SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,828
Member is Online
|
Post by nomar on Dec 6, 2014 18:03:20 GMT -5
We won't "have to" trade one or the other. They'll both be making the league minimum, we don't know what our DH situation will look like, and what would be wrong with keeping both and having perhaps the best catching tandem in the league? This usually only works for short periods of time, until one of them outperforms the other. The catching position is so important to the team overall that it really needs to held by one player primarily. A great catcher usually becomes one of, if not the, leading player on the team, and that can't happen if the catchers are being platooned. If Swihart is as good as anticipated, Vazquez will be traded for somebody really good. Count on it. I think it would be foolish to trade one until there's a point where we know they actually are both good and one should be moved. And I doubt that time comes before 2016.
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on Dec 6, 2014 18:08:59 GMT -5
I agree with you on this.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Dec 6, 2014 18:33:35 GMT -5
If Swihart is as good as anticipated, Vazquez will be traded for somebody really good. Count on it. Let's say you are indeed a guru and we can trust your statements about the baseball trade market without any arguments to back them up. Will you at least reveal which of the following statements is true? A) The Vazquez trade will mark the first time that a catcher's pitch framing is properly valued in a trade or free agent contract. B) The Sox have some good reason to go along with the undervaluation of pitch framing. or C) The public research on pitch framing is seriously flawed and it is actually a lot less valuable than that research suggests.
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on Dec 6, 2014 20:11:10 GMT -5
If Swihart is as good as anticipated, Vazquez will be traded for somebody really good. Count on it. Let's say you are indeed a guru and we can trust your statements about the baseball trade market without any arguments to back them up. Will you at least reveal which of the following statements is true? A) The Vazquez trade will mark the first time that a catcher's pitch framing is properly valued in a trade or free agent contract. B) The Sox have some good reason to go along with the undervaluation of pitch framing. or C) The public research on pitch framing is seriously flawed and it is actually a lot less valuable than that research suggests. I have no idea why you posed these questions. I know no more about pitch framing that what Eric tells us, and from that, I understand that Vazquez is really good at it, and I saw some of it late in the year. But his value goes well beyond that and you have to know that. Vazquez already is one of the best defensive catchers in baseball. If he hits anything at all, he will be a major league regular, maybe even an All-Star. If the Sox did not have Swihart, there would be no question. Vazquez would be the catcher for the foreseeable future. But if Swihart is almost as good defensively, and considerably better at the plate, then the Sox probably will go with him, and then they will trade Vazquez. And his value should be fairly high, assuming he hasn't cratered at the plate, and there isn't any reason to believe that he will.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Dec 6, 2014 20:35:15 GMT -5
I have no idea why you posed these questions. I know no more about pitch framing that what Eric tells us, and from that, I understand that Vazquez is really good at it, and I saw some of it late in the year. But his value goes well beyond that and you have to know that. Vazquez already is one of the best defensive catchers in baseball. If he hits anything at all, he will be a major league regular, maybe even an All-Star. If the Sox did not have Swihart, there would be no question. Vazquez would be the catcher for the foreseeable future. But if Swihart is almost as good defensively, and considerably better at the plate, then the Sox probably will go with him, and then they will trade Vazquez. And his value should be fairly high, assuming he hasn't cratered at the plate, and there isn't any reason to believe that he will. Oh, sure, I am very high on Vazquez. In fact I am so high on him that I am all in favour of trading Swihart instead, for two reasons: 1. If publicly available pitch framing numbers are anywhere near correct, it is actually unlikely that Swihart will be as good as Vazquez. Say Vazquez is a 2 win player before PF and Swihart is a 4 win player before PF. Current numbers suggest PF adds another 4 wins for Vazquez, and even if Swihart is somewhat above average, it is unreasonable to project him as better than, say, 1 win above average, making Vazquez a 6 win player and Swihart a 5 win player. 