catcher's ability to call games

scarface · 02-28-2005, 11:10 PM

I was thinking it would be pretty cool if the game would have ratings on how well catchers can call games. a example of how this could be useful is maybe if you have a high rated catcher in this ability that during games with the catchers help a 2 1/2 star SP will pitch as a 3 star pitcher. the opposite could also occur if your team has a weak catcher at calling games where it could knock your 2 1/2 star pitcher down to a 2 star pitcher for that game. i dont know just a suggestion.

DiMaggio5CF · 03-01-2005, 12:23 AM

In addition to this, I'd also like a rating that deals with developing young pitchers. The call-game rating would improve all pitchers at the moment, and the develop pitchers rating would have a lasting impact on the development of young pitchers at the major league level.

sporr · 03-01-2005, 12:46 AM

This has been discussed at length. As of right now, I don't believe there is any statistical evidence to support it. However, others would argue that it still exists. Plus, the game does model clutch, loyalty, leadership, etc.

dougaiton · 03-01-2005, 10:42 AM

^^^^ Exactly. There is no evidence as to:
a) what effects catchers have on development
b) what effects game-calling has on a game, and if it is a repeatable skill or not.

For a RL example, Pudge Rodriguez was considered to be a terrible play-caller in Texas, asking for fastballs to boost his Runners Thrown Out percentage and generally causing his pitchers to give up runs. Yet when he moved to Florida, he was described as a great play-caller who was helping the kids develop! Ben Davis was considered a terrible play-caller, while Dan Wilson was a great one, yet the 2002 (or 3) Seattle staff performed better with Davis behind the plate.

I can't argue that these abilities don't exist, but in a computer simulation, like OOTP, which basically is a lot of number crunching, if you can't think of a formula to model it (i.e. x's rating affects ERA by y) and prove that formula exists in real life, then sadly OOTP can't replicate it.

andymac · 03-01-2005, 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dougaiton

^^^^ Exactly. There is no evidence as to:
a) what effects catchers have on development
b) what effects game-calling has on a game, and if it is a repeatable skill or not.

For a RL example, Pudge Rodriguez was considered to be a terrible play-caller in Texas, asking for fastballs to boost his Runners Thrown Out percentage and generally causing his pitchers to give up runs. Yet when he moved to Florida, he was described as a great play-caller who was helping the kids develop! Ben Davis was considered a terrible play-caller, while Dan Wilson was a great one, yet the 2002 (or 3) Seattle staff performed better with Davis behind the plate.

I can't argue that these abilities don't exist, but in a computer simulation, like OOTP, which basically is a lot of number crunching, if you can't think of a formula to model it (i.e. x's rating affects ERA by y) and prove that formula exists in real life, then sadly OOTP can't replicate it.

Maybe it should be considered a developable skill. I think OOTP needs to add something that adds value to veteran catchers. Right now there is no reason to keep an aging/veteran catcher on the team unless he has good hitting skills, while this is not the case in MLB. What I would love to see in the future is some sort of "relationship" rating that can differ for each pitcher/catcher relationship...basically, pitchers may have a preference as to who they want to catch them.

phenom · 03-01-2005, 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dougaiton

^^^^ Exactly. There is no evidence as to:
a) what effects catchers have on development
b) what effects game-calling has on a game, and if it is a repeatable skill or not.

For a RL example, Pudge Rodriguez was considered to be a terrible play-caller in Texas, asking for fastballs to boost his Runners Thrown Out percentage and generally causing his pitchers to give up runs. Yet when he moved to Florida, he was described as a great play-caller who was helping the kids develop! Ben Davis was considered a terrible play-caller, while Dan Wilson was a great one, yet the 2002 (or 3) Seattle staff performed better with Davis behind the plate.

I can't argue that these abilities don't exist, but in a computer simulation, like OOTP, which basically is a lot of number crunching, if you can't think of a formula to model it (i.e. x's rating affects ERA by y) and prove that formula exists in real life, then sadly OOTP can't replicate it.

uhh... maybe CERA?

dougaiton · 03-01-2005, 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by phenom

uhh... maybe CERA?

