05-05-2013, 08:32 AM #21
In any case, this isn't UZR. It appears much more stable than many other commonly used measures and stats. The top and the bottom ranked catchers entering 2012, were the top and bottom ranked catcher in 2012 in spite of changing teams. How many other stats or measures have similar reliability? It does have the benefit of a very large sample compared to batting stats or UZR. While an outfielder may only see a handful of balls in their zone during a game, a catcher is going to receive many pitches.
05-05-2013, 08:58 AM #22
On top of that, in the case of Doumit, we're often talking about a single game of data. That means he catches exclusively for one umpire, whose zone could be anything from the inside half of the plate to the entire batter's box.
To pile on another variable, a single game of data means that anywhere from 1/2 to 2/3rds of Doumit's data comes from a single pitcher, one whose control may be off (or spot on) that day and influences the umpire's zone heavily by it.
I'm intrigued by pitch framing. I think the concept has merit. But to use one week's data for a part time player is bad statistical analysis, the same way using two weeks of UZR/150 is bad statistical analysis.
05-05-2013, 09:09 AM #23
What one week set of data would be useful in baseball?
In any case, I think the data cmathewson referred to is a running total for the year (not the numbers for the week) just like any of the other number we see attributed to a player for 2013.
As for Doumit, if it were an aberrant one week there would be nothing to write about. His data is consistent from 2007.
05-05-2013, 09:26 AM #24
It reminds me of a paper I was reading a few weeks ago about the average lifespan of a man in Victorian England. The point the author was trying to make was that given the "perfect storm" of Victorian living (some medicine, no tobacco, clean air), that our lifespans had only marginally increased once you compensated for infant mortality. The author spent several pages trying to inject bad statistical analysis over good data (excepting infant mortality in Victorian times but not today, using a death chart based on age 65 expectancy for Victorian people and a death chart from birth in modern times, etc) and by the end, I stopped reading the paper because it was so obvious that the author was doing everything he could to prove his point instead of letting the data fall as it may, which still proved his point. He wasn't wrong and he had a convincing argument. But in his attempt to twist the data to better suit his argument, he only deterred me from reading further into the paper and left me feeling disgusted at his blatant attempts to "rig the game" when he already had it won.
The point? There are five years of data showing that Doumit is bad at pitch framing. You're only diluting the point by hammering away at it on a weekly basis and giving people a reason to ignore the wealth of real data on the subject.
05-05-2013, 10:01 AM #25
05-05-2013, 03:28 PM #26
But again, does it really take 6 years of data to tell us Doumit isn't a good defensive catcher? I think we already know that. Also if you are trying to validate the data, having the guy who's dead last remain dead last isn't necessarily proving a statistical trend.
I don't know what one would do with pitch framing data, other than make your own player aware of the problem. But I don't think ranking players is valuable. I have the same problem with defensive metrics in general, if you need 3 years of data what good is the stat? Why can't you just have your scouts who've watched thousands of games tell you if the guy is a good defensive player or not? Are you going to use UZR on high school age players who play maybe 60 games a year?
05-05-2013, 05:16 PM #27
- Liked 28 Times in 19 Posts
- Blog Entries
I will be the first to admit that I think pitch framing is a minor catcher skill. At best "a skilled pitch framer" is very likely to steal a strike no more than once or twice a game, in my opinion. So I am not going to waste my studying data on this. But, if it is true that the same people are at the top and bottom of the list over a 6 year period regardless of the team they play for and changing pitching staffs, I would consider that a huge red flag concerning the validity of this data.
There is no way that pitchers and umpires don't have huge effects on whether borderline pitches are called balls or strikes. If this data consistently gives the same catchers the same positions in the ratings, there is a good chance there is something wrong with how this data is collected. Especially if it is happening from week to week as suggested by the starter of this thread.
I get pretty nervous when effort is made to separate out small parts of a team game and credit or discredit one player. In this case you have a pitcher, a catcher, a batter and ultimately an umpire who makes the call. Trying to figure exactly why an umpire missed a call, assuming he actually missed the call and it wasn't just poor camera angles or some other reason for poorly collected data, is going to be damn hard. Since generally, there aren't really as many "umpire misses" as seem to be suggested here, I doubt that pitch framing has much effect on the game. Still if Doumit is always on the bottom, and the same catcher is always on top, every week the data is collected, you better examine how that data is collected. There is really no way that can happen with that small of a sample.
05-05-2013, 05:30 PM #28
The data is collected through pitchf/x, not some schlub watching a game with a lousy camera angle.
I don't see how certain players routinely grading poorly, while others routinely grading well, can be a "red flag." OPS doesn't lose its validity when the same hitters top the leaderboard year after year, with the same hacks bring up the rear. What am I missing here?
Last edited by snepp; 05-05-2013 at 05:35 PM."Maybe you could go grab a bat and ballÖ and learn something. Maybe you will get it."
- Strib commenter educating the elitists on the value of RBI's
05-05-2013, 06:01 PM #29
I'd say that's a pretty convincing argument that pitch framing exists. How much it influences runs per game can still be debated but there is SOMETHING there worth investigating.
When a metric's raw numbers so closely align with reports from scouts, players, and managers, that's a good thing and lends weight to the validity of the numbers, not the other way around.
05-05-2013, 06:23 PM #30"Maybe you could go grab a bat and ballÖ and learn something. Maybe you will get it."
- Strib commenter educating the elitists on the value of RBI's
05-05-2013, 10:55 PM #31
05-06-2013, 09:50 AM #32
05-06-2013, 10:00 AM #33
Like defensive metrics, there are simply too many variables in pitch framing to use small sample sizes, even if those samples occasionally "look good" over the short term. The umpire has his zone (which we all know, varies wildly from umpire to umpire and from day to day) and the pitcher influences how many strikes/balls is called as well. Both of those factors are entirely ignored in pitch framing metrics.
Hell, I don't even trust pitch framing metrics over one season yet. A good pitching staff (which a player is generally going to catch for an entire season) can distort results pretty badly, one would think. In a perfect world, you'd want multiple seasons from multiple teams to draw a meaningful conclusion about the catcher.
05-06-2013, 11:19 AM #34
05-06-2013, 11:27 AM #35
05-06-2013, 11:41 AM #36
05-06-2013, 11:44 AM #37
05-06-2013, 11:49 AM #38
- Liked 799 Times in 475 Posts
- Blog Entries
If a pitcher is tipping his pitches, you can work with him to achieve muscle-memory or whatever so that he does the same thing the same way every time. You could drill a catcher (hm, maybe not the best choice of phrase ) on the things relevant to his job in a similar fashion.
05-06-2013, 01:34 PM #39
05-06-2013, 02:24 PM #40
- Liked 29 Times in 17 Posts