Isn't Lo Duca considered an above average defensive catcher?

Isn't Lo Duca considered an above average defensive catcher?

 

 

He's made a few excellent throws down to 2B, tight hammy and all.

Isn't Lo Duca considered an above average defensive catcher?

 

 

Above average, but not excellent.

 

Now that AJ's gone, his caught stealing % is likely to be much better next season.

Lo Duca is not an above average catcher. Below average is being nice. The difference when Treanor comes into the game is like night and day.

LoDuca's a fine catcher. A large part of the catcher position is calling a good game for the pitcher. Veteran Todd Jones, when asked about his year, always gives the credit first to LoDuca. LoDuca handles all the pitchers well. Notwithstanding the fact that someone could probably produce some stat that proved that Piazza was superior to LoDuca, the fact is that he fields his position and throws just fine. This combined with his game calling make him an above average catcher defensively.

What got me frankly was beyond LoDuca...to the Dodger catchers of the past.

 

We look at Mike Piazza as a Met and we see a broken down, weak throwing, virtually crippled shadow of his former self (see defensive stats in LA).

 

Ferry would have us forget about Johnny Roseboro, Mike Scioscia, the great Hall of Famer Roy Campanella, heck even Charles Johnson and a healthy Todd Hundley (meh), all good to great defensive catchers.

 

The Dodgers have had better than average (see their fielding stats vs league fielding stats from the late 1940's through the present) catchers year in year out.

Point remains the only reason why LoDuca is considered a catcher is because someone gave his defensively challenged self the chance. Come to think of it, the Dodgers have a history of good-hit no-field catchers.

 

 

Do you wet your pants when you make this stuff up ?

 

lol :lol

lo duca makes up plenty on offense with his clutch hitting for his lack of defense. rferry you make it sound like duca is helpless behind the plate. i guess it would also help if he had a full season with no injuries

Everything I said is true, but as you said he makes up for it with his bat. He's the classic hit and throw catcher. Even the throwing Paulie's had problems with, but whatevwr. I just don't see why people are so concerned about Willy's defense behind the plate (or anywher else: see Cabrera), but ignore LoDuca or Cabrera's. One year of 400 at bats, Willingham very likely could have an OPS over .800 which would make everyone forget about his defensive problems.

 

The Dodgers have had better than average (see their fielding stats vs league fielding stats from the late 1940's through the present) catchers year in year out.

 

Not really. Dodgers catchers have usually been respected, but more for their hitting than fielding.

Not really. Dodgers catchers have usually been respected, but more for their hitting than fielding.

 

 

Maybe my dear friend RFerry, instead of denying the obvious or admitting you're fallible, you look at their defensive stats since the late '40's in comparison to the rest of the league and admit that on a whole they've been better than the league average significantly more often than not.

 

Here's what you said, "Point remains the only reason why LoDuca is considered a catcher is because someone gave his defensively challenged self the chance. Come to think of it, the Dodgers have a history of good-hit no-field catchers."

 

And you're still wrong, just as you're wrong about LoDuca AND (at this stage of his career) you're wrong about Willingham who I think wouldn't last three months as a catcher in the ML's. He's awful.

 

I don't say that to disparage, if you put Jeremy Hermida back there he'd probably be incapable too. If you want to play the kid somewhere else, I love his bat, if LoDuca and Treanor get hurt almost simultaneously, sure he's a good third guy to have, but please don't try to sell Willingham as a catcher because he just doesn't have the tools that even a Ryan Jorgensen displayed.

Not really. Dodgers catchers have usually been respected, but more for their hitting than fielding.

 

 

Maybe my dear friend RFerry, instead of denying the obvious or admitting you're fallible, you look at their defensive stats since the late '40's in comparison to the rest of the league and admit that on a whole they've been better than the league average significantly more often than not.

 

Here's what you said, "Point remains the only reason why LoDuca is considered a catcher is because someone gave his defensively challenged self the chance. Come to think of it, the Dodgers have a history of good-hit no-field catchers."

 

And you're still wrong, just as you're wrong about LoDuca AND (at this stage of his career) you're wrong about Willingham who I think wouldn't last three months as a catcher in the ML's. He's awful.

 

I don't say that to disparage, if you put Jeremy Hermida back there he'd probably be incapable too. If you want to play the kid somewhere else, I love his bat, if LoDuca and Treanor get hurt almost simultaneously, sure he's a good third guy to have, but please don't try to sell Willingham as a catcher because he just doesn't have the tools that even a Ryan Jorgensen displayed.

 

 

03,

I agree with you, but just to play Devil's advocate. . .

 

If LA have a tradition of defensive catchers, maybe that's why they got rid of LoDuca in a trade?

Willingham has no defensive value at any position. And the Dodgers have a history of good defensive catchers? Wasnt Jason Phillips the starting catcher on opening day this season, and way back Mike Piazza? They are both horrible.

