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.
|
Post by rjp313jr on Mar 19, 2015 11:52:40 GMT -5
Also how hard of a skill is it to replace? We start getting into questions of is all WAR of equal value? If one component of WAR is more abundant and easier to find then it's not worth as much and you're going to be hard pressed to convince me that pitch framing is all that difficult a skill to learn if its deemed that valuable. All t he metrics that try to value pitch framing value adjust to the league-average, so this is not a real concern. In other words, players like Vazquez who are rated as adding a ton of value through framing add a ton of value because they're that much better than the league-average framer, which essentially adjusts for the abundance or scarcity of that skill. So this I understand, but just because something is adjusted to league average doesn't change my point. Let me try to put it another way. League average only takes into account what's' in the league right now. Pitch framing is so new and was never looked at before very recently, that there is an extreme market inefficiency created that will probably be corrected within a couple years because it's not that difficult a skill (complete opinion). So if that's the case then the guys who have that great advantage now will lose most of that value gained. I also think that if teams want a defense first player or a player who gets a lot of value from defense then they can easily get that, but they won't do it because they don't value it as much as WAR does. It's why players with similar WAR who's value comes from defense get paid less than someone where that value comes with the bat.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Mar 19, 2015 12:47:44 GMT -5
I think the flaw in that argument, one you acknowledge, is that it's an easy skill to acquire. I'm not so sure that's the case.
|
|
|
Post by klostrophobic on Mar 19, 2015 12:53:33 GMT -5
I can't imagine it's an easy skill to acquire—isn't it something that people scout for, so presumably it is already something that is trained? So just because there are publicly available stats that indicate that is a real, quantifiable skill, it's suddenly going to be easier to train?
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Mar 19, 2015 12:58:15 GMT -5
If that average pitch framer is a bad hitter and sucks at throwing out runners and blocking pitches, such that he's 0 WAR if you ignore pitch framing, he's bad either way. But am I wrong to assume WAR to be consistent no matter what it's measuring vs. replacement level? A catcher with average defense and average hitting and average framing is more than a 0 WAR player. A replacement level catcher (considering only offense and defense) with average pitch framing skills should be worth something more than 0 WAR because replacement level is not average. Why are we using a different scale for pitch framing? As Ethan mentioned, there is no such thing as replacement-level offense or replacement-level defense or replacement-level framing. There is only a replacement-level overall player, and he can get there in any number of possible ways. What would happen when framing gets incorporated into the WAR equation is that some catchers get more valuable (because they're good framers) and some get less valuable (because they're bad framers) but the overall value of catchers as a class stay the same.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,920
|
Post by ericmvan on Mar 19, 2015 13:00:09 GMT -5
Swihart's pitch framing projects to pay for all of his salary in his first 6 years, several times over. Do you have any evidence of Swihart's pitch framing ability? We were talking about this in the pitch framing thread. There was just an article at BP, which talked about using the ratio of balls to called strikes as a very good proxy for pitch/fax based metrics, for historical and minor league assessments. Swihart tied for 3rd among all AA and AAA catchers.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Mar 19, 2015 13:10:21 GMT -5
All t he metrics that try to value pitch framing value adjust to the league-average, so this is not a real concern. In other words, players like Vazquez who are rated as adding a ton of value through framing add a ton of value because they're that much better than the league-average framer, which essentially adjusts for the abundance or scarcity of that skill. So this I understand, but just because something is adjusted to league average doesn't change my point. Let me try to put it another way. League average only takes into account what's' in the league right now. Pitch framing is so new and was never looked at before very recently, that there is an extreme market inefficiency created that will probably be corrected within a couple years because it's not that difficult a skill (complete opinion). So if that's the case then the guys who have that great advantage now will lose most of that value gained. I also think that if teams want a defense first player or a player who gets a lot of value from defense then they can easily get that, but they won't do it because they don't value it as much as WAR does. It's why players with similar WAR who's value comes from defense get paid less than someone where that value comes with the bat. As mentioned, there's no reason to think it's an easy skill to learn. Even before the framing stats came out, being a good receiver was a heavily-emphasized part of teaching catcher defense. Just like the emergence of defensive stats which allow you to quantify defense and compare it to offense did not significantly improve the overall quality of defense in the league, the emergence of framing stats won't greatly improve the quality of framing as a whole. As for the second part: while there are some teams who still undervalue defense, the league as a whole has been more than willing to give money and playing time to defense-first players. It's why Jose Molina started half the season for the Rays last year despite literally being one of the worse hitters in baseball history or why Jason Heyward fetched a hefty trade package and looks like he'll get paid $150m+ next year.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,920
