Master Index of Archived Threads


Jacobs is Topps!

Vic Sage Nov 02 2005 08:15 AM

Mighty Mike got voted Topps Player of the year in the Eastern league. He didn't do too badly at Shea, either. If he can catch the ball and throw it back to the pitcher, put him back behind the plate and stop chasing after Molina and/or Hernandez! http://www.minorleaguebaseball.com/app/news/article.jsp?ymd=20051101&content_id=32434&vkey=news_milb&fext=.jsp

Elster88 Nov 02 2005 08:21 AM

I don't see the rush to stick him behind the plate. Let him play first, play more games per year, and have a longer career.

Vic Sage Nov 02 2005 08:27 AM you don't see the rush?

Then you're suffering from an occular disorder. I don't give a ratzass how long Jacobs' career is. I'm not his mother or his manager. After 5 years, he'll be a free-agent and play wherever he wants anyway. At any rate, I'd rather have 5 years of a great hitting catcher, than 10 years of a decent hitting 1bman. what i care about is getting offensive production BEHIND THE PLATE right now, where its more difficult to find and more expensive to keep, and acquire more readily available hitters at 1b elsewhere.

Elster88 Nov 02 2005 08:28 AM Re: you don't see the rush?

Vic Sage wrote: I don't give a ratzass how long Jacobs' career is. I'm not his mother or his manager. After 5 years, he'll be a free-agent and play wherever he wants anyway. At any rate, I'd rather have 5 years of a great hitting catcher, than 10 years of a decent hitting 1bman. How bout 10 years of a great hitting first baseman?

sharpie Nov 02 2005 08:31 AM

If he's Albert Pujols great then 10 years of him is better. I think Jacobs would be a great hitting catcher and a good hitting 1b. I'm with Vic Sage on this one. Strap on the tools, Mike.

smg58 Nov 02 2005 09:23 AM

sharpie wrote: I think Jacobs would be a great hitting catcher and a good hitting 1b. I'm with Vic Sage on this one. Strap on the tools, Mike. Right. I think that Jacobs, or perhaps a Jacobs/Castro platoon, could match or exceed the offensive output of any catcher who's available. I might be more protective if I thought he were destined to be one of the game's elite hitters, but it will take more than a good month to convince me of that.

ScarletKnight41 Nov 02 2005 09:25 AM

You're all assuming he is good enough to catch on the Major League level. From what I've seen of him when he was a B-Met, I'm not convinced that he is. Leave Jake Monster at first base.

Elster88 Nov 02 2005 09:25 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Nov 02 2005 09:26 AM

smg58 wrote: ="sharpie"]I think Jacobs would be a great hitting catcher and a good hitting 1b. I'm with Vic Sage on this one. Strap on the tools, Mike. Right. I think that Jacobs, or perhaps a Jacobs/Castro platoon, could match or exceed the offensive output of any catcher who's available. I might be more protective if I thought he were destined to be one of the game's elite hitters, but it will take more than a good month to convince me of that. I'd rather he get more time to do some convincing one way or the other than have him pushed immediately behind the plate. _____________________________ This post had the designation 131) Frank Taveras

Rotblatt Nov 02 2005 09:26 AM

I'd be pretty happy going into 2006 with a Jake/Castro platoon, especially with Konerko at 1B & Giles in RF. I suspect we're going to end up with a big-name guy, though, which is unfortunate, since they're almost certainly not going to be worth what we're paying them.

Elster88 Nov 02 2005 09:27 AM

I like Giles, but I thought I remembered hearing he only wants to play on the west coast or with Altanta.

Valadius Nov 02 2005 09:58 AM

Apparently Omar is going hard after Molina.

old original jb Nov 02 2005 10:07 AM Here we go again.

I like the idea of Jacobs' bat behind the plate, but if I say that catching is an important enough defensive position that someone ought to be good at it to do it, I feel one of those long defense is important vs. offense trumps all threads coming on. I'll make up some imaginary position to prove my point, the Bard will assail my logic, my work ethic, and my bonafides, and somehow before it is all done, Kase and Doc/Sal/Martyr etc. will stop talking to each other (if they still are.) No way. I'll just sit here and keep my mouth shut. Yep. (Don't know how to get one of those copyright thingies in here.)

