Did the O's just sign their backup catcher of the future?

[Sports Guy]

28 minutes ago, Redskins Rick said:

Think back to Clevenger when he was sent down by Buck to work on his catching, which he did. Seam like they ran hard on him.

Buck was obsessed with TTp and things like that..despite the numbers saying he was full of crap.

[Frobby]

33 minutes ago, Redskins Rick said:

Think back to Clevenger when he was sent down by Buck to work on his catching, which he did. Seam like they ran hard on him.

2013: 2 attempts in 35 innings

2014: 20 attempts in 174 innings

2015: 5 attempts in 56 innings

[Redskins Rick]

36 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

Buck was obsessed with TTp and things like that..despite the numbers saying he was full of crap.

I think obsessed is a strong word. If all he focused on was TTP, they would not have been had the most AL wins for 5 year span.

He was far from perfect, but he was a solid manager that knew more about the game than I could dream about.

[Redskins Rick]

31 minutes ago, Frobby said:

2013: 2 attempts in 35 innings

2014: 20 attempts in 174 innings

2015: 5 attempts in 56 innings

thanks for the correction and pointing out that my memory banks are in need of dumping and reloading lol

Merry Christmas

[Sports Guy]

21 minutes ago, Redskins Rick said:

I think obsessed is a strong word. If all he focused on was TTP, they would not have been had the most AL wins for 5 year span.

He was far from perfect, but he was a solid manager that knew more about the game than I could dream about.

Him knowing a lot about the game doesn’t mean he was correct with his TTP bs.

Stolen bases are way down and have been for years.  No reason to dwell on that stuff.  Just let the players be the best they can be and leave it at that.  It’s not a difficult concept.

[Moose Milligan]

I'd like the backup catcher of the future (haha) to be able to bring something to the table.  Capable bat, good defense (which, btw, does not center around CS%.  Someone that can block pitches in the dirt) pitch framing (shut up, I know), handling the pitchers well or something else.  

They need to be able to justify their existence in some shape or form.  

[Philip]

1 hour ago, Sports Guy said:

Why does common sense say this?

In looking for actual evidence, not cliches.  

Commonsense says that your back up catcher should have catching skills. Otherwise, why have a back up catcher at all? Just suit up your DH.

The absurdity of that suggestion should reinforce that a back up catcher should have catching skills.

If your catcher has bad defense, again, no reason not to suit up your utility infielder, for instance, or your fourth outfielder.

It is now obvious-or should be- that you want a catcher who can catch, and can do so at better than replacement level, even if he is lacking in one aspect, such as throwing out runners, so long as he compensates in another area.

therefore, it is merely common sense that you want your back up catcher to be a competent catcher. How he hits is less important, because even from your starter, office is not of paramount importance.

I do not need to share statistics that show that the sun rises in the east. Having a back up catcher who is competent on defense is such a no brainer that I question whether there is any analysis on the subject at all, because it has never been necessary.

It is possible, I suppose, that a back up catcher could have the job just because he is outstanding on offense, but in that case, he would be playing regularly at a different position.

Triff noch einmal!

 

[DrungoHazewood]

5 hours ago, Ruzious said:

What's the harm in signing the guy?  Not sure why folks are making a big deal about it.  It's not like he's blocking anyone considered a prospect.  

There's no harm.  But it's also no big deal.  I think most of us (I know I am) are reacting to this over-wrought story of the guy being the backup catcher for the foreseeable future because Earl Weaver eked value out of John Lowenstein and Benny Ayala.  It's nice that they signed Nick Ciuffo, but there are a lot of Nick Ciuffos floating around the minors.  The Rays didn't let him go because they thought he was a key piece of their 2026 pennant winners, he's a guy likely to post a .600 OPS with good defense.

[DrungoHazewood]

5 minutes ago, Philip said:

Commonsense says that your back up catcher should have catching skills. Otherwise, why have a back up catcher at all? Just suit up your DH.

The absurdity of that suggestion should reinforce that a back up catcher should have catching skills.

If your catcher has bad defense, again, no reason not to suit up your utility infielder, for instance, or your fourth outfielder.

It is now obvious-or should be- that you want a catcher who can catch, and can do so at better than replacement level, even if he is lacking in one aspect, such as throwing out runners, so long as he compensates in another area.

therefore, it is merely common sense that you want your back up catcher to be a competent catcher. How he hits is less important, because even from your starter, office is not of paramount importance.

I do not need to share statistics that show that the sun rises in the east. Having a back up catcher who is competent on defense is such a no brainer that I question whether there is any analysis on the subject at all, because it has never been necessary.

It is possible, I suppose, that a back up catcher could have the job just because he is outstanding on offense, but in that case, he would be playing regularly at a different position.

Triff noch einmal!

 

Obviously you're exaggerating for effect, but there is a continnuum of defensive and offensive skills.  If you have enough of both or either you're a starter.  If you don't, you're a backup or a minor leaguer. I see no reason to think that a good defensive catcher who can't hit a lick is more valuable than a good offensive catcher with suspect defense. 

A flaw in your exaggeration is that a utility infielder or a DH would be about as good a defender as a career catcher with mediocre defense.  That's like assuming if you have Jonathan Schoop playing below-average defense at short you might as well play Renato Nunez there.  Schoop was a -5 shortstop or whatever, Nunez would be a -30 or -40.  Same with Ryan Flaherty catching vs. Chance Sisco or whomever.

