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.
Sox/Padres nearing WMB for Hanigan Swap
|
Post by sarasoxer on Dec 20, 2014 19:13:07 GMT -5
I agree with you. I think at some point there could be blowback. I raised this very issue a while ago on this site. No one wants to be duped and when reviews of ball/strike calls are done for each umpire, a given catcher's prowess at "framing" (an interesting term) has to come into play. In a way I liken framing to flopping in basketball or feigning injury in soccer. The underlying premise is to deceive the observer. No one likes to be intentionally deceived, despite framing being an accepted part of baseball. Basketball dealt with deception by devising penalties for faking. But at present, even if there is some counter effect from framing, I don't think that it will be significant unless unduly blatant. Who are we talking about here, Tony Soprano? I get the impression you want to haul Vazquez in and interrogate him. Ryan Hannigan's pitch framing has been referred to as creative and crafty. But if Vazquez does it, he's just a sneaky, intentionally deceptive, fraudulent little faker and deceiver? Boy you missed my point and that of ancientsoxfogey by a mile. I am not damning Vasquez or Hanigan or any other catcher that tries to convince an umpire that a high, or outside, or inside or low pitch is a strike when it is not. No burning at the stake is advocated. I am saying that such action is an attempt to deceive the umpire to achieve a favorable outcome. Do you disagree? In that sense to me it is akin to flopping in basketball or faking a soccer injury excepting that it may not appear as blatant and, perhaps partly as such, is accepted as part of baseball's internal cat and mouse game (at least currently). Basketball has dealt with its slight of hand by imposing rules penalizing same. Soccer publicly scorns its transgressors. But the fundamental goal in each instance cited is to attempt to deceive the rules keepers to obtain an advantage. In baseball this ability is lauded, sought after and measured to determine comparative excellence. It is indeed deemed an asset. Under those circumstances I do not blame catchers for employing those tactics but I can understand that umpires don't want to be shown as fools either. So I could envision a situation where an umpire or umpires might 'get the message' that this or that catcher is a "framer". ...and react in a human and contrary way to same. At some point it may be that the home plate umpire is eliminated or minimized or challenges may be employed. If that happens, framing will likely be marginalized.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Dec 20, 2014 19:28:12 GMT -5
Jason Mastrodonato ?@jmastrodonato 4h4 hours ago Damn, Ryan Hanigan is mega prepared for this conference call. Already breaking down Masterson's splits and Buchholz's pitch mix.
|
|
|
Post by thelavarnwayguy on Dec 20, 2014 19:32:15 GMT -5
2 years ago Andrelton Simmons saved his team 41 runs defensively at SS, then dropped to 28 last year. Both were terrific but which was he, 41 or 28? During his rookie year though, a prorated full year would have been around 60 runs saved after his first 426 innings.
My point being that Vasquez still has an extremely small sample size in mlb and we can't extrapolate his early numbers with any real precision. Even his great pitch framing numbers were still only good enough for 5th or 6th place among all catchers in baseball last year if I remember correctly.
The laws of probability are our APPROXIMATE tools for evaluation when it comes to all rookie types especially. I like what we are doing but in the long run, this was a particularly good deal for San Diego IMO. I probably would have done the deal though anyway. Hannigan is a solid fit for this team.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Dec 20, 2014 19:35:19 GMT -5
It's nothing new. Technology has now given everyone a high-powered microscope into the process, that's all.
How many of you are at least 20 years old? A little more than twenty years ago, at the dawn of the Internet age, just getting a .gif built was a chore, let-alone broadcasting it globally. Hand-held digital cameras were way off in the future, and the idea of storing a record of every pitch, it's type, and it's location was nothing but a dream. That sort of storage was expensive and reserved for the costliest research. That's all changed of course. Everyone gets to watch the magic, all of it, in slo-mo.
