Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

Defense at shortstop


jorgenswest
 Share

Most of the teams that don't have a decent defensive SS don't advance to or do well in the PS (That's my observation). In 2019 and 2020 even with the shift many grounders bled through the Twins infield. Keeping Polanco away from SS is the key to Polanco's health and productivity. Moving Polanco back to SS and Arraez to 2B not only will produce the worst MLB mid field duo but Polanco will go to pot again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TheLeviathan said:

I think prioritizing defense at shortstop makes sense.  However, they have to be able to hit their way out of a paper bag if you're going to pay them, say, 10M a year.

Concur, except to me how much they pay the guy isn't the point. 

I want guys who help you win...and that generally means they contribute on both ends, offensively AND defensively. 

Simmons, last year, wouldn't have been a bargain at $10, much less $10mil. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, DJL44 said:

 

I disagree with the comment about catcher defense. With strikeouts and walks at all-time highs catcher framing has never been more important. Catchers are being selected for their ability to control the running game just like they have been for decades but now they are also selected for how well they frame.

Framing is more talk that reality; an artificial stat. created a little over ten years ago but some league announcers have said,  it is viewed by some  pitchers as an annoyance like the catcher coming to the mound.

Now do not quote me on this but one former top pitcher , supposedly  , would tell the catcher if he came to the mound some thing on the order of -- I throw it, you catch it, get back there and do that.

If there were a way to track it, I would like to know how many balls Jeffers passed led to a score or moved a player that scored and would not have had Jeffers not let the ball get by.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RpR said:

Framing is more talk that reality; an artificial stat. created a little over ten years ago but some league announcers have said,  it is viewed by some  pitchers as an annoyance like the catcher coming to the mound.

Now do not quote me on this but one former top pitcher , supposedly  , would tell the catcher if he came to the mound some thing on the order of -- I throw it, you catch it, get back there and do that.

If there were a way to track it, I would like to know how many balls Jeffers passed led to a score or moved a player that scored and would not have had Jeffers not let the ball get by.

 

Jeffers had a grand total of 6 passed balls last year. You can see how they stack up vs. all catchers in MLB with 300+ innings last year. In terms of innings caught between passed balls, Jeffers (111.7) and Garver (112.8) were slightly below median average (121.2). Both Jeffers (27.9) and Garver (28.2) were slightly above median average (26.0) in terms of innings caught between wild pitches. Overall, the combination puts them both slightly above average, ranked 24th and 22nd out of 60, respectively. So if there were metrics for the balls that got away from Twins catchers, they would likely be positive overall. 

