Twins Suzuki far apart on extension

[DaveW]

 

The only way Suzuki looks good defensively is is if you mystify the job he does back there.

 

Or if you listen to the guys that are actual true "experts" and know what goes on: i.e. the players, the coaches etc.

[TheDean]

I think it's interesting to reflect on how the season progresses and doesn't necessarily change opinions on TD, but brings different voices to the forefront. Going into the season, I think it was a somewhat widely held belief that Pinto needed to play and Suzuki needed to backup. Personally, at that time, I would have thought extension talk would be slim-to-none at this point in the season, just because I think TD generally believed Pinto was the future and Suzuki was a stop-gap.

 

Here we are in late July and Suzuki is getting quite a bit of extension talk and Pinto is in AAA with doubts about his ability to be a ML catcher. A lot can change in a few months of baseball...but that's why I enjoy watching it.

[twinsfan34]

Butera didn't bring in a dominating A type of prospect with potential. He brought in a non-dominant RP'ing prospect (SP'er for now) that doesn't project as an MLB'er. One that was later traded for a mediocre utility IF'er. it was a coup for the Twins but neither Sulbaran or Nunez are anything to brag about.

 

My bad...

 

What I meant to say was:

 

a 19 year old in a league where he was 3 years younger than his competition who had a stat line of 9-4 W-L 2.94 ERA and 112 IP 101 K with only 3 HR allowed.

 

But honestly, if that's not dominating A-ball...what is? I didn't say dominating AA prospect or MLB prospect. 3 years younger...

[diehardtwinsfan]

Sulbaran had his question marks, but at the time of the trade, I think it was Law that said it was an overpay, as they guy has potential. The Twins turned and flipped him for Nunez (I think), which hasn't been a bad return either.

 

The thing about Suzuki, is that he should net better than Sulbaran. Sulbaran was putting up better numbers than Berrios in the MWL last year, but was poorly though of b/c of the speed of his pitches and a few other issues that aren't being exposed in A ball. I'd imagine if they targeted an A ball pitcher, they'd be looking at someone with similar results and a few less (but not all) question marks (i.e. someone in the 70-150 range).

[jorgenswest]

Shouldn't handling a pitching staff show up in the defense independent stats? Wouldn't it result in more strike outs and fewer walks?

 

Suzuki didn't fare very well when compared to the other catchers Oakland and Washngton rostered. Over three years and and sample of 12000+ plate appearances, the other 12 catchers have a 23% better strikeout walk ratio, a strikeout rate that is 9% better and a walk rate that is 11% better.

 

Suzuki may be good at handling a staff, but shouldn't it show up somewhere in the performance of the pitchers? The National and A's seem to be managing OK without him (1st and 3rd in ERA).

 

If handling a pitching staff doesn't impact performance, why do we care if a catcher is good at it?

[Willihammer]

Or if you listen to the guys that are actual true "experts" and know what goes on: i.e. the players, the coaches etc.

 

From his teammates and coaches, got it. No possible bias there.

[DaveW]

From his teammates and coaches, got it. No possible bias there.

Players/coaches would never blast a catcher for his play (cough: AJ/Boston Cough)

[TheDean]

I agree in that I'm not sure whether everything is measurable (especially when it comes to catchers), but, for what it's worth, DRS has Suzuki pegged for 3 defensive runs saved above average for pitch calling (3rd best in the MLB). From what I understand, that considers how much effect the catcher has on improving the pitchers' ERAs from what they would have been. I take this to mean that his pitch calling more than balances out his (apparently) league-renowned poor framing skills.

 

On the other hand, he loses two runs for stolen bases...and I think it's well established that he has a relatively short and weak arm for a catcher.

 

Too address jorgenswest, there are too many variables in pitcher results to use them as a judge of catcher performance. What if one catcher happened to catch more than their share of the #4 - #7 starters for a team? What if those games came against very talented offensive teams? When it comes to catchers, I believe that you need to either use an eye-test (best used by experienced fans/coaches/trainers/players i.e. not me) or advanced statistics. For example, Pinto might have a lot of pb and wp credited, but we know he was catching Deduno in most of his starts.

 

However, I agree that maybe it's not something to worry about that much because ultimately pitchers are responsible for their performance. We could pull a MiLB catcher of your choosing and put him on the A's and I think the pitcher stats to his name would look quite good, but that's an inevitability when you're catching Samardzija, Gray, et al.

[drjim]

Players/coaches would never blast a catcher for his play (cough: AJ/Boston Cough)

 

Perkins and Pinto?

