Cardinals nearing extension with Molina

[NonProfitCow]

Jose played like 8 games/year the first 12 years of his career, and Bengie was terrible by the age Yadier will be at the end of this contract.

 

Yeah, Bernie Miklasz, who is normally rational when it comes to this stuff, kept citing Jose and Bengie because they were catching into their mid-30s. The situations aren't comparable at all.

Yeah, Bengie got super fat and added to his slugging while completely forfeiting defense, and Yadi has caught like 3k more innings right now than Jose has in his entire career.

[NonProfitCow]

The Cardinals don't have a catcher in the pipeline that grades out as well as they have at other positions.

There's a pretty rich FA crop the next 2 offseasons. Yadi himself wasn't much of a prospect coming up. A good defender with a .700 OPS bat who flew through the system because Mike Matheny was horribad and his last name was Molina.

They have a lot of young arms that are already at the MLB level, or will be there soon. Having Molina there as the constant is a good thing.

I hear this brought up a lot, but there's really not anything to back it up. I think if you went through looking for evidence that he's good with young pitchers you'd find more evidence that points that he's not very good with them. Garcia, Wainwright, McClellan and Motte are the only guys with prolonged MLB success. And they were either top prospects or very, very good at the MiLB level.

He has a lot of mileage on those knees, but if his brothers are any indication, he should be fine for at least the duration of this contract.

If his brothers are any indication, he'll be a backup catcher or beginning to eat himself out of the game in 3 years.

[NonProfitCow]

Here's how the STL Post Dispatch is trying to spin it...

 

Various reports have pegged the deal at five years and $70 million or more. FoxSports.com reported the deal would be worth $75 million. By adding five years to the end of this season, the Cardinals could fold his $7-million salary for 2012 into the total value of the deal and arrive at an annual average salary of around $12.5 million or higher during the five-year extension.

 

lol

[davearm2]

I'd like to see a show of hands of folks that believe Molina's defense is worth just 0.3 wins. Sure "the eye test" is even more flawed, but at some point you have to step back and say the numbers just don't make any sense here.

I'm not quite sure where 0.3 wins is coming from. Since becoming a full time player he's average +8.4 runs/year by fangraphs defensive numbers. So, nearly a win per year with the glove over other MLB catchers.

0.3 was cited in the earlier Fangraphs article.

 

I'm not going to sit back and say the numbers don't make sense, because the defensive numbers are in relation to other MLB catchers. I think the defensive gap between an average catcher and a great catcher is one of the smallest gaps on the diamond.

I think the exact opposite. The catcher is an integral part of every pitch. Of course I'm using a pretty comprehensive interpretation of defense, that includes handling the pitchers, calling the game, framing pitches, limiting the running game, etc. etc. I hope we can all agree that there's a whole lot more going on than just CS% and (PB+WP)/NP.

 

Which brings us back to my original point: Molina's defense is unquestionably worth something, but we have no reliable way to quantify that value.

That point is fine. But you're assuming that Yadi is off the charts good at the stuff that can't be quantified very well.

I have no idea how you got here. I'm not defending the contract.

[NonProfitCow]

I think the exact opposite. The catcher is an integral part of every pitch. Of course I'm using a pretty comprehensive interpretation of defense, that includes handling the pitchers, calling the game, framing pitches, limiting the running game, etc. etc. I hope we can all agree that there's a whole lot more going on than just CS% and (PB+WP)/NP.

 

Bad defensive catchers or guys who aren't good at all that stuff you cited don't make it and stick at the MLB level unless they absolutely rake. The overwhelming majority of MLB catchers are no hit all defense guys. That makes the gap between great and average very small.

[davearm2]

I think the exact opposite. The catcher is an integral part of every pitch. Of course I'm using a pretty comprehensive interpretation of defense, that includes handling the pitchers, calling the game, framing pitches, limiting the running game, etc. etc. I hope we can all agree that there's a whole lot more going on than just CS% and (PB+WP)/NP.

 

Bad defensive catchers or guys who aren't good at all that stuff you cited don't make it and stick at the MLB level unless they absolutely rake. The overwhelming majority of MLB catchers are no hit all defense guys. That makes the gap between great and average very small.

I don't buy that at all. There's a spectrum of talent at catcher just as there is at other positions.

 

I would agree that the minimum level of competence is higher at catcher than at, say, LF. But the notion that all catchers are more or less equal defensively seems totally speculative and almost certainly incorrect.

[Sammy Sofa]

I would agree that the minimum level of competence is higher at catcher than at, say, LF. But the notion that all catchers are more or less equal defensively seems totally speculative and almost certainly incorrect.

 

Why?

[davearm2]

I would agree that the minimum level of competence is higher at catcher than at, say, LF. But the notion that all catchers are more or less equal defensively seems totally speculative and almost certainly incorrect.

 

Why?

Because there's nothing inherent about that position to suggest the talent range is significantly narrower than it is at other spots.

[SouthSideRyan]

It's nothing like any other position in baseball.