I'm not sure I understand - Component ERA?

Obviously, component ERA would be what you'd use (except in OOTP6 you'd actually need to use a DIPS-related metric) rather than flat ERA, but as I was making a rhetorical point, I didn't think I'd need to use such fine definitions

Unless you are saying that CERA and ERA is the difference made up by the quality of the catcher, but CERA is a measure of ERA if 'situations' were equal for everyone. I don't see any link there between the catcher's quality, considering the case would be that a catcher influences the pitcher, but doesn't influence his walks, ks, hits or homers.

ifspuds · 03-01-2005, 01:10 PM

I'm guessing he means Catcher's ERA, the ERA of the staff while a certain catcher is behind the plate. But I'm pretty sure studies have shown that catcher ERA is wildly inconsistent from season to season and likely doesn't have any predictive or descriptive value.

andymac · 03-01-2005, 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ifspuds

I'm guessing he means Catcher's ERA, the ERA of the staff while a certain catcher is behind the plate. But I'm pretty sure studies have shown that catcher ERA is wildly inconsistent from season to season and likely doesn't have any predictive or descriptive value.

Right, because it is too depended on the quality of the pitchers. I think this is just one of those things that isn't measureable by statistics. It is more like a coaching rating and I think most people would agree that having a good pitching coach can help a pitcher. Catchers should probably be regarded the same way.

knockahoma · 03-10-2005, 11:04 AM

Hi,

This is actually my 2nd post. I bought OOTP 4 and saw a similar thread.
Recently, I just purchased 6. So, I thought I'd pass the thought along again.

Whether or not statistics seem to support catcher-pitcher chemistry, or the "smart defensive, pitch-calling catcher's" value, historically MANAGERS have believed in such catching qualities-- and created lineups with them in mind.

I DO think the AI should take that into consideration, especially as playing historical replays is a big part of OOTP. Those managers in the 40s, 50s and 60's believed in the theory of the "smart" catcher. It kept average armed and the athletically mediocre in the league for years. In OOTP, without this consideration placed in the minds of AI managers, Duffy Dyers don't last as long as they did in real life.

Considering there is no statistical evidence, no change has to be made to the engine for increasing performances of the pitchers-- but a simple programming asterisk could recognize these catchers as 'purportedly' valuable in these areas. Meanwhile, these types of catchers stick around and get into the lineup.

Fibonacci · 03-10-2005, 12:34 PM

While this might be a good idea for fictional leagues, I don't like it because it would distort historical league simulations. Historical pitcher's effectiveness, (i.e. their stats) have already been determined/effected by their catcher's ability to call a game.

Secondly, a major part of a catcher's effectiveness is his ability to call pitches based on his knowledge of the opposing hitters. Would catcher's ability to call games mean we have to throw out the pitch-by-pitch feature? (I'm not sure if it's been revealed if the pbp feature includes calling the type and location of pitches.)

lstephen666 · 03-10-2005, 09:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andymac

Maybe it should be considered a developable skill. I think OOTP needs to add something that adds value to veteran catchers. Right now there is no reason to keep an aging/veteran catcher on the team unless he has good hitting skills, while this is not the case in MLB. What I would love to see in the future is some sort of "relationship" rating that can differ for each pitcher/catcher relationship...basically, pitchers may have a preference as to who they want to catch them.

I would say, in general, that having more experienced players on your team should help player development. So, it becomes an advantage to have experienced players anywhere in your team. There may have to be some sort of weighting given to this because pitchers and catchers work together more often, so a pitcher would develop better with an experienced catcher than an experienced RF.

knockahoma · 03-11-2005, 10:12 AM

Iste wrote: Right now there is no reason to keep an aging/veteran catcher on the team unless he has good hitting skills, while this is not the case in MLB

I feel the same way, especially when I do historical replays. I also agree with the other poster. Changing the catcher's imput on the game affects historical stats. That's bad.

So, just have an asterisk on a catcher that the AI notes. That imitates the belief system of those era managers who played smart catchers. No change to the stats engine needed (which changes historical outcomes, and has no statistical backing), but the CAREERS of the catchers, the "purportedly smart catchers" last longer, as in real life, because of PERCEPTION.

