Ivan Rodriguez

[SABR Matt]

I have him 6th, but close enough.

[HondoHR33]

I never saw some of the other great defensive catchers play, the guys pre-1960, and as I've posted many times on here, I am not comfortable rating guys I never saw play. But I sure do agree with you about him being the best defensive catcher since 1960 at least. Johnny Bench was close. But I don't think Bench picked off as many guys as Pudge, and what's so remarkable is that even when warned in the meetings before a series, guys would STILL get picked off by himl As I've said before, you have to see Pudge more than a few times a year to really understand how great he is.

This one I'm completely convinced of when I say it.

Pudge Rodriguez is FAR AND AWAY the best fielding catcher in the game's history.

[HondoHR33]

LOL Yankwood

The guy kinda reminds me of Mel Kiper Jr., with the slick hair who thinks he'd be a better GM than anyone else around. I'm just so amazed that someone hasn't snatched Bill James up to be their GM!!!!

The thing that bothers me about going with pure numbers is this:
Batter A goes up, swings at the first pitch and hits a week grounder to third and is thrown out. He's 0 for 1 in the boxscore. And let's say he also loafs it to first.
Batter B goes up, sees 12 pitches by fouling off 5 or 6 and makes the pitcher work and get his pitch count up. Then, he grounds to short and is barely thrown out at first cause he's busting his butt up the line.
They're both 0-for-1 in the boxscore, but who had the better at-bat and who is a loafer? You sure wouldn't be able to tell by the boxscore.

Criticize Bill James? My gosh, that's blasphemy around these parts!!!

[SABR Matt]

Uh...he may not be a GM, but he does work in a high office with the Red Sox.

[HondoHR33]

I know who he works for and that's fine ... to each his own. Never been a big Bill James fan, but hey, that's just me. I won't condemn others for going by what he says. I just like to judge players for myself.

Uh...he may not be a GM, but he does work in a high office with the Red Sox.

[BaseballHistoryNut]

As long as you sneer at the concept of OBP, and think guys who swing at bad pitches--and thereby not only kill their OBP, but also gravely compromise their all-important batting averages--can be among the very greatest players of all time, you'd better not be a Bill James fan.

I find much fault with what James has to say, but not on this issue. It is no accident that Ted Williams and Babe Ruth drew enormous numbers of walks.

BHN

[SABR Matt]

Agreed completely BHN

[iPod]

The thing that bothers me about going with pure numbers is this:
Batter A goes up, swings at the first pitch and hits a week grounder to third and is thrown out. He's 0 for 1 in the boxscore. And let's say he also loafs it to first.
Batter B goes up, sees 12 pitches by fouling off 5 or 6 and makes the pitcher work and get his pitch count up. Then, he grounds to short and is barely thrown out at first cause he's busting his butt up the line.
They're both 0-for-1 in the boxscore, but who had the better at-bat and who is a loafer? You sure wouldn't be able to tell by the boxscore.

If you think about it, neither at-bat had more value than the other, because they both were called out. This would, one might think, be dangerous if a player routinely makes hard outs, but if they're not contributing to anything, they don't really have any value. The wonderful solution here is the realization that if Player B does indeed have more value than Player A, it's because he is more selective and is quicker, but these are only valuable in that they contribute to the player's ability to get on base. Player B, if that one AB was all I had to go on, would be who I would choose, but only because assuming the ABs were randomly displayed to me, Player B is more likely to get on base more often as a result of being quicker and more selective. But if we know the desired result of the AB, and we have data on how often a player succeeds, shouldn't that be the main piece of evidence you analyze?

[ElHalo]

As long as you sneer at the concept of OBP, and think guys who swing at bad pitches--and thereby not only kill their OBP, but also gravely compromise their all-important batting averages--can be among the very greatest players of all time, you'd better not be a Bill James fan.

