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 weaselgoo on Mar 21, 2015 0:59:35 GMT -5
Surely the more people emphasize the value of pitch framing, and the more certain catchers develop reputations as great pitch framers, the more umpires will tighten the strike zone in order to avoid making bad calls. After all, pitch framing is all about fooling the umpire, and umpires do not enjoy watching replays in which they are fooled by some punk catcher's shifty criminal hands.
|
|
|
Post by ctfisher on Mar 21, 2015 10:22:40 GMT -5
Surely the more people emphasize the value of pitch framing, and the more certain catchers develop reputations as great pitch framers, the more umpires will tighten the strike zone in order to avoid making bad calls. After all, pitch framing is all about fooling the umpire, and umpires do not enjoy watching replays in which they are fooled by some punk catcher's shifty criminal hands. But all the numbers/studies show that the strike zone has actually expanded over the last couple of years. I don't think that they're just going to stop giving pitchers the corners on the suspicion that they're being tricked- especially cause they're trying to shorten the games and tightening the strike zone does nothing on that front
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Mar 21, 2015 10:44:33 GMT -5
Surely the more people emphasize the value of pitch framing, and the more certain catchers develop reputations as great pitch framers, the more umpires will tighten the strike zone in order to avoid making bad calls. After all, pitch framing is all about fooling the umpire, and umpires do not enjoy watching replays in which they are fooled by some punk catcher's shifty criminal hands. Welcome to the board. Properly framing a pitch is nothing new. It's been going on for quite a while. It's the reason guys like Brad Ausmus had such extended careers despite truly putrid performance at the plate. Nonetheless the guy was very highly thought of, it's just that now we know why. Emphasis on we, since front offices have, apparently, been tracking the skill for a while. Which probably means it's been no secret to umpires either. And Ausmus was no punk, having plied his trade for 17 years and four different teams, including two stints with Houston. Framing the pitch to highlight how good it was has a converse of course. Stabbing at the pitch, dragging your glove through and out of the zone, or into the dirt,... all of those screw the pitcher by taking possible strikes away. Those are the real "punks" if you ask me. I'm looking at you AJP!
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Mar 21, 2015 10:47:24 GMT -5
Yeah, framing is not just about "stealing" strikes that weren't actually in the zone. It's just as much about making sure that the umpire calls pitches that were actually in the zone as strikes.
|
|
|
Post by mredsox89 on Mar 21, 2015 11:29:44 GMT -5
Yeah, framing is not just about "stealing" strikes that weren't actually in the zone. It's just as much about making sure that the umpire calls pitches that were actually in the zone as strikes. This. I feel like pitch framing discussions always lean towards catchers "stealing strikes", when it's just as important to get pitches that are actually strikes called strikes
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Mar 24, 2015 10:14:43 GMT -5
But... I thought it was just about catching the ball good?
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Mar 24, 2015 10:33:19 GMT -5
But... I thought it was just about catching the ball good? I'm still waiting for you to break it down, but I suppose you can just keep being snarky instead.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Mar 24, 2015 10:47:02 GMT -5
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 don't think it's just more teachable, I think it's a more widely found skill. Just like playing defense is a more widely found skill than hitting a baseball and there are countless examples of players working their tails off (Wade Boggs) and becoming top defenders. I think most people tend to take the argument that these guys are major league players so to get there they have to have this unbelievable work ethic and focus. That's just not the truth. This comes up a lot when talking "clutch performers". People say, all professional athletes handle pressure or they wouldn't get to where they are. That's just a completely false premise as is the work ethic argument. There are a ton of lazy athletes who are actually very very good, just not nearly as good as they could be if they had the focus and work eithic of certain other players. Dustin Pedroia is as good as he is defensively, because of how hard he works at it in combination with is physical skills. However, his physical skills with turning the double play are something a lot of people in the population could do if they put the time into it. Hitting a baseball is not. Executing pitches at high and vary velocities and a wide range of breaks is not something a lot of the population could ever do. Tracking a fly ball similar category as turning a double play. Pitch framing I believe falls into that same category.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Mar 24, 2015 10:54:39 GMT -5
With this pitch framing discussion, where I think people are trying to "have their cake and eat it too" is the premise that they've just recently discovered how to quantify how valuable it is but that they've known it all along. That's just coming up with a narrative to fit an argument. An no that doesn't mean that I don't think that certain teams put a higher value on receiving than others. Obviously they did. But there's no way that they put nearly as much emphasis on it as the value there is using the numbers Eric is throwing around. If the league put that much value on it, then things would have been drastically different. Ryan Lavarnaway never would have been given the reps he was in the minors.
