Jacobs is Topps!

[smg58]

Thomas hasn't played 100 games at first base in a season for ten years. Pass.

As far as Kendall goes, he's badly overpaid as a catcher, and putting him into the outfield full time would have been a disaster.

Getting to Edgy's last post, say Jacobs has an .800 OPS. That would be great for a catcher, but mediocre at best for a first baseman. The question for Jacobs as a catcher would be if his defense there hurts the team more than his hitting helps. Which we can't answer right now.

[Guest Johnny Dickshot]

I dunno. If the Mets are entertaining platooning Jacobs with a veteran, PT, RH-hitting 1Bman (a la Galaragga)... Jeez: Could they do worse than Frank Thomas?

He's a slam-dunk Hall of Famer.

[smg58]

Johnny Dickshot wrote: He's a slam-dunk Hall of Famer.

I can't argue with that, but I'm guessing that an AL team will take a chance on him as a full-time DH. If it's the middle of January and he's still available and would settle for anything at that point, you could certainly do worse. I would wager that the White Sox at least would make him some sort of offer before it came to that.

[Guest Edgy DC]

I'm still jaked that the Mets didn't open the season with Galarraga, instead of three reserve infielders.

[Frayed Knot]

Johnny Dickshot wrote: I dunno. If the Mets are entertaining platooning Jacobs with a veteran, PT, RH-hitting 1Bman (a la Galaragga)... Jeez: Could they do worse than Frank Thomas?

There's a lot worse than Thomas.
But he's got the same problem as Piazza: what either would be worth to us as a scary-ass PHer, twice a week 1B/C, and 9 game a year DH isn't near what it would be worth to some AL team who could do that and make either one a 99 game a year DH.

And big Frank might be as bad a 1st baseman Piazza was.

[Guest Edgy DC]

]Do you really think Jacobs will be in the opening day line-up...He was a prospect turned suspect. Curveball/Slider away steerike 3....

Replay the last six weeks of the season. The guy slugged .710.

[Zvon]

="Edgy DC"] ]We need a catcher who can throw out baserunners. Id rather have that then a guy who could post big hit numbers. We can afford to field an average hitting hard throwing/good fielding catcher. Cutting down runners should be our major concern from that position for 2006. Why? Why? Based on what? And why? And do we know what the particular weaknesses in Jacobs' game are?

Why?
So the opposing team scores less runs against us.
Why?
Cuz we can afford to. And it benefits our pitchers.
Based on what?
The facts, and baseball as I know it.
And why?
All of the above.
The core of our starting staff are not spring chickens. The less pitches they have to throw, the better. I didnt mention game calling but that would also be a bigger factor for me than a slugging catcher. I think with this Met team a catcher who keeps other teams from stealing bases (as well as doing other catching things well,...block pitches etc.) will make a bigger difference when it comes to winning more games next season.

We are never gonna see the likes of a Mike Piazza again, who easily made up for his defensive weakness (ie: not throwing out runners well) with his mighty swing (RBI production). Catcher is a most demanding position thats takes alot out of you and Piazza was one of a kind. No way can you convince me that Jacobs posts the same numbers as catcher as he would as a 1st baseman (whatever those numbers may be for a full season). If we go with Jacobs, we want to get the most possible hit production out of him with the least distraction to allow him to do so.

Im sure the Mets know what they are doing and never having Jacobs catch at the major league level, to me, supports that.

If Jacobs gets a crack to play full time it should be at 1st base.(and i think he should get that chance)

And the Mets should secure a catcher who aids the pitching side of the coin from a defensiive standpoint, as opposed to an offensive one.

And these are just my opinions, so just take em as food for thought

[Guest Edgy DC]

Throwing out runners is vastly over-rated. Beyond that, as much as we have little reason to believe that Jacobs will hit like Piazza, what reason do we have to believe he will have as much trouble stopping baserunners as Piazza?

How many runs and wins per season do you think Piazza's defense has cost the team?

[Guest cleonjones11]

Didnt they try that with Eddie Murray?

[MFS62]

Edgy, some stats that may support you.
The numbers I recall say that a baserunner has about a 20% more likelihood of scoring from second base (with the same number of outs in the inning) than a runner at first. I believe this number was verified in a prior thread here.
The difference between the best throwing catchers (50 %) and a poor throwing one (20%) means that if the opposition attempts 100 steals, the difference will be 30 additional runners at second base. This will statistically result in six additional runs scored. And in a platoon situation, the catcher may not face 100 attempts over the course of a season. I think that supports your "over rated" comment. Even if my numbers are off by 100%, we're only taking 12 runs per year.

