“Freeman has been an RBI machine at every level, thriving with runners in scoring position….His attacking approach at the plate doesn’t lend itself to walks, but Atlanta gladly will sacrifice some on-base percentage for RBIs.”

How does that work, exactly? Also, how can it be that the one of the most respected scouting organizations in all of baseball can write than in a report?

The issue is, we don’t really have a good measure on the intended location so it’s pretty difficult to differentiate between bad pitch calling and bad throwing.

As a former pitcher, I have to ask …. “If the catcher’s mitt does not represent the intended target, then how does the pitcher know exactly where to place the pitch?” Obviously, the catcher’s mitt is the target. Now, some catcher’s may shift the target late, but the mitt is the target. No doubt.

It’s not even like we can judge the intended position from where a catcher lines up their glove, because most smart catchers will try to fool batters or umps by lining up in a different spot than the intended one.

Again, I have to ask, “How does the pitcher know where the catcher wants the pitch, if the catcher is holding the mitt in a different location.” MLB pitchers-catchers don’t have hidden signs where a “up and in target” really means “low and away”. That’s a great way to lead the league in wild pitches and having the ump call some of your strikes as balls.

A good catcher will reveal the location as late as possible, but he still reveals the target. The smartest catchers know to get their chest/body as close to behind the target as possible, since pitchers have this tendency to “throw to the catcher’s body” regardless of where the glove is.

Catchers catching pitches that are centered also allow them to slightly shift or frame the pitches and get marginal balls called as strikes. [I don't think the casual fan really understands how much skill goes into catching, specifically "receiving pitches". Each pitch is caught a slightly different way depending on height, type of break, location, etc. It really is tremendously impressive, and why dummies usually can't excel as a catcher.] Hitting the glove without the catcher moving it at all is a great way to create the illusion that it was a “great pitch”, even if it were off the plate 3 inches or so.

Really, I just wanted to point out that the catcher’s mitt IS the actual target, even though it may be “shown” late.

Take the 2010 Blue Jays (who have a more even distribution of pitching talent than typical with the departure of Halladay). If you accept Rally’s pitching projections, you’ve got 10 pitchers within a narrow band of talent, and none of whom could be projected to throw anything like 200 innings in a season. The logic for the 5 starter system for this club seems to be non-existent. What would happen if the club went to a tandem starter 4 day rotation? What would happen if the club went to a 3 day rotation with two or three pitchers assigned to pitch? Or even more radically, what would happen if the club moved to a 2 day rotation with 4 pitchers assigned to pitch? We know that starting pitchers in general lose effectiveness after 50 pitches, and that relief pitchers (as Steve Treder’s articles of a few years ago in THT demonstrates) are more effective than starters. There has, to my knowledge, never been a study of the effect of pitching consistent and predictable shorter stints. Has anyone ever tried it for a reliever for month? Felipe Alou tried something like that with the Expos in the early 90s, but nobody has since, as far as I am aware.