Is Victor Martinez the solution at catcher

[jacksonianmarch]

Regardless, I think everyone agrees that Martinez is a minus on the defensive end and right now he isnt hitting. Once he is hitting his customary .300/.360/.480, then all will be forgotten.

[Dipre]

Regardless' date=' I think everyone agrees that Martinez is a minus on the defensive end and right now he isnt hitting. Once he is hitting his customary .300/.360/.480, then all will be forgotten.[/quote']

 

People concentrate on Ortiz and Drew, but the real X-factor regarding the offensive suckage comes from Youkilis' recent cold spell and Martinez' struggle.

[jacksonianmarch]

I also think the sox have seen a change in offensive approach. VMart isnt a hacker, but he certainly isnt the most patient player in baseball. Add in Beltre, and you have 2 guys in the middle of your order who have combined for 3 walks in 12 games. That changes the dynamic of the game entirely. The sox were always grinders 1-9, especially when they won in 2004 and 2007. But, having guys like Ellsbury, Beltre, Martinez, and even Big Papi in the lineup makes the inning a bit less painful for the opposing pitcher. The sox got away from their winning formula. Wear down the starter, get to the soft pen and win games in the middle innings. That change in approach could really hurt the Red Sox this season. Especially, if the guys who arent walking, dont hit with enough frequency to make you not notice it

[Dipre]

I also think the sox have seen a change in offensive approach. VMart isnt a hacker' date=' but he certainly isnt the most patient player in baseball. Add in Beltre, and you have 2 guys in the middle of your order who have combined for 3 walks in 12 games. That changes the dynamic of the game entirely. The sox were always grinders 1-9, especially when they won in 2004 and 2007. But, having guys like Ellsbury, Beltre, Martinez, and even Big Papi in the lineup makes the inning a bit less painful for the opposing pitcher. The sox got away from their winning formula. Wear down the starter, get to the soft pen and win games in the middle innings. That change in approach could really hurt the Red Sox this season. Especially, if the guys who arent walking, dont hit with enough frequency to make you not notice it[/quote']

 

Beltre has roughly the same career P/PA as Mike Lowell.

 

Jason Varitek has seen 3.80 P/PA in his career, Martinez has seen 4.04.

 

David Ortiz had a career high P/PA last season. Expect that to continue once he settles in.

 

Jason Bay saw 3.99 P/PA last year, Cameron saw 3.96.

 

Nick Green saw 3.44 P/PA last season, Scutaro saw 4.06 and is delivering more of the same.

 

This team will continue to grind pitchers just as it has done in recent years, but the offense needs to settle in first.

[SCM33]

If Ortiz continues to struggle, acquire Suzuki. Beane would trade his own mother for the right amount of prospects.

 

Then they could either spin VMart for an additonal bat, or slide him in at DH.

Papi would either have his AB's limited or cut.

They would still have to figure out what is going on with Mike Lowell.

 

The acquisition of Suzuki may seem insignificant, but I think it makes the team better, especially if they are able to throw in another bat. They would be improving defense and potentially their offense. I imagine Dice-K would be very comfortable throwing to him.

[jacksonianmarch]

"Spinning off VMart" isnt going to get you a strong return mostly because he is in the final yr of his deal and your suitors will be limited.

[SoxSport]

I don't know, it just seems to me that the FO and the management on the field are out of step. The FO seems to do a lot of sensible things in the off-season (discounting the SS fiascos), but the dugout management doesn't seem to keep up with them. That pitching coach gets stroked--for example. What's he done? A string of failures...Pineiro, Penny, Smoltz... That slide business for pitchers, which is making the Sox the laughing stock of baseball. And then there's Tito, with his fanatical loyalty to washed up veterans.

 

To address the VMart issue, I think VMart looks a lot worse right now than he is defensively. I think any catcher would look bad defensively on the Sox with the way pitchers let base runners go. In fact, I think any catcher would HATE to catch for Boston right now.

[Gom]

Just a question here for Dipre and ORS.

