He's saying that, for example, if you are a team that controls Jose Molina, you can fleece another team that focuses too much on pitch framing. Because you know Molina's true value, and the statistically-hubratic team overrates him.
Marlins just DFA'd Salty
- Thread starter nattysez
- Start date
Buchholz in 2013 had a .558 OPS allowed in 61 innings throwing to Salty...but a .529 OPS allowed in 41 innings throwing to Ross. As noted, the Red Sox BENCHED Salty in the World Series.Plympton91 said:
The thing about the pitch framing metrics is that it's not some crazy new thing. Pitchers have felt more "comfortable" throwing to different catchers for a long time. Now we just have a better idea of one of the reasons why.
I mean, Greg Maddux knew a thing or two about pitching and he had a personal catcher instead of throwing to Javy Lopez. He probably wasn't counting up how many extra strike calls he got with Eddie Perez but it was something he felt intuitively. Now we have some data that backs up that intuive feeling that a lot of pitchers have had.
Also it's not just pitch framing, I think it's a mistake to think that teams are focusing solely on that and not all of the other defensive aspects of the catcher's role.
Personally I think catcher defense was undervalued for a long time (I remember arguing here extensively in 2009 that NY was better off with Jose Molina and his .560 OPS behind the plate than they were with the defensively lousy Jorge Posada and his .885 OPS), the catcher has an impact on every pitch your team throws. I suppose you could argue that people have moved too far in the other direction now (Russell Martin's big contract for instance), but I really think the impact of a good defensive catcher (pitch calling, pitch framing, throwing runners out, blocking balls in the dirt, etc) can be quite large, and the opposite, a lousy defensive catcher, will take its toll on most pitching staffs (maybe not a very experienced one) over the course of the season.
Personally I think catcher defense was undervalued for a long time (I remember arguing here extensively in 2009 that NY was better off with Jose Molina and his .560 OPS behind the plate than they were with the defensively lousy Jorge Posada and his .885 OPS), the catcher has an impact on every pitch your team throws. I suppose you could argue that people have moved too far in the other direction now (Russell Martin's big contract for instance), but I really think the impact of a good defensive catcher (pitch calling, pitch framing, throwing runners out, blocking balls in the dirt, etc) can be quite large, and the opposite, a lousy defensive catcher, will take its toll on most pitching staffs (maybe not a very experienced one) over the course of the season.
crystalline said:
OK, so this is basically the flip side of intentionally overpaying for a player whose suggested value is lower based on statistical analysis--sell off pieces that you think are overvalued by means of statistical analysis? But nobody places a valuation on a player solely based on pitch framing (or any other single statistic), right? So you have to determine the player's value based on a mix of information, including various statistical theories, the team alternatives, needs, etc. It seems like this is just another way of saying look for good deals, based on all of the information available, and understand the limits of statistical analysis in forming that valuation? I still don't understand the theory for exploiting statistical hubris.
I'm really not trying to be argumentative for its own sake. I think it's an interesting idea, if there are concrete ways that we can show statistical analyses are misleading. Just trying to see if there's a methodology there, rather than "do what I think is right."
Toe Nash said:
I'd bet that pitch framing plays a role, but a small one. I suspect that most of whether a pitcher feels comfortable with a catcher is in how they call the game. They don't want to be constantly shaking off their catcher, and they want to be on the same page about the best way to approach different batters, when to pitch backwards, etc...
Toe Nash said:
Maybe, but that assumes what Maddux liked was Eddie Perez's pitch framing, when it also could have been that he and Perez were more likely to agree about what pitch to throw, or that Perez's ability to block pitches in the dirt made him more aggressive when throwing his breaking pitches, or maybe even that Perez had a better sense of humor that helped control pressure situations. Your post is a classic illustration of the lamppost fallacy -- we can measure pitch framing and Perez was a good pitch framer so of course that was why Maddux preferred throwing to him. Of course. Has to be.
BroodsSexton said:
That's exactly what I was getting at. In particular, understand the limits of the statistical metric some in this thread are now claiming is the be all and end all of catcher value because of some outlier result for Jose Molina 2 years ago.
And, also, might be symptomatic of any team that prefers Sandy freakin' Leon and his sub-Kevin-Cash-level projected offense to Jerrod Saltalamacchia.
