pitch number five, and even that one was suspect. "Believe your eyes, and watch the games" huh?

 

In the Granderson AB, pitch three to Granderson was a ball, and as far as i'm concerned, there's no way for catchers to magically turn balls into strikes. For a catcher to be able to "frame" a borderline pitch, the pitch has to have, you know, a chance to be called a strike.

 

http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/4963/cgab.th.png

 

Unless you can prove me that your eyes are more accurate than MLB's pitch tracking system (Hint: You can't) your argument holds zero water.

Well...did you do what I said? Did you watch the breakdown with Mitch Williams on MLB Network?

 

They showed a graph, with the strikezone superimposed over it, the nine zones, and each hit the strike zone. So..either Gameday is wrong, or MLB Network is wrong. It seems like we've been down this road before. I'm assuming you're not lying, which has been a problem for you in the past, but two things. I watched the game, and I agree that those pitches were strikes. My personal analysis agrees with MLB Network, and not Gameday in this case. Does that make me right or wrong? Neither. However, I will say this. If Teagarten, or whatever his name is, could have "stolen" one strike, it's a one run game. He had about 5 opportunities to do so. Look on the other side. I think CC struck out 6 in a row. Same umpire. A lot of called strike calls.

 

This is honestly beyond your level of comprehension. You are too stubborn to admit that you're wrong..and honestly, I don't care. This is for other people who may want to analyze things and see things differently than they have before. You are a lost cause.

Besides that, what exactly does this brilliant assesment have to do with Martinez' ability to call a ballgame or frame pitches?

 

Martinez caught some brilliant pitching staffs in Cleveland, and the only complain about him was his weak arm. All of your argument is baseless conjecture, specially based on the fact that it's the middle of April.

Everything. Like every other player, as a player gets older, they "lose" a step. I've never been a full-time catcher, but reaction time has a lot to do with it, I believe. Throwing arm, framing pitches..these I believe deteriorate with age as well. His arm, his ability to frame pitches [from the small sample size I've seen with him] are below average. He's Posada-Lite, or if it offends your sensibilities, Posada is VMart-Lite.

 

What people here refuse to believe is your ability to concoct an accurate assesment of a catcher's defensive, "framing", and game-calling ability through the television or going to a couple games a year to Yankee Stadium. As proved above, you are usually wrong, and it gives us further reason to not believe your subjective opinion. Besides, you've been talking like you "called" that Martinez was going to be a defensive liability, and it's the middle of April, you have no way of backing up said opinion, since you just admitted here you haven't "watched" Martinez much, that pretty much says you're just talking for the sake of talking. "Watch the gamezzzzzz", then assess Martinez.

What bothers a lot of people is the fear of being found out that they are stupid. They lack the ability to formulate an opinion for themselves, and unless they are spoon-fed information, they find it an affront to them. Because there is no true-defensive metric for a catcher [i would argue that there really isn't one for fielders either, but that's another discussion], and people are unable to do a Google search to quantify it, they get upset. Sadly, Dipre, you are in this boat. You take this personally, with insults and whatnot. I'm trying to point out something I know and see. You don't have to agree with it. If you're ignorant about something...that's your issue, not mine. Watch the games. You might learn something. Seriously.

 

Anyone here want to bet me that even with the addition of Lackey and his supposed sub 4.00 ERA, that the Red Sox team ERA will be higher this year than it was last year?

 

Last night, Cervelli got about five or six pitches, by my count, that were out of the strike zone. Teagarden [sp?] had about 10 borderline pitches go against him. That right there, if you ask me, was the ball game.

How can you accurately asses this team's offense in April?

Gut feeling, projections I've read. Also as a Yankee fan, I feared this team with Manny and Papi. Then you got rid of Manny, and replaced him with Bay, and the fear dissipated a little. Then Ortiz got old/clean/etc., and you lost Bay. You improved your team defense, but you lost a lot of the high OBP players you used to have by bringing in Beltre and Cameron. This offense, in my opinion, is the third best offense in the AL East, behind New York and Tampa.

Now you didn't "call" on Martinez sucking behind the plate, you're saying he "may or may not suck" behind the plate. I thought it was a fearless prediction, so why the fearful backpedal?

Learn to read. Here is the quote:

 

7. Victor Martinez will put up great numbers at the plate, but the Red Sox ERA will suffer greatly with him, ala Posada. The grumblings should begin in the summer.

