Master Index of Archived Threads


Lo Booo Ca

Johnny Dickshot Jun 20 2006 12:32 PM

This guy keeps playing with my affections. 268/321/380/701 3.9 RC/G Not very good. He needs to start hitting a few xtra base hits. Castro could stand to get a few more of his starts.

Elster88 Jun 20 2006 12:41 PM

Fine, but, you know, Castro sucks.

Johnny Dickshot Jun 20 2006 12:46 PM

Elster88 wrote: Fine, but, you know, Castro sucks. Well that's pretty ignorant. In truth neither guy sucks -- they're rather comparable: More so than playing time would indicate is my point. Castro has been worth 0.6 more RC/G if you believe the stats. I'd just like to see LoDuca do more than hit singles.

seawolf17 Jun 20 2006 12:47 PM

Johnny Dickshot wrote: I'd just like to see LoDuca do more than hit singles. Or bunt.

Elster88 Jun 20 2006 12:48 PM

Johnny Dickshot wrote: ="Elster88"]Fine, but, you know, Castro sucks. Well that's pretty ignorant. That's what I was going for.

soupcan Jun 20 2006 12:49 PM

I don't have any problem with the singles once Jose gets on and steals second.

Frayed Knot Jun 20 2006 12:53 PM

Reportedly that bunt last night was his idea and not Willie's. I know it wasn't mine.

Edgy DC Jun 20 2006 12:57 PM

Lo Duca's history of second-half swoons is another reason to get more PT for Castro.

Johnny Dickshot Jun 20 2006 01:44 PM

We've been doing a positively excellent job this homestand of using bunts to turn potential rallies into 1-run innings.

Elster88 Jun 20 2006 01:54 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jun 20 2006 01:54 PM

Since Lo Duca is hitting second I'm not worried about his SLG being low. I'm more worried about his OBP being low.

Yancy Street Gang Jun 20 2006 01:54 PM

That's a nice way to spin it!

TheOldMole Jun 20 2006 05:47 PM

Actually, the bunt was my idea. I was hoping it would get me some votes for #1 Mets Fan.

Mr. Zero Jun 20 2006 06:03 PM

I could of sworn he was batting at least 20 pts higher just last week. He best lay off those shots of Sambooo-ca.

TransMonk Jun 20 2006 07:02 PM

His BA is .276 And I'm not sure in what way Castro is comparable to LoDuca. They comliment each other well...as in Castro is a great backup catcher. But he's seeing about as much action as he should.

Edgy DC Jun 20 2006 07:23 PM

Casto went .244 / .321 / .435 // .763 for an OPS+ of 97 in 240 plate appearances last year. Lo Duca went .283 / .334 / .380 // .747 for an OPS+ of 92 in 496 plate appearances. Now, that's pretty out of whack with Castro's big league numbers, but he hit in the minors, and this is the first time he's gotten some consistent PT. I don't know if he could sustain that performance, but since he seems superior to Lo Duca more or less in most facets of the defensive game, I'd reward his performance with more PT to see what happens.

Frayed Knot Jun 20 2006 07:27 PM

"And I'm not sure in what way Castro is comparable to LoDuca." More power for one ... despite LoDuke's off-the-wall shot in inning 1 here. Castro can hit a bit (albeit in smaller samples) and is a better thrower than LoDuke (IMO). On edit: cross-posted with Edgy above -- but check out those ISO (isolated slugging) numbers: not quite .100 for LoDuke & nearly .200 for The Dictator.

Edgy DC Jun 20 2006 07:42 PM

I think some guys get tagged. Particularly at catcher. If they come up and backup job is available, and they do more or less well, they're a backup catcher. If they come up and a starting job is avialable, and they put up the same numbers, they're a starting catcher. Lo Duca came up just as Todd Hundley was falling apart, and the starting job became suddenly available, and he filled it. When Mike Redmond fumbled the job away in Florida, they went out and got Charles Johnson. Castro got buried at the same career juncture when Lo Duca caught a break.

TransMonk Jun 20 2006 07:47 PM

Frayed Knot wrote: More power for one ... despite LoDuke's off-the-wall shot in inning 1 here. Castro can hit a bit (albeit in smaller samples) and is a better thrower than LoDuke (IMO). I'll agree...Castro has more power. But if we're talking about more playing time then who hits second? Milledge? Valentin? I suppose maybe Chavez, but LoDuca does his job moving Reyes along, and I'm of the theory that if it isn't broke... I guess if they truly are comparable and we're "rewarding" Castro's numbers are we punishing LoDuca by making him sit while putting up comparable stats? It's not as if he isn't doing his job. Do we really need more extra base hits from the number 7 spot in the order by potentially losing production from the number 2 spot? Are stolen bases by the other team costing us ballgames? Todd Pratt had some good numbers in small sample sizes too.

