JBJ's Spring

[bostopz]

Just to give you some perspective on the relative unimportance of CS% as compared to pitch framing ability, the difference between the best pitch framer and the worst pitch framer in MLB in 2013 was 40 runs, or 4 wins. In 2012, it was 54 runs, or 5.4 wins. In 2011, it was 39 runs. In 2010, it was 50 runs. In 2009, it was 52 runs, and in 2008 it was a whopping 84 runs.

 

The difference between the best and worst in stolen base runs in 2013 was 15 runs. In 2012, it was 18 runs. In 2011, it was 10 runs. In 2010, it was 15 runs. In 2009, it was 15 runs. In 2008, it was 15 runs.

 

To summarize, on average, a great arm can give his team an additional 1.5 wins over a weak arm, which is not nothing, but a great pitch framer can give his team an additional 5 wins (or more) over a poor pitch framer.

 

I don't agree with this. For one - framing has also a lot to do with the pitchers too. If they're all over the plate the greatest framer in the world isn't going to have much luck.

 

Secondly, guys with shotgun arms like Molina you don't run on him. He shuts down the running game. You have an entirely different approach than a guy you can maybe do more hit and runs etc and overall be much more aggressive.

Edited April 4, 2015 by bostopz

[sk7326]

I don't agree with this. For one - framing has also a lot to do with the pitchers too. If they're all over the plate the greatest framer in the world isn't going to have much luck.

 

Secondly, guys with shotgun arms like Molina you don't run on him. He shuts down the running game. You have an entirely different approach than a guy you can maybe do more hit and runs etc and overall be much more aggressive.

 

The latter is true, but since base stealing is not really a major part of the attack for most teams - the net effect is small. Teams run more now than in the early part of the decade, but the importance of probability has been underlined to such a degree that teams don't really run that much compared to days of yore regardless.

 

Pitch framing depends on the pitcher quality - stop the presses. But there are just more chances to materially impact the game with pitch framing, many more pitches.

[jad]

Betts, Bradley, Castillo, Nava, Craig, Ramirez, Victorino. That's the order of hitting success this spring. #2 and 3 get sent down, and # 7 and 8 start. This needs to be fixed, and the least likely way it will be fixed is by Victorino suddenly becoming a .300 hitter as in distant memory, over so many injuries, he was once rumored to be.

[sk7326]

Betts, Bradley, Castillo, Nava, Craig, Ramirez, Victorino. That's the order of hitting success this spring. #2 and 3 get sent down, and # 7 and 8 start. This needs to be fixed, and the least likely way it will be fixed is by Victorino suddenly becoming a .300 hitter as in distant memory, over so many injuries, he was once rumored to be.

 

Because people shouldn't get worked up about guys getting their work in against the Crash Davis' of the future.

[Kimmi]

I don't agree with this. For one - framing has also a lot to do with the pitchers too. If they're all over the plate the greatest framer in the world isn't going to have much luck.

 

Secondly, guys with shotgun arms like Molina you don't run on him. He shuts down the running game. You have an entirely different approach than a guy you can maybe do more hit and runs etc and overall be much more aggressive.

 

 

To add to what SK posted, the value of the CS is in actually throwing the runner out and getting that valuable out, not in deterring a would be base stealer from stealing. Plus, the percentage of times a run scores as a direct result of a runner stealing 2nd base is not that high. Therefore, the ability to shut down the running game is not as valuable as it seems it would be.

[a700hitter]

To add to what SK posted, the value of the CS is in actually throwing the runner out and getting that valuable out, not in deterring a would be base stealer from stealing. Plus, the percentage of times a run scores as a direct result of a runner stealing 2nd base is not that high. Therefore, the ability to shut down the running game is not as valuable as it seems it would be.

This is where statistics goes of the rails. It has already been pointed out they don't tell you how many more guys would have taken second but for the fear of being gunned out. They also don't tell you how many DPs a pitcher gets by keeping those guys at first base and the number of pitches saved by those DPs that would allow a starter to go longer into a game, possibly being able to avoid a weak middle reliever coming into the game. The stats don't tell you how much harder a pitcher has to work to keep those extra runners at second base both in effort and number of pitchers, because now the ground balls are only getting 1 not 2 outs. The stats don't tell you how much sooner this will cause a pitcher to exit the game and hand the game over early to soft middle relief.

