Minnesota Twins News & Rumors Forum
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 41 to 57 of 57

Thread: Article: Is Ryan Doumit's Catching A Critical Liability?

  1. #41
    Senior Member All-Star
    Posts
    1,460
    Like
    64
    Liked 144 Times in 93 Posts
    Blog Entries
    30
    Quote Originally Posted by Willihammer View Post
    Interesting. This from the first BP article is encouraging:

    Doumit dropped his head on 11 of the 12 pitches I reviewed on video. On the one pitch where he did not do that, he got a strike call. Molina dropped his head to follow the ball into the glove on two of the 10 pitches I reviewed on video, and both of those pitches were called balls.
    Lucroy’s head was stable on all seven pitches I reviewed, and he got seven strike calls. Varitek’s head was stable on all six pitches I reviewed, all called balls, but his exaggerated glove movement may have cost him those strike calls.
    It would seem there are some simple things Doumit could do to improve.
    Most sensible comment in the discussion.

    If it is a skill, it can be improved. The Twins have access to all of the video and corresponding data. It probably is available sorted by call, pitch type, location...

    Do it for all of the catchers.

    If the Twins do the leg work on this, there is no reason it can't improve as long as there is awareness.

  2. #42
    Senior Member Triple-A
    Posts
    425
    Like
    0
    Liked 42 Times in 31 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    Where a catcher catches the ball doesn't tell where/if the ball crosses the plate. The idea that how a catcher catches the ball has much of an infuence on the umpire's call is pretty weak. The umpire is focused on where/if the ball crosses the plate, not where it is caught. Can a catcher steal a strike once in awhile- I am sure it happens. Can you take what is a minor skill by a catcher, and elevate to the point that it saves 50 runs in less than half the games by the back up catcher?


    That is the problem with this "metric". It is not remotely believable and takes away from what should be the central argument, the value of a good defensive catcher. There is no doubt that Molina is a good defensive catcher. He calls good games, works well with his pitchers, throws out runners, probably has a good relationship with most umps and probably is good at number of other things including "framing a pitch".

    But by doing a sloppy job of constructing this "metric" it obscures what should be the central point. It also shows why most fans should be a lot sceptical of most new metrics.

  3. #43
    I am absolutely a defensive metrics guy but dont know how to precisely rate a C.
    Its awkwardly funny to watch a game & hear an announcer talk about how good a defensive player is but ALL the metrics show otherwise....or vice versa.
    These are new stats & this early into them....either you believe them or you dont.
    Many that dont believe fail to understand that defense waivers from a player year to year just like a hitters numbers for many variables.
    I believe there is something to this, but not 100% sure of how to decifer the numbers myself.

  4. #44
    Senior Member All-Star
    Posts
    1,641
    Like
    9
    Liked 53 Times in 34 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by jorgenswest View Post
    []

    Most sensible comment in the discussion.

    .
    I do not see anyone disagreeing with the concept of Doumit needing to be a better catcher. The criticism of the metric is very sensible. When the creator of the metric says it is flawed to use the data to make your case is not a good arguement.

  5. #45
    Senior Member Double-A Wookiee of the Year's Avatar
    Posts
    130
    Like
    9
    Liked 19 Times in 16 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2
    Between the initial article and the resulting discussion, fascinating stuff. I tend to agree we should be skeptical of any stat that places so much value on the defensive capabilities of the back-up catcher, let alone one particular skill within those capabilities. Still, I've long written off pitch framing as not a real skill, but this article's making me think twice on that point.

    Even if I remain skeptical of this article's findings, I'm still glad to have read it.

  6. #46
    Owner All-Star John Bonnes's Avatar
    Posts
    2,429
    Twitter
    @twinsgeek
    Like
    1
    Liked 157 Times in 93 Posts
    Blog Entries
    240
    Re: Head-bobbing. I'll say this: the immediate body language of people around a close call absolutely can affect the perception of that call. I could believe that it would have a significant influence on an umpire.

