Zvon Old-Timey Member Posted November 9, 2005 Posted November 9, 2005 ]You guys can use all the math and strut all the stats you want.^this wasnt said with any animosity, just as a point/counterpoint thing, as in "Vic, you ingnorant slut!"(I apoligize to anyone who may have taken offence.I have a very open mind and appreciate all the other views expressed here.They do influence my thinking, and thats why I come here.To talk about the Mets and share opinions and perspectives.And Ive always loved that kool Topps rookie trophy.They had another type they used some years.
nymr83 Old-Timey Member Posted November 9, 2005 Posted November 9, 2005 i'm going to leave the religion thing alone and just discuss catchers/jacobs...is defense for a catcher important? yes. it is in the top 3 positions of "i want a good defender here."however, i don't thank that "throws out baserunners" = "good defensive catcher."every passed ball you allow (or wild pitch you don't prevent) is as good as a runner that you failed to throw out. this isn't even considering the ability to "call a game" which i think is the most important part of defensive catching ability.so if a guy can't throw runners out, but calls a good game and blocks the ball in the dirt, i'd be happy to hand him the job if he can hit.the question, for me, is whether or not Jacobs can do these well enough to justify playing him there in order to receive the benefit of his bat...and this all comes down to your good friend MATH..if Jacobs will "cost you" 20 runs defensively compared to your other options (Castro for example) but will cause you to score 30 more runs offensively, then he is a better choice.you can still insert Castro in the late innings of a close game the same way any other poor defender is removed, you can even make Castro Pedro's personal catcher if you somehow feel that Jacobs is hurting you more in his starts (a proposition i don't agree with.)in the end, we don't know enough about his bat OR his glove to know if playing him there is a smart idea.i strongly suspect (based on his past numbers) that he'll hit much better than the average catcher. i also suspect (based on the Mets failure to play him there even though they had a glaring hole) that they don't think he can cut it back there defensively, and that means more than just baserunners running rampant.i am not enamored by any of the FA catchers out there, so i'd be more than willing to go into the spring (assuming we get a good 1Bman) telling Jacobs that the catching job is his to lose, if he looks ok (think Piazza before this year) then he stays there for as long as he is hitting, if he looks terrible (think balls hitting the backscreen without Ankiel on the mound) then its Castro-time.
Valadius Old-Timey Member Posted November 9, 2005 Posted November 9, 2005 All these weird formulas mean nothing compared to wins and losses.
Guest Edgy DC Guests Posted November 9, 2005 Posted November 9, 2005 What's wierd about wanting to gain more runs with a strategy than you give up?More runs generally leads to more wins.
smg58 Old-Timey Member Posted November 9, 2005 Posted November 9, 2005 I agree with nymr83 here; the problem is that we're in no position to even guess about Jacobs' defensive ability. We only know that until his injury he was a catcher in the Mets' system.I think that offensively, a Jacobs/Castro platoon would give us as much as any other catcher out there, so as long as Jacobs can field the position at all (and I'm sure we could get into a long discussion on the definition of "at all"), he'd be a net asset and allow the Mets to divert their resources to other positions.
Frayed Knot Old-Timey Member Posted November 10, 2005 Posted November 10, 2005 ]the problem is that we're in no position to even guess about Jacobs' defensive ability. We only know that until his injury he was a catcher in the Mets' system.Well, we do know that the reports on his defense very weren't good before the injury, and that the injury was to his (reportedly) already below average throwing shoulder,and that he's caught very little since the end of the 2003 season.Now granted all that info shouldn't be treated - from our viewpoint anyway - as the same as undisputable/cast-in-stone/unalterable facts; but at the same time let's not bury our heads in the sand and pretend that Jake's 'D' is some sort of blank slate that we can assume is good enough until proven otherwise.P.S. I have absolutely no memory of Mike Draper
Guest Edgy DC Guests Posted November 10, 2005 Posted November 10, 2005 And so I'll ask again: does anybody know precisely how much he caught this year?
Guest Johnny Dickshot Guests Posted November 10, 2005 Posted November 10, 2005 I don;t know how much Jake caught, but seems to me as if when an organization asks a guy to switch positions, it's either because there's someone better to prospect at his slot, or he'd crossed some line of minimal standards. Jacobs of course was coming off a bad shoulder injury and perhaps they feel he just isn;t cut out for a position requiring all that much throwing.The regular C for Bingo was who? Yunir Garcia?Mike Draper was a lefty Rule 5 pick from the yankees (in 1993). He was talked about as a real contributor all spring but turned out to be a bust.
Guest Edgy DC Guests Posted November 10, 2005 Posted November 10, 2005 Hietpas and Jake alternated at catcher for Bingo, last time I checked.The organization's favorite two-way prospect for catcher was Jesus Flores, but he was hurt at H-Town this year and hitting .216 when healthy. H'es clearly not particularly close.They have a lot of catching prospects, but none of them particularly close. I think it behooves them to experiment here, see if Jake can fake it (at least part-time) and then maybe move a few years down the line.
Guest Rotblatt Guests Posted November 10, 2005 Posted November 10, 2005 It sounds like Mets brass is seriously considering getting Jake a platoon partner for first. According to the Post, we're looking at Eduardo Perez in addition to Old Man River. We must be banking on landing another big bat--presumably Manny or Soriano. Unless they think Molina, Furcal or Hernandez are big bats . . . No one's linked us to Konerko or Delgado at all, which is rather odd, IMO. You'd think we'd at least test the waters.
Benjamin Grimm Old-Timey Member Posted November 10, 2005 Posted November 10, 2005 I've seen a few Delgado rumors, but nothing much about Konerko.Of course, at this point we weren't seeing anything about Pedro Martinez yet.
Guest sharpie Guests Posted November 10, 2005 Posted November 10, 2005 I can't imagine the White Sox will let Konerko out of their clutches after this offseason.
metirish Old-Timey Member Posted November 10, 2005 Posted November 10, 2005 Konerko gets an offer...http://www.dailysouthtown.com/southtown/dssports/pro/101sd1.htm
Zach Thornton Syracuse Mets - AAA LHP On Sunday, the southpaw tossed five shutout innings as the bulk pitcher. He gave up 2 hits, walked 2 and had 5 strikeouts. Explore Zach Thornton News >
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.