Edgy DC Nov 02 2005 10:26 AM

I dont't htink anybody is necessarily assuming anything. Sage prefaced his position with "If he can catch the ball and throw it back to the pitcher...." Clearly, he has a low standard of what he wants defensively, and a high standard of what he wants offensively. It's hard to pin down what "major league level" is, but unless pitches were hittinng the umpire in the midsection down in Bingo, the Mets lose a lot by not at least auditioning Jacobs as a catcher.

Centerfield Nov 02 2005 10:30 AM

Which is why I was so surprised that in the midst of all those meaningless games we never once saw Mike Jacobs don the tools. I mean really, would it have killed us to see Ramon Castro start one less game?

Edgy DC Nov 02 2005 10:43 AM

Amoong many puzzling decisions Willie Randolph made down the stretch. Not getting Jacobs some time behind the plate --- even in that last blowout when he pulled Piazza, but sent in DiFelice Pulling Piazza when he had one more at-bat scheduled Keeping Cairo as the number-one secondbaseman, even though (1) Anderson Hernandez needed to get off the skids and (2) they have a big decision to make this off-season about Matsui, and (3) Cairo was (don't believe Met fans) outplayed by Matsui in 2005 Splitting closing opportunities between Heilman and Hernandez to underscore that Heilman is not auditionig to open next season as the Mets closer Not getting a better look at Victor Zambrano out of the pen. Not getting Victor Diaz a few innings at first, after he was sent down for a few weeks presumably to familiarize himself withthe position. None of these choices are particularly awful, and all are defensible in a sense, but all at once, they left me scratching my head.

Zvon Nov 02 2005 06:51 PM

We need a catcher who can throw out baserunners. Id rather have that then a guy who could post big hit numbers. We can afford to field an average hitting hard throwing/good fielding catcher. Cutting down runners should be our major concern from that position for 2006. Jacobs should play first.

KC Nov 02 2005 07:49 PM

>>>I'll make up some imaginary position to prove my point, the Bard will assail my logic, my work ethic, and my bonafides, and somehow before it is all done, Kase and Doc/Sal/Martyr etc. will stop talking to each other (if they still are.) No way. I'll just sit here and keep my mouth shut.<<< Well jeez, jb. I'm still on speaking terms with everyone but that bob metsiac.

Edgy DC Nov 02 2005 09:05 PM

]We need a catcher who can throw out baserunners. Id rather have that then a guy who could post big hit numbers. We can afford to field an average hitting hard throwing/good fielding catcher. Cutting down runners should be our major concern from that position for 2006. Why? Why? Based on what? And why? And do we know what the particular weaknesses in Jacobs' game are?

smg58 Nov 02 2005 09:45 PM

It seems that anything the Mets do with Jacobs entails a risk, because at this point he is an unknown commodity with a potentially large upside. The options are: 1. Catch him, and risk his defense getting in the way. 2. Play him at first, and risk finding out that he is really no better a hitter than Agabayani and Spenser were despite their great starts, and the offense does not improve significantly from last year. 3. Block him by bringing in expensive guys at both positions, and risk wasting a good player. 4. Trade him, and risk seeing him turn into a basher for another team. I'm dead-set against option 3; whatever else, he's earned the right to at least compete for a starting spot. If other GM's treat him like a mid-level or worse prospect, I see no point to option 4. The risk for option 2 is easier to quantify than the risk for option 1, because I really have no idea how bad his defense is. I think first base is the position that leaves the most room for improvement on the team, and if we go with Jacobs there and he's ordinary, our run production won't be much different than this year. As far as option 1 goes, is he below average or way below average? That difference could matter a lot, and I have nothing to go by in that regard.

Frayed Knot Nov 02 2005 10:15 PM

]And do we know what the particular weaknesses in Jacobs' game are? I read a piece which described him as having a '40' (on the 20 - 80 scale) arm. That's below average though not ridiculously so. I'm not sure about the less quantifiable parts of his defensive game; blocking, calling, etc. Problem is that all that was before his shoulder surgery and before he spent nearly 2 years w/o strapping on the gear. I just don't get the opinion that the team sees him as a future catcher - at least not in anything more than an occasional basis.

