|
Post by donk33 on Feb 18, 2014 1:37:56 GMT -5
Who took the reply/Quote buttons off each individual post??? I remember when I posted my comment that Tim wasn't going to the HOF unless he changed his delivery and improved his control...and Rog had a fit...and now most on this board were ready to throw him to the wolves....I said that Posey was not a HOF type catcher and now I'm ruled out of line....let's hope I'm wrong....when I said he didn't have the body for catching...too much weight in where he sits ...and he tires too much for a young man....putting on weight isn't the answer, he needs to strengthen his body...there have been some very good catchers who were heavy, but they didn't have to rest every 4th day...they even could catch double headers when needed...Gus Mancuso caught Hubbell's 18 inning shut out and caught the second game of the twin bill...and the next day, too...
|
|
|
Post by islandboagie on Feb 18, 2014 2:11:11 GMT -5
Being objective really has no place in being a fan.
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Feb 18, 2014 7:31:41 GMT -5
I read or heard somewhere that Posey had added some 20 lbs. of muscle this off-season, so maybe they agreed with Don.
|
|
|
Post by islandboagie on Feb 18, 2014 11:32:41 GMT -5
If the Giants agreed with Don's take on Posey they would have released him after 2010.
|
|
|
Post by donk33 on Feb 18, 2014 13:17:18 GMT -5
If the Giants agreed with Don's take on Posey they would have released him after 2010.
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Feb 18, 2014 15:37:40 GMT -5
I liked Don's response to Boagie. I thought I read 10 pounds, not 20, but whichever, it should be significant. Especially since at least one previous off-season Buster was said to have gained 10 or more pounds. In terms of pure muscle, it may not be possible to add much more than 10 unaided pounds in an off-season. As for Don's saying that Buster isn't a Hall of Fame-type catcher, in the long run he could be right. Based on how Buster has played thus far, Don is off base. Don and others here keep comparing today's "wimp-ish" players to the players of the past. And indeed today's pitchers and catchers seemingly having less endurance than the players of old does raise some questions. Here is what I believe: I think the players today are better than in the past. Pitchers can't pitch as often because they have to put more into their pitchng in order to get today's better hitters out. And catchers can't catch as often because the wear and tear would cause them to tire to the point they would see their hitting drop against today's tougher pitchers. I realize there are those who think the players of today aren't as good as those in our youths, but for the most part every generation has felt that the best players were those in their youths. When we were young, the players were bigger than life. Today we have more knowledge in the areas of nutrition and especially training. We have video tape or whatever they would call it today. We have more meaningful statistics. Players are better positioned. Pitchers know more about hitters' weaknesses. Hitters know more about pitchers' patterns. More attention is paid to pitchers' and catchers' release times in order to slow down base stealing. Both are throwing a little harder, which makes a slight cut in the time a base stealer has to arrive safely. The slide step has become a popular tactic. Base stealers have also improved their skills to the point where they are successful more frequently in their steal attempts. Naturally one's viewpoint of these things change if he believes that players were better in his youth. Batters strike out more often not because the pitchers are better, but because the hitters are worse. They hit for more power because the pitchers are worse. Base stealers are more successful because pitchers and catchers aren't as good at holding them on and throwing them out, not because the base stealers are better. I haven't seen a definitive study on this matter. I think the signs indicate players are better today though. Bigger, faster, stronger seems the overall norm. Faster means better quick-twitch muscles, which would also translate into hitting and getting a jump on the ball. Pitching too, I would think. Players travel first class, compared to what used to be train. They benefit from more air conditioning. Athletes in pretty much every other sport are considered to be better than those of the past. Why would baseball be different? As I say, I haven't seen a definitive study. I don't KNOW that today's players are better. But there are a lot of indications that they are, and aside from memories, not many that indicate they aren't. Some point to declining innings by starting pitchers. But that decline has been going on since the 19th century. Were the pitchers who pitched