[Sports Guy]

11 minutes ago, Philip said:

Commonsense says that your back up catcher should have catching skills. Otherwise, why have a back up catcher at all? Just suit up your DH.

The absurdity of that suggestion should reinforce that a back up catcher should have catching skills.

If your catcher has bad defense, again, no reason not to suit up your utility infielder, for instance, or your fourth outfielder.

It is now obvious-or should be- that you want a catcher who can catch, and can do so at better than replacement level, even if he is lacking in one aspect, such as throwing out runners, so long as he compensates in another area.

therefore, it is merely common sense that you want your back up catcher to be a competent catcher. How he hits is less important, because even from your starter, office is not of paramount importance.

I do not need to share statistics that show that the sun rises in the east. Having a back up catcher who is competent on defense is such a no brainer that I question whether there is any analysis on the subject at all, because it has never been necessary.

It is possible, I suppose, that a back up catcher could have the job just because he is outstanding on offense, but in that case, he would be playing regularly at a different position.

Triff noch einmal!

 

There is nothing common sense about anything you are saying.

You don’t actually have an argument.  Just admit that you want the back up C to be good defensively but there is nothing stating that if your back up is subpar defensively, that it puts your team in a bad spot.

[DrungoHazewood]

1 hour ago, Frobby said:

Except they really don’t.   Let’s take Sisco — we all know his arm sucks.  His career CS% is a lousy 23%.    So how often does he get run on?    About .93 times per nine innings.    The major league average is about .64 per nine innings.   So, Sisco gets run on more than most catchers, but it’s not multiple times per game.  It’s not even once per game.   And if you calculate the difference in runs per game that it makes, it’s pretty minuscule.   

In the last full season, the team that was run on most often was the Mets - 161 attempts in 162 games.  Despite throwing out only 14% of runners they still had opponents trying less than once a game.   
 

The Mets cost themselves about 13 runs by being that poor against base stealers.  Or about a win and a half.  The spread between best and worst teams in allowing stolen bases in '19 was less than 20 runs.

[Frobby]

From Roch re Ciuffo:

The 21st overall pick in the 2013 First-Year Player Draft is expected to provide more offense, but Ciuffo is 8-for-43 (.186) in the majors and has a .248/.293/.344 slash line in 1,844 minor league plate appearances. He’s never hit more than seven home runs at any level and four of his five RBIs in the majors came against the Orioles on Sept. 7, 2018.

Ciuffo has thrown out 45 percent of runners attempting to steal in the minors. However, he’s 2-for-8 with six passed balls in the majors.

Let’s post him as a longshot to make the club in spring training.

* * *
Surgery to repair a torn thumb ligament cost Ciuffo 10 weeks of the 2019 season. He never left the Rangers’ alternate camp site this summer until it closed.

At least he was still in baseball. Ciuffo thought about quitting after his release by the Rays, who gave him a $1,974,700 signing bonus.

“He put in a lot of work. He’s a different guy than he ever has been,” Rangers manager Chris Woodward told reporters in March.

“He’s a guy, you can quote me on as saying, a career .600 OPS in the minor leagues, he’s not going to be that anymore based on his swing now. He’s going to be a better hitter.”

https://www.masnsports.com/school-of-roch/2020/12/this-that-and-the-other-204.html

[Tony-OH]

Nick Ciuffo is the quintessential example of a former first round pick who has been promoted up the system for no other reason than he was a former first round pick. Even with good defense, Ciuffo would have been out of baseball years ago if he were a 20th round pick vs a disappointing first round pick.

Saying that, he's not a bad signing to add to the catching depth after the team parted ways with Holaday and Cervenka. He's a pure platoon (he can't hit lefties at all) back up catching candidate who will probably end up splitting time with Wynns in AAA.

I honestly expect Elias to sign a Holaday-like veteran, maybe even Holaday himself again to a minor league contract and have him compete as well. 

I don't think Ciuffo is anything more than upper organizational catching depth that could spend some time as a back up catcher with the Orioles at some point in 2021.

[Jammer7]

This signing having this much debate is what the off season is all about. Much ado about not much. It is a solid minor league depth signing. There is some talent there, so they'll take a look and see what this guy is today and what they can do to improve him. At best, maybe the Rangers did help him improve his hitting mechanics tremendously. And perhaps he presses Sisco some, since Sisco hasn't hit much either and Ciuffo's rep is that he is a solid defender. At worst, Chris Woodward's comments prove to be fluff and the Orioles release him in Spring training and he packs his bong and leaves. 

It was interesting to see his statistics and note how little he actually played in the minor leagues. He has only had more than 259 at bats in a season twice. In 2017, in AA he had 371 at bats and had his best year. Not that it was great by any means. The walk rate is good, strikeout rate is poor. My thought is he would have had to have some off field concerns to not play much more than he did, which the weed suspensions would point to. It isn't that the Rays don't know how to develop players, so something has been off.

[Can_of_corn]

2 hours ago, Redskins Rick said:

Think back to Clevenger when he was sent down by Buck to work on his catching, which he did. Seam like they ran hard on him.

Check the numbers.