All that information aside, if the umpires do decide to tighten the screws - if they can - it won't be just Vazquez they'll be targeting. That just means that his skillset might be scaled back, but everyone else's will be as well. And it's not as if he'll turn into AJP. Comparatively speaking, he'll still be near the top of the class. Even if catchers lose some of their ability to help pitchers by framing the strike zone border to their team's advantage, there will still be some value to the skill. Moreover he brings more to the table than that alone.
In a nutshell, I'm not all that worried about it.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Dec 20, 2014 19:49:15 GMT -5
2 years ago Andrelton Simmons saved his team 41 runs defensively at SS, then dropped to 28 last year. Both were terrific but which was he, 41 or 28? During his rookie year though, a prorated full year would have been around 60 runs saved after his first 426 innings. My point being that Vasquez still has an extremely small sample size in mlb and we can't extrapolate his early numbers with any real precision. Even his great pitch framing numbers were still only good enough for 5th or 6th place among all catchers in baseball last year if I remember correctly. The laws of probability are our APPROXIMATE tools for evaluation when it comes to all rookie types especially. In 2013, Chris Davis was 52 runs better than the average hitter. In 2014, Chris Davis was -3.2 runs worse than the average hitter. Which was he? It's aggravating that these kinds of criticisms are only levied against defensive stats but never offensive stats. Player performance fluctuates and we can't predict it perfectly, but that doesn't mean we should just ignore the stats we do have. By all accounts, which includes both data and scouting, Vazquez is a very good pitch framer. No, we can't predict with anywhere near 100% accuracy what his framing value will be in 2015, but we can say with reasonable accuracy that he's likely to add a significant amount of value with that part of his game.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,704
|
Post by nomar on Dec 20, 2014 20:15:28 GMT -5
2 years ago Andrelton Simmons saved his team 41 runs defensively at SS, then dropped to 28 last year. Both were terrific but which was he, 41 or 28? During his rookie year though, a prorated full year would have been around 60 runs saved after his first 426 innings. My point being that Vasquez still has an extremely small sample size in mlb and we can't extrapolate his early numbers with any real precision. Even his great pitch framing numbers were still only good enough for 5th or 6th place among all catchers in baseball last year if I remember correctly. The laws of probability are our APPROXIMATE tools for evaluation when it comes to all rookie types especially. I like what we are doing but in the long run, this was a particularly good deal for San Diego IMO. I probably would have done the deal though anyway. Hannigan is a solid fit for this team. Yeah well that's why when people say Vazquez is on pace for a 4 WAR framing season, people have doubts. Even if he does level off some, with a 90 wRC+ bat he's a well above average player.
|
|
|
Post by iakovos11 on Dec 20, 2014 22:04:30 GMT -5
The thing I might be worried about with Vazquez is totally 21st century. He is SO GOOD at what he does, and it's becoming so universally recognized so rapidly, that I have to believe that the major league umpires are among those tuning in to Vazquez's talents. Is it possible that he could become a victim of his own greatness at framing? That is, umpires are going to start unconsciously calling close pitches balls more frequently when they see any movement with his glove, or even when they don't see movement, knowing that he has not just the reputation of being able to create lots of unjustified strikes, but there is actually data to back it up. I agree with you. I think at some point there could be blowback. I raised this very issue a while ago on this site. No one wants to be duped and when reviews of ball/strike calls are done for each umpire, a given catcher's prowess at "framing" (an interesting term) has to come into play. In a way I liken framing to flopping in basketball or feigning injury in soccer. The underlying premise is to deceive the observer. No one likes to be intentionally deceived, despite framing being an accepted part of baseball. Basketball dealt with deception by devising penalties for faking. But at present, even if there is some counter effect from framing, I don't think that it will be significant unless unduly blatant. Seriously guys? Nobody's being duped, though. This couldn't be further from the fake charge call in basketball (maybe the 2nd Baseman faking the throw back to the pitcher and then catching the runner leading of 2B is more like this - and that play isn't illegal). The umps simply call balls and strikes as they see them. Some catchers are simply more naturally gifted, with softer hands or the way they set up or whatever, at receiving the pitch in a way that would give the impression of it being closer to the strike zone. Nothing deceptive going on here. Nothing umps need to be upset about. Some umps call pitches an inch off the outise black strikes all the time (or they do ore frequently for LHH) and there's no blowback or retribution. Every pitcher, every catcher, every ump has strengths, weaknesses, and tendencies. These aren't deceptions. It's how certain people play the game. Umps aren't going to start calling strikes and balls differently just to try to throw off some catchers reputation as a good pitch framer. What are they going to do, start calling all close pitches balls? And then what about the opposing team with a poor pitch framer? Does he call hte game differently? I think he might get confused. This just makes zero sense.
