Barrett's Play

[imb]

I think that's idle speculation. There's no way to know whether they think that or not, so why even bother? Why not just look at the numbers that we can? Barrett is a slightly below average defensive catcher, and an above average offensive catcher. The overall product is one of the top catchers in the game, whether the pitchers are afraid to throw to him or not.

 

It may be speculation, but it isn't idle. There is no definitive way to know it, but that doesn't make it unworthy of exploring. Numbers are a good guide, not a be all and end all.

 

If there's no definitive way of knowing, why bother exploring it? If there's no answer, there's no use for the question.

 

What are you going to do? Have Bruce Miles ask Prior if he is afraid to pitch to Barrett? Please, it's a waste of time.

 

You're not much on philosophy, are you?

When you are using it as an arguement against a player without any proof that it is actually true I do have a bit of a problem with it. Have you ever heard one of the Cubs pitchers in the last two years say that they don't like to throw to Michael or that his defensive abilities sometimes worries them and decreases their effectiveness?

 

No, and I haven't heard any of the Cubs be quoted for attribution saying that patterson sucks, although I suspect a lot of them share that opinion.

 

But you can tell Patterson sucks by looking at the numbers. You're complaining about Barrett by pulling stuff out of your ass. There's a huge difference.

[CuseCubFan69]

I think that's idle speculation. There's no way to know whether they think that or not, so why even bother? Why not just look at the numbers that we can? Barrett is a slightly below average defensive catcher, and an above average offensive catcher. The overall product is one of the top catchers in the game, whether the pitchers are afraid to throw to him or not.

 

It may be speculation, but it isn't idle. There is no definitive way to know it, but that doesn't make it unworthy of exploring. Numbers are a good guide, not a be all and end all.

 

If there's no definitive way of knowing, why bother exploring it? If there's no answer, there's no use for the question.

 

What are you going to do? Have Bruce Miles ask Prior if he is afraid to pitch to Barrett? Please, it's a waste of time.

 

You're not much on philosophy, are you?

When you are using it as an arguement against a player without any proof that it is actually true I do have a bit of a problem with it. Have you ever heard one of the Cubs pitchers in the last two years say that they don't like to throw to Michael or that his defensive abilities sometimes worries them and decreases their effectiveness?

 

I asked what if a pitching staff doesn't like to throw to a catcher even though he can hit. I'll change it to read that. Now, what would you do as a GM? I never said the Cub pitchers didn't like throwing to Barrett.

[goonys evil twin]

It's OK that Barrett brain-locked and acted like a little leaguer because "odds are, they still lose?" What kind of argument is that? Why even try to get the other team out because "odds are" you are going to lose about forty perent of the time, even in a good year." Why improve the offense? "Odds are" they will still make outs 7 times out of ten.

 

Using that "odds are" crap as an excuse for poor play is weak.

 

That was a pretty weak attempt at reading what I wrote. I never said it was OK that he screwed up. My point is Barrett's defense isn't costing this team wins. Keep the team the same, and replace him with a real live catcher who is available, and this team is no better. There just isn't a catcher who is overall better than Barrett that you can get.

 

All of you ripping him, and yes, you are ripping him, and making it quite clear you want him replaced, are ignoring the very important fact that you would have to replace him with a catcher that is available. And that's just not very likely to happen.

[brfahey]

It's OK that Barrett brain-locked and acted like a little leaguer because "odds are, they still lose?" What kind of argument is that? Why even try to get the other team out because "odds are" you are going to lose about forty perent of the time, even in a good year." Why improve the offense? "Odds are" they will still make outs 7 times out of ten.

 

Using that "odds are" crap as an excuse for poor play is weak.

 

That was a pretty weak attempt at reading what I wrote. I never said it was OK that he screwed up. My point is Barrett's defense isn't costing this team wins. Keep the team the same, and replace him with a real live catcher who is available, and this team is no better. There just isn't a catcher who is overall better than Barrett that you can get.

 

All of you ripping him, and yes, you are ripping him, and making it quite clear you want him replaced, are ignoring the very important fact that you would have to replace him with a catcher that is available. And that's just not very likely to happen.

 

What does "odds are, they still lose" mean?

