Ervin Santana: Switch back to AL, Suzuki and OF Defense.

[jimmer]

http://espn.go.com/blog/sweetspot/post/_/id/55180/pitchers-hurt-by-new-catchers

 

'Ervin Santana, Twins: He hasn't exactly hasn't received much help from his catchers the past few years. Salvador Perez, despite winning back to back Gold Gloves, hasn't graded out as a good pitch framer and the Braves' various catchers also rated out below average last year. Twins catcher Kurt Suzuki has consistently graded poorly according to StatCorner.com. So aside from moving back to the AL to a team with a poor defensive outfield, Santana's not going to get much help from his catcher.'

[DocBauer]

We've debated the framing issue repeatedly and I believe that the only consensus we've ever reached is that we don't have a consensus. As for me, I still believe in game calling, blocking the plate, and the catcher/pitcher relationship.

[jimmer]

There's been enough analysis on this to know framing is a real thing and there are catchers better at it than others.  Whether there's a consensus on it or not is really not any kind of reason to ignore the info. There's a lot of things that there is no consensus on, even the most obvious things.

[Craig Arko]

There's a lot of things that there is no consensus on, even the most obvious things.

That much is certain.

 

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/cms/

[Kwak]

There's been enough analysis on this to know framing is a real thing and there are catchers better at it than others.  Whether there's a consensus on it or not is really not any kind of reason to ignore the info. There's a lot of things that there is no consensus on, even the most obvious things.

It is presumptuous to speak of "consensus" about pitch-framing.  Judgement "calls" can also be determined by other factors e.g. reputation of the pitcher, or the hitter, mood of the umpire, state-of-the-game, etc.  Pitch-framing is an "invention" that can't be physically measured.

[jimmer]

It is presumptuous to speak of "consensus" about pitch-framing.  Judgement "calls" can also be determined by other factors e.g. reputation of the pitcher, or the hitter, mood of the umpire, state-of-the-game, etc.  Pitch-framing is an "invention" that can't be physically measured.

Well, in fairness, I didn't bring up the consensus part so there is no presumption on my part.  In fact, I made sure to point out that there's hardly ever a consensus on the most basic things.  I didn't say framing is one of the most basic things. Doesn't matter if everyone wants to believe in it or not, but I will continue to use it when discussing catcher defense because after reading about framing at length, the evidence is over-whelming IMO, whether others believe it or not.

[Old Twins Cap]

Must be tough to have to pitch to Salvador Perez, the world's best defensive catcher.

 

A keyboard and an internet connection is all you need these days to be an expert.

 

That troubles me.

[jimmer]

Must be tough to have to pitch to Salvador Perez, the world's best defensive catcher.

 

A keyboard and an internet connection is all you need these days to be an expert.

 

That troubles me.

It troubles me when exhaustive study is done on a subject by people qualified to do so and it gets tossed aside as made up because it doesn't jive with what we were taught when we were young.  One may decide not to believe in it, but slighting the effort of the people trying to open lines of discussions in an effort for everyone to understand the game better seems counter-intuitive and, in fairness, insulting to the people.

 

History is filled with things we were sure we knew was right or wrong only to be proven other-wise.  Technology helps.

 

And it's good to know the some of the same people who consider Perez's framing is below average also, overall, had him as the best defensive catcher last year. One can point out a flaw in a player and still, overall, think he's very good.

[TheLeviathan]

History is filled with things we were sure we knew was right or wrong only to be proven other-wise.  Technology helps.

 

Like, perhaps, pitch framing will someday proven to be wrong?  You keep trying to present yourself as being balanced and understanding about doubts with the study of framing, but this is what you lead with:

 

There's been enough analysis on this to know framing is a real thing and there are catchers better at it than others.

 

 

That is clearly a declaration of the stat as fact.  Except, the analysis may not be all that useful, relevant, or accurate for any number of reasons.  Framing as an advanced metric has so many uncontrolled variables that cast doubt on it, that skepticism should be accepted.  I find it interesting to read and consider, but I have doubts about how seriously we should take it as a means of evaluation.

