One area of sabermetric analysis that is still very much in its “rough draft” stage is the effort to measure defense. Even popular statistics such as UZR have plenty of detractors, and it seems that little agreement will be reached on this issue until Field f/x provides more accurate data to build statistics upon. However, even within the frameworks of the existing statistics, it is widely accepted that there are elements of catcher defense that are not even addressed by the metrics. Game calling and pitch framing, for example, are not included in any measure that I can think of, primarily because they have proven very difficult to quantify. However, Mike Fast of Baseball Prospectus has begun to work at measuring pitch framing by using Pitch f/x data, and released a stunning article yesterday that attacked this issue:
For example, as mentioned earlier, the zone for left-handed batters is shifted toward the outside. Do umpires have some bias against left-handed hitters? If so, why? Perhaps a more likely explanation is that they simply call more strikes outside to lefty hitters because that’s where the catchers are setting their targets, and the umpires are using the target as a cue. While right-handed batters see 58 percent of pitches outside of the midpoint of the plate, left-handed batters see 66 percent of pitches on the outside half. The average pitch to a left-hander is 2.4 inches farther outside than the average pitch to a right-hander, which dovetails nicely with John Walsh’s finding that the average strike zone for a left-handed batter was shifted 2.3 inches farther outside than the average zone for right-handed batter.
If umpires are influenced by the catcher target, it also explains why individual pitchers see such different zones….. aims toward the very edges of the zone, or even a little outside, both to righties and lefties, and it appears that the umpires give him the strike call when he hits the middle or inside of the catcher target. , on the other hand, aims closer to the middle of the zone. If he locates a pitch at the edge of the zone, he’s very likely to have missed his catcher target, and the umpires don’t give him the strike call in those cases.
Fast uses the graphic posted above to explain that received a larger zone against both lefties and righties with behind the plate than he did with back there. He then suggests that the catcher framing talent is worth about +/- 20 runs per season (“When Bill’s catcher framing numbers for 2008-2009 are normalized by pitcher, the best and worst catchers are around +/- 20 runs per season”). That is a lot of runs (10 runs = 1 win), and suggests that framing pitches is a very important part of a catcher’s defensive skill set.
I do not want to use the anecdotal evidence of ‘ strike zone to draw conclusions about Posada and Cervelli, and it is important to note that Fast linked to a study by Dan Turkenkopf that had Posada in the middle of the pack and slightly above average at framing pitches. What I do want to extract here is the fact that there are elements of catcher defense that are extremely valuable but have yet to be properly quantified and are not easy to observe as a layman. Quantifying these elements of catcher defense could turn our rankings of catchers on its head, at least for those players at the extreme fringes of the pitch framing spectrum. For example, if we could prove that saves 20 runs a season with his pitch-framing skills, that would drastically alter our view of him as a player. Until that time, we have to acknowledge that there is a lot that we do not know, and we must rely on scouting reports and our own powers of observation to try and determine the quality of a catcher’s defense.
(I just noticed Mike Axisa addressed this as well. Check it ).
If you enjoyed this article, please consider sharing it!
“What I do want to extract here is the fact that there are elements of catcher defense that are extremely valuable but have yet to be properly quantified and are not easy to observe as a layman.”
I agree/disagree with this statement. First part yes, last part no. Well, it depends on what you consider a “layman”.
75 percent of anyone who has played the game at a reasonably-high level (I’d say college or higher) can functionally see when a catcher isn’t framing pitches well from the camera angles shown during a TV game. It isn’t an exact science by any means, but I have to feel with the amount of baseball acumen in each front office (from scouts to GMs, etc.) there is and has been a way to quantify this catching ability although it may not be public or mainstream knowledge. Just watching can tell you if you’ve been trained to look. Again, I know the “eye test” isn’t enough for some people, but it this case it is possible. I wish I could explain better, but Jorge’s movement and lack of a stable target behind the plate are easy to spot as you watch the game. It is baseball instinct.
Posada for years has had his detractors claim that he has costs pitchers strikes , so this study might begin to put numerical data to what we have seen for seasons watching Jorge catch.
Again, I don’t claim to be an expert, but I have to believe in the game of baseball the ability to recognize how well a catcher receives his staff has been measured and quantified for a long time.
The role of advanced scouts and people in baseball operations is to be able to recognize this type of information. With their qualifications, it is possible and not really that difficult to ascertain from video.
I agree with your point. Let me amend: a layman can tell that someone is not great at it, but I think we would have a hard time putting a number on it.
I have to admit that I wasn’t impressed by Fast’s research because I don’t think it clearly isolates framing as the reason for the shifting zones. Even the Cervelli/Posada example isn’t anywhere near conclusive. Ignoring the small samples involved, I don’t see how the charts above suggest Cervelli was a better framer.
Another major issue not addressed are the potential errors in the Pich/FX system itself. These are systems set up at individual ballparks, so there is certainly a margin for error based on that fact alone. Who knows…maybe the specs being used make it seem like the strike zone is being shifted?
There really are more questions than answers raised by the original piece. I think the underlying concept is something we intuitively perceive, but trying to assign a run value to it seems way too premature.
Fast addressed the concerns in the first paragraph in his post, and I think he was up front about the need for more study. I do think the numbers that he presented are best explained by his conclusion, but even he acknowledgd that he can’t be certain about it as of yet.