Edgy DC Nov 02 2005 10:28 PM

I don't think they see him that way either. It doesn't stop me from advocating. You frequently write variations on the "two years" thing. Just how much did he catch this season?

Rockin' Doc Nov 03 2005 11:31 AM

Vic Sage - "If he can catch the ball and throw it back to the pitcher, put him back behind the plate..." That would put him ahead of Mackey Sasser. I agree that Jacobs has far greater value as a catcher (assuming he can do an adequate job defensively) than as a first baseman. Slugging first baseman are fairly prevalent, slugging catchers are a much rarer commodity. I would imagine the Mets already have a far better feeling about his defensive abilities than do we here at the CPF. Maybe that's why we haven't seem him behind the plate. Still, I would like to see the Mets use this coming spring to evaluate him behind the plate. Give Jacobs a chance to show whether he can be an adequate defensive catcher.

Edgy DC Nov 03 2005 11:36 AM

It could be their feeling about his abilities (he's unredeemable, and trying to salvage his skills would only set his bat back), or it could be their philosiphy (better a .220 hitter who could heilp the staff than a .400 hitter who couldn't). I suspect the latter. The manager he played for this season is out of their organization, for what it's worth.

Diamond Dad Nov 03 2005 11:49 AM goes around . . . comes around

It's an ironic discussion, this. Jacobs was a first baseman in the minors who didn't hit well enough to be considered a true prospect as a first baseman. So, they told him to learn how to catch, because his bat would be more viable as a catcher than as a first baseman. Now, we're debating whether to put him back at first base, because of his below-average catching skills. As a catcher, he's going to make mistakes. I don't know how well he can call a game at the major league level -- few rookie catchers can. That's a big part of the game. He's also not great at blocking balls in the dirt (from what I've seen of him), which is also big at this level, where passed balls (or wild pitches that could have been handled) are just as bad as stolen bases. Few catchers out there throw out more than 25% of would-be base stealers. While it would be nice to have Ivan Rodriguez, I doubt that Molina will save many runs by throwing out runners on steal attempts, or pick off that many runners. I'm all for solid defense, however, and a catcher who can call a good game. My guess is that the organization has already made up its mind that Jacobs is not a good enough catcher to play the position regularly at the big league level, leaving only the question of whether he's a good enough hitter to play 1st. I like his defense at 1st, by the way.

Elster88 Nov 03 2005 11:53 AM

]It's an ironic discussion, this. Jacobs was a first baseman in the minors who didn't hit well enough to be considered a true prospect as a first baseman. So, they told him to learn how to catch, because his bat would be more viable as a catcher than as a first baseman. Not that unusual. This seems to be what everyone here is saying. Sounds like Mike Piazza the sequel when you factor in the next part of your post: trying to move him to first because of lackluster catching skills.

Vic Sage Nov 04 2005 01:30 PM

]Vic Sage - "If he can catch the ball and throw it back to the pitcher, put him back behind the plate..." Rockin Doc - "That would put him ahead of Mackey Sasser". That's my point. If Sasser could throw the ball back to the pitcher, he'd have been considered a pretty good catcher, considering he was a line-drive bashing LHed hitter. He didn't hit especially well for a 1bman, but for a catcher, he'd have been top 10%. But he couldn't throw the ball back to the catcher, so he went bye-bye. If Jacobs CAN throw the ball back to the pitcher, then he'd have to do all the other stuff OFF THE CHARTS BAD in order to justify pushing his bat to 1b, where he'll never be anything more than average offensively, based on his overall history to date (not just 1 month in the majors). Its just a matter of how BAD does he have to be to not get a shot behind the plate? Because we simply CAN'T believe he's the answer to our offensive woes at 1B. He'd be a stopgap and a backup. There will always be alot better hitters available at 1b than at catcher, so if there is even the remotest shot that Jacobs could play 120 games behind the plate, you simply HAVE TO find out. you have to.

cleonjones11 Nov 04 2005 09:21 PM

Do you really think Jacobs will be in the opening day line-up...He was a prospect turned suspect. Curveball/Slider away steerike 3....