 

And if he is being ripped so what. I didn't know you couldn't rip a player on these boards.

Edited September 15, 2005 by brfahey

[imb]

I think that's idle speculation. There's no way to know whether they think that or not, so why even bother? Why not just look at the numbers that we can? Barrett is a slightly below average defensive catcher, and an above average offensive catcher. The overall product is one of the top catchers in the game, whether the pitchers are afraid to throw to him or not.

 

It may be speculation, but it isn't idle. There is no definitive way to know it, but that doesn't make it unworthy of exploring. Numbers are a good guide, not a be all and end all.

 

If there's no definitive way of knowing, why bother exploring it? If there's no answer, there's no use for the question.

 

What are you going to do? Have Bruce Miles ask Prior if he is afraid to pitch to Barrett? Please, it's a waste of time.

 

You're not much on philosophy, are you?

When you are using it as an arguement against a player without any proof that it is actually true I do have a bit of a problem with it. Have you ever heard one of the Cubs pitchers in the last two years say that they don't like to throw to Michael or that his defensive abilities sometimes worries them and decreases their effectiveness?

 

I asked what if a pitching staff doesn't like to throw to a catcher even though he can hit. I'll change it to read that. Now, what would you do as a GM? I never said the Cub pitchers didn't like throwing to Barrett.

 

If you are a gm, and you know for a fact that your pitchers hate throwing to your catcher, you replace him. If the catcher is so bad that the pitchers are complaining about him being behind the plate, then you either have the whiniest pitching staff ever, or you have a catcher who is complete garabge.

 

If your catcher is that bad behind the plate, chances are his overall contribution is going to be less than league average.

[goonys evil twin]

What does "odds are, they still lose" mean?

 

The fact that you picked 5 words out of that post and repeated them over and over while completely ignoring the overall message means that you have very little interest in actually discussing the merits of the call to replace Barrett.

[burnt out cubbie fan]

It's OK that Barrett brain-locked and acted like a little leaguer because "odds are, they still lose?" What kind of argument is that? Why even try to get the other team out because "odds are" you are going to lose about forty perent of the time, even in a good year." Why improve the offense? "Odds are" they will still make outs 7 times out of ten.

 

Using that "odds are" crap as an excuse for poor play is weak.

 

That was a pretty weak attempt at reading what I wrote. I never said it was OK that he screwed up. My point is Barrett's defense isn't costing this team wins. Keep the team the same, and replace him with a real live catcher who is available, and this team is no better. There just isn't a catcher who is overall better than Barrett that you can get.

 

All of you ripping him, and yes, you are ripping him, and making it quite clear you want him replaced, are ignoring the very important fact that you would have to replace him with a catcher that is available. And that's just not very likely to happen.

 

What does "odds are, they still lose" mean?

 

And if he is being ripped so what. I didn't know you couldn't rip a player on these boards.

It means that Barrett is better than average overall as a catcher and anything that you can replace him with would make your team worse.

[Crash]

Isnt his rate like 97/100? That's barely below average. I would argue that our team defense is bad because of the combo of Aramis/Nomar/Hollandsworth/Dubois that we've been running out there all year, not because of a slightly below average catcher.

 

I can't argue with that. What I can ask is what if the Cubs pitchers say to themselves..."Oh crap, Barretts my catcher today."? How do you deal with that?

 

Even if the pitchers thought that (which I doubt) it didn't seem to affect them in 2004. People seem to point to 2003 and Damien Miller as when the Cubs worked with a good defensive catcher that called a good game. In 2003 the Cubs pitching managed to put up a team ERA of 3.83, a WHIP of 1.32 and 8.68 K/9. This was all while throwing with a catching tandem of Miller/Bako.

 

In 2004 the Cubs pitchers threw to the catching tandem of Barrett/Bako. Since the back up catcher was the same the only real difference was Barrett instead of Miller. THe Cubs pitching managed to put up an ERA of 3.81, a WHIP of 1.30 and 8.27 K/9. So by changing from a good defensive catcher in Miller to a supposedly poor defensive catcher in Barrett the pitchers managed to put up almost identical numbers.

