Piazza Announces Retirement.

[gRYFYN1]

I've always heard he can't call a game, or isn't great defensively. I'd love to see the stats that confirm this however. I know he was subpar throwing runners out and thats an easy stat to dig out, but not many catchers throw out many runners. In comparison to the league, what stats confirm the thought that Piazza couldn't call a game and was poor defensively, in comparison with the other "great" catchers.

Yea, its basically impossible to quantify a catchers abilities to "call a game" due the myriad of other factors involved. In all actuality attempts to do it seem to show that there in no difference in catchers.

As far as Going in on the 1st ballot he may wind up on a ballot with Bonds, Clemens, and Sosa ... Hmm wonder if writers will want to make some kinda statement there.

[HoustonGM]

Nope, never said they were.

So, your statement "All my rambling is basically saying that i'm stunned statheads are throwing out this rumor he's a bad catcher with nothing to go on but a poor stat such as % of runners thrown out." has nothing to back it up...because A. it's not "a rumor", B. that's not all anybody is basing it on, and C. it's just statheads concurring with "conventional wisdom."

[dickay]

So, your statement "All my rambling is basically saying that i'm stunned statheads are throwing out this rumor he's a bad catcher with nothing to go on but a poor stat such as % of runners thrown out." has nothing to back it up...because A. it's not "a rumor", B. that's not all anybody is basing it on, and C. it's just statheads concurring with "conventional wisdom."

Not at all. You said yourself that catching is the "hardest position to quantify defense". You also said that the stats used are "a shaky defense stat as is because it's based off the "standard" stats such as putouts, assists, and errors."

All I said was that I am stunned statheads, who very often go against or refuse to take a stance on public 'opinion' when they don't have stats to support it are in fact in this instance bedding 'with' public opinion' without solid physical evidence. There is nothing derogatory in that.

We are both in agreement and I've stated that many say he's a poor defensive player, so this is one of those areas where you are picking things out to ignite an argument. I simply asked for advice from the 'statheads' earlier in this thread as to how is his poor defense quantified statistically. There is no need to get defensive and argumentative.

Just to summarize your argumentative alphabatized bullets and ensure I touched them all (and yes, now I am being a bit sarcastic in reply to the tone in your retorts);

A. It is still opinion in my camp, albeit popular opinion. I find it suprising (won't use the word stunning as it coiled your panties earlier) that statheads are supporting opinion without solid evidence.

B. You said yourself you are basing it off of shaky defensive statistics, so it is pretty much all you are basing it on.

C. I never said it wasn't conventional wisdom, just that I was 'stunned' statheads openly supported it. After all, it is statheads that argued in a previous thread that 'conventional wisdom' supporting the theory the DH benefits the AL not acceptable. Sounds like we're trying to choose when conventional wisdom should support are arguments and when they shouldn't.

[dickay]

If we were playing chess that would be what is referred to 'conventionally' as;

Game...

Set...

Match...

Thanks for Playing.

[HoustonGM]

All I said was that I am stunned statheads, who very often go against or refuse to take a stance on public 'opinion' when they don't have stats to support it are in fact in this instance bedding 'with' public opinion' without solid physical evidence. There is nothing derogatory in that.

That's not what they're doing. You wouldn't call the opinions of professional scouts "solid physical evidence"? You said that "statheads" are saying he's a bad catcher based on nothing but his RTO%, yet, I don't see anybody, stathead or otherwise, doing that, which is my contention with what you're saying. I'm wondering where you're pulling that from, because nobody's doing that.

A. It is still opinion in my camp, albeit popular opinion. I find it suprising (won't use the word stunning as it coiled your panties earlier) that statheads are supporting opinion without solid evidence.

There is relatively solid evidence.

B. You said yourself you are basing it off of shaky defensive statistics, so it is pretty much all you are basing it on.

Except:

a) I didn't say that's what I'm basing my opinion on. I said that's what the author of the quote ohms cited was basing it on.

and b) My personal opinion of Mike Piazza's defense isn't only based on the "shaky defensive statistics", and I have not said that that's the case either. You put those words into my mouth.

C. I never said it wasn't conventional wisdom, just that I was 'stunned' statheads openly supported it. After all, it is statheads that argued in a previous thread that 'conventional wisdom' supporting the theory the DH benefits the AL not acceptable. Sounds like we're trying to choose when conventional wisdom should support are arguments and when they shouldn't.

Um, yes, if I'm understand you correctly, that's sort of basically what's going on. Sometimes, the facts don't back up the conventional wisdom. Sometimes, they do. When they do, the conventional wisdom can be used to support the argument, since it's all in agreement. Obviously, when the two don't match, you can't use the conventional wisdom to support the argument.

Conventional wisdom is not always right, nor is it always wrong. "Statheads" agreeing with it shouldn't be "stunning." That goes back to a common misconception it seems you and many others hold about sabermetrics. Sabermetrics isn't out to attack the conventional wisdom. Sabermetrics is meant to seek truth. Yes, sometimes it goes against conventional wisdom because conventional wisdom is not always correct.

If we were playing chess that would be what is referred to 'conventionally' as;

Game...

Set...

Match...

Thanks for Playing.