|
|
|
Post by sarasoxer on Dec 21, 2014 9:20:59 GMT -5
[ Seriously guys? Nobody's being duped, though. This couldn't be further from the fake charge call in basketball (maybe the 2nd Baseman faking the throw back to the pitcher and then catching the runner leading of 2B is more like this - and that play isn't illegal). The umps simply call balls and strikes as they see them. Some catchers are simply more naturally gifted, with softer hands or the way they set up or whatever, at receiving the pitch in a way that would give the impression of it being closer to the strike zone. Nothing deceptive going on here. Nothing umps need to be upset about. Some umps call pitches an inch off the outise black strikes all the time (or they do ore frequently for LHH) and there's no blowback or retribution. Every pitcher, every catcher, every ump has strengths, weaknesses, and tendencies. These aren't deceptions. It's how certain people play the game. Umps aren't going to start calling strikes and balls differently just to try to throw off some catchers reputation as a good pitch framer. What are they going to do, start calling all close pitches balls? And then what about the opposing team with a poor pitch framer? Does he call hte game differently? I think he might get confused. This just makes zero sense. Well you and I disagree here. What I see framing similar to in the baseball context is the first baseman taking his foot off the bag before the ball arrives or an outfielder who knowingly traps a ball holding it up to show that he "caught" it or the batter wincing as if he were hit on a close pitch to get on base. Those are all efforts designed to fool the umpire and influence the call in one's favor. Now we all understand that that is an accepted part of baseball. None of it is illegal and no bans are in place. No one made that argument. Certainly there is a growing demand in all sports to 'get the call right'. That is why there are now challenges in football and to a degree in baseball. I believe all the foregoing examples can be challenged and reviewed toward that end. You know that there has been at least some talk of replacing the home plate umpire with a more consistent, more accurate method of strike zone judgment for the same reason. It is not going to happen tomorrow but I could see a step where challenges might be extended to pitch calls. Technology will be developed to get accurate reads. We already see on every Sox telecast that superimposed "Amica pitch zone" that allows the viewer to judge an umpire's accuracy and also admire the "soft hands" of the pitch framer artfully moving the ball into the strike zone. I think that Sibby's point was that if one had a super reputation for "framing" thereby inducing more strike calls for his team, human nature might influence an umpire to perhaps call a pitch, otherwise a borderline strike, a ball not out of dishonesty, but to guard against being fooled. I can understand that. As I mentioned before, I don't see this as having a significant effect. In any case, to brandish the coin... "it is what it is".