If what was said above about the Yankees were true and they had the data to back up their claims, then Posada wouldn't have started all those games behind the plate for them.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Mar 24, 2015 11:15:58 GMT -5
rjp, I think you're trying to "have your cake and stomp on it".
Even if it's a skill anyone can acquire, the average would just go up and the better ones are still better.
I don't think it's nearly as easy as you think though, as a good framer has to know where a pitch is going to end up pretty much instantly so he can move his hand there before the ball gets there. Then he needs the hand strength to catch the ball with the furthest edge of his glove. It might actually be as hard as hitting and might take a lot more reps to get good at. I say this with as much evidence as you have that it's an easy skill for anyone to pick up. Well, maybe a bit more because we probably aren't going to see anyone going from terrible to awesome because he decided to get better one year.
It's quite easy to imagine how important it is to the game as the catcher is involved in every taken pitch for every game. He's easily the 2nd most important player on the field at all times but plays most of the games instead of every 5th game.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Mar 24, 2015 11:42:42 GMT -5
But... I thought it was just about catching the ball good? I'm still waiting for you to break it down, but I suppose you can just keep being snarky instead. As said above, whether or not it's as easy as you think it is, by dismissing it this way, you're ignoring the fact that the numbers show that some major league catchers are much, much better at it than others. If it's so simple, why can't anyone learn to do it? Is every catcher that isn't a Lucroy-level framer just lazy? You can't possibly think that's true, right? With the way teams look for every possible little way to gain an edge, would they really say, "nah, don't worry about working on your pitch framing, we don't need those extra strikes"? As for the substance of your point, how is framing "just catching the ball" any different than hitting "just striking the ball with a bat," pitching "just throwing the ball" or fielding also "just catching and/or throwing the ball?" Every action on a baseball diamond is, at its core, pretty basic. Heck, nearly any action in most sports could be so simplified: Scoring a goal in soccer is "kicking a ball," rebounding is "grabbing the ball," tackling is "running into and grabbing a person," any golf shot is "striking a stationary ball," fishing is "getting fish to eat," sprinting is "running fast," and so forth. Heck, probably more relevant here would be that magic tricks with playing cards are "holding a playing card so that nobody else can see it." That's why your comment was so asinine. Yes, it was absolutely true. But it's also true of most things at the elite levels of sport. The difference is that what makes those athletes at the elite levels of that sport the ones who are there are that they do those things at elite levels that very few people in the world can do it at.
|
|
|
Post by ramireja on Mar 24, 2015 11:46:51 GMT -5
The great thing about Swihart is that he hits too. Lets say that we see a shift within the next 5 years towards teams putting a greater emphasis on catchers with defensive/framing skills. If thats the case, you would predict an overall decline in the offensive bar set by catchers. Even if the playing field levels a bit with regards to framing (which honestly I think is farfetched), Swihart would maintain an advantage over the group with regards to offense which would likely grow in this scenario.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Mar 24, 2015 12:15:25 GMT -5
I think I've examined ad nauseum at this point that it's an easier skill than the others. I also admitted right away that it was an obvious oversimplification. What hasn't been done is have anyone breakdown exactly what skills and actions it takes to be a good pitch framer.