|
Post by ericmvan on Mar 19, 2015 14:23:15 GMT -5
Here's the rub, though: Top-20-in-MLB catching prospects have been exactly as valuable, per season, in their ages 24 to 29 seasons as pitchers of Hamels' caliber (based on ages 28-30) have been in their ages 31 to 35. That's the starting point. The catchers have an extra year of control, a bit more potential value from extra PT (some spent time as backups), plus pitch framing, which is unmeasured here and which Swihart excels at. aWAR/yr Name 1.2 Sandy Alomar, Jr. 5.8 Ivan Rodriguez 2.2 Todd Hundley 2.6 Javy Lopez 3.1 Charles Johnson 0.6 Ben Davis 4.7 Joe Mauer 1.2 Jarrod Saltalamacchia 2.6 Matt Wieters (1 yr left) 4.9 Buster Posey (2 yrs left) Here's one problem with this analysis: you used pitchers with +/- 1 WAR of Hamels' total, but then did not give the same treatment to Swihart's comps. Not all top-20 catchers are comparable, and you shouldn't be comparing Swihart to guys who were ranked the top prospect in baseball like Mauer and Wieters (going off memory here, but I think that's right-- someone correct me if I'm wrong). Swihart was ranked 17th by BA, so you should really be looking at catchers ranked 7th through 27th, not 1st through 20th. That cuts off a lot of the better names in your sample above (Wieters and Mauer definitely fall into that category, and I think Posey does as well) and adds in some guys with a little worse of a pedigree. I suspect that bumps down this comp group's average WAR by a decent clip. Great catch in terms of getting the methodology right. But, in fact, your suspicion about the results of the tweak are wrong! And for what proves to be a really interesting reason, in terms of the way catching prospects are ranked. That fix removes Mauer, Wieters, and Alomar, and they are precisely the same as the guys left behind. And the only guy it adds is Jason Kendall (26), and he was better, at 3.55. That raises the comp group to 3.2. (J.R. House was ranked 21 after an amazing A ball season, but fell to 41 after not hitting in AA, and out of the top 100 when he was sent back there and was worse. So he's not any kind of reasonable comp. More on this in a second.) We can include Mesoraco's first three years to bring the number of comps back to 10, and he's been 1.6 per year, but of course may end up much higher after three more years, since he just put up a 4.6. And the 10 guys are still at 3.0. You start to see some busts after 28 and below. In fact, there's a U-shaped distribution here. Number of guys classified by peak ranking, by deciles: 11, ranked 1-10 9, 11-20 7, 21-30 9, 31-40 16, 41-50. The 21 to 30 guys include two more guys who earned the ranking in A ball, Tyler Houston and Gary Sanchez. So there's an actual hump to get over to get into the top 20, which you can't crack until you've performed well in the high minors. And so in fact top 20 catching prospects appear to be a reasonably distinct phenomenon. It's not an arbitrary cutoff in a continuous distribution; I unconsciously but accurately* drew the line at the bottom of a U-shaped distribution that has a pretty logical explanation. Catchers struggle with the bat so often in the high minors that there's a real reluctance to rank them higher than 40 before that, and they are never ranked in the top 20 until they've done so (the exception being guys who are all bat and projected to probably play elsewhere, e.g., Montero.) This explains the extraordinarily low bust rate. I mean, the second worst guy in this group was Salty, and he had a 3.2 season where his team won the WS. *I just happen to be reading Stanislas Dehaene's terrific Consciousness and the Brain, and the brain is incredibly good at doing that sort of thing. Since I've looked at all the BA Top 100 lists scores of times, my brain actually knew that U-shape distribution, even though I wasn't consciously aware of it.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,920
|
Post by ericmvan on Mar 19, 2015 14:44:09 GMT -5
Oh -- Ben Davis, the bust among the comps, was ranked 10 after his rookie-ball season, and got back up to 24 after his AAA year. Salty was ranked 18 after high-A and went down to 36 after struggling in AA. More later.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Mar 19, 2015 15:03:31 GMT -5
Can we just acknowledge that old prospect rankings are kind of useless? You hear about where some guys were ranked based on certain resumes and if that happened now, you'd immediately discredit that source.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Mar 19, 2015 15:17:42 GMT -5
Heyward is going to get his contract because someone is going to over-value his offense not because they are paying for his defense. Whoever signs him is going to pretend his a middle of the order hitter who also plays great defense.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Mar 19, 2015 15:21:28 GMT -5
I think the flaw in that argument, one you acknowledge, is that it's an easy skill to acquire. I'm not so sure that's the case. It's a valid debate but despite Eric stating teams emphasizing it before, I disagree. It's just now being acknowledged as being so impactful and if it really is that important teams will value different catchers that were passed over previously.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Mar 19, 2015 15:23:41 GMT -5
And just so we are clear pitch framing is catching a baseball let's not pretend it's some ridiculously difficult skillset. Yes it's a simplification but that's what it is and don't liken it to pitching being throwing a baseball.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Mar 19, 2015 15:25:21 GMT -5
And just so we are clear pitch framing is catching a baseball let's not pretend it's some ridiculously difficult skillset. Yes it's a simplification but that's what it is and don't liken it to pitching being throwing a baseball. Lol. K.
