Are the pitchers improving that much or is it Joseph?

[SteveO]

Ohlman is going to be the next big thing at catcher- not Cisco. Mark my words.

Could be. My only concerns with Ohlman is if he will ultimately be good enough defensively to stay at catcher. I think both Cisco and Ohlman have potential though.

[SteveO]

I have to admit there is a certain amount of irony in the fact that we had one of the universally acknowledged best defensive catcher in MLB who has some decent pop for the position and on him much of the posting is spent lambasting his performances. Meanwhile we have a guy hitting .161 who plays only decent defense relative to MW and there is love fest for the guy. CJ has done a nice job stepping into big shoes but he is no MW, not even remotely close with the bat or glove.

Anyone who thinks CJ is superior to MW behind the dish defensively either is blinded by a huge man crush or is more brilliant than 99.9999% of major league scouts. Pretty sure which one is more likely the case.

[SteveO]

I might have agreed going into this year but what makes you say it now. Ohlman was already questionable defensively coming into this season and it was his bat that was his strong point. Now, at age 23, when I was hoping he would progress at AA, he seems to have hit a wall offensively. Why is he the next big thing, and not the 19 year old catcher in Low A who is leading the league in hitting?

To offset his defensive shortcomings he would have to be a pretty special offensive player. 23 y.o guys who are special offensively almost never put up the numbers Ohlman has to date. Best case scenario for Ohlman IMO is that he develops into a AAAA type guy and that is a longshot IMO

[Reboulet'sStache]

I have to admit there is a certain amount of irony in the fact that we had one of the universally acknowledged best defensive catcher in MLB who has some decent pop for the position and on him much of the posting is spent lambasting his performances. Meanwhile we have a guy hitting .161 who plays only decent defense relative to MW and there is love fest for the guy. CJ has done a nice job stepping into big shoes but he is no MW, not even remotely close with the bat or glove.

Based on the numbers, Joseph is the best defensive catcher in baseball this season. How much better could Wieter's defense possibly be?

[weams]

Based on the numbers' date=' Joseph is the best defensive catcher in baseball this season. How much better could Wieter's defense possibly be?[/quote']

The smallest sample size that anyone could look at. I flipped a coin three times in a row that came up heads. What does that tell me?

[Can_of_corn]

Based on the numbers' date=' Joseph is the best defensive catcher in baseball this season. How much better could Wieter's defense possibly be?[/quote']

Wieters has a fielding bible award. Which means, at his best, he is pretty dang good.

Joseph hasn't established much of a baseline yet. His CS numbers are probably inflated the way an outfielder with a sub par arm will occasionally rack up assists ... folks are challenging the arm that wouldn't be normally running.

[Reboulet'sStache]

The smallest sample size that anyone could look at. I flipped a coin three times in a row that came up heads. What does that tell me?

But that sample size is the only thing one could be using to claim that Joseph's defense right now is decent relative to Wieters'. One can't pick and choose when they want to use the sample size.

[Can_of_corn]

But that sample size is the only thing one could be using to claim that Joseph's defense right now is decent relative to Wieters'. One can't pick and choose when they want to use the sample size.

Folks could be claiming to be using ye olde eye test.

And sure folks can pick and choose when to use the sample size. Right now the sample size is too small for my liking so I won't use it.

That was simple.

[Reboulet'sStache]

Folks could be claiming to be using ye olde eye test.

And sure folks can pick and choose when to use the sample size. Right now the sample size is too small for my liking so I won't use it.

That was simple.

That's fine. I have no problem with someone choosing to not use the sample size at all. That is more than justifiable. I was saying someone can't use a sample size to selectively pick the things that prove the point they want to make, and then ignore the sample size when it doesn't prove that point.

[Can_of_corn]

That's fine. I have no problem with someone choosing to not use the sample size at all. That is more than justifiable. I was saying someone can't use a sample size to selectively pick the things that prove the point they want to make' date=' and then ignore the sample size when it doesn't prove that point.[/quote']

Yea, you shouldn't do that.

[SteveO]

But that sample size is the only thing one could be using to claim that Joseph's defense right now is decent relative to Wieters'. One can't pick and choose when they want to use the sample size.

He has a huge sample size from his time in the minors and at no time has he ever influenced an entire pitching staff's performance to the extent that some want to imply he has with ours. If you look CJ and think the O's can just plug him in and move along from MW without losing something then you have lost your mind. We were 20-15 when Matt went to the DL on May 11th we have gone 22-23 since he went on the DL. Think that record is not in part due to the lose of MW is borderline delusional thinking.

CJ has done an admirable job with the tools he has. He may even be a decent backup. All that said we lost something significant when Matt when on the DL and frankly the love fest with the guy hitting .161 is more about feeling better about that loss then based in reality.

[Reboulet'sStache]

He has a huge sample size from his time in the minors and at no time has he ever influenced an entire pitching staff's performance to the extent that some want to imply he has with ours.

That's a fair point. But the minors, especially with pitchers, just seems like there are so many other moving parts going on that all you can do is work on you, and the coaches decide how that projects to the next level when those moving parts aren't there. If I'm in the minors catching Gausman, and he's working on his slider, how much influence can I have over him? At the majors a good catcher would probably not call for it, but in the minors it seems like you would be making it a point to call for such an average to below average pitch so he can throw it.

[SteveO]

That's a fair point. But the minors' date=' especially with pitchers, just seems like there are so many other moving parts going on that all you can do is work on you, and the coaches decide how that projects to the next level when those moving parts aren't there. If I'm in the minors catching Gausman, and he's working on his slider, how much influence can I have over him? At the majors a good catcher would probably not call for it, but in the minors it seems like you would be making it a point to call for such an average to below average pitch so he can throw it.[/quote']

Clearly he is much better defensively than was advertised or expected. I think you can get by with a group of Hundley/Joseph/Clevenger if you improve your lineup elsewhere. They need to plug someone in LF, 2B, or C who can field the position adequately while providing solid OBP and offensive production. Improve any of those three positions and you improve the team.

[CA-ORIOLE]

I have to admit there is a certain amount of irony in the fact that we had one of the universally acknowledged best defensive catcher in MLB .

I would argue this was a "universally acknowledged fact" and think a lot of others would as well.

[SteveO]

I would argue this was a "universally acknowledged fact" and think a lot of others would as well.

Show me a reliable scouting report or someone who said otherwise who actually matters. Not caring what a bunch of armchair gm/scouts think. One link please....