Of course Salty's 2 for 29 this year. I don't think he's done, but he wasn't exactly playing well either. 15 errors last year too.Plympton91 said:
It's probably as simple as Farrell doesn't and didn't like him as a catcher. He wasn't hitting in the playoffs, and he started throwing the ball all over the place.
This is cute, since you're arguing against yourself. If we go back to the point of this thread, there's a lot of other things that we don't have hard data on re: Salty that could be additional reasons why the Red Sox benched him in the World Series and why Jon Lester didn't throw to him. You're saying that because we know his pitch framing is bad we're putting too much emphasis on that, but given that he has never had a reputation as a good defensive catcher and the Marlins have no decided to eat millions of dollars rather than keep him on the team, I'd suspect it's just that he sucks at a lot of things, framing being one of them.Plympton91 said:
Kevin Jewkilis said:
jon abbey said:
Plympton91 said:
OK--just so we're clear, the bolded statement isn't true, right? Because what sits above your quote are the only two previous references to framing in this thread, and they do exactly the opposite of what you've asserted, i.e., they suggest framing is just one factor to be considered along with others.
But it's the second paragraph that confirms for me there's no real method to your complaint, because you're comparing apples and oranges, i.e., the defense of Sandy Leon (his presumptive comparative advantage) to the offense of Saltalamacchia (though as SJH points out, even that isn't a given). Unless you have some way of actually comparing the relative benefit of defense vs. offense to the team, you're just a grumpy old man. Ahh well, this was a nice diversion.
Plympton91 said:
Salt wasn't available when they got Leon. And as a FA making millions for sitting at home, his agent may have already given the signal that he's not signing to be a backup. Or the Sox -- scouts, FO, Farrell -- predicted this *exact* career path. Devolving from a below average catcher whose hitting might give him value to an even worse defensive catcher who cant hit.
Toe Nash said:
I never complained here about the Red Sox benching him in championship round of the new post-season tournament. At the end of 2013, he was struggling offensively and defensively, and going with the hotter hand for a couple extremely important games makes all the sense in the world. And, I wouldn't be arguing to bring him back if the Red Sox had Hannigan and Vazquez as planned. Sandy Leon makes David Ross circa 2013 look like Johnny Bench.
BroodsSexton said:
I believe at least in the second quote, the "other factor" being considered was his 2-29 season opening slump.
And by "some way of actually comparing the relative benefit of defense vs. offense" you mean one that requires a spreadsheet right? 45 years of playing and watching baseball and a Ph.D. in applied statistics providing lots of training in spotting bullshit masquerading as statistical analysis only qualify you for grumpy old man status, right.
joe dokes said:
That would be reasonable, and it must be the case that the Red Sox feel that way or they'd be pursuing him, right? But, that just gets back to the discussion killing conclusion of "Don't question the front office, they have more resources than you do." O.k., then, let's shut down the Board, or make a rule that only praise of the front office is allowed.
Molina's terrible pitch framing must be the reason the Cardinals lost those six games this year. He must feel awful about it.
Max Power said:
Yeah, no surprise that Nate Silver looks at that dichotomy and concludes, "Molina has lost it!!!! Cardinals are doomed!!" rather than, "This suggests the framing statistic is wildly variable and can be quirky for reasons I don't understand yet."
There's something wrong w/ BP's model though. On StatCorner, Molina is the 19th ranked catcher by cumulative RAA, and adds +.54 calls a game. Last season he added +.18 calls a game. BP's model is more complicated but I'm not necessarily certain that it's better - there are definitely a lot of things that don't get past even a slight bit of scrutiny. There are a lot of catchers that have dropped off a cliff in terms of pitch framing according to BP - Lucroy, Conger, Hanigan, Mccann, Gomes, etc. I think Hanigan (as someone I actually watched) is informative here - BP's model has him being a worse framer than Leon, who is already really bad (while StatCorner's more simple model has Hanigan as above average and Leon still as abysmal). When you look at the stats of the pitching staff when pitching to Hanigan (4.34 ERA, 8.45 K/9, 3.69 BB/9) vs. pitching to Leon (6.38 ERA, 7.86 K/9, 4.2 BB/9), BP should ask if Hanigan really has been worse than Leon...Rudy Pemberton said:
I don't know of any studies examining how long it takes a catcher framing rate to stabilize. Framing stats might stabilize quickly, slowly, or never. Judging by the consistency of the Molinas over time, I doubt that the answer is never, but it might indeed be quirky.