before the 20th century the strongest and therefore the best? Or has the game simply evolved? More and more of the pitching is being done by pitchers in short bursts who often put up amazingly low ERA's. The need for starting pitchers to pitch complete games is less. Batters face better-rested pitchers who are expected to pitch in sprints rather than marathons. Batters still put up decent numbers despite facing all the really tough short-inning relievers. That would seemingly mean they are better hitters. It used to be that you tried to get the starting pitcher out of the game. The relievers were mostly failed starters. Today the pitchers coming out of the bullpen in the 7th, 8th and 9th innings put up lower ERA's than starters on average. As the game evolves further, starting pitchers are likley to go even less deeply into games. The better the guys replacing them are, the more the starters themselves can turn their outings into sprints rather than marathons. More athletic players; better knowledge; easier access to information (video tapes and computers); better training knowledge. Full-year players, not players who have to work winters to fully support themselves. The advantages today's game enjoys just seem to be too great for the game not to have improved. The game probably DID look better to us in our youths. But our minds weren't nearly as developed, we ourselves were literally smaller, and our eyes weren't as discriminating. Not to mix subjects but rather to further illustrate, but many think the officiating in today's game isn't as good as it once was. With higher pay, more training, better nutrition, more athleticism and better travel conditions, does that seem likely? Isn't it more that the game has speeded up and that instant replay with super-slow-motion and multiple camera angles just make it easier for us to see more calls that are missed? Let's think logically, not emotionally, on this one. Logic helps us evaluate; emotion often gets in the way.
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Feb 19, 2014 17:32:13 GMT -5
--Rog says---Based on how Buster has played thus far, Don is off base.
---boly says---- Rog, again, I disagree. Not saying he won't get into the HOF, but like most players, players get in for their offense, not their defense, or any combination of the two.
Buster can flat out hit!
He can throw.
But as I've continued to say, and I think this is Don's point, Buster is NOT a hall of fame CATCHER... based upon his defense.
He's not.
boly
|
|
|
Post by islandboagie on Feb 19, 2014 18:13:10 GMT -5
Boly, you're forgetting one of the most important skills required to be a good catcher, and that's calling games. The 2 WS championships (thus far) due to strong pitching puts Buster in elite company in that category. That trumps what you and Don think of his mechanics.
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Feb 19, 2014 23:09:19 GMT -5
Allen -- It's a transition play. The position of everyone on the floor was changing throughout. With the ball being thrown out of bounds from nearly half court, and never even being close to being touched or deflected. It's hard to believe these refs were blocked for the entirety of the play. Rog -- Stop and think about it, Allen. Let' put it in baseball terms. The umpire sees EVERY bit of the play at first base -- except that he's blocked for a instant, which happens to be the very instant of truth. Is he blocked, or will he get the call right because he saw 99% of the play? When I said the refs were blocked, I meant at the moment of truth (actually, moments, since the foul and ball being thrown occurred slightly separately). The play occurred in front of the Heat guard, both foul and throw, which blocked the trail ref, and the player running right in front of the center ref blocked his view. Allen -- Not if they can move their head, neck, and eyes. Rog -- You just don't understand this. I suspect you're trying, but you just don't have a clue. See if you can find the tape (I suspect the game may be played again on the NBA channel), and you will see what I mean. Try it yourself (although it's not recommend for trying at home). Pretend you're the trail ref and you have to look through the body of at least the Heat player, if not Klay Thompson and anyone else who might have been blocking that ref. Now pretend you're the center ref, running close to as hard as you can, trying to keep up with the play. You've got a player right in front of you, blocking your view. Without knowing precisely what the moment of truth will be, try moving your head, neck and eyes while on the run. You haven't done it, Allen, so you're just not seeing what is involved. Let's put it this way. Before I reffed a single game of basketball I had seen about 500 Warriors game in person and many other games at various levels