 

Jacko doesn't believe in Catcher ERA. I understand it's limitations, but when comparing catchers on the same team or catching the same pitcher, I think it's extremely effective. Jacko does not feel the same way. Fine...he's out of the conversation. I don't believe in UZR. Everyone has their feelings.

 

However...Dipre and ORS...would you believe it if by the July 1st, the Red Sox ERA between Varitek and Martinez was 0.5 points or more? At what point would it be significant, if ever? Just curious.

[SCM33]

"Spinning off VMart" isnt going to get you a strong return mostly because he is in the final yr of his deal and your suitors will be limited.

 

If they try to re-sign him, then trade him he might have some value. I know he was looking for a deal in ST.

[jacksonianmarch]

That might work, but I highly doubt he agrees to a deal with the knowledge that he'd get dealt away. My guess is that the sox ride the season out with him and take the picks if he doesnt sign a team friendly deal

[jacksonianmarch]

Just a question here for Dipre and ORS.

 

Jacko doesn't believe in Catcher ERA. I understand it's limitations, but when comparing catchers on the same team or catching the same pitcher, I think it's extremely effective. Jacko does not feel the same way. Fine...he's out of the conversation. I don't believe in UZR. Everyone has their feelings.

 

However...Dipre and ORS...would you believe it if by the July 1st, the Red Sox ERA between Varitek and Martinez was 0.5 points or more? At what point would it be significant, if ever? Just curious.

 

Ridiculous as usual. Tek looks like he's gonna be Beckett's personal battery mate, meaning that his CERA is gonna be MUCH lower than VMarts based on the fact that he's catching one of their top pitchers all the time.

[Gom]

Ridiculous as usual. Tek looks like he's gonna be Beckett's personal battery mate' date=' meaning that his CERA is gonna be MUCH lower than VMarts based on the fact that he's catching one of their top pitchers all the time.[/quote']

 

You don't buy it because you have a Posada hard-on. We get it. Why do you think the ace of both teams is getting the better catcher? Compare Beckett with both catchers. The difference will be the same.

 

Plus, this was a question for ORS and Dipre. You've made it clear you don't buy into CERA. As wrong as I you are, I respect your choice to choose. Why are you even responding?

 

Honestly...here is an article by a f***ing High-School kid, who in one article has shown more intelligence and insight than a you have in thousands of posts. Now seriously, stop sticking your nose into a question I asked others and not you.

 

http://blog.timesunion.com/highschool/is-it-just-a-coincidence/10931/

[ORS]

Short answer: CERA is unreliable because pitchers' performances vary so much from start to start even with the same catcher that it's very difficult to remove that noise, particularly when you reduce the sample sizes to a few starts (for the backup catcher).

 

Long answer: This topic has been discussed for years, with people who have far more passion and time for this than I conducting statistical studies to try and find out if it tells us something. You have to understand something, when they conduct these studies, they do so with little bias, because their intent is to find measures that tell us more about the game. If anything, they want stats like CERA to give us greater understanding, so their bias would be toward having findings that support it. Google and read.

 

Oh, and you proudly align with the twitterings of a high school kid. Not sure that's the best possible thing to do when trying to gain credibility, but, it's not all that surprising either.

[VA Sox Fan]

Short answer: CERA is unreliable because pitchers' performances vary so much from start to start even with the same catcher that it's very difficult to remove that noise, particularly when you reduce the sample sizes to a few starts (for the backup catcher).

 

Long answer: This topic has been discussed for years, with people who have far more passion and time for this than I conducting statistical studies to try and find out if it tells us something. You have to understand something, when they conduct these studies, they do so with little bias, because their intent is to find measures that tell us more about the game. If anything, they want stats like CERA to give us greater understanding, so their bias would be toward having findings that support it. Google and read.

 

Oh, and you proudly align with the twitterings of a high school kid. Not sure that's the best possible thing to do when trying to gain credibility, but, it's not all that surprising either.

 

 

[Gom]

Short answer: CERA is unreliable because pitchers' performances vary so much from start to start even with the same catcher that it's very difficult to remove that noise, particularly when you reduce the sample sizes to a few starts (for the backup catcher).

