Graph of the Day: Piazza vs. Pudge

by Dan Turkenkopf on Mar 9, 2009 9:00 AM EDT Comment 31 comments

Two catchers, two very different ways of providing value.

Piazza stakes claim to the best hitting catcher ever, but he was generally below average behind the plate.

In the early part of his career, Pudge saw most of his value come from his glove (and more importantly, his arm) while his offense lagged behind.

I didn't realize how quickly Piazza's value dropped, nor that Pudge was so valuable so recently.

WAR data from Baseball Projections.com. All data relative to average, except RAR.

0 recs | Comment 31 comments | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Great graph, Dan. Piazza’s sharp decline in win total surprised me a little, too. Pudge’s still-usefulness doesn’t surprise me as much because I was looking at some projections for him recently and he’s still in the area of 1.5-2 wins as a player.

Bay City Ball | Beyond the Box Score

by xanthan on Mar 9, 2009 11:14 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Damn, how can you argue against Mets giving 1y/1m to Pudge?

Castro can go to triple A

by viktor06 on Mar 9, 2009 12:13 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Graphs like these make me think two things:

1) Could you imagine how filthy good Piazza could’ve been if he had any idea what he was doing behind the plate?

and

2) His decline starts in earnest in 2003 – the same year as the anonymous steroid testing commenced. You know, if you’re into conspiracy theories.

by MatthewA on Mar 9, 2009 1:27 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

COINCIDENCE?

Space.

It's a problem we face.

So we never go anywhere.

We just stay in one place.

by hazel on Mar 9, 2009 2:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

There were also those rumors about his bacne...

by BraveBronco0121 on Mar 9, 2009 3:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

ewwwww

vivaelbeñsheets

by vivaelpujols on Mar 9, 2009 3:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Murry Chass is that you?

King of the bling come to lay down the evidence//Not George Bush, L-Millz be da president

by Sam Page on Mar 9, 2009 3:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Anyone who watched the Mets during the Piazza years

Could have told you about the decline.

It went from pitchers being able to hold people on to looking forward to seeing how many SBs the opponents would have, with the baseline assumption of 2/game.

But, of course, his arm strength was not at all related to steroids.

by klhoughton on Mar 9, 2009 4:09 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Pudge is clearly the greatest catcher who'd ever lived.

That’s what I get from this.

And That Happened: Sports with a Hint of Sarcasm

by philkid3 on Mar 9, 2009 5:24 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Maybe

by Harry Pavlidis on Mar 9, 2009 5:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

So

Do we value peak years, consistancy or longevity more? You can make a case for all of these guys, really except for Piazza.

vivaelbeñsheets

by vivaelpujols on Mar 9, 2009 5:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'd say

One 6WAR season is worth much more than two 3WAR seasons, much scarcer…so I’d go with Bench probably

by viktor06 on Mar 9, 2009 6:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Actually

According to the Pennants Added concept, a high peak isn’t as valuable as a consistent above average performance. So one 6 WAR is actually worth less than two 3 WAR seasons if the ultimate goal is their random team making the playoffs. In that case, you might have to go with Rodgriguez who has never been below replacement level and has usually been an above average player.

vivaelbeñsheets

by vivaelpujols on Mar 9, 2009 6:20 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs

I, personally, care more about greatness. And a 6 WAR season impresses me MUCH more than two 3 WAR seasons.

So much so that I see Piazza as at least Pudge’s equal.

Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.

by Sky Kalkman on Mar 10, 2009 2:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

What is your basis for choosing that?

If you were a manager, would you rather have a player put up one 6 WAR season, than a 0 WAR season, or have a player have consecutive 3 WAR seasons. As I linked above, the latter is more conducive to your team making the playoffs.

vivaelbeñsheets

by vivaelpujols on Mar 10, 2009 4:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

scarcity

its much easier to find a 3WAR player…

by viktor06 on Mar 10, 2009 5:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

It's more impressive. Not saying it's any more valuable.

3 WAR seasons are WAY more common than 6 WAR seasons. When I think of great ballplayers, I want them to have done things that are rare and impressive.

Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.

by Sky Kalkman on Mar 10, 2009 5:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ok

vivaelbeñsheets

by vivaelpujols on Mar 10, 2009 9:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

That's interesting stuff...

I had never run across it before.

Now, I can’t make any quantitative judgement without the formulas in front of me, but it seems as though the difference in PA between two 4 WAR years and a single 8 WAR year is pretty tiny, perhaps even so small as to be irrelevant. That being said, I wouldn’t have thought there would be that much equality between the two. It does seem kind of intuitive though – that pesky Law of Diminishing Returns seems to kick in everywhere else in life, so why not baseball?

by BraveBronco0121 on Mar 10, 2009 10:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs