1. Yes they are. 4. Um, yes. 5. The disparity between good and bad catchers is pretty slim relative to the disparity between say good and bad shortstops. 6. People aren't smart, I should not have to tell you this. 7. And I was not basing my argument on errors...for him or Braun. 8. See #4 10. This is true except for a tie game in the 9th inning. 11. Wrong. You're not factoring out third variables brilliant. I am because I'm quite brilliant. 13. Semantics? Do you like not follow the draft or something? Or do you think I know nothing about the draft? 14. See #8 1. Useless for what? It's a good initial measure for determining how well a player fared in run production. Obviously, you need to consider other factors, mainly RBI opportunities, but it has it's uses in evaluating past performance. 5. What facets of a catcher's defense are you taking into consideration? I'm assuming there's several components you're omitting. 10. Is this in reference to the intrinsic value of the physical steal, or are all factors associated with a stolen base, or the threat of a stolen base considered? If you're taking into consideration the way hitters are pitched, games are managed, the quality of pitcher being faced, catcher behind the plate, then I'd like further explanation about how tangible values were given to each of these factors. If you're not, then no [expletive]- they're valueless when you remove several other associated variables and byproducts. 11. If you're going to constantly tout your percieved brilliance, how's about learning to formulate a coherent sentence, mkay? 13. In the context of the draft, then TI absolutely SATAAPP. Considering the complete impossibility of acquiring any type of pitching talent without giving up a hefty sum these days, it is a necessity to utilize the draft in obtaining arms. The success rate in equity for hitters will understandably be greater than for pitchers, but considering how much higher the cost of purchasing pitchers is than hitters later on in a players career, it absolutely is prudent to develop your own pitching prospects. Are you referring to the example that uses Barry Bonds as the sole set of data for which to "prove" the point. Am I the only one who can see the inherent lunacy in this? If you're attempting to argue a stance using facts, it's a good idea not to use statistical outliers on performance enhancing chemicals. I anticipate more bloviating and self-puffery in the absence of any actual counter-arguments. As is par for the course.