Calling Game ability

Rosco Peabody · 03-07-2018, 03:49 PM

This isn't necessarily just for OOTP, but I wish there was some way to quantify the ability of a Catcher to call a game. I know it doesn't exist in real life so chances are that it wouldn't exist in the game, but just a thought

Syd Thrift · 03-07-2018, 04:35 PM

Wasn't there some study or other that *did* find there to be a difference in how guys called games and/or framed pitches? IIRC the effect was largely neutralized once teams discovered that there was an effect (I guess meaning, they saw the numbers and decided to formally teach their catchers instead of hoping they'd just pick it up or something).

Maybe, too, this is one of those things that, like, every catcher who's worn the "tools of ignorance" for the requisite 10,000 hours or whatever can just do at a more or less equal level to someone else, but if you threw a guy who was completely new to it he'd be horrible at it. I think of Geno Petralli's unique issues catching Charlie Hough in the late 80s, only applied to this skill as well.

Cinnamon J. Scudworth · 03-07-2018, 05:18 PM

The impact of catcher skill on pitching performance is already modeled in an abstract way through the Catcher rating. Framing ability was incorporated into the Catcher rating back in OOTP 13. I think it's been a part of every version since. I don't know that game calling skill has been looked at specifically. But overall, higher-rated catchers in OOTP have a positive influence on pitching performance.

RchW · 03-07-2018, 05:43 PM

My understanding is that big noise around pitch framing 4 seasons ago has simmered down. The poster boy Jonathan Lucroy remains a FA who may be a min salary signing if at all this year.

I'm not for one minute saying that pitch framing isn't real. It's like so many other attributes, makes the news when teams win (see Y Molina) much less when teams lose as Texas did last year. It's hard to frame gopher balls.

Rosco Peabody · 03-07-2018, 07:38 PM

It's good to hear that Catcher ability puts that in at least somewhat. I always just thought it was kind of like, "the higher a catcher's Catcher Ability, the less likely a passed ball"

Markus Heinsohn · 03-08-2018, 03:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cinnamon J. Scudworth

The impact of catcher skill on pitching performance is already modeled in an abstract way through the Catcher rating. Framing ability was incorporated into the Catcher rating back in OOTP 13. I think it's been a part of every version since. I don't know that game calling skill has been looked at specifically. But overall, higher-rated catchers in OOTP have a positive influence on pitching performance.

Yes, this is accurately modeled via the Catcher Ability rating in OOTP.

udbacker58 · 03-08-2018, 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RchW

My understanding is that big noise around pitch framing 4 seasons ago has simmered down. The poster boy Jonathan Lucroy remains a FA who may be a min salary signing if at all this year.

I'm not for one minute saying that pitch framing isn't real. It's like so many other attributes, makes the news when teams win (see Y Molina) much less when teams lose as Texas did last year. It's hard to frame gopher balls.

Well, Lucroy has declined in this category to the point where is isn't anything better than league average. I hear talk of pitch framing all the time. It is less talked about overall, mainly because all teams are aware of it and there is a much smaller gap between 1 and 30 than there was 5 years ago.

Calvert98 · 03-09-2018, 07:49 AM

But I think it's still a factor for sure; it just could be a bit more subtle.

Syd Thrift · 03-09-2018, 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Calvert98

But I think it's still a factor for sure; it just could be a bit more subtle.

I mean, right now it's so subtle that many of us forgot it was a thing that was already added. Do we have data as to how "unsubtle" it is?

sansterre · 09-13-2018, 02:13 PM

In theory (and I hope to do this when I get home now) you could:

Create a base ML league
Turn injuries, fatigue, player development and suspensions off
Figure out how to control your team so that no roster moves get made

Save it as a template

Now Edit the Catcher Ability on all of your team's catchers to max (whatever that is in your league; in 1-10 leagues it's 190ish).
Sim a season. Record the Ks and BBs for your team.

Reload the template. Edit the Catcher Ability of your catchers to the minimum (10 in a 1-10 league).
Sim a season. Record the Ks and BBs for your team.

Repeat as many times as you think you need for a bigger sample size.

Note the difference between the top CA stats and the bottom CA stats.