 

I was wrong. The grumblings have started in April. I miscalculated how sharp you guys can be. My mistake. Kudos to most of you.

 

However, as all can see..what people write, and what you read Dipre and interpret are often two very different things. How can anyone but you take the fact that I stated that the Red Sox team ERA will suffer greatly and conclude that I said he "may or may not suck"? Really?

Please stop using baseless conjecture as a means to create these types of "opinions" and then making me waste my time proving you wrong.....over......and over......and over.

Noise. That's all you do here Dipre. You just make noise, but with no substance. When you actually think, you can have some decent insight. However, when you're stubborn, you come across as an ignoramus, an elitist, and a fool.

 

Side note...the fearless predictions were there to have fun. Some were serious [burnett ERA going up, Vmart sucking behind the plate], some were funny [Nick Johnson getting injured scooping out Ice Cream] and some were blantantly hopeful homerism [Vazquez outpitching Lackey]. I'm not afraid of putting myself out there for both praise and ridicule..but mainly, it sparked three pages of debate and fun...which is my intent. Stop taking this s*** so seriously, especially when you're wrong. :thumbsup:

[Gom]

Another note....

First off, in the AB that Johnsonn walked, was his first one of the game. In that AB, Gameday easily shows that Wilson threw four clear balls, meaning you're either making this up to prove a point, or you have zero idea of what you're talking about.

 

EVERYONE here knows you lie to try and prove a point. EVERYONE. Casual posters, mods...EVERYONE. Can I be more clear on this?

 

You may not agree with me. A lot of people do, a lot of people don't. However, I'm honest in my posts, and people here appreciate that. I'm getting tired of the biggest liar here accusing me of lying. The next time you do it, I won't be as nice as I've been.

 

Here, for all the people who want to see the video that I watched last night, Mitch Williams breaking down CJ Wilson, here is the link. Unlike you, I don't make s*** up.

 

If you want to skip to the point, go to about the two minute mark. Apparently, Mitch Williams is not as qualified as Dipre is with his Gameday. My bad.

 

http://mlb.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=7491861&topic_id=7417714

 

Enjoy.

[ORS]

********. Here's all the called strikes/balls for the game.

 

http://brooksbaseball.net/pfx/zoneplot.php?pitchSel=all&sp_type=1&game=gid_2010_04_16_texmlb_nyamlb_1/&s_type=7

 

Is Teagarden really good at "framing" outside pitches but not low pitches? Or is that representative of Timmon's strikezone? Considering CC got stuff wide of the plate too, logic suggests it's the latter. The former is sham-wow.

 

Furthermore, follow your own advice and review that video. Teagarden locks that pitch in that was called a ball to Granderson. His glove doesn't move an inch when he receives it, which was really evident in the overhead view ..... which also showed the pitch was wide of the plate.

 

Complete fabrication.

[jacksonianmarch]

ON TOPIC:

 

No, he's not the solution. He has a glaring deficiency in his game. They should always strive for players like Youk and Pedroia who are very good at both the offensive and defensive sides of the game. That said, he is an acceptable option while they try and find a more complete player, be it internally or externally.

 

You really want to have a complete player at the catcher position, and while it is important, it isnt critical. Hell, Posada has been a full time catcher since 1999, and all we've done is win 3 championships and go to 5 world series in that time. And he's about as bad as they come in receiving. BUT, his offensive skills far outweigh his defensive deficiencies, making him more than worth it.

 

VMart isn't a terrible catcher from a receiving standpoint. Maybe he doesnt call a good game, but that's on Francona if thats the solution. Then Terry can take it from him and call the pitches from the bench. But he is absolutely horrible in the throwing game. Will it kill the sox? Probably not, as long as VMart hits

[Gom]

********. Here's all the called strikes/balls for the game.

 

http://brooksbaseball.net/pfx/zoneplot.php?pitchSel=all&sp_type=1&game=gid_2010_04_16_texmlb_nyamlb_1/&s_type=7

 

Is Teagarden really good at "framing" outside pitches but not low pitches? Or is that representative of Timmon's strikezone? Considering CC got stuff wide of the plate too, logic suggests it's the latter. The former is sham-wow.

 

Furthermore, follow your own advice and review that video. Teagarden locks that pitch in that was called a ball to Granderson. His glove doesn't move an inch when he receives it, which was really evident in the overhead view ..... which also showed the pitch was wide of the plate.

 

Complete fabrication.

 

Oh. My. God.