in person or on TV. When I first went out on the floo to ref, by the time I recognized what had happened, the ball was already going the other way. I just couldn't keep up with the speed. Your eyes do catch up, of course, but you quickly realize you can't get all the angles all the time. Not when you can't know what those angles will be until the players act and react. You learn the game and play the odds. But situations change, and players don't always make the best or even proper play. I suspect it would take quite a while for you to teach me your job. It would take quite a while to teach you how to ref basketball. I did it for about 5000 games years, paid to attend a bunch of camps, and trained multiple times annually about the rules, points of emphasis, and special plays that come up. I also worked for five years with the refs after the Cal home games. And while I developed a pretty good knack for the job, I was still learning all the way to the end. Different deal, but it's kind of like they say with medicine and the law. People PRACTICE it. They keep learning, just as you no doubt do in your job. The rules change, and so do the situations that come up. You know how they say, "Go to a ball game and you'll see something you've never seen before."? When you're a ref, you often have to judge that new situation. I worked as an executive for many years, not surprisingly making decisons in the millions or tens of millions of dollars. One time it suddenly dawned on me that those multi-million dollar decisions were actually easier than the ones I made on the court. My work decisions had a lot more value, but I usually had plenty of time to analyze them. On the court, I had to make my judgment in about a second, often while running as fast as I could, sometimes choosing between as many as four possible calls or no-calls all on the same play. I didn't have the advantage of the higher camera angle, and I especially didn't have the advantage of multiple camera angles and super-slo-mo. I which I could say that I never missed a call, but I know I missed thousands, probably in five digits. I remember watching a video tape of the first game in which I got booed. It was a decision that was decided by a single frame of the camera, but I got that call right. I'm sorry to say though that I missed another one -- and not a single soul complained. When I was suspicous that I had missed a call, I tried to get help whenever feasible. But even then you sometimes miss the call, and more often, you are just stuck with your call and have to eat it. You hope you're eating a fair meal, not just crow. I have posted this here before, but maybe you'll get a kick out of it. It happened in your city, although at the newer high school. It was the day after Thanksgiving, the first day of a CYO tournament. An almost certainly new coach complained on play after play. Finally he called a time out. When I went over to the scorer's table to report the time out, I realized he still had some pointed words for me. "You've got to start getting these calls right," he yelled. I calmly made the sign of the technical foul and softly told him, "Got that one right, Coach." Didn't hear a thing from him the rest of the game. One thing I worked hard to do was to be calm in gving out technical fouls. I wanted the coach, players and crowd that I wasn't giving the technical in anger. I was basically punishing a player or coach for stepping over the line. Usually what they did was either pretty egregious and/or they had previously been warned. People often wonder why anyone would subject himself to frequent and loud criticism, but I can tell you that while it's not quite the same rush as playing, it's a rush. It's a great way to stay in the game after you can't play any more. And if you've given it your very best, you can feel proud at the end of the night. You can go home tired, but happy. Except that oft times you are still so keyed up it's hard to sleep. During the game though, that adrenaline is just great. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2187/fill-blank#ixzz2tpTSAU2s
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Feb 19, 2014 23:31:01 GMT -5