One point in CA for your league is worth:

((Max CA Ks / Max CA IPs - Min CA Ks / Min CA IPs) * 2 + (Max CA BBs / Max CA IPs - Min CA BBs / Min CA IPs) * -3) / 9 / (Top Rating in your scouting system - Bottom Rating in your scouting system) * Projected IP Fielding at Catcher (I usually estimate 1000)

Or so the theory goes.

RonCo · 09-14-2018, 12:28 AM

There are toggles to hit to make sure the AI doesn't futz with roster changes. And the easier way to do this is to create a league with (say) 8 teams of completely neutral players, then make catchers on four teams mega good in ability and catchers on the four other teams mega bad.

Save it as a quickstart.

Then just run one year and compare the differences.

Then reload the quickstart and do it again as many times as you have time for. Compile the results and do your best to analyze.

I'd look at K rates and BB rates to start with. Then maybe HR rates and BABIP.

itsmb8 · 09-14-2018, 03:22 AM

The variables are still too large. I think the best way to do this is play x number of games with the same 2 teams with the same players on the field, no injuries or anything like that, with the only difference being in one set of simulations your catcher has a minimum catcher rating, and in the other sim set he has the max catcher rating. That way things arent skewed by playing against different players with different ratings.

sansterre · 09-14-2018, 08:35 AM

I ran six seasons, two at Catcher Ability 190 (which is exactly 10 in a 1-10 scouting system), two at Catcher Ability 110 (which is exactly 6) and two at Catcher Ability 10 (which is exactly 1). So I have two at max, two at average and two at min.

Here are the numbers:

10 CA: 1450.7 IP, 1349 K, 548 BB
10 CA: 1457.3 IP, 1365 K, 507 BB
6 CA: 1439.3 IP, 1313 K, 552 BB
6 CA: 1481.3 IP, 1293 K, 580 BB
1 CA: 1459.7 IP, 1202 K, 575 BB
1 CA: 1444.3 IP, 1205 K, 551 BB

Converted to averages we have:

10 CA: 8.4 K/9, 3.27 BB/9
6 CA: 8.03 K/9, 3.49 BB/9
1 CA: 7.46 K/9, 3.49 BB/9

Not a perfect sample size, obviously you'd like to see more. But the difference between the three is pretty apparent, and I'm pleased that it's so obvious.

The difference between 10 CA and 1 CA is 0.94 K/9 and 0.22 BB/9

This drops the team FIP by 0.282, meaning it's worth about .282 runs per 9 innings

Figure that the average starting catcher racks up 1000 IP (your mileage may vary)

.282 runs per 9 becomes 0.0313 runs per inning, which becomes 31.33 runs per 1000 innings. So the gap between 10 Catcher Ability and 1 Catcher Ability is 31.3 runs, assuming 1000 IP.

There are 9 steps between 10 and 1, so every point of catcher ability in 1-10 scouting league is worth about 3.48 runs per 1000 IP.

This obviously does not take into account passed balls or other fielding that Catcher ability may be part of, it only values pitch framing.

This makes it in the same range of value as infield range for 2B or outfield range for LF.

Thoughts?

Drstrangelove · 09-14-2018, 10:46 AM

I by no means want to throw a damper on your work (a well done study, I might add), but if catching ability reflects the ability to catch third strike foul tips, that could wipe enough of the variance to make it less obvious. This is not to say your observations lack merit, nor to suggest that my suggestion holds any water, but you asked for thoughts and that sprang to mind. The ideal study would have pitch location and demonstrate that the probability of a strike being called rises in certain pitch locations depending on the catcher's catching skill.

Of course, a simpler answer could be that it's a small sample size, but you already know that's a weak point. Unless the coders give us separate metrics for each catcher, it's not feasible to distinguish all the factors.

