Orioles Searching Outside Organization for Backup C (per Roch)

[Can_of_corn]

I am not dismissing the data. I was the guy on the OH that first linked to Fast's work. I want to buy into it.

I just can't believe some of the numbers I see coming out of the more recent studies.

I think there is a breakdown in the published analysis. (Guys are too quick to credit or blame the catcher)

Is it probable that at least some teams have better data? Sure it is.

[Stotle]

I am not dismissing the data. I was the guy on the OH that first linked to Fast's work. I want to buy into it.

I just can't believe some of the numbers I see coming out of the more recent studies.

I think there is a breakdown in the published analysis. (Guys are too quick to credit or blame the catcher)

Is it probable that at least some teams have better data? Sure it is.

Understood, and fair points.

[weams]

All this trouble trying to find a backup C. Glad we dont have to worry about replacing Wieters anytime soon

I saw four or five guys who look to be ready in two years. And not as backups.

[atomic]

Because Clevenger "looks like" that decent backup catcher. And the fact that we are looking tells me that Buck wants another Teagarden type, all defense no offense backup. I don't care how good they are defensively, watching another .100 hitting backup catcher will, as I said, bother me.

Ridiculous. Buck liked Teagarden so much he never played him. We need a guy who can play a couple times a week. And Clevenger hasn't even produced at AAA yet.

[JayThomas]

I see Buck getting his wish for a more defensive minded backup. I don't think Clevenger makes it.

I don't think so. It seems to me that DD and Buck don't always see eye-to-eye on everything, and DD's letting go of Teagarden is a perfect example. I don't think Buck is going to get his way here.

[cmurter]

I see Buck getting his wish for a more defensive minded backup. I don't think Clevenger makes it.

Buck on Clevenger's 3-3 day: "I don't even look at the offense part of it. Him having two or three hits, that's a non-factor. But he's doing okay back there (defensively)"

That's a very strong statement.

Edit: http://www.masnsports.com/steve_melewski/2014/03/showalters-postgame-comments-after-the-os-lose-to-toronto.html

[weams]

Wish we knew what Buck was looking for that tells him a catcher is beyond "okay".

[tntoriole]

It is amusing how increasingly deadset Buck has become in his pronouncements about defense now being the ONLY factor he examines in a backup catcher. I suspect there was some major arguing with DD about Teagarden and this is a remnant of some remaining discontent about that behind the scenes stuff. I mean if the backup hits .000, is that OK, Buck?

[CA-ORIOLE]

Good stuff from Roch:

It is nuts how he he under rates guys like Clevenger and over rates Wieters. Good to see him being called out.

[Rene88]

Good stuff from Roch:

Because Buck isn't without flaws and this is one of them. Another being he sticks with people too long.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Rene88]

It is nuts how he he under rates guys like Clevenger and over rates Wieters. Good to see him being called out.

Agreed. Clevenger was a great acquisition and good backup. He also is a great local kid. Enough already Buck! He is fine. He won't even be playing all that much. Plus he gives you a bat off the bench.

If we lose Clevenger, I will be furious.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Aglets]

Conspiracy theory time!

Although if it's real then it may not be a conspiracy.

We all know how much Buck loves Wieters right? I think one of the main reasons why Buck keeps saying that 'offense doesn't matter' is that he knows that if Clevenger is hitting really well and Wieters continues to be.........mediocre.............there will be calls from the fans to increase Clevenger's reps and to decrease Wieters'. And he doesn't want to upset the golden boy, especially before he agrees to extend here?

Plausible?

[atomic]

Buck on Clevenger's 3-3 day: "I don't even look at the offense part of it. Him having two or three hits, that's a non-factor. But he's doing okay back there (defensively)"

That's a very strong statement.

Edit: http://www.masnsports.com/steve_melewski/2014/03/showalters-postgame-comments-after-the-os-lose-to-toronto.html

Well that doesn't make sense. We need a back-up catcher who can start at least 40 games. If offense doesn't matter why didn't Teagarden play more last year? He started a grand total of 14 games!!!!! Wieters started 134 games last year and caught in 140. And then everyone wonders why Wieters didn't produce offensively last year. Buck played him into the ground.

[beardbr]

I think it's Buck using some psychology to bring out the best in Clevenger. He's sending the message that Defense is important, and it's great to have the offense, but he wants to make sure that anyone that wants to be the backup catcher cannot be complacent about defense regardless of their offense

[Can_of_corn]

I think it's Buck using some psychology to bring out the best in Clevenger. He's sending the message that Defense is important, and it's great to have the offense, but he wants to make sure that anyone that wants to be the backup catcher cannot be complacent about defense regardless of their offense

I hope so.

I think it is Buck obsessing about allowing stolen bases.