[nicksaviking]

From his teammates and coaches, got it. No possible bias there.

 

Well if biases are to be taken out of the equation, Pitch Framing should be irrelevant. It relies on the belief that catchers dictate what the umpire is going to call 100% of the time and doens't consider the fact that umpires already have preconcieved notions about the pitcher and normal human prejudices.

 

I don't buy into pitch framing one bit, it's a good idea, but it's flawed in that it's trying to calculate the incalculatable; the cause of human perception vs judgment. Not that this makes Suzuki an above average catcher or anything. If he has value, he needs to be flipped.

[Kwak]

Some things are measurable, eg. strikeouts, walks, strikes above/below average, blocking runs above average, caught stealing, catcher ERA, etc.

 

The only way Suzuki looks good defensively is is if you mystify the job he does back there.

 

Or, compare his results to in-house options.

[Badsmerf]

I have a really hard time thinking about trading Suzuki and not extending him on a 3yr/$7m deal like Salty got last year.

 

If I was Suzuki, I'd be trying for 3 years and 20 million. He's going to be the top FA catcher in the off-season and will get paid like it. That is why they are far apart.

[Willihammer]

I don't buy into pitch framing one bit, it's a good idea, but it's flawed in that it's trying to calculate the incalculatable; the cause of human perception vs judgment.

 

Its not nearly that ambitious. All the catcher framing stats do (at least the one available at statcorner) is subtract/add strikes and ball calls from the (unbiased) pitchf/x measure of what was actually a strike and what was a ball. Whatever umpire-pitcher bias affects those calls will get washed out over several seasons (if not several games) and especially, when a catcher changes teams.

[diehardtwinsfan]

Its not nearly that ambitious. All the catcher framing stats do (at least the one available at statcorner) is subtract/add strikes and ball calls from the (unbiased) pitchf/x measure of what was actually a strike and what was a ball. Whatever umpire-pitcher bias affects those calls will get washed out over several seasons (if not several games) and especially, when a catcher changes teams.

 

Problem with this is that umpires cannot be assumed as a constant.

[nicksaviking]

Its not nearly that ambitious. All the catcher framing stats do (at least the one available at statcorner) is subtract/add strikes and ball calls from the (unbiased) pitchf/x measure of what was actually a strike and what was a ball. Whatever umpire-pitcher bias affects those calls will get washed out over several seasons (if not several games) and especially, when a catcher changes teams.

 

That is only an assumption and you'd need another metric even to get results for that premise.

 

The bottom line is, we can only assume that the catcher was the influencer in the umpire's decision, but there isn't a stat in the world that can promise that idea with any degree of certainty. Unless we start polling the umpires on their conscious decisions and psycho-analyze them for their subconscious ones.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Problem with this is that umpires cannot be assumed as a constant.

 

No, but theoretically, the law of large numbers would balance it out.

 

It's the main reason why I'm skeptical of short-term usage of pitch framing, particularly when the catcher plays for a single team with a very good/bad pitching staff.

 

Over the long haul, I think it's a good metric. It could probably use refinement but it's a step in the right direction.

[Willihammer]

Problem with this is that umpires cannot be assumed as a constant.

 

Sure it can. Umpire crews handle series at a time, and rotate HP duty within those series. These are rules dictated by MLB. Multiply by the number of series and games caught (852) and I think we can safely rule out umpire bias as a cause for Suzuki's penchant for losing strikes.

[nicksaviking]

No, but theoretically, the law of large numbers would balance it out.

 

It's the main reason why I'm skeptical of short-term usage of pitch framing, particularly when the catcher plays for a single team with a very good/bad pitching staff.

 

Over the long haul, I think it's a good metric. It could probably use refinement but it's a step in the right direction.

 

The issue with this stat is that we are testing for the effect without knowing the cause. We can get results, but they don't tell us why they occur. We can only presume the answer is "because of the catcher."

 

The test question we want to ask is "How many balls/strikes did the catcher influence" but in actuality, the question we are asking in studying this metric is "How many balls/strikes did the umpire get wrong."

[tobi0040]

If I was Suzuki, I'd be trying for 3 years and 20 million. He's going to be the top FA catcher in the off-season and will get paid like it. That is why they are far apart.

 

My hope was see what he will sign for and do it if it was reasonable. The Twins seem to think what he wants is not. Now step 2, trade him for the best package out there.

