A Realistic View of 2023: Part II

[Maxbialystock]

Because it's a sample issue. I'm not going to go on a deep dive regarding an issue that is common sense.

 

CERA:

 

1) Doesn't control for pitcher quality.

2) Doesn't control for standard deviation because of the varying sample sizes.

3) Doesn't account for quality of defense, which may vary on any given night.

4) Doesn't account for umpire tendency, which can greatly impact CEra on smaller samples.

5) Doesn't account for park factors.

 

There are more advanced stats that measure the impact of all of this factors, one way or the other, for pitchers. Even more advanced metrics like catcher framing are inherently flawed. You can't use those as gospel, because they have fundamental flaws, so why would you use CEra, a worse, less complete statistic, to measure a catcher's worth? I jus don't see it.

 

Meh. Everyone of those "uncontrolled" factors also apply to ERA, which, imperfect though it too can be, is still used regularly to assess how effective a pitcher is. If ERA is valid, so is CERA (with large enough samples).

[Dipre]

Meh. Everyone of those "uncontrolled" factors also apply to ERA, which, imperfect though it too can be, is still used regularly to assess how effective a pitcher is. If ERA is valid, so is CERA (with large enough samples).

 

That's why you never see anyone relying on just ERA anymore. And ERA is way more complete than CEra. It's an apples to oranges comparison.

[mvp 78]

Meh. Everyone of those "uncontrolled" factors also apply to ERA, which, imperfect though it too can be, is still used regularly to assess how effective a pitcher is. If ERA is valid, so is CERA (with large enough samples).

 

You'll never get large enough samples of catchers working with the same pitchers against similar competition over the same time period.

 

Even moon's stretches over a distinct portion of Sale's career where he went from ACE to mid/injured. Fortunately for Sandy, he was the primary catcher for the ace years. We have no clue what it would have looked like if Vaz took over during that stretch.

 

When you look at other pitchers and see Vaz's numbers look better than Leon's (specifically for most of the pen) it's just due to LOL RANDOM per moon.

 

ERA is barely an effective measure for pitchers. It's even worse for catchers.

[Dipre]

You'll never get large enough samples of catchers working with the same pitchers against similar competition over the same time period.

 

Even moon's stretches over a distinct portion of Sale's career where he went from ACE to mid/injured. Fortunately for Sandy, he was the primary catcher for the ace years. We have no clue what it would have looked like if Vaz took over during that stretch.

 

When you look at other pitchers and see Vaz's numbers look better than Leon's (specifically for most of the pen) it's just due to LOL RANDOM per moon.

 

ERA is barely an effective measure for pitchers. It's even worse for catchers.

 

Very much so.

[moonslav59]

Because it's a sample issue. I'm not going to go on a deep dive regarding an issue that is common sense.

 

CERA:

 

1) Doesn't control for pitcher quality.

2) Doesn't control for standard deviation because of the varying sample sizes.

3) Doesn't account for quality of defense, which may vary on any given night.

4) Doesn't account for umpire tendency, which can greatly impact CEra on smaller samples.

5) Doesn't account for park factors.

 

There are more advanced stats that measure the impact of all of this factors, one way or the other, for pitchers. Even more advanced metrics like catcher framing are inherently flawed. You can't use those as gospel, because they have fundamental flaws, so why would you use CEra, a worse, less complete statistic, to measure a catcher's worth? I jus don't see it.

 

I’m not sure what you mean by not accounting for all those factors.

 

It’s pitcher by pitcher with each catcher. For the most part, the defenses are the same, parks even out, as do other factors.

 

All stats can be asked the same questions.

 

To me, it’s telling that the top 5 pitchers in IP all did better with “the other guy,” some by leaps and bounds.

 

Yes, some are small or unbalanced, but when do many all point in one direction, it means something, even if not easily quantified.

 

[moonslav59]

You'll never get large enough samples of catchers working with the same pitchers against similar competition over the same time period.

