2009 Catcher Defense Rankings
devil_fingers, of Drive Line Mechanices, has a neat post on catcher defense for 2009.
Best part? Bengie Molina -3.4 runs, Eli Whiteside -3.2 runs
Buster Posey +.4 runs
over 2 years ago
xanthan
62 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
Some thoughts:
I guess Mike Scioscia is right about Mike Napoli, but it looks like Mathis isn’t great either.
Ivan Rodriguez is awesome.
Notgardo!
Merkin Valdez? Manuel Mateo? A rose by any other name...
My eyes and my heart tell me differently.
by AndYourBirdCanSing on Oct 14, 2009 8:58 AM PDT reply actions
While I’ve never been impressed with either Whiteside or Molina’s defense, I would hardly call the ERA of 2.80 in Whiteside’s 34 games started (305.1 IP) versus the 3.76 ERA posted by the team in every other inning “negligible”. Small sample size be damned.
"Don't trust anyone under the age of 30" - Brian Sabean
by Smotheredinhugs on Oct 14, 2009 9:00 AM PDT reply actions
ERA isn’t a terribly useful stat. Largely context driven. Very defense dependant. Doesn’t even say that much about how good a pitcher is, much less how good a pitcher is with a specific catcher….
by Missing Barry on Oct 14, 2009 9:18 AM PDT up reply actions
It's negligible.
Proud father of Juan Carlos Perez. Think Albert Pujols at a position to be determined.
Posey needs at least five more years in the minors.
I know you nerds know NOTHING about the real game of baseball, or any other athletic endeavor requiring teamwork under physical stress.
Mr. F! | comics | art | New Nattowear | Unofficial McImage Directory
I think he should start at Augusta next season.
by deuce deuce on Oct 14, 2009 11:01 AM PDT up reply actions
T Ball
Neal before Zod!
Official Sponsor of the 1997 San Francisco Giants
by nostocksjustbonds on Oct 14, 2009 11:18 AM PDT up reply actions
I Don't Accept The Fundumental Assumption Of This Evaluation Of Catchers.
Further, I don’t believe a besball executive, manager, or coach accepts this assumption.
That it is well-established that the differences between catchers with regard to gamecalling (as expressed in, e.g., “catcher’s ERA”) are negligible, and thus such issues will not be discussed in this post.
I Do Accept The Evaluaton Of The Skills Evaluated But I Do Not Find Being -3.4 Runs As A Big Negative
This is basicly rounding error when compared to league average for the number of plate appearances Bengie caught. That said, my eyes tell me Bengie is above average overall when including his pitching staff management skills which this evalation falsely assumes to be meaningless.
by giantsrainman on Oct 14, 2009 6:53 PM PDT up reply actions
I don’t think anyone said him being -3 runs on defense was a “big negative”. I found it kind of amusing in a way. Plus, when you consider his age and weight maybe next year -3 will turn into -6. And with the way he runs the bases, he’s probably around -10 runs before he even gets to hit. Food for thought.
Also, I think that game-calling abilities might be one of the most overrated ideas left in baseball. That’s just me, though.
My eyes tell me that
1) There’s very little difference between the average and the best catcher
2) Bengie’s probably average or worse.
That being said, I agree that this “study” is basically a summary of stats we already know to be virtually useless.
VAE PVTO DEVS FIO
3.4 runs is now a rounding error?
Why am I even surprised with your hypocrisy?
Proud father of Juan Carlos Perez. Think Albert Pujols at a position to be determined.
Yes, 3.4 Runs (.34 Wins) Is A Rounding Error.
Try learing the difference between runs and wins.
by giantsrainman on Oct 14, 2009 8:50 PM PDT up reply actions
Did you follow the link champ?
Because your followup comment here is equal parts priceless and clueless. Here, I’ll block quote it for you.
Me:
.6 to .4 is, for all intents and purposes, equal.
You:
For Projecting The Future Perhaps, But
for measuring the past no way.
Me:
Yes way. It’s 2 runs!
You:
2 Runs Is Two Runs Not Zero Runs.
Don’t respond if you get it now.
Proud father of Juan Carlos Perez. Think Albert Pujols at a position to be determined.
No, I didn't.
Now that I see whaty point you r were trying to make I still must disagree. The science behind the runs being discussed in the link is far more reliable then the science behind the runs being discussed in this attempt to evaluate catchers. Both my statement in the link and my statement here can be true.
by giantsrainman on Oct 14, 2009 9:11 PM PDT up reply actions
Wait what?
I Do Accept The Evaluaton Of The