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,911
|
Post by ericmvan on Dec 21, 2014 15:31:02 GMT -5
[ Seriously guys? Nobody's being duped, though. This couldn't be further from the fake charge call in basketball (maybe the 2nd Baseman faking the throw back to the pitcher and then catching the runner leading of 2B is more like this - and that play isn't illegal). The umps simply call balls and strikes as they see them. Some catchers are simply more naturally gifted, with softer hands or the way they set up or whatever, at receiving the pitch in a way that would give the impression of it being closer to the strike zone. Nothing deceptive going on here. Nothing umps need to be upset about. Some umps call pitches an inch off the outise black strikes all the time (or they do ore frequently for LHH) and there's no blowback or retribution. Every pitcher, every catcher, every ump has strengths, weaknesses, and tendencies. These aren't deceptions. It's how certain people play the game. Umps aren't going to start calling strikes and balls differently just to try to throw off some catchers reputation as a good pitch framer. What are they going to do, start calling all close pitches balls? And then what about the opposing team with a poor pitch framer? Does he call hte game differently? I think he might get confused. This just makes zero sense. Well you and I disagree here. What I see framing similar to in the baseball context is the first baseman taking his foot off the bag before the ball arrives or an outfielder who knowingly traps a ball holding it up to show that he "caught" it or the batter wincing as if he were hit on a close pitch to get on base. Those are all efforts designed to fool the umpire and influence the call in one's favor. Now we all understand that that is an accepted part of baseball. None of it is illegal and no bans are in place. No one made that argument. Certainly there is a growing demand in all sports to 'get the call right'. That is why there are now challenges in football and to a degree in baseball. I believe all the foregoing examples can be challenged and reviewed toward that end. You know that there has been at least some talk of replacing the home plate umpire with a more consistent, more accurate method of strike zone judgment for the same reason. It is not going to happen tomorrow but I could see a step where challenges might be extended to pitch calls. Technology will be developed to get accurate reads. We already see on every Sox telecast that superimposed "Amica pitch zone" that allows the viewer to judge an umpire's accuracy and also admire the "soft hands" of the pitch framer artfully moving the ball into the strike zone. I think that Sibby's point was that if one had a super reputation for "framing" thereby inducing more strike calls for his team, human nature might influence an umpire to perhaps call a pitch, otherwise a borderline strike, a ball not out of dishonesty, but to guard against being fooled. I can understand that. As I mentioned before, I don't see this as having a significant effect. In any case, to brandish the coin... "it is what it is". You're wrong, though. None of those have anything to do with performing the basic act better; they're entirely about trying to consciously deceive the ump. You seem to think that pitch framing is entirely about moving the glove back into the strike zone after catching it. But that's only a small part of it. You can steal strikes left and right without doing it at all. Pitch framing is mostly about not lunging for the ball, not moving the glove too much, and catching it as effortlessly as possible -- all of which reduce the chances of a passed ball as well. A pitch in an umpire's grey zone that hits a stationary glove looks like a strike, while a pitch in the identical location that the catcher makes a late lunge to catch looks like a ball. And this probably comes down to the ump's actual perception; the lunged-after ball, very likely, literally looks further outside. And when the catcher does subtly move the glove towards the strike zone after catching it, that is also messing with the umpire's actual perception. Where the ball appears to have been caught is a function of where the glove was at the moment of contact plus where the glove ends up a fraction of a second later. There's no conscious way to easily disentangle the former from the latter, and hence no way for the ump to tell whether a pitch was framed or not, in the time frame that he needs to make the call in. Any attempt by an ump to compensate based on the fact that he's working behind a known pitch-framer would likely not improve his performance. He's working hard enough to perceive where the ball actually is that adding an entire layer of doubting his perception is unlikely to improve things. Now, the one thing that I think might be consciously improved by umps is calling strikes instead of balls when a pitch is clearly a strike but was lunged at hugely because the pitcher missed his target by almost the entire width of the plate. In that case, before the pitch hits the glove, the ump can consciously factor in the knowledge that that call gets blown too often. IOW, in time I think they'll adjust for the least subtle and most obvious non-framings. I've been a huge fan of the idea of calling balls and strikes via high-tech, and I want it implemented at just about the time Vazquez ends his career.
|
|
|
Post by ancientsoxfogey on Dec 21, 2014 15:34:44 GMT -5
Interestingly, as we are having this discussion there is a Yahoo article on its hockey page about NHL players being warned about diving, and James Neal being fined for the practice. I would also note that in last night's penalty-filled Penguins game Evgeni Malkin drew two minor penalties for embellishment.