 

So this either means the pitchers were scared to death of Miller as much as they were of Barrett or that the performance of the pitchers is more dependent on the pitcher than it is the catcher they are throwing to.

 

When it all comes down to it the fact is that a Mets team with Mike Piazza behind the plate managed to make it to the World Series. So it isn't out of the realm of possiblity that a team with a better defensive catcher in Michael Barrett can make it to the playoffs and the series.

[goonys evil twin]

And if he is being ripped so what. I didn't know you couldn't rip a player on these boards.

 

So now you admit you're ripping him?

 

There's nothing wrong with it. But it's become quite clear that those with a strong anti-Barrett bias have very little interest in discussing realistic options for improvement.

 

People are claiming pitchers can't trust him, he's losing games and that he must go. Yet nobody has come up with a replacement that would improve the team. Name one that is realistic.

[brfahey]

What does "odds are, they still lose" mean?

 

The fact that you picked 5 words out of that post and repeated them over and over while completely ignoring the overall message means that you have very little interest in actually discussing the merits of the call to replace Barrett.

 

You actually used "odds are" twice in that post.

 

I don't know about a call to replace Barrett; it's just that his defense is not so good and I consider that more of a serious detriment than the offensive -minded posters out there.

[fromthestretch]

I asked what if a pitching staff doesn't like to throw to a catcher even though he can hit. I'll change it to read that. Now, what would you do as a GM? I never said the Cub pitchers didn't like throwing to Barrett.

 

If you are a gm, and you know for a fact that your pitchers hate throwing to your catcher, you replace him. If the catcher is so bad that the pitchers are complaining about him being behind the plate, then you either have the whiniest pitching staff ever, or you have a catcher who is complete garabge.

 

If your catcher is that bad behind the plate, chances are his overall contribution is going to be less than league average.

 

Before that, I'd probably ask the pitchers why. There has to be a reason, whether it's poor defense, inability to frame pitches, not on the same page as far as pitch selection, he kicked the pitcher's dog, etc. It would be nice to know if it's a reason that can be easily addressed or not before anyone gets traded/released/sent down.

[goonys evil twin]

I don't know about a call to replace Barrett; it's just that his defense is not so good and I consider that more of a serious detriment than the offensive -minded posters out there.

 

So now you don't think he should be replaced? You can live with him as catcher?

 

I don't get where this debate is going. I guess everybody is close to agreeing that Barrett isn't perfect, but there probably aren't any reasonable improvements readily available.

[Tim]

I don't know about a call to replace Barrett; it's just that his defense is not so good and I consider that more of a serious detriment than the offensive -minded posters out there.

 

So now you don't think he should be replaced? You can live with him as catcher?

 

I don't get where this debate is going. I guess everybody is close to agreeing that Barrett isn't perfect, but there probably aren't any reasonable improvements readily available.

Except Johjima. 8)

[burnt out cubbie fan]

I don't know about a call to replace Barrett; it's just that his defense is not so good and I consider that more of a serious detriment than the offensive -minded posters out there.

 

So now you don't think he should be replaced? You can live with him as catcher?

 

I don't get where this debate is going. I guess everybody is close to agreeing that Barrett isn't perfect, but there probably aren't any reasonable improvements readily available.

Except Johjima. 8)

Could you post some numbers on him either in this thread or another or point me to where I could see his numbers? I remember reading about him in the Japanese prospects thread last year but I don't remember specifics and that info is a year old.

[Chocolate Milk]

I think I'll hold on to solid, predictable, offensive production over catching defense which has an ambiguous impact on the pitching and uncertain impact on runs scored.

[CuseCubFan69]

I asked what if a pitching staff doesn't like to throw to a catcher even though he can hit. I'll change it to read that. Now, what would you do as a GM? I never said the Cub pitchers didn't like throwing to Barrett.

 

If you are a gm, and you know for a fact that your pitchers hate throwing to your catcher, you replace him. If the catcher is so bad that the pitchers are complaining about him being behind the plate, then you either have the whiniest pitching staff ever, or you have a catcher who is complete garabge.

 

If your catcher is that bad behind the plate, chances are his overall contribution is going to be less than league average.