Catcher Team Innings Passed Balls Inn/PB Rank Wild Pitches Inn/WP Rank Inn/Combo Rank
Buster Posey SFG 892 2 446.0 6 18 49.6 2 44.6 1
Manny Pina MIL 452.1 3 150.7 23 8 56.5 1 41.1 2
Yan Gomes - - - 771.1 3 257.0 12 18 42.8 3 36.7 3
Cam Gallagher KCR 308.2 1 308.2 10 8 38.5 5 34.2 4
Danny Jansen TOR 481.1 0 Inf 3 15 32.1 12 32.1 5
J.T. Realmuto PHI 973 6 162.2 21 25 38.9 4 31.4 6
Austin Hedges CLE 743.2 2 371.6 8 24 31.0 13 28.6 7
Roberto Perez CLE 364 3 121.3 30 10 36.4 7 28.0 8
Travis d'Arnaud ATL 470.2 3 156.7 22 14 33.6 11 27.7 9
Sandy Leon MIA 437.1 4 109.3 38 12 36.4 8 27.3 10
Sean Murphy OAK 923.1 1 923.1 5 34 27.2 24 26.4 11
Jacob Stallings PIT 892 0 Inf 1 35 25.5 29 25.5 12
Carson Kelly ARI 706.2 8 88.3 49 20 35.3 9 25.2 13
Max Stassi LAA 703 8 87.9 50 20 35.2 10 25.1 14
Tucker Barnhart CIN 846 3 282.0 11 31 27.3 23 24.9 15
Reese McGuire TOR 523 4 130.8 28 17 30.8 14 24.9 16
Victor Caratini SDP 787.1 6 131.2 27 26 30.3 15 24.6 17
Cal Raleigh SEA 333 5 66.6 58 9 37.0 6 23.8 18
Michael Perez PIT 488.1 2 244.1 13 19 25.7 28 23.2 19
Austin Wynns BAL 342.1 0 Inf 2 15 22.8 34 22.8 20
Will Smith LAD 1004.2 9 111.6 36 35 28.7 18 22.8 21
Mitch Garver MIN 451.2 4 112.8 33 16 28.2 19 22.6 22
Willson Contreras CHC 935.2 3 311.7 9 39 24.0 32 22.3 23
Ryan Jeffers MIN 670.2 6 111.7 35 24 27.9 20 22.3 24
Austin Barnes LAD 442.1 3 147.4 24 17 26.0 25 22.1 25
Christian Vazquez BOS 1051.1 10 105.1 40 38 27.7 21 21.9 26
Stephen Vogt - - - 496 5 99.2 45 18 27.6 22 21.6 27
Kyle Higashioka NYY 519.1 6 86.5 51 18 28.8 17 21.6 28
Tomas Nido NYM 365.2 2 182.6 15 15 24.3 30 21.5 29
Tom Murphy SEA 727.2 6 121.2 31 28 26.0 26 21.4 30
Daulton Varsho ARI 319 4 79.8 55 11 29.0 16 21.3 31
Francisco Mejia TBR 582.2 4 145.6 25 24 24.3 31 20.8 32
James McCann NYM 826.1 8 103.3 43 32 25.8 27 20.7 33
Yadier Molina STL 1001.1 6 166.9 20 44 22.8 35 20.0 34
Jose Trevino TEX 713 4 178.3 16 33 21.6 39 19.3 35
Alex Jackson - - - 324.2 3 108.1 39 14 23.2 33 19.1 36
Curt Casali SFG 509.1 4 127.3 29 23 22.1 36 18.9 37
Andrew Knizner STL 406.2 1 406.2 7 21 19.3 47 18.5 38
Martin Maldonado HOU 1010.2 7 144.3 26 48 21.0 40 18.4 39
Jonah Heim TEX 641 3 213.7 14 33 19.4 45 17.8 40
Mike Zunino TBR 860.1 10 86.0 52 39 22.1 37 17.6 41
Dom Nunez COL 622 6 103.7 41 30 20.7 43 17.3 42
Austin Nola SDP 399 4 99.8 44 19 21.0 41 17.3 43
Elias Diaz COL 775 8 96.9 46 37 20.9 42 17.2 44
Eric Haase DET 543.1 7 77.6 57 25 21.7 38 17.0 45
Alejandro Kirk TOR 338 2 169.0 18 18 18.8 50 16.9 46
Omar Narvaez MIL 886.1 5 177.2 17 49 18.1 51 16.4 47
Yasmani Grandal CHW 627.1 7 89.6 47 32 19.6 44 16.1 48
Andrew Knapp PHI 330.2 4 82.6 54 17 19.4 46 15.7 49
Tyler Stephenson CIN 588.1 7 84.0 53 31 19.0 48 15.5 50
Jason Castro HOU 355.1 3 118.4 32 20 17.8 53 15.4 51
Jake Rogers DET 310.2 3 103.4 42 18 17.2 55 14.8 52
Kurt Suzuki LAA 557 7 79.6 56 31 18.0 52 14.7 53
Salvador Perez KCR 1002.2 1 1002.2 4 69 14.5 57 14.3 54
William Contreras ATL 415.2 7 59.3 59 24 17.3 54 13.4 55
Gary Sanchez NYY 879.1 8 109.9 37 60 14.7 56 12.9 56
Zack Collins CHW 506.1 3 168.7 19 37 13.7 59 12.7 57
Kevin Plawecki BOS 336.2 3 112.1 34 24 14.0 58 12.5 58
Jorge Alfaro MIA 476 13 36.6 60 25 19.0 49 12.5 59
Pedro Severino BAL 883 10 88.3 48 66 13.4 60 11.6 60

Framing is not some whimsical made up concept. MLB teams have paid millions of dollars to coach their catchers on how to frame better, and the concept has been around for many decades, but the PitchF/X system allowed real data on how framing was working in 2008. More solid data = more attention by front offices in the post-Moneyball era.

