Three YEPS and three NOPES

[Balta1701]

One other thing worth adding is a Martin/Flowers comparison. Martin is having a spectacular season, no doubt. For the last 6 years prior to this one, he's put up a combined .718 OPS (95 OPS+).

 

Tyler Flowers this year put up a .693 OPS, that when park adjusted, comes to a 95 OPS+.

 

Tyler Flowers was just about as productive with the bat last year as Russell Martin has been for the last 6 years of his career.

 

Now maybe you're convinced that Martin is raking this year because he took on a new weight training routine (he did), and he'll be an 800+ OPS guy for the next 3 years, and maybe you're convinced that Tyler Flowers will never match what he put up again this year, I can believe both of those if you had a person with enough experience in player evaluation telling me so.

 

But the downside risk on Russell Martin appears to me that he'll be Tyler Flowers/2014 with the bat for the next 4 years, maybe with a slightly better glove, for a much higher price. And on the other hand, Flowers is trending the right direction...which is something that isn't uncommon with catchers and happened to Martin himself.

 

So there's a case to be made that its a large upgrade that hangs on Martin repeating his best year of the last 7 and Flowers no longer improving, and that's compared with a case that to me seems stronger that it would be a small upgrade at a high cost.

[shysocks]

Barring a concussion or other injury, I don't know why Martin wouldn't catch 120 games a year, minimum. Yeah, he could break down, but so could any free agent. You don't justify not signing them because they could break down.

Free Agent X is not just as likely to break down as a catcher over 30. Isn't that the reason we talk about age at all with free agents?

 

It's not the only justification not to sign him - I pointed out paying for a career year and current roster construction and needs.

[Eminor3rd]

Free Agent X is not just as likely to break down as a catcher over 30. Isn't that the reason we talk about age at all with free agents?

 

It's not the only justification not to sign him - I pointed out paying for a career year and current roster construction and needs.

 

Read my post above (and the linked articles), you're arguing that he's more likely to decline rapidly because he's a catcher, but that's not true at all.

[Balta1701]

Read my post above (and the linked articles), you're arguing that he's more likely to decline rapidly because he's a catcher, but that's not true at all.

If he has a huge jump in performance at age 31 relative to his performance ages 26-30, is he likely to sustain that jump in performance?

[shysocks]

I just want to clarify that you're arguing that he'll be hurt a lot because he's a catcher, which is different than what I'm saying when I'm arguing that his skillset ages well. I'm talking specifically about his game-calling and pitch-framing, which studies have shown improve with age. When it comes to the things that decline with age, the difference between a good and bad catcher's throwing arm has been pretty convincingly argued as overrated (because pitcher behavior and catcher footwork more strongly correlate with CS% than catcher pop times: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-overrat...throwing-arms/), and catcher offense has actually occupied a substantially softer aging curve than that exhibited by other position players under the current offensive environment:

I know you were referring to specific parts of catcher defense. I was specifically referring to catchers being forced out of position. I saw your data, but there are enough anecdotes that my point still applies here. Martin's high WAR is tied to him catching, and if he can't do that as often - which is not an outlandish claim to make - then he's a bad signing.

 

So there's a case to be made that its a large upgrade that hangs on Martin repeating his best year of the last 7 and Flowers no longer improving, and that's compared with a case that to me seems stronger that it would be a small upgrade at a high cost.

Thank you for saying what I was trying to say better than I said it.

[Eminor3rd]

One other thing worth adding is a Martin/Flowers comparison. Martin is having a spectacular season, no doubt. For the last 6 years prior to this one, he's put up a combined .718 OPS (95 OPS+).

 

Tyler Flowers this year put up a .693 OPS, that when park adjusted, comes to a 95 OPS+.

 

Tyler Flowers was just about as productive with the bat last year as Russell Martin has been for the last 6 years of his career.

 

Now maybe you're convinced that Martin is raking this year because he took on a new weight training routine (he did), and he'll be an 800+ OPS guy for the next 3 years, and maybe you're convinced that Tyler Flowers will never match what he put up again this year, I can believe both of those if you had a person with enough experience in player evaluation telling me so.