DocTee Nov 04 2005 09:44 PM

I'm not sure I buy this "he's a good enough hitter to play position X but not position Y" theory. i remember a few years ago, the Bucs were considering moving Jason Kendall to LF-- there was alot of backlash about how this wasn't a good idea-- about how it was OK to have a singles hitting $10 million catcher, but not a singles-hitting $10 million LF and I just didn't get it... I also recall Bobby V stating he wouldn't move Piazza to 1b since he'd then have to find a Catcher who could replicate Mike's offensive production (but what you really needed was one who could replace the power of the now-benched 1b-men, right?) Am I missing something here? (I know I ain't adding anything...)

Edgy DC Nov 04 2005 09:48 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Nov 05 2005 07:27 AM

Say, your typical catcher provides a .700 OPS, and your typical firstbaseman provides an .850 OPS. By playing a guy at first instead of catcher, you're costing your team .150 in OPS, by filling the other position with a guy who will tend to hit like a catcher instead of a guy who will tend to hit like a firstbaseman.

Frayed Knot Nov 05 2005 07:23 AM

Frank Thomas - who was mentioned in some thread somewhere as being a 1st base possibility - is officially a FA as the ChiSox declined his option by paying his buyout. Problem is that he hasn't played more than a handful of games at 1B since 1997 and he wasn't particularly good at it even then. He also turns 38 just after the season starts. So it would have to be a pretty cheap alternative before I'd consider him an option and it's unlikely that someone in the DH league won't offer him a better deal.

smg58 Nov 05 2005 08:43 AM

Thomas hasn't played 100 games at first base in a season for ten years. Pass. As far as Kendall goes, he's badly overpaid as a catcher, and putting him into the outfield full time would have been a disaster. Getting to Edgy's last post, say Jacobs has an .800 OPS. That would be great for a catcher, but mediocre at best for a first baseman. The question for Jacobs as a catcher would be if his defense there hurts the team more than his hitting helps. Which we can't answer right now.

Johnny Dickshot Nov 05 2005 08:46 AM

I dunno. If the Mets are entertaining platooning Jacobs with a veteran, PT, RH-hitting 1Bman (a la Galaragga)... Jeez: Could they do worse than Frank Thomas? He's a slam-dunk Hall of Famer.

smg58 Nov 05 2005 10:51 AM

Johnny Dickshot wrote: He's a slam-dunk Hall of Famer. I can't argue with that, but I'm guessing that an AL team will take a chance on him as a full-time DH. If it's the middle of January and he's still available and would settle for anything at that point, you could certainly do worse. I would wager that the White Sox at least would make him some sort of offer before it came to that.

Edgy DC Nov 05 2005 10:57 AM

I'm still jaked that the Mets didn't open the season with Galarraga, instead of three reserve infielders.

Frayed Knot Nov 05 2005 02:07 PM

Johnny Dickshot wrote: I dunno. If the Mets are entertaining platooning Jacobs with a veteran, PT, RH-hitting 1Bman (a la Galaragga)... Jeez: Could they do worse than Frank Thomas? There's a lot worse than Thomas. But he's got the same problem as Piazza: what either would be worth to us as a scary-ass PHer, twice a week 1B/C, and 9 game a year DH isn't near what it would be worth to some AL team who could do that and make either one a 99 game a year DH. And big Frank might be as bad a 1st baseman Piazza was.

Edgy DC Nov 05 2005 04:10 PM

]Do you really think Jacobs will be in the opening day line-up...He was a prospect turned suspect. Curveball/Slider away steerike 3.... Replay the last six weeks of the season. The guy slugged .710.