--Rog says---Based on how Buster has played thus far, Don is off base. ---boly says---- Rog, again, I disagree. Not saying he won't get into the HOF, but like most players, players get in for their offense, not their defense, or any combination of the two. Buster can flat out hit! He can throw. But as I've continued to say, and I think this is Don's point, Buster is NOT a hall of fame CATCHER... based upon his defense. He's not. Rog -- And no one said that he was. When Mike Piazza gets into the Hall of Fame, do you think it will be for his defense? If and when Buster gets in, his defense will likely have been good enough not to hurt his cause and probably will aid him a tiny bit. But of course he'll get in primarily for his bat -- as do most of the position players who make the Hall. Don said that Buster wasn't a Hall of Fame type catcher, and I simply said that based on how Buster has played thus far, Don is way out of line. Few will disagree with me. Don will come back with something like "Don't be putting him in the Hall just yet." But that isn't what I'm doing here. I'm simply saying that Buster has played as a Hall of Famer thus far. It will be years before we know for sure. I'm not sure what you're disagreeing on here, Boly, since there really isn't much to disagree with. I'm almost certain you too think that Buster has thus far played at a Hall of Fame level. Buster's OPS of .864 is extremely impressive for a catcher. When one considers his home park, it becomes even more so. Buster's OPS+ of 143 equals that of Mike Piazza. I doubt Buster's will be that high when he retires, but when he does so, he might have the 2nd-best OPS+ of any catcher in the Hall. I believe Mickey Cochrane's 129 is the highest of any catcher presently in the Hall. Buster's defense isn't of Hall of Fame caliber, but neither was that of most catchers in the Hall. Buster's a pretty good thrower, and despite his technical flaws, he doesn't allow many pitches to get past him. He's considered to be a top quartile defensive catcher, or at least very close to it. For a Hall of Fame catcher, that's not bad. If Buster doesn't make the Hall, it likely won't be his defense that kept him out. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2187/fill-blank?page=2#scrollTo=18946#ixzz2tpePG3A3
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Feb 19, 2014 23:37:58 GMT -5
Boagie -- Boly, you're forgetting one of the most important skills required to be a good catcher, and that's calling games. The 2 WS championships (thus far) due to strong pitching puts Buster in elite company in that category. Rog -- First of all, I doubt very much that Boly has forgotten that. Secondly, while Buster is highly intelligent and I see no reason he WOULDN'T call a good game, I don't see conclusive evidence he does call one. Yes, the Giants have had a very nice ERA over Buster's career, but did he suddenly stop calling a good game when the Giants finished 12th in NL ERA last season? Did he stop calling a good game for Tim Lincecum in 2012, when Tim lost it about as suddenly as any superstar pitcher ever has? Did he stop calling a good game for Ryan Vogelsong in Ryan's disasterous season of 2013? Did he stop calling a good game when Matt Cain struggled to the 2nd-highest ERA of his career? I think Buster does just fine calling a game -- quite possibly more than just fine -- but the Giants' winning two World Series with good pitching doesn't prove that. Was he still that same catcher last season, or did he lose his ability to call a good game? Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2187/fill-blank?page=2#scrollTo=18947#ixzz2tpjsZNsn
|
|
|
Post by donk33 on Feb 20, 2014 11:26:03 GMT -5
Boagie -- Boly, you're forgetting one of the most important skills required to be a good catcher, and that's calling games. The 2 WS championships (thus far) due to strong pitching puts Buster in elite company in that category. Rog -- First of all, I doubt very much that Boly has forgotten that. Secondly, while Buster is highly intelligent and I see no reason he WOULDN'T call a good game, I don't see conclusive evidence he does call one. Yes, the Giants have had a very nice ERA over Buster's career, but did he suddenly stop calling a good game when the Giants finished 12th in NL ERA last season? Did he stop calling a good game for Tim Lincecum in 2012, when Tim lost it about as suddenly as any superstar pitcher ever has? Did he stop calling a good game for Ryan Vogelsong in Ryan's disasterous season of 2013? Did he stop calling a good game when Matt Cain struggled to the 2nd-highest ERA of his career? I think Buster does just fine calling a game -- quite possibly more than just fine -- but the Giants' winning two World Series with good pitching doesn't prove that. Was he still that same catcher last season, or did he lose his ability to call a good game? dk...I don't have any stats, but I would guess that Posey gets "shake offs" on more signs than most catchers...and didn't the brass say that Posey and the pitchers have to get on the same page....It appears to me that when Posey shakes off Posey, Posey just puts down another sign...he never seems to go out to the mound and try to rehash how they are supposed to pitch to a batter....I see Molina go out to the mound to talk to the pitcher,Posey waits for the pitcher to call him out....I don't think I have never seen a better example of a problem when on the first pitch of a game, the pitcher shook Posey off 4 times...