And, if you recall Smokey Burgess, he was a good lefty hitting catcher who was not that good defensively. But with him platooning with Hal Smith, the 1960 Pitates won the World Series.

Moreover, even with Piazza's low steal prevention percentage, the Team ERA when he was behind the plate was almost a half a run lower than when his replacements caught the same pitchers throughout his career. There is more to being a good catcher than just throwing.

Hope that helped.

EDIT:
From Today's Rotoworld:

[Guest Edgy DC]

And I can think of a lot more than Smokey Burgess.

So, if the notion of not even looking at Jacobs is the way to go, it ought to be about a lot more than throwing out would-be stealers. It ought to be about game-calling that undermines his pitchers' efforts, passed balls skidding by him left and right, and crumbling like a delicate flower when taking a throw from an outfielder with a runner bearing down.

[Elster88]

Edgy DC wrote: Throwing out runners is vastly over-rated.

Are you interested in joining TORVO, Edgy? I have some literature that I can send you. We're always looking for new recruits.

[Guest Edgy DC]

Son, you had me when you coined the acronym.

[MFS62]

And the acronym means.... ?

Later

[Benjamin Grimm]

I'm just guessing here, but I think it has something to do with throwing out runners being vastly overrated.

[MFS62]

(Slapping forehead) Of course!

That's what happens when I get on this board before finishing my morning cup of coffee.

Thanks (for allowing me to see the blatantly obvious)

Later

[Zvon]

MFS62 wrote: Edgy, some stats that may support you. The numbers I recall say that a baserunner has about a 20% more likelihood of scoring from second base (with the same number of outs in the inning) than a runner at first. I believe this number was verified in a prior thread here. The difference between the best throwing catchers (50 %) and a poor throwing one (20%) means that if the opposition attempts 100 steals, the difference will be 30 additional runners at second base. This will statistically result in six additional runs scored. And in a platoon situation, the catcher may not face 100 attempts over the course of a season. I think that supports your "over rated" comment. Even if my numbers are off by 100%, we're only taking 12 runs per year.

You guys can use all the math and strut all the stats you want.
I feel we need a pitcher who can throw out runners a good pecentage of the time, field well overall and handle our pitching staff.

With a starting pitching staff (especially guys like Martinez and Glavine) afew pitches could make a difference in any one game. Cutting down a baserunner could save a pitcher from throwing more pitches and get him deeper into the game. Even if it only happens in one out of every four starts he has. (ill admit this is a weak example, but still a factor in my mind)
Mark my words, because next season Ill be reminding you of what Ive said here,no matter how it goes.
And dont get stuck on the throwing out runners thing....

What Im saying is we need a 'pitchers' catcher as opposed to a slugging catcher, and that Jacobs should play first base.

[MFS62]

Zvon wrote: You guys can use all the math and strut all the stats you want. What Im saying is we need a 'pitchers' catcher as opposed to a slugging catcher, and that Jacobs should play first base.

I agree with your last statement. And I find it refreshing that you consider me a "numbers guy" because I usually am not. But I provided some numbers I remembered to the discussion just because I happened to recall them.

Later

[Elster88]

Zvon wrote: You guys can use all the math and strut all the stats you want. I feel we need a pitcher who can throw out runners a good pecentage of the time, field well overall and handle our pitching staff.

Feelings don't mean shit 95% of the time. Sorry.

[Guest Edgy DC]

]You guys can use all the math and strut all the stats you want.

Well, winning is a matter of adding up more runs than the opposition.

]I feel we need a pitcher who can throw out runners a good pecentage of the time, field well overall and handle our pitching staff.

Well, I question the relative importance of throwing out runners, proprotionate to the hullabaloo that has been made about it.

]With a starting pitching staff (especially guys like Martinez and Glavine) afew pitches could make a difference in any one game. Cutting down a baserunner could save a pitcher from throwing more pitches and get him deeper into the game. Even if it only happens in one out of every four starts he has. (ill admit this is a weak example, but still a factor in my mind)

Certainly it's a factor. And "factor" is a mathematical term, and it would be best to try to quantify this factor as much as we can and see if it truly is as large a factor as the difference in offense you'll be losing by playing Jacobs at first.