"References to pitch-framing date back to at least the 1950s, and probably before. An organizational instruction manual prepared by the Brewers in 1982 advised catchers to catch possible strikes with “a minimum of body movement” and “very smooth hand action,” noting that “good framing technique will usually get you more marginal pitches.” And in his 1989 book The Diamond Appraised, trailblazing sabermetrician Craig R. Wright wrote that “the mark of the master is the illusion whereby balls become called strikes,” arguing that “learning to catch the ball so it looks like a strike may do more toward preventing runs than throwing out the extra base runner once a week that is the difference between the best- and worst-throwing catchers.”

 https://www.theringer.com/mlb/2018/9/21/17885820/pitch-framing-strike-zone-jorge-alfaro-tyler-flowers

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, bean5302 said:

Since we're so bullish on moving shortstops to center field, maybe we should move Buxton to shortstop? Keep him from running into walls and all that?

But then you've got more players in a closer proximity to each other!  Plus base runners.  Less reaction time on the ball!  The infield is a dangerous place!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, bean5302 said:

"References to pitch-framing date back to at least the 1950s, and probably before. An organizational instruction manual prepared by the Brewers in 1982 advised catchers to catch possible strikes with “a minimum of body movement” and “very smooth hand action,” noting that “good framing technique will usually get you more marginal pitches.” And in his 1989 book The Diamond Appraised, trailblazing sabermetrician Craig R. Wright wrote that “the mark of the master is the illusion whereby balls become called strikes,” arguing that “learning to catch the ball so it looks like a strike may do more toward preventing runs than throwing out the extra base runner once a week that is the difference between the best- and worst-throwing catchers.”

 https://www.theringer.com/mlb/2018/9/21/17885820/pitch-framing-strike-zone-jorge-alfaro-tyler-flowers

The first time I heard of the concept of pitch framing - though the exact phrase wasn't used - was by noted "sabermetrician" Tim McCarver.

And guess what? Actual sabermetricians of the era laughed off the concept as old school nonsense (this was maybe 2001-2003 or so).

So not only is it laughably wrong to say pitch framing isn't real and not only didn't it originate from sabermetrics, but sabermetrics didn't even buy into it right away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, joefish said:

Try signing elite pitchers with the enticement of an infield defense that isn't a priority. 

It's tough enough to bring in elite pitchers. 

With all due respect, I am somewhat at a loss to understand this thought process.  Donaldson, Simmons, and Polanco make a pretty decent, no, more than pretty decent infield defense.  Sano was the weak link, and if we were to put Kirilloff there it would be even better.  All I hear is people wanting to send Simmons packing, trade Donaldson to get rid of his contract, and replace that contract with a top tier SS that is just as expensive as Donaldson.  How that helps an infield defense that was already pretty damn good (without Sano) is somewhat hard for me to wrap my brain around.  If everyone is correct about the payroll being flexible, which I am not convinced of but that is another post, then we can afford Donaldson's contract, we can afford Simmons light bat, and we can move Kirilloff to first and Sano to DH/relief corner infield and come out with a pretty good infield.  The outfield?  Again, another story, but in the infield we already had the bird in the hand; why do we want to try for the two in the bush? (And, again, this is defense)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, bean5302 said:

Jeffers had a grand total of 6 passed balls last year. You can see how they stack up vs. all catchers in MLB with 300+ innings last year. In terms of innings caught between passed balls, Jeffers (111.7) and Garver (112.8) were slightly below median average (121.2). Both Jeffers (27.9) and Garver (28.2) were slightly above median average (26.0) in terms of innings caught between wild pitches. Overall, the combination puts them both slightly above average, ranked 24th and 22nd out of 60, respectively. So if there were metrics for the balls that got away from Twins catchers, they would likely be positive overall. 