Framing pitches is a form of embellishment. Instead of trying to make contact look worse than it actually was, it's trying to make a pitch look better than it actually was. Yes it's part of the game, and for some catchers, notably Vazquez, it's more part of the game than it is for most others. For poorer-technique catchers, they may seldom bring close pitches back into the zone, and some are even known for stabbing at the ball, making a pitch look worse than it was. Umps will do their best to call the game for those catchers, but the ump wouldn't be tempted to influence his game-calling in any way with such catchers, because he knows that the catcher isn't doing anything deliberate to "embellish the pitch" -- in fact, by making the umpire's job more difficult, the catcher's actions are likely doing more harm than good for his team.
On the other hand, an expert framer is obviously using his skill to gain advantage for his team. Since the ultimate objective in pro sports is always winning, attempts to gain advantage for one's team are routinely appreciated, and in fact, cultivated by some exceptionally gifted athletes. But why wouldn't an umpire, IF he is aware of a catcher's reputation, then figure that any movement of the catcher's glove toward the strike zone after he receives the pitch is an obvious attempt to embellish that pitch? In fact, why wouldn't a lazy umpire take advantage of such a receiver and "let Vazquez's glove call the game for him?" Anytime a pitch is close and the ump sees movement in Vazquez's glove toward the strike zone, he'll automatically call the pitch a ball. After all, why would his glove be moving unless he was trying to "steal the pitch?"
This isn't a criticism of anyone. It's a matter of realizing that 21st century technology and thinking gives us ever-expanding insight on the "little but important things" that can change the course of games, and also realizing that if we can see and appreciate it, why would we think that umpires won't see the same thing? And if umpires do become aware of it, why might their craft not evolve as an adaptation to, or even to take advantage of, THEIR increased knowledge and awareness? Maybe umpiring evolves just as the rest of the game evolves.
I guess there are two possible practical (as opposed to a psychological) reasons that come to mind as to why this would not be an issue. The first is: When Vazquez catches a pitch he sees as a strike, does he generally hold his glove stationary when and immediately after receiving the pitch, or does he move it the slightest little bit in those cases as well? If he is always moving it at least a little bit, maybe an ump would have a difficult time distinguishing the "framing" movements from others. And second: Is it possible that Vazquez's framing movements are sufficiently quick and sufficiently subtle in most cases that the ump can't really see it?
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 22, 2014 8:29:37 GMT -5
The thing I might be worried about with Vazquez is totally 21st century. He is SO GOOD at what he does, and it's becoming so universally recognized so rapidly, that I have to believe that the major league umpires are among those tuning in to Vazquez's talents. Is it possible that he could become a victim of his own greatness at framing? That is, umpires are going to start unconsciously calling close pitches balls more frequently when they see any movement with his glove, or even when they don't see movement, knowing that he has not just the reputation of being able to create lots of unjustified strikes, but there is actually data to back it up. I agree with you. I think at some point there could be blowback. I raised this very issue a while ago on this site. No one wants to be duped and when reviews of ball/strike calls are done for each umpire, a given catcher's prowess at "framing" (an interesting term) has to come into play. In a way I liken framing to flopping in basketball or feigning injury in soccer. The underlying premise is to deceive the observer. No one likes to be intentionally deceived, despite framing being an accepted part of baseball. Basketball dealt with deception by devising penalties for faking. But at present, even if there is some counter effect from framing, I don't think that it will be significant unless unduly blatant. They're probably equally as concerned about calling obvious strikes a ball. All of the pitches are tracked. Framing isn't cheating at all. It's not deceptive.
|
|
|
Post by elguapo on Dec 22, 2014 9:49:10 GMT -5
Good swap. Hanigan is a 2nd starting C. I think we keep Butler as the injury fill-in backup, while Swihart stays at AAA at least until September.