Catching something with a glove on your hand that is being thrown to you (so you know where it's going and how it's going to move) and hitting something with a bat that is being thrown by you that you don't know where it's going - how fast or how it's going to move are not comparable. But if you think catching a ball and hitting a ball are the same then we will just have to agree to disagree.
And the other argument that it's always been a focus of MLB teams but we can now just put a number on it is bunk. Yup unused the word bunk... Whatever.
Jmei pointed out the OBP trend and that's a pretty good example. It's not like people didn't know getting on base was important before, once they quantified it, there was a big shift in what types of hitters teams valued.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Mar 24, 2015 12:21:21 GMT -5
The great thing about Swihart is that he hits too. Lets say that we see a shift within the next 5 years towards teams putting a greater emphasis on catchers with defensive/framing skills. If thats the case, you would predict an overall decline in the offensive bar set by catchers. Even if the playing field levels a bit with regards to framing (which honestly I think is farfetched), Swihart would maintain an advantage over the group with regards to offense which would likely grow in this scenario. Yea, this didn't start as a means to diminish Switharts value. It was a WAR discussion and I guess questioning how big a difference these elite guys will have as or if pitch framing becomes more widely accepted as being a huge difference maker. It may all be moot for years as different players come up and filter through. Love me some Swithart.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Mar 24, 2015 12:24:00 GMT -5
I think I've examined ad nauseum at this point that it's an easier skill than the others. I also admitted right away that it was an obvious oversimplification. What hasn't been done is have anyone breakdown exactly what skills and actions it takes to be a good pitch framer. Catching something with a glove on your hand that is being thrown to you (so you know where it's going and how it's going to move) and hitting something with a bat that is being thrown by you that you don't know where it's going - how fast or how it's going to move are not comparable. But if you think catching a ball and hitting a ball are the same then we will just have to agree to disagree.And the other argument that it's always been a focus of MLB teams but we can now just put a number on it is bunk. Yup unused the word bunk... Whatever. Jmei pointed out the OBP trend and that's a pretty good example. It's not like people didn't know getting on base was important before, once they quantified it, there was a big shift in what types of hitters teams valued. No one said anything like that. Not even close. What people have said is that some catchers are much better at it than others, which is what you seem to be arguing against as long as all of them start trying now that people realize it's important. That is way beyond just an obvious oversimplication.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Mar 24, 2015 12:41:39 GMT -5
Ok my apologies for making the cardinal sin of a gross over-exaggeration. I do understand its s skill I just don't respect its difficulty nearly as much as the rest of you.
Let's go back to Swithart.
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan2 on Mar 24, 2015 12:59:53 GMT -5
I know this is off the main topic, but I wonder if data exists for, say, the top 20 percentile of catchers who are considered the "best" at framing and the bottom 20 percentile for catchers who rank the "worst". Extrapolate the data over the course of 5 years and I'd be curious to see what the difference in staff ERA/FIP would be. I know there would be a ton of variables, but you should be able to deduce in terms of real value as to what great pitch framing means to a staff.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Mar 24, 2015 13:30:09 GMT -5
I think I've examined ad nauseum at this point that it's an easier skill than the others. I also admitted right away that it was an obvious oversimplification. What hasn't been done is have anyone breakdown exactly what skills and actions it takes to be a good pitch framer. I did so here. Dustin Pedroia is as good as he is defensively, because of how hard he works at it in combination with is physical skills. However, his physical skills with turning the double play are something a lot of people in the population could do if they put the time into it. Hitting a baseball is not. Executing pitches at high and vary velocities and a wide range of breaks is not something a lot of the population could ever do. Tracking a fly ball similar category as turning a double play. Pitch framing I believe falls into that same category. If your point is that pitch framing is as difficult as other defensive skills generally, your conclusion still does not follow, and the opposite seems to be true. I brought this up earlier, but the quantification of defensive value did not result in everyone practicing defense a lot more and a significant improvement in the level of defense league-wide (BABIPs have remained tightly clustered at just less than .300). Why? Because it's far harder to improve at defense or framing than you're suggesting.
|
|
|