September 3, 200817 yr Pudge is the sexy pick because of his name, not because of his production Im not picking pudge for his name. im picking him for his defense and solid offense. Baker = .267 .366 .442 = OPS+ 115 Pudge = .281 .326 .402 = OPS 92 Baker = Upside + Cheap Pudge = Downside + Expensive
September 3, 200817 yr Pudge is the sexy pick because of his name, not because of his production Im not picking pudge for his name. im picking him for his defense and solid offense. Baker = .267 .366 .442 = OPS+ 115 Pudge = .281 .326 .402 = OPS 92 Baker = Upside + Cheap Pudge = Downside + Expensive Pudge= solid offensively, solid defensively Baker= Good offensively, bad defensively Get what im sayin?
September 3, 200817 yr I want Hanley hitting 3rd the rest of the season. He's an extra base machine that is somewaht getting wasted hitting lead-off. He struggled the other timers he was moved down but he has to learn to hit down there.
September 3, 200817 yr Baker = .267 .366 .442 = OPS+ 115 Pudge = .281 .326 .402 = OPS 92 Baker = Upside + Cheap Pudge = Downside + Expensive Pudge= solid offensively, solid defensively Baker= Good offensively, bad defensively Get what im sayin? No... see.. you're wrong.. an OPS+ of 92 is BELOW average... BELOW AVERAGE is NOT solid... Also, you can get the same crap from Redmond for millions less... and I'd say Baker is passable defensively, maybe about average... so... Good+Average > Bad + slightly above average
September 3, 200817 yr Pudge is the sexy pick because of his name, not because of his production Im not picking pudge for his name. im picking him for his defense and solid offense. Baker = .267 .366 .442 = OPS+ 115 Pudge = .281 .326 .402 = OPS 92 Baker = Upside + Cheap Pudge = Downside + Expensive Pudge= solid offensively, solid defensively Baker= Good offensively, bad defensively Get what im sayin? It's a wash?
September 3, 200817 yr Pudge is the sexy pick because of his name, not because of his production Im not picking pudge for his name. im picking him for his defense and solid offense. Baker = .267 .366 .442 = OPS+ 115 Pudge = .281 .326 .402 = OPS 92 Baker = Upside + Cheap Pudge = Downside + Expensive Pudge= solid offensively, solid defensively Baker= Good offensively, bad defensively Get what im sayin? No. Why do you say Baker is bad defensively?
September 3, 200817 yr Pudge is the sexy pick because of his name, not because of his production Im not picking pudge for his name. im picking him for his defense and solid offense. Baker = .267 .366 .442 = OPS+ 115 Pudge = .281 .326 .402 = OPS 92 Baker = Upside + Cheap Pudge = Downside + Expensive Pudge= solid offensively, solid defensively Baker= Good offensively, bad defensively Get what im sayin? No. Why do you say Baker is bad defensively? I dont know, maybe because as a catcher he only throws out .269% of base runners. Look, rambo Mcdonald and PWG got me with the pudge signing. it isnt the best of signings. Maybe someone like redmond will be a better signing or someone through a trade. But you cant say that baker can be a full time starter with his defense. His defense just isnt that good.
September 3, 200817 yr I dont know, maybe because as a catcher he only throws out .269% of base runners. Look, rambo Mcdonald and PWG got me with the pudge signing. it isnt the best of signings. Maybe someone like redmond will be a better signing or someone through a trade. But you cant say that baker can be a full time starter with his defense. His defense just isnt that good. It couldn't hurt to see... his defense is pretty average, his CS% is low, but it's as low as anyone we've really had this year... Baker is MORE than capable of maintaining that position
September 3, 200817 yr I dont know, maybe because as a catcher he only throws out .269% of base runners. Look, rambo Mcdonald and PWG got me with the pudge signing. it isnt the best of signings. Maybe someone like redmond will be a better signing or someone through a trade. But you cant say that baker can be a full time starter with his defense. His defense just isnt that good. Pudge has thrown out 34% this season and 31% the season before.
September 3, 200817 yr Why do people say Baker is bad defensively? Most stolen bases I've seen against him are because of the pitcher giving almost no attention to the runner at first. Yeah, there's been a few balls that have gotten past him with wild pitches...but those are usually REALLY BAD PITCHES....again the pitcher's fault.
September 3, 200817 yr Treanor has a rep as a good defensive catcher, but isn't his CS just as bad Bake's?
