JBJ's Spring

[Kimmi]

I thought that no one had been able to prove anything about game-calling yet.

 

 

Well, you're right to an extent. The stat geeks haven't been able to isolate "game calling" skills yet. Maybe a better phrase to use at this time is "handling of the pitching staff". I don't know whether you read Marchi's study or not in the article that I linked, but he explained this in a much more scientific way.

 

Basically, with the advent of PITCHf/x, the statisticians have been able to collect very accurate data on the other aspects of a catcher's defense - fielding, throwing out runners, blocking pitches, and framing. They have a very good handle on how many runs were saved or lost by each of those attibutes.

 

They also have a pretty good handle on how many runs each catcher was expected to have saved or cost his team. They start with that, then subtract the runs saved or lost from fielding, throwing, blocking, and framing. What they have left is attributed to what is thought of as the catcher's "intangibles", but often simply called "game calling".

 

To quote Ben Lindbergh from his wonderful article written about Yadier Molina's game calling skills, " “game calling” encompasses everything we don’t know how to quantify about catchers: the ability to soothe a pitcher’s psyche, to know when to make a mound visit, to spot mechanical problems and recommend fixes, or even to position other defenders".

 

And they do know that there is a wide variation in this "skill" between catchers.

[Kimmi]

Also, to add to my previous post, while the data is not available to the public, most team's likely have an even better idea of the exact nature of a catcher's game calling skills. They have the inside knowledge obtained by being able to speak with the catchers and pitchers, and they know exactly who is calling what shots.

[a700hitter]

Ask pitchers about which catchers call a good game. They will look at you like you have 2 heads. As the catcher gains familiarity with a staff, he learns what pitchers like to throw in certain situations. His signs are suggestions. The pitcher decides what he is going to throw. A kid fresh from the minors might rely on the catcher to get him a game, but that will not last long. Pitchers appreciate the way a catcher receives and frames his pitches and whether they can get him some extra strike calls. Good luck looking for reliable metrics for pitch calling. The best source for that would be the pitchers, and they are not strong believers in catchers game calling skills.

[Kimmi]

Ask pitchers about which catchers call a good game. They will look at you like you have 2 heads. As the catcher gains familiarity with a staff, he learns what pitchers like to throw in certain situations. His signs are suggestions. The pitcher decides what he is going to throw. A kid fresh from the minors might rely on the catcher to get him a game, but that will not last long. Pitchers appreciate the way a catcher receives and frames his pitches and whether they can get him some extra strike calls. Good luck looking for reliable metrics for pitch calling. The best source for that would be the pitchers, and they are not strong believers in catchers game calling skills.

 

 

I don't agree with you that pitchers are not strong believers in catchers' game calling skills. Of course, I don't have a stat to prove that, so you may be right. But I still disagree, based on everything that I've seen and heard.

 

I know that the pitcher ultimately makes the decision on what pitch to throw. But one of the jobs of the catcher is to get to know his pitchers well enough to know what they want to throw in certain situations, and to know what is working for them in specific instances. It's not about being able to follow the game plan, but being able to make the correct in game adjustments. You need your catcher to be in sync with the pitcher. You want to the pitcher to have enough trust in the catcher to just take the sign and pitch. Having a pitcher doing too much thinking on the mound or too much shaking off is usually detrimental to the pitcher.

 

That said, when it comes to the "intangibles", IMO, a pitcher who has his A+ stuff working on a given day could pitch to me and do well. A pitcher who just doesn't have anything working on a given day could pitch to the greatest defensive catcher there is, and it probably wouldn't help. It's for all of those times in between, which is the majority of the time, that a good "game caller" is going to have the most positive effect on his pitchers.

[Palodios]

I always remember what they used to say about Varitek. He had these big binders full of of opposing batters... spray charts, heat zones, pitch data. There was a certain level of preparation that went into his job, and pitchers respected his pitch calling and would often trust him before their own calls.

 

It was completely intangible, but I certainly would believe it had an effect.

[a700hitter]

I always remember what they used to say about Varitek. He had these big binders full of of opposing batters... spray charts, heat zones, pitch data. There was a certain level of preparation that went into his job, and pitchers respected his pitch calling and would often trust him before their own calls.