|
|
|
Post by redsoxnh2014 on Mar 19, 2015 15:37:27 GMT -5
And just so we are clear pitch framing is catching a baseball let's not pretend it's some ridiculously difficult skillset. Yes it's a simplification but that's what it is and don't liken it to pitching being throwing a baseball. Certainly I agree a lot of it is based more on a player's instincts than a developed skillset but I think you're undervaluing pitch framing.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Mar 19, 2015 16:02:25 GMT -5
Some are underestimating hand strength and insane amounts of practice.
|
|
|
Post by klostrophobic on Mar 19, 2015 16:08:55 GMT -5
And just so we are clear pitch framing is catching a baseball let's not pretend it's some ridiculously difficult skillset. Yes it's a simplification but that's what it is and don't liken it to pitching being throwing a baseball. And hitting home runs is just hitting a baseball.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Mar 19, 2015 17:06:47 GMT -5
I think the flaw in that argument, one you acknowledge, is that it's an easy skill to acquire. I'm not so sure that's the case. It's a valid debate but despite Eric stating teams emphasizing it before, I disagree. It's just now being acknowledged as being so impactful and if it really is that important teams will value different catchers that were passed over previously. Let's be clear. As jmei pointed out, this isn't anything new to baseball people. They've known that good receiving skills were important long before it could be quantified. Nevertheless there have been lousy catchers as long as people have played baseball. If it was a gimme, the Pierzynski's and Saltalamacchia's of the world would have picked it up a long time ago. As has been mentioned, it's a skill acquired through intense focus and endless repetition. In other words, it's just like everything else people get good at. It doesn't fall in your lap, you have to work at it, and not everyone reaches the same level of competence.
|
|
|
Post by sdiaz1 on Mar 20, 2015 0:46:57 GMT -5
Take a moment just to watch the clips in this article. In just a blink of an eye, Vazquez is able to subtlety move pitches that were out of the zone into a location that makes the ump believes that were strikes. He is able to do this with just a nuanced flick of the wrist. There is no exaggerated movement, there is barley any lag, and no noticeable indicator of what was done. That can not be trained. That requires near divine hand eye coordination and fast twitch reflexes. If this were trainable, Captain Yale genius boy would have learned this years ago and been a stud and the website would have been named after Lavnarnway guy. Hell he even tricks the batter, as there is no argument by any three of the hitters in the three pitches he steals from them. www.fangraphs.com/blogs/so-christian-vazquez-is-partially-elite/
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Mar 20, 2015 6:38:56 GMT -5
And just so we are clear pitch framing is catching a baseball let's not pretend it's some ridiculously difficult skillset. Yes it's a simplification but that's what it is and don't liken it to pitching being throwing a baseball. Lol. K. Please break it down and explain how difficult it is and how much goes into it.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Mar 20, 2015 6:45:15 GMT -5
It's a valid debate but despite Eric stating teams emphasizing it before, I disagree. It's just now being acknowledged as being so impactful and if it really is that important teams will value different catchers that were passed over previously. Let's be clear. As jmei pointed out, this isn't anything new to baseball people. They've known that good receiving skills were important long before it could be quantified. Nevertheless there have been lousy catchers as long as people have played baseball. If it was a gimme, the Pierzynski's and Saltalamacchia's of the world would have picked it up a long time ago. As has been mentioned, it's a skill acquired through intense focus and endless repetition. In other words, it's just like everything else people get good at. It doesn't fall in your lap, you have to work at it, and not everyone reaches the same level of competence. Yes no doubt some will be Better than others, but certain skills are easier to get good at than others. I'm no elite athlete but I got unbelievably good at throwing a ping-pong ball into a solo cup in a variety of ways. There's technically skills involved in that as well but they are more easily developed. Knowing something is important is not nearly the same as discovering how important it is. People can't have it both ways. By that I mean you can't say they've known this forever then marvel at the new "discovery" of how important it is because they don't jive and at the very least they don't line up well. If you think the same focus is going to be out on this skill going forward as has in the past and you believe that it's as impactful as Eric and others do then I think you are crazy. And I said before I over simplified it but that was to drive home s point that it's way easier to do than hitting a baseball or playing a great centerfield etc and if it's impactful like some think then someone very good at it could hit .200 and be a very useful starting catcher. Hence it being much easier to find.