 

But the downside risk on Russell Martin appears to me that he'll be Tyler Flowers/2014 with the bat for the next 4 years, maybe with a slightly better glove, for a much higher price. And on the other hand, Flowers is trending the right direction...which is something that isn't uncommon with catchers and happened to Martin himself.

 

So there's a case to be made that its a large upgrade that hangs on Martin repeating his best year of the last 7 and Flowers no longer improving, and that's compared with a case that to me seems stronger that it would be a small upgrade at a high cost.

 

Two things:

 

1. While I do not believe that Russell Martin will ever sniff 140 wRC+ again, I do think that the fact that recency provides important context for the way his performance is trending. He's spent the last two years over 100 wRC+, which is something Flowers has never really sniffed. While I think you're right to point out that Martin probably isn't a tremenoudlsy better hitter than Flowers, I do think it's safe to say he's a significantly better hitter. It would not be replacing Jeff Mathis with Mike Piazza, but it would be a clear and noticeable upgrade.

 

2. While I do believe reports that Flowers has improved defensively, I think there's a lot of evidence that the upgrade from Flowers to martin would be more than "slight." Here's Statcorner's pitch framing leaderboard for 2014: http://www.statcorner.com/CatcherReport.php. Martin is 10th in the league; Flowers didn't crack the top 100. By FanGraph's total defensive metrics, Martin ranks 4th in the Majors,; Flowers is 18th. http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=...0&sort=20,d

 

I do not think Martin needs to repeat next year to be a substantial upgrade.

[Eminor3rd]

I know you were referring to specific parts of catcher defense. I was specifically referring to catchers being forced out of position. I saw your data, but there are enough anecdotes that my point still applies here. Martin's high WAR is tied to him catching, and if he can't do that as often - which is not an outlandish claim to make - then he's a bad signing.

 

But why would he be forced out of catching? Other than an unforeseeable injury.

[Balta1701]

2. While I do believe reports that Flowers has improved defensively, I think there's a lot of evidence that the upgrade from Flowers to martin would be more than "slight." Here's Statcorner's pitch framing leaderboard for 2014: http://www.statcorner.com/CatcherReport.php. Martin is 10th in the league; Flowers didn't crack the top 100. By FanGraph's total defensive metrics, Martin ranks 4th in the Majors,; Flowers is 18th. http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=...0&sort=20,d

 

I do not think Martin needs to repeat next year to be a substantial upgrade.

Interestingly, it was also noted above that "improving pitch framing" is one thing that can help a catcher age well with time, so that might be a skill Flowers could make up some ground on as well. That said, Martin's been really good at that for a long time, but it is probably worth asking how much we really believe the numbers on how big a difference it makes at this time.

[Eminor3rd]

Interestingly, it was also noted above that "improving pitch framing" is one thing that can help a catcher age well with time, so that might be a skill Flowers could make up some ground on as well. That said, Martin's been really good at that for a long time, but it is probably worth asking how much we really believe the numbers on how big a difference it makes at this time.

 

Yes, I accidentally ignored that part of your argument a couple posts ago. I think that "Tyler Flowers having a bunch of upside" is a better case against Martin than the inherent risk that comes along with Martin.

[2nd_city_saint787]

http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2014/09/24/...russell-martin/

 

I know people have said they don't think Pittsburgh will open their wallets to pay him, but everything they've been saying leads me to believe they will.

 

I know they don't really have a history of signing guys to big contracts, but they also never really had a history of winning.

 

 

[shysocks]

But why would he be forced out of catching? Other than an unforeseeable injury.

Nagging stuff. It's harder to stay healthy at 32 years old. Catcher is the most physically demanding position. I don't think I'm stretching here.

[Eminor3rd]

Nagging stuff. It's harder to stay healthy at 32 years old. Catcher is the most physically demanding position. I don't think I'm stretching here.

 

I don't think so either, intuitively, but that's why I was pointing to that article to show that over the last 15 years or so, that HASN'T been the case on the aggregate.

[witesoxfan]

Free Agent X is not just as likely to break down as a catcher over 30. Isn't that the reason we talk about age at all with free agents?