[Sammy Sofa]

I would agree that the minimum level of competence is higher at catcher than at, say, LF. But the notion that all catchers are more or less equal defensively seems totally speculative and almost certainly incorrect.

 

Why?

Because there's nothing inherent about that position to suggest the talent range is significantly narrower than it is at other spots.

 

How are you coming to this conclusion?

[davearm2]

I would agree that the minimum level of competence is higher at catcher than at, say, LF. But the notion that all catchers are more or less equal defensively seems totally speculative and almost certainly incorrect.

 

Why?

Because there's nothing inherent about that position to suggest the talent range is significantly narrower than it is at other spots.

 

How are you coming to this conclusion?

Wow you guys say the darnedest things straining to make me look bad.

 

How did I come to the conclusion that not all catchers are more or less equal defensively? Really? That's a question you need me to answer?

 

So apparently you believe I'm wrong about this?

[Sammy Sofa]

I'm just wondering why you think so many catchers vary so significantly defensively. I'm trying to understand your approach here; who are a couple of players you could give as examples of starting catchers that represent the opposite ends of this spectrum and best illustrate the disparity you're talking about?

[davearm2]

I'm just wondering why you think so many catchers vary so significantly defensively. I'm trying to understand your approach here; who are a couple of players you could give as examples of starting catchers that represent the opposite ends of this spectrum and best illustrate the disparity you're talking about?

I don't think catchers "vary so significantly defensively". Absent any reason to believe otherwise, I suspect they probably vary about as much as any other position.

 

The other guy was the one taking the rather confusing (to me at least) position that there is almost no variation amongst catchers, and significantly less than at other positions.

[Sammy Sofa]

I'm just wondering why you think so many catchers vary so significantly defensively. I'm trying to understand your approach here; who are a couple of players you could give as examples of starting catchers that represent the opposite ends of this spectrum and best illustrate the disparity you're talking about?

I don't think catchers "vary so significantly defensively". Absent any reason to believe otherwise, I suspect they probably vary about as much as any other position.

 

The reason is because of the weight placed on the defensive ability of catchers. You see teams getting away with crappy fielders in other positions because that's where you end up with more offensive assets. Where are the Alfonso Sorianos and Ryan Brauns and Adam Dunns and Prince Fielders of the catching world?

 

The other guy was the one taking the rather confusing (to me at least) position that there is almost no variation amongst catchers, and significantly less than at other positions.

 

There's much less variation than the other positions. That doesn't mean all catchers are practically the same defensively, but it's unusual to find the scope of variation between catchers as you do between different infielders or outfielders.

[javy knows my name]

I'm just wondering why you think so many catchers vary so significantly defensively. I'm trying to understand your approach here; who are a couple of players you could give as examples of starting catchers that represent the opposite ends of this spectrum and best illustrate the disparity you're talking about?

I don't think catchers "vary so significantly defensively". Absent any reason to believe otherwise, I suspect they probably vary about as much as any other position.

 

The other guy was the one taking the rather confusing (to me at least) position that there is almost no variation amongst catchers, and significantly less than at other positions.

 

That's not really what he said. He said the difference between an average catcher and an elite catcher is probably not as large (or impactful) as the difference between an average CF and an elite CF. I tend to agree.

[Sammy Sofa]

I'm just wondering why you think so many catchers vary so significantly defensively. I'm trying to understand your approach here; who are a couple of players you could give as examples of starting catchers that represent the opposite ends of this spectrum and best illustrate the disparity you're talking about?

I don't think catchers "vary so significantly defensively". Absent any reason to believe otherwise, I suspect they probably vary about as much as any other position.

 

The other guy was the one taking the rather confusing (to me at least) position that there is almost no variation amongst catchers, and significantly less than at other positions.

 

That's not really what he said. He said the difference between an average catcher and an elite catcher is probably not as large (or impactful) as the difference between an average CF and an elite CF. I tend to agree.

 

Right. Same here.

[TruffleShuffle]

That's not really what he said. He said the difference between an average catcher and an elite catcher is probably not as large (or impactful) as the difference between an average CF and an elite CF. I tend to agree.

 

Right. Same here.

 

uh oh we got an nsbb group think going on here.

[davearm2]

I'm just wondering why you think so many catchers vary so significantly defensively. I'm trying to understand your approach here; who are a couple of players you could give as examples of starting catchers that represent the opposite ends of this spectrum and best illustrate the disparity you're talking about?

I don't think catchers "vary so significantly defensively". Absent any reason to believe otherwise, I suspect they probably vary about as much as any other position.

 

The other guy was the one taking the rather confusing (to me at least) position that there is almost no variation amongst catchers, and significantly less than at other positions.

 

That's not really what he said. He said the difference between an average catcher and an elite catcher is probably not as large (or impactful) as the difference between an average CF and an elite CF. I tend to agree.

I get the hypothesis, I just happen to think it's probably wrong. Here's why.

 

At other spots on the diamond, a guy's defensive rating is mostly a function of speed/range, fielding/hands, and arm strength and accuracy. These are the criteria where one guy differentiates himself from other guys.