Catcher Team Innings Passed Balls Inn/PB Rank Wild Pitches Inn/WP Rank Inn/Combo Rank
Buster Posey SFG 892 2 446.0 6 18 49.6 2 44.6 1
Manny Pina MIL 452.1 3 150.7 23 8 56.5 1 41.1 2
Yan Gomes - - - 771.1 3 257.0 12 18 42.8 3 36.7 3
Cam Gallagher KCR 308.2 1 308.2 10 8 38.5 5 34.2 4
Danny Jansen TOR 481.1 0 Inf 3 15 32.1 12 32.1 5
J.T. Realmuto PHI 973 6 162.2 21 25 38.9 4 31.4 6
Austin Hedges CLE 743.2 2 371.6 8 24 31.0 13 28.6 7
Roberto Perez CLE 364 3 121.3 30 10 36.4 7 28.0 8
Travis d'Arnaud ATL 470.2 3 156.7 22 14 33.6 11 27.7 9
Sandy Leon MIA 437.1 4 109.3 38 12 36.4 8 27.3 10
Sean Murphy OAK 923.1 1 923.1 5 34 27.2 24 26.4 11
Jacob Stallings PIT 892 0 Inf 1 35 25.5 29 25.5 12
Carson Kelly ARI 706.2 8 88.3 49 20 35.3 9 25.2 13
Max Stassi LAA 703 8 87.9 50 20 35.2 10 25.1 14
Tucker Barnhart CIN 846 3 282.0 11 31 27.3 23 24.9 15
Reese McGuire TOR 523 4 130.8 28 17 30.8 14 24.9 16
Victor Caratini SDP 787.1 6 131.2 27 26 30.3 15 24.6 17
Cal Raleigh SEA 333 5 66.6 58 9 37.0 6 23.8 18
Michael Perez PIT 488.1 2 244.1 13 19 25.7 28 23.2 19
Austin Wynns BAL 342.1 0 Inf 2 15 22.8 34 22.8 20
Will Smith LAD 1004.2 9 111.6 36 35 28.7 18 22.8 21
Mitch Garver MIN 451.2 4 112.8 33 16 28.2 19 22.6 22
Willson Contreras CHC 935.2 3 311.7 9 39 24.0 32 22.3 23
Ryan Jeffers MIN 670.2 6 111.7 35 24 27.9 20 22.3 24
Austin Barnes LAD 442.1 3 147.4 24 17 26.0 25 22.1 25
Christian Vazquez BOS 1051.1 10 105.1 40 38 27.7 21 21.9 26
Stephen Vogt - - - 496 5 99.2 45 18 27.6 22 21.6 27
Kyle Higashioka NYY 519.1 6 86.5 51 18 28.8 17 21.6 28
Tomas Nido NYM 365.2 2 182.6 15 15 24.3 30 21.5 29
Tom Murphy SEA 727.2 6 121.2 31 28 26.0 26 21.4 30
Daulton Varsho ARI 319 4 79.8 55 11 29.0 16 21.3 31
Francisco Mejia TBR 582.2 4 145.6 25 24 24.3 31 20.8 32
James McCann NYM 826.1 8 103.3 43 32 25.8 27 20.7 33
Yadier Molina STL 1001.1 6 166.9 20 44 22.8 35 20.0 34
Jose Trevino TEX 713 4 178.3 16 33 21.6 39 19.3 35
Alex Jackson - - - 324.2 3 108.1 39 14 23.2 33 19.1 36
Curt Casali SFG 509.1 4 127.3 29 23 22.1 36 18.9 37
Andrew Knizner STL 406.2 1 406.2 7 21 19.3 47 18.5 38
Martin Maldonado HOU 1010.2 7 144.3 26 48 21.0 40 18.4 39
Jonah Heim TEX 641 3 213.7 14 33 19.4 45 17.8 40
Mike Zunino TBR 860.1 10 86.0 52 39 22.1 37 17.6 41
Dom Nunez COL 622 6 103.7 41 30 20.7 43 17.3 42
Austin Nola SDP 399 4 99.8 44 19 21.0 41 17.3 43
Elias Diaz COL 775 8 96.9 46 37 20.9 42 17.2 44
Eric Haase DET 543.1 7 77.6 57 25 21.7 38 17.0 45
Alejandro Kirk TOR 338 2 169.0 18 18 18.8 50 16.9 46
Omar Narvaez MIL 886.1 5 177.2 17 49 18.1 51 16.4 47
Yasmani Grandal CHW 627.1 7 89.6 47 32 19.6 44 16.1 48
Andrew Knapp PHI 330.2 4 82.6 54 17 19.4 46 15.7 49
Tyler Stephenson CIN 588.1 7 84.0 53 31 19.0 48 15.5 50
Jason Castro HOU 355.1 3 118.4 32 20 17.8 53 15.4 51
Jake Rogers DET 310.2 3 103.4 42 18 17.2 55 14.8 52
Kurt Suzuki LAA 557 7 79.6 56 31 18.0 52 14.7 53
Salvador Perez KCR 1002.2 1 1002.2 4 69 14.5 57 14.3 54
William Contreras ATL 415.2 7 59.3 59 24 17.3 54 13.4 55
Gary Sanchez NYY 879.1 8 109.9 37 60 14.7 56 12.9 56
Zack Collins CHW 506.1 3 168.7 19 37 13.7 59 12.7 57
Kevin Plawecki BOS 336.2 3 112.1 34 24 14.0 58 12.5 58
Jorge Alfaro MIA 476 13 36.6 60 25 19.0 49 12.5 59
Pedro Severino BAL 883 10 88.3 48 66 13.4 60 11.6 60