Zvon Nov 05 2005 09:55 PM

="Edgy DC"] ]We need a catcher who can throw out baserunners. Id rather have that then a guy who could post big hit numbers. We can afford to field an average hitting hard throwing/good fielding catcher. Cutting down runners should be our major concern from that position for 2006. Why? Why? Based on what? And why? And do we know what the particular weaknesses in Jacobs' game are? Why? So the opposing team scores less runs against us. Why? Cuz we can afford to. And it benefits our pitchers. Based on what? The facts, and baseball as I know it. And why? All of the above. The core of our starting staff are not spring chickens. The less pitches they have to throw, the better. I didnt mention game calling but that would also be a bigger factor for me than a slugging catcher. I think with this Met team a catcher who keeps other teams from stealing bases (as well as doing other catching things well,...block pitches etc.) will make a bigger difference when it comes to winning more games next season. We are never gonna see the likes of a Mike Piazza again, who easily made up for his defensive weakness (ie: not throwing out runners well) with his mighty swing (RBI production). Catcher is a most demanding position thats takes alot out of you and Piazza was one of a kind. No way can you convince me that Jacobs posts the same numbers as catcher as he would as a 1st baseman (whatever those numbers may be for a full season). If we go with Jacobs, we want to get the most possible hit production out of him with the least distraction to allow him to do so. Im sure the Mets know what they are doing and never having Jacobs catch at the major league level, to me, supports that. If Jacobs gets a crack to play full time it should be at 1st base.(and i think he should get that chance) And the Mets should secure a catcher who aids the pitching side of the coin from a defensiive standpoint, as opposed to an offensive one. And these are just my opinions, so just take em as food for thought ;)

Edgy DC Nov 06 2005 09:55 AM

Throwing out runners is vastly over-rated. Beyond that, as much as we have little reason to believe that Jacobs will hit like Piazza, what reason do we have to believe he will have as much trouble stopping baserunners as Piazza? How many runs and wins per season do you think Piazza's defense has cost the team?

cleonjones11 Nov 06 2005 10:59 PM Frank Thomas?

Didnt they try that with Eddie Murray? :cry:

MFS62 Nov 07 2005 05:26 AM

Edgy, some stats that may support you. The numbers I recall say that a baserunner has about a 20% more likelihood of scoring from second base (with the same number of outs in the inning) than a runner at first. I believe this number was verified in a prior thread here. The difference between the best throwing catchers (50 %) and a poor throwing one (20%) means that if the opposition attempts 100 steals, the difference will be 30 additional runners at second base. This will statistically result in six additional runs scored. And in a platoon situation, the catcher may not face 100 attempts over the course of a season. I think that supports your "over rated" comment. Even if my numbers are off by 100%, we're only taking 12 runs per year. And, if you recall Smokey Burgess, he was a good lefty hitting catcher who was not that good defensively. But with him platooning with Hal Smith, the 1960 Pitates won the World Series. Moreover, even with Piazza's low steal prevention percentage, the Team ERA when he was behind the plate was almost a half a run lower than when his replacements caught the same pitchers throughout his career. There is more to being a good catcher than just throwing. Hope that helped. EDIT: From Today's Rotoworld:

Mike Jacobs - First Baseman
Mike Jacobs went 3-for-3 with two walks yesterday and is now batting .267 in the VWL.
Jacobs has five doubles, one homer and 10 walks in 60 at-bats. Nov. 6 - 4:02 pm et

] Later

Edgy DC Nov 07 2005 05:46 AM

And I can think of a lot more than Smokey Burgess. So, if the notion of not even looking at Jacobs is the way to go, it ought to be about a lot more than throwing out would-be stealers. It ought to be about game-calling that undermines his pitchers' efforts, passed balls skidding by him left and right, and crumbling like a delicate flower when taking a throw from an outfielder with a runner bearing down.

Elster88 Nov 07 2005 07:06 AM

Edgy DC wrote: Throwing out runners is vastly over-rated. Are you interested in joining TORVO, Edgy? I have some literature that I can send you. We're always looking for new recruits.

Edgy DC Nov 07 2005 07:48 AM

Son, you had me when you coined the acronym.

MFS62 Nov 07 2005 08:13 AM

And the acronym means.... ? Later

Benjamin Grimm Nov 07 2005 08:17 AM

I'm just guessing here, but I think it has something to do with throwing out runners being vastly overrated.

MFS62 Nov 07 2005 08:52 AM

(Slapping forehead) Of course! That's what happens when I get on this board before finishing my morning cup of coffee. Thanks (for allowing me to see the blatantly obvious) Later

