Doumit ranks as worst pitch framer for 2nd straight week

[Reginald Maudling's Shin]

Yeah, how much of that something is there, and if there's enough of it there to be significant, is certainly wide open for scrutiny.

The other thing I don't quite understand is what you do with the data. Is pitch framing something you can practice and get better at? I would think a guy like Molina just knows where to set up to get the call, knows the strike zone, and knows where to put his glove and not move it. It's seems more of an instinctive thing. Its like asking players to somehow learn to take pitches as close as say, Mauer does. That's just natural ability to some extent.

[Willihammer]

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.

 

In even 1 week of data the leaderboards are basically the same as what we have for larger studies that look at thousands of pitches. I don't know what the cutoff is where a sample of pitch framing data becomes reliable, it might be that in part time duty Doumit didn't reach it. But judging from the consistency of these weekly reports (so far anyway), the cutoff might be a lot less than something like UZR.

[Brock Beauchamp]

In even 1 week of data the leaderboards are basically the same as what we have for larger studies that look at thousands of pitches. I don't know what the cutoff is where a sample of pitch framing data becomes reliable, it might be that in part time duty Doumit didn't reach it. But judging from the consistency of these weekly reports (so far anyway), the cutoff might be a lot less than something like UZR.

 

It can't be accurate from week to week. It just can't. When a player is often playing only once a week under one umpire, that umpire's zone is going to distort results much of the time.

 

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.

[Willihammer]

IThe 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.

 

This one ignores them but these things have been measured in other pitch framing studies. There's about a 10 strike range between the stingiest umpires and the more free-strike calling ones (over 150 pitches). The effects of pitchers on strike calling are even smaller. The fact is, catcher pitch framing is as big or bigger than any other variable.

[Brock Beauchamp]

This one ignores them but these things have been measured in other pitch framing studies. There's about a 10 strike range between the stingiest umpires and the more free-strike calling ones (over 150 pitches). The effects of pitchers on strike calling are even smaller. The fact is, catcher pitch framing is as big or bigger than any other variable.

 

But they're still variables, unaccounted variables at that.

 

And in small sample sizes, those are generally disastrous when trying to parse data.

[Willihammer]

But they're still variables, unaccounted variables at that.

 

And in small sample sizes, those are generally disastrous when trying to parse data.

 

The sample sizes aren't that small when you think about it. 2 games of catching is about 300 pitches. If you want to compare that to UZR, that's better than a 1/2 season of chances for a everyday shortstop. A 1/2 season of defensive data is still variable but not totally meaningless. I suspect the same is true of catching data.

[Brock Beauchamp]

The sample sizes aren't that small when you think about it. 2 games of catching is about 300 pitches. If you want to compare that to UZR, that's better than a 1/2 season of chances for a everyday shortstop. A 1/2 season of defensive data is still variable but not totally meaningless. I suspect the same is true of catching data.

 

That's still a very small sample size. Just because it's not as unwieldy as defensive metrics doesn't mean it's reliable week-to-week, especially for part-time players.

[ashbury]

I would think a guy like Molina just knows where to set up to get the call' date=' knows the strike zone, and knows where to put his glove and not move it.[/quote']

 

At least one trait you didn't mention is head movement. That seems like something that can be practiced (to not do).

 

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.

[Reginald Maudling's Shin]

But they're still variables, unaccounted variables at that.

 

And in small sample sizes, those are generally disastrous when trying to parse data.

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.

[Oxtung]

Of those 300 pitches' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

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.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Of those 300 pitches' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

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.

[70charger]

Of those 300 pitches' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

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.

[Reginald Maudling's Shin]

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.

[cmathewson]

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.

[Guest USAFChief]

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."

[Oxtung]

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?

[Guest USAFChief]

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.

[Brock Beauchamp]

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".

[Oxtung]

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.

[Guest USAFChief]

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.

[Jim H]

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.

[jorgenswest]

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

[snepp]

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.

[Willihammer]

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.

[jorgenswest]

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.

[jay]

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?

[Brock Beauchamp]

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.

[ThePuck]

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.

[Mike Sixel]

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.

[ThePuck]

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...