|
|
|
Post by donk33 on Feb 20, 2014 11:27:01 GMT -5
pitcher shakes off Posey
|
|
|
Post by islandboagie on Feb 20, 2014 11:49:06 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by islandboagie on Feb 20, 2014 11:49:55 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Feb 20, 2014 12:20:05 GMT -5
-Boagie says---Boly, you're forgetting one of the most important skills required to be a good catcher, and that's calling games. The 2 WS championships (thus far) due to strong pitching puts Buster in elite company in that category. That trumps what you and Don think of his mechanics.
---boly says---
Boagie, you make an excellent point! Being able to call a good game is something I don't believe Piazza was ever very good at.
Does it trump bad mechanics....?
Hmmm. I'd have to give that a lot of thought, but my first reaction would be, not trump it, but at least be equal to it.
boly
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Feb 20, 2014 16:14:34 GMT -5
Boly -- Boagie, you make an excellent point! Being able to call a good game is something I don't believe Piazza was ever very good at. Rog -- It dawned on me that perhaps it would be worth looking at a broader range of catchers, but I have read and posted here that it is a fact that pitchers threw a half run better to Piazza than to his backups. Unless most starting catchers enjoy a similar or better advantage over their backup catchers, that would indicate Mike WAS pretty decent at. Boly -- Does it trump bad mechanics....? Hmmm. I'd have to give that a lot of thought, but my first reaction would be, not trump it, but at least be equal to it. Rog -- If it is truly worth a half run per game, I would say it DEFINITELY trumps it. Which catcher do you know who costs his team half a run per game with his defense. One more point. Buster Posey has shown that poor technique doesn't necessarily translate into bad performance. Give me the guy who PERFORMS over the guy with good technique. Again, I would like to see more info on how other catchers compare with their backups in runs allowed, but it appears to me that Piazza may have received a bad rap with regard to his overall defense (including pitch calling), and that Buster's lack of technique hasn't become much of a problem. Buster's technique may not be good, but he has almost certainly been better than average in catching pitches -- no matter HOW he looks doing it. Aren't results more important than technique, Boly and Don? Poor technique is a bad thing as it causes poor results and is likely to do so in the future. But with Buster, the positive results are there, and it seems likely that by the time the poor technique begins to trump reactions, agility, reactions and soft hands, Buster may not be catching much anyway. Buster isn't the best defensive catcher in the game (although it is still possible -- not necessarily likely -- that he will do so). What does seem likely is that the rest of his career will be better than any other catcher playing in the majors right now. Speaking of catchers, I remember a couple of winters ago when you asked me about Jesus Montero, Boly. He was rated the #6 overall prospect at that time and had been as high as #3. I told you I thought he would have difficulties hitting because of a lack of plate control. I said I thought Brandon Belt (despite being a somewhat lower prospect who had struggled as a rookie with the Giants) would outhit Montero. This came after Montero had put up a .996 OPS with the Yankees in a September callup- type thing in 2011. Although Montero is still just 24 and may turn things around, thus far Belt has been the better hitter of the pair. Belt's .798 career OPS trumps Montero's .699 by almost exactly a hundred points. One thing about Montero to add to the discrepancy is that he's not a very good fielder. He's beginning to play a little first base. Again, the jury's not completely in on this one - not even close, really -- but thus far the battle has been very one-sided. One would have expected much more from a top-10 prospect, but simply looking at his K/BB numbers indicated a lack of plate control. Montero hasn't been a big strikeout guy, so perhaps he's hit in some bad luck. But as is the case with other undisciplined hitters, he makes too many outs. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2187/fill-blank?page=2#ixzz2ttj8e6Z3
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Feb 20, 2014 17:06:22 GMT -5
Boly -- Boagie, you make an excellent point! Being able to call a good game is something I don't believe Piazza was ever very good at.