 

Long answer: This topic has been discussed for years, with people who have far more passion and time for this than I conducting statistical studies to try and find out if it tells us something. You have to understand something, when they conduct these studies, they do so with little bias, because their intent is to find measures that tell us more about the game. If anything, they want stats like CERA to give us greater understanding, so their bias would be toward having findings that support it. Google and read.

 

Oh, and you proudly align with the twitterings of a high school kid. Not sure that's the best possible thing to do when trying to gain credibility, but, it's not all that surprising either.

Sadly, this kid has shown more sense than the clueless trio. I figured since you saw it on the internet, you'd accept it as the God-Given truth. It seems to be a prevalent theme here. Accepting information without any sort of wisdom, just because it's printed.

 

Now, barbs aside....

 

The long answer makes a lot of sense. The short answer also makes sense. However, this is the best we have. What other way can we compare catchers and their effectiveness behind the plate and their overall impact? As far as I know, there is no other way.

 

When what I see is backed up by statistics, no matter the degree of error/sample size, then I know the formula, which may not be perfect, is on the right track. I acknowledge the statistic, and hope that someone who has more passion and time than I will figure out a more meaningful formula that will coincide with the statistics and what we can see by, yes...watching the games. This is how I feel about CERA, and how it pertains to the Yankees and Red Sox. The reason is that the main catcher is so poor defensively, and the backup is so much more accomplished defensively, the formula will be more or less effective.

 

If you were to have two relatively even catchers defensively, the formula may very well be useless. This formula is to show the disparity between two catchers on the same team, IMO. Because both of our 1st string catchers are so terrible defensively, the contrast is easily seen in the formula, and also for anyone who has an eye for the game...literally.

 

Now, conversely, when a statistic, like UZR, routinely misses players like Tex, Hunter, Adam Jones, etc., and labels them as below average not to their major league counterparts, but to a AAA replacement player, than there is significant error there that renders the formula completely useless. Whether it's mapping of the data, or the formula, or something else is irrelevant. It is useless, and I ignore it. I choose not to waste my time in finding out what is wrong with the formula. Let someone else figure it out and when they do, I will accept it.

 

Another way to look at is as follows: do you use Batting Average to value players? No, because we have more advanced metrics that over time have shown to be more effective. Basically, we are in the formula stage for defense that Batting Average once was for offense. Soon, we will come up with something that mimics OBP and SLG, and the more advanced offensive statistics. We're just not there yet. However, there are others here, like Jacko and Dipre who are screaming out the defensive equivalent "Gardner is better than Arod because he has a better batting average"....when anyone who watches the game knows that such a phrase is pure folly. Similarly, we are in the same place for determining catcher's value defensively, if not even more rudimentary in our knowledge. However, since these people are unable to think for themselves, they take this as an affront to their supposed baseball intelligence. Which, sadly, it is.

 

I digress.

 

So when is CERA most effective? When you compare catchers on the same team, and when the disparity between the two catchers defensively is obvious. These conditions exist on both of our respective teams. Even then, there is a lot of variation and statistical error...but it's the best we have, and more importantly, it mimics what we already know. Cervelli IS better than Posada, and Varitek IS better than VMart.

 

I think you will agree that it's your offense that's primarily the culprit for your slow start. However, your pitching has also been an issue. The question is...why?

 

I realize what I'm about to quote is a small sample size, but it doesn't change the fact that such information is relevant. The sample size will simply determine the relevance. As the season goes on, such information becomes more relevant as you increase the sample size. Last year, in the American League, the league wide ERA was 4.46. I took this from Baseball Reference, I don't make up stuff like others. You can all go check for yourself. A quick glance shows the average to be right around there, about 4.50 for the last few years. This year, it's much lower, at 4.00 exactly. The last season where the ERA was lower was 1992, when it was 3.95. To me, this means that we are more than likely going to see an increase in ERA for teams across the board, relatively speaking, of about half a point.

 

Where are the Yankees? Currently, they sit at an ERA of 3.63. Last year, they were at 4.26. Considering that they have not made any significant pitching moves, if you add that alleged half a point, to their team ERA, they would be pretty much right where they were last year, which would be logical. There is no reason for their pitching ERA to go down. They didn't really improve that much defensively [Gardner from Damon, over the course of a season, is not that significant], and they added no superstar pitchers.

