Kansas City's Catcher Situation

by potsy on Feb 5, 2009 10:54 PM EST Comment 33 comments

According to the projections of CHONE, the Royals have two of the top 20 offensive catchers in the major leagues for 2009 (at least in terms of R150*).

*R150 is linear weights runs above average, adjusted for league and ballpark

Unfortunately, the top two projected perfomers at catcher probably won't even make the Royals opening day roster. These two catchers are J.R. House and Brayan Pena. They are projected to hit .275/.339/.422 and .285/.335/.402 respectively. So House is projected to have more plate discipline and power while Pena is expected to hit for a higher average. As should be inferred from the above numbers, CHONE does take minor leagure results into account.

According to CHONE:

14. House (1 run below the average MLB hitter)

20. Pena (6 runs below average)

42. Buck (14 runs below average)

74. Olivo (26 runs below average)

Now, GMDM's actual depth chart is likely a complete inversion of the above rankings. He probably cites Olivo and Buck's superior defense, leadership, salaries, and game calling in its defense.

Olivo and Buck are average in terms of defense at best. Can the defense of House and Pena really be that bad?

Why in the hell is Olivo getting paid so much?

1 recs | Comment 33 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Interesting

I think asking a catching tandem of House/Pena doesn’t take into account the high likelihood of players with limited MLB sample size not playing up to projections or the ability to work with pitchers.

However, I’d love to have Buck or Olivo platoon with House, who is given a chance to grab the majority of playing time with a good showing, and Pena waiting in the wings in AAA in case of injury or underwhelming performance.

by sterlingice on Feb 6, 2009 12:04 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

A couple things

Every projection system has a weakness with regard to players who don’t have much major league experience. It is very difficult to project major league numbers from minor league data. So I don’t think CHONE or any projection system would say that they are at all confident in their projections of House, Pena or any other player with that little major league experience. Long story short, we shouldn’t expect that Pena or House will perform up to the level of their projections.

But it is true that the Royals shouldn’t be spending almost $6M on two merely ok catchers. Re-signing Olivo was a really stupid mistake. Buck plus Pena in the majors with House in the minors ready to come up as needed would have likely be at least nearly as good for the team.

One more thing, from what I’ve read, House’s defense is horrendous. He’s only technically a catcher.

The immoderate moderator

by NYRoyal on Feb 6, 2009 1:17 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Yea, I'd still keep one of Buck or Olivo

But reserve the other spot for Pena, and let them battle it out. Or heck, would a Zaun/Pena combo be that bad? It would cost you less than $2 million, or half of what you’re paying Buck. Then we could afford another Bloomquist-type free agent.

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Feb 6, 2009 9:43 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Why is signing Olivio a stupid mistake?

What is wrong with signing Olivio? He seemed to be a good catcher, doing all of the things a catcher is supposed to do, block balls, throw out stealers, call a reasonable game and played ok. He may not have the glam stats of a high OBP and OPS, but obviously he added some value to the team that Hillman and Moore thought enough of, that they brought him back. There are a lot of things we don’t see in a locker that doesn’t get translated into stats. So please elaborate more.

by Rogue Buddhist on Feb 6, 2009 10:30 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

in short

Miguel Olivo, 2009 contract $2.9M

Gregg Zaun, 2009 contract $1.5M

Josh Bard, 2009 $1.7 (non-guaranteed)

CHONE projections, Wins Above Replacement

Miguel Olivo, 0.8 WAR

Gregg Zaun, 1.5 WAR

Josh Bard, 1.5 WAR

Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary since sometime in 2008.

by devil_fingers on Feb 6, 2009 10:47 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, d_f's numbers above pretty much speak for themselves

Olivo’s combination of hitting (OBP and SLG) and defense (perhaps a bit above average) doesn’t make him worthless, but it makes him worth no more than $1M. His OBP is so painfully low that he’s a poor hitter even for a catcher. He’s no better than average at blocking balls or calling a game. And his decent ability to throw out base runners isn’t worth an additional $2M. In short, he’s a poor catcher who is not much better than replacement level. Brayan Pena would likely provide about the same level of overall performance for $400K.

The immoderate moderator

by NYRoyal on Feb 6, 2009 3:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I always have to come back to this.

Miguel Olivo has never, in his entire MLB career, had an OBP over .290.

Now, some people will handwave that by saying “OBP’s not that important, y’all keep harping on walks, yadda yadda yadda.”

What those people fail to get is that if you’ve never had an OBP over .290, that means you’ve never come close to HITTING .290 either; indeed, Olivo’s never hit better than .263. Not his career average, mind you — he’s never hit BETTER than that.

Even if you’re a catcher, if you’ve never managed to hit over .263, you’d better bring some serious damage in some other aspect of your game. Unfortunately for Olivo, he does not. He’s an average defender, and last year’s .444 — not bad, but not even remotely Piazza either — was the best SLG of his career. (Lemme put it this way: Jason Varitek, whose career isn’t going to be measured by his power, has thus far posted a career .439 SLG. CAREER. Olivo’s bettered that exactly once.)

He’s good at throwing out basestealers… and that’s about it. Given the relative unimportance of such things in this age, that’s not enough to pay him what he’s making.

