Kimmi

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.

I enjoy interleague play, but here's the main problem with it - Napoli sits today and likely Wednesday so Papi can play, then Thursday Papi has to sit. That's just messed up.

Spud, I wouldn't even know how to begin to respond to most of the posts in this thread. LOL

Personally, and this is nothing against BTR, I'm on your side because you predicted the Sox to finish 162-0, not to mention that you wear dad pants. That said, if the Sox lose today, you're out. LOL

BTW, I am honored to have made your sig line. My next goal is to have you commit my posts to memory so that you can one day tell your grandchildren about the awesome poster Kimmi that you once knew.

Yes, we can. Well, I don't know if "we" can, but "they" can. I was actually being a little facetious in my post, because Molina and Ross are known to be great framers.

First goal is to make it to the playoffs because once there, anything can happen. Even though an "ace" is not necessary for postseason success, I'm guessing that if we do make it to postseason, it will be partly because there was an ace type on this team, either one that was acquired before the trade deadline or one that emerged from the current roster.

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.

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.

The umpire had a large strike zone last night. The question is, did the umpire expand his zone based on the great pitch framing by Molina and Ross, or do Molina and Ross appear to be better framers because of the umpire's large strike zone?

I found that very interesting that Lester hasn't thrown to first in so long. I did not realize that. Lester is also 0-962 or something like that in his major league career as a hitter. That's a good reason for Maddon to bat him 8th. The dude tries too hard to prove to the world that he's a genius.

Wait a minute.... I thought you said that logic was not allowed here. Very nice post.

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.

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.

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

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.

I agree with this. I don't see any need to put Barnes in the pen right now. As it is, when Koji and Kelly return, two relievers are going to have to be sent down. Keep Barnes stretched out for now in case we need him as a starter.

This is a most interesting game thread, one unlike any I've ever seen before.

Absolutely planning on watching the game tonight. How can you not? The Allure of the Cubs is far too strong to keep fans away! LOL As you said, I am Jonesing for some real baseball! Finally!

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.

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.

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.

Well said.

I don't think that moving a starter to the pen or vice versa messes pitchers up or ruins them, if it is done correctly. Joba's attempted conversion to a SP was handled incorrectly, IMO. Bard's was not. Bard was having some issues at the end of the previous season before the Sox attempted to convert him to a SP. I think Barnes will be fine if he is used as a reliever, and he may even be more effective in that role. That said, I would like to see the Sox keep him stretched out as a starter for the time being because, as of now, I think that's where our greatest need will be.

Happy Easter Sean. And Happy Easter to all!