 

Now, to the Red Sox. 2009 saw an ERA of 4.35. However, the emergence of Buchholz, and more importantly with the addition of Lackey and a philosophical shift to run prevention would lead one to believe that the team ERA would drop. However, what has happened so far?

 

A team ERA of 4.29. As of right now, that would be a below average ERA in the American League [currently 4.00 as stated before]. If you consider that league ERAs are about 1/2 a point off, that would mean the Red Sox would end up around a 4.80 ERA. What is the most likely explanation? You could say small sample size, and this cannot be argued. You can also say a team slump, just plain randomness inherent in a season. Fine, fine. Or you could point the finger at Victor Martinez...and it holds just as much water, IMO.

 

Where is Victor Martinez when it comes to CERA? Sitting at a CERA of 4.56. Varitek? 3.90.

 

There are a million things that you can pick apart here. Sample size, normal variation, etc. The list can go on and on. I accept this. However, why is VMart's CERA a half run worse than the league average, considering he is catching one of the best pitching staffs in baseball? This very well may be nothing but randomness. I accept that. How could I not when it's only been two weeks?

 

However...what if the trend continues? I wholly believe it will, but what I think is is really irrelevant. You don't have to believe in this as I do, and I know you don't have to. However...

 

What if the trend continues?

 

I hope you found this post, whether you agree with it or not, to be well-thought out and maybe it opened a few eyes.

[ORS]

Gom, I stopped when you got the part about what you feel. Feelings are ******** in analysis. You only like stats that jibe with your preconceived assumptions. The key is to drop assumption and let the data speak. You are incapable of doing that, because you are only interested in validating the ******** you think you see from the RF bleachers. You have an agenda, and it's self-serving. When your agenda becomes, "I want to know how meaningful this measurement is", then you'll have the correct mentality to approach stasticial analysis.

[Gom]

Gom' date=' I stopped when you got the part about what you feel. Feelings are ******** in analysis. You only like stats that jibe with your preconceived assumptions. The key is to drop assumption and let the data speak. You are incapable of doing that, because you are only interested in validating the ******** you think you see from the RF bleachers. You have an agenda, and it's self-serving. When your agenda becomes, "I want to know how meaningful this measurement is", then you'll have the correct mentality to approach stasticial analysis.[/quote']

 

The beginning of all scientific exploration is to come up with a hypothesis. I'm disappointed that you cannot see this. Oh well. I also thought you better than again demeaning someone's view of things from a scouting perspective. I was wrong to think you actually had not only intelligence, but class. I forgot who I was dealing with.

 

My mistake. Carry on.

[ORS]

The beginning of all scientific exploration is to come up with a hypothesis. I'm disappointed that you cannot see this. Oh well. I also thought you better than again demeaning someone's view of things from a scouting perspective. I was wrong to think you actually had not only intelligence, but class. I forgot who I was dealing with.

 

My mistake. Carry on.

Yeah, the class dig. That will go far coming from someone who by and large is here to troll. That credibility thing, you really do struggle with that.

 

Gom, the hypothesis determines what you are trying to measure, what to sample. After the sample is taken, you need statistical analysis to tell you if it's meaningful. Statistical analysis is objective. It considers all. It doesn't find a few confirming examples and stop with a positive conclusion, which is what you are doing, which is why I call your ******** self-serving. I don't care enough about this stuff to do those kind of studies, but at least I understand what needs to happen, and I trust that those with the passion for it will give it the due diligence it deserves. Get off your f***ing high horse, you twit.

[Gom]

Yeah, the class dig. That will go far coming from someone who by and large is here to troll. That credibility thing, you really do struggle with that.

 

Gom, the hypothesis determines what you are trying to measure, what to sample. After the sample is taken, you need statistical analysis to tell you if it's meaningful. Statistical analysis is objective. It considers all. It doesn't find a few confirming examples and stop with a positive conclusion, which is what you are doing, which is why I call your ******** self-serving. I don't care enough about this stuff to do those kind of studies, but at least I understand what needs to happen, and I trust that those with the passion for it will give it the due diligence it deserves. Get off you f***ing high horse, you twit.

