Catcher Influence

[CBL-Commish]

Originally Posted by Eumel

Just to be clear: I did not run any serious tests on this. Because I was curious I took Jason Giambi and let him play at shortstop all year, resulting in a ZR somewhere between -20 and -30. If the delta for actual shortstops is 3 wins, then the worst of these guys should be around -15 or so. Giambi wasn't much worse for me.

What were Giambi's infield ratings, if you remember? I went into the editor and made the bad first baseman's ratings 10 across the board, with zero experience at short. Giambi's infield ratings were probably not that bad. Maybe that's the difference.

[Curve Ball Dave]

Originally Posted by injury log

One effect that has gone unmentioned so far: commentators often talk about a catcher's ability to 'frame' a pitch - i.e. to turn a ball into a strike. I have no idea if that ability is just an invention of modern baseball commentary or a genuine phenomenon, but if it is a genuine effect, I would imagine incompetent catchers would be worse at it than good ones.

There are no incompetent catchers at the MLB level so it's not an issue. Framing is very real and it's a skill that every catcher must learn. It becomes second nature to any catcher. I got the art down by the time I was in high school and I had only been catching for about 4 years. There is no MLB catcher who does not have this ability.

For that matter, the ability to block pitches in the dirt becomes second nature after a while too. Just as there are no MLB catchers who cannot frame, there are no MLB catchers who cannot block pitches. Some are exceptional at it and can block pitches far out of the strike zone, but all can block a pitch if they are given a fighting chance. Like framing, blocking was another skill I had down by high school. It's something you learn and then it becomes a reflex. You don't even think about it.

I'll reiterate my previous point, at lower levels of baseball there is a greater disparity in talent. There are such things as bad, incompetent catchers at lower levels like high school or even low levels of college, but not in the pros. Pro catchers, even in the low minors, can frame and block pitches. If a young catcher in low A ball does not know how to call a game, you can bet your life that if he makes it to AA he for sure can or he never would have made it that far.

Catcher's influence can be dramatic in the running game, but it's minimal everywhere else at the MLB level. There are certain skills that are part of the job description and if a guy does not posess these skills he doesn't catch in the Majors, period.

[RonCo]

Originally Posted by CBL-Commish

My thinking was that we occasionally see a shortstop at +30 or even a bit more, like Everett or Ozzie. And we sometimes see one near -30, like Jeter.

That's 60 runs, or six wins, right there. To me replacing Jeter with Kent Hrbek would have to be another 30-40 runs (plausibly more), making the Everett-Hrbek difference around 100.

Hmmm...one silly question. Is the OOTP Zone rating a simple +/- based on plays (as the manual seems to suggest), or is it more of a UZR rating, scaled to runs?

Here's the Manual Entry:

"•ZR - "Zone Rating" - developed by John Dewan, A player gets credit (a "plus" number) if he makes a play that at least one other player at his position missed during the season, and he loses credit (a "minus" number) if he misses a play that at least one player made. The size of the credit is directly related to how often players make the play. Each play is looked at individually, and a score is given for each play. Sum up all the plays for each player at his position and you get his total plus/minus for the season. A total plus/minus score near zero means the player is average. A score above zero is above average and a negative score is below average."

[injury log]

Thanks for an interesting post, Dave. Re this:

Originally Posted by Curve Ball Dave

There are no incompetent catchers at the MLB level so it's not an issue.

Yes, I agree that incompetent catchers essentially never play in MLB except in the rarest of emergency situations. When I've been discussing 'incompetent' catchers, I've been discussing what ought to happen defensively when an OOTP player puts, say, their CF in as their catcher. OOTP players can use incompetent catchers if they like.

Since you have experience at the position, I'd be curious to know what you think would happen if a real life team put an outfielder with no catching experience behind the plate during a real MLB game.

[Curve Ball Dave]

Originally Posted by injury log

Since you have experience at the position, I'd be curious to know what you think would happen if a real life team put an outfielder with no catching experience behind the plate during a real MLB game.

The short version? Things would get ugly in a hurry. Nothing an outfielder does translate to catching. Outfielders use a different technique to catch a ball, and they have a much different throwing motion. At best, such a player can baby sit the position and receive the pitches, but little else.

An infielder would have more skills that would translate to catching if they went into it without any prior experience.

[ike121212]

Originally Posted by Curve Ball Dave

Framing is very real and it's a skill that every catcher must learn.

I don't think you're giving major league umpires enough credit. They aren't fooled by framing. If they were, this would be a very easy thing to see in the stats. It's a skill that becomes less valuable with each level you advance.