NoOne · 09-14-2018, 11:00 AM

first, awesome information.

tidbit about 1-10 scale. 110 is the beginning of the "6" range. e.g. on 1-100, a 60 is actually 121 in editor or 119 etc... i forget where the -1 / +1 is on the conversion now. 1 scale must include "0" or something, because it doesn't convert quite as you'd expect.

anyway "6" is really ~5.5 through ~6.5, whether it's >= or < no idea, but you could deduce that too with a couple data points in editor. i only say that to point it it was a slightly more average catcher than you expected too.

not a whole lot of viable 196/200 catchers, either. expect the effect to tail off quickly as you near average. a "140" guy won't be anywhere near as improved compared to the ~average guy.

i think the type of pitchers you have matter a bit too... e.g. knuckleballers elevate your passed ball %? maybe not, but when i have a couple on my staff, my good defensive catchers never can win a gold glove, lol. 3 on staff... i don't even look.

Rosco Peabody · 09-14-2018, 11:12 AM

Excellent study. As a science teacher, I applaud your thoroughness

ThePretender · 09-14-2018, 12:03 PM

Good study, but I hope you're wrong because then I'm not sure the punishment is significant enough for low defence. Seems like a very worthwhile trade off to go with a 3-5 defence catcher (1-10 scale) who is a 1B type of bat over a plus defender with no bat.

sansterre · 09-14-2018, 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThePretender

Good study, but I hope you're wrong because then I'm not sure the punishment is significant enough for low defence. Seems like a very worthwhile trade off to go with a 3-5 defence catcher (1-10 scale) who is a 1B type of bat over a plus defender with no bat.

Let's not forget that the above study only values pitch framing (specifically increases in K/9 and BB/9). Other things that Catcher ability definitely includes (passed balls, fielding generally) or possibly includes (helping rookie pitchers more, keeping HR/9 down, whatever) are not considered.

I'd personally put it at 4.5-5 runs per point, just to try and cover those other things.

And as for putting bad fielders in that position, it's no different from doing that at 2B or OF. You can put a guy with below average range and rating at 2B in the position, knowing he'll cost you an extra 10-12 runs per year, and hoping that he'll make up for it with his bat. Sometimes it's worth it. Usually it isn't.

ThePretender · 09-14-2018, 12:57 PM

Well, I'll be upfront in that I think the negative consequences for playing poor defensive players should be increased significantly at all positions, so I guess I'm just not surprised the penalty is lower than it realistically should be for catcher via your experiment. If typically I use a 7 defensive catcher, the downgrade to 4 defensively is 15 runs, and I can quite easily find a bat worth more than that who can play defence that poorly and get more value.

Really shouldn't be so easy to do that, if you ask me. Should start going down a lot more at the lower levels, not a linear drop.

RonCo · 09-14-2018, 03:59 PM

As some have said, the impact of catcher defense in OOTP is more than framing. It's fewer PB, fewer WP, better control of the running game (which can actually have a negative effect, oddly), and actually fielding the position. Add all those up and I think the impact of a catcher's defense is probably fairly significant.

03-07-2018, 03:49 PM	#1
Rosco Peabody All Star Starter Join Date: Jun 2013 Location: South of Boston, Massachusetts Posts: 1,092	Calling Game ability This isn't necessarily just for OOTP, but I wish there was some way to quantify the ability of a Catcher to call a game. I know it doesn't exist in real life so chances are that it wouldn't exist in the game, but just a thought

03-07-2018, 05:18 PM	#3
Cinnamon J. Scudworth All Star Starter Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Washington, DC Posts: 1,118	The impact of catcher skill on pitching performance is already modeled in an abstract way through the Catcher rating. Framing ability was incorporated into the Catcher rating back in OOTP 13. I think it's been a part of every version since. I don't know that game calling skill has been looked at specifically. But overall, higher-rated catchers in OOTP have a positive influence on pitching performance. __________________ "Sometimes, this is like going to a grocery store. You’ve got a list until you get to the check-out stand. And then you start reading People magazine, and all this other [stuff] ends up in the basket." -Sandy Alderson on the MLB offseason

03-07-2018, 05:43 PM	#4
RchW Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Toronto ON by way of Glasgow UK Posts: 15,629	My understanding is that big noise around pitch framing 4 seasons ago has simmered down. The poster boy Jonathan Lucroy remains a FA who may be a min salary signing if at all this year. I'm not for one minute saying that pitch framing isn't real. It's like so many other attributes, makes the news when teams win (see Y Molina) much less when teams lose as Texas did last year. It's hard to frame gopher balls. __________________ Cheers RichW If you’re looking for a good cause to donate money to please consider a Donation to Parkinson’s Canada. It may help me have a better future and if not me, someone else. Thanks. “Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition …There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.” Frank Wilhoit