[cp176]

This is where statistics goes of the rails. It has already been pointed out they don't tell you how many more guys would have taken second but for the fear of being gunned out. They also don't tell you how many DPs a pitcher gets by keeping those guys at first base and the number of pitches saved by those DPs that would allow a starter to go longer into a game, possibly being able to avoid a weak middle reliever coming into the game. The stats don't tell you how much harder a pitcher has to work to keep those extra runners at second base both in effort and number of pitchers, because now the ground balls are only getting 1 not 2 outs. The stats don't tell you how much sooner this will cause a pitcher to exit the game and hand the game over early to soft middle relief.

 

 

That is really what I was trying to and wanted to say. The stats are very important of course. We all know that. There are a few other things to consider as well.

[Kimmi]

This is where statistics goes of the rails. It has already been pointed out they don't tell you how many more guys would have taken second but for the fear of being gunned out. They also don't tell you how many DPs a pitcher gets by keeping those guys at first base and the number of pitches saved by those DPs that would allow a starter to go longer into a game, possibly being able to avoid a weak middle reliever coming into the game. The stats don't tell you how much harder a pitcher has to work to keep those extra runners at second base both in effort and number of pitchers, because now the ground balls are only getting 1 not 2 outs. The stats don't tell you how much sooner this will cause a pitcher to exit the game and hand the game over early to soft middle relief.

 

 

First off, no one has ever said that stats tell the whole story.

 

I've already addressed the point about how many guys would have taken second but for the fear of being gunned down. Keeping a guy on first versus having him on second is not where the true value of a great arm comes into play. The true value of a great arm comes into play when the catcher gets the OUT by the CS.

 

As far as how many DPs a pitcher gets by keeping the runner on first, that is taken into account in determining the value of a stolen base and a CS. There are run expectancies for every base/out stage of the game. When a stolen base or a CS occur, versus keeping the runner on first, the number of runs lost or saved can be calculated, with the chance of a DP occurring factored in.

 

On the rest of your points, I agree. The stats won't tell you how much harder a pitcher had to work, or how much sooner he might be taken out of the game. However, that also goes for the pitch framing stats. You don't think a pitcher is going to benefit from those same secondary effects when he is getting extra strike calls from his catcher?

[User Name]

The name of the game is keeping the ball in the yard and the runners off the bases. To achieve those two outcomes, which is more important? The ability to shut down the running game, or the ability to earn extra strikes and keep hitters behind in the count? We're not reinventing the wheel here.

 

Also (hilariously I might add) the point about pitch framing being significantly dependent on the pitcher also applies (probably even more so) to shutting down the running game. One of the reasons teams run almost at will on the Sox isn't the catcher's arm or lack thereof, it's an organizational mandate on focusing on the hitter instead of the runner. No matter how good Vasquez' arm was (and it's a good one) the Sox' staff overall lack of interest in baserunners was going to impact his CS%, and other team's willingness to run on him.

Edited April 5, 2015 by User Name?

[User Name]

First off, no one has ever said that stats tell the whole story.

 

I've already addressed the point about how many guys would have taken second but for the fear of being gunned down. Keeping a guy on first versus having him on second is not where the true value of a great arm comes into play. The true value of a great arm comes into play when the catcher gets the OUT by the CS.

 

As far as how many DPs a pitcher gets by keeping the runner on first, that is taken into account in determining the value of a stolen base and a CS. There are run expectancies for every base/out stage of the game. When a stolen base or a CS occur, versus keeping the runner on first, the number of runs lost or saved can be calculated, with the chance of a DP occurring factored in.

 

On the rest of your points, I agree. The stats won't tell you how much harder a pitcher had to work, or how much sooner he might be taken out of the game. However, that also goes for the pitch framing stats. You don't think a pitcher is going to benefit from those same secondary effects when he is getting extra strike calls from his catcher?

 

The man is a strawman specialist.

[sk7326]

This is where statistics goes of the rails. It has already been pointed out they don't tell you how many more guys would have taken second but for the fear of being gunned out. They also don't tell you how many DPs a pitcher gets by keeping those guys at first base and the number of pitches saved by those DPs that would allow a starter to go longer into a game, possibly being able to avoid a weak middle reliever coming into the game. The stats don't tell you how much harder a pitcher has to work to keep those extra runners at second base both in effort and number of pitchers, because now the ground balls are only getting 1 not 2 outs. The stats don't tell you how much sooner this will cause a pitcher to exit the game and hand the game over early to soft middle relief.