Rick

Fibonacci · 03-11-2005, 01:10 PM

I think that there may be a way to realistically implement catcher's game-calling abilities in historical league simulations. Perhaps you could look at a catcher's offensive and defensive statistics and compare this to the percentage of their team's games that they played. For instance, a catcher that played a high percentage of games, but had poor offensive and defensive stats might be in the game because of his ability to handle pitchers or call the game. (For our discussion here, I'm equating ability to handle pitchers and call a game to be statistically the same.) This catcher would slightly raise a pitcher's stats. Similarly, a catcher with good offensive or defensive stats that played relatively little, would slightly decrease a pitcher's stats. After all, if some catchers are exceptional and raise pitcher's stats, there must be catchers that lower their stats. Other catchers (that seem to play as much or as little as their offensive and defensive abilities dictate) would be assigned game-calling abilities randomly, with no effect being the most common.

SInce you normally play good players more often; the bad catchers would hvet to outnumber the good catchers to insure historical accuracy.

Carlton · 03-11-2005, 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by knockahoma

Hi,

This is actually my 2nd post. I bought OOTP 4 and saw a similar thread.
Recently, I just purchased 6. So, I thought I'd pass the thought along again.

Whether or not statistics seem to support catcher-pitcher chemistry, or the "smart defensive, pitch-calling catcher's" value, historically MANAGERS have believed in such catching qualities-- and created lineups with them in mind.

I DO think the AI should take that into consideration, especially as playing historical replays is a big part of OOTP. Those managers in the 40s, 50s and 60's believed in the theory of the "smart" catcher. It kept average armed and the athletically mediocre in the league for years. In OOTP, without this consideration placed in the minds of AI managers, Duffy Dyers don't last as long as they did in real life.

Considering there is no statistical evidence, no change has to be made to the engine for increasing performances of the pitchers-- but a simple programming asterisk could recognize these catchers as 'purportedly' valuable in these areas. Meanwhile, these types of catchers stick around and get into the lineup.

Watch it now...I got into a big pissing match with others about this very thing...lol

But you are correct, historically, C and SS were more defense orientated...and Catcher's had a variety of attributes besides offense that made them stand out...
Schalk and his amazing defense, and knowing batter tendecies
Jimmy Archer and his iron molded gun for an arm
Roger Bresnahan and his loud obnoxious berating of batters

The best option I feel, is to have it in the era settings, much like the leadoff AI...where you can choose whether offense, defense or neutral is more valued at a given position.

andymac · 03-11-2005, 04:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carlton

Watch it now...I got into a big pissing match with others about this very thing...lol

But you are correct, historically, C and SS were more defense orientated...and Catcher's had a variety of attributes besides offense that made them stand out...
Schalk and his amazing defense, and knowing batter tendecies
Jimmy Archer and his iron molded gun for an arm
Roger Bresnahan and his loud obnoxious berating of batters

The best option I feel, is to have it in the era settings, much like the leadoff AI...where you can choose whether offense, defense or neutral is more valued at a given position.

There are many modern versions also. Would Brad Ausmus or Mike Matheny have jobs in the league (much less starting jobs) if they were considered average defensive catchers? Maybe the game just needs to put a much larger emphasis on defense when evaluating catchers. As it is now, the Mike Matheny types get benched/released, while in real life they are getting 3yr. 10mil. dollar deals.

toanstrom · 03-11-2005, 05:03 PM

a quick question on this. I have assumed that if you boost a catchers range it will (essentially) lead to his being a good "pitch caller" since a catcher with better range will create more k's (in the game model) thereby helping his pitchers. Does anyone know if this holds up?

sixto · 03-11-2005, 05:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carlton

The best option I feel, is to have it in the era settings, much like the leadoff AI...where you can choose whether offense, defense or neutral is more valued at a given position.

This is a very good idea. But having a game-calling rating is not a good idea. Of course as andymac inadvertently mentioned, some catchers or shortstops even today are kept on for supposed defensive or leadership qualities. It's not an era setting, it's a coach setting. Fortunately managers with different personalities should be a part of v7.