Rog -- It dawned on me that perhaps it would be worth looking at a broader range of catchers, but I have read and posted here that it is a fact that pitchers threw a half run better to Piazza than to his backups. Unless most starting catchers enjoy a similar or better advantage over their backup catchers, that would indicate Mike WAS pretty decent at.
---boly says--But that begs the question, were they better BECAUSE of the catcher, or inspite of him?
I teach high school and I can say without any reservation what-so-ever that we succeed as a school in SPITE of leadership, not BECAUSE of it.
A great catcher makes all of the pitchers better.
But a bad one does not make them worse because as Krukow has so often pointed out, it is the PITCHER who decides what pitch to throw and where. The catcher is only suggesting.
boly
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Feb 20, 2014 22:45:19 GMT -5
Boagie -- Being objective really has no place in being a fan. Rog -- I would say it has plenty of place -- just as it has a very good place in just about every aspect of life. One could argue that it has little place in love, but our high divorce rate shows that likely isn't so. If objectivity has a place in love, it likely has a place in just about anything. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2187/fill-blank#page=2#ixzz2tvNv3fPi
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Feb 20, 2014 23:02:10 GMT -5
Rog -- It dawned on me that perhaps it would be worth looking at a broader range of catchers, but I have read and posted here that it is a fact that pitchers threw a half run better to Piazza than to his backups. Unless most starting catchers enjoy a similar or better advantage over their backup catchers, that would indicate Mike WAS pretty decent at. ---boly says--But that begs the question, were they better BECAUSE of the catcher, or inspite of him? Rog -- In his 15-year career, Mike started about 1600 games, while his backups started about 800. Do you realize in that big a sample just how HARD it would be for Mike's half run ERA advantage over his backups to have occurred in SPITE of him? As I mentioned, I would like to see how much other catchers improved their pitchers compared to Mike. But in a very brief survey, it is pretty close to the improvement the Giants' pitchers have shown with Buster, and right in between the Cardinals' improvement with Yadier Molina and Mike Matheny. Certainly in a small sample, there can be some luck involved. But in a sample of 1600 starts on the one side and 800 on the other, there just isn't a lot of room for luck. There are a couple of posters who think I'm crazy for saying there is a lot of luck involved in many baseball games. But over 2400 or so games, that luck tends to even out pretty closely. Saying his pitchers were better in SPITE of Mike rather than because of him would be like saying Mike hit better than his fellow catchers in SPITE not actually being as good a hitter as they. Or like saying your Spanish students learn more in SPITE of your excellent teaching. It would be well nigh impossible. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2187/fill-blank?page=2#scrollTo=18964#ixzz2tvOxrbdp
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Feb 21, 2014 10:59:02 GMT -5
--Gorg-=--Saying his pitchers were better in SPITE of Mike rather than because of him would be like saying Mike hit better than his fellow catchers in SPITE not actually being as good a hitter as they.
Or like saying your Spanish students learn more in SPITE of your excellent teaching. It would be well nigh impossible.
---boly says---
Actually, Rog, many students excell inspite of bad teaching. Seriously. It's true.
Gifted atheletes, like gifted students, find a way to succeed. If seen it first hand with 32 years in high schools.
boly
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Feb 21, 2014 12:22:26 GMT -5
Cut the bs Rog. It's officiating not brain surgery. Why is it so hard for you to admit the guy screwed up. Thrice. The player threw the ball out of bounds from 40 feet out. No one even attempted to touch it. The team of refs blew the play big time.