[Brock Beauchamp]

The issue with this stat is that we are testing for the effect without knowing the cause. We can get results, but they don't tell us why they occur. We can only presume the answer is "because of the catcher."

 

The test question we want to ask is "How many balls/strikes did the catcher influence" but in actuality, the question we are asking in studying this metric is "How many balls/strikes did the umpire get wrong."

 

But you're only using one constant: the catcher.

 

Pitchers, umpires, and everything else that influences the metric change and in time, their inconsistencies are negated.

[Mr. Brooks]

Are you honestly blaming Suzuki for Nolasco's disaster, KC's normalness, Deduno's ineffectiveness or Pelfrey's complete ineffectiveness?

 

I think it's silly that this site seems to blame the pitching coach and the catcher more for sucky pitching than the pitcher himself. there are certainly better catchers out there but things could be MUCH, MUCH worse than Suzuki offensively and defensively.

 

 

No, I'm not blaming him per se, I'm just saying he shouldn't be getting all this love for "calling such a good game" and "working so well with the pitchers", when our starting rotation has been brutal.

[kab21]

My bad...

 

What I meant to say was:

 

a 19 year old in a league where he was 3 years younger than his competition who had a stat line of 9-4 W-L 2.94 ERA and 112 IP 101 K with only 3 HR allowed.

 

But honestly, if that's not dominating A-ball...what is? I didn't say dominating AA prospect or MLB prospect. 3 years younger...

 

Dominating requires stuff as much as results. Basically the Dodgers sold high on his results. this was still a massive overpay for butera though.

 

If you look at this year's results he has a 6.5 K/9. meh...

[Guest USAFChief]

Its not nearly that ambitious. All the catcher framing stats do (at least the one available at statcorner) is subtract/add strikes and ball calls from the (unbiased) pitchf/x measure of what was actually a strike and what was a ball. Whatever umpire-pitcher bias affects those calls will get washed out over several seasons (if not several games) and especially, when a catcher changes teams.

Not to get into this debate again, but not all of this statement is universally accepted fact.

 

Some of us do not agree that what pitchf/x says is inside or outside the strike zone is in fact, actually 100 percent accurate.

[snepp]

Some of us do not agree that what pitchf/x says is inside or outside the strike zone is in fact, actually 100 percent accurate.

 

I'm at least 98% sure that you're 99% correct.

[Guest USAFChief]

I'm at least 98% sure that you're 99% correct.

Well you know what I always say...67.89 percent of the statistics you read on the Internet are made up on the spot.

[jay]

Not to get into this debate again, but not all of this statement is universally accepted fact.

 

Is that even a thing?

[Willihammer]

Not to get into this debate again, but not all of this statement is universally accepted fact.

 

Some of us do not agree that what pitchf/x says is inside or outside the strike zone is in fact, actually 100 percent accurate.

 

We have been over this ground before and the answer is, the cutoff for the strike zone used to build these framing reports is the point at which umpires call <50% strikes, depending on whather the batter is RH or LH.

 

Put another way, the pitchf/x zone = the umpires zone.

[jorgenswest]

To anyone really interested...

 

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=22934

 

Their catcher data is much is also more detailed than stat corners data.

 

It appears Suzuki has fallen towards the bottom of the rankings and is at the bottom on the season totals. It isn't because he is doing worse. It is just because the guys usually below him (Doumit, Buck, Santana, Hundley, Hernandez, Montero, Olivo, Napoli) aren't catching very much anymore. Suzuki has always been below average. Recently the poor framers on the bottom have lost regular catching jobs. Their absence doesn't make the difference between a Suzuki and Molina greater.

 

The only thing that matters is the impact on his trade value. The teams looking for a catcher are not among the teams routinely referenced in the framing articles. I don't think it will keep them from considering him.

[James]

Well you know what I always say...67.89 percent of the statistics you read on the Internet are made up on the spot.

All I have to say is this:

Aw, people can come up with statistics to prove anything. Forty percent of all people know that.

 

-Homer Simpson

[Dman]

The value Suzuki brings is in his bat. He is 8th in the American League for BA 12th for OBP. When you are in the top 10 that is an impact offensive player. If a team got Suzuki he would likely be the top hitter or second best hitter on the team. I think that is worth something on the trade market. How often can you pick up a .300 hitter at the deadline?

 

Granted you have to live with some defensive short comings if you play him at catcher. He is still valuable as a pinch hitter for the NL and DH\Pinch hitter for AL. If you are making a playoff push this is a guy that makes a difference. I gotta believe someone is going to over pay to get him.