It was no "high horse", just I got tired of the insults that lead to nowhere. Apparently, you have not.

 

If you had actually continued reading, I pointed out the potential problems/issues inherent with what I was saying. The information itself is not determinate, so it is up to us to extrapolate from this information and develop a hypothesis. However, you decided to pick on something outside of the point, which is not surprising. Every time I think you have an inkling of respectability, you never fail to disappoint. I don't know why I bother, since you consistently show yourself to not only be ignorant and clueless, but of poor character as well.

 

Anyone else, I would love to hear your views on my post.

[ORS]

It was no "high horse", just I got tired of the insults that lead to nowhere. Apparently, you have not.

 

If you had actually continued reading, I pointed out the potential problems/issues inherent with what I was saying. The information itself is not determinate, so it is up to us to extrapolate from this information and develop a hypothesis. However, you decided to pick on something outside of the point, which is not surprising. Every time I think you have an inkling of respectability, you never fail to disappoint. I don't know why I bother, since you consistently show yourself to not only be ignorant and clueless, but of poor character as well.

 

Anyone else, I would love to hear your views on my post.

Poor character? Gom, you are here for the primary purpose of taunting people who root for the rival of your team. Your entire existance on this forum is based on poor character. Don't go there. I treat you like s*** because you deserve it. I'm nice to those that aren't pricks. If you don't like me being callous with you, stop being a prick.

 

Gom, I don't read your analytical points anymore. I don't. They aren't worth my time. I see where you are headed, to see if you have the right take going in before you try and make your points, and determine if it's worth a read. You regularly fail the first part. Sorry, but you do. Deal with it. Read the advice I've given you. It's not some s*** I made up. You'll find it in any statistics class course material. Oh, wait, let me guess, I'm a sheep for repeating what I learned in school, right?

 

You know what's funny? I did go back and read your post, and, I find this hilarious by the way, my first response to your post was right on. You spend entirely too much time focussing on evaluating stats against your opinion. You don't see enough baseball, not of the players on the other teams, to have an accurate opinion on how good a player is over an entire season. You know 1/30th of the league, and you only know them from being at the game about 1/4 of the time. You are trying to condense the entire league on 1/120th of the play and are assigning supreme value on your untrained (dude, you aren't a scout) opinion of that 1/120th. That is a disgusting level of hubris. You really need to get over yourself.

[Gom]

Poor character? Gom, you are here for the primary purpose of taunting people who root for the rival of your team. Your entire existance on this forum is based on poor character. Don't go there. I treat you like s*** because you deserve it. I'm nice to those that aren't pricks. If you don't like me being callous with you, stop being a prick.

Wow...you really think I care? I was just being polite because I find the barbs to be boring. The fact that you actually think it matters to me is amusing. Personally, I don't care, I just thought if I treated you nicely, you'd stick to baseball. My mistake was blaming a dog for pissing in the street. Lesson learned.

 

I came here because I liked the banter back and forth, and the baseball analysis here was better than what I found on Yankee boards. Plus, the opposing view was more interesting. What's the point of debating something that everyone agrees with? I knew inherently that since I was a Yankee fan, people here would automatically take the other side. You wouldn't understand that. If someone doesn't agree with you, you don't know how to handle it.

Gom, I don't read your analytical points anymore. I don't. They aren't worth my time. I see where you are headed, to see if you have the right take going in before you try and make your points, and determine if it's worth a read. You regularly fail the first part. Sorry, but you do. Deal with it. Read the advice I've given you. It's not some s*** I made up. You'll find it in any statistics class course material. Oh, wait, let me guess, I'm a sheep for repeating what I learned in school, right?

For someone who doesn't read my posts, you sure as hell try, and fail miserably, at debating them. You want us to think that you don't? Then why do you debate them..time and time again? You are so full of s***, it's not even funny. Personally, I would be happy if you never read or commented on my posts again.