Zvon Nov 08 2005 05:28 PM

MFS62 wrote: Edgy, some stats that may support you. The numbers I recall say that a baserunner has about a 20% more likelihood of scoring from second base (with the same number of outs in the inning) than a runner at first. I believe this number was verified in a prior thread here. The difference between the best throwing catchers (50 %) and a poor throwing one (20%) means that if the opposition attempts 100 steals, the difference will be 30 additional runners at second base. This will statistically result in six additional runs scored. And in a platoon situation, the catcher may not face 100 attempts over the course of a season. I think that supports your "over rated" comment. Even if my numbers are off by 100%, we're only taking 12 runs per year. You guys can use all the math and strut all the stats you want. I feel we need a pitcher who can throw out runners a good pecentage of the time, field well overall and handle our pitching staff. With a starting pitching staff (especially guys like Martinez and Glavine) afew pitches could make a difference in any one game. Cutting down a baserunner could save a pitcher from throwing more pitches and get him deeper into the game. Even if it only happens in one out of every four starts he has. (ill admit this is a weak example, but still a factor in my mind) Mark my words, because next season Ill be reminding you of what Ive said here,no matter how it goes. And dont get stuck on the throwing out runners thing.... What Im saying is we need a 'pitchers' catcher as opposed to a slugging catcher, and that Jacobs should play first base.

MFS62 Nov 08 2005 06:40 PM

Zvon wrote: You guys can use all the math and strut all the stats you want. What Im saying is we need a 'pitchers' catcher as opposed to a slugging catcher, and that Jacobs should play first base. I agree with your last statement. And I find it refreshing that you consider me a "numbers guy" because I usually am not. But I provided some numbers I remembered to the discussion just because I happened to recall them. Later

Elster88 Nov 08 2005 09:00 PM

Zvon wrote: You guys can use all the math and strut all the stats you want. I feel we need a pitcher who can throw out runners a good pecentage of the time, field well overall and handle our pitching staff. Feelings don't mean shit 95% of the time. Sorry.

Edgy DC Nov 08 2005 09:14 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Nov 09 2005 06:06 AM

]You guys can use all the math and strut all the stats you want. Well, winning is a matter of adding up more runs than the opposition. ]I feel we need a pitcher who can throw out runners a good pecentage of the time, field well overall and handle our pitching staff. Well, I question the relative importance of throwing out runners, proprotionate to the hullabaloo that has been made about it. ]With a starting pitching staff (especially guys like Martinez and Glavine) afew pitches could make a difference in any one game. Cutting down a baserunner could save a pitcher from throwing more pitches and get him deeper into the game. Even if it only happens in one out of every four starts he has. (ill admit this is a weak example, but still a factor in my mind) Certainly it's a factor. And "factor" is a mathematical term, and it would be best to try to quantify this factor as much as we can and see if it truly is as large a factor as the difference in offense you'll be losing by playing Jacobs at first. ]Mark my words, because next season Ill be reminding you of what Ive said here,no matter how it goes. Sure, but, of course not everybody agrees on who is a good defensive catcher. So let's establish up front whether we think the Mets have one. ]And dont get stuck on the throwing out runners thing.... Just responding to it as I read it. ]What Im saying is we need a 'pitchers' catcher as opposed to a slugging catcher, and that Jacobs should play first base. I know very little about Jacobs and his defense.

MFS62 Nov 09 2005 05:40 AM

Elster88 wrote: Feelings don't mean shit 95% of the time. Sorry. I once read that 78.4% of all statistics are meaningless. Later

metirish Nov 09 2005 01:22 PM

Mets 2005 Organizational report..... http://newyork.mets.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/news/article.jsp?ymd=20051107&content_id=1265157&vkey=news_nym&fext=.jsp&c_id=nym

Vic Sage Nov 09 2005 02:38 PM

]You guys can use all the math and strut all the stats you want. In other words: "don't bother with me with data... i know what i know". When I see a post like that, i just have to shake my head and move along. But it's the kind of thinking that gets "intelligent design" taught in our schools as an "alternative scientific theory" of the origin of life, so i can't help but comment. Religion is a closed system of thought, where what is known is determined by faith in a theory of existence that requires no measurable data and is intended to be fixed and impervious to change. Science is an open system of thought, where what is known is determined through the use of logical methodologies to create and measure data which forms the basis of theories that are continually challenged over time, as more data becomes available. Now, you can have faith that you know, or you can seek to learn what can be known... it's up to you, of course. But don't bring that stuff around here without expecting to be called on it.

Willets Point Nov 09 2005 02:55 PM

Ah, it's always nice when someone can interject their biased and bigoted views about religion into a discussion about baseball.