Frayed Knot Jun 20 2006 08:02 PM

Who bats second? - I don't really care. Castro's too slow obviously but almost anyone else can match LoDuca's speed and OBA. Plus, we've managed to find someone for the (25% of so) games that Castro's caught this year and the lineup certainly doesn't fall apart. The notion of 'moving runners along' is nice but somewhat over-rated - even for #2 hitters. 2/3rds of the time (the pct Reyes does NOT get on) there's no one to move up anyway and, even when there are, I'd rather have hits as opposed to trading outs for a runner advancement in most situations. And besides, all I'm really talking about here is moving those Castro starts from the 20-25% realm into maybe the 35% area. As mentioned, maybe it would also help stem the LoDuca 2nd-half fades that he's had over the years.

TransMonk Jun 20 2006 08:21 PM

="Frayed Knot"]Who bats second? - I don't really care. Castro's too slow obviously but almost anyone else can match LoDuca's speed and OBA. Plus, we've managed to find someone for the (25% of so) games that Castro's caught this year and the lineup certainly doesn't fall apart. The notion of 'moving runners along' is nice but somewhat over-rated - even for #2 hitters. 2/3rds of the time (the pct Reyes does NOT get on) there's no one to move up anyway and, even when there are, I'd rather have hits as opposed to trading outs for a runner advancement in most situations. And besides, all I'm really talking about here is moving those Castro starts from the 20-25% realm into maybe the 35% area. As mentioned, maybe it would also help stem the LoDuca 2nd-half fades that he's had over the years. I suppose. I guess I'm just not sure where LoDuca's production is hurting the team. If and when LoDuca takes his 2nd half tumble, then sure, throw Ramon in there every 3rd or 4th start rather than every 5th. Then when Ramon starts striking out with runners on we can all bitch about how if LoDuca were a more durable player we wouldn't need to use our backup and how overrated moving the runner along is. On edit - SC=49.667

Nymr83 Jun 20 2006 08:32 PM

]Lo Duca came up just as Todd Hundley was falling apart, and the starting job became suddenly available, and he filled it. he did have a good rookie year with the bat, i think everyone keeps expecting him to repeat it. i'd be happy to play Castro more because i like him better. As for who bats second i wanted beltran there from day 1 but i'd be a bit adverse to.. OMG as i am typing this STEVE TRASCHEL HAS HOMERED!!!!! ...switching the lineup around when we're doing well. if loduca sits more i'd bat Nady/Milledge 2nd.

Johnny Dickshot Jun 21 2006 06:47 AM

He needed a game like that.

Elster88 Jun 21 2006 08:44 AM

I keep posting in the wrong thread.

Hillbilly Jun 21 2006 11:34 AM

08:33 AM - Read: Lo Duca and Willie and Bunting and Reyes ...posted by Matthew Cerrone... On Monday night, Jose Reyes lead off the game with a double. Paul Lo Duca then bunted him over to third… According to the Star-Ledger, Willie Randolph talked with Lo Duca, and told his catcher he is free to swing away in those situations… Last night, Reyes again lead off the game with a double. This time, Lo Duca chose not to bunt, and drove Reyes in with a double of his own… Following Monday’s game, Lo Duca explained that he chose to bunt and play for the single run because Bronson Arroyo has been such an effective pitcher this season and that runs could have been hard to come by… …fair enough…i actually agree with lo duca on the arroyo situation…to me, it’s far more important that he put his team in a position to end that inning up 1–0, as opposed to taking a chance at a rally…more than anything, it’s glad to hear that he and willie are communicating so well… ] The quote above from metblog

Elster88 Jun 21 2006 11:36 AM

]Following Monday’s game, Lo Duca explained that he chose to bunt and play for the single run because Bronson Arroyo has been such an effective pitcher this season and that runs could have been hard to come by… …fair enough…i actually agree with lo duca on the arroyo situation…to me, it’s far more important that he put his team in a position to end that inning up 1–0, as opposed to taking a chance at a rally…more than anything, it’s glad to hear that he and willie are communicating so well… I mentioned something like this in the IGT but I think it got buried. Considering both Arroyo and that Beltran drove him in from third with an out I thought it could've been a good decision to bunt there.

Vic Sage Jun 21 2006 11:39 AM

BILF 'nuff said.

Elster88 Jun 21 2006 11:42 AM

]BILF 'nuff said. I think you mean BIFL. Or were you going for MILF?

sharpie Jun 21 2006 11:48 AM

We should have negative thread titles for all Mets starters. It seems to inspire them.

Vic Sage Jun 21 2006 12:30 PM

Elster88 wrote: ]BILF 'nuff said. I think you mean BIFL. Or were you going for MILF? i was going for "BIFL", but i had "MILF" on my mind. I often have MILF on my mind. Its a problem.

Elster88 Jun 21 2006 12:36 PM

"Been there, my friend." Still am there.

