Let's Go Tribe!: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:

Network Bar & Login
Section Navigation
Main Blog Content
Secondary Sidebar: Links to Recent Stories, FanPosts and FanShots
Masthead

Around SBN: Has Kentucky Improved Since the Non-Conference Season?

Pluto on Mike Gonzalez

by jdudas on Dec 10, 2006 9:36 AM EST Comment 49 comments

An interesting note in Terry Pluto's column today. The Indians inquired about Mike Gonzalez, but the Pirates wanted Victor Martinez back. They then planned to move him permanently to first. Now I admire the Bucs for trying to acquire Victor; but that they would then destroy much of his value by moving him to first is revealing. This is the sort of thing that keeps them in last place.

0 recs | Comment 49 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Re: Pluto on Mike Gonzalez

Actually I think that Martinez's best bet to play everyday with Cleveland is at first base. You cannot play a catcher in the National League (or the AL for that matter) that throws out less than 20% of the base stealers (Victor was 22 out of 122 for 18%). Given the unsteadiness of the Tribe at first base, and Hafner as the DH, the only spot you can play him, IMO, is first base. Supposedly he play SS in HS and is quite the athlete, so maybe he can play the outfield. But our up the middle defense suffers with Victor catching.

Sometimes you just gotta be lucky

by mauichuck on Dec 10, 2006 10:07 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Re: Pluto on Mike Gonzalez

Can we stop making statements like "You cannot play a catcher...that throws out less than 20% of the base stealers." Is allowing stolen bases bad? Yes. Would it be nice if Victor caught a few more? Yes. Is it such a deficit that he can't play catcher? No.

Last season Victor threw out 18% of runners, not good. Who else threw out 18%, Bengie Molina...fresh off his 2002, 2004, and 2005 post-seasons. AJ Pierzynski, reigning world series catcher, he threw out 21% (in one less attempt, he threw out a whopping 3 more runners than Victor). Brad Ausmus, defensive catcher extraordinare, he threw out 22% of runners. Jason Varitek, he also only threw out 22% of the runners against him. And, obviously, don't make me mention Mike Piazza.

This notion that you can't make it to the post-season or be successful with a catcher who's bad at throwing out runners should just stop. Catchers do more than throw out runners to affect the outcome of a game, like handle the pitching staff, field pitches, and oh yeah, hit. Victor happens to be quite good at all of those. In the end, not many seasons collapse under the impact of a dozer or so extra-bases accumulated by the opposition.

by APV on Dec 10, 2006 11:05 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Pluto on Mike Gonzalez

Well stated. I wanted to say something similar, but you managed to say it much better than I would have.

by mjmarble on Dec 10, 2006 11:40 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Pluto on Mike Gonzalez

Yep; that's exactly the correct response, I think.

Railing against the sacrifice bunt since 2000.

by jdudas on Dec 10, 2006 11:40 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Pluto on Mike Gonzalez

I'm afraid I cannot stop fixating on Mr. Marinez's poor defense. You are correct there is more to catching the keeping runners on base. Certainly handling pitching is more important, and Martinez is pretty good at that. However, his 18% CS average is attrocious. Sandy Alomar, for instance has a lifetime 30% success rate and Ivan Rodriguez's (the gold standard) lifetime average is almost 49% with a number of seasons well above 50%.

And you are right, we need his bat, probably more than we need Garko's. But does V Mart have to catch to be in the line-up? No. That's what I'm talking about. Where can you play Victor where his defensive shortcomings don't kill us. That's right, I think he will lose us 4-6 games a year because he can't hold runners on base.

So here's the decision point: is V Mart more valuable to us as a catcher, first baseman, DH or other position player or will he bring us something we desperately need (like a closer)in the trade market. If I could get Joe Nathan for Victor (an unlikely event) he'd be gone today. I think that V Mart is one of those high value players that he can afford to give up for the right missing piece. (And yes, I don't think that the Indians have solved their closer problem yet)

So let's just agree to disagree. Until he improves his catching foot-work and starts throwing out more than 25% of attemted base-stealers, I think that V Mart is more of a liability behind the plate than his hitting and pitcher handling is worth.