Johnny Dickshot Nov 09 2005 03:20 PM

I think all of you are overlooking the important thing here -- the fact that Jacobs' baseball card next year will have a rendering of a trophy in the bottom right hand corner.

MFS62 Nov 09 2005 03:36 PM

What trophy is that? (You knew someone would ask. Didn't want to disappoint you) Later

seawolf17 Nov 09 2005 03:43 PM

The little gold Topps Rookie Star trophy they put in the corner of their cards, which of course I can't find a photo of.

Vic Sage Nov 09 2005 03:44 PM

]Ah, it's always nice when someone can interject their biased and bigoted views about religion into a discussion about baseball. My point wasn't about any particular religion, but about the type of thinking that says "don't tell me about stats... i know what i know." But as long as you've mentioned it... yes, i'm extremely biased against the notion that the Earth is flat, or that it's the center of the universe around which all other heavenly bodies revolve, or that it was created 4004 years ago. Yes, I'm quite bigoted against the closed-minded. I'm intolerant of the intolerant. In fact, i'm totally biased, bigoted and intolerant when it comes to folks who surrender the use of the very same frontal lobes that they believe their god gave them, which, in my view, is analagous to the thinking at work behind a statement like "don't tell me about stats... i know what i know." HOWEVER, I have absolutely no problem with the notion of faith, or with people who have it. It's simply belief in an unproven theory about that which is unknowable. I have faith. I couldn't be a Mets fan without it. As long as somebody doesn't let their faith interfere with the use of their logical faculties in order to learn all they can about that which IS knowable... then i've got no problems at all. In fact, i'd be happy for "intelligent design" to be taught in schools. It's just a matter of context. If it was taught as part of a curriculum about comparative religions, where students were exposed to the fundamental tenets and texts of Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Islam, etc, i could see it being of great value. It just shouldn't be taught in the context of science, any more than science should be taught in the context of learning French. Science is a methodology that has the potential to answer "what, where, when and how" but it will never be able to answer "why", which may be the most important question of all. Some turn to faith for the answer to "why"... some to other philosophies. I, myself, have more faith in the collective insight of humanity to figure itself out, rather than reliance on metaphysics, so i look to "Art" for new ways to think about "why". I respect anybody whose looking for those answers by whatever path they may choose. But i do admit a loathing for those who are so complacent as to think they've already GOT the answer and so will consider no other ideas, or those who are sor unengaged in life as to not be seeking at all WP, it wasn't my intent to offend you by my clumsy attempt to exress this feeling, but so be it. You'll survive, as will I.

Lundy Nov 09 2005 05:09 PM

This is the "trophy"

Johnny Dickshot Nov 09 2005 06:48 PM

Yes. Always reminded me of a toilet bowl.

Zvon Nov 09 2005 06:59 PM

]You guys can use all the math and strut all the stats you want. ^this wasnt said with any animosity, just as a point/counterpoint thing, as in "Vic, you ingnorant slut!"(<said in Dan Akroyd voice),...which Im not saying, just using as an example. I apoligize to anyone who may have taken offence. I have a very open mind and appreciate all the other views expressed here. They do influence my thinking, and thats why I come here. To talk about the Mets and share opinions and perspectives. And Ive always loved that kool Topps rookie trophy. They had another type they used some years.

Nymr83 Nov 09 2005 07:32 PM

i'm going to leave the religion thing alone and just discuss catchers/jacobs... is defense for a catcher important? yes. it is in the top 3 positions of "i want a good defender here." however, i don't thank that "throws out baserunners" = "good defensive catcher." every passed ball you allow (or wild pitch you don't prevent) is as good as a runner that you failed to throw out. this isn't even considering the ability to "call a game" which i think is the most important part of defensive catching ability. so if a guy can't throw runners out, but calls a good game and blocks the ball in the dirt, i'd be happy to hand him the job if he can hit. the question, for me, is whether or not Jacobs can do these well enough to justify playing him there in order to receive the benefit of his bat... and this all comes down to your good friend MATH.. if Jacobs will "cost you" 20 runs defensively compared to your other options (Castro for example) but will cause you to score 30 more runs offensively, then he is a better choice. you can still insert Castro in the late innings of a close game the same way any other poor defender is removed, you can even make Castro Pedro's personal catcher if you somehow feel that Jacobs is hurting you more in his starts (a proposition i don't agree with.) in the end, we don't know enough about his bat OR his glove to know if playing him there is a smart idea. i strongly suspect (based on his past numbers) that he'll hit much better than the average catcher. i also suspect (based on the Mets failure to play him there even though they had a glaring hole) that they don't think he can cut it back there defensively, and that means more than just baserunners running rampant. i am not enamored by any of the FA catchers out there, so i'd be more than willing to go into the spring (assuming we get a good 1Bman) telling Jacobs that the catching job is his to lose, if he looks ok (think Piazza before this year) then he stays there for as long as he is hitting, if he looks terrible (think balls hitting the backscreen without Ankiel on the mound) then its Castro-time.