The Red Sox may be punting this season already. None of the starters look ace-worthy yet, and there's no point in trading for a #1 pitcher if all the other starters are #4 or #5. If Vazquez' defense was all that it appeared to be in 2014, we should expect below-average framing results while Swihart gains experience. Swihart, Betts, Bogaerts, Castillo and Bradley collectively are likely to be much better in 2016 than 2015, yet they'll be playing quite a lot in 2015. There's no point in giving Swihart's at-bats to toasted Salty.
The Red Sox may be punting this season already. None of the starters look ace-worthy yet, and there's no point in trading for a #1 pitcher if all the other starters are #4 or #5. If Vazquez' defense was all that it appeared to be in 2014, we should expect below-average framing results while Swihart gains experience. Swihart, Betts, Bogaerts, Castillo and Bradley collectively are likely to be much better in 2016 than 2015, yet they'll be playing quite a lot in 2015. There's no point in giving Swihart's at-bats to toasted Salty.
I don't quite get the debate about pitch framing. I'm sure that pitchers, managers and coaches have always understood the value of pitch framing. The fans didn't quite grasp the concept until the advent of the "Amicer" pitch zones and the like. Recently they've tried to quantify pitch framing with a statistic, but, like any statistic, it has to be tested, over time, to see how reliable it is. Certainly a catcher who is fortunate to work with pitchers who "hit the target" more of the time, are going to be able to frame better. But still, when a modern-era team goes through all the work to devise shifts, just to prevent a net-15 hits over a season, it's folly to ignore even the most primitive attempt to chart pitch-framing.
btw, there's a long history of Pitchers wanting their own personal catchers, it has to do with a lot more than framing, I suspect. 40 years ago, Bill Lee preferred Bob Montgomery over Carlton Fisk. I'm guessing it had more to do with personality conflicts than "framing." Not to mention that when you work with the same catcher, (whose primary job, on the team, is to catch that one starter) you have a much better idea, what that pitcher can do and what he cannot, even varied for specific batters. I'm willing to bet Bob Montgomery was a very effective "framer" receiving pitches from a control pitcher like Bill Lee.
btw, there's a long history of Pitchers wanting their own personal catchers, it has to do with a lot more than framing, I suspect. 40 years ago, Bill Lee preferred Bob Montgomery over Carlton Fisk. I'm guessing it had more to do with personality conflicts than "framing." Not to mention that when you work with the same catcher, (whose primary job, on the team, is to catch that one starter) you have a much better idea, what that pitcher can do and what he cannot, even varied for specific batters. I'm willing to bet Bob Montgomery was a very effective "framer" receiving pitches from a control pitcher like Bill Lee.
Plympton91 said:
Don't you get it? You're doing exactly what you accuse others of doing--relying on speculation and unreliable evidence. You say that others are relying on pitch framing as the "be all and end all of catcher framing" (even though there's no evidence of that), which suggests to you that there is an opportunity to exploit "statistical hubris." But when pressed for your methodology on how to do that (or what it means, really)....you have no definition other than an appeal to your 45 years of watching baseball and your Ph.D. in applied statistics.
Hey, man, I like to watch baseball too. I get excited when David Ortiz spits on his hands and rubs them together because it makes him look tough and gets me all fired up. Maybe that's the next market inefficiency, guys who spit on their hands?
I don't see your methodology, while you're attacking others for being unprincipled in their application of methodology. That's all I'm saying.
That's true. Here's a breakdown of games between common pitchers caught:Rudy Pemberton said:
[tablegrid Hanigan vs. Leon]
Not sure what conclusion to draw yet. Have to think about it.
Sprowl said:
Well, there is if you want to delay the free agent clock on Swihart (and maybe Bogaerts too).
Sprowl said:
It's still not clear. If Porcello and Miley can show consistency over their next 5 turns in the rotation, then, given their track records, you're relatively safe in assuming they'll remain consistent. The problem with Buch and Kelly is that even with a month's good performance, you can't assume what you'll get that in June and July. But if Porcello and Miley are "good" and "decent", respectively, then you see if Eddie Rodriquez is ready to make a significant contribution, and, then, at the deadline, you make the trade for a #1. A lot if "Ifs", for sure, but it's not a complete fantasy. The problem is how and when the Sox make the decision. Kelly has too much potential future to dump. Masterson could move to the pen, but, if he fails as a starter, I'm not sure he'd be much of an upgrade, but probably better than Mujica. But how do you cut the cord with Buch? He's now owed just $10 million for 2015, and only a very small buyout ($250,000), so he can be moved, even if it requires a little subsidy. How much value does he have? He might look good in an Astro's uniform.