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Feb 21, 2014 13:57:17 GMT -5
Rog -- Saying his pitchers were better in SPITE of Mike rather than because of him would be like saying Mike hit better than his fellow catchers in SPITE not actually being as good a hitter as they. Or like saying your Spanish students learn more in SPITE of your excellent teaching. It would be well nigh impossible. ---boly says--- Actually, Rog, many students excell inspite of bad teaching. Seriously. It's true. Gifted atheletes, like gifted students, find a way to succeed. If seen it first hand with 32 years in high schools. Rog -- No question that is true. I've been on both sides of the issue. My ex-wife and daughter are teachers, and both my kids went to so-so schools. That said, don't you think that OVERALL the students with the better teaching tend to fare better than thoae with worse teaching? I certainly can't say that ALL his pitchers were better pitching to him, but as a (large) group, they were clearly better with him behind the plate. Again, I wish I had broader data regarding how often and by how much pitchers pitch to various starting catchers. But I would imagine Mike's half a run advantage would at least put him close to average. His numbers in that regard are slightly higher than Buster's and as I remember from research when Mike Matheny came to the Giants, clearly better than the other Mike's. Yadier Molina has been fabulous. Right around a full run. I haven't seen broader research than the paltry amount I myself have accomplished. But while Piazza was in particularly a bad thrower, I'm guessing he was at least OK working with pitchers -- which seems clearly more important than the other facets of catching defense. By the way, while defense is still very difficult to measure, there is even data now that shows which catchers are best at pitch framing. with better data, intangibles are slowly becoming more tangible. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2187/fill-blank#page=2#ixzz2tz47RdOM
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Feb 21, 2014 14:26:07 GMT -5
Allen -- Cut the bs Rog. It's officiating not brain surgery. Why is it so hard for you to admit the guy screwed up. Thrice. The player threw the ball out of bounds from 40 feet out. No one even attempted to touch it. The team of refs blew the play big time. Rog -- I never said the refs didn't blow the play. I did mention that the right team apparently wound up with the ball. What I did do, Allen, was try to give you a better understanding of what was going on from the viewpoint of the three officials. If I were to put the blame on one of them, it would be the lead. He had the best angle on the play and was really the only one of the three officials who wasn't blocked. His difficulty was that there were players ahead of the play, and that was his primary responsibility. No one said officiating was brain surgery. And I don't think I have fed you any BS. Basically what I have said is the officals clearly missed at least one call, and here may be the reasons that occurred. If you don't want to learn more about how plays are called or not called, don't bother to read what I post on the subject. If you do wish to learn a little about what may have happened to contribute to the missed call, they you should probably read and stay objective. I think just about ALL of us are at least somewhat interested in finding out WHY a ref or umpire might have blown a cal. If not, our interest in at least one aspect of the game is flagging. Don't worry so much about whether I'm making excuses for the referees and pay attention about what I am saying might be the reason or reasons why they missed the call. If I'm telling you how they missed the call, aren't I agreeing that they missed it (although sometimes even on instant replay it's difficult to tell for SURE)? In this case, Allen, I know the responsibilities for each of the three officials. You may not even have know they each have different responsiblities, although those responsibilities can overlap at times. Why not read and learn instead of going off the handle? Whatever I read here, I try to learn from it. I usually don't learn much when someone agrees with me, but I tend to learn quite a bit when someone disagrees with me. We have no disagreement here that the call or calls was/were missed. Just trying to make you a little more knowledgeable as to why. For gosh sakes, Allen. I've been in the locker room immediately after games with refs who have reffed the NCAA finals and championship game, as well as a couple of guys who went immediately on to the NBA. The purpose of our getting together while the game was fresh was mostly to show each ref how he might improve. You don't think I picked anything up? By the way, the guy I worked directly for was Lou Campanelli, who at one time was considered one of the top 5 or 10 college coaches. You think he didn't know anything but reffing? You are getting inside knowledge that should help you understand the game more. And yet you seem overly fixated that the refs missed a call. Duh. Why not at least TRY to learn something? As you say, it's not brain surgery. Nor is it rocket science. But I can honestly tell you that some of the calls I made refereeing were more difficult that decisions I made involving millions of dollars. But it certainly isn't so difficult that you can't learn. Coincidentally, one of the refs I knew was written up in the Wall Street Journal several years ago. He has reffed the NCAA championship game on multiple occasions. So, tell me the probable reasons the three refs missed one call and probably two on the play we have been discussing. I'm wondering whether you have been paying objective attention. If you had inside information regarding an aspect of sports, I'm pretty sure I would pay attention. Why not do the same? Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2187/fill-blank?page=2#ixzz2tz87Z85k
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Feb 22, 2014 10:30:43 GMT -5
--Rog---That said, don't you think that OVERALL the students with the better teaching tend to fare better than thoae with worse teaching?