 

There is some truth here, but it's not like it's 1983. Teams run more now than they did in say 2007, but teams generally don't run all that much. And very very few runners have green lights that the pitchers influence. Hell, the Red Sox led the league in SBs in 2013 based on Jacoby Ellsbury and basically cherry-picking. I am also generally not sure how much catchers influence hit and run calls, which is where significant amounts of "managerial aggressiveness" takes place.

[cp176]

The technology that they have these days is incredible. The introduction of PITCHf/x in 2008 (I believe) has really helped revolutionalize some of the advanced studies that are being done. One of the things I hear often from the critics of advanced metrics, UZR in particular, is the amount of subjectivity that is involved in them. Yes, there is some subjectivity, but IMO, they are far less subjective than the fans who say they prefer to trust their eyes.

 

When it comes to any player, you want to choose the one who is the best overall player. If that means that you sacrifice some defense, then that's what you do. So, I agree that a catcher that can hit well, has a great arm, and is an average pitch framer might be better than a great pitch framer who can't hit or throw. That was not my point. My point was that out of all of a catcher's defensive attributes, the ability to throw out base stealers is the least important.

 

I think that I probably am like most fans in that I see the value in the use of metrics but I would not want to be the one compiling them all. I just read a couple of articles and a couple of things do puzzle me. I'm not being disagreeable or sarcastic here. I'm interested in your take. The first article talked about the luck factor and how metrics can be used to evaluate it. The second talked about how the strike zone seems to be lowering. How often do the people inputting the data have to change and update to try to account for changes like these? Umpires I would think are responsible for the lowering of the strike zone to a great extent and I guess I always saw luck as something that you really couldn't predict.

[Kimmi]

The name of the game is keeping the ball in the yard and the runners off the bases. To achieve those two outcomes, which is more important? The ability to shut down the running game, or the ability to earn extra strikes and keep hitters behind in the count? We're not reinventing the wheel here.

 

Also (hilariously I might add) the point about pitch framing being significantly dependent on the pitcher also applies (probably even more so) to shutting down the running game. One of the reasons teams run almost at will on the Sox isn't the catcher's arm or lack thereof, it's an organizational mandate on focusing on the hitter instead of the runner. No matter how good Vasquez' arm was (and it's a good one) the Sox' staff overall lack of interest in baserunners was going to impact his CS%, and other team's willingness to run on him.

 

 

Well said.

[Kimmi]

I think that I probably am like most fans in that I see the value in the use of metrics but I would not want to be the one compiling them all. I just read a couple of articles and a couple of things do puzzle me. I'm not being disagreeable or sarcastic here. I'm interested in your take. The first article talked about the luck factor and how metrics can be used to evaluate it. The second talked about how the strike zone seems to be lowering. How often do the people inputting the data have to change and update to try to account for changes like these? Umpires I would think are responsible for the lowering of the strike zone to a great extent and I guess I always saw luck as something that you really couldn't predict.

 

 

I would have to read the actual article to know exactly what luck factor they are talking about, but metrics can help determine if players or teams are actually as good or bad as their stats indicate, or if they were affected by "luck", either good or bad.

 

For example, if a team outplays it's run differential or Pythagorean W-L record by a fair margin (see Yankees), they benefitted from some good luck or good breaks. If the season were to be played out again, randomness would make it unlikey that they would win as many games again.

 

If a batter like Hanigan has a BA of .198 and a BABIP of .216 coupled with a good line drive rate, he was the victim of some bad luck. A BABIP of .216 is unsustainable, so you would expect Hanigan's BA to rebound the following season.

 

If a pitcher has an ERA of 4.5 but a SIERA or FIP of 3.2, that pitcher was the victim of some bad luck and maybe some bad defense. A gap that large between ERA and SIERA is unsustainable, so you would expect that pitcher's ERA to drop. In other words, that pitcher pitched much better than his ERA suggests.

[a700hitter]

Organizationally, the Red Sox have not focused on holding runners, but that has been exacerbated by catchers who took forever to get out of their crouch and release the ball. You could make a sandwich and not miss the end of the play by the time Varitek and Salty delivered their throws -- slower than third class mail. For you youngsters, they were dialup speed. We were always far below league average in CS% in those years. We came close to league average in 2013 thanks to David Ross's 41%. Salty was well below league average. Last year when we got rid of Salty and got some guys that had feet that were quicker than a glacier, they exceeded the league average for the first time since the glaciers formed.