 

Look at your chart ORS. Just look at it. Now..shut up. Look at it again. Seriously. Memorize the damn thing. Let's look at this together.

 

NINE. NINE PITCHES.

 

Just by watching the gamezzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz, I claimed that Teagarden cost about 10 strikes last night. Not bad for someone who uses his eyes, huh? Remember, according to baseball rules, any part of the ball that crosses the plate are called strikes. So a ball has to miss completely to be called a ball.

 

According to your chart, when Wilson was pitching, NINE PITCHES IN THE STRIKE ZONE WERE CALLED BALLS. NINE. Let me say it again. NINE.

 

How many pitches of CC's that were in the strike zone were called balls?

 

ZERO.

 

Honestly, thank you for proving two things.

 

1) My point. You did it better for me than I did. The best part about it is that you probably don't even get it.

 

2) Further proof that when people use the internet, there is a wealth of information and a lack of knowledge.

 

I quoted about 10 pitches that Teagarden cost Wilson. I was wrong. It was 9. Oh my God...I watched the gamezzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. How could I know?

 

You are seriously lost. Completely and utterly. Honestly, I've never seen anyone as lost as you. Seriously.

 

Oh...and thanks again. Anyone who wants to debate this point with me, please look at the chart ORS kindly posted.

[jacksonianmarch]

Waiting for ORS to post CC's stats to completely own Gom again....

[Gom]

Waiting for ORS to post CC's stats to completely own Gom again....

 

Go back to hyping a D level prospect as a future Hall of Famer. You don't even understand this conversation.

[jacksonianmarch]

Gom, keep talking and I'll get your medallion suspended

[Gom]

Gom' date=' keep talking and I'll get your medallion suspended[/quote']

 

Now that was funny. I'll give you credit when it's due.

[example1]

Now that was funny. I'll give you credit when it's due.

 

You sound annoyed that this discussion has not led to a Gom love fest. I think it's what you get for being condescending about your baseball knowledge and your superior fandom. I wrote a long reply too but decided to scrap it because it was too argumentative.

[yeszir]

You sound annoyed that this discussion has not led to a Gom love fest. I think it's what you get for being condescending about your baseball knowledge and your superior fandom. I wrote a long reply too but decided to scrap it because it was too argumentative.

 

What's gotten into you?! This is Talksox! Too argumentative? Psh.

[ORS]

Oh. My. God.

 

Look at your chart ORS. Just look at it. Now..shut up. Look at it again. Seriously. Memorize the damn thing. Let's look at this together.

 

NINE. NINE PITCHES.

 

Just by watching the gamezzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz, I claimed that Teagarden cost about 10 strikes last night. Not bad for someone who uses his eyes, huh? Remember, according to baseball rules, any part of the ball that crosses the plate are called strikes. So a ball has to miss completely to be called a ball.

 

According to your chart, when Wilson was pitching, NINE PITCHES IN THE STRIKE ZONE WERE CALLED BALLS. NINE. Let me say it again. NINE.

 

How many pitches of CC's that were in the strike zone were called balls?

 

ZERO.

 

Honestly, thank you for proving two things.

 

1) My point. You did it better for me than I did. The best part about it is that you probably don't even get it.

 

2) Further proof that when people use the internet, there is a wealth of information and a lack of knowledge.

 

I quoted about 10 pitches that Teagarden cost Wilson. I was wrong. It was 9. Oh my God...I watched the gamezzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. How could I know?

 

You are seriously lost. Completely and utterly. Honestly, I've never seen anyone as lost as you. Seriously.

 

Oh...and thanks again. Anyone who wants to debate this point with me, please look at the chart ORS kindly posted.

This is funny. Clearly, you have a hard time reading the chart. Timmon's strikezone is defined by the chart.

 

The concept of "framing", as defined by you, is that catchers are getting more strikes called. This doesn't happen in that chart. There are two glaring areas where the strikezone as called varies from the strikezone as defined. This is where you should be able to find your mythical "framing", but you can't.

 

The area at the bottom of the strikezone and the left of the strikezone invalidate the "framing" nonsense. At the left of the strikezone, Wilson gets several strikes called well outside of the strikezone. Clearly, either Teagarden is a master of tricking the ump into calling balls as strikes for his pitcher, or something else is at work. Let's look at the other inconsistency. Well, well, what have we here, the lower end of the strikezone has the opposite occurring. Maybe Teagarden isn't so hot afterall, or....just maybe, the ump calls a stikezone that differs from the rulebook. If it was "framing", you'd see the strikezone getting stretched for one pitcher over the other in all directions, which, of course, doesn't happen.