And I'm the smug one that thinks I'm always right.

[dickay]

I really should stop because it is meaningless. One can't argue with someone who contradicts himself and seeks only to prove himself right at all costs. I made the mistake of asking the advice of the 'statheads' in this thread. First the stats are shaky, and now apparently he has hidden evidence that isn't shaky but is 'relatively solid'???

Whatever bub. I wasn't looking for an argument with you, we were in agreement that we believed he was a subpar defensive player. I asked how you quantify that and suddenly we are mired in an argument.

I'm taking my chess pieces and going home.

[Reade]

thank god, this stuff gets really **** old quickly

[jcbarr]

I agree. No one ever "does" anything, and no one ever "says" anything. When are we all going to learn to just argue the facts, don't argue the person or the manner in which they argue. Put your points out there and then leave it at that.

Piazza = GREAT HITTER
Piazza = GOOD ENOUGH DEFENDER

Bottom line, he deserves to be in the hall and if you think that any HOF member isn't going to say he goes in as a Dodger, then I think you might just be off your rocker.

[HoustonGM]

I really should stop because it is meaningless. One can't argue with someone who contradicts himself and seeks only to prove himself right at all costs. I made the mistake of asking the advice of the 'statheads' in this thread. First the stats are shaky, and now apparently he has hidden evidence that isn't shaky but is 'relatively solid'???

I'm not contradicting myself. Are you even reading my posts? Defensive stats, by themselves, are shaky. The opinion of many scouts, fans, and analysts, which happens to agree with the defensive stats, is relatively solid.

Whatever bub. I wasn't looking for an argument with you, we were in agreement that we believed he was a subpar defensive player. I asked how you quantify that and suddenly we are mired in an argument.

And I told you there's no way to very accurately quantify it. I posted a link to somebody else's take on his Hall of Fame case, completely separate from our own discussion, and that person had one sentence based on Piazza's defensive statistics, and you claimed that "Statheads are spreading a rumor that Mike Piazza sucks defensively based solely how many basestealers he threw out." And yes, I'm arguing that, because that's not true and you've yet to back up that completely false statement. Sorry, I don't like false statements.

Bottom line, he deserves to be in the hall and if you think that any HOF member isn't going to say he goes in as a Dodger, then I think you might just be off your rocker.

There's going to be HOF voters that don't even vote for him to go into the Hall of Fame. Heh... It's not that much of a stretch to think that there will be voters that don't think he should wear a Dodger cap, although the voters I don't think have any control over that, it's up to the head committee or so.

[boomboom]

stop it.

[jcbarr]

That is what I'm talking about. The HOF committee is going to put him in as a Dodger, I don't think there is any way that he goes in under any other cap. I could be wrong, I have been before.

[Swampdog]

Back on subject....I am sure that Piazza will make the HOF, probably as a Dodger. His offense was great, but his defense was not. I base this on what I have seen of his FRAA (fielding runs above average) and FRAR (replacement). His are awful...indicating he's well below average on defense. I give these stats...some credence. I am not certain that they are 100% reliable.

Also, as stated, Piazza "doesn't throw well". Doesn't throw well? This is something you could say about your friends 10 year old son, or maybe about your mother. The truth is, Piazza couldnt throw at all. Someone noted that he has thrown out only 23% of potential base stealers. This is the absolute worst of any catchers who could remotely be ranked among the best of this, or other generations.

It is true that we do not have any catcher stats from before the 50's...so catchers like Bill Dickey and Mickey Cochrane will remain a mystery. But the data we do have for catchers since then show that Piazza is well below the norm. For comparison, for those who don't want to go look it up.....Piazza 23%, Bench 43%, Berra 48%, Campanella 44%, Elston Howard 44%, Gary Carter 35%, Carlton Fisk 34%.

For years baseball people said that catchers like Ted Simmoms (34%), Darren Daulton (29%) and Brian Harper (31%) couldn't throw a lick. And they all threw out way more baserunners than Piazza. Currently, we see the likes of Ivan Rodriguez 47%, Mauer 42%, and Jose Molina 40%. Having a catcher that can't throw would seem to have quite an adverse impact on a teams chances, I would think.

The thing about Piazza, from what I've seen, is that he has simply been given a free pass for his substandard defense. I think this is because he has always been well liked and popular (even called a press conference to announce that he was NOT g.a.y.), and, of course, since he was so good offensively. I dont know if he could call a good game... or how pitchers felt about throwing to him. My feeling is.... he was probably pretty good in that regard. He seems like an intelligent athlete, and I would guess that he learned to compensate somewhat for his physical inadequacies on defense.

I like Piazza overall...but I still wont list him among the best 5 catchers... just due to his defense. Being somewhat old school....I see the catcher as being the backbone of the team on defense. Piazza is somewhat lucky that he played his best years during the slow-pitch-softball offensive explosion of the past 15 years... when the emphasis was placed much more on the home run, and much less on the running game in baseball. If he had played in a different era, its likely that he would have been unable to catch, and probably would have been a first baseman or left fielder.

[dickay]

Hmmm....forgot about that. Any person who has to call a press conference to announce they are not gay is in fact gay. I change my vote to no for the HOF lol.

[Swampdog]

lol