Frayed Knot Jun 21 2006 01:49 PM

]far more important that he put his team in a position to end that inning up 1–0, as opposed to taking a chance at a rally… Except that the problem is a bunt only barely accomplishes that. MLB avgs show that a team getting a runner to 2nd w/0 outs goes scoreless in that inning 36.8% of the time. Get him to 3rd with 1 out (successful bunt) and that number drops, but only to 33.8% Meanwhile, the drawback is that while you're (slightly) increasing the odds of scoring 1 run, at the same time you're also increasing the odds of scoring only 1 run - and doing so by a bigger margin. Having an inning of 2 or more runs there drops from 28.3% down to 18.3% Maybe a big - or even semi-big - inning there is what we needed to get past Arroyo and playing conservatively with a our speedy lead-off on 2nd blew the best shot we had at getting that.

Hillbilly Jun 21 2006 02:20 PM

If you are ready to conclude that 'bunting is for losers' based on those averages (which will change a good bit when performance enhancing testing comes about) that's fine, but I think there are good times/reasons to lay one down. Situational factors, like the quality of the pitcher, the speed of the base runner, and the makeup of the lineup involved affect the likelihood of the outcome and are responsible, in large part, for producing the variance in the averages. Without knowing the variance about the means, I’m unable to conclude if 28.3% and 18.3% are any more different from each other than 36.8% and 33.8% are different from each other. Which drives home my point that there is much more to a data set than the averages – understanding what produces variation shouldn’t be ignored. But bunting in the first inning is just dumb.

Frayed Knot Jun 21 2006 02:37 PM

Sure the numbers will vary. Those particular figures were MLB avgs for '99-'02 and you could make the argument that with Reyes on 2nd and Beltran/Delgado/Wright coming up that the pcts would be higher across the board. The main point, as you mention, is that it's the 1st inning, not a late-game situation where the addition of 1 run can tilt the odds of winning the game dramatically in your favor. I'm not arguing for a 'never-bunt-ever' strategy.

Hillbilly Jun 21 2006 02:40 PM

Vic Sage wrote: BILF 'nuff said. Right you didn't. Vic did. Sorry to imply that you'd go that far.

Elster88 Jun 23 2006 12:58 PM

]Randolph reiterated that he might increasingly replace Paul Lo Duca with Ramon Castro for defense, as he did in the ninth inning Wednesday night. It was assumed Lo Duca would be a defensive upgrade over Mike Piazza, but some numbers refute that theory. Piazza had committed only two passed balls this season through 42 games, while Lo Duca has five through 53 games. Piazza has committed two errors, Lo Duca five. However, Lo Duca owns a substantial advantage in throwing out baserunners, eliminating 13 of 60 (21.7 percent) to Piazza's five of 47 (10.6 percent). . . . TORVO. Piazza's a better catcher.

Elster88 Jul 06 2006 11:32 AM

Piazza: .282/.343/.491//.834 (April: .210/.286/.403//.689) 50 games at catcher: 3 errors, .990 fielding %, 3 passed balls Lo Duca: .291/.338/.416//.729 (April: .306/.367/.417//.784) 60 games at catcher: 5 errors, .989 fielding %, 5 passed balls

Frayed Knot Jul 06 2006 11:48 AM

Yeah but LoDuca has so much spirit which certainly makes up for any other shortcomings. And speaking of Piazza (which we sort of were) and the never-ending debate on his DEFENSE!!!!: From the recent SABR meetings and a study of "missed" pitches (passed balls & wild pitches) comes word that: Since 1957, the best catcher at "saving" missed pitches over his career has been Mike Piazza, with 151 pitches saved. - One missed pitch costs .27 runs, on average. A good catcher can save his staff four runs a year; a bad catcher can cost that many. - Over his career, Piazza has saved his team 41 runs over the average catcher, though that doesn't offset the 131 runs he has cost his team (vs. average) in stolen bases. If you're into delving into the details on the study they're available [url=http://www.bb-ref.com/sabr2006/index.html]Here[/url] Oh yeah, and Mike & wife are apparently expecting a kid

Edgy DC Jul 06 2006 12:16 PM

That's, um, something. Take me a week to examine the data, but I'm intrigued.

Vic Sage Jul 06 2006 12:21 PM

So in choosing not to re-sign Piazza and trading for LoDuca instead, we've given up 100 points of OPS (to date), not to mention some good prospects and substantially more money, and Paulie isn't even a defensive whiz? Jeez, whodda thunk?...besides me, i mean.

Johnny Dickshot Jul 06 2006 12:23 PM

That presentation was awarded best in show at the just concluded SABR convention in Seattle (which I didn't attend). In St. Louis next summer, and Cleveland in 2008, and I plan on attending both of those.

Centerfield Jul 06 2006 01:12 PM

Vic Sage wrote: Jeez, whodda thunk?...besides me, i mean. Hey, I'm the one that started the thread. How about some credit.

Edgy DC Jul 06 2006 01:14 PM

There's a lot of irony here.

Vic Sage Jul 06 2006 02:45 PM

No credit. Cash only.