[Curve Ball Dave]

Originally Posted by ike121212

I don't think you're giving major league umpires enough credit. They aren't fooled by framing. If they were, this would be a very easy thing to see in the stats. It's a skill that becomes less valuable with each level you advance.

If that were the case, MLB catchers would not try to frame pitches. Every little bit helps, even if it means the difference of only a few extra pitches being called strikes over the course of a nine inning game.

[ike121212]

Originally Posted by Curve Ball Dave

If that were the case, MLB catchers would not try to frame pitches. Every little bit helps, even if it means the difference of only a few extra pitches being called strikes over the course of a nine inning game.

They really don't put much effort into it, in my opinion. If they actually did get a few extra strikes a game, the stats would show it.

[CBL-Commish]

Originally Posted by RonCo

Hmmm...one silly question. Is the OOTP Zone rating a simple +/- based on plays (as the manual seems to suggest), or is it more of a UZR rating, scaled to runs?

Here's the Manual Entry:

"•ZR - "Zone Rating" - developed by John Dewan, A player gets credit (a "plus" number) if he makes a play that at least one other player at his position missed during the season, and he loses credit (a "minus" number) if he misses a play that at least one player made. The size of the credit is directly related to how often players make the play. Each play is looked at individually, and a score is given for each play. Sum up all the plays for each player at his position and you get his total plus/minus for the season. A total plus/minus score near zero means the player is average. A score above zero is above average and a negative score is below average."

Huh... I don't know, maybe it's not so silly a question. I'd assumed it was scaled to runs, but now I'm not sure.

[Cinnamon J. Scudworth]

Originally Posted by ike121212

I don't think you're giving major league umpires enough credit. They aren't fooled by framing. If they were, this would be a very easy thing to see in the stats. It's a skill that becomes less valuable with each level you advance.

I don't understand why this would be a "very easy to thing to see in the stats," particularly since umpires don't necessarily have a consistent strike zone.

[ike121212]

Originally Posted by Cinnamon J. Scudworth

I don't understand why this would be a "very easy to thing to see in the stats," particularly since umpires don't necessarily have a consistent strike zone.

If the best framing catcher in the game got a few extra strikes a game, it would have a noticeable effect on walks and strikeouts and some consistency from year to year. It's just not there.

So, I'm left with the opinion that either everyone is good enough at it, so there's no significant effect, or umpires see through it. As a former catcher and umpire, I lean towards the later.

[statfreak]

Originally Posted by ike121212

If the best framing catcher in the game got a few extra strikes a game, it would have a noticeable effect on walks and strikeouts and some consistency from year to year. It's just not there.

So, I'm left with the opinion that either everyone is good enough at it, so there's no significant effect, or umpires see through it. As a former catcher and umpire, I lean towards the later.

As a former pitcher I disagree.

Based purely on observation, framing a pitch exists as I've seen catchers catch a pitch outside the zone and subtly move it and it is called a strike. Whether the umpire would have called it a strike or not is unknown, but I'll assume at least in some cases the catching framing the pitch resulted in the umpire calling a pitch a strike instead of a ball. Now, if that is true then the whole complexion of the at-bat changes since a batter's batting average is lower when he has a strike than when he doesn't... and lower still when he has two strikes on him. So, while walks and strikeouts may not change dramatically due to a catcher framing a pitch, it, in general, results in the batter making an out more often than if he didn't have that strike called.

As has been said before, just because it can't be measured, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

I will grant that the effect of framing a pitch is difficult, if not impossible, to measure and therefore won't show up in any stats. But even I know that stats are merely a record of what occurred, not how or why it occurred.

[RonCo]

Originally Posted by statfreak

As a former pitcher I disagree.

Based purely on observation, framing a pitch exists as I've seen catchers catch a pitch outside the zone and subtly move it and it is called a strike. Whether the umpire would have called it a strike or not is unknown, but I'll assume at least in some cases the catching framing the pitch resulted in the umpire calling a pitch a strike instead of a ball. Now, if that is true then the whole complexion of the at-bat changes since a batter's batting average is lower when he has a strike than when he doesn't... and lower still when he has two strikes on him. So, while walks and strikeouts may not change dramatically due to a catcher framing a pitch, it, in general, results in the batter making an out more often than if he didn't have that strike called.

As has been said before, just because it can't be measured, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

I will grant that the effect of framing a pitch is difficult, if not impossible, to measure and therefore won't show up in any stats. But even I know that stats are merely a record of what occurred, not how or why it occurred.