 

It was completely intangible, but I certainly would believe it had an effect.

A catcher as well-prepared as Varitek is a rarity. He and Schilling had encyclopedias.

[Bellhorn04]

A catcher as well-prepared as Varitek is a rarity. He and Schilling had encyclopedias.

 

And here's one of the best things I've ever read about the whole game-calling thing.

 

June 8, 2007 Associated Press

 

OAKLAND — Maybe the next time a Boston pitcher takes a no-hit bid into the ninth inning, he'll listen to catcher Jason Varitek.

 

Curt Schilling came within one out of his first no-hitter Thursday, losing his bid when Shannon Stewart lined a clean single to right field after Schilling shook off his catcher. Schilling finished with a one-hitter as the Red Sox beat the Oakland Athletics, 1-0.

 

"We get two outs, and I was sure, and I had a plan, and I shook Tek off," Schilling said. "And I get a big 'What if?' for the rest of my life."

 

It was not the first time a Boston pitcher shook off Varitek in the ninth inning only to see a no-hitter broken up. Pedro Martinez did it Aug. 29, 2000, against Tampa Bay, giving up a single to John Flaherty on a fastball instead of the curve that Varitek called for.

 

Schilling said he called off Varitek between five and 10 times, saying it "was one time too many."

 

"Hindsight is always 20/20," Varitek said. "It wasn't the first time he shook off all game. We had like a half-dozen. It doesn't really matter. He made a quality pitch. If he didn't make a quality pitch then you can second-guess."

 

Schilling (6-2) looked to be on his way to making history when he retired Mark Kotsay and Jason Kendall on grounders to shortstop for the first two outs of the ninth.

Having called fastballs to the first two batters, Varitek called for a first-pitch slider to Stewart. Schilling wanted to throw a fastball.

"I was sure he was taking, and Tek was sure he was swinging," Schilling said. "And I was wrong."

 

With a strong contingent of Red Sox fans cheering on at McAfee Coliseum, Stewart lined the first pitch through the hole between first and second for Oakland's only hit.

Stewart said he was expecting the take sign when he came up, but when he was given the go-ahead to swing away, he did just that.

[Kimmi]

I always remember what they used to say about Varitek. He had these big binders full of of opposing batters... spray charts, heat zones, pitch data. There was a certain level of preparation that went into his job, and pitchers respected his pitch calling and would often trust him before their own calls.

 

It was completely intangible, but I certainly would believe it had an effect.

 

 

The praise for Varitek is well known, and apparently very much substantiated, to the tune of 57 extra runs that he earned his team in 4 years.

[Ogden]

A catcher as well-prepared as Varitek is a rarity. He and Schilling had encyclopedias.

 

 

Schilling used to make notes in between innings. I wonder if he would have used a tablet if it was available back then.

[bostopz]

You might be interested to know that having a stolen base threat on first base actually hurts the batter at the plate more than it does the defense. The notion of a speedy runner on first disrupting the pitcher and the defense is largely a myth.

 

Nah - I don't agree. I think the myth is the other way around. For example I don't think overall Ellsbury stealing bases negatively affected Victorino, Pedroia or Papi one bit.

[User Name]

How do you know that? You just "think", but you're not validating that opinion.

[Kimmi]

Nah - I don't agree. I think the myth is the other way around. For example I don't think overall Ellsbury stealing bases negatively affected Victorino, Pedroia or Papi one bit.

 

 

The benefit to the batter comes from having any runner on first base, not just a base-stealing threat. In other words, having David Ortiz on first base gives the batter an advantage that he wouldn't have if there were no runner on first. The advantage comes from the shifts in defense.

 

If that runner on first base is a "disruptive" runner (Ellsbury) versus a non disruptive runner (Ortiz), some of that advantage is actually lost. There are some exceptions to this, but as a whole, the batter is hurt by a disruptive base runner on first.

[sk7326]

Nah - I don't agree. I think the myth is the other way around. For example I don't think overall Ellsbury stealing bases negatively affected Victorino, Pedroia or Papi one bit.