2. Let's assume that, nevertheless, Swihart is actually better. For example, Vazquez is a 2 win player pre-PF, his PF is only worth 3 wins (perhaps average rises, perhaps he regresses, someone proves the PF is not quite as valuable, whatever). Meanwhile, Swihart is a 5 win player with +1 win of PF. You'd rather have a 6 win player than a 5 win player, right? Well, not necessarily. If PF only fetches half value on the trade market, you could get a 5.5 win pitcher (an "ace") for Swihart but only a 3.5 win pitcher (a "solid midrotation guy") for Vazquez. Meanwhile, Vazquez will be severely underpaid in arbitration (pitch framing nets you exactly zero dollars extra), while Swihart will be paid like a superstar. And that is why I need an answer to the pitch framing conundrum before I can "count on it" that Vazquez will be the one who is traded.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Dec 6, 2014 22:30:17 GMT -5
Because when Swihart is ready the team will have to trade one or the other anyways which will decrease the team's bargains power and the amount you can expect in a trade. He's nearly untouchable because he's the starting catcher and they don't have another option, and if they trade him they're going to need to use other assets to get a replacement. Sure, maybe there's a chance that he's currently at his max trade value, thinking that he may get exposed somewhat or that the Sox may not get as much for him in say, two years. But there's also value to keeping the player and playing him, and given that this team lacks a viable catching alternative at present, I think they'd have to find a team that way overvalues Vazquez to make it worth trading him. [ Depends. They could sign Soto for a year who could adequately hold the space until Swihart was ready. Or they could deal him for Ruiz to lower the price for Hammels. You trade him if you can get a good price now because that same price might not get that same price next winter.
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on Dec 7, 2014 11:00:42 GMT -5
I have no idea why you posed these questions. I know no more about pitch framing that what Eric tells us, and from that, I understand that Vazquez is really good at it, and I saw some of it late in the year. But his value goes well beyond that and you have to know that. Vazquez already is one of the best defensive catchers in baseball. If he hits anything at all, he will be a major league regular, maybe even an All-Star. If the Sox did not have Swihart, there would be no question. Vazquez would be the catcher for the foreseeable future. But if Swihart is almost as good defensively, and considerably better at the plate, then the Sox probably will go with him, and then they will trade Vazquez. And his value should be fairly high, assuming he hasn't cratered at the plate, and there isn't any reason to believe that he will. Oh, sure, I am very high on Vazquez. In fact I am so high on him that I am all in favour of trading Swihart instead, for two reasons: 1. If publicly available pitch framing numbers are anywhere near correct, it is actually unlikely that Swihart will be as good as Vazquez. Say Vazquez is a 2 win player before PF and Swihart is a 4 win player before PF. Current numbers suggest PF adds another 4 wins for Vazquez, and even if Swihart is somewhat above average, it is unreasonable to project him as better than, say, 1 win above average, making Vazquez a 6 win player and Swihart a 5 win player. 2. Let's assume that, nevertheless, Swihart is actually better. For example, Vazquez is a 2 win player pre-PF, his PF is only worth 3 wins (perhaps average rises, perhaps he regresses, someone proves the PF is not quite as valuable, whatever). Meanwhile, Swihart is a 5 win player with +1 win of PF. You'd rather have a 6 win player than a 5 win player, right? Well, not necessarily. If PF only fetches half value on the trade market, you could get a 5.5 win pitcher (an "ace") for Swihart but only a 3.5 win pitcher (a "solid midrotation guy") for Vazquez. Meanwhile, Vazquez will be severely underpaid in arbitration (pitch framing nets you exactly zero dollars extra), while Swihart will be paid like a superstar. And that is why I need an answer to the pitch framing conundrum before I can "count on it" that Vazquez will be the one who is traded. You make a good case. I now understand your point about pitch framing. I wouldn't trade either of these players before next season. But I can see how it might make sense to keep Vazquez and trade Swihart after that.
|
|
|
Post by thelavarnwayguy on Dec 7, 2014 16:00:18 GMT -5
I just don't see how PF data, no matter how ridiculously optimistic the early indications are from Vasquez, will result in 4 extra wins. We are talking about more than doubling a player's value from their ability to fool umpires into calling more strikes on pitched balls, apparently because of their receiving techniqurs or advanced psychological voodoo.
It is insightful to remember the expression "There are statistics, and then there are damm lies". Numbers can be made to support just about any position or world view. I'm not discounting the apparent impact of pitch framing. I'm discounting the scale of it's impact. We give it more credence than we should.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Dec 7, 2014 16:07:32 GMT -5
We are talking about more than doubling a player's value from their ability to fool umpires into calling more strikes on pitched balls Hey, if Vazquez were a 0.1 WAR player otherwise we would be talking about increasing his value by a factor of 40.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 7, 2014 18:41:06 GMT -5
I just don't see how PF data, no matter how ridiculously optimistic the early indications are from Vasquez, will result in 4 extra wins. We are talking about more than doubling a player's value from their ability to fool umpires into calling more strikes on pitched balls, apparently because of their receiving techniqurs or advanced psychological voodoo. It is insightful to remember the expression "There are statistics, and then there are damm lies". Numbers can be made to support just about any position or world view. I'm not discounting the apparent impact of pitch framing. I'm discounting the scale of it's impact. We give it more credence than we should. How often have you seen a single bad ball/strike call by an umpire cost 20 pitches, or some runs?
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Dec 7, 2014 21:24:28 GMT -5
I just don't see how PF data, no matter how ridiculously optimistic the early indications are from Vasquez, will result in 4 extra wins. We are talking about more than doubling a player's value from their ability to fool umpires into calling more strikes on pitched balls, apparently because of their receiving techniqurs or advanced psychological voodoo. It is insightful to remember the expression "There are statistics, and then there are damm lies". Numbers can be made to support just about any position or world view. I'm not discounting the apparent impact of pitch framing. I'm discounting the scale of it's impact. We give it more credence than we should. How often have you seen a single bad ball/strike call by an umpire cost 20 pitches, or some runs? Not nearly as often as I've seen the actual outcome of a plate appearance do so. Think about it: there were 40 hitters and 15 pitchers in baseball who had an fWAR >4 this year. I find it very hard to believe that pitch framing can be an important enough skill that it alone can make a catcher like Vazquez one of the top 60 or so players in baseball. Consider that a pitcher's ability to execute pitches literally affects every pitch while he's in the game, while pitch framing comes into play on (1) close pitches that (2) the batter has decided not to swing at, and (3) doesn't even always result in the termination of the plate appearance. This is a rehash of a discussion we've already had here, but again, I have a hard time believing pitch framing can be worth that much.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Dec 8, 2014 7:50:33 GMT -5
I have to agree with you Chris over the pitch framing debate. In general if a model's output defies basic common sense, it's the model that is wrong not common sense.
This idea that pitch framing turns a fringe starter into a superstar is ludicrous and any model that says that should be seriously questioned.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 8, 2014 9:29:34 GMT -5
Maybe common sense is wrong. Advanced stats never would have had become advanced if everyone felt that way. It is not a mature study yet.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Dec 8, 2014 10:20:22 GMT -5
My question about these outlandish pitch framing numbers is, can we find the effect in pitcher performance? Do we have an example of a team that went from a poor pitch framer to a good one, and everyone's ERA dropped by a third of a run? Because with some of the numbers being thrown around for elite pitch framers, it seems like it should have an obvious effect on ERAs, strikeout rates, etc. Has anyone actually shown this to be the case?