Sarcasm™. It's the new gravy.

by jonfmorse on Feb 6, 2009 4:15 PM EST up reply actions 3 recs

Buck and Olivo

have always seemed like the same guy to me. I don’t know if there is a market for either of them but I say trade one and have Pena be the back up. House and Tupman can split time in Omaha.

by ezstreat on Feb 6, 2009 6:00 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Olivo is a better defender

but despite their respective 2008s, I think Buck has more offensive upside (however limited, which really says something about Olivo) going forward

Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary since sometime in 2008.

by devil_fingers on Feb 6, 2009 10:48 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I don't mind Olivo

The guy keeps base runners in check, and he seems to call a decent game as well. This is kind of silly for a few reasons, but I’ll throw it out there: I just glanced at Greinke’s game log from last season and saw that six times he didn’t allow a run. 4 of those games were caught by Olivo, 2 by Buck. Not saying he’s a better game caller than Buck (Meche’s personal catcher), but there is evidence that he calls a good game.

I'm about to change my username to DannyDuffyfan

by jackie ballgame on Feb 6, 2009 11:55 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

+1 on controlling the running game

Olivo canned thieves at a 42+% clip last year, up from a 35% rate up to that point, contrasted with Buck’s 17% rate last year, a precipitous decline from his 31% rate up to 2008. With rabbits like Gomez or Sizemore in the division, there’s value in that part of his game.

Jayhawk baseball - a tradition since Steve Jeltz

by JayhawkTom on Feb 6, 2009 12:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

It doesn't even come close to making up for his horrible hitting

OBP counts. And it counts for a lot more than throwing out base runners. Consider the number of data points involved in the two events.

The immoderate moderator

by NYRoyal on Feb 6, 2009 3:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Agreed

Wiping out baserunners even at a 30+% rate isn’t a fair substitute for his failure to reach base at an MLE. Merely noting that the guy isn’t comlpetely sans tools.

Jayhawk baseball - a tradition since Steve Jeltz

by JayhawkTom on Feb 6, 2009 9:32 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Agreed

He has pluses. Just wish there weren’t so many minuses.

The immoderate moderator

by NYRoyal on Feb 6, 2009 9:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Whee, more talk on the Royals' catcher situation

I’ve said this before, I’ll say it again: Buck > Olivo. Not by much, but Buck is the better overall catcher. The only clear advantage Olivo has over Buck is in throwing out baserunners. Buck calls a good game, is a decent defensive catcher (CS % aside), and is the better offensive catcher. Offensively, all Olivo is good for is platoon duty. His stats against RH pitching are abysmal. His 2008 line was inflated by the fact that he got a disproportionate # of AB’s against LH pitchers as a DH, and the guy can’t still get on base with any sort of frequency. I really don’t get why people like Olivo. He is thoroughly mediocre, even more so than Buck, but at least Buck has plate discipline.

The Royals should open the season with Buck/Pena as their catchers on the 25-man roster. Naturally, this means they won’t. In an offseason filled with some pretty dumb moves, picking up Olivo for another year stands out as especially dumb.

by DarthYoshi on Feb 6, 2009 2:03 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

these discussions remind me of the part of my fantasy league auction

where people are trying to get the $1 – $2 catchers for their roster. Spending more than that for anyone other than the 2 or 3 very best is plain silly.

"Things could always be worse." - Buddy Bell

by buddyball on Feb 6, 2009 2:51 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I've been thru this a thousand times

and I choose Olivo. He is way better versus lefties and Buck probably has more trade value. While Buck is slightly better as a whole offensively I think I would choose someone who is extremely good at two things(also throwing out runners) and bad at a few others as opposed to someone who is just slightly below average at everything. Also Buck is moving from average to horrendous at throwing out runners.

Whatever decision they make, Buck or Olivo, will be the right one.

I don't know how to put this but I'm kind of a big deal.

by kcscoliny on Feb 6, 2009 4:17 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Well there's OBP and age

Buck has beat him in OBP every year. And Olivo is 2 years older, so his decline is coming sooner (he’s 30). Neither are great, and they seem to have their own strengths, which seem to make them about the same player. I wish we would get rid of both and let House and Pena play.

by AxDxMx on Feb 7, 2009 12:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Buck has beat him in OBP every year. And Olivo is 2 years older, so his decline is coming sooner (he’s 30).

I think you are wrong about that. Olivo is a better overall athlete and I believe him to be in better shape. Buck is younger but probably a better candidate to break down sooner especially considering he has caught quite a few more innings recently than Olivo.

House probably isn’t a true catcher and we really don’t need another DH/1b. If he tears it up and someone is struggling give him a shot otherwise let DFA one of the Olivo/Buck tandem and bring up Pena.

I don't know how to put this but I'm kind of a big deal.

by kcscoliny on Feb 7, 2009 1:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I'm all for Pena

Brayan should have been up here last year in September.

by AxDxMx on Feb 12, 2009 1:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Olivo

Olivo is not great. But I don’t quite understand the preference for Buck. Buck was awful last year. If I had any say I’d have Pena on the roster and would cut or trade Buck, but I would much rather have Olivo catching everyday than Buck. Buck seems like a good guy who the rest of the players seem to enjoy especially Meche. But come on. Did anyone watch him try to hit for the 2nd half of the season? I know he can’t hit RHP but Olivo is more atheletic, has more power, has a better arm, seems to handle the pitching staf just as well and Grienke seems prefers him. Have you all forgotten the game in Baltimore of the time he decked Pierzynski? Isn’t it worth it to keep him around if only to watch him do it again in 09?

by SK on Feb 6, 2009 4:20 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Olivo is not great. But I don’t quite understand the preference for Buck.

The preference that many of us have for Buck over Olivo shouldn’t be so surprising considering that every projection system has Buck better than Olivo in 2009. All of them.

The immoderate moderator

by NYRoyal on Feb 6, 2009 4:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs