Minnesota Twins News & Rumors Forum
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 65

Thread: Doumit ranks as worst pitch framer for 2nd straight week

  1. #41
    Owner MVP Brock Beauchamp's Avatar
    Posts
    8,033
    Twitter
    @rocketpig76
    Like
    47
    Liked 1,525 Times in 798 Posts
    Blog Entries
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by Reginald Maudling's Shin View Post
    Of those 300 pitches, how many qualify as borderline where catcher A gets a strike and B doesn't get the call? Then the sample size becomes much, much smaller.
    Obviously, just like defensive metrics, the determining data points are much lower than the overall "chances". That's just assumed. The point Willinghammer was trying to make was that since overall chances are higher in pitch framing, you don't need as many game to draw a meaningful conclusion.

    Which I agree with in principle, but I still believe that a lot more data is needed for the metric to be anything close to accurate.

  2. #42
    Senior Member All-Star 70charger's Avatar
    Posts
    1,092
    Like
    134
    Liked 176 Times in 85 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Reginald Maudling's Shin View Post
    Of those 300 pitches, how many qualify as borderline where catcher A gets a strike and B doesn't get the call? Then the sample size becomes much, much smaller.
    And then you have to control for the pitcher's reputation, the umpire of the day, that umpire's zone of the day, mistakes and "make-up calls," whether the batter checks his swing, whether the batter sits inside or outside in the box, whether the batter is tall or short, the reputation of the batter for having a good eye, etc., etc., etc.

    Just because they're borderline pitches doesn't mean there's any useful information with regard to the catcher per se.

  3. #43
    Senior Member Double-A
    Posts
    182
    Like
    0
    Liked 2 Times in 2 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by Oxtung View Post
    As of 5/1 (so through roughly 20 games for a catcher) you're looking at 125-200 calls that were influenced by starting catchers. So it is somewhere between 5-10 pitches per game so far this year.
    That is more than I would have thought.

  4. #44
    Senior Member All-Star cmathewson's Avatar
    Posts
    2,271
    Like
    241
    Liked 461 Times in 290 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by jorgenswest View Post
    The data goes back to 2007. He was at the bottom of rankings when the Twins signed him. That status hasn't changed.
    The post was about how he was the worst pitch framer for the week. And he'd only caught one game that week. My comment is about sample size. Framing requires large samples to be meaningful because there are so many variables. One game is the smallest of samples in this area. I get that he has been historically bad. But that is not what the post was about.

    Also, for those who say he's not producing with the bat yet this year, small samples also hold. If you want to evaluate him on his career offensively, fine. If you do, you will find that he is one of the best offensive catchers in the last few years. But you can't say: he's historically bad at pitch framing and this year he's bad at offense. That's picking all the rotten cherries and throwing them at him.
    "If you'da been thinkin' you wouldn't 'a thought that.."

  5. #45
    Twins Moderator MVP USAFChief's Avatar
    Posts
    6,515
    Like
    3,540
    Liked 3,026 Times in 1,290 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Oxtung View Post
    As of 5/1 (so through roughly 20 games for a catcher) you're looking at 125-200 calls that were influenced by starting catchers. So it is somewhere between 5-10 pitches per game so far this year.
    According to one interpretation of the data. Which interpretation, by the way, is being put forth by those trying to prove that pitch framing is a skill, and that it is quantifiable. "Close pitch according to pitch f/x. Did/didn't get the call. Chalk another one up to pitch framing, thereby proving my theory."

  6. #46
    Senior Member All-Star
    Posts
    1,398
    Like
    54
    Liked 36 Times in 24 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by USAFChief View Post
    According to one interpretation of the data. Which interpretation, by the way, is being put forth by those trying to prove that pitch framing is a skill, and that it is quantifiable. "Close pitch according to pitch f/x. Did/didn't get the call. Chalk another one up to pitch framing, thereby proving my theory."
    Just to be clear here, you don't believe the pitch f/x system is accurate? Instead you think the umpire's "eye test" is more accurate?

  7. #47
    Twins Moderator MVP USAFChief's Avatar
    Posts
    6,515
    Like
    3,540
    Liked 3,026 Times in 1,290 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Oxtung View Post
    Just to be clear here, you don't believe the pitch f/x system is accurate? Instead you think the umpire's "eye test" is more accurate?
    I have no idea whether or not pitch f/x is any more or less accurate than the umpire's eye test. Do you? For the purposes of this discussion, if we stipulate that pitch f/x IS more accurate, that still doesn't mean that every close pitch is called/not called due to pitch framing. There are countless other variables not accounted for, as has been discussed in this thread. "Pitch was close, call was due to something the catcher did or didn't do" is to me a leap of logic not supported by any real factual evidence, at least not yet.