 

The big issue is pitching out of the stretch vs the windup ... there is some substantial difference there with many pitchers. The mythology of the base stealer making pitchers nervous is there - but this isn't 1983. TEAMS just don't run that much anymore. I mean aside from your Dee Gordon or Billy Hamilton outlier, we're still taking about 40-50 steals leading the league.

[Behindenemylines]

The big issue is pitching out of the stretch vs the windup ... there is some substantial difference there with many pitchers. The mythology of the base stealer making pitchers nervous is there - but this isn't 1983. TEAMS just don't run that much anymore. I mean aside from your Dee Gordon or Billy Hamilton outlier, we're still taking about 40-50 steals leading the league.

 

I think with power numbers down that the SB will become more important to teams. The SB is very disruptive to pitchers and to have a guy or two that can do that can only help a team. Hitters shouldn't mind because a distracted pitcher has a better chance of making a mistake.

[a700hitter]

I would like to know the percentage of fastballs that Pedroia saw when Ellsbury was on first base as opposed to other situations. I think a hitter would love having that threat on first. It must take a lot of the guesswork out of looking for the fastball.

[sk7326]

I would like to know the percentage of fastballs that Pedroia saw when Ellsbury was on first base as opposed to other situations. I think a hitter would love having that threat on first. It must take a lot of the guesswork out of looking for the fastball.

 

I am sure it helped a little. At the same time, Pedroia's numbers have been relatively consistent regardless of what was going on in front of him.

[a700hitter]

I am sure it helped a little. At the same time, Pedroia's numbers have been relatively consistent regardless of what was going on in front of him.

A fastball hitter like Pedroia must have liked seeing lots of fastballs.

[Spudboy]

A fastball hitter like Pedroia must have liked seeing lots of fastballs.

 

I am thinking sort of like you. Unfortunately, if you voice this opinion about three or four people will hit you with all types of heretofore unseen data that would point a true analyst toward a mostly unfounded and assumptive conclusion.

 

I think that a runner on base is a big distraction to the pitcher but I have not stats to prove it. Just 48 years of watching moves to 1st and 2nd. Maybe I imagined the stretch, too.

[Kimmi]

I would like to know the percentage of fastballs that Pedroia saw when Ellsbury was on first base as opposed to other situations. I think a hitter would love having that threat on first. It must take a lot of the guesswork out of looking for the fastball.

 

 

Hitters do see more fastballs when there is a speedy runner on first versus a non-disruptive runner on first. However, they do not hit better. In fact, they hit worse. The disruptive runner seems to disrupt the guy at the plate more than it does the defense.

[Spudboy]

Snap throws to first and pick-off attempts to first and second must be such a burden on a hitter. Especially when they get away and a runner advances. That must be really confusing.

[sk7326]

Snap throws to first and pick-off attempts to first and second must be such a burden on a hitter. Especially when they get away and a runner advances. That must be really confusing.

 

When a guy goes, it is possible that the batter is less inclined to take a pitch he'd normally take.

[Kimmi]

I am thinking sort of like you. Unfortunately, if you voice this opinion about three or four people will hit you with all types of heretofore unseen data that would point a true analyst toward a mostly unfounded and assumptive conclusion.

 

I think that a runner on base is a big distraction to the pitcher but I have not stats to prove it. Just 48 years of watching moves to 1st and 2nd. Maybe I imagined the stretch, too.

 

 

This is the problem with many of the traditional beliefs. They have been accepted as true for so long with no data whatsoever to support them. It's not that you're imagining anything. It's that you're likely to remember the plays that support your opinion and not remember the ones that don't.

 

I'm not saying that there aren't instances when a speedy runner on first really benefitted the batter. There are some exceptions to every rule. On the average, however, batters hit worse with a disruptive runner on first versus having a non-disruptive runner on first. The advantage to the hitter comes from having the guy on first, period. Not from his ability to steal a base.

[sk7326]

Stolen bases are awesome. Fun TV, I love em. And they are more important in a lower scoring environment. But Earl Weaver's ideas about offense are still the more accurate ones.

[a700hitter]

Hitters do see more fastballs when there is a speedy runner on first versus a non-disruptive runner on first. However, they do not hit better. In fact, they hit worse. The disruptive runner seems to disrupt the guy at the plate more than it does the defense.