Middlebrooks' time was up; there's a good chance he still blossoms into a .700-.750 OPS third baseman if he can stay healthy and finds teams who will give him chances. That's a nice player at minimal salary.
|
|
|
Post by sarasoxer on Dec 22, 2014 10:38:41 GMT -5
I agree with you. I think at some point there could be blowback. I raised this very issue a while ago on this site. No one wants to be duped and when reviews of ball/strike calls are done for each umpire, a given catcher's prowess at "framing" (an interesting term) has to come into play. In a way I liken framing to flopping in basketball or feigning injury in soccer. The underlying premise is to deceive the observer. No one likes to be intentionally deceived, despite framing being an accepted part of baseball. Basketball dealt with deception by devising penalties for faking. But at present, even if there is some counter effect from framing, I don't think that it will be significant unless unduly blatant. They're probably equally as concerned about calling obvious strikes a ball. All of the pitches are tracked. Framing isn't cheating at all. It's not deceptive.
[/b] Thanks for your input Eric and Jimed. I don't think anyone has used the word cheating in regard to pitch framing. It is an accepted and indeed sought after quality in catchers making up in part for their generally lack-luster offense much like good pop times and game calling. Not to belabor this but to me there are several aspects here. A given---A catcher is motivated to present pitches in the most favorable light to get more strike calls. His skill in receiving a pitch can make the difference in the umpire's perception. An unskilled catcher may cause an umpire to call what should be a strike, a ball. Not good. A skilled catcher can reasonably assure that strikes will accurately be perceived by the umpire and called correctly. This talent likely impacts a pitcher's ERA or FIP. Spread over a pitching staff and over a season, it is reasonable to expect better team W-L records. Pitch framing to me though also incorporates glove movements designed to persuade an umpire that what may be or is a ball, a strike. The motivation is the same as above as is the end result...more strike calls. In this instance, a subtle, smooth move of the glove is the mark of a "good framer". ...as in "he's got soft hands". A poor, less deft framer, may make jerky movements or try to convince an umpire a ball 6 inches outside the zone is a strike. That guy is derided and his actions could be perceived by an umpire as blatantly trying to "show him up". No one likes that. Vasquez is in the former category. He does get strike calls on borderline or just off the plate pitches because of his much admired skillset. I could understand, as AncientSoxFogey notes, that if umpires, in review, see many pitches that they called strikes as a result of Vasquez' skill were in fact balls, they might become more suspect. It is an exercise in conjecture. At base though an effort to get a ball called a strike is an attempt to fool the umpire and obtain advantage similar in my mind to the other baseball examples I posed earlier. And Eric I think your last line supports that belief....i.e. let's wait until Vasquez retires before having technology more accurately call pitches.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 22, 2014 10:54:08 GMT -5
I think you're just borrowing trouble at this point. We haven't seen any indication that any umpire is adjusting to good framing catchers. Why look for something that might never be there?
It's not at all like diving in other sports. It's more like falling down if you're tripped instead of fighting as hard as you can to stay on your feet or skates.
Also, a ball/strike call is not nearly the same level of importance to a foul or penalty so it's not going to get the same level of attention.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Dec 22, 2014 11:40:09 GMT -5
Again, Vazquez is not the only catcher capable of gathering in strikes for his pitchers. There's a gradient and while he's very good there are others including some above him and many below. You see what I'm getting at here? Is the umpire supposed to build in some sort of variable filter with the knob adjusted according that day's catching talent? That doesn't make an awful lot of sense. We can't look at CV in isolation from his colleagues. I can't see significant changes unless they narrow the strike zone for everyone, with the eventual side-effect of increasing offensive productivity. My impression is that the league hasn't been willing to do that.
|
|
|
Post by sarasoxer on Dec 22, 2014 12:01:07 GMT -5
Norm you make an important point. We were all assuming (at least I was) that Vasquez was on the highest echelon and extrapolating.