As for the second point, Fast is actually out front on investigating the data quality concerns. You can ask him on twitter how he thinks they impact the study @fastballs.
He did begin with the qualification, but then he seemed to dive in head first. I really can’t see why how one can draw the conclusion that framing is behind the discrepancy. There are way too many variables that have nothing to do with the catcher.
I don’t have it in front if me, but I believe he implied he was able to strip out the pitcher specific variables, at least the ones that have been quantified.
Just from a naked eye point of view you could tell how awful Posada is at framing based on watching Molina as his backup, you could see how Molina’s hands didn’t move nearly as much and how he would turn the glove without moving the spot of the glove to lean it back in the zone, he is a master of that part olf the game. From a stat standpoint though I really don’t see a way that you would be able to say Molina is X on the list and Cervelli is Y and Posada is Z, we know by watching out of the 3 Molina is the best and Posada is the worst but we can’t know where they place amongst every other catcher in baseball. Framing just seems like one of those things you know is there, you know it’s important but you can’t value it with any number or stat.
I think there is a segment that doesn’t want to think that there are skills that can’t be measured. My position is kind of in the middle. Ithink there are probably some tasks you can’t measure, but I don’t we should stop trying. However, before tackling some of the obscure issues, I’d prefer to iron out the very big wrinkles that exist in some very basic and fundamental concepts.
I thinkit can be quantified. If we can show one catcher gets a strikezone consistently larger than another, we could likely get a run value for that. Fast has made a nice start of it, but the last section of his post acknowledges that there is lots still to be done. This is the first such study done.
Wouldn’t comparing 2 catchers strike zones with certain umpires be more effective than comparing 2 catchers with the same pitcher and 2 different umpires? Maybe you would have to look for catchers catching the same pitcher with the same ump working that day but either way I believe umpire strikezones probably come into play a lot here.
I just want to point out that these two issues are tied together. The idea is that the ump’s zone is being impacted by catcher framing. In the post, Fast suggests that there are a number of factors that impact the ump’s zone, and this is just one of them, albeit an important one.
It seems like a more in detail study of umpire tendencies is needed to determine what is a catcher making an ump give a call vs what is just an umps normal strikezone, we have seen every year umpires who have ludicrous strikezones and Kay starts the game with “today’s umpire calls a lot of high strikes Ken” or however he talks.
Obviously they do have scouting reports on umps but maybe this requires further study of certain catchers with certain umpires to see if certain better catchers coax strikes out of umpires who normally don’t call certain strikes.
This is a very interesting concept and do believe it will takes years to come up with any concrete stat on it (if ever) but it certainly makes for an in depth thought process.
Mo, my first question is ‘how was this normalized for the differences in the umpires strike zone’? Some umpires call certain pitches and others don’t, that’s just reality. There are Las Vegas websites for gamblers that rate every umpire in Baseball for that very purpose. I’m not sure the catcher should get credit if the ump is generous in a certain area of the zone.
Next, as you stated Catcher defense is difficult to quantify because its very hard to tease out what is the catcher’s fault and what’s the pitchers. Adding the umpire’s strike zone to the mix just muddies the waters even further. I’m not sure this is an area that will ever be nailed down completely without a staggering amount of data.
Finally, the catcher himself could be an issue. I’ll never forget what happened with Angels catcher Mike Napoli a few years ago in the playoffs. His pitcher wasn’t getting the low and away pitch to the righty batter (a key pitch for him to be successful) and the camera showed Napoli and the umpire talking, and Napoli attempting to crouch down lower and lower as the inning progressed. Napoli’s a big guy. The clear indication was the ump couldn’t see the low and away pitch well so he was trying to get out of the way of his view. McCarver (a former catcher himself) was calling the game, picked up on it right away and
beat the point to deathmentioned it briefly. That has always made me wonder about Montero, with his size and lack of flexibility. On top of his poor receiving skills, his very size could wind up costing his pitcher strike calls that might be critical in a given AB. It also helps explain some of the murmuring among pitchers that surrounded Piazza his entire career.As for the first point, we have a lot of day on imps, so that should be easy to tease out. As for pitchers, he suggests he was able to account for it, but doesn’t really provide th data. Id like to see more on it.
From Mike Fast, after making adjustments to correct for the pitcher’s stuff:
I found the leaders from 2008-2009 as follows:
Jose Molina +31 runs
Yorvit Torrealba +22
Gregg Zaun +20
Ronny Paulino +14
Chris Coste +12
Jeff Mathis +11
Ryan Hanigan +11
Wil Nieves +10
Yadier Molina +10
Geovany Soto +9
…
Ramon Hernandez -8
Koyie Hill -10
Gerald Laird -11
Carlos Ruiz -12
Mike Napoli -13
Dioner Navarro -13
Nick Hundley -14
Chris Iannetta -24
Jorge Posada -24
Ryan Doumit -37
Ouch, Jorge.
Just to be clear, this is for 2 seasons, so he was -12 per year.
Jose being at the top certainly lends credibility to the list, simply watching the man catch you can see he’s at a different level with his hands and receiving ability, suprised to find Ruiz’s name so low as much he has been raved on but I guess being good at defense doesn’t correlate to framing pitches.
[...] pitch framing skills can have on a ballclub’s ability to suppress runs. Mo addressed this in a previous post (check out his graphics) but I wanted to come at it from a different angle, namely the pending [...]