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 8, 2014 10:24:06 GMT -5
My question about these outlandish pitch framing numbers is, can we find the effect in pitcher performance? Do we have an example of a team that went from a poor pitch framer to a good one, and everyone's ERA dropped by a third of a run? Because with some of the numbers being thrown around for elite pitch framers, it seems like it should have an obvious effect on ERAs, strikeout rates, etc. Has anyone actually shown this to be the case? Simple example is Lester's personal catcher.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Dec 8, 2014 10:32:27 GMT -5
My question about these outlandish pitch framing numbers is, can we find the effect in pitcher performance? Do we have an example of a team that went from a poor pitch framer to a good one, and everyone's ERA dropped by a third of a run? Because with some of the numbers being thrown around for elite pitch framers, it seems like it should have an obvious effect on ERAs, strikeout rates, etc. Has anyone actually shown this to be the case? Simple example is Lester's personal catcher. I guess, but Lester did better with Derek Norris than with Ross, and other pitchers (Buchholz for example) haven't gotten the same boost from Ross. What drives me nuts is that the pitch framing numbers some people are throwing around on Vazquez would mean that his ability to frame pitches is more important than any pitcher's ability to throw those pitches. I have a lot of trouble believing that it's true, and if more evidence continues to come in that it IS true then there's going to be a massive push for computerized ball/strike calling.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Dec 8, 2014 10:48:49 GMT -5
Maybe common sense is wrong. Advanced stats never would have had become advanced if everyone felt that way. It is not a mature study yet. But what about advanced stats defies common sense? "Common sense" isn't the same as "accepted doctrine." Advanced stats came about BECAUSE of common sense. "Wait, the most important offensive statistics ignore walks, discount non-HR extra-base hits, and are largely dependant on the lineup the batter happens to be a part of? Well that can't be right." Nobody is saying, I don't think, that pitch framing is entirely unimportant. It's just that a valuation of pitch framing that treats it as potentially the most important skill a baseball player can possess, moreso than actual hitting and fielding for example, strains credulity.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 8, 2014 11:10:12 GMT -5
Maybe common sense is wrong. Advanced stats never would have had become advanced if everyone felt that way. It is not a mature study yet. But what about advanced stats defies common sense? "Common sense" isn't the same as "accepted doctrine." Advanced stats came about BECAUSE of common sense. "Wait, the most important offensive statistics ignore walks, discount non-HR extra-base hits, and are largely dependant on the lineup the batter happens to be a part of? Well that can't be right." Nobody is saying, I don't think, that pitch framing is entirely unimportant. It's just that a valuation of pitch framing that treats it as potentially the most important skill a baseball player can possess, moreso than actual hitting and fielding for example, strains credulity. Biggest example I can think of - clutch isn't a thing. That took a long time for people to accept. Coming up with a new statistical theory requires you to think completely against prevailing opinion, which is also seen as common sense - until it isn't. 40 years ago, it was common sense that rbi's were more important than walks and that home runs were more important than slugging percentage and that strike outs were worse than ground outs.
|
|
|
Post by dmaineah on Dec 8, 2014 11:10:22 GMT -5
The broader point: if the backup catcher is going to play 20-25% of the reps at most, plus be injury insurance, is it worth spending valuable trade resources on a guy like Castro or Vogt or Jaso or Grandal? yes
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 8, 2014 11:11:37 GMT -5
The broader point: if the backup catcher is going to play 20-25% of the reps at most, plus be injury insurance, is it worth spending valuable trade resources on a guy like Castro or Vogt or Jaso or Grandal? yes The team with the best backup catcher wins championships? Or maybe we should trade for pitching first.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,828
Member is Online
|
Post by nomar on Dec 8, 2014 11:13:07 GMT -5
Grandal isn't going to happen
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Dec 8, 2014 12:59:05 GMT -5
Maybe common sense is wrong. Advanced stats never would have had become advanced if everyone felt that way. It is not a mature study yet. But what about advanced stats defies common sense? "Common sense" isn't the same as "accepted doctrine." Advanced stats came about BECAUSE of common sense. "Wait, the most important offensive statistics ignore walks, discount non-HR extra-base hits, and are largely dependant on the lineup the batter happens to be a part of? Well that can't be right." Nobody is saying, I don't think, that pitch framing is entirely unimportant. It's just that a valuation of pitch framing that treats it as potentially the most important skill a baseball player can possess, moreso than actual hitting and fielding for example, strains credulity. So, let me play a little devil's advocate here. I think what many of you may mean, is intuition rather than common sense. The first mental cut, often based on that intuition, has to be revised as our understanding of a problem expands. So lets see if we can do some expanding. I want to offer my own thoughts, but without taking sides. Rather I'd like to give posters a bit more fuel for the discussion, hopefully without being too