 

It's not the only justification not to sign him - I pointed out paying for a career year and current roster construction and needs.

 

I guess I don't necessarily think of catchers breaking down that soon and that rapidly. Some might, but that can be said of position players too. I definitely agree that they break down faster, especially power wise, but I think Martin would maintain that value.

 

I definitely think the Sox will seek an upgrade at catcher, but I also think it will be at their cost. If it's not, I think they'll be comfortable with Flowers moving forward.

[Dick Allen]

Since we are talking about a three/four year deal, how did Konerko's 37 and 38 year old seasons look?

Not as good as Harold Baines and Edgar Martinez. Paulie was doing pretty well and probably still would be had the wrist, back and hips held up. JR just said White Sox doctors didn't think he would make it to 2010. Obviously, something could go wrong with Victor that can make him drop off and the odds do increase with age, but Victor has been a really good hitter for a while. He started off really slow in 2013 after missing 2012, but picked it up the second half.

 

As long as he stays relatively healthy, there is no reason to think he can't be a really productive hitter for several more seasons.

 

If there was a choice between him and Russell Martin, I would take Victor as they say in the the Reed threads, 10 times out of 10.

[Dick Allen]

Interestingly, it was also noted above that "improving pitch framing" is one thing that can help a catcher age well with time, so that might be a skill Flowers could make up some ground on as well. That said, Martin's been really good at that for a long time, but it is probably worth asking how much we really believe the numbers on how big a difference it makes at this time.

IIRC, pitch framing seems to be an advanced stat that is looked at a couple of different ways. One, Flowers is near the bottom, in another, he is better than average.

 

I think the Russell Martin you see the next couple years is the Russell Martin that played with the Yankees. Not a bad player but you will be paying him for what he's done since, and those last couple years IMO, will drop off.

 

I am all for an upgrade. I congratulate Flowers for coming back after a slump that many wouldn't come back from, but I think he is too inconsistent to be a regular, although good enough to bide some time until something better that makes a lot of sense comes around.

 

Lillian will be happy when I write the Sox need a LH presence in their line up. That is where they should be spending some cash.

[shysocks]

I don't think so either, intuitively, but that's why I was pointing to that article to show that over the last 15 years or so, that HASN'T been the case on the aggregate.

That article specifically relates to offense, and I don't think any of us are really in disagreement about his offense. What I'd like to see, basically, is that same curve but expressed as a year-over-year change in percentage of games played at primary position instead of offensive runs. I don't know if that exists, but my guess is that it would look significantly different for catchers against the league average.

 

To your point though, there are plenty of examples of catchers staying catchers well past the innings total that Martin has racked up.

[2nd_city_saint787]

Thing I love about VMart, and why I think he's got a few good years left in him, is his plate discipline and his eye up there at the dish. He's just a really smart hitter. I think those guys can stick around for quite some time.

 

There was a point this season where from May 21st 2013 to May 5th 2014 he didn't have a single strike out looking. Going back to the ASB last year the dude has a strike out to walk ratio of 60/91 in 802 ABs. That's ridiculous.

 

Even if the power goes away a bit towards the end of a 3 year deal I still think he'll be an extremely valuable hitter. He's just such a disciplined hitter, and I don't think that will change with age.

 

I'd love if the Sox could give him a front loaded deal, or keep the years limited to a 2-3 year deal with a 3rd or 4th year option.

Edited September 26, 2014 by scs787

[Dick Allen]

I don't think so either, intuitively, but that's why I was pointing to that article to show that over the last 15 years or so, that HASN'T been the case on the aggregate.

The last 15 years has been dominated by steroids. Also, only the better guys even catch much after 34 or 35. The numbers on that graph showed regular position players declining every year, but catchers actually improving at age 33 after several years of decline before declining again, which to me indicates a sample size problem or something else a little out of whack. Maybe that is the year the elite guys still catch and the back ups and not so good guys move on to other things.

[Eminor3rd]

The last 15 years has been dominated by steroids. Also, only the better guys even catch much after 34 or 35. The numbers on that graph showed regular position players declining every year, but catchers actually improving at age 33 after several years of decline before declining again, which to me indicates a sample size problem or something else a little out of whack. Maybe that is the year the elite guys still catch and the back ups and not so good guys move on to other things.