  8. #48
    Owner MVP Brock Beauchamp's Avatar
    Posts
    8,033
    Twitter
    @rocketpig76
    Like
    47
    Liked 1,525 Times in 798 Posts
    Blog Entries
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by USAFChief View Post
    I have no idea whether or not pitch f/x is any more or less accurate than the umpire's eye test. Do you? For the purposes of this discussion, if we stipulate that pitch f/x IS more accurate, that still doesn't mean that every close pitch is called/not called due to pitch framing. There are countless other variables not accounted for, as has been discussed in this thread. "Pitch was close, call was due to something the catcher did or didn't do" is to me a leap of logic not supported by any real factual evidence, at least not yet.
    Assuming that Pitch f/x is at least consistent, the rest can be overpowered by sheer numbers. The real question is "how many numbers are needed?"

    And given the tendency of catchers to catch the same guys for several years (thereby maintaining a positive/negative influence of a particular pitcher), my guess would be "a lot".

  9. #49
    Senior Member All-Star
    Posts
    1,398
    Like
    54
    Liked 36 Times in 24 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by USAFChief View Post
    I have no idea whether or not pitch f/x is any more or less accurate than the umpire's eye test. Do you? For the purposes of this discussion, if we stipulate that pitch f/x IS more accurate, that still doesn't mean that every close pitch is called/not called due to pitch framing. There are countless other variables not accounted for, as has been discussed in this thread. "Pitch was close, call was due to something the catcher did or didn't do" is to me a leap of logic not supported by any real factual evidence, at least not yet.
    I think that the pitch f/x is probably more accurate than the human eye but I certainly don't know for sure. Eyes are just about the least accurate measuring tool in existence.

    I think most of the problems people have with the data has already been filtered out at this point in the season or at least will be shortly. At this point already catchers have data from probably 18+ umpires and a hundred different batters. I think they're approaching sufficiently large samples to start ruling out some of these other potential sources of conflicting data.

    Should this data be taken as truth? Not yet. Does it suggest certain players are better at the skill than others? Yes. Getting back to the more specific, Ryan Doumit, this years data is along the lines of his last 5 years of data. This isn't data popping up out of no where. So it's fairly safe to say that he has been bad at pitch framing this year as well.

  10. #50
    Twins Moderator MVP USAFChief's Avatar
    Posts
    6,515
    Like
    3,540
    Liked 3,026 Times in 1,290 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Oxtung View Post
    I think that the pitch f/x is probably more accurate than the human eye but I certainly don't know for sure. Eyes are just about the least accurate measuring tool in existence.

    I think most of the problems people have with the data has already been filtered out at this point in the season or at least will be shortly. At this point already catchers have data from probably 18+ umpires and a hundred different batters. I think they're approaching sufficiently large samples to start ruling out some of these other potential sources of conflicting data.

    Should this data be taken as truth? Not yet. Does it suggest certain players are better at the skill than others? Yes. Getting back to the more specific, Ryan Doumit, this years data is along the lines of his last 5 years of data. This isn't data popping up out of no where. So it's fairly safe to say that he has been bad at pitch framing this year as well.
    Fair enough. I will say my initial post in this thread was overstated (by a large factor) and the issue is worth more investigation. I'm skeptical, but open to the possibility I may be full of...something.

  11. #51
    Senior Member Triple-A
    Posts
    427
    Like
    0
    Liked 42 Times in 31 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    I think that the pitch f/x is probably more accurate than the human eye but I certainly don't know for sure
    My question is why should we believe that? Are the cameras exactly in the same place in each park? Does pitch f/x accurately reflect the depth of the plate? How exactly is the data interpreted, by computer, by a guy sitting there entering each pitch into a data base? Does anybody really know the answer to those questions?

    Sometimes we all assume that modern technology is much better than the way things have been done in the past. Sometimes it is. But sometimes we just assume it is better and don't investigate any further. I tend to be at least a little sceptical of things that aren't very well explained and are just accepted as being "better". Like pitch f/x, UZR and most new stats.

  12. #52
    Senior Member All-Star
    Posts
    1,474
    Like
    66
    Liked 145 Times in 94 Posts
    Blog Entries
    30
    Quote Originally Posted by Jim H View Post
    My question is why should we believe that? Are the cameras exactly in the same place in each park? Does pitch f/x accurately reflect the depth of the plate? How exactly is the data interpreted, by computer, by a guy sitting there entering each pitch into a data base? Does anybody really know the answer to those questions?

    Sometimes we all assume that modern technology is much better than the way things have been done in the past. Sometimes it is. But sometimes we just assume it is better and don't investigate any further. I tend to be at least a little sceptical of things that aren't very well explained and are just accepted as being "better". Like pitch f/x, UZR and most new stats.
    If you are really interested, this article from 2010 is a place to start. To answer one of the questions, yes it does measure the 3 dimensional depth of the strike zone.

    http://baseball.physics.illinois.edu/FastPFXGuide.pdf

  13. #53
    Speediest Moderator All-Star snepp's Avatar
    Posts
    4,050
    Like
    1,772
    Liked 1,249 Times in 498 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by USAFChief View Post
    I'm skeptical, but open to the possibility I may be full of...something.
    If there's one things we've determined beyond a doubt, there's something, somewhere. All we need is the somehow and we'll have it licked.
    "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

  14. #54
    Senior Member All-Star Willihammer's Avatar
    Posts
    2,760
    Like
    646
    Liked 383 Times in 213 Posts
    Blog Entries
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by Brock Beauchamp View Post
    And given the tendency of catchers to catch the same guys for several years (thereby maintaining a positive/negative influence of a particular pitcher), my guess would be "a lot".
    There's only a positive/negative influence if there's truth to the adage that "if you are around the zone you will get calls more often." As it happens, the Twins staffs have historically been exactly that: strikethrowers.