Also, you can assume that ability to call a game is wrapped into a catcher's defensive ratings. For historical teams, it's double jeopardy - what happens to stats when you put a catcher with high game-calling ratings with the pitching staff that historically benefited from throwing to that catcher?

It's the same reason that park effects shouldn't be used for historical leagues unless you use park-adjusted stats to generate your players.

The bottom line is, there is little benefit to creating this sort of micromanagement aspect to the game. If a catcher is a good game caller, then that will be evident by the team's low ERA, or by young pitchers whose abilities improve.

knockahoma · 03-11-2005, 06:04 PM

Well, hello all.

Your comments raised a couple of questions for me.

Carlton wrote: careful, I got into a big pissing match about this very thing lol

What???? Baseball fans getting into a big pissing match over strategic issues? Can't imagine such a thing!

Carlton wrote: have it in the era settings, much like the leadoff, where you can choose whether offense, defense or neutral is more valued....

I missed this option, I guess. Where is it? Sounds great. Sounds like my *asterisk* note to the AI could work thru this option very easily, without affecting statistical output on the historical pitching.

Sixto, I also considered that various managers would look at the issue differently-- but, I think the idea of defensive SS and C was pretty pervasive through out most of history. If to err, err on the side of the majority.

I think it was considered baseball GOSPEL that you win championships by being strong defensively "up the middle".

Toanstrom, you mentioned that increasing a catcher's range increases his play-calling according to the AI? If so, for the time being, that's how I'll keep those light hitting catchers more highly valued until something better comes along.

Sixto, you're right about boosting a catcher's ratings and how that affects the historical replay if that catchers' talents are ALREADY evidenced in the team ERA. But I don't think it's micromanagement to ensure the AI keeps defensive SS and Catchers on major league rosters over a period of years as was the case in real life.

So, what's the drawback of a "perception asterisk" for these types of players? These players will be treated as they were historically, yet won't cause statistical imbalances.

Rick

knockahoma · 03-11-2005, 06:13 PM

By the way, is there a list out there detailing what rookies showed up in the year 1951, 52, 53, etc.? Thought I'd try to build them into the system a couple of years early. I tend to follow the whole league as a reporter type. Great fun. I'd like to see vintage players come up thru the system, slowly but surely. There's another advantage, too:

I don't like filling the 1944 minor league system with fictional players who are apparently on some high protein diet unavailable to other era players. What's with all the 220 pounders showing up at SS?

"Fellas, since there's a talent shortage on account of the war, I want to introduce you to Mongo. He's our new shortstop. I know he's 50 pounds heavier than da other shortstops around the league. Truth is, he's a government war experiment gone wrong. And while I'm at it, might as well introduce our new bullpen ace, Suki Yaki..... actually, I don't know why I'm even bothering to tell ya guys all this. C'mon in to my office..... Sit down. There ain't no easy way to tell you this...damnit! You're all real stand-up guys! Great hearts...but, I might as well just say it: You've all been replaced by our AAA team out of Venezuela.

Rick

02-28-2005, 11:10 PM	#1
scarface Minors (Rookie Ball) Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 36	catcher's ability to call games I was thinking it would be pretty cool if the game would have ratings on how well catchers can call games. a example of how this could be useful is maybe if you have a high rated catcher in this ability that during games with the catchers help a 2 1/2 star SP will pitch as a 3 star pitcher. the opposite could also occur if your team has a weak catcher at calling games where it could knock your 2 1/2 star pitcher down to a 2 star pitcher for that game. i dont know just a suggestion.

