Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
In the six-year span from 2008-13, the top gainers are:
McCann 127 runs, J. Molina 116, Lucroy 94, Martin 91, Hanigan 74, D. Ross 65, Y. Molina/M. Montero 62, C. Stewart 43, Posey 41
Chris Stewart must be outrageously good at this, since he only caught about 1700 innings during this span, while McCann had over 6000 and Molina had more than 7500.
Chris Stewart must be outrageously good at this, since he only caught about 1700 innings during this span, while McCann had over 6000 and Molina had more than 7500. It really is too bad he hits like a pitcher.
Given the choice between Jose Molina and Mike Trout, I'm still going with Trout.
if every pitch were borderline, Jose Molina all by himself would be subtracting about .75 runs per game from the staff ERA.
I believe the authors when they say they've found a repeatable skill, and the players they identify as being good do have good defensive reputations. But I don't think they've completely nailed down the magnitude.
As mentioned in the other thread, we're now giving credit to catchers for changes in pitch-by-pitch outcomes that we do not give to hitters or pitchers. If a hitter grounds out to short, we don't adjust his WAR or whatever based on working the count. We just say he grounded out to short, which is a value of -N runs, or -N/10 wins.
As previously noted, something's up with the blocking numbers. They need (IMO) to have it be zero-sum on an MLB level.
#12: a fair point but you may have missed this from the excerpt: "We empirically determined each pitcher’s value—to isolate it from each catcher’s value—by performing a WOWY (“With or Without You”) analysis."
I'm glad people understood what I was saying there. It took me a while to get that point across because I was mis-explaining it and needed prompting to get it to mean what I was thinking...
No, I saw that. The way I read TFA is that they are attributing value to the pitcher solely for the sake of adjusting the catcher value from blocking/framing for the mix of pitchers they have caught;
cfb, as of now, the blocking stats are devoid of context. For instance, is saving six runs through pitch blocking good or bad? (Better than five, worse than seven - sure.) And, if your answer is 'we don't know without knowing how many opportunities they had,' then it's not yet a very useful metric.
Last year, per 100 pitches thrown, Clayton Kershaw's fastball was 1.81 runs better than average, his slider 0.63 runs, and his curveball 2.69. If we take these numbers literally, that means that Clayton Kershaw throwing a frameable fastball to Jose Molina would be 30% more effective, 81% more effective with the slider, 20% more effective with his curveball.
I just don't think an effect that large could go unnoticed. You would expect to see lots of pitchers --even star pitchers -- going to pieces on days when they have to pitch to the backup catcher.
Put it this way: for an average pitcher on a frameable pitch, throwing to Jose Molina is as big a change as having Clayton Kershaw's slider. Do you buy it?
Like I say, I think these guys are doing this the right way. I'm just not sure that the thing they're measuring corresponds to show-up-on-the-scoreboard runs in the same way that a play made or not made by a shortstop. I'm willing to say that Jose Molina generates 36 "Molinas" per 7000 chances, I'm just not convinced that 1 Molina equals 1 run.
I think this, along with vi's 12, is really interesting. And you don't have to stop with the pitch-framing runs. You can say the same about the whole principle behind WAr - converting base hits and outs into runs, and then converting runs into wins. Sure, there's a theoretical relationship, but how closely does that theoretical relationship track with how games are actually being won and lost on the field? It is kind of cool to break the game down into smaller and smaller discrete bits, but each subdivision makes the margin of error that much larger.
When you start to combine the two, you are going to run into problems.
I agree with the context, but I was just pointing out that it doesn't have to be a sum zero stat. Let's say you have a very good catcher at blocking balls, and he happens to be the catcher for a knuckleball pitcher. A good blocker, with a lot of chances is going to generate a pretty high positive total using any system that ranks a players ability to block a ball in the dirt based upon compared to average.
With other fielding stats, there are so many chances that it naturally progress's to a zero sum, but with catchers you are dealing some what with selective choices in both pitch selection and on who catches the more wild pitchers.
Yeah, but I don't think that's insurmountable. We see this already in other contexts and it's rare that it messes us up in a significant way wrt position players (defensive sub / pr types being the big one in my mind).
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
Login to Join (8 members)
Page rendered in 0.6244 seconds, 57 querie(s) executed