]Mark my words, because next season Ill be reminding you of what Ive said here,no matter how it goes.

Sure, but, of course not everybody agrees on who is a good defensive catcher. So let's establish up front whether we think the Mets have one.

]And dont get stuck on the throwing out runners thing....

Just responding to it as I read it.

]What Im saying is we need a 'pitchers' catcher as opposed to a slugging catcher, and that Jacobs should play first base.

I know very little about Jacobs and his defense.

[MFS62]

Elster88 wrote: Feelings don't mean shit 95% of the time. Sorry.

I once read that 78.4% of all statistics are meaningless.

Later

[metirish]

Mets 2005 Organizational report.....

http://newyork.mets.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/news/article.jsp?ymd=20051107&content_id=1265157&vkey=news_nym&fext=.jsp&c_id=nym

[Vic Sage]

]You guys can use all the math and strut all the stats you want.

In other words: "don't bother with me with data... i know what i know".

When I see a post like that, i just have to shake my head and move along. But it's the kind of thinking that gets "intelligent design" taught in our schools as an "alternative scientific theory" of the origin of life, so i can't help but comment.

Religion is a closed system of thought, where what is known is determined by faith in a theory of existence that requires no measurable data and is intended to be fixed and impervious to change.

Science is an open system of thought, where what is known is determined through the use of logical methodologies to create and measure data which forms the basis of theories that are continually challenged over time, as more data becomes available.

Now, you can have faith that you know, or you can seek to learn what can be known... it's up to you, of course.

But don't bring that stuff around here without expecting to be called on it.

[Willets Point]

Ah, it's always nice when someone can interject their biased and bigoted views about religion into a discussion about baseball.

[Guest Johnny Dickshot]

I think all of you are overlooking the important thing here -- the fact that Jacobs' baseball card next year will have a rendering of a trophy in the bottom right hand corner.

[MFS62]

What trophy is that?
(You knew someone would ask. Didn't want to disappoint you)

Later

[seawolf17]

The little gold Topps Rookie Star trophy they put in the corner of their cards, which of course I can't find a photo of.

[Vic Sage]

]Ah, it's always nice when someone can interject their biased and bigoted views about religion into a discussion about baseball.

My point wasn't about any particular religion, but about the type of thinking that says "don't tell me about stats... i know what i know."

But as long as you've mentioned it... yes, i'm extremely biased against the notion that the Earth is flat, or that it's the center of the universe around which all other heavenly bodies revolve, or that it was created 4004 years ago.

Yes, I'm quite bigoted against the closed-minded. I'm intolerant of the intolerant.

In fact, i'm totally biased, bigoted and intolerant when it comes to folks who surrender the use of the very same frontal lobes that they believe their god gave them, which, in my view, is analagous to the thinking at work behind a statement like "don't tell me about stats... i know what i know."

HOWEVER, I have absolutely no problem with the notion of faith, or with people who have it. It's simply belief in an unproven theory about that which is unknowable. I have faith. I couldn't be a Mets fan without it.

As long as somebody doesn't let their faith interfere with the use of their logical faculties in order to learn all they can about that which IS knowable... then i've got no problems at all.

In fact, i'd be happy for "intelligent design" to be taught in schools. It's just a matter of context. If it was taught as part of a curriculum about comparative religions, where students were exposed to the fundamental tenets and texts of Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Islam, etc, i could see it being of great value. It just shouldn't be taught in the context of science, any more than science should be taught in the context of learning French.

Science is a methodology that has the potential to answer "what, where, when and how" but it will never be able to answer "why", which may be the most important question of all.

Some turn to faith for the answer to "why"... some to other philosophies. I, myself, have more faith in the collective insight of humanity to figure itself out, rather than reliance on metaphysics, so i look to "Art" for new ways to think about "why". I respect anybody whose looking for those answers by whatever path they may choose. But i do admit a loathing for those who are so complacent as to think they've already GOT the answer and so will consider no other ideas, or those who are sor unengaged in life as to not be seeking at all

WP, it wasn't my intent to offend you by my clumsy attempt to exress this feeling, but so be it. You'll survive, as will I.

[Lundy]

This is the "trophy"

[Guest Johnny Dickshot]

Yes. Always reminded me of a toilet bowl.