Framing is not some whimsical made up concept. MLB teams have paid millions of dollars to coach their catchers on how to frame better, and the concept has been around for many decades, but the PitchF/X system allowed real data on how framing was working in 2008. More solid data = more attention by front offices in the post-Moneyball era.

"References to pitch-framing date back to at least the 1950s, and probably before. An organizational instruction manual prepared by the Brewers in 1982 advised catchers to catch possible strikes with “a minimum of body movement” and “very smooth hand action,” noting that “good framing technique will usually get you more marginal pitches.” And in his 1989 book The Diamond Appraised, trailblazing sabermetrician Craig R. Wright wrote that “the mark of the master is the illusion whereby balls become called strikes,” arguing that “learning to catch the ball so it looks like a strike may do more toward preventing runs than throwing out the extra base runner once a week that is the difference between the best- and worst-throwing catchers.”

 https://www.theringer.com/mlb/2018/9/21/17885820/pitch-framing-strike-zone-jorge-alfaro-tyler-flowers

 

While every word of this is true, what happens when the leagues decide to use the technology that exists to call balls and strikes?  You can't frame a pitch for the radar like you can for the human eye, and you go back to the days when a good arm to throw out runners, etc., is more important than trying to steal pitches from borderline umpires.  Not that I am pining for those days to come; I still hope the NL keeps the pitchers hitting (I know, I know, don't holler at me).  The great part of the game is the human element, at least to a point, so I am not calling for it, but if the current pace continues it is only a matter of time, and the framing issue will be moot.  Just a thought.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mark G said:

While every word of this is true, what happens when the leagues decide to use the technology that exists to call balls and strikes?  You can't frame a pitch for the radar like you can for the human eye, and you go back to the days when a good arm to throw out runners, etc., is more important than trying to steal pitches from borderline umpires.  Not that I am pining for those days to come; I still hope the NL keeps the pitchers hitting (I know, I know, don't holler at me).  The great part of the game is the human element, at least to a point, so I am not calling for it, but if the current pace continues it is only a matter of time, and the framing issue will be moot.  Just a thought.  