Sometimes you just gotta be lucky

by mauichuck on Dec 10, 2006 11:44 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Pluto on Mike Gonzalez

those statistics are enlightening. i had no idea a guy as lauded as Ausmus would be at 22%. looks like if Victor were a "good defensive catcher" along Ausmus lines, he'd have thrown out an extra 5 base-stealers last year.

he'd have also had a 593 OPS.

by nctribefan on Dec 10, 2006 11:49 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Pluto on Mike Gonzalez

Does anyone know or can easily get Victor's percentages of throwing runners out by pitcher over his career? What I'm getting at is I would not be surprised if some of his issues could be attributed to our soft tossing right handers such as Byrd.

This may reduce the sample size too much to be enlightening, but nonetheless interesting.

by dvd1204 on Dec 10, 2006 12:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Pluto on Mike Gonzalez

This is definitely the make it or break it year for V-Mart as a catcher. Either he shows significant improvement or we'll have to move him to 1B. As a 1B Victor's value is something along the lines of a Gonzalez in the NL, so I can understand the Pirates offer. Here's hoping he makes it as a catcher. If not, could he be Pronk's heir apparent?

by exileincincy on Dec 10, 2006 10:30 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Re: Pluto on Mike Gonzalez

Heir apparent how? Do you mean how if he moved to 1b they would still have different positions or do you mean how they are completely different hitters?

by Joe. on Dec 10, 2006 11:04 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Re: Pluto on Mike Gonzalez

I mean that extending Pronk's contract is not a foregone conclusion in my mind. After '08 this team might need a new D.H.

by exileincincy on Dec 10, 2006 11:47 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Pluto on Mike Gonzalez

I don't see moving Martinez as a bad idea. I wonder if having a healthier body for the entire season and only having to worry about his hitting (not attending pitching meetings) would benefit him.
So for the Pirates - who have a good group of young catchers - this isn't a bad IDEA.

I would hate it though!

by Brandini on Dec 10, 2006 2:10 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Re: Pluto on Mike Gonzalez

V-mart for Gonzalez? Umm, hell no. I'd hope they're going to throw in another player for that deal.

by world dictator on Dec 10, 2006 4:48 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Re: Pluto on Mike Gonzalez

Shoppach is exactly the league-average catcher that other teams not only get by with, they thrive on. Do I think Shoppach could do .265 with 15-20 home runs and play above average D? Maybe on the offense, Yes on the defense. Do I want to be forced to find out? I'm hesitant. The fact of the matter is, however, that Victor's value as a hitting catcher is extremely high-- We've already been enlightened that a catcher doesn't have to throw out runners at an amazing rate to be on a championship team.

But what we've also overlooked is that they don't need to hit. Yadier Molina, people. Yadier Molina. I can't stress that enough. And keep going, back through championship teams of the past-- It's not a Murderer's Row at the backstop. A throwing catcher is not of high importance, but I can't say a hitting one is either. Just one or the other seems to suffice. And we can get A LOT for Victor.

Victor for Gonzalez, straight up, seems uneven to me given Gonzalez's recent injury. If they threw in another player, I'd think about it. Also, if they'd take Garko + pitcher (Anywhere from Carmona to Guthrie), I'd think about that too.

And it beats the hell out of some of our other options. Especially since those options are mostly one-year terms. Gonzalez would be our CLOSER. Not a rental.

by nickjs21 on Dec 10, 2006 8:25 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Re: Pluto on Mike Gonzalez

Look, I've written myself about trading Victor. But you don't even consider trading a star catcher for a reliever, I don't care who it is. Here's the Runs Created leaders for Catchers, 2005-6:

Victor 194
Mauer 187
Posada 163
Kendall 157
Lo Duca 131
Piazza 120

...
x. Molina 83

Realistically, Shoppach isn't going to produce much more than Molina, i.e., 55 runs per year less than Victor. 55 runs. How significant is that?

Well, the Indians scored 870 runs last season, and the median for AL teams was 805. So our advantage over the typical team at the plate was about 65 runs.

Which is to say, replacing Victor is going to erase a significant part of our overall offensive attack. Not to be taken lightly.

by Jay on Dec 11, 2006 7:52 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Pluto on Mike Gonzalez

I never said trading Victor for Gonzalez straight up would be a good idea.

by nickjs21 on Dec 11, 2006 1:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Pluto on Mike Gonzalez

Catchers do more than throw out runners to affect the outcome of a game, like handle the pitching staff, field pitches, and oh yeah, hit. Victor happens to be quite good at all of those.