September 3, 200817 yr I dont know, maybe because as a catcher he only throws out .269% of base runners. Look, rambo Mcdonald and PWG got me with the pudge signing. it isnt the best of signings. Maybe someone like redmond will be a better signing or someone through a trade. But you cant say that baker can be a full time starter with his defense. His defense just isnt that good. Pudge has thrown out 34% this season and 31% the season before. Pudge has thrown out 35% in 94 games started Baker has only started 35 games. Huge difference.
September 3, 200817 yr Treanor has a rep as a good defensive catcher, but isn't his CS just as bad Bake's? Treanor's rep is undeserved. Good guy + talks to the media = genius game caller + great defense
September 3, 200817 yr Pudge has thrown out 35% in 94 games started Baker has only started 35 games. Huge difference. Exactly. Baker's is a smaller sample size, meaning it is more prone to fluctuation. Pudge's numbers represent who he is, basically, at this point. Baker might be better than what it shows from his 35 games. Treanor has a rep as a good defensive catcher, but isn't his CS just as bad Bake's? Treanor's rep is undeserved. Good guy + talks to the media = genius game caller + great defense I fully agree. Same thing happened with Lo Duca in his time here.
September 3, 200817 yr How about Henry Blanco to platoon with john baker. Why? I was gonna say to platoon with john baker, but i looked at his career stats vs lefties and they arent very good so scratch that idea.
September 3, 200817 yr How about Henry Blanco to platoon with john baker. Why? I was gonna say to platoon with john baker, but i looked at his career stats vs lefties and they arent very good so scratch that idea. and yet he still managed to take Scotty O deep if my memory serves me correctly but no, i would not want blanco ever for this team
September 3, 200817 yr How about Henry Blanco to platoon with john baker. Why? I was gonna say to platoon with john baker, but i looked at his career stats vs lefties and they arent very good so scratch that idea. and yet he still managed to take Scotty O deep if my memory serves me correctly but no, i would not want blanco ever for this team Yep, and of his 3 homeruns, 2 are against the marlins.
September 4, 200817 yr I want to give Baker the opportunity to be our full-time starter next season. His OPS this season .845. You're not going to find very many catchers exceeding .800.
September 4, 200817 yr Personally I still believe Baker is going to be a low-.700 OPS guy when his numbers even out. Hopefully I'm wrong, but I'd say the numbers back me up. He's walking more than he did in the minors, and while this may stay, normally players see a drop in their walks, not an increase now: 13.5% earlier: 11.1% 2007: 9.4% 2006: 12% So that's a drop (albiet not that big) in OBP His ISO is basically the same here so far than it was this year in ALB...I doubt I need to explain why I think that's unsustainable. 2006: .113 (With OAK so no ALB) 2007: .144 2008 so far: .176 2008: .172 So that's a drop (and I think big) in SLG and his BABIP is extremely high so far (.352). And there's in your drop in AVG, which then drops OBP and SLG aswell. At that point, I think you can basically wash their offenses and pudge has better defense, so I would say next year Pudge will be the better player. But, baker will cost the minimum, is a hell of alot younger, and we'll have club control over him (and I think at worse he'll make a good backup C, having a good hitting LH C is nice off the bench). So I'd certainly want Baker next year.
September 4, 200817 yr Ok, you may very well be right. How about we decide by giving him a chance on the field? All these numbers don't replace performance. We'll find out. I refuse to not give someone a chance because of these little numbers you're throwing out.
September 4, 200817 yr It sure would've been nice to get a decent catcher out of the Cabrera trade.... :whistle
September 4, 200817 yr Ok, you may very well be right. How about we decide by giving him a chance on the field? All these numbers don't replace performance. We'll find out. I refuse to not give someone a chance because of these little numbers you're throwing out. uh when did I say we shouldn't? but since you touched on the subject anyway, no FA catcher should be brought in to start (which is what was being discussed, should we sign Pudge. and I myself said we should not, just that I disagree with the people saying they think Baker will be better than Pudge next season [but there's a lot more than just on the field performance that matters, and the difference won't be that big I think]), but I certainly would love to go out and get an upper echelon catching spec to start and put Baker in the back up role. But I don't expect us to do that. I expect baker to be starting next season, with a right handed veteran back up brought in (most likely Lo Duca being resigned)
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.