[Kimmi]

I think that I probably am like most fans in that I see the value in the use of metrics but I would not want to be the one compiling them all. I just read a couple of articles and a couple of things do puzzle me. I'm not being disagreeable or sarcastic here. I'm interested in your take. The first article talked about the luck factor and how metrics can be used to evaluate it. The second talked about how the strike zone seems to be lowering. How often do the people inputting the data have to change and update to try to account for changes like these? Umpires I would think are responsible for the lowering of the strike zone to a great extent and I guess I always saw luck as something that you really couldn't predict.

 

 

As far as the lower strike zone goes, when pitch framing stats are calculated, it really doesn't matter whether the strike zone is getting lower or not. The comparison is made in how many extra strike calls a catcher gets for his pitcher based on the same zone for all pitchers. If the strike zone is lowering, it is lowering for all pitchers.

 

That said, the statisticians are constantly updating, tweaking, and improving their data to account for such changes. They understand that trends in baseball change, and the data that held true 5 years ago might not be as accurate today.

 

As an example, during the steroid era, stolen bases were less valuable than they are today. At one time, the break even point for stolen bases was over 70%. Today, the break even point for stolen bases is somewhere around 66%. All data, including the value of CS% is adjusted accordingly.

[Kimmi]

Organizationally, the Red Sox have not focused on holding runners, but that has been exacerbated by catchers who took forever to get out of their crouch and release the ball. You could make a sandwich and not miss the end of the play by the time Varitek and Salty delivered their throws -- slower than third class mail. For you youngsters, they were dialup speed. We were always far below league average in CS% in those years. We came close to league average in 2013 thanks to David Ross's 41%. Salty was well below league average. Last year when we got rid of Salty and got some guys that had feet that were quicker than a glacier, they exceeded the league average for the first time since the glaciers formed.

 

 

I don't think anyone would argue that Varitek and Salty were slow in throwing to 2nd base. My argument is that in the bigger scheme of things, the ability, or lack thereof, to throw out baserunners is not as important as other traits.

 

From 2008 to 2011, Varitek was -15 in stolen base runs. Yet, overall, he saved his team 57 runs defensively over the same time period, good for 5th best out of all catchers over that period.

[cp176]

As far as the lower strike zone goes, when pitch framing stats are calculated, it really doesn't matter whether the strike zone is getting lower or not. The comparison is made in how many extra strike calls a catcher gets for his pitcher based on the same zone for all pitchers. If the strike zone is lowering, it is lowering for all pitchers.

 

That said, the statisticians are constantly updating, tweaking, and improving their data to account for such changes. They understand that trends in baseball change, and the data that held true 5 years ago might not be as accurate today.

 

As an example, during the steroid era, stolen bases were less valuable than they are today. At one time, the break even point for stolen bases was over 70%. Today, the break even point for stolen bases is somewhere around 66%. All data, including the value of CS% is adjusted accordingly.

 

In terms of where you are rating your catcher's abilities, I agree that having that strong arm does not rank at the top. I also don't think that the human element can be ignored either with respect to what an umpire's strike zone is. They aren't all the same. There are probably catcher's that do a better job framing the corners than they do with the top and bottom of the strike zone. How technical does it get?

[Spudboy]

I don't think anyone would argue that Varitek and Salty were slow in throwing to 2nd base. My argument is that in the bigger scheme of things, the ability, or lack thereof, to throw out baserunners is not as important as other traits.

 

From 2008 to 2011, Varitek was -15 in stolen base runs. Yet, overall, he saved his team 57 runs defensively over the same time period, good for 5th best out of all catchers over that period.

 

That's interesting to hear. His other stats must have been very good.

[cp176]

That's interesting to hear. His other stats must have been very good.

 

That is interesting. It would also be interesting to know how a pitcher's ability to keep runners close affects a catcher's throwing stats. It would seem to make some sense that if a pitcher held runners close and they still tried to advance a catcher might have a higher caught stealing % if he had any arm at all. Obviously pitching to the plate is number 1 on the list but clearly some hold runners closer than others.

[bostopz]

To add to what SK posted, the value of the CS is in actually throwing the runner out and getting that valuable out, not in deterring a would be base stealer from stealing. Plus, the percentage of times a run scores as a direct result of a runner stealing 2nd base is not that high. Therefore, the ability to shut down the running game is not as valuable as it seems it would be.