[jimmer]

Like, perhaps, pitch framing will someday proven to be wrong?  You keep trying to present yourself as being balanced and understanding about doubts with the study of framing, but this is what you lead with:

 

 

That is clearly a declaration of the stat as fact.  Except, the analysis may not be all that useful, relevant, or accurate for any number of reasons.  Framing as an advanced metric has so many uncontrolled variables that cast doubt on it, that skepticism should be accepted.  I find it interesting to read and consider, but I have doubts about how seriously we should take it as a means of evaluation.

You're right, I should have put IMO at the beginning of that,  however, I'm not sure every time someone writes something they should need to say that and I'm hardly the only person who puts their opinion out there like that.  I thought I had clarified that it was my opinion later in the last part of my response post the Kwak, but I'll try and put IMO out there a bit more.

[TheLeviathan]

You're right, I should have put IMO at the beginning of that,  however, I'm not sure every time someone writes something they should need to say that and I'm hardly the only person who puts their opinion out there like that.  I'll try and put IMO out there a bit more.

 

That's fine, but if you understand why people are skeptical, rebutting them doesn't seem to reflect that opinion.  Framing is interesting, it's a concept that I think is real.  Whether these derived formulas accurately reflect it is a wholly different matter that is too often conflated.  (Like many metrics these days it seems)

[jorgenswest]

It really only matters what is the consensus in the a Twins management. Even if we did have consensus on pitch framing, it wouldn't mean we were correct. It is clear that some teams think pitch framing data is significant and others like the Twins don't give it the same weight in their roster construction.

 

I am certain that the Twins have given up far too many runs in the last four years,

 

In those years they go have had some very poor pitching, a very poor infield defense with Nishioka that shifted to a very poor outfield defense with a Willingham and a few of the lowest ranked pitch framers in Suzuki, Doumit and Pinto.

 

I am confident they would have prevented more runs had they had better pitchers, better defenders and catchers better at receiving strikes.

[USAFChief]

If Santana can just match what he did for KC and ATL with that below average framing, I'll be happy.

[jimmer]

If Santana can just match what he did for KC and ATL with that below average framing, I'll be happy.

yeah, but then there's the defense part of the equation :-)

[Old Twins Cap]

For the record, I'm agnostic on the issue of framing.  My only point is that whatever else happens, if I were a pitcher, I would want to pitch to the world's best defensive catcher. 

 

Have you ever seen how many passed balls Perez prevents?  The throws he makes?  Plays on bunts and dribblers?  Pops behind the plate?   The pitch calls?  The organization/exhortation of the infield?

 

There's a lot more to a catcher's in-game impact than framing pitches.  A lot more.

[jimmer]

 

 

There's a lot more to a catcher's in-game impact than framing pitches.  A lot more.

Yes, there is, which is why even though Fangraphs agrees Perez is a below average framer, they still rated him as the top defensive catcher last year.

[stringer bell]

We've debated the framing issue repeatedly and I believe that the only consensus we've ever reached is that we don't have a consensus. As for me, I still believe in game calling, blocking the plate, and the catcher/pitcher relationship.

I'm sure you mean blocking pitches and not the plate.  With the new rules, blocking the plate is a non-issue.  Blocking pitches, OTOH, remains an essential and (I think) underrated skill. 

[Otto von Ballpark]

I won't wade into the debate, but this was an interesting look at old school pitch framing:

 

http://www.foxsports.com/mlb/just-a-bit-outside/story/pitch-framing-technique-tips-milwaukee-brewers-jonathan-lucroy-021715

[diehardtwinsfan]

There's been enough analysis on this to know framing is a real thing and there are catchers better at it than others.  Whether there's a consensus on it or not is really not any kind of reason to ignore the info. There's a lot of things that there is no consensus on, even the most obvious things.

My conclusion on framing is that they need to automate ball/strike calls and take away human error. That would take this whole thing out of the equation.