I disagree. Victor is not good at a lot of those things.

He misses throws from the OF often.

He is not good at calling pitches. How many times have you seen a RP come in and throw FB after FB.

Every single year he has been the fulltime catcher, the backup catcher has had a lower CERA.

Martinez' batting numbers are much better as a 1B than as a catcher. I could easily see Martinez win a batting title as a 1B.

IMO, Martinez' OPS would increase by at least 100 as a full time 1B.

by ronh on Dec 10, 2006 9:38 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Re: Pluto on Mike Gonzalez

Yeah, anecodotal evidence is awesome, especially if that anecdotal evidence reinforces previously-held views.

He is not good at calling pitches. How many times have you seen a RP come in and throw FB after FB.

The CERA argument has always struck me as comical. First of all, Victor caught one of the best pitching staffs in all of baseball in 2005, which of course, he was not responsible for. Now he's being held responsible for the 2006 bullpen only. I'm not taking sides in this argument, but at least be consistant.

IMO, Martinez' OPS would increase by at least 100 as a full time 1B.

Why is this always framed as a black-or-white argument? What is so wrong with Victor playing first base against left-handed pitching? Shoppach gets his 150-200 at-bats, Victor gets more of a rest, and Ryan Garko gets playing time.

by Ryan on Dec 10, 2006 10:55 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Pluto on Mike Gonzalez

Which is pretty close to the scenario that'll actually develop, IMO.

by MTF on Dec 11, 2006 8:52 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Pluto on Mike Gonzalez

I personally am not a big fan of the combo thing. To me, without discounting the disadvantages, the advantages of moving Victor to 1B would be:

Our control of running game would improve significantly
Victor probably can be a superior defender at 1B (unlike Garko)
Victor has less wear-and-tear on his body, possibly gains 50+ points of OPS

The combo scheme offers none of these advantages. Victor probably can't become a better hitter or anything more than an average 1B just playing there once or twice a week, and our control of the running game would only improve for those 30-40 games, rather than for 140. Added to which, it possibly hinders Garko's ability to produce as he rots on the bench rather than piling up more big-league ABs.

So I don't like it. Victor as the main 1B, backup C, that actually makes more sense to me. It gives us a far greater offensive hurdle to clear, but Victor is a better hitter than Garko or Choo at the moment anyway.

by Jay on Dec 11, 2006 1:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Pluto on Mike Gonzalez

"Added to which, it possibly hinders Garko's ability to produce as he rots on the bench rather than piling up more big-league ABs."
Yes, we all saw how disgusted Garko was with not even being given a chance to compete for the 1B job in spring training.

"Victor as the main 1B, backup C, that actually makes more sense to me."
Would you agree that Garko is a better hitter then Shoppach?
So would Garko+Martinez be more beneficial then Martinez+Shoppach?

Sure you might save some runs on the defensive side of the ball, but is it enough to make up for the difference between Garko and Shoppach?

by Brandini on Dec 11, 2006 4:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Pluto on Mike Gonzalez

I think Garko's production (or potential production) must be higher than Shoppach's, or they wouldn't have moved Garko from C to 1B--they would have moved Shoppach. Right?

by Jackdaw on Dec 11, 2006 5:22 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Pluto on Mike Gonzalez

They moved Garko because he was terrible at catching. It would make no sense to have moved Shoppach when he plays major league D.

by nickjs21 on Dec 11, 2006 10:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Pluto on Mike Gonzalez

First of all, Victor caught one of the best pitching staffs in all of baseball in 2005, which of course, he was not responsible for.

You should know that you can't compare CERA for catchers of different teams.

In 2005, Bard caught Elarton more than any other pitcher and he still had a lower CERA than Martinez.

The huge difference in SB/9 between the two blows out of the water the excuse some want to use that it was the pitchers fault for some of the SB.

Now he's being held responsible for the 2006 bullpen only. I'm not taking sides in this argument, but at least be consistant.

You ignored this fact.

Every single year he has been the fulltime catcher, the backup catcher has had a lower CERA.

I would call that consistant.