 

As you've seen the Cubs can whine and losing brings that out a lot more, as does the manager. I just don't think it's that black and white as whiniest or garbage. Prior, Z, Wood have had success all throughout their careers. Now, team wise, they are not having that success. It wears on them...it has too. Now I'm sure they would want some impact players out there as we all would. My thoughts in this thread hasn't been that Barrett stinks, not at all. It's when the pitcher/catcher connection breaks down what do you do next?

[1908]

if you can show me a replacement for barrett that is a perfect balance of offense and defense, maybe i'd want him. but i don't know who that is.

Johjima. ;)

He's a free agent after this offseason, he's 4 months older than Barrett, and his numbers last year roughly equate to .315/.373/.533 in MLB.

[CuseCubFan69]

if you can show me a replacement for barrett that is a perfect balance of offense and defense, maybe i'd want him. but i don't know who that is.

Johjima. ;)

He's a free agent after this offseason, he's 4 months older than Barrett, and his numbers last year roughly equate to .315/.373/.533 in MLB.

 

Can he throw to second in 1.6? :D

[goonys evil twin]

Except Johjima. 8)

 

No, I said reasonable improvements readily available. I'm not sure how anybody can be certain this guy would be a reasonable improvement, meaning there's no way to tell what he would do next year. And I don't think he's readily available, meaning a cost efficient acquisition (no more expensive than Barrett).

[goonys evil twin]

if you can show me a replacement for barrett that is a perfect balance of offense and defense, maybe i'd want him. but i don't know who that is.

Johjima. ;)

He's a free agent after this offseason, he's 4 months older than Barrett, and his numbers last year roughly equate to .315/.373/.533 in MLB.

 

I think I'm done with believing those rough equivalents.

[1908]

Can he throw to second in 1.6? :D

He threw out 50.8% of basestealers in 2002 and 42.7% in 2003. I'm looking for his 2004 percantage but it could take me a while to find it, and his 2005 numbers won't be availible for a few months.

[CuseCubFan69]

if you can show me a replacement for barrett that is a perfect balance of offense and defense, maybe i'd want him. but i don't know who that is.

Johjima. ;)

He's a free agent after this offseason, he's 4 months older than Barrett, and his numbers last year roughly equate to .315/.373/.533 in MLB.

 

I think I'm done with believing those rough equivalents.

 

What if he is a stud on defense and the Cubs can move Barrett to help with the OF? And of course...can hit as well as Barrett.

[Tim]

Except Johjima. 8)

 

No, I said reasonable improvements readily available. I'm not sure how anybody can be certain this guy would be a reasonable improvement, meaning there's no way to tell what he would do next year. And I don't think he's readily available, meaning a cost efficient acquisition (no more expensive than Barrett).

Well, there's more than one way to be cost efficient. If a team were willing to trade an impact rookie OF to get an impact offensive catcher, the Cubs could be saving a whole bunch of money $4-5M on an OF by trading Barrett. In which case trading Barrett and signing Johjima could be a very efficient allocation of resources.

[1908]

if you can show me a replacement for barrett that is a perfect balance of offense and defense, maybe i'd want him. but i don't know who that is.

Johjima. ;)

He's a free agent after this offseason, he's 4 months older than Barrett, and his numbers last year roughly equate to .315/.373/.533 in MLB.

 

I think I'm done with believing those rough equivalents.

Iguchi's equivalent was .311/.358/.474 last year and he's hit .279/.347/.440 this year. Not perfect but not bad either.

[goonys evil twin]

if you can show me a replacement for barrett that is a perfect balance of offense and defense, maybe i'd want him. but i don't know who that is.

Johjima. ;)

He's a free agent after this offseason, he's 4 months older than Barrett, and his numbers last year roughly equate to .315/.373/.533 in MLB.

 

I think I'm done with believing those rough equivalents.

Iguchi's equivalent was .311/.358/.474 last year and he's hit .279/.347/.440 this year. Not perfect but not bad either.

 

I understand they hold some merit, and that Japanese players should be considered, but I refuse to get on another bandwagon for these guys. I also have some serious questions per the language barrier. Perhaps if they signed Matsui and he came in from LF everytime the pitcher and catcher wanted to speak, it would be easier.