[Gom]

So he has a strike zone that is skewed to the left. It's consistent for both pitchers.

 

However, not a single pitch in the strike zone thrown by CC was missed. Nine thrown by Wilson were.

 

One team had the better catcher. Framing pitches is not only getting strikes that should be balls, but not losing strikes. For years, I've been watching pitches on the edge getting routinely called balls. Pitches that I thought were strikes were routinely called balls by the umpire because of Posada's lack of framing ability. Now you are starting to see it with Victor after years of an adequate to above average catcher in Varitek. It's foreign to you, but old hat to me. Irrespective of Timmon's strike zone, nine pitches were called balls. Of those nine...there was at least one missed call in EVERY direction. Up, down, left, and right. It's not like he missed only the pitches to the right. He missed in every direction with Wilson, yet didn't miss ONE with CC. Face the facts...it's either a conspiracy, and then we might as well call you JHB-Lite, or I'm right. Choose.

 

Again....thanks for the chart. Made my point better than I ever could. End of story.

 

Jacko...get the vaseline ready.

[Keeper]

I watched the video. There were three pitches that could have been called strikes. They were borderline.

 

I'm not sure why ORS has framing in quotes. It's not "mythical."

[ORS]

Irrespective of Timmon's strike zone' date=' nine pitches were called balls. Of those nine...there was at least one missed call in EVERY direction. Up, down, left, and right. [/quote']

Then tell me this, since you are such fan of what your eyes tell you. What did Teagarden do wrong on the pitch to Granderson? Where did his framing break down?

 

Again....thanks for the chart. Made my point better than I ever could.

While I agree that I can make any point more cogently that you are able, you're still grasping at straws here, it doesn't help you.

[ORS]

I watched the video. There were three pitches that could have been called strikes. They were borderline.

 

I'm not sure why ORS has framing in quotes. It's not "mythical."

It is as defined by Gom, or at least to the degree that Gom claims it impacts the game.

[Gom]

Then tell me this, since you are such fan of what your eyes tell you. What did Teagarden do wrong on the pitch to Granderson? Where did his framing break down?

 

 

While I agree that I can make any point more cogently that you are able, you're still grasping at straws here, it doesn't help you.

 

You definitely make my points for me better than I can. Hell, you might be the best in the world at making the point for the person you are arguing against and against yourself.

 

What did he do wrong? Easy. Setup. Outside pitch to a lefty, you set up further outside, angle the body with the left shoulder closer to the pitcher, right shoulder towards the umpire and catch it on the right side of the body with the glove. Umpire sees that, gives you the pitch more often than not.

 

How do I know this? Easy. I was never a catcher. I loved Posada as a player. However, my brother, who did a little catching himself, pointed it out to me. I started looking for it. I started to see it, and it became more and more obvious to me because I was looking for it. However, I didn't really start to see it until we got Molina. The contrast between one of the best in baseball and one of the worst in baseball made it easy. It may be tough to see who the better player is offensively between...say Tex and Gonzalez. However, it's easy to see if you compare Pujols and Eckstein. I'm not against learning.

 

We've hijacked this thread enough. Try this ORS, because I know you're not as stubborn as you come across here. Tonight's game, if Martinez is catching, try as hard as you can to be objective and watch the catcher. Look at the called pitches. Count how many you honestly think were strikes that you guys didn't get.

 

Then go back to your strike chart...but only do it after the game. I am willing to bet that you are going to be pretty much dead on. Maybe then you'll see what I mean.

[ORS]

You either didn't watch it again, or you just like making s*** up to support your ********. I think it's probably the latter. Seriously, watch it again, particularly the overhead view. He does exactly what you say he should. He sets up off the plate, his left shoulder is closer to the pitcher, and he even receives the ball with his hand moving the ball toward the strikezone, which makes it look like he had to come closer to middle of the plate to receive the ball.

 

That's the ump, not the catcher.

[Gom]

I personally thought it knicked the corner. However, it's not about one pitch. I don't even know if that was one of the pitches that was missed by the umpire. It's irrelevant. The umpire missed nine pitches for one pitcher, and none for the other. That same catcher had a passed ball. The Yankees sweep the Red Sox most likely if Posada can catch.

 

What about the four pitches to Johnson? Did you think all of them were balls? Didn't think so.

 

None of this changes the fact that he missed nine pitches.