    I'll relate it to something that parents of young children can relate. When your kids falls - just gets a bump, or a scrape, or tumbles down a couple of stairs or whatever - the worst thing you can do is immediately react as if they could be seriously hurt, like running over to ask if they're ok. The second you react that way, they are hurt. Bawling, OMG-this-world-is-terrifying, hold-me-NOW, hurt. They are reading you, your immediate reaction, and if it's alarm, they're alarmed.

    Instead, you learn to NOT react, like keep walking, glance over and say "Whoa! Good one! You shaking that off, sport?!?" Once you master that, your kid becomes infinitely tougher.

    This is not to imply that umpires are children, but the same thing applies. We look for immediate validation one way or the other, even if what we're judging is if we are in severe pain or not.

  7. #47
    Twins Moderator All-Star diehardtwinsfan's Avatar
    Posts
    4,212
    Like
    366
    Liked 742 Times in 459 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by Jim H View Post
    Can you take what is a minor skill by a catcher, and elevate to the point that it saves 50 runs in less than half the games by the back up catcher?
    Only if the catcher is a Yankee...

  8. #48
    Senior Member Triple-A
    Posts
    301
    Like
    0
    Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by mike wants wins View Post
    People used to "know" the earth was flat, and that the sun revolved around the earth too....until we started using science and numbers to figure things out. Were those early attempts precise? No. Did they lead us to the truth, yes, yes they did.
    In what way is this science?

  9. #49
    Senior Member MVP
    Posts
    5,619
    Like
    1,117
    Liked 532 Times in 352 Posts
    He has a hypothesis. He then used observation to test the hypothesis. He used math to develop a theory and reach a conclusion. It is the definition of science. Does not mean his conclusion is correct, most theories are incorrect, but even that brings us closer to understanding.

  10. #50
    Senior Member Triple-A
    Posts
    301
    Like
    0
    Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by mike wants wins View Post
    He has a hypothesis. He then used observation to test the hypothesis. He used math to develop a theory and reach a conclusion. It is the definition of science. Does not mean his conclusion is correct, most theories are incorrect, but even that brings us closer to understanding.
    I fail to see any tests being conducted on this. I see a bunch of statistical masturbation.

  11. #51
    Senior Member Triple-A
    Posts
    425
    Like
    0
    Liked 42 Times in 31 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    Re: Head-bobbing. I'll say this: the immediate body language of people around a close call absolutely can affect the perception of that call. I could believe that it would have a significant influence on an umpire
    .

    I suppose this is possible. It is also possible/likely that the umpire has decided what to call before the reaction sets in. You do bring up something that hasn't really been discussed on this thread. There are 4 people involved in any strike/ball call. The pitcher, catcher, batter and umpire. If we use for example a pitch on the black(as Bert might say) trying to determine what actually inflluenced the umpire to make the "wrong" call is pretty difficult to determine.

    First you have to determine if it actually was the wrong call. Pitch f/x might not be right because of camera angles and the depth of the plate. If the pitcher has consistently hit the "corner" of the plate throughout the game, maybe the umpire gives him the benefit of the doubt. Maybe if the batter leans away from what he thinks is going to be an inside pitch, that could influence the call. Maybe the ump misses the call because he just didn't see it clearly. Maybe count influences the ump as John referenced earlier. There do seem to be umps that don't like to call a batter out on an extremely close pitch. And finally maybe framing could influence the ump.

    The problem is assigning a possibility like framing to every close pitch that is "missed" by the umpire doesn't seem like very good "science". It clearly misses all the possible interplays between all of the participants in the umps dicision.

  12. #52
    Senior Member MVP
    Posts
    5,619
    Like
    1,117
    Liked 532 Times in 352 Posts
    Jim, it does not miss other possibilities, but you have certainly offered other good ones, and are offering several tests that could be done to the data. That is how these things should work. Scientific inquiry and rebuttal at its best, if someone does the tests.