The catcher position will completely change when - not if - robot umpires are implemented in MLB. It will go from soft-handed framers to catch and throw guys because framing will be irrelevant.

Personally, I think that's a good thing. Framing's primary goal is to prevent umpire mistakes so let's just remove mistake-prone umpires and remove the necessity of framing pitches.

(not that umpires are bad at their jobs, it's incredibly difficult, but a machine will be more consistent and accurate than a human)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

The catcher position will completely change when - not if - robot umpires are implemented in MLB. It will go from soft-handed framers to catch and throw guys because framing will be irrelevant.

Personally, I think that's a good thing. Framing's primary goal is to prevent umpire mistakes so let's just remove mistake-prone umpires and remove the necessity of framing pitches.

(not that umpires are bad at their jobs, it's incredibly difficult, but a machine will be more consistent and accurate than a human)

Umps are people, they make mistakes and are prone to prejudices and pressures to not call a fair game. For me they can't bring in robo umps fast enough. Standardize the ball & strikes so both pitchers and hitters know exactly what they are dealing with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

The catcher position will completely change when - not if - robot umpires are implemented in MLB. It will go from soft-handed framers to catch and throw guys because framing will be irrelevant.

Personally, I think that's a good thing. Framing's primary goal is to prevent umpire mistakes so let's just remove mistake-prone umpires and remove the necessity of framing pitches.

(not that umpires are bad at their jobs, it's incredibly difficult, but a machine will be more consistent and accurate than a human)

I just thought of this as I was reading your response, so my response has nothing to do with yours, it's just that it's what caused me to think about it.  

 

I wonder if ground ball pitchers etc ... will become more valuable with robot umps, because theoretically with robot umps some of the best pitchers won't get questionable strike calls which in turn will probably allow the hitters to lay off of balls with spin which usually drop out of the strike zone anyway.  I wonder how much robot umps can really change the game??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Twodogs said:

I wonder if ground ball pitchers etc ... will become more valuable with robot umps, because theoretically with robot umps some of the best pitchers won't get questionable strike calls which in turn will probably allow the hitters to lay off of balls with spin which usually drop out of the strike zone anyway.  I wonder how much robot umps can really change the game??

I've read quite a few pieces on how robot umps will change the game and the consensus seems to be "a lot", though how it will change differs quite a bit on opinion and how MLB implements the automated zone (for example, we've discovered that umps don't really call the rulebook strikezone but robot umps would, which creates a lot more vertical strikes).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

The catcher position will completely change when - not if - robot umpires are implemented in MLB. It will go from soft-handed framers to catch and throw guys because framing will be irrelevant.

Personally, I think that's a good thing. Framing's primary goal is to prevent umpire mistakes so let's just remove mistake-prone umpires and remove the necessity of framing pitches.

(not that umpires are bad at their jobs, it's incredibly difficult, but a machine will be more consistent and accurate than a human)

Exactly. But I would say that Framing's primary goal is to cheat and fool the umpire, not to prevent mistakes..... but to create more mistakes. The best framer doesn't move their glove at all on the close pitches, even if they are outside. Jeffers always jerks his glove in, even if you doesn't need to. Plus, I saw a bunch of Wild Pitches scored against his battery mates that should have been caught. That doesn't show up in the stat line. Umpires are just guessing with a horrible angle, and many even miss the call when they are looking right at it over the inside shoulder and it is on the inside to the zone area. Then they are so arrogant about the calls they missed. Such a show, and not a show about baseball, and talent, but control and power. Framing is all about making something it isn't, and we are way overdue to change that.

It is hard and unreliable to rate any infielder defensively anymore, because half the time they aren't even close to playing their position anyway. I would have scored Simmons with at least twice as many errors than he was given by the charity working official scorers, who give out hits like candy.