03-01-2005, 10:42 AM	#4
dougaiton Hall Of Famer Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Location: Posts: 3,414	^^^^ Exactly. There is no evidence as to: a) what effects catchers have on development b) what effects game-calling has on a game, and if it is a repeatable skill or not. For a RL example, Pudge Rodriguez was considered to be a terrible play-caller in Texas, asking for fastballs to boost his Runners Thrown Out percentage and generally causing his pitchers to give up runs. Yet when he moved to Florida, he was described as a great play-caller who was helping the kids develop! Ben Davis was considered a terrible play-caller, while Dan Wilson was a great one, yet the 2002 (or 3) Seattle staff performed better with Davis behind the plate. I can't argue that these abilities don't exist, but in a computer simulation, like OOTP, which basically is a lot of number crunching, if you can't think of a formula to model it (i.e. x's rating affects ERA by y) and prove that formula exists in real life, then sadly OOTP can't replicate it. __________________ tThis shower of clowns My park-adjusted, historically split Born in '69 league file! (also at Joe's wonderful site +BBSC)

03-01-2005, 01:10 PM	#8
ifspuds Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Spokane WA Posts: 2,117	I'm guessing he means Catcher's ERA, the ERA of the staff while a certain catcher is behind the plate. But I'm pretty sure studies have shown that catcher ERA is wildly inconsistent from season to season and likely doesn't have any predictive or descriptive value. __________________ Jeff Watson Former dynasty writer and online league player, now mostly retired

03-10-2005, 11:04 AM	#10
knockahoma All Star Reserve Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 792	Hi, This is actually my 2nd post. I bought OOTP 4 and saw a similar thread. Recently, I just purchased 6. So, I thought I'd pass the thought along again. Whether or not statistics seem to support catcher-pitcher chemistry, or the "smart defensive, pitch-calling catcher's" value, historically MANAGERS have believed in such catching qualities-- and created lineups with them in mind. I DO think the AI should take that into consideration, especially as playing historical replays is a big part of OOTP. Those managers in the 40s, 50s and 60's believed in the theory of the "smart" catcher. It kept average armed and the athletically mediocre in the league for years. In OOTP, without this consideration placed in the minds of AI managers, Duffy Dyers don't last as long as they did in real life. Considering there is no statistical evidence, no change has to be made to the engine for increasing performances of the pitchers-- but a simple programming asterisk could recognize these catchers as 'purportedly' valuable in these areas. Meanwhile, these types of catchers stick around and get into the lineup. Last edited by knockahoma; 03-10-2005 at 11:09 AM.

03-10-2005, 12:34 PM	#11
Fibonacci Minors (Triple A) Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 283	While this might be a good idea for fictional leagues, I don't like it because it would distort historical league simulations. Historical pitcher's effectiveness, (i.e. their stats) have already been determined/effected by their catcher's ability to call a game. Secondly, a major part of a catcher's effectiveness is his ability to call pitches based on his knowledge of the opposing hitters. Would catcher's ability to call games mean we have to throw out the pitch-by-pitch feature? (I'm not sure if it's been revealed if the pbp feature includes calling the type and location of pitches.) __________________ It is not certain that everything is uncertain. - Blaise Pascal

03-01-2005, 12:23 AM	#2
DiMaggio5CF All Star Reserve Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 921	In addition to this, I'd also like a rating that deals with developing young pitchers. The call-game rating would improve all pitchers at the moment, and the develop pitchers rating would have a lasting impact on the development of young pitchers at the major league level.

03-01-2005, 12:46 AM	#3
sporr Global Moderator Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Muscatine, IA Posts: 8,277	This has been discussed at length. As of right now, I don't believe there is any statistical evidence to support it. However, others would argue that it still exists. Plus, the game does model clutch, loyalty, leadership, etc.

03-11-2005, 10:12 AM	#13
knockahoma All Star Reserve Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 792	Iste wrote: Right now there is no reason to keep an aging/veteran catcher on the team unless he has good hitting skills, while this is not the case in MLB I feel the same way, especially when I do historical replays. I also agree with the other poster. Changing the catcher's imput on the game affects historical stats. That's bad. So, just have an asterisk on a catcher that the AI notes. That imitates the belief system of those era managers who played smart catchers. No change to the stats engine needed (which changes historical outcomes, and has no statistical backing), but the CAREERS of the catchers, the "purportedly smart catchers" last longer, as in real life, because of PERCEPTION. Rick Last edited by knockahoma; 03-11-2005 at 11:28 AM.

