Video: Slowing Things Down To See Jason Castro’s Silent Skill

- Let the ump see the pitch.

- During the catch, always move your glove back towards the center of the zone.

- Don't jab or yank your glove. Be smooth, use small movements. 

 

Am I missing something complicated or subtle? This doesn't seem all that complicated or subtle. Seems like a fundamental skill. As a catcher, you want to make it look like catching this guy is easy, because he's always near the zone. 

 

I suspect that when a catcher is good at framing, he's also good at stopping wild pitches. He would have an advantage because he'd be anticipating the most likely variations in a correct delivery, as when a pitcher opens up too soon and the ball goes high arm-side. Cheating in the direction of likely error would help in fielding erratic pitches. 

 

As a pitcher, knowing that my catcher frames close pitches well, and that he also anticipates the occasional flubber, would give me a lot more confidence than if he simply reacted from the middle of the target outwards. 

To expand a little on Jimbo's take. My lifelong neighbor was a very good amateur catcher and later a very good plate umpire. He always told me pulling the glove is useless. It's too obvious. But turning your body in to the plate, and catching the corners with the glove turned in shows the umpire the baseball. As does getting low and ease of movement. While I know that the line between balls and strikes in MLB is much finer, the principles are the same. In some of the frames shown Castro seems to be blatantly pulling the ball. On that point, as an umpire, when my friend heard a catcher question a non strike call after the catcher had pulled the ball over the plate he would ask the guy, "if it was so good, why did you have to pull it"? That was generally the end of the discussion. That said, I know that there are MLB catchers that are better than others at framing. The seemingly recent discover surprises me though. But then you read the Gladden comment, and wonder how Danno got a job as an analyst having not noticed something that I taught my kids

Count me as one of those old-school fans that likes to mock pitch-framing. If it's so subtle we can't see it, maybe it isn't there.

 

Kind of sounds like the emperor has no clothes.

Not long ago I had an Uber driver whose son is a catcher at a Division II college who had spent a good deal of time filling in at various Twins practices as an extra catcher. The kid got to know some people pretty well, and apparently concluded from his conversations that a number of the coaches believed that the single biggest area of improvement for the pitching staff would be realized by bringing in a starting catcher who was good at framing pitches. This of course was pre-Castro.

IMO, the video is impressive not because it reveals Castro pulling, but because it reveals the subtlety of it. He uses the necessary closing of his hand as an opportunity to change his wrist orientation, in the process moving the ball towards the center of the plate, but also bringing it to a dead stop.

 

It left me thinking that if umpires could track the ball well enough for framing to have no impact, well, they would be major league hitters instead.

Its not a new thing but the metrics are fairly new.    I don't know how much faith to put into the metrics and if I put a lot of faith in them I am not so sure that ranking 32nd is all that impressive.    Part of the value is if the pitchers have faith in it.    Its not a new concept but metrics or not I think pitch framing is both a talent and a skill.   For example I think I would stink at it no matter how much I worked at it but if I worked at it I would stink less.    If Castor is naturally better at it than Susuki and also works at it more then he will be better at it.   If that results in a sum total of two pitches a game that was either stolen or not given away it is probably worth it.   Just kind of tough proving it.    

For being a silent skill, we sure talk about it a lot and measure it a lot.

"The goal at the end of the day is to try to help your pitcher keep as many strikes as possible," Castro said. "And to not do anything to take away from presenting pitches that are in the strike zone to the umpires that would lead them to believe that any given pitch is not a strike."

 

 

Maybe the most pertinent thing said on this topic so far. Don't give away strikes being jumpy or awkward.

Edited January 25, 2018 by Platoon

The term "pitch framing" is a misnomer that euphemizes its true nature. The correct term is "faking out the home plate umpire". The fact that there are metrics for it and that it's a topic of discussion on this web site strongly reflects the need for the implementation of a good automated pitch calling system ASAP.

"A lot of the statistical side of framing has more to do with the guy in front of and the guy behind the catcher than it does the receiver himself."

 

Perfect context.

 

Stealing a strike here and there is certainly beneficial, as is having a rapport with your pitchers. 

It would be interesting to see how many favor an automated pitch calling system. Baseball is an old game with many traditions and an atmosphere all is own. Not so sure I want to lose the quirks; "ump's calling it close today" or the arguments at home plate, the sideways glances etc.

oh Castro tricksie little hobbit he is!

 

When a catcher hits like Castro, you have to go elsewhere to give some props and love. I too long for the day that a skill to cheat the balls and strikes from being what they are is not a part of the game. Until then, I hope Castro is the best at the cheat for the next two years.

 

What?

Incorrect. Most catchers I've spoken to hate the term "pitch framing". The correct term is "receiving the ball the right way". 

 

That doesn't just mean "stealing strikes". It also means keeping pitches in the zone from being called balls.

You can call it whatever you like, but the objective is to convince the umpire that a pitch is a strike whether the pitch is in the strike zone or not. This is not how things should be. If a pitch is in the strike zone it should be called a strike. If it is not it should be called a ball. If automated systems perform this task better than umpires, and they do, the umpires should be replaced and this aspect of catching would properly be rendered moot.

Until the day they release the flying cars and automated strike zones*, a catcher who receives the ball the right way is going to be more valuable than those that do not. Like it, lump it, make your mind up to it because it's here to stay. 

 

*Baseball Prospectus today just published a detailed look at why this is too complicated to roll out any time soon. https://www.baseballprospectus.com/news/article/37347/robo-strike-zone-not-simple-think/

What this article fails to discuss is the actual accuracy of automated systems vs accuracy of MLB umpires. I don't have a citation off the top of my head but I have read previously on this site that the automated systems, while far from perfect, have a higher percentage of correct calls than umpires.