I don't care about Bill James one way or another, but... a bat is, what, 32 inches long? Add in the length of your arm to your wrist, and call it, what, 55 inches from your shoulder to the very end of the barrell of the bat (I might be very off with that; I've never been very good at guestimating lengths). If the ball is within 55 inches of your shoulder socket, you should swing at it. Period. If it's hittable, you damned well better hit it. Don't take the lazy way out and refuse to swing at pitches just because they happen to not be in the strike zone.

[538280]

This one I'm completely convinced of when I say it.

Pudge Rodriguez is FAR AND AWAY the best fielding catcher in the game's history.

I'm sorry, to me Ivan Rodriguez is one of the most overrated fielders of my lifetime. Pudge was absolutely horrible at handling the pitchers, and yes I have seen him play. Many catchers meet with pitchers before the game to go over matchups and such, Pudge never would. Texas pitchers would complain about his lack of dedication to them. Pudge would ALWAYS, without fail, call for a fastball with a fast runner on 1B. Heaven knows how many runs it would cost his team, but Pudge simply was never, ever, willing to let that runner steal a base on him.

Not only was he putting his own pitchers in jeopardy, but he was also inflating his own CS%. Pudge was an extremely selfish player behind the plate. You can't have that from your catcher.

He may have been the best ever at controlling the running game, but he was awful at the areas of catching which can't be numerically quantified. Calling him the best defensive catcher ever is ignoring a whole very important aspect of the position.

[BaseballHistoryNut]

Criticize Bill James? My gosh, that's blasphemy around these parts!!!

Um, no, it's not. It's almost de rigeur around these parts. It's certainly not blasphemous.

What's blasphemous, and silly, is the notion that a .304 hitter who never walks is no different than a .304 hitter who draws his fair share of walks, much less one who draws a good share of walks. The former is a poor offensive player, unless he hits for good power, and he'll never be a good offensive player unless he hits for very good power. The second is a good offensive player, if he hits for a fair amount of power. The third is a great hitter, if he has power.

BHN

[SABR Matt]

Pudge isn't a "poor" hitter...he's a pretty good one...especially given his competition defind the plate...but his hitting isn't what makes him a first ballot no brainer for the HOF...his glove is.

[BaseballHistoryNut]

I don't care about Bill James one way or another, but... a bat is, what, 32 inches long? Add in the length of your arm to your wrist, and call it, what, 55 inches from your shoulder to the very end of the barrell of the bat (I might be very off with that; I've never been very good at guestimating lengths). If the ball is within 55 inches of your shoulder socket, you should swing at it. Period. If it's hittable, you damned well better hit it. Don't take the lazy way out and refuse to swing at pitches just because they happen to not be in the strike zone.

I played a lot of softball as a young man. I batted #3 or #4 on almost every team I played on, and I scored a lot of runs. The main reasons? (1) I tried to hit line drives, instead of HR's, and I placed them well; and (2) I took every last walk I could get, which was a lot. Those walks turned into a ton of runs, and I never felt like I was one iota less of a man when I walked down to first base. I'm sure Ruth and Williams didn't, either.

I'm as tall as Ruth was, and in those days I weighed about what Ruth did at the end of his career, so pitchers weren't anxious to pitch to me, but I'll tell you frankly that all those walks they gave me were huge mistakes. And if I'd been the kind of "man" that Pudge is, and swung at all that s---, I'd have cost my teams a lot of runs in the process... just like he has.

You think he's been a great hitter as it is? Just imagine what kind of hitter he COULD have been.

BHN

[BaseballHistoryNut]

Pudge isn't a "poor" hitter...he's a pretty good one...especially given his competition defind the plate...but his hitting isn't what makes him a first ballot no brainer for the HOF...his glove is.

I agree with all of this. I just mourn for the hitter he COULD have been.

[SABR Matt]

I'm looking at my quote and wondering how in the world behind became defind.

LOL

In response to EH's post, this is precisely the attitude that held baseball back for generations...this notion that if you can reach a ball to make contact with it, you should. If you're trying to cover a huge strikezone and swinging at everything you think can conceivably be hit, it's a lot harder...a LOT harder to square up a hittable pitch. Hitters take huge jumps in their power numbers when they learn to draw walks precisely because the way to hit for power is the SAME as the way to draw walks. You have to "key-hole" the pitcher...force him to throw you a ball you will find easier to hit hard and not even offer at pitches the pitcher is trying to beat you with.

