In that column, Sherman places too much weight on 10 days worth of spring training defensive observations. Maybe, Montero won't be able to stay at catcher, but that's not a sufficient sample size to determine that.
And Sherman's lede which implies that the Yanks should trade Montero now is irresponsible and illogical. If scouts really don't think that he can remain at catcher, wouldn't other teams know that? Wouldn't his trade value also reflect that?
Montero looks like he'll be a great hitter and only a foolish team would ignore that by focusing on what he can't do.
[1] I completely agree with all of that.
In fact, that Sherman article is a great example of what's wrong with lots of newspaper baseball analysis today. So, right, tiny sample size (not just small -- reliable sample size for judging fielding capabilities is huge, orders of magnitude greater than what the scouts have seen). Thinking that you can judge a catcher's ability by how he looks. (This was a big lesson of Moneyball, that Beane was able to exploit the incredibly bad advice scouts were giving about catchers based on their appearance.) The foolish idea that when it becomes clear that a player's value is "declining" you should trade him -- as if nobody else in the world would realize that they were trading for something whose value would be lower in the future.
And I'd add, the article actually reports that the Rays stole two bases on Montero and were thrown out once. As if this showed that Montero were a liability! But it's the opposite. If teams regularly run on him and get thrown out a third of a time, that's an asset. The opponents would be better off not running at all.
[5] Moreover, the article includes this bit of wisdom from a scout:
I asked four scouts independently about Montero's defense the past few days, and none was enthused about his chances to stay a catcher long term.
I don't think anyone is high on the chances that he is a catcher in the long run. So what? How long is long run? Three years? Four years? Eight years? Isn't even three or four years of a (potentially) a young Piazza a pretty valuable commodity, possibly followed by several more years as (potentially) a peak Piazza as your DH-1B?
In that column, Sherman places too much weight on 10 days worth of spring training defensive observations. Maybe, Montero won't be able to stay at catcher, but that's not a sufficient sample size to determine that.
And Sherman's lede which implies that the Yanks should trade Montero now is irresponsible and illogical. If scouts really don't think that he can remain at catcher, wouldn't other teams know that? Wouldn't his trade value also reflect that?
Montero looks like he'll be a great hitter and only a foolish team would ignore that by focusing on what he can't do.
Jesus Is Just Alright.. oh yeah!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3aYJibxMOQ
[2]
I wonder if one of the Yankees SPs will make Montero their own Personal Jesus ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1xrNaTO1bI
[3] the scouts shouldn't diss him coz Jesus Is My Friend... zap!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-NOZU2iPA8
[1] I completely agree with all of that.
In fact, that Sherman article is a great example of what's wrong with lots of newspaper baseball analysis today. So, right, tiny sample size (not just small -- reliable sample size for judging fielding capabilities is huge, orders of magnitude greater than what the scouts have seen). Thinking that you can judge a catcher's ability by how he looks. (This was a big lesson of Moneyball, that Beane was able to exploit the incredibly bad advice scouts were giving about catchers based on their appearance.) The foolish idea that when it becomes clear that a player's value is "declining" you should trade him -- as if nobody else in the world would realize that they were trading for something whose value would be lower in the future.
And I'd add, the article actually reports that the Rays stole two bases on Montero and were thrown out once. As if this showed that Montero were a liability! But it's the opposite. If teams regularly run on him and get thrown out a third of a time, that's an asset. The opponents would be better off not running at all.
[5] Moreover, the article includes this bit of wisdom from a scout:
I asked four scouts independently about Montero's defense the past few days, and none was enthused about his chances to stay a catcher long term.
I don't think anyone is high on the chances that he is a catcher in the long run. So what? How long is long run? Three years? Four years? Eight years? Isn't even three or four years of a (potentially) a young Piazza a pretty valuable commodity, possibly followed by several more years as (potentially) a peak Piazza as your DH-1B?