You said Martinez is good at handling the pitching staff. Do you have any facts to back this up?

by ronh on Dec 11, 2006 9:11 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Re: Pluto on Mike Gonzalez

CERA is problematic to use as a comparative tool between two players because it doesn't control for which pitchers each player caught for and typically, there is a big disparity in sample size between the two players being compared. There's a more thorough outline of some its problems here. But looking at CERA data, there were 24 teams last year that had one catcher start at least 90 games. Of those 24, 14 had backups (either a primary backup or a combination of backups) with a higher CERA, while 10 had backups with a lower CERA. In other words, it is not at all unlikely to find a team on which the backup catcher has a lower CERA than the starting catcher. If you really want to go down this argument path, you should look at how Martinez and Shoppach fared while catching the same pitchers (with some control for the amount of time they did). I've based my statements on Victor's abilities in this area on interviews with Shapiro, Wedge, and the other members of the pitching staff.

by APV on Dec 11, 2006 9:58 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Pluto on Mike Gonzalez

In the linked article, it mainly says that you can't compare cumilative CERA because of the difference in innings caught.

I agree. And you definitely can't use CERA to compare catchers of different teams.

But when Bard catches Elarton for 1/3 of his innings and Elarton has a lower ERA by almost a run, that says a lot.

When the majority of the pen has a lower ERA when Bard catches, that is becoming too much evidence for me to ignore.

by ronh on Dec 11, 2006 10:22 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Pluto on Mike Gonzalez

My problem with V Mart is not how he handles pitchers, my problem is that he cannot control base runners. And this is even harder to analyze with sabermetrics. It's one thing to inhibit Chone Figgins from stealing and it's another thing when Hank Blalock steals second on you. So Ivan Rodriguez throws out 45% of the base runners trying to steal, when only the best base stealers in the game try to get a jump on him, while Victor's having a tough time throwing our Ross Gload. The result: many the walks our pitchers give up end up as de facto doubles.

There is little doubt that Victor's a big league hitter. I just don't think he's a big league catcher.

Sometimes you just gotta be lucky

by mauichuck on Dec 11, 2006 10:20 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Re: Pluto on Mike Gonzalez

If your complaint is in "controlling" the running game, I think it is largely misplaced. Controlling the running game is as much the pitcher's responsibility (if not more) than it is the catcher's. All a catcher can do is throw the ball once he gets it. Even if you look at the stolen base attempts per 9IP, you are measuring effects associated with both the catcher and the pitchers. Nevertheless, looking at SBA/9IP, last year the Indians allowed 0.989 while Victor was catching. The league average for catchers who logged more than 500 innings was 0.78. Victor does come out as one of the worst, but again, the actual difference is very small. Compared to the league average battery, Victor allowed one extra stolen base attempt about every 5 games. So in reality, not that many walks our pitchers were throwing turned into de facto doubles.

by APV on Dec 11, 2006 10:51 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Pluto on Mike Gonzalez

What was Victors TO% in 2005?

by Brandini on Dec 11, 2006 4:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Pluto on Mike Gonzalez

If you really want to go down this argument path, you should look at how Martinez and Shoppach fared while catching the same pitchers (with some control for the amount of time they did).

I did this on another forum comparing Bard and Martinez in 2005. Unfortunately, I can't find it now. The only parts I still have is this.

Virtually every pitcher had a lower ERA when Bard was their catcher.

In 2005, Bard caught Millwood for 21.2 innings. There was 1 SB attempt (3B) and it was successful. That's 0.414 per 9 inn.

Martinez caught Millwood for 170.1 innings. There were 38 SB attempts and 32 were successful. That's 1.690 per 9 innings.

If Bard had the same SB rate for the 170.1 inn then there would have been 8 SB instead of 32.

I know, small sample size. But when it happens every single year, with different backups, you have to acknowledge it.

by ronh on Dec 11, 2006 11:41 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Re: Pluto on Mike Gonzalez

Sample size is too small, I don't think you can even consider that.

by Brandini on Dec 11, 2006 4:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Pluto on Mike Gonzalez

Is there any reason to think CERA is real? If I remember correctly in the BP book it's pretty much pushed aside as a statistic that doesn't mean anything year to year.

Is there a reason for me to change my opinion on this? Did I misunderstand BP? Have they reversed field?