09-13-2018, 02:13 PM	#10
sansterre Minors (Triple A) Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 251	In theory (and I hope to do this when I get home now) you could: Create a base ML league Turn injuries, fatigue, player development and suspensions off Figure out how to control your team so that no roster moves get made Save it as a template Now Edit the Catcher Ability on all of your team's catchers to max (whatever that is in your league; in 1-10 leagues it's 190ish). Sim a season. Record the Ks and BBs for your team. Reload the template. Edit the Catcher Ability of your catchers to the minimum (10 in a 1-10 league). Sim a season. Record the Ks and BBs for your team. Repeat as many times as you think you need for a bigger sample size. Note the difference between the top CA stats and the bottom CA stats. One point in CA for your league is worth: ((Max CA Ks / Max CA IPs - Min CA Ks / Min CA IPs) * 2 + (Max CA BBs / Max CA IPs - Min CA BBs / Min CA IPs) * -3) / 9 / (Top Rating in your scouting system - Bottom Rating in your scouting system) * Projected IP Fielding at Catcher (I usually estimate 1000) Or so the theory goes. Last edited by sansterre; 09-14-2018 at 08:25 AM.

09-14-2018, 10:46 AM	#14
Drstrangelove Major Leagues Join Date: Jun 2014 Posts: 346	I by no means want to throw a damper on your work (a well done study, I might add), but if catching ability reflects the ability to catch third strike foul tips, that could wipe enough of the variance to make it less obvious. This is not to say your observations lack merit, nor to suggest that my suggestion holds any water, but you asked for thoughts and that sprang to mind. The ideal study would have pitch location and demonstrate that the probability of a strike being called rises in certain pitch locations depending on the catcher's catching skill. Of course, a simpler answer could be that it's a small sample size, but you already know that's a weak point. Unless the coders give us separate metrics for each catcher, it's not feasible to distinguish all the factors. Last edited by Drstrangelove; 09-14-2018 at 11:08 AM.

03-07-2018, 07:38 PM	#5
Rosco Peabody All Star Starter Join Date: Jun 2013 Location: South of Boston, Massachusetts Posts: 1,092	It's good to hear that Catcher ability puts that in at least somewhat. I always just thought it was kind of like, "the higher a catcher's Catcher Ability, the less likely a passed ball"

03-09-2018, 07:49 AM	#8
Calvert98 All Star Reserve Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 579	But I think it's still a factor for sure; it just could be a bit more subtle.

09-14-2018, 12:28 AM	#11
RonCo Hall Of Famer Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 10,508	There are toggles to hit to make sure the AI doesn't futz with roster changes. And the easier way to do this is to create a league with (say) 8 teams of completely neutral players, then make catchers on four teams mega good in ability and catchers on the four other teams mega bad. Save it as a quickstart. Then just run one year and compare the differences. Then reload the quickstart and do it again as many times as you have time for. Compile the results and do your best to analyze. I'd look at K rates and BB rates to start with. Then maybe HR rates and BABIP.

09-14-2018, 03:22 AM	#12
itsmb8 All Star Starter Join Date: Jan 2013 Posts: 1,344	The variables are still too large. I think the best way to do this is play x number of games with the same 2 teams with the same players on the field, no injuries or anything like that, with the only difference being in one set of simulations your catcher has a minimum catcher rating, and in the other sim set he has the max catcher rating. That way things arent skewed by playing against different players with different ratings.