 

I think the idea that framing is a real thing is probably true. It's impact on the game is what's up for debate. Personally, I think framing tends to help certain teams (like the Yankees) and it has little of anything to do with who is behind the dish.

[iTwins]

My quick .02 on pitch framing: I have a hard time putting a lot of equity into a stat this relies so heavily on subjectivity. The strikezone is subjective and varies every game. I find it's hard to define true statistical comparisons when the control changes in every game across the league. Standardize what a strikezone IS - then I'll talk comparisons on who frames it better.

 

Suzuki may grade lower in terms of pitch framing, but I think there's value in game calling, leadership and understanding the situation. Guys like Phil Hughes and Glen Perkins have said they really enjoyed the presence Suzuki had behind the plate. That's good enough for me.

[jimmer]

My conclusion on framing is that they need to automate ball/strike calls and take away human error. That would take this whole thing out of the equation.

 

I think the idea that framing is a real thing is probably true. It's impact on the game is what's up for debate. Personally, I think framing tends to help certain teams (like the Yankees) and it has little of anything to do with who is behind the dish.

The funny thing is, people seem to be totally open to the idea that when a catcher received a low strike and they moved the glove down when catching it, that this was a bad practice and could cost their pitcher a strike. We've been told that all our lives and we accept it, because it's OUR eyes that tell us who is good and who is bad at it.

 

Then it gets a name, framing, when people decided it's a good idea to identify who does this well and who doesn't because they have the technology to do so. They call it a metric and automatically it's a bad thing that should be severely scrutinized.

 

Baseball Prospectus has done loads of research on this that is worth reading and I believe their conclusions as to who is good at it and who is bad at it, makes sense. They can see who gets more strikes on borderline pitches. As to the degree of runs saved in that regard, tinkering is still going on, but the basic question of who is good at framing and who is bad at it seems to be answered. IMO.

 

Here's a tidbit from an article in march 2014, Fangraphs:

 

'Over the last three years, Lucroy has gotten 242 more extra strikes than McCann, 345 more extra strikes than Molina, and 442 more extra strikes than Posey. Over the last two years, he’s gotten 137 more extra strikes than Molina, 160 more extra strikes than Posey, and 170 more extra strikes than McCann. Compared to Posey, just on receiving, Lucroy has been worth something like 60-70 more runs over three years, and 20-30 more runs over two years.'

 

Now, maybe wonder if the amount of runs saved is actually that much (or that little) but who is better at it and who isn't there isn't much doubt. IMO.

[jimmer]

 Guys like Phil Hughes and Glen Perkins have said they really enjoyed the presence Suzuki had behind the plate. That's good enough for me.

Would you expect them to say other-wise? In any event, there's still game calling and being a settling presence that is something different than framing and I imagine pitchers like that for sure.

[ashbury]

I think the idea that framing is a real thing is probably true. It's impact on the game is what's up for debate.

The Neyer article posted just above demonstrates to my satisfaction that framing is a concept older than the sabermetricians trying to quantify it.  Alternatively known as pitch pulling.

[TheLeviathan]

Framing is definitely real and important, but this is the quote that comes to mind for me:

 

"Not all that matters can be measured, not all that is measured matters"

 

I think we've reached a point in baseball metrics where people are devout to issues simply because they're math that some statitician tells us is a good thing.  We've begun to completely ignore how much subjectivity has infiltrated these stats and seemingly forgotten how extremely important it is to remember that.

[Kwak]

Framing is definitely real and important, but this is the quote that comes to mind for me:

 

"Not all that matters can be measured, not all that is measured matters"

 

I think we've reached a point in baseball metrics where people are devout to issues simply because they're math that some statitician tells us is a good thing.  We've begun to completely ignore how much subjectivity has infiltrated these stats and seemingly forgotten how extremely important it is to remember that.

Amen.

 

Worshipping innuendo has become all too frequent, especially for those encompassing statistics that require considerable judgement just to generate the base data much less its' end-product statistic.