  13. #53
    Owner MVP Brock Beauchamp's Avatar
    Posts
    7,989
    Twitter
    @rocketpig76
    Like
    47
    Liked 1,502 Times in 785 Posts
    Blog Entries
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by mike wants wins View Post
    Jim, it does not miss other possibilities, but you have certainly offered other good ones, and are offering several tests that could be done to the data. That is how these things should work. Scientific inquiry and rebuttal at its best, if someone does the tests.
    It would require years of data to work. Like UZR (which I have defended to an extent in other threads), this "framing" stat deals with far too many variables to be used on even a single season's worth of data, I suspect. As Jim mentioned, we're talking about four different inputs into each call (batter, catcher, pitcher, ump). Multiply those four variables by, say, 400 pitchers, 80 catchers, several thousand batters, and ~150 umpires and you're looking at a massive amount of variables on each pitch. On top of that, the fact that framing is assumed to be worth roughly 1/10th of a run is very much up for debate and the statistical influence on that is nebulous at best. To get enough information to reach a qualified conclusion, we'll need millions of data points on those four inputs to make something like this work (assuming the other variables are correct, which we cannot at this point). While it's *technically* science, at this point it's pretty bad science. Far too incomplete to be used to quantify anything at this point.

    In five years, we might have enough data to start really breaking down catcher framing. And if we do, I have the feeling that the numbers we'll see will be much different and much smaller.

  14. #54
    Senior Member MVP
    Posts
    5,619
    Like
    1,117
    Liked 532 Times in 352 Posts
    I agree the numbers will be much smaller, but since I have not spent the time on this the author has, that's just a guess. I also agree we need a ton more data for the confidence level to increase. None of that means the exercise is a bad one, or proves he is wrong.

  15. #55
    You got a different home plate umpire for every game during a series. They all calculate THEIR strikezone, a lot of times watching the pitcher throw...or do they actually review tape themselves to have an idea of if a pitcher pays the corners or not, throws high, low, etc. Then you have the pitcher. They can be all over the place. Some take a batter, some take an inning, some take the whole game to be consistent with their stuff. Then you have the catcher. Are they calling the game plan, is the manager/coach calling the shots, is the pitcher calling the shots. Another question is how often a catcher IS in the spot where the pitch is thrown...are they outside when it comes insides, etc. etc. It's fun watching sometimes when the catcher leans like two feet outside to catch a pitch. Then we have the batter. What bout the guy who swings at everything (Carlos Gomez, Delmon Young for example) Sometimes they hit it. The batter can throw everything off because they are oft unpredictable. They figure out the pitcher. They don't ALWAYS swing the exact same way, just as the pitcher doesn't always throw in the same spots, or the umpire might have a smaller or bigger zone this game, or the catcher has hurt legs or a hangover.

    So, in deciding this metric...who costs the most runs...the gameplan (caller), the pitcher (no control), the umpire (doesn't know what they do from game to game) or the catcher (who has a job of framing the plate and catching the ball).
    Joel Thingvall
    www.thingvall.com
    rosterman at www.twinscards.com

  16. #56
    Owner MVP Brock Beauchamp's Avatar
    Posts
    7,989
    Twitter
    @rocketpig76
    Like
    47
    Liked 1,502 Times in 785 Posts
    Blog Entries
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by mike wants wins View Post
    I agree the numbers will be much smaller, but since I have not spent the time on this the author has, that's just a guess.
    It's more than a guess, it's common sense. There is no way that a full season of Jose Molina is worth 25% of Tampa Bay's total runs allowed. If he was, we'd see teams clamoring for the Jose Molinas of the world, not signing them as backup catchers for $1.5m.

    I don't even know if a 2004 Barry Bonds was worth 25% of his team's runs and that was the best single-season performance in baseball history.

  17. #57
    Senior Member MVP
    Posts
    5,619
    Like
    1,117
    Liked 532 Times in 352 Posts
    Ok, hypothesis...not guess.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
©2014 TwinsCentric, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Interested in advertising with Twins Daily? Click here.