pedantic. That said, it may come across that way. This is not a simple issue because the model isn't all that simple. We all know that the probability of getting a hit is greatly influenced by the state of the at bat. No question about that. That fact means that, as the at-bat transitions from one state (pitch) to the next, the trajectory of that at-bat - either success or failure - will be heavily determined by the previous state 1. Think about that for a few seconds, and you get a feel for how dramatically you might affect an at-bat by having that previous pitch framed as a strke. It also gives you an idea of how to calculate the change - by taking the difference in the probabilities in your current state, when the previous call was either a ball or a strike. With that in mind, we can get to the larger picture of how this might impact an entire at-bat, and it could be dramatic, reducing the probability of a hit by quite a bit, depending on when the beneficial framing happens. Calculating this might seem fairly straight forward given computing resources, but there are plenty of contingencies for an individual plate appearance - as usual. To take just one, a foul is a strike until you get to two of them, then it can be ignored for the purposes of calculating the probability of the current state, as if it didn't happen (we have to put aside what a 12-pitch at-bat, with a mess of foul balls, might do to the pitcher). Now, take that already complicated model and extend it to every at-bat with a given catcher behind the plate. There are a minimum of 27 of those during a game, but with an open ended upper limit, though practically speaking it's more on the order of 35-45. I have no idea what the results of such an analysis might look like, but my gut feeling (there's that intuition again - but modulated this time with this framework) is that it could be quite substantial. Is it 4-wins a year?? You got me, but it's something. 1Referred to in the math biz as a Markov process. The entire at-bat then becomes a markov chain.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 8, 2014 13:09:31 GMT -5
Obviously I agree with Norm here and it is based on my own intuition - those missed 3rd strike calls that extend innings, often times by a lot always infuriate me when it happens to a pitcher like Lester or Lackey or Buchholz. Perhaps, they're pitching really well with 30 pitches in the 3rd with 2 strikes and 2 outs with bases empty. The next pitch is an obvious strike where AJP waved at it and made it look like he picked it up out of the dirt. 15 minutes later, the pitcher is up to 55 pitches and has allowed 3 runs. His entire game is ruined because the inning took too much out of him and we're going to the bullpen with 1 out in the 4th. And now the entire bullpen which needed a break with a long start gets even more taxed and doesn't get to rest. It leads to fatigue and ineffectiveness for multiple games. All of that because one pitch wasn't framed well enough. That one pitch can be the difference between a great start and an early exit. It can be the difference between a gassed and a rested bullpen. That is in addition to the difference between a win and a loss.
I know this happens because when it does, it sticks in my mind as the most aggravating thing in baseball for me. If only the umpire got that one strike right, none of this would have happened...
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Dec 8, 2014 13:26:58 GMT -5
For all my criticism of the magnitude of the pitch-framing value numbers, I think the conceptual logic of how those numbers are created makes a lot of sense. Even on pitches that do not end a plate appearance, the difference between, say, a 2-1 count and a 1-2 count is huge in terms of the likely ultimate outcome of that plate appearance. If the catcher is responsible for changing one from the other on a semi-regular basis, that value really adds up over time. By the way, if you have not read them yet (or have not read them recently), it is worth actually reading the studies and fully understanding the methodology before you criticize it. Here is Mike Fast's seminal September 2011 article that really blew up interest in the subject, as well as a March 2014 article that outlines BP's current pitch framing value methodology: www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=15093www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=22934The four win number for Vazquez's framing value is also grossly exaggerated. Vazquez was rated as a +12.2 framer per Statcorner and +13.1 per BP in 55 games (458.1 defensive innings) in 2014. Prorated to a full workload of roughly 1000 innings caught (which, if anything, might be aggressive; only 8 catchers reached that mark in 2014), that's +26.6 runs (Statcorner) or +28.6 runs (BP). That's nowhere near the four win mark suggested by mgoetze above. So keep that in mind as well.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Dec 8, 2014 13:34:12 GMT -5
What drives me nuts is that the pitch framing numbers some people are throwing around on Vazquez would mean that his ability to frame pitches is more important than any pitcher's ability to throw those pitches. I have a lot of trouble believing that it's true, and if more evidence continues to come in that it IS true then there's going to be a massive push for computerized ball/strike calling. Remember that a catcher catches far more pitches than any one pitcher would throw per season. If Vazquez catches 1000 innings and his framing is worth 2.5 wins, that means his framing value is only one-fifth as valuable as a 200 innings pitcher who racks up 2.5 wins. If Vazquez is the best framer in the league and adds +2.5 wins per 1000 innings, that'd only make him roughly 1/12th to 1/15th as valuable as the best pitchers in the league on a per-inning basis, which at least seems plausible.
|
|
|