 

For a catcher, you can essentially drop speed/range (although the ability to get out from behind the plate to field bunts and chase popups is certainly a factor); the other elements still matter.

 

But you also have to add in a whole slew of other criteria under the umbrella of defense, which have already been discussed.

 

The catcher's job just has many more dimensions to it, and therefore it stands to reason that there is likely more variability in the abilities of the different guys that do it.

[XZero771679666304]

That's not really what he said. He said the difference between an average catcher and an elite catcher is probably not as large (or impactful) as the difference between an average CF and an elite CF. I tend to agree.

 

Right. Same here.

 

uh oh we got an nsbb group think going on here.

 

Davearm will be assimilated into the collective. Resistance is futile.

[NonProfitCow]

But you also have to add in a whole slew of other criteria under the umbrella of defense, which have already been discussed.

 

The catcher's job just has many more dimensions to it, and therefore it stands to reason that there is likely more variability in the abilities of the different guys that do it.

More dimensions does not mean more variability in abilities. The guys who can't do them very well don't make it to the big league unless they rake.

 

I know that people want to add in crap like being a field general or really good at pitch calling is a real thing, but it's BS. The bench sets the D. Either directly or by relaying it to the catcher who sets it. The only time they're the field general is when they're shouting out cutoffs telling an infielder they can cut down a lead runner. The pitch calling stuff is covered in extensive meetings with the pitching coach and pitchers where they get scouting reports on opposing players. Catchers that aren't good at remembering reports don't make it far. Pitch framing is probably real, but would take a massive amount of data because of all the crap data - blowouts, 3-0, 0-2, etc - and seems like it would be highly volatile anyways. Catcher isn't a position where you can fool coaches like a fast outfielder or steady handed infielder can. If you can't do it you're not long for the league. It's why guys like Henry Blanco play into their 40's.

[woodchip2153]

I just wish someone at BP had recently done a study on catcher defense.

[MSG T]

I'm just wondering why you think so many catchers vary so significantly defensively. I'm trying to understand your approach here; who are a couple of players you could give as examples of starting catchers that represent the opposite ends of this spectrum and best illustrate the disparity you're talking about?

I don't think catchers "vary so significantly defensively". Absent any reason to believe otherwise, I suspect they probably vary about as much as any other position.

 

The reason is because of the weight placed on the defensive ability of catchers. You see teams getting away with crappy fielders in other positions because that's where you end up with more offensive assets. Where are the Alfonso Sorianos and Ryan Brauns and Adam Dunns and Prince Fielders of the catching world?

 

The other guy was the one taking the rather confusing (to me at least) position that there is almost no variation amongst catchers, and significantly less than at other positions.

 

There's much less variation than the other positions. That doesn't mean all catchers are practically the same defensively, but it's unusual to find the scope of variation between catchers as you do between different infielders or outfielders.

 

 

As an example, and this may not be a perfect comparison, but I'll throw it out anyway. Mike Piazza was the biggest disaster I can remember, defensively, from a catcher and he was light years ahead of, relatively speaking, a bad LF/1B/3B etc. People were willing to deal with his bad defense because he was probably the best hitting catcher ever. He was much better at his position than the LF version of Adam Dunn or 2B version of Alfonso Soriano were in relation to average or above average defenders were at their positions. When Mike Piazza's defense is an extreme outlier, that shows the difference between catchers defense and every other position.

[Sammy Sofa]

I'm just wondering why you think so many catchers vary so significantly defensively. I'm trying to understand your approach here; who are a couple of players you could give as examples of starting catchers that represent the opposite ends of this spectrum and best illustrate the disparity you're talking about?

I don't think catchers "vary so significantly defensively". Absent any reason to believe otherwise, I suspect they probably vary about as much as any other position.

 

The reason is because of the weight placed on the defensive ability of catchers. You see teams getting away with crappy fielders in other positions because that's where you end up with more offensive assets. Where are the Alfonso Sorianos and Ryan Brauns and Adam Dunns and Prince Fielders of the catching world?

 

The other guy was the one taking the rather confusing (to me at least) position that there is almost no variation amongst catchers, and significantly less than at other positions.

 

There's much less variation than the other positions. That doesn't mean all catchers are practically the same defensively, but it's unusual to find the scope of variation between catchers as you do between different infielders or outfielders.

 

 

As an example, and this may not be a perfect comparison, but I'll throw it out anyway. Mike Piazza was the biggest disaster I can remember, defensively, from a catcher and he was light years ahead of, relatively speaking, a bad LF/1B/3B etc. People were willing to deal with his bad defense because he was probably the best hitting catcher ever. He was much better at his position than the LF version of Adam Dunn or 2B version of Alfonso Soriano were in relation to average or above average defenders were at their positions. When Mike Piazza's defense is an extreme outlier, that shows the difference between catchers defense and every other position.

 

Good point.

[davearm2]

I just wish someone at BP had recently done a study on catcher defense.

Link?

[woodchip2153]

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=16096