Vlad Guerrero is a freak of nature...even most pro atheletes have no ability to generate power on such ugly swings as the ones Guerrero gets when he's chasing a pitcher's pitch and still making solid contact. For most hitters that's impossible to do consistently, and for Vlad, it will become impossible to do abruptly and painfully at about the age of 33 or 34...the point at which you start to lose your hand eye coordination and your ability to transfer motion through a swing as smoothly. This is why guys like Dave Kingman wash out at age 33...why Soriano will wash out at age 33...and why Garret Anderson now sucks. A lot.

It will happen to Vlad too.

And it will ruin a potentially HOF caliber career all because he never learned to take a walk.

[ElHalo]

In response to EH's post, this is precisely the attitude that held baseball back for generations...this notion that if you can reach a ball to make contact with it, you should. If you're trying to cover a huge strikezone and swinging at everything you think can conceivably be hit, it's a lot harder...a LOT harder to square up a hittable pitch.

Just because it's harder doesn't mean you shouldn't try. Everybody remembers playing little league baseball, when you would take a ball, and the coach would shout out "Good eye! Good eye!" And even when you were a little kid, you knew that that was just polite grown-up speak for: "Don't even bother swinging, because if you do, you'll just miss! Try to just stand there and not bother anybody, so you can maybe do something that's not a complete disaster at least once in your pathetic, miserable, hopefully to be very short little life!"

[Edited by author] Sorry, I had a funny little bit I added on here, before I realized that my sense of humor just isn't condusive to use on message boards populated by children.

[SABR Matt]

yeah...major leaguers should all be trying to swing at nasty pitcher's pitches so that we'd all be scoring fewer runs, striking out way more often, gorunding into a lot of easy outs...

Because...

Why exactly? As I understand it, unless you play baseball the way you envision, you're not a real man.

El Halo...you, sir, are an intellectual bigot.

[ElHalo]

yeah...major leaguers should all be trying to swing at nasty pitcher's pitches so that we'd all be scoring fewer runs, striking out way more often, gorunding into a lot of easy outs...

Because...

Why exactly? As I understand it, unless you play baseball the way you envision, you're not a real man.

El Halo...you, sir, are an intellectual bigot.

My post would have been much funnier if I didn't edit out the joke at the end. It's a shame.

But to answer your point... you ever been fishing? I haven't. I could never kill anything just for my own amusement (or hurt anything, for those of you who insist it's ok just because you throw it back). However, I have heard that fishing is enjoyable to some people for some reason or another. I've also heard that if you drop explosives into the water and set them off at a certain depth, the concussion kills all of the fish in the area, and they float right to the surface where you can just scoop them up. Sounds like a much more efficient way to catch fish. So why doesn't everyone do it?

If you really want to score runs, the best way to do it would be to kidnap the manager's children and tell him that you'll start mailing him body parts unless he intentionally walks every single batter and tells his hitters to intentionally swing at and miss every pitch. That would be the most efficient, but it wouldn't really be fun, or really fair. You'd be taking advantage of a loophole (i.e., that the manager has feelings) to cheat your way to a victory. Much like players who go out looking to take walks are just taking advantage of a loophole (i.e., that there has to be some incentive forcing pitchers to throw strikes) to cheat their way to a victory.

[Yankwood]

Um, no, it's not. It's almost de rigeur around these parts. It's certainly not blasphemous.

What's blasphemous, and silly, is the notion that a .304 hitter who never walks is no different than a .304 hitter who draws his fair share of walks, much less one who draws a good share of walks. The former is a poor offensive player, unless he hits for good power, and he'll never be a good offensive player unless he hits for very good power. The second is a good offensive player, if he hits for a fair amount of power. The third is a great hitter, if he has power.

BHN

And you really needed Bill James to tell you that?

[BaseballHistoryNut]

Let's see. When did I say that?