---boly says---
Absolutely! Same with pitchers. Pitching to bad, or poor catchers, good ones will still do well, to very well.
But pitching to a great catcher, they will do even better!
But my point wasn't how much better they succeed, it's that they will STILL succeed INSPITE of a bad catcher or teacher
That's my point about Piazza and mediocre catchers like him.
They're one dimensional. It's like, they only play acceptable defense because they have to.
Like Mike Martz when he was a head coach. Defense was something that simply "happened" until his guys got the ball again, and thus, wasn't really that important to him.
boly
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Feb 22, 2014 14:39:20 GMT -5
Boly -- That's my point about Piazza and mediocre catchers like him. They're one dimensional. It's like, they only play acceptable defense because they have to. Rog -- Mike's defense wasn't really even mediocre -- except, quite possibly, for his handling of pitchers. Again, I wish I had found a study that compared the catching ERA's of ALL long-time starting catchers to their backups. Maybe the half run per game Piazza's pitchers enjoyed when he rather than his backups caught is the norm or even less. But if not, that half run is hard to ignore. It is worth more than the defense of the very worst catchers costs his team. Think about this. Let's compare Bob Gibson with his former teammate Larry Jackson. Bob is considered one of the greatest pitchers of all time, while Jackson is considered to have been a competent but unspectacular pitcher. Bob has an advantage in innings pitched, 3800 to 3200. But the primarly difference between them? Bob's ERA half a run lower than Jackson's. In theory, Larry Jackson pitching to Mike Piazza would have had a very similar ERA to Bob Gibson pitching to Mike's backups. We're being theoretical here. The players are from two entirely different generations. But the point is that pitchers pitching to Piazza were about as much better compared to when they pitched to other catchers as Gibson was to Jackson. Here's what I think about Piazza, based on all I know about him. Picked in the 52nd round or something like that, he may be the biggest draft steal ever. He's almost certainy the best hitter ever to don a mask as his primary position. He wasn't great at catching the ball, and he was even worse catching it. That said, his overall value as a catcher may be average or above because of the way he handled his pitchers. I don't believe there is anything in the above paragraph that can be shown to be wrong. The only caveat is I wish I knew the norm for starting catchers' ERA's compared to those of their backups. A half run is a LOT though. It's hard to imagine Mike wasn't pretty good in that regard. In the short run, such difference can be mostly due to small sample size. But with Pizaa's 1600 games being compared to is backups' 800 contests, it's hard to argue that the sample isn't meaningful. I think a good chunk (and an enjoyable one) is challenging our preconceptions. I certainly wouldn't have picked up on Piazza's catching advantage if I hadn't read about it. I'll bet I was as surprised as you are. But it's there in black and white over a combined sample of 2400 games. That's significant. Mike couldn't find second base with his throws, but apparently he could find the pitcher's mound with his directions. Based on what you said about Mike Martz, and I know you know a lot about him (not my favorite either), I would say there is as much difference between him and the catching Mike as there are similarities. Mike Piazza was a much better catcher -- all-around catcher -- than Martz has been a coach. Speaking of Martz, I don't know how much talent he had to work with, but his career winning percentage has been .624. I learned something on that one too. That was pretty much a mirror image of what I was expecting. His sample is a lot smaller though. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2187/fill-blank?page=2#ixzz2u50E8klQ
|
|