If not, then I'll kindly continue to ignore it.

by afh4 on Dec 11, 2006 12:14 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Re: Pluto on Mike Gonzalez

What kind of potential does Wyatt Toregas have? My perception is that he is a superior defensive catcher but has struggled with the bat. Wyatt seems to be the next catcher in the major league pipeline. If we moved Martinez to 1B and made Shoppach the primary catcher would Toregas be moved up as the back-up or would it just make more sense to split catching duties between Vic and Kelly? Does Wyatt have any trade value? Could he be packaged with Gutierrez and Betancourt to land a Josh Johnson caliber talent?

by exileincincy on Dec 11, 2006 1:16 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Re: Pluto on Mike Gonzalez

I don't think we would need a backup Catcher this year, with Victor filling that need?

Fan in Texas

by fanintexas on Dec 11, 2006 2:53 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Pluto on Mike Gonzalez

2006 CERA
Martinez 4.48
Shoppach 4.11

2005 CERA
Martinez 3.68
Bard 3.20

2004 CERA
Martinez 4.98
Bard 3.91
Laker 4.31
Sandy Martinez 3.00

Info from ESPN.com.

If it jumped back and forth, I would say you should ignore it. But since it is the same every year, with different backups, that looks like a pattern that should not be ignored.

by ronh on Dec 11, 2006 2:55 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Re: Pluto on Mike Gonzalez

Here are the 2005 ERAs for pitchers that had more than 5 innings caught by Bard.

The 1st column of numbers are the innings that Bard caught them. Then their ERA when Bard caught them. Then their ERA when Martinez caught them.

............................Bard...Vic
Betancourt    7.0    1.29    2.97
Elarton      63.6    3.96    4.95
Howry    16.0    1.13    2.84
Lee    11.6    2.33    3.88
Miller    6.0    0.00    2.28
Millwood     21.6    4.58    2.64
Rhodes      7.6    2.37    2.02
Riske    15.3    1.18    3.61
Sabathia    44.3    3.25    4.25
Sauerbeck    8.0    5.63    3.57
Wickman    9.0    1.00    2.72

Eight of 11 pitchers had a higher ERA when Martinez caught them. And all of those 8 had a ERA > 0.98 higher when caught by Martinez.

Bard had a lower CERA than Martinez even though he caught Elarton more than any other pitcher.

by ronh on Dec 11, 2006 3:25 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Re: Pluto on Mike Gonzalez

I completely respect your efforts, but I'm going to remain dubious that the CERA data is giving us an accurate picture of Victor's game calling ability relative to either Bard or Shoppach. The statistical problem is simply that the quality of the data (meaning in this case the amount of innings for each pitcher/catcher combo) is simply not good enough to control for all the different factors that affect ERA. What was the level of the competition each catcher/pitcher combo faced? Were there park effects that affected the combos differently? And most importantly, given the sample size available, are the observable differences more than you would expect from chance alone? In nearly all the Bard/Martinez combo comparisons, the difference in CERA could result from one bad inning...something that happens with a degree of probability to all pitchers. Is the difference between Martinez and Bard/Shoppach real, or is it just artifact. Because of these difficulties, for a question like this I rely on the opinions of the baseball people, like Wedge and Shapiro, who say Victor handles the staff very well. That doesn't mean Shoppach and Bard don't, or even that they're not better at it than Victor.

by APV on Dec 11, 2006 3:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Pluto on Mike Gonzalez

I'll tack this here since I'm not sure where to reply. I don't care how much data you pile up regarding Victor's CERA until you show me that it's going to hold up to the same kind of scrutiny that BP put CERA under when they showed it didn't really matter.

I can easily find you data of a player who consistently hits more homeruns against teams in the AL Central or the NL East or whatever. Just because it holds 'true' for one player for an 5-10 year span doesn't mean it's a real effect. There are an incredible number of other factors that you're ignoring, especially considering how small the sample is. Just to scratch the surface, you're not taking into account who the team is facing when a given catcher is catching and you're not anywhere near the amount of data needed for me to assume those differences are evening out.

I can think of numerous other contingencies like that which are the reason CERA is not valuable on this kind of blunt object level and I trust BP when they tell me it's not very useful on a detailed level either. Again, if I've misunderstood BP or they have found something new, I apologize and let me know. But just listing CERA is doing nothing for me.

by afh4 on Dec 11, 2006 3:53 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Pluto on Mike Gonzalez

I don't care how much data you pile up regarding Victor's CERA until you show me that it's going to hold up to the same kind of scrutiny that BP put CERA under when they showed it didn't really matter.

When BP says that Peralta was one of the best SS in the ML in 2006, I have a hard time believing anything else they say.

by ronh on Dec 11, 2006 10:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Pluto on Mike Gonzalez

You can tell us - The "h" in "ronh" stands for Hassey, doesn't it...

by mkwng on Dec 11, 2006 4:13 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Pluto on Mike Gonzalez

Bard gave up 7 SB and had 3 CS in 220 innings caught in 2005.

Martinez gave up 96 SB and had 29 CS in 1233 inn.

Bard 10 SB att in 220 inn = 0.409 SBA per 9 inn.
Martinez 125 SBA in 1233 inn = 0.912 SBA/9.

Bard allowed 7 SB in 220 inn = 0.286 SB/9
Martinez allowed 96 SB in 1233 inn = 0.701 SB/9

If Bard had the same SBA rate for the 1233 inn that Martinez caught, there would have been 56 SBA. Or 69 less SBA.

If Bard had the same SB rate for the 1233 innings that Martinez caught, he would have allowed 39 SB. Or 57 less SB.

by ronh on Dec 11, 2006 3:38 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Re: Pluto on Mike Gonzalez

I don't understand how you can extrapolate Bard's numbers to that extent with a straight face.

by afh4 on Dec 11, 2006 3:55 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Pluto on Mike Gonzalez

The greates Lebonese catcher in the history of baseball!

Sometimes you just gotta be lucky

by mauichuck on Dec 11, 2006 4:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Pluto on Mike Gonzalez

Yes, the sample size is small. But for every backup catcher in 3 years to put up better data sure looks like a trend to me.

I am still waiting for someone to show that Martinez is a good handler of pitchers.

Wedge spin doesn't count.

by ronh on Dec 11, 2006 10:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Pluto on Mike Gonzalez

Does the pitchers saying it count? Or are we throwing that out as well? The sample size will always be tiny and the backup catcher will always be better. Why? Because he doesn't have the strain of catching every day and, most likely, the backup is a defensive specialist. Short of Todd Hundley backing up Piazza you almost always see a good backstop type of guy coming in to relieve the starter. Fresh arm, different skill set = lower CERA.

Wait 'til next year... or something like that

by fwembt on Dec 11, 2006 11:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Pluto on Mike Gonzalez

OK, I'm convinced - Matinez can't catch. Now what doya do? Play V Mart at first and trade Garko? and get what? a catcher? Trade Victor for what? relief pitching? a right-hand hitting corner out fielder with some pop? and bet on Garko being the real deal? Then what? Stoppach catches and hope Wyatt turns into Josh Bard? Exactly when do you trade a good to great offensive player with limited defensive skills to get the maximum value for him? I'll bet the Twins are still kicking themselves for letting David Ortiz go.

Even this armchair GM'ing is tough. It's a good thing the Indians don't rely on me to run the team.

Sometimes you just gotta be lucky

by mauichuck on Dec 11, 2006 3:45 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Re: Pluto on Mike Gonzalez

If Martinez' defensive deficiencies are that obvious will they have an impact on our ability to extend Westbrook and C.C. or sign free agent pitchers? How much does a pitcher factor his receiver into his decision on where to play?

by exileincincy on Dec 11, 2006 3:57 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Re: Pluto on Mike Gonzalez

Pitchers want to win. There can be no doubt that having Victor as your catcher, all things considered, is a big plus.

by Jay on Dec 11, 2006 4:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Pluto on Mike Gonzalez

I know that is a heavy Stat site, and I'm slowing starting see benefits of offensive stats that goes beyond BA, BB and SO but I'm have a hard time go with defensive stats. There is so much more to catching than just throwing guys out or errors.

Does he do a good job block the plate?
Does he block pitches in the dirt?
Does he frame the pitch to get those close strikes calls?
Does he provide the pitcher a good target without giving away the pitch location to the batter?
Does he call a good game?

From watching Victor I think he get an average to above average grade as a defensive catcher, yes, he has bad feet work and his arm is just average. Things to work on this spring.

Fan in Texas

by fanintexas on Dec 12, 2006 12:01 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Re: Pluto on Mike Gonzalez

Does he do a good job block the plate?