[ashbury]

how much subjectivity has infiltrated these stats

The statisticians are tackling a topic that is based on the subjectivity of calling balls and strikes.  Infiltration of subjectivity has been approximately on a level of how the US Armed Forces infiltrated Normandy on June 6 1944,

[USAFChief]

Framing is definitely real and important, but this is the quote that comes to mind for me:

 

"Not all that matters can be measured, not all that is measured matters"

 

I think we've reached a point in baseball metrics where people are devout to issues simply because they're math that some statitician tells us is a good thing.  We've begun to completely ignore how much subjectivity has infiltrated these stats and seemingly forgotten how extremely important it is to remember that.

What wise and thoughtful person did that come from?

[TheLeviathan]

The statisticians are tackling a topic that is based on the subjectivity of calling balls and strikes.  Infiltration of subjectivity has been approximately on a level of how the US Armed Forces infiltrated Normandy on June 6 1944,

 

Of course they are tackling something that is subjective, my criticism is not in the attempt to measure the subjective.  My criticism is in the interpretation of the metrics.  Somehow through an equation many seem to believe something objective comes out of what is inherently subjective.  Then we question why anyone might have skepticism.

 

The infiltration aspect of my comment is because so many stats are NOT subjective, or contain an insignificant amount of subjective variables.  These stats (OPS, batting average, OBP, etc.) have limitations, but one of their limitations is not subjectivity.  Too often we prop up WAR or UZR and put them in the same class as these stats as a way to ostensibly seem as objective as they are.  WAR and UZR have their own strengths and limitations, but one chief limitation among them is that they have a ton of subjectivity inherent in their calculation.  Something OPS does not.

 

A lot of the metrics people use are due some healthy skepticism, but they are treated more like biblical verses than helpful guides.  I guess I've just noted a really pervasive mindset around this with baseball stats lately.  Not a fan personally.

[USAFChief]

Of course they are tackling something that is subjective, my criticism is not in the attempt to measure the subjective.  My criticism is in the interpretation of the metrics.  Somehow through an equation many seem to believe something objective comes out of what is inherently subjective.  Then we question why anyone might have skepticism.

 

The infiltration aspect of my comment is because so many stats are NOT subjective, or contain an insignificant amount of subjective variables.  These stats (OPS, batting average, OBP, etc.) have limitations, but one of their limitations is not subjectivity.  Too often we prop up WAR or UZR and put them in the same class as these stats as a way to ostensibly seem as objective as they are.  WAR and UZR have their own strengths and limitations, but one chief limitation among them is that they have a ton of subjectivity inherent in their calculation.  Something OPS does not.

 

A lot of the metrics people use are due some healthy skepticism, but they are treated more like biblical verses than helpful guides.  I guess I've just noted a really pervasive mindset around this with baseball stats lately.  Not a fan personally.

I also have a problem with taking the already questionable data, and then deriving further data...

 

There's a post above that quotes someone as saying Lucroy has gotten 442 more strikes than Posey over three years.

 

That seems a little too...exact to me.

 

But the follow up is even worse...even if Lucroy has gotten 400-odd more strikes called, that's about 1 per game. I'm supposed to believe 1 more called strike per game equals "60 or 70 runs"? 20 runs per season?

 

I'm skeptical.

[TheLeviathan]

I also have a problem with taking the already questionable data, and then deriving further data...

 

There's a post above that quotes someone as saying Lucroy has gotten 442 more strikes than Posey over three years.

 

That seems a little too...exact to me.

 

But the follow up is even worse...even if Lucroy has gotten 400-odd more strikes called, that's about 1 per game. I'm supposed to believe 1 more called strike per game equals "60 or 70 runs"? 20 runs per season?

 

I'm skeptical.

 

Not to mention that Lucroy alone gets credit for that if indeed it would have such an effect.  It's so far down the hypothetical rabbit hole it really loses me as anything more than a curiosity.