 

When you say that they "hit" worse, what metrics are you relying upon? Also, what metric is there for differentiating between disruptive runner situations and run of the mill slow pokes?

[Kimmi]

Stolen bases are awesome. Fun TV, I love em. And they are more important in a lower scoring environment. But Earl Weaver's ideas about offense are still the more accurate ones.

 

 

You're exactly right. They are exciting and fun tv. Outside of that, they are overrated. When Henderson stole 130 bases in 1982, he earned his team 22.2 runs. However, the 42 times he was caught cost his team 20.6 runs. So, with all of that base stealing he did, he was worth a whopping 1.6 runs over the season. Henderson's true value as a lead off hitter came from his ability to get on base, not from his ability to steal bases.

[Kimmi]

When you say that they "hit" worse, what metrics are you relying upon? Also, what metric is there for differentiating between disruptive runner situations and run of the mill slow pokes?

 

 

A disruptive runner in one study that I looked at was classified as those with the highest stolen base attempt rates, those above 15%, and a minimum of 400 SB opportunities. In that study, BA was .273 with aggressive runners on first, versus .281 with non aggressive runners on first base. SLG % also dropped about 25 points with an aggressive runner on first versus nonaggressive.

 

In another study, having any runner on first improved wOBA for the hitter by about 14 points. Having a disruptive runner on first dropped that advantage to just 2 points.

 

http://www.foxsports.com/mlb/story/does-a-speedster-on-base-help-the-guy-at-the-plate-051314

[a700hitter]

A disruptive runner in one study that I looked at was classified as those with the highest stolen base attempt rates, those above 15%, and a minimum of 400 SB opportunities. In that study, BA was .273 with aggressive runners on first, versus .281 with non aggressive runners on first base. SLG % also dropped about 25 points with an aggressive runner on first versus nonaggressive.

 

In another study, having any runner on first improved wOBA for the hitter by about 14 points. Having a disruptive runner on first dropped that advantage to just 2 points.

 

http://www.foxsports.com/mlb/story/does-a-speedster-on-base-help-the-guy-at-the-plate-051314

 

When Ellsbury played for the Red Sox, he was the elite base stealer in the game. After him and one or two others, the dropped off was huge. I' d be willing to bet that the stats for Ellsbury's positive effect on the lineup were very similar to those for Billy Hamilton, which are significant. Expanding the number of base runners in this instance is one of those circumstances where the larger sample size is less reliable, because the expanded group isn't comparable to Ellsbury (2008-2013) or Billy Hamilton.

[Kimmi]

When Ellsbury played for the Red Sox, he was the elite base stealer in the game. After him and one or two others, the dropped off was huge. I' d be willing to bet that the stats for Ellsbury's positive effect on the lineup were very similar to those for Billy Hamilton, which are significant. Expanding the number of base runners in this instance is one of those circumstances where the larger sample size is less reliable, because the expanded group isn't comparable to Ellsbury (2008-2013) or Billy Hamilton.

 

 

As I said before, there are some exceptions, and you may be right about Ellsbury, but you can't say that for sure. Also, please note the caveat about the extremely small sample size used with Hamilton, so you can't even say that his effect is significant.

[a700hitter]

As I said before, there are some exceptions, and you may be right about Ellsbury, but you can't say that for sure. Also, please note the caveat about the extremely small sample size used with Hamilton, so you can't even say that his effect is significant.

In three more years, the sample size will not be so small. Also, the sample size for Ellsbury is surely not small from 2007- 2013. We just don't have the stats. In any regard the study has little statistical validity in that it is lumping in apples with slow kumquats.

[Kimmi]

In three more years, the sample size will not be so small. Also, the sample size for Ellsbury is surely not small from 2007- 2013. We just don't have the stats. In any regard the study has little statistical validity in that it is lumping in apples with slow kumquats.

 

 

No, it is not lumping in speedsters with slow runners. These studies have a lot more validity than your anecdotal evidence. But this is a typical response. When given data that doesn't support one's opinion, just claim that the data is not valid. Show me some data that proves otherwise.