|
|
|
Post by ctfisher on Mar 20, 2015 7:15:50 GMT -5
Yes no doubt some will be Better than others, but certain skills are easier to get good at than others. I'm no elite athlete but I got unbelievably good at throwing a ping-pong ball into a solo cup in a variety of ways. There's technically skills involved in that as well but they are more easily developed. Knowing something is important is not nearly the same as discovering how important it is. People can't have it both ways. By that I mean you can't say they've known this forever then marvel at the new "discovery" of how important it is because they don't jive and at the very least they don't line up well. If you think the same focus is going to be out on this skill going forward as has in the past and you believe that it's as impactful as Eric and others do then I think you are crazy. And I said before I over simplified it but that was to drive home s point that it's way easier to do than hitting a baseball or playing a great centerfield etc and if it's impactful like some think then someone very good at it could hit .200 and be a very useful starting catcher. Hence it being much easier to find. I think the idea is more that now the impact is quantifiable, so people understand the importance more exactly. I can't find the article any more, but I saw something recently on Grantland discussing the idea that the Yankees found they had more success starting Jorge Posada's back-ups (Joe Girardi, Cervelli, etc.) than Posada himself at catcher, because he was a subpar receiver, while the back-ups were typically good or better, even if Posada was a much better offensive player. As for how easy it is to pick up, I think it's pretty clear that you need some serious God-given ability to become the type of framer that Vazquez or the Molina brothers are. It's a little like the question of pitch-recognition that has come up a lot in respect to Betts: sure, he's a great athlete anyway, but he's got incredible reactions and hand-eye co-ordination. Clearly it's not the exact same skill-set, or Vazquez would be a superstar, but the fact that you don't hear about many teams having great framers is pretty indicative that there's a limited supply, and if it were easy to pick up, I seriously doubt that would be the case.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Mar 20, 2015 7:40:13 GMT -5
Rob Bradford ?@bradfo 2m2 minutes ago Appears Swihart is headed to minor league camp. Did well for himself with opportunity
|
|
|
Post by m1keyboots on Mar 20, 2015 15:08:43 GMT -5
So this I understand, but just because something is adjusted to league average doesn't change my point. Let me try to put it another way. League average only takes into account what's' in the league right now. Pitch framing is so new and was never looked at before very recently, that there is an extreme market inefficiency created that will probably be corrected within a couple years because it's not that difficult a skill (complete opinion). So if that's the case then the guys who have that great advantage now will lose most of that value gained. I also think that if teams want a defense first player or a player who gets a lot of value from defense then they can easily get that, but they won't do it because they don't value it as much as WAR does. It's why players with similar WAR who's value comes from defense get paid less than someone where that value comes with the bat. As mentioned, there's no reason to think it's an easy skill to learn. Even before the framing stats came out, being a good receiver was a heavily-emphasized part of teaching catcher defense. Just like the emergence of defensive stats which allow you to quantify defense and compare it to offense did not significantly improve the overall quality of defense in the league, the emergence of framing stats won't greatly improve the quality of framing as a whole. As for the second part: while there are some teams who still undervalue defense, the league as a whole has been more than willing to give money and playing time to defense-first players. It's why Jose Molina started half the season for the Rays last year despite literally being one of the worse hitters in baseball history or why Jason Heyward fetched a hefty trade package and looks like he'll get paid $150m+ next year. I think he meant teams might pay attention moreto a guy with good receiving skills, similair to when teams started valuing guys with great on base skills. The emphasis didn't necessarily make guys better at seeing pitches we just saw more of those guys get opportunities. I do think, that framing pictures might be an easier skill to acquire than having a great/accurate arm, This is at the catcher's position I'm speaking of. Of course guys can refine their mechanics and do arm-strength exercises. But a cannon cannot be taught or practiced, whereas framing might be a more teachable skill. I don't know if any of that made sense. Edited for terrible typing