Yes he blocks the plate well. Problem is that he doesn't catch the ball a few times too many.

Does he block pitches in the dirt?

He is good at this.

Does he provide the pitcher a good target without giving away the pitch location to the batter?

Martinez is very poor on this one. Set's up way too soon.

Does he call a good game?

He is poor on this one. Calling FB after FB because he can't throw out the runner has led to a lot of bullpen collapses.

I like Martinez as a hitter. I suspect he would hit into less DPs if he wasn't worn out as a catcher.

Either Martinez or Garko should be traded for a stud player or prospect.

Gonzalez for Martinez is not enough.

by ronh on Dec 12, 2006 9:22 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Comments For This Post Are Closed

Search

User Tools

Constantly updated Indians news, lots of in-depth analysis, live in-game discussions — and more fanatical and thoughtful Indians fans than every other web site combined.

Start posting about the Indians »

Join SB Nation and dive into communities focused on all your favorite teams.

Narrow
Wide

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recent FanPosts

39135485-59af19dbb26654095f910f34176af094_4ae8a81e-scaled_small

Predictions Group

by Brandon C. 3 days ago

30 comments | 0 recs

I think we found our utility infielder

by datrain021 14 days ago

37 comments | 0 recs

Baseball in Japan

by Chemo 15 days ago

38 comments | 0 recs

3444ant_black_small

Spring Training Trips

by APV 24 days ago

50 comments | 0 recs

Trade Peralta?

by hans 26 days ago

136 comments | 0 recs

3444ant_black_small

Beware the year of the Ox

by APV about 1 month ago

66 comments | 0 recs

award-winning independent baseball documentary released

by princemilo about 1 month ago

0 comments | 0 recs

Create your own 2010 BA Top Ten list (then sign Grady to an extension)

by fleerdon 2 months ago

201 comments | 2 recs

Jason Grilli Signs Minor League Deal?

by Eric Stephen 2 months ago

92 comments | 6 recs

Mariahcareyglitter_medium_medium_small

2009 AL Central Off-Season Transactions and Rumors

by Toxicadam 2 months ago

137 comments | 2 recs

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

Recent Posts

Featured Poll

Poll

Who would you like to see hired to manage the Cleveland Indians?

Bobby Valentine

106 votes

Travis Fryman

41 votes

Manny Acta

113 votes

Don Mattingly

78 votes

Torey Lovullo

30 votes

Other

51 votes

419 votes | Poll has closed

Featured Stories

Dosequisman_small

Fire Everyone! - An Overture

by Jay 5 months ago

25 comments | 1 recs

47b8dd28b3127cceb64839d9746800000026102bauwjrq3za_small

What Cliff Lee's Not Reading

by afh4 6 months ago

28 comments | 14 recs

3444ant_black_small

Trade Profile: Justin Masterson

by APV 6 months ago

75 comments | 0 recs

Dosequisman_small

Too Soon, the Victor Martinez Era Ends

by Jay 6 months ago

112 comments | 25 recs

3444ant_black_small

Minor League Overview: The Hitters

by APV 6 months ago

30 comments | 4 recs

FanShots

Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.

Recent FanShots

Lee has Foot Surgery

by afh4 about 14 hours ago 6 comments | 0 recs

Jamey Wright Signed to Minor League Deal

by woodsmeister about 15 hours ago 8 comments | 0 recs

2010 Cleveland Indians draft preview

by JP_Frost about 18 hours ago 10 comments | 0 recs

Jim Ingraham Angers You.

by afh4 3 days ago 102 comments | 0 recs

BP Calls John Hart One of the, STRIKE THAT, BEST GMs of the 90s

by afh4 4 days ago 68 comments | 0 recs

Sizemore Addresses Offseason

by afh4 5 days ago 20 comments | 0 recs

Can we reach 1,000 on a post about Adam Kennedy?

by Ockus_NYC 6 days ago 446 comments | 0 recs

"At this time, we're looking to make the biggest impact possible on the...

by afh4 6 days ago 17 comments | 0 recs

Casey Blake shaved his beard

by TheDanimal 6 days ago 16 comments | 0 recs

ICBWDSTGFO550K

by westbrook 8 days ago 130 comments | 0 recs

+ New FanShot All FanShots >