 

Even moon's stretches over a distinct portion of Sale's career where he went from ACE to mid/injured. Fortunately for Sandy, he was the primary catcher for the ace years. We have no clue what it would have looked like if Vaz took over during that stretch.

 

When you look at other pitchers and see Vaz's numbers look better than Leon's (specifically for most of the pen) it's just due to LOL RANDOM per moon.

 

ERA is barely an effective measure for pitchers. It's even worse for catchers.

 

I went year by year with every major IP pitcher. I provided them numerous times, and the vast majority favoured Vaz’s back-up, even if many were small or unbalanced sample sizes

[Bellhorn04]

I went year by year with every major IP pitcher. I provided them numerous times, and the vast majority favoured Vaz’s back-up, even if many were small or unbalanced sample sizes

 

The only meaningful judge of the value of CERA factors is the teams. I was actually surprised when the Sox let Leon go.

[moonslav59]

The only meaningful judge of the value of CERA factors is the teams. I was actually surprised when the Sox let Leon go.

 

The fact that several pitchers insist on one catcher, and managers often set up specific tandems is enough proof to me that it matters.

[Bellhorn04]

The fact that several pitchers insist on one catcher, and managers often set up specific tandems is enough proof to me that it matters.

 

And I agree on that.

[moonslav59]

And I agree on that.

 

How much it matters is not likely up to 1.80 ERA differentials we see in some cases, and it is impossible to quantify, but it is real.

 

I’m convinced 99% of managers and pitchers would tell us certain catchers make a difference. They may not bad mouth some catchers, but read between the lines when hearing them praise Leon, Plawecki, VTek and a few others.

 

[notin]

Meh. Everyone of those "uncontrolled" factors also apply to ERA, which, imperfect though it too can be, is still used regularly to assess how effective a pitcher is. If ERA is valid, so is CERA (with large enough samples).

 

The main issue I have with CERA is - exactly how does a different catcher make the pitcher worse? And do so consistently?

 

I’m not even sure how involved in pitch calling most catchers are, as the game plans are largely developed beforehand…

[illinoisredsox]

Might be interesting to see his offensive numbers when he pitches vs. when he doesn't.

 

Here are his slashlines as a pitcher and DH.

 

P: .214/.323/.464/.787 with 3 homers.

DH: .272/.360/.556/.916 with 158 homers

 

He's actually got very few plate appearances as outside of DHing. Only 65 as a pitcher and about 60 as an OF or PH. He's got 2595 PAs as a DH. The numbers from OF/PH would skew his non-pitching slash up slightly, but not by much. I have no idea how many of the DH numbers are from when he stayed in after being taken out after pitching, but since that rule allowing that has only been around a couple years, it can't be too many.

 

Suffice to say, there is a huge difference.

[moonslav59]

The main issue I have with CERA is - exactly how does a different catcher make the pitcher worse? And do so consistently?

 

I’m not even sure how involved in pitch calling most catchers are, as the game plans are largely developed beforehand…

 

I’m not sure why some pitchers do better with one guy over another.

 

My guess is comfort level, ease of communication and trust have roles is the answer. For all I know, it could be something seemingly minor like how a catcher crouches or sets a target. Maybe first impression was good or bad, and that helped set a confidence level.

 

I’d like to know the specific reasons, but I don’t need to know them to believe catchers make a significant difference.

[notin]

That's why you never see anyone relying on just ERA anymore. And ERA is way more complete than CEra. It's an apples to oranges comparison.

 

You don't?

[notin]

I’m not sure why some pitchers do better with one guy over another.

 

My guess is comfort level, ease of communication and trust have roles is the answer. For all I know, it could be something seemingly minor like how a catcher crouches or sets a target. Maybe first impression was good or bad, and that helped set a confidence level.

 

I’d like to know the specific reasons, but I don’t need to know them to believe catchers make a significant difference.

 

But at some point, you're just looking at correlation and calling it causation.

 

It's like observing the birds fly away for the winter and return in the spring. And the conclusion is - the birds bring back spring weather!!