Reading the Molina article, is it also possible that Umps have been feeling "shown up" by people reporting how many "balls" he's getting called as "strikes" and are consciously being more restrictive on strike calls when he's behind the dish?
Based on that data...guess who is number one in the ML? Francisco Cervelli. Yeah, THAT fucking guy.Rudy Pemberton said:
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/sortable/index.php?cid=1819124
Harry Hooper said:
Swihart can't get a full year of service this year regardless if he is up or not going forward.
mauidano said:
The thing about pitch framing is that a stolen strike or a lost strike can have a cascading effect on an at bat, an inning or even a game. It's never going to possible to fully quantify the impact of good or bad pitch framers any more than it will be possible to precisely quantify the impact of a defender with good or bad range over whatever sample you want to look at. There is no such thing as a perfect statistic and so every statistic you reference should be used while keeping the appropriate context in mind. UZR has some bit pitfalls. It's better than just throwing fielding percentage out there, but if you aren't careful with it, you could easily draw incorrect conclusions from it. Same goes for pitch framing. We're just starting to develop ways to quantify it. It's clearly something a number of teams see value in and that's a pretty good indication that there's an advantage there to be had.
Of course, focusing on it to the exclusion of other things a catcher can do to provide value would be silly, but I don't think anyone (posters here, or the Red Sox) are doing that. Swihart, for example, has a very solid defensive rep but it's due to his framing, his arm (which is very impressive), his athleticism which allows him to pop up from the crouch quickly when making throws as well as get down and block pitches in the dirt more effectively, and his situational awareness. Vazquez's defensive rep, which is outstanding, is based on those same things, only he has a stronger arm and is apparently already really good at calling games (which is something Swihart is still working on).
The idea that anyone is using pitch framing and nothing else to determine catcher value is silly. Framing is new and shiny and exciting, so people talk about it a lot, but I'd be surprised if Plympton could find a single example of anyone, anywhere on this site or in the Red Sox front office who fit this straw man argument:
Plympton91 said:
TomRicardo said:
Yeah, but there's next year too. More problematic to delay him going north if he's already done months in MLB.
Harry Hooper said:
Not really. If both Vazquez and Hanigan are healthy, they could justify sending him down pretty easily. Most teams don't carry three catchers for any kind of significant stretch.
Rudy touched on it a bit already, but I suspect looking at pitch framing purely from the catcher's perspective is a mistake (that that people around here do). I suspect that how well a given catcher can get on the same sheet of music with a given pitcher -- understanding the quality of their stuff, being able to better anticipate the action on a given pitch, etc, is really, really important to framing. If true, that means it may take time to work out that understanding, and probably different amounts of time for different pitchers on the staff, depending on how consistent their pitches are. For pitchers who aren't very consistent, framing may never be that good.
I'm sure catchers with reps as good framers aren't just good at the physical act of framing a pitch, but also developing the rapport necessary to figure a pitcher out. But all that probably takes time for a new catcher or an old catcher dealing with new pitchers. And still, the pitcher has a good bit to do with how successful they are at it.
I'm sure catchers with reps as good framers aren't just good at the physical act of framing a pitch, but also developing the rapport necessary to figure a pitcher out. But all that probably takes time for a new catcher or an old catcher dealing with new pitchers. And still, the pitcher has a good bit to do with how successful they are at it.
Really nailed it with this I think. "The thing about pitch framing is that a stolen strike or a lost strike can have a cascading effect on an at bat, an inning or even a game"Snodgrass'Muff said:
So many other factors go into "a strike". Human element primarily. You can frame all day but if the umpires don't call it correctly, it's irrelevant. Whether from behind the plate or on appeal from the line umps and those guys are 90 feet away! Plus a pitcher has to be around the plate and have a reputation of being around the plate. A veteran pitcher make get more "calls" than a younger pitcher too. It's easy to overanalyze.