As an aside, when I see an opposing catcher blatantly moving his glove from outside the zone while receiving the pitch and getting a strike call, I am not pleased. I usually take it out on the #@%#*# umpire but am not too happy with the catcher either.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 22, 2014 12:08:36 GMT -5
I get annoyed when the catcher and pitcher obviously are crossed up on the pitch and the catcher lunges at a ball that is right down the middle and is called a ball.
|
|
|
Post by congusgambler33 on Dec 22, 2014 12:35:25 GMT -5
all I have to say about all this is that Salty will have no problem with any of these assumptions. I think umpires have enough to think about then to have to worry about how a catcher is framing pitches. He may be just wondering what is the best watering hole to visit after the game.
|
|
|
Post by ancientsoxfogey on Dec 22, 2014 13:37:51 GMT -5
I think you're just borrowing trouble at this point. We haven't seen any indication that any umpire is adjusting to good framing catchers. Why look for something that might never be there? It's not at all like diving in other sports. It's more like falling down if you're tripped instead of fighting as hard as you can to stay on your feet or skates. Also, a ball/strike call is not nearly the same level of importance to a foul or penalty so it's not going to get the same level of attention. We haven't seen any indication YET (I guess we haven't. By that I mean, you say we haven't seen any indication, but maybe we haven't been looking for it?). But also, there may not have been a situation where a catcher as good as Vazquez was playing for an organization with a team-related site as rigorous and enlightened as this one is, having a discussion as detailed as this one is, not only pointing out how good Vazquez is at this particular skill, but also pointing out how valuable this skill is in general to the outcome of games based on very recent vintage data gathering. There may be a tipping point where umpires start reacting to this new knowledge and their manner of calling a game changes in certain ways. A couple of other notes: In reality it's strange that the framing skill is as important as it is, because in a technical sense the home plate umpire should be making calls based on the location of the ball as it passes through or by the strike zone. What the importance of framing indicates is that the umpire's "strike zone" is a complex interaction of the location of the ball as it passes over [or not over] the plate and its location as the catcher receives it and slightly thereafter. All this suggests that umpires are aware in some way of the ball in the catcher's mitt, both before and after it enters, and that is part of what they process in making the call. Seems to me that if we already know that umpires are tuned in to the ball in the mitt, they might change their thinking on how they process that part of their information in light of "new evidence." Norm's point of the gradation of catchers is seemingly a good one. However, it's possible that if umpires are or do become more aware of " good framing catchers," that their reactions may be more binary. That is, certain catchers (say the top half dozen or so) will become known as "the framers" and the umpire will treat them differently in some way than they treat the "run of the mill" catchers. To give an example again from the sport of hockey: I am a season ticket-holder to the Washington Capitals. Back when Alex Semin was on the team he gained a reputation over the years as a player prone to stick fouls. It was to a significant extent justified; Semin did make an attempt to be defensively responsible, but when he didn't move his feet sufficiently on defense he often reacted by using his stick. But Caps fans, even those who decried the team's lack of responsibility in general and Semin's in particular, started rising to Semin's defense later in his tenure, saying that refs were overreacting and calling any kind of incidental, or even phantom, stick contact by Semin as a penalty, no matter how slight. I tended to agree with them; it just seemed as if the refs were "looking for Semin," anticipating some sort of stick foul and calling something anytime even an ambiguous situation developed in which he was involved. It appeared to be a classic case of perception becoming reality at least part of the time.
|
|
|
Post by libertine on Dec 23, 2014 1:00:29 GMT -5
Really like this trade.
Hanigan will be a good pairing for Vasquez. I think he will help his development. And Hanigan has trade value if/when Swihart comes good.
Disappointed about WMB. I really thought he was going to be the 3B of the future after his first season. A 20-30 HR guy who would hit maybe .260-.280 in BA. But after a promising rookie year he never regained that form. I think it was probably due to the HBP that broke his wrist changing his plate approach. He appeared to not want to get his hands out over the plate and drive the ball the other way, or go up the middle. He kept the hands in and tried to pull the ball hard on most swings. Plus his pitch recognition was horrible.