You know what's funny? I did go back and read your post, and, I find this hilarious by the way, my first response to your post was right on. You spend entirely too much time focussing on evaluating stats against your opinion. You don't see enough baseball, not of the players on the other teams, to have an accurate opinion on how good a player is over an entire season. You know 1/30th of the league, and you only know them from being at the game about 1/4 of the time. You are trying to condense the entire league on 1/120th of the play and are assigning supreme value on your untrained (dude, you aren't a scout) opinion of that 1/120th. That is a disgusting level of hubris. You really need to get over yourself.

The reason why I look at stats against my opinion is simple. I try to find flaws in them. I debate with Red Sox fans because I want the opposing views. It's a scientific way of doing things. You try to find fault with things.

 

Let me ask you a question, one in which I don't really care about the answer. Have you ever believed one thing in baseball, and found out later you were wrong? I already know the answer. Hubris my ass. Look in the mirror.

 

All I've ever seen you do is post graphs and views of other's, and I can't remember when you made a point yourself. What must really be shocking to you is that I watch a lot of baseball on TV, besides going to games. So I get a perspective you couldn't comprehend. I can tell you where the Yankees position players depending on pitcher, pitch type, batter. These are things your "analysis" could not possibly do.

 

Am I scout? f*** no. However, I can and do pick up things on occasion that scouts pick up. The majority of Yankee fans, the real fans who sit out in the bleachers, can pick up things the average fans do not. I'm sure the same is true for Red Sox fans. The analysis of players out there is far beyond your comprehension. You'd be lost without google.

 

The main difference between you and me is that you, with all your acquired information, can tell me what happened. Thanks. Great. However, you will never be able to predict what can and most likely will happen. Once again, at least not without google.

 

We'll see at the All-Star break if my prediction on the Red Sox staff is correct or not, as long as VMart is the catcher. If it is, head out, and put your analysis up there.

[Dipre]

VICTORY!

[Gom]

VICTORY!

 

We'll see at the All-Star break.

[example1]

Well, I can at least say that with Kilo's recent appearence and ORS's resurgence, this place is making me want to spend more time here again.

 

The same arguments always rear their head. We have the pre-season bickering and prediction making, the inevitable "Yankees look inevitable" period, the "Gom has a surge of confidence and gets a 'laugh' out of all the Red Sox fans anxiety" period (this year earlier than usual) and the "Gom goes too far with his views about stats vs. scouts and appears intellectually vulnerable at a time when he should just be enjoying his team's success" period.

 

Now onto the "Gom backs off a bit when he's proven wrong" period and the "Hey! The Red Sox aren't THAT bad a team" period (when they start winning again). I look forward to it.

[jacksonianmarch]

example, the Yankees looking inevitable period took a 2 yr nap from 07-08, resurfaced at the ASB last yr and hasnt stopped. This team hasnt looked this good in April since the early 2000s, maybe since 98

[yeszir]

Well, I can at least say that with Kilo's recent appearence and ORS's resurgence, this place is making me want to spend more time here again.

 

The same arguments always rear their head. We have the pre-season bickering and prediction making, the inevitable "Yankees look inevitable" period, the "Gom has a surge of confidence and gets a 'laugh' out of all the Red Sox fans anxiety" period (this year earlier than usual) and the "Gom goes too far with his views about stats vs. scouts and appears intellectually vulnerable at a time when he should just be enjoying his team's success" period.

 

Now onto the "Gom backs off a bit when he's proven wrong" period and the "Hey! The Red Sox aren't THAT bad a team" period (when they start winning again). I look forward to it.

 

You should write a book about Talksox

[PWNdroia]

Victor Martinez was never the solution. The trade for him was only half decent. We lost Masterson and we only gained him for pure offense on an already declining 2009 Red Sox team. As we saw, he didn't propel us to where we needed to be. Still, he's an ok hitter, much better than Tek, but no, not a permanent solution.

[a700hitter]

You should write a book about Talksox

It would surely be dedicated to Theo Epstein.

[Gom]

Now onto the "Gom backs off a bit when he's proven wrong" period and the "Hey! The Red Sox aren't THAT bad a team" period (when they start winning again). I look forward to it.

 

What happens if I'm proven right?

[jacksonianmarch]

Hell will freeze over