[moonslav59]

But at some point, you're just looking at correlation and calling it causation.

 

It's like observing the birds fly away for the winter and return in the spring. And the conclusion is - the birds bring back spring weather!!

 

Not even close.

[Bellhorn04]

So moon made me look up the CERA spreads for Sale, Price, Porcello and Eovaldi.

 

Sale

With Leon 435.2 IP 2.79 ERA .578 OPSa

With Vaz 132.1 IP 4.08 ERA .752 OPSa

 

Price

With Leon 203.2 IP 2.96 ERA .647 OPSa

With Vaz 360.1 IP 4.27 ERA .738 OPSa

 

Porcello

With Leon 576.1 IP 4.19 ERA .728 OPSa

With Vaz 210.2 IP 4.96 ERA .794 OPSa

 

Eovaldi

With Plawecki 183.1 IP 3.39 ERA .684 OPSa

With Vaz 176.1 IP 4.64 ERA .789 OPSa

 

Sure there's some statistical noise in there, but the differences are big enough that IMO, it would be incredibly dumb to dismiss them.

[moonslav59]

So moon made me look up the CERA spreads for Sale, Price, Porcello and Eovaldi.

 

Sale

With Leon 435.2 IP 2.79 ERA .578 OPSa

With Vaz 132.1 IP 4.08 ERA .752 OPSa

 

Price

With Leon 203.2 IP 2.96 ERA .647 OPSa

With Vaz 360.1 IP 4.27 ERA .738 OPSa

 

Porcello

With Leon 576.1 IP 4.19 ERA .728 OPSa

With Vaz 210.2 IP 4.96 ERA .794 OPSa

 

Eovaldi

With Plawecki 183.1 IP 3.39 ERA .684 OPSa

With Vaz 176.1 IP 4.64 ERA .789 OPSa

 

Sure there's some statistical noise in there, but the differences are big enough that IMO, it would be incredibly dumb to dismiss them.

 

Don't forget...

 

Nate

3.39 Plawecki (183)

4.64 Vaz (176)

4.90 Leon (61) kinda small sample

 

Only ERod didn't seem to care who was catching:

4.05 Leon (118)

4.18 Vaz (614)

4.44 Swi (75)

But Vaz was almost his exclusive catcher.

 

I'm not leaving any of the top IP Sox pitchers out, either.

 

Want the next set?

 

Pivetta

3.31 w Wong (65)

3.39 w Plawecki (69)

4.55 W Vaz (221)

5.87 w McGuire (69)

 

Barnes

3.83 (99)

3.96 (216)

 

Buchholz

3.01 Leon (155)

4.44 Vaz (130)

 

This list is every Sox pitcher with 360+ IP since 2014. No cherry-picking.

 

[Bellhorn04]

Don't forget...

 

Nate

3.39 Plawecki (183)

4.64 Vaz (176)

4.90 Leon (61) kinda small sample

 

Good thing I didn't!

[Dojji]

So what I'm hearing here is, Sandy Leon was a hell of a backup catcher.

[Bellhorn04]

So what I'm hearing here is, Sandy Leon was a hell of a backup catcher.

 

Some call him a pitcher whisperer.

[moonslav59]

So what I'm hearing here is, Sandy Leon was a hell of a backup catcher.

 

Yes. Plawecki was okay, too.

 

I'm really not trying to bash Vaz, here. I've said over and over, I like him. I'm glad he was on our team. He was a net plus. I would never have benched him or wanted him traded.

 

I just think this was one weak area of his total package.

 

I know other factors are involved, and maybe some of the numbers need tweaking as a result, although one might imagine some might be tweaked the "other way." ERA is not perfect, so of course CERA is even less perfect, but when you see the overwhelming numbers, year after year, pitcher by pitcher, I'm not sure why so many just discount it out of hand.

 

Does anybody believe a great defensive SS can help a pitchers ERA?

 

I'd say a catcher has a pretty significant influence on how well or poorly a pitcher does, too.

[Dipre]

You don't?

 

Not on any meaningful arguments, no.