 

This is what twists my muffins. Dont compare Willingham to Cabrera, he has an amazing arm and good range(espicially at 3rd), Mike Lowell, or Lo Duca...of the 3 positions he would play he is not in any of those guys league defensively. And I'd venture to guess he'd be bad at 1st base too, if it was tried to move him there. Everyone on here is in awe of this kid, a 27 year old rookie with no defensive skills...maybe people think he is the next Jason Bay, well hate to tell you he is not. And people think he is the answer to all our questions, as a 27 year old rookie, but also say he has no trade value because...HES A 27 YEAR OLD ROOKIE. It is a double standard.

 

Then you have Aguila, who can swing the bat as well. He is good at all 3 outfield spots, and it's been said(not just by me) that he could take over for Pierre and we'd be just fine. He also has an above average arm, good speed. He might not have Pierre's pure speed, but the kid is still fast. So you factor in the fact that: A)their hitting skills are not far seperated(not as much as some would have believe) and B)Aguila actually has defense, good defense, so in the long run Aguila is more valueable. We could plug him in knowing he will give you good D in the OF and a solid bat in the lineup, or you could plug Willingham in knowing you will get NO DEFENSE and a solid bat in the lineup. Aguila is more valueable.

As usual Spike, it's you who doesn't get it....What did this team need more of....offense or fielding???? There were way too many games where the offense let the pitching down. Willingham provides the better bat and more OBP then Aguila....Aguila may play better defense but this team needs offense and Willy isn't as bad as you make him out to be defensively.

As usual Spike, it's you who doesn't get it....What did this team need more of....offense or fielding???? There were way too many games where the offense let the pitching down. Willingham provides the better bat and more OBP then Aguila....Aguila may play better defense but this team needs offense and Willy isn't as bad as you make him out to be defensively.

 

Aguila swings a nice bat, and on their limited plate apperance I don't think one can make a conclusion on who would be better.

If LA have a tradition of defensive catchers, maybe that's why they got rid of LoDuca in a trade?

 

 

I've was always surmised that LoDuca was the price (read, the major piece of the trade) the Dodgers had to pay to get Penny. Admin Beinfest made it no secret he had wanted LoDuca for quite some time and that was the readon he offered up Penny.

If LA have a tradition of defensive catchers, maybe that's why they got rid of LoDuca in a trade?

 

 

I've was always surmised that LoDuca was the price (read, the major piece of the trade) the Dodgers had to pay to get Penny. Admin Beinfest made it no secret he had wanted LoDuca for quite some time and that was the readon he offered up Penny.

 

Yeah, that's pretty much it. Beinfest was after LoDuca since Spring Training.

 

If I recall, I believe Buster Olney referred to the trade as a deal where both general managers simply said "I'm going to trade you a player you never thought would be available for a player you never thought you'd trade."

Willingham has no defensive value at any position. And the Dodgers have a history of good defensive catchers? Wasnt Jason Phillips the starting catcher on opening day this season, and way back Mike Piazza? They are both horrible.

 

This is what twists my muffins. Dont compare Willingham to Cabrera, he has an amazing arm and good range(espicially at 3rd), Mike Lowell, or Lo Duca...of the 3 positions he would play he is not in any of those guys league defensively. And I'd venture to guess he'd be bad at 1st base too, if it was tried to move him there. Everyone on here is in awe of this kid, a 27 year old rookie with no defensive skills...maybe people think he is the next Jason Bay, well hate to tell you he is not. And people think he is the answer to all our questions, as a 27 year old rookie, but also say he has no trade value because...HES A 27 YEAR OLD ROOKIE. It is a double standard.

 

Then you have Aguila, who can swing the bat as well. He is good at all 3 outfield spots, and it's been said(not just by me) that he could take over for Pierre and we'd be just fine. He also has an above average arm, good speed. He might not have Pierre's pure speed, but the kid is still fast. So you factor in the fact that: A)their hitting skills are not far seperated(not as much as some would have believe) and B)Aguila actually has defense, good defense, so in the long run Aguila is more valueable. We could plug him in knowing he will give you good D in the OF and a solid bat in the lineup, or you could plug Willingham in knowing you will get NO DEFENSE and a solid bat in the lineup. Aguila is more valueable.

 

Willingham isnt nearly as bad as you suggest he is in the field.... and he actually has a pretty solid arm

 

and if you watched Willingham at all in the outfield, he isnt half bad there as well

I'm not arguing that Willingham doesn't have a place on this team (2006).

 

I'm simply suggesting his catching skills do not suggest he would be a suitable replacement (as #2 catcher) for Treanor. I happen to agree with Ramp's premise that he may find a home in the outfield.

I'm not arguing that Willingham doesn't have a place on this team (2006).