If this team has to build an infield to accommodate inferior pitchers like Dobnak, we are really in trouble.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Twodogs said:

I just thought of this as I was reading your response, so my response has nothing to do with yours, it's just that it's what caused me to think about it.  

 

I wonder if ground ball pitchers etc ... will become more valuable with robot umps, because theoretically with robot umps some of the best pitchers won't get questionable strike calls which in turn will probably allow the hitters to lay off of balls with spin which usually drop out of the strike zone anyway.  I wonder how much robot umps can really change the game??

I think you are on to something here. I’m not sure, but if it did make sinkerballers more valuable, SS fielding would as well. Pace of play too

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, h2oface said:

Exactly. But I would say that Framing's primary goal is to cheat and fool the umpire, not to prevent mistakes..... but to create more mistakes. The best framer doesn't move their glove at all on the close pitches, even if they are outside. Jeffers always jerks his glove in, even if you doesn't need to. Plus, I saw a bunch of Wild Pitches scored against his battery mates that should have been caught. That doesn't show up in the stat line. Umpires are just guessing with a horrible angle, and many even miss the call when they are looking right at it over the inside shoulder and it is on the inside to the zone area. Then they are so arrogant about the calls they missed. Such a show, and not a show about baseball, and talent, but control and power. Framing is all about making something it isn't, and we are way overdue to change that.

Framing's goal isn't to cheat, it's to get as many strikes called as possible. I haven't seen data in a few years but last I saw, the byproduct of framing was getting more actual strikes than stealing balls with slick glove work.

But at the end of the day, it doesn't really matter whether framing is built to keep strikes or steal balls. The reason it exists is because human umpiring is flawed so catchers have had to completely alter their defensive game to compensate for human deficiency in umpiring.

And that's stupid. No position on the field should re-dedicate its approach to counter human error if we can EASILY remove human error and improve the overall process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, bean5302 said:

Jeffers had a grand total of 6 passed balls last year. You can see how they stack up vs. all catchers in MLB with 300+ innings last year. In terms of innings caught between passed balls, Jeffers (111.7) and Garver (112.8) were slightly below median average (121.2). Both Jeffers (27.9) and Garver (28.2) were slightly above median average (26.0) in terms of innings caught between wild pitches. Overall, the combination puts them both slightly above average, ranked 24th and 22nd out of 60, respectively. So if there were metrics for the balls that got away from Twins catchers, they would likely be positive overall. 

Catcher Team Innings Passed Balls Inn/PB Rank Wild Pitches Inn/WP Rank Inn/Combo Rank
Buster Posey SFG 892 2 446.0 6 18 49.6 2 44.6 1
Manny Pina MIL 452.1 3 150.7 23 8 56.5 1 41.1 2
Yan Gomes - - - 771.1 3 257.0 12 18 42.8 3 36.7 3
Cam Gallagher KCR 308.2 1 308.2 10 8 38.5 5 34.2 4
Danny Jansen TOR 481.1 0 Inf 3 15 32.1 12 32.1 5
J.T. Realmuto PHI 973 6 162.2 21 25 38.9 4 31.4 6
Austin Hedges CLE 743.2 2 371.6 8 24 31.0 13 28.6 7
Roberto Perez CLE 364 3 121.3 30 10 36.4 7 28.0 8
Travis d'Arnaud ATL 470.2 3 156.7 22 14 33.6 11 27.7 9
Sandy Leon MIA 437.1 4 109.3 38 12 36.4 8 27.3 10
Sean Murphy OAK 923.1 1 923.1 5 34 27.2 24 26.4 11
Jacob Stallings PIT 892 0 Inf 1 35 25.5 29 25.5 12
Carson Kelly ARI 706.2 8 88.3 49 20 35.3 9 25.2 13
Max Stassi LAA 703 8 87.9 50 20 35.2 10 25.1 14
Tucker Barnhart CIN 846 3 282.0 11 31 27.3 23 24.9 15
Reese McGuire </