[dannycater]

Yes. Plawecki was okay, too.

 

I'm really not trying to bash Vaz, here. I've said over and over, I like him. I'm glad he was on our team. He was a net plus. I would never have benched him or wanted him traded.

 

I just think this was one weak area of his total package.

 

I know other factors are involved, and maybe some of the numbers need tweaking as a result, although one might imagine some might be tweaked the "other way." ERA is not perfect, so of course CERA is even less perfect, but when you see the overwhelming numbers, year after year, pitcher by pitcher, I'm not sure why so many just discount it out of hand.

 

Does anybody believe a great defensive SS can help a pitchers ERA?

 

I'd say a catcher has a pretty significant influence on how well or poorly a pitcher does, too.

 

Completely agree with a catcher's influence on how well certain pitchers peform. The better the pitch caller, the better the defender, the better the arm to cut down any basestealers...all come into play. Some of the Sox secondary catchers over the years paired with some of our better pitchers. Just worked out. Always believe moon's theory is correct. It used to be you would see how some great Sps wanted and got the catcher they preferred. It's important to pitcher's psyche too, comfortability.

[Dipre]

No one's arguing against the influence of the catcher. The argument is that what is being used to measure such influence is BS. Pitch framing ability can make a massive difference on a pitching staff's performance. Also, pitch calling is no longer done by catchers, y'all need to stop beating that drum.

[Bellhorn04]

No one's arguing against the influence of the catcher. The argument is that what is being used to measure such influence is BS. Pitch framing ability can make a massive difference on a pitching staff's performance. Also, pitch calling is no longer done by catchers, y'all need to stop beating that drum.

 

I'd like to see some more information on the pitch calling thing. I know there's plenty of game planning now, but I'm dubious about the idea that every single pitch call comes from the dugout or upstairs. Also, we still see pitchers shaking off pitch calls, so they would seem to have the ultimate say...

[mvp 78]

I'd like to see some more information on the pitch calling thing. I know there's plenty of game planning now, but I'm dubious about the idea that every single pitch call comes from the dugout or upstairs. Also, we still see pitchers shaking off pitch calls, so they would seem to have the ultimate say...

 

Then calling a game doesn't matter since it's all just up to the pitcher. Therefore, not only is CERA a horrible derivative of a terrible stat (ERA), but Catchers aren't even calling the pitches anymore! The only thing that a Catcher does is frame, block and throw runners out I guess? If there were only ways to quantify those three things... Ugh.

[Dipre]

Then calling a game doesn't matter since it's all just up to the pitcher. Therefore, not only is CERA a horrible derivative of a terrible stat (ERA), but Catchers aren't even calling the pitches anymore! The only thing that a Catcher does is frame, block and throw runners out I guess? If there were only ways to quantify those three things... Ugh.

 

I wish! I keep combing bb-ref and the statcast page and have found nothing of the sort! Oh where art thou ORS!

[Bellhorn04]

Then calling a game doesn't matter since it's all just up to the pitcher. Therefore, not only is CERA a horrible derivative of a terrible stat (ERA), but Catchers aren't even calling the pitches anymore! The only thing that a Catcher does is frame, block and throw runners out I guess? If there were only ways to quantify those three things... Ugh.

 

Pitchers have always shaken off catchers a lot. The idea is that if the pitcher has a lot of faith in the catcher he's more likely to go with the catcher's call.

 

When Schilling had his near no-hitter against Oakland, he said after the game he only shook off Varitek a handful of times, and he would always regret shaking him off on the pitch that resulted in the A's first hit.

[mvp 78]

Pitchers have always shaken off catchers a lot. The idea is that if the pitcher has a lot of faith in the catcher he's more likely to go with the catcher's call.

 

When Schilling had his near no-hitter against Oakland, he said after the game he only shook off Varitek a handful of times, and he would always regret shaking him off on the pitch that resulted in the A's first hit.

 

He also colored in his sock with a red sharpie per another catcher on the Sox. Very untrustworthy source!