But I hope he rediscovers things in SD. I only wish him the best...
|
|
|
Post by raftsox on Dec 23, 2014 9:41:04 GMT -5
In reality it's strange that the framing skill is as important as it is, because in a technical sense the home plate umpire should be making calls based on the location of the ball as it passes through or by the strike zone. What the importance of framing indicates is that the umpire's "strike zone" is a complex interaction of the location of the ball as it passes over [or not over] the plate and its location as the catcher receives it and slightly thereafter. All this suggests that umpires are aware in some way of the ball in the catcher's mitt, both before and after it enters, and that is part of what they process in making the call. Seems to me that if we already know that umpires are tuned in to the ball in the mitt, they might change their thinking on how they process that part of their information in light of "new evidence." Norm's point of the gradation of catchers is seemingly a good one. However, it's possible that if umpires are or do become more aware of " good framing catchers," that their reactions may be more binary. That is, certain catchers (say the top half dozen or so) will become known as "the framers" and the umpire will treat them differently in some way than they treat the "run of the mill" catchers. I'm of the opinion that "framing" is waaaaay overrated. Yes, it's a skill that can potentially steal some strikes, but there are too many factors in play that aren't accurately accounted for. Some of them are: pitcher and batter handedness, day/night games, which umpire is calling balls and strikes, game situation (ie, blowout or close?), pitch count, pitch type and movement, pitch sequencing, batter swing frequency, etc. All of these effect the perception of balls and strikes at least as much as catcher framing skills.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Dec 23, 2014 10:37:10 GMT -5
I'm of the opinion that "framing" is waaaaay overrated. Yes, it's a skill that can potentially steal some strikes, but there are too many factors in play that aren't accurately accounted for. Some of them are: pitcher and batter handedness, day/night games, which umpire is calling balls and strikes, game situation (ie, blowout or close?), pitch count, pitch type and movement, pitch sequencing, batter swing frequency, etc. All of these effect the perception of balls and strikes at least as much as catcher framing skills. Please expand on why the way BP's methodology accounts for batter handedness, which umpire is behind the plate and pitch count is not accurate. Once you're done with that we can start discussing whether the other factors you mentioned are actually relevant.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Dec 23, 2014 14:59:23 GMT -5
Really like this trade.
Hanigan will be a good pairing for Vasquez. I think he will help his development. And Hanigan has trade value if/when Swihart comes good.
Disappointed about WMB. I really thought he was going to be the 3B of the future after his first season. A 20-30 HR guy who would hit maybe .260-.280 in BA. But after a promising rookie year he never regained that form. I think it was probably due to the HBP that broke his wrist changing his plate approach. He appeared to not want to get his hands out over the plate and drive the ball the other way, or go up the middle. He kept the hands in and tried to pull the ball hard on most swings. Plus his pitch recognition was horrible.
But I hope he rediscovers things in SD. I only wish him the best... I think WMB problem was he can't layoff or hit off speed pitches. This was a problem for him in the minors, he seemed to improve in the minors, but hasn't shown he can in the majors. Still think he can hit 20 to 30 homeruns in the Majors if given 600 at bats(just not in SD home park), but his average will be more like .220 to .240.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Dec 23, 2014 15:06:08 GMT -5
Middlebrooks would likely hit 25-30 home runs in a neutral park if you gave him 600 plate appearances. The problem is that you can't give 600 plate appearances to a third baseman with a .265 OBP. You're giving too many outs away.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,704
|
Post by nomar on Dec 23, 2014 15:48:27 GMT -5
Middlebrooks isn't a very cerebral hitter in my opinion. I'm not sure if anyone else feels that this is a fair assessment, but it's why I don't have much faith in him ever being consistent.
|
|
|