  15. #55
    Senior Member All-Star
    Posts
    1,474
    Like
    66
    Liked 145 Times in 94 Posts
    Blog Entries
    30
    Quote Originally Posted by cmathewson View Post
    The post was about how he was the worst pitch framer for the week. And he'd only caught one game that week. My comment is about sample size.
    I read the same link. While the title refers to the weekly update from baseball prospectus, it is clear the data in the league leader table is for the season. It is also easy to see the numbers are too high for a week.

  16. #56
    Senior Member Big-Leaguer jay's Avatar
    Posts
    872
    Like
    12
    Liked 49 Times in 30 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2
    I wanted to bring this back to life because Doumit is getting ripped for framing again in the recent FG article on Worley's struggles (not as a cause, but pointed out): Vance Worley and Losing the Magic | FanGraphs Baseball

    Also, this Grantland article points out some very clear mechanical differences between a guy like Doumit (bad at this) and a Molina (good at this): Studying the art of pitch framing by catchers such as Francisco Cervelli, Chris Stewart, Jose Molina, and others - Grantland

    We can debate the net effect of framing, but I think most here have acknolwedged it's at least worth something. That something at the wrong time will inevitably cost us a win at some point. What really bothers me here is that we haven't seen any improvement. If there are clear mechnical indicators of a better framer -- steady body, no head dip, catch and return to set instead of catch and follow through -- why wouldn't this be something the Twins coach Doumit on? You see the same things every time he catches...

    It makes me feel like, again, the Twins just aren't out on the front edge of recognizing the value in these kinds of things. Either that or stubborn ol' Gardy doesn't want to actually coach one of his veterans, which would be almost equally as bad.

    Any thoughts? Or am I overreacting?

  17. #57
    Owner MVP Brock Beauchamp's Avatar
    Posts
    8,033
    Twitter
    @rocketpig76
    Like
    47
    Liked 1,525 Times in 798 Posts
    Blog Entries
    6
    No, I think that's reasonable. There's no good excuse for Doumit to continue bobbing his head and not framing well. It seems like the easiest thing in the world to fix, they just have to acknowledge its existence first.

  18. #58
    Senior Member All-Star
    Posts
    3,232
    Like
    0
    Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
    Quote Originally Posted by jay View Post
    I wanted to bring this back to life because Doumit is getting ripped for framing again in the recent FG article on Worley's struggles (not as a cause, but pointed out): Vance Worley and Losing the Magic | FanGraphs Baseball

    Also, this Grantland article points out some very clear mechanical differences between a guy like Doumit (bad at this) and a Molina (good at this): Studying the art of pitch framing by catchers such as Francisco Cervelli, Chris Stewart, Jose Molina, and others - Grantland

    We can debate the net effect of framing, but I think most here have acknolwedged it's at least worth something. That something at the wrong time will inevitably cost us a win at some point. What really bothers me here is that we haven't seen any improvement. If there are clear mechnical indicators of a better framer -- steady body, no head dip, catch and return to set instead of catch and follow through -- why wouldn't this be something the Twins coach Doumit on? You see the same things every time he catches...

    It makes me feel like, again, the Twins just aren't out on the front edge of recognizing the value in these kinds of things. Either that or stubborn ol' Gardy doesn't want to actually coach one of his veterans, which would be almost equally as bad.

    Any thoughts? Or am I overreacting?
    He mentioned Doumit, and that's fine, but Doumit has caught less than 10 innings from the guy.

  19. #59
    Senior Member MVP
    Posts
    5,627
    Like
    1,125
    Liked 536 Times in 355 Posts
    My issue with Doumit is that he's not hitting enough to justify being a DH.......that's a problem for this team.

    He's not part of the future, dump him and call up a real catcher. Don't care if he's in AA or what. I am ready for a blow up like when the Twins called up Hrbeck and partners and rode youngsters to lots of losses, but with hope, instead of older guys with no hope.
    Lighten up Francis....

  20. #60
    Senior Member All-Star
    Posts
    3,232
    Like
    0
    Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
    Quote Originally Posted by mike wants wins View Post
    My issue with Doumit is that he's not hitting enough to justify being a DH.......that's a problem for this team.

    He's not part of the future, dump him and call up a real catcher. Don't care if he's in AA or what. I am ready for a blow up like when the Twins called up Hrbeck and partners and rode youngsters to lots of losses, but with hope, instead of older guys with no hope.
    It might be time just to have him as a backup catcher or trade him...

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
©2014 TwinsCentric, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Interested in advertising with Twins Daily? Click here.