[Yankwood]

Let's see. When did I say that?

I thought that you wrote that as a follow up to the point about Bill James and something about rigor mortis, or something like that.

[BaseballHistoryNut]

I DID say it, and to me it's obvious, but I certainly didn't need Bill James to tell me as much.

[SABR Matt]

My post would have been much funnier if I didn't edit out the joke at the end. It's a shame.

But to answer your point... you ever been fishing? I haven't. I could never kill anything just for my own amusement (or hurt anything, for those of you who insist it's ok just because you throw it back). However, I have heard that fishing is enjoyable to some people for some reason or another. I've also heard that if you drop explosives into the water and set them off at a certain depth, the concussion kills all of the fish in the area, and they float right to the surface where you can just scoop them up. Sounds like a much more efficient way to catch fish. So why doesn't everyone do it?

If you really want to score runs, the best way to do it would be to kidnap the manager's children and tell him that you'll start mailing him body parts unless he intentionally walks every single batter and tells his hitters to intentionally swing at and miss every pitch. That would be the most efficient, but it wouldn't really be fun, or really fair. You'd be taking advantage of a loophole (i.e., that the manager has feelings) to cheat your way to a victory. Much like players who go out looking to take walks are just taking advantage of a loophole (i.e., that there has to be some incentive forcing pitchers to throw strikes) to cheat their way to a victory.

...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
WTF?

You're comparing taking walks in an effort to generate to blowing up fish with a grenade?

I have in fact gone fishing in my life, and found it a rather mind numbing experience (I always like to have things to do...sitting in a boat waiting for hours for something to bite is just plain dull), and I certainly would never consider throwing a grenade down there to "fish"...but playing baseball is ALL ABOUT getting the upper hand on your opponant in any way you can to push across runs and keep them from doing the same. Most guys who "try to get walks" are trying specifically in each at bat to walk, but are trying to force the pitcher to throw the ball where they like it. It's not a loophole in the system...it's a legitimate approach to hitting...just as legitimate as jockeying for position on a chess-board...gotta get the upper hand on the opponant somehow...you get a good position...force him to play your game...attack when he's where you want him.

You just seem to have a total inability to understand the strategic beauty of the at bat in progress, EH. When hitters are up there working the count they're trying to (a) get pitches they like, (b) force the pitcher to change his approach and (c) force the pitcher to throw many pitches, increasing the likelihood of mistakes during each at bat, and increasing his total pitch count, forcing him from the game earlier. That's a beautiful thing...the struggle between the batter and the pitcher...the mind games that go on between each of the pitches.

[BoSox Rule]

LOL Yankwood

The guy kinda reminds me of Mel Kiper Jr., with the slick hair who thinks he'd be a better GM than anyone else around. I'm just so amazed that someone hasn't snatched Bill James up to be their GM!!!!

The thing that bothers me about going with pure numbers is this:
Batter A goes up, swings at the first pitch and hits a week grounder to third and is thrown out. He's 0 for 1 in the boxscore. And let's say he also loafs it to first.
Batter B goes up, sees 12 pitches by fouling off 5 or 6 and makes the pitcher work and get his pitch count up. Then, he grounds to short and is barely thrown out at first cause he's busting his butt up the line.
They're both 0-for-1 in the boxscore, but who had the better at-bat and who is a loafer? You sure wouldn't be able to tell by the boxscore.

You can always look at P/PA if you want to know who works the pitcher.

[HondoHR33]

I don't recall ever sneering at the concept of OBP. Just don't think it's as important as you do, unless we're talking leadoff hitter. I think heart has a lot more to do with a player than OBP, and Pudge has shown a lot more heart throughout his career than Piazza.

As long as you sneer at the concept of OBP, and think guys who swing at bad pitches--and thereby not only kill their OBP, but also gravely compromise their all-important batting averages--can be among the very greatest players of all time, you'd better not be a Bill James fan.

I find much fault with what James has to say, but not on this issue. It is no accident that Ted Williams and Babe Ruth drew enormous numbers of walks.

BHN