 

Aside from the random steroids line, that's an excellent criticism of the piece. Potentially skewed sample.

[southsider2k5]

Aside from the random steroids line, that's an excellent criticism of the piece. Potentially skewed sample.

 

The steroid lines is a huge part of that story. There is no doubt that guys careers were prolonged and altered by that stuff. Same with Amphetamines. With those gone, I think we aren't going to see the soft declines that characterized the last generation of baseball, and instead we will see quicker breakdowns with age. The historical stuff is very undependable because the samples are poisoned by the steroid era and it is impossible to know which data is accurate and which was enhanced by PED's.

[Eminor3rd]

That article specifically relates to offense, and I don't think any of us are really in disagreement about his offense. What I'd like to see, basically, is that same curve but expressed as a year-over-year change in percentage of games played at primary position instead of offensive runs. I don't know if that exists, but my guess is that it would look significantly different for catchers against the league average.

 

To your point though, there are plenty of examples of catchers staying catchers well past the innings total that Martin has racked up.

 

The stat they used, though, was a counting stat, so playing time would theoretically be baked in. However, it isn't clear whether or not the sample is comprised of "player stats who were primarily catchers" or "stats derived from the catching position." In the latter case, you wouldn't know if some guys got hurt and disappeared, thus leaving the sample skewed only to those who remained (or became) healthy and productive.

 

So, similar to what Dick Allen said, if it's the latter, then you may not have a representative sample. Good observation.

[Eminor3rd]

The steroid lines is a huge part of that story. There is no doubt that guys careers were prolonged and altered by that stuff. Same with Amphetamines. With those gone, I think we aren't going to see the soft declines that characterized the last generation of baseball, and instead we will see quicker breakdowns with age. The historical stuff is very undependable because the samples are poisoned by the steroid era and it is impossible to know which data is accurate and which was enhanced by PED's.

 

I just realized I misquoted the article -- it's a 30 year sample, not 15.

[Dick Allen]

I just realized I misquoted the article -- it's a 30 year sample, not 15.

It is still going to be on a case by case thing. Martin may be better 3 years from now, or he may be collecting a check. When the Sox signed Carlton Fisk for the 1981 season, he was 33 years old. I remember Roland Hemond saying he told JR he thought Fisk had 2 productive years left, but needed to go to 3 to sign him. What did he have 13 seasons in a White Sox uniform, and probably 10 pretty productive ones. Obviously there is no way anyone could expect something similar to happen again, but weird stuff does happen. If Martin winds up a White Sox, I won't be kicking and screaming, but I'm very leary of him putting up numbers and being a presence where it would be a consensus thought with hindsight, that he was a good signing, but I will acknowledge it is possible.

 

And maybe the discrepancy at the age 33 is the time they start platooning more. Who knows? One thing that is certain is if you knew exactly how someone would age, you would be winning a lot of titles.

Edited September 26, 2014 by Dick Allen

[southsider2k5]

I just realized I misquoted the article -- it's a 30 year sample, not 15.

 

Still covers the real steroid era, which extends back into the mid to late 80's for the most part.

[Balta1701]

Thing I love about VMart, and why I think he's got a few good years left in him, is his plate discipline and his eye up there at the dish. He's just a really smart hitter. I think those guys can stick around for quite some time.

 

There was a point this season where from May 21st 2013 to May 5th 2014 he didn't have a single strike out looking. Going back to the ASB last year the dude has a strike out to walk ratio of 60/91 in 802 ABs. That's ridiculous.

 

Even if the power goes away a bit towards the end of a 3 year deal I still think he'll be an extremely valuable hitter. He's just such a disciplined hitter, and I don't think that will change with age.

 

I'd love if the Sox could give him a front loaded deal, or keep the years limited to a 2-3 year deal with a 3rd or 4th year option.

Again just to point out...these sort of things were said about Paul Konerko, especially when he had that ridiculous first half of his 2012 season. He then had one small injury that built and fell off a cliff. You literally would never have seen it coming. We didn't and we wound up paying a big salary last year to a guy who was really, really bad.