If framing exists, and is distributed at different levels among catchers, and influences strike counts, then the results would show up as some catchers creating more strikeouts and lower batting averages.

Therefore, if framing exists, it's probably evenly distributed, or of a very tiny value.

[ike121212]

Originally Posted by statfreak

As a former pitcher I disagree.

Based purely on observation, framing a pitch exists as I've seen catchers catch a pitch outside the zone and subtly move it and it is called a strike. Whether the umpire would have called it a strike or not is unknown, but I'll assume at least in some cases the catching framing the pitch resulted in the umpire calling a pitch a strike instead of a ball. Now, if that is true then the whole complexion of the at-bat changes since a batter's batting average is lower when he has a strike than when he doesn't... and lower still when he has two strikes on him. So, while walks and strikeouts may not change dramatically due to a catcher framing a pitch, it, in general, results in the batter making an out more often than if he didn't have that strike called.

As has been said before, just because it can't be measured, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

I will grant that the effect of framing a pitch is difficult, if not impossible, to measure and therefore won't show up in any stats. But even I know that stats are merely a record of what occurred, not how or why it occurred.

Again, I'm talking ML level here. If you pitched in HS, then everything's different. A great defensive HS catcher is probably worth 1 run+ per game. In College and beyond, that quickly shrinks to statistical insignificance.

Granted, you can't really separate framing from other defensive skills. If you can't detect the cumulative effect, then there's really no compelling argument that framing is significant, but not seen in the results.

To me, the benefit of framing is based on taking advantage of bad umpires.

[endgame]

Originally Posted by ike121212

To me, the benefit of framing is based on taking advantage of bad umpires.

I suppose that regardless of the framework, pardon the pun, the statistical significance is lacking. With good or bad umpires, the skill is practiced and executed to influence the strike zone and is done so, relatively, across the board at the ML level.

Next month we can start an Umpire Influence thread and add to the fun.

[ike121212]

Originally Posted by endgame

Next month we can start an Umpire Influence thread and add to the fun.

I think you'd see a significant influence there

[Curve Ball Dave]

Originally Posted by ike121212

They really don't put much effort into it, in my opinion. If they actually did get a few extra strikes a game, the stats would show it.

Two things: First, every MLB catcher frames pitches and does so very well. The stats don't show it because there are no non-framing catchers to compare against. Second, they "really don't put much effort into it" because as I said, it's second nature.

[ike121212]

Originally Posted by Curve Ball Dave

Two things: First, every MLB catcher frames pitches and does so very well. The stats don't show it because there are no non-framing catchers to compare against. Second, they "really don't put much effort into it" because as I said, it's second nature.

It makes a huge difference, but everyone does it equally well, so it makes no difference. Sorry, don't buy it. I give umps a lot more credit than that. IMO, it makes no difference because MLB umps see right through it. MLB catchers spend a lot less effort on it because there's not nearly as many pitches that they even hope to have an influence on.

[Curve Ball Dave]

Originally Posted by ike121212

It makes a huge difference, but everyone does it equally well, so it makes no difference. Sorry, don't buy it. I give umps a lot more credit than that. IMO, it makes no difference because MLB umps see right through it. MLB catchers spend a lot less effort on it because there's not nearly as many pitches that they even hope to have an influence on.

I take it you never caught in your life. I did it for 15 years before I became a pitcher. Every catcher with any experience frames pitches. Watch an MLB game and observe a catcher receive a pitch just below the knees. You'll notice that no catcher will receive that pitch palm up, they are only caught palm down. Why? Because the catcher is framing it. Observe how a catcher receives a pitch an inch off the outside corner. He will always catch the ball with his palm facing towards home plate, never away if he can help it. Again, that's framing. Watch a guy warm up a pitcher when it doesn't matter, and compare how he receives the ball when there's a batter in the box. I could go on.

It's not a matter of trying to fool an ump. Umpires cannot see every square inch of the strike zone, that's why pitches 3" outside are called strikes if the catcher set up there.

I'll repeat my point: Every MLB catcher frames so there is no statistical comparison to a non-framing catcher.

[Eumel]

Originally Posted by CBL-Commish

What were Giambi's infield ratings, if you remember? I went into the editor and made the bad first baseman's ratings 10 across the board, with zero experience at short. Giambi's infield ratings were probably not that bad. Maybe that's the difference.

Yeah. I dug up the old save game and he had:

Range 8/20
Error 7/20
Arm 9/20
DP 9/20

Bad, but not atrocious. He had -22.4, which still seems a tad too good to me, for a guy with zero experience. Jeter was the second worst SS in the league at -9.9.