03-11-2005, 01:10 PM	#14
Fibonacci Minors (Triple A) Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 283	I think that there may be a way to realistically implement catcher's game-calling abilities in historical league simulations. Perhaps you could look at a catcher's offensive and defensive statistics and compare this to the percentage of their team's games that they played. For instance, a catcher that played a high percentage of games, but had poor offensive and defensive stats might be in the game because of his ability to handle pitchers or call the game. (For our discussion here, I'm equating ability to handle pitchers and call a game to be statistically the same.) This catcher would slightly raise a pitcher's stats. Similarly, a catcher with good offensive or defensive stats that played relatively little, would slightly decrease a pitcher's stats. After all, if some catchers are exceptional and raise pitcher's stats, there must be catchers that lower their stats. Other catchers (that seem to play as much or as little as their offensive and defensive abilities dictate) would be assigned game-calling abilities randomly, with no effect being the most common. SInce you normally play good players more often; the bad catchers would hvet to outnumber the good catchers to insure historical accuracy. __________________ It is not certain that everything is uncertain. - Blaise Pascal Last edited by Fibonacci; 03-11-2005 at 01:36 PM.

03-11-2005, 05:03 PM	#17
toanstrom Minors (Triple A) Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 277	a quick question on this. I have assumed that if you boost a catchers range it will (essentially) lead to his being a good "pitch caller" since a catcher with better range will create more k's (in the game model) thereby helping his pitchers. Does anyone know if this holds up?

03-11-2005, 06:04 PM	#19
knockahoma All Star Reserve Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 792	Well, hello all. Your comments raised a couple of questions for me. Carlton wrote: careful, I got into a big pissing match about this very thing lol What???? Baseball fans getting into a big pissing match over strategic issues? Can't imagine such a thing! Carlton wrote: have it in the era settings, much like the leadoff, where you can choose whether offense, defense or neutral is more valued.... I missed this option, I guess. Where is it? Sounds great. Sounds like my asterisk note to the AI could work thru this option very easily, without affecting statistical output on the historical pitching. Sixto, I also considered that various managers would look at the issue differently-- but, I think the idea of defensive SS and C was pretty pervasive through out most of history. If to err, err on the side of the majority. I think it was considered baseball GOSPEL that you win championships by being strong defensively "up the middle". Toanstrom, you mentioned that increasing a catcher's range increases his play-calling according to the AI? If so, for the time being, that's how I'll keep those light hitting catchers more highly valued until something better comes along. Sixto, you're right about boosting a catcher's ratings and how that affects the historical replay if that catchers' talents are ALREADY evidenced in the team ERA. But I don't think it's micromanagement to ensure the AI keeps defensive SS and Catchers on major league rosters over a period of years as was the case in real life. So, what's the drawback of a "perception asterisk" for these types of players? These players will be treated as they were historically, yet won't cause statistical imbalances. Rick Last edited by knockahoma; 03-11-2005 at 07:13 PM.

03-11-2005, 06:13 PM	#20
knockahoma All Star Reserve Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 792	By the way, is there a list out there detailing what rookies showed up in the year 1951, 52, 53, etc.? Thought I'd try to build them into the system a couple of years early. I tend to follow the whole league as a reporter type. Great fun. I'd like to see vintage players come up thru the system, slowly but surely. There's another advantage, too: I don't like filling the 1944 minor league system with fictional players who are apparently on some high protein diet unavailable to other era players. What's with all the 220 pounders showing up at SS? "Fellas, since there's a talent shortage on account of the war, I want to introduce you to Mongo. He's our new shortstop. I know he's 50 pounds heavier than da other shortstops around the league. Truth is, he's a government war experiment gone wrong. And while I'm at it, might as well introduce our new bullpen ace, Suki Yaki..... actually, I don't know why I'm even bothering to tell ya guys all this. C'mon in to my office..... Sit down. There ain't no easy way to tell you this...damnit! You're all real stand-up guys! Great hearts...but, I might as well just say it: You've all been replaced by our AAA team out of Venezuela. Rick Last edited by knockahoma; 03-11-2005 at 06:46 PM.