Baseball Today

Perhaps but they are the metrics used for ironing out fat contracts.  ;-)  Forgive me if my written tone comes across as sounding "gruff."  That's not my intention.  It's just debate.  

My chosen career is quality engineering.  Therefore, my point of view is always bias towards proving things statistically.  If strong opinions exist and a theory develops, I believe it is always worth proving it out - statistically.

However, I think you misunderstood my anecdote:

"And yet, the two starting pitchers not plagued by dead arms and injuries - Zambrano and Clement - actually improved their numbers working with Barrett in 2004"

I was attempting to be sarcastic here.  I wasn't trying to prove anything statistically.  It was a carryover from the previous message to Al.  My point is that I do not believe that any part of a "catcher's influence" or "Catcher's ERA" can truly be analyzed and verified to be true at all.  It would take an enormous amount of data to attempt to prove this - and even if one was able to prove this to be true - it would be a very, very small influence in the long term.

**

"Zambrano led the NL in Walks Allowed, he didn't with Miller."

While this sentence may be true in the scenario of season 2003 vs. 2006 - it isn't true for 2003 vs. 2004 or even 2003 vs. 2005.

Brandon Webb led the league in walks allowed in 2004 with 119.  Zambrano was ninth overall with 81 walks allowed.  Furthermore, Zambrano walked 94 batters in 2003 while working with Miller/Bako.

Do not misunderstand me... I'm not stating that working with Barrett improved Zambrano's stats from 2003 to 2004...  In fact, the only pattern that I see with Zambrano's walks allowed total between 2003 and 2006 is that as his strikeout totals climbed each season - so has his walks allowed total.  The exception being 2003 where we could *probably attribute the high total to being Zambrano's first full season of service.

Walks allowed are problematic for strikeout pitchers in general, wouldn't you agree?

Don't get me wrong, I totally believe you when you say that you felt more confident on the mound with Catcher A behind the plate instead of Catcher B.  I just don't think that a significant (measureable) amount of a pitcher's success is related at all to who is catching behind the plate.  So, can I assume by you saying that this is a "moot point," that you and I are in agreement here?  

**

"Are you saying that catchers aren't valued defensive members of a team?  That would be like adding a clause to D Lee's contract about how many times he digs a throw out of the dirt.  His contract value is based on playing great D along wiht his offensive production.  Just like Henry Blanco's.  I don't understand this point at all."

I'm just saying that nothing a catcher can do defensively for the team can make up for what he can contribute to the team offensively.  A catcher that can hit like gangbusters makes a bigger impact in the win/loss column over the long term than does a defensive catcher with no bat.

I'm not saying that catcher isn't a demanding position.  I'm not saying that defensive skills are unimportant to a manager or even a pitcher.  However, I am saying that if a manager can't have the whole package (see Pudge) he will compromise in favor of better offensive production from that spot for good reasons.

Henry Blanco may be getting paid to do what he does best - defensively - but both you and I know that Barrett and Blanco are compensated very differently for obvious reasons.

The D. Lee anecdote isn't a good fit for an analogy here.  It's very possible that his contract does include some stat-based incentive for errors.  Who knows?  At least it's something that he can control, is solely responsible for, and can be measured by.  

I'll bet that if some statitician put together some official stat that everyone bought into for "total digs in a season" that some cunning agent would find a way to include that into contract negotiations as well.  ;-)

**

"Pudge is 1.75 to 1.8 to 2B and Maddux is 1.6 to home plate.  Pudge would not struggle with Maddux.  Pudge wouldn't struggle with anyone because his release is superior and that extra time he saves needs to be accounted for when critiquing a pitcher versus the running game."

I do not know where you got your figures but I'll concede that you have evidence for them.

Nevertheless, Maddux has consistently been in the top 5 (NL) for stolen bases allowed since 2000.  Here is the link:  http://chicago.cubs.mlb.com/stats/historical/leaders.jsp?c_id=chc&baseballScope=NL&statType= 2&sortByStat=SB&timeFrame=1&timeSubFrame=2000

While his time to the plate may be nice on paper, the fact still remains that runners can and will steal when Maddux is on the mound.  Do runners get a better jump with him on the mound?  Better secondary leads?  Maybe both?  I do not think that you can put all those SB's on the catcher when the trends for Maddux are so telling through his career.  Maddux did work with some decent catchers with good arms.  It did very little to cut down on the stolen bases allowed percentage though.

Therefore, I still conclude that Pudge would still struggle with Maddux on the mound given the history.  

***

"So your retort is about Cy Young candidates when I present information about pitch selection?  It's naive to think pitch selection with runners on base isn't brought into play.  Last check the Cubs don't have a Cy Young on their staff.  Not every pitcher on a staff is Cy Young."

My retort was specifically about Maddux.

I guess it depends on who is calling the pitches and what the specific situation is to determine if my point is naive or not?  If there are two outs and you're ahead in the count - speedy runner on first, you had better go after the hitter, shouldn't you?  So go ahead and throw that nasty breaking stuff and try to get the third out!  Don't worry about that runner.  You certainly wouldn't want to pitch out or even groove a fastball near the strike zone after he just saw that the pitch before, would you?  :-)

The point is that the situation dictates the course of action and the pitch selection.  If someone determined pitch selection and depended on anything else other than the specific situation, it would be wrong.  

I was a catcher all through my younger years and into college.  While I was never in the minors, I do have a good understanding of the position, both subjectively and objectively.  I was a prototypical defensive catcher.  I was in constant competition for playing time and often lost it to guys that could hit but couldn't do much with the defensive skill set.  Even so, the really good pitchers pitched well despite the fact if I was behind the plate or the other guy.

I do appreciate your thoughts on the subject.  Makes me feel good that pitchers do appreciate good defense behind the plate even if I think that the catching skill set isn't as important to the overall scheme of things in baseball.