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Mar 20, 2015 17:09:42 GMT -5
I think he meant teams might pay attention moreto a guy with good receiving skills, similair to when teams started valuing guys with great on base skills. The emphasis didn't necessarily make guys better at seeing pitches we just saw more of those guys get opportunities. I do think, that framing pictures might be an easier skill to acquire than having a great/accurate arm, This is at the catcher's position I'm speaking of. Of course guys can refine their mechanics and do arm-strength exercises. But a cannon cannot be taught or practiced, whereas framing might be a more teachable skill. I don't know if any of that made sense. I can see the argument that, as pitch-framing becomes more highly valued, perhaps more good-framing, bad-offense guys will enter the league, just like the OBP revolution caused a lot more good-OBP, bad-defense/contact guys into the league. But that transition shouldn't really hurt Swihart's relative value, since he's a guy who projects to both be both a good framer and a good hitter. I do think framing is more teachable to an extent than velocity or raw power, but that doesn't mean it's easy to teach/learn. I mean, you could say the same thing about routes in the outfield (i.e., just be like JBJ and power-shag before games-- it's just catching the ball!) or footwork at the infield positions (just practice it a lot!) or pitch recognition (just do the video-game-esque pitch recognition exercises that are en vogue these days!). Yes, they're teachable, but that doesn't mean that every player can just practice harder and get better at it. There are legitimate physical skills involved that not every catcher will possess (visual acuity to track the ball, hand/wrist strength to catch it firmly, fine motor skills to bring it back over the zone), and just like free throw shooting in the NBA, some guys just won't take well to it for whatever reason. Maybe as coaches and players emphasize framing more, the league-wide level of framing might improve a little, but I'm skeptical that it'd change enough to meaningfully diminish Vazquez or Swihart's value.
|
|
|
Post by m1keyboots on Mar 20, 2015 23:13:01 GMT -5
I think he meant teams might pay attention moreto a guy with good receiving skills, similair to when teams started valuing guys with great on base skills. The emphasis didn't necessarily make guys better at seeing pitches we just saw more of those guys get opportunities. I do think, that framing pictures might be an easier skill to acquire than having a great/accurate arm, This is at the catcher's position I'm speaking of. Of course guys can refine their mechanics and do arm-strength exercises. But a cannon cannot be taught or practiced, whereas framing might be a more teachable skill. I don't know if any of that made sense. I can see the argument that, as pitch-framing becomes more highly valued, perhaps more good-framing, bad-offense guys will enter the league, just like the OBP revolution caused a lot more good-OBP, bad-defense/contact guys into the league. But that transition shouldn't really hurt Swihart's relative value, since he's a guy who projects to both be both a good framer and a good hitter. I do think framing is more teachable to an extent than velocity or raw power, but that doesn't mean it's easy to teach/learn. I mean, you could say the same thing about routes in the outfield (i.e., just be like JBJ and power-shag before games-- it's just catching the ball!) or footwork at the infield positions (just practice it a lot!) or pitch recognition (just do the video-game-esque pitch recognition exercises that are en vogue these days!). Yes, they're teachable, but that doesn't mean that every player can just practice harder and get better at it. There are legitimate physical skills involved that not every catcher will possess (visual acuity to track the ball, hand/wrist strength to catch it firmly, fine motor skills to bring it back over the zone), and just like free throw shooting in the NBA, some guys just won't take well to it for whatever reason. Maybe as coaches and players emphasize framing more, the league-wide level of framing might improve a little, but I'm skeptical that it'd change enough to meaningfully diminish Vazquez or Swihart's value.I must have missed the point on how it is meaningful distinguishing between swihart. it's such a fine line when you're trying to distinguish between the talent, and the learning capabilities of such player. I'm just a firm believer in Vasquez innate ability to frame pitches, compared to sweethearts ability to catch on to a skill
|
|
|