09-14-2018, 08:35 AM	#13
sansterre Minors (Triple A) Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 251	I ran six seasons, two at Catcher Ability 190 (which is exactly 10 in a 1-10 scouting system), two at Catcher Ability 110 (which is exactly 6) and two at Catcher Ability 10 (which is exactly 1). So I have two at max, two at average and two at min. Here are the numbers: 10 CA: 1450.7 IP, 1349 K, 548 BB 10 CA: 1457.3 IP, 1365 K, 507 BB 6 CA: 1439.3 IP, 1313 K, 552 BB 6 CA: 1481.3 IP, 1293 K, 580 BB 1 CA: 1459.7 IP, 1202 K, 575 BB 1 CA: 1444.3 IP, 1205 K, 551 BB Converted to averages we have: 10 CA: 8.4 K/9, 3.27 BB/9 6 CA: 8.03 K/9, 3.49 BB/9 1 CA: 7.46 K/9, 3.49 BB/9 Not a perfect sample size, obviously you'd like to see more. But the difference between the three is pretty apparent, and I'm pleased that it's so obvious. The difference between 10 CA and 1 CA is 0.94 K/9 and 0.22 BB/9 This drops the team FIP by 0.282, meaning it's worth about .282 runs per 9 innings Figure that the average starting catcher racks up 1000 IP (your mileage may vary) .282 runs per 9 becomes 0.0313 runs per inning, which becomes 31.33 runs per 1000 innings. So the gap between 10 Catcher Ability and 1 Catcher Ability is 31.3 runs, assuming 1000 IP. There are 9 steps between 10 and 1, so every point of catcher ability in 1-10 scouting league is worth about 3.48 runs per 1000 IP. This obviously does not take into account passed balls or other fielding that Catcher ability may be part of, it only values pitch framing. This makes it in the same range of value as infield range for 2B or outfield range for LF. Thoughts?

09-14-2018, 11:00 AM	#15
NoOne Banned Join Date: Apr 2015 Posts: 7,273 Infractions: 0/1 (3)	first, awesome information. tidbit about 1-10 scale. 110 is the beginning of the "6" range. e.g. on 1-100, a 60 is actually 121 in editor or 119 etc... i forget where the -1 / +1 is on the conversion now. 1 scale must include "0" or something, because it doesn't convert quite as you'd expect. anyway "6" is really ~5.5 through ~6.5, whether it's >= or < no idea, but you could deduce that too with a couple data points in editor. i only say that to point it it was a slightly more average catcher than you expected too. not a whole lot of viable 196/200 catchers, either. expect the effect to tail off quickly as you near average. a "140" guy won't be anywhere near as improved compared to the ~average guy. i think the type of pitchers you have matter a bit too... e.g. knuckleballers elevate your passed ball %? maybe not, but when i have a couple on my staff, my good defensive catchers never can win a gold glove, lol. 3 on staff... i don't even look.

09-14-2018, 11:12 AM	#16
Rosco Peabody All Star Starter Join Date: Jun 2013 Location: South of Boston, Massachusetts Posts: 1,092	Excellent study. As a science teacher, I applaud your thoroughness __________________ . Been playing since OOTP '08 Avatar is a picture of me drawn by one of my students a few years ago (My real name is not Rosco, nor do I live anywhere near Peabody)

09-14-2018, 12:03 PM	#17
ThePretender All Star Starter Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 1,331	Good study, but I hope you're wrong because then I'm not sure the punishment is significant enough for low defence. Seems like a very worthwhile trade off to go with a 3-5 defence catcher (1-10 scale) who is a 1B type of bat over a plus defender with no bat.

09-14-2018, 12:57 PM	#19
ThePretender All Star Starter Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 1,331	Well, I'll be upfront in that I think the negative consequences for playing poor defensive players should be increased significantly at all positions, so I guess I'm just not surprised the penalty is lower than it realistically should be for catcher via your experiment. If typically I use a 7 defensive catcher, the downgrade to 4 defensively is 15 runs, and I can quite easily find a bat worth more than that who can play defence that poorly and get more value. Really shouldn't be so easy to do that, if you ask me. Should start going down a lot more at the lower levels, not a linear drop. Last edited by ThePretender; 09-14-2018 at 12:58 PM.

09-14-2018, 03:59 PM	#20
RonCo Hall Of Famer Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 10,508	As some have said, the impact of catcher defense in OOTP is more than framing. It's fewer PB, fewer WP, better control of the running game (which can actually have a negative effect, oddly), and actually fielding the position. Add all those up and I think the impact of a catcher's defense is probably fairly significant.