 

I don't agree with how you are looking at this. How often is a pitcher speeding up his delivery? How does this speed up of delivery affect his control in both walks and hits? How about how the infield is situated? How about hit and runs? Does the catcher call for more fastballs?

 

And I don't agree that if you were to see a stat of someone throwing out 52% of the runners that it wouldn't be some form of a deterrent.

[User Name]

It is very rare that a catcher call a ballgame nowadays. It is mostly called from the dugout Edited April 5, 2015 by User Name?

[bostopz]

It is very rare that a catcher call a ballgame nowadays. It is mostly called from the dugout

 

How does this matter? So what does difference does it make if the manager is now calling for more fastballs or the catcher is -- if either is concerned about the running game? If you have a catcher with a shotgun arm you don't have to necessarily call for more fastballs, right?

[Spudboy]

Another stimulating debate!!!!

[User Name]

How does this matter? So what does difference does it make if the manager is now calling for more fastballs or the catcher is -- if either is concerned about the running game? If you have a catcher with a shotgun arm you don't have to necessarily call for more fastballs, right?

 

That's a moot point, because the Red Sox don't care either way, per their very well-known organizational philosophy, which is the point.

[Kimmi]

In terms of where you are rating your catcher's abilities, I agree that having that strong arm does not rank at the top. I also don't think that the human element can be ignored either with respect to what an umpire's strike zone is. They aren't all the same. There are probably catcher's that do a better job framing the corners than they do with the top and bottom of the strike zone. How technical does it get?

 

 

Believe me, I am not dismissing the human element involved in the relationship between the pitcher and the catcher. I think that the pitcher/catcher relationship is huge in terms of how well a pitcher performs. There are human aspects in both throwing out base runners and pitch framing that the stats don't account for. I understand that.

 

As far as whether catchers frame better on the corners or at the top or bottom of the zone, it doesn't matter in terms of the pitch framing stat. It's how many extra strikes above average the catcher earns for his pitcher, as well as how many fewer actual strikes within the zone are called balls.

[Kimmi]

That's interesting to hear. His other stats must have been very good.

 

 

Interestingly enough, Varitek was not a very good pitch framer, which admittedly, surprised me when I found this out. However, he was very good at blocking pitches in the dirt, and as his reputation has suggested, he was very good at calling a game.

 

If you are so inclined to read it, here is a link to a very good read regarding Varitek's defense, and how undervalued he was. Also, within the article, there are links to studies by Mike Fast, Bojan Koprivica, and Max Marchi which I highly recommend to anyone. There is a lot of technical stuff in those articles, but if nothing else, look at the charts of best and worst catchers in various categories. And notice how Ryan Hanigan's name appears on many of the "best" lists.

 

http://www.overthemonster.com/2012/2/29/2830655/jason-varitek-advanced-catcher-defense

[Kimmi]

That is interesting. It would also be interesting to know how a pitcher's ability to keep runners close affects a catcher's throwing stats. It would seem to make some sense that if a pitcher held runners close and they still tried to advance a catcher might have a higher caught stealing % if he had any arm at all. Obviously pitching to the plate is number 1 on the list but clearly some hold runners closer than others.

 

 

Fangraphs does have a stolen base runs stat (rSB) for pitchers as well as catchers. Looking at a pitcher's rSB stat in comparison to other pitchers on the team and also to the catchers can give you some idea of whether the pitcher is helping or hurting the catcher.

[Kimmi]

I don't agree with how you are looking at this. How often is a pitcher speeding up his delivery? How does this speed up of delivery affect his control in both walks and hits? How about how the infield is situated? How about hit and runs? Does the catcher call for more fastballs?

 

And I don't agree that if you were to see a stat of someone throwing out 52% of the runners that it wouldn't be some form of a deterrent.

 

 

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.

[Bellhorn04]

Interestingly enough, Varitek was not a very good pitch framer, which admittedly, surprised me when I found this out. However, he was very good at blocking pitches in the dirt, and as his reputation has suggested, he was very good at calling a game.

 

If you are so inclined to read it, here is a link to a very good read regarding Varitek's defense, and how undervalued he was. Also, within the article, there are links to studies by Mike Fast, Bojan Koprivica, and Max Marchi which I highly recommend to anyone. There is a lot of technical stuff in those articles, but if nothing else, look at the charts of best and worst catchers in various categories. And notice how Ryan Hanigan's name appears on many of the "best" lists.

 

http://www.overthemonster.com/2012/2/29/2830655/jason-varitek-advanced-catcher-defense

 

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