 

I'm simply suggesting his catching skills do not suggest he would be a suitable replacement (as #2 catcher) for Treanor. I happen to agree with Ramp's premise that he may find a home in the outfield.

 

Well, given the fact that I believe you have a good objective opinion, you're personally familiar with catching skills, and you sit directly behind home plate....I'll have to go with your opinion. You have the perfect seat to judge his positioning and movement. It also seems to reinforce exactly what we hear from the scouts. After reading some of the other opinions expressed it deeply saddens me that they're going to here all off-season.

I'm not arguing that Willingham doesn't have a place on this team (2006).

 

I'm simply suggesting his catching skills do not suggest he would be a suitable replacement (as #2 catcher) for Treanor. I happen to agree with Ramp's premise that he may find a home in the outfield.

 

 

I'm actually surprised he hasn't seen more P.T. in the outfield. Heck, in the Spring I recall one or two games where McKeon floated him from right-field to first-base, but now he's being used almost exclusively as a catcher...which I must say is kind of odd given that I don't think you'll find anyone who will tell you with a straight face that he has a future as a back-stop, at least at the big-league level.

Spike, by your logic, Cabrera is a DH because he couldn't handle leftfield.

 

I'm simply suggesting his catching skills do not suggest he would be a suitable replacement (as #2 catcher) for Treanor.

 

I like Treanor, but it's really a question of what you want from your backup catcher. If the new manager isn't going to be replacing LoDuca late in games often, I want the spot to go to the guy who can step in and perform the most like our starting catcher for the 9 innings he's behind the dish AND the ~4 at bats he steps into the batter's box.

Thats the thing...Willingham cant perform behind the dish in any way, shape, or form. And Cabrera wasn't horrible in LF, since he still had a cannon for an arm.

No, Cabrera was absolutly terrible in leftfield. Every bit as in rightfield. Just because his arm means that sure out he misplayed stays a single instead of a double does not mean he's a good outfielder.

 

Also I don't know if you've actually read the media reports, but Willingham is said to have all the physical tools for catcher but reacts too slowly. Notably when transferring to throwing. I don't see how that's something that will follow him around the field or won't pass if he stays at the position for a few more years.

I like WIllinghams bat as much as you guys, but I am also realistic when I say that, a guy that wasn't a catcher until he was what...25? Has no real value at that position, even as a backup. I'll take Treanor behind the plate over Willingham anyday.

I like WIllinghams bat as much as you guys, but I am also realistic when I say that, a guy that wasn't a catcher until he was what...25? Has no real value at that position, even as a backup. I'll take Treanor behind the plate over Willingham anyday.

 

 

wow.....you criticize Willy for being an older minor leaguer yet you'd rather have the journeyman behind the plate.....please....Treanor isn't fit to hold Willy's jock.

I like WIllinghams bat as much as you guys, but I am also realistic when I say that, a guy that wasn't a catcher until he was what...25? Has no real value at that position, even as a backup. I'll take Treanor behind the plate over Willingham anyday.

 

 

wow.....you criticize Willy for being an older minor leaguer yet you'd rather have the journeyman behind the plate.....please....Treanor isn't fit to hold Willy's jock.

:notworthy exacally!

 

 

I like WIllinghams bat as much as you guys, but I am also realistic when I say that, a guy that wasn't a catcher until he was what...25? Has no real value at that position, even as a backup. I'll take Treanor behind the plate over Willingham anyday.

 

 

wow.....you criticize Willy for being an older minor leaguer yet you'd rather have the journeyman behind the plate.....please....Treanor isn't fit to hold Willy's jock.

:notworthy exacally!

I like WIllinghams bat as much as you guys, but I am also realistic when I say that, a guy that wasn't a catcher until he was what...25? Has no real value at that position, even as a backup. I'll take Treanor behind the plate over Willingham anyday.

 

 

wow.....you criticize Willy for being an older minor leaguer yet you'd rather have the journeyman behind the plate.....please....Treanor isn't fit to hold Willy's jock.

 

Sorry to butt in, but I think that this is kind of apples to oranges.

 

I don't like Treanor, but that doesn't mean I want Willy catching, and that in turn doesn't necessarily mean I don't want Willingham playing.

 

Look, Treanor's a journey-man, and I know I'm in the minority on this, but I think Treanor is terrible as a back-up because he can't hit with any consistency and earlier in the year, that meant LoDuca would have to be a pinch-hitter in close games if Treanor came up in a tough spot, thereby eliminating the day of rest for LoDuca, meaning Treanor failed to do his job as a back-up and get the starter some rest, but it still doesn't change the fact that he's better defensively than Willingham, and that's more important when you're talking about a back-up catcher. Not to say that either one is what I'd call a "good" catcher, but Treanor's got the inside track, perhaps simply because he's been catching longer.

 

Willingham's future on this team is as an outfielder...not as a catcher.