Valadius Nov 09 2005 08:15 PM

All these weird formulas mean nothing compared to wins and losses.

Edgy DC Nov 09 2005 08:35 PM

What's wierd about wanting to gain more runs with a strategy than you give up? More runs generally leads to more wins.

smg58 Nov 09 2005 09:26 PM

I agree with nymr83 here; the problem is that we're in no position to even guess about Jacobs' defensive ability. We only know that until his injury he was a catcher in the Mets' system. I think that offensively, a Jacobs/Castro platoon would give us as much as any other catcher out there, so as long as Jacobs can field the position at all (and I'm sure we could get into a long discussion on the definition of "at all"), he'd be a net asset and allow the Mets to divert their resources to other positions.

Frayed Knot Nov 10 2005 07:31 AM

]the problem is that we're in no position to even guess about Jacobs' defensive ability. We only know that until his injury he was a catcher in the Mets' system. Well, we do know that the reports on his defense very weren't good before the injury, and that the injury was to his (reportedly) already below average throwing shoulder, and that he's caught very little since the end of the 2003 season. Now granted all that info shouldn't be treated - from our viewpoint anyway - as the same as undisputable/cast-in-stone/unalterable facts; but at the same time let's not bury our heads in the sand and pretend that Jake's 'D' is some sort of blank slate that we can assume is good enough until proven otherwise. P.S. I have absolutely no memory of Mike Draper

Edgy DC Nov 10 2005 07:35 AM

And so I'll ask again: does anybody know precisely how much he caught this year?

Johnny Dickshot Nov 10 2005 08:10 AM

I don;t know how much Jake caught, but seems to me as if when an organization asks a guy to switch positions, it's either because there's someone better to prospect at his slot, or he'd crossed some line of minimal standards. Jacobs of course was coming off a bad shoulder injury and perhaps they feel he just isn;t cut out for a position requiring all that much throwing. The regular C for Bingo was who? Yunir Garcia? Mike Draper was a lefty Rule 5 pick from the yankees (in 1993). He was talked about as a real contributor all spring but turned out to be a bust.

Edgy DC Nov 10 2005 08:20 AM

Hietpas and Jake alternated at catcher for Bingo, last time I checked. The organization's favorite two-way prospect for catcher was Jesus Flores, but he was hurt at H-Town this year and hitting .216 when healthy. H'es clearly not particularly close. They have a lot of catching prospects, but none of them particularly close. I think it behooves them to experiment here, see if Jake can fake it (at least part-time) and then maybe move a few years down the line.

Rotblatt Nov 10 2005 08:24 AM

It sounds like Mets brass is seriously considering getting Jake a platoon partner for first. According to the Post, we're looking at Eduardo Perez in addition to Old Man River. We must be banking on landing another big bat--presumably Manny or Soriano. Unless they think Molina, Furcal or Hernandez are big bats . . . No one's linked us to Konerko or Delgado at all, which is rather odd, IMO. You'd think we'd at least test the waters.

Benjamin Grimm Nov 10 2005 08:30 AM

I've seen a few Delgado rumors, but nothing much about Konerko. Of course, at this point we weren't seeing anything about Pedro Martinez yet.

sharpie Nov 10 2005 08:32 AM

I can't imagine the White Sox will let Konerko out of their clutches after this offseason.

metirish Nov 10 2005 08:48 AM

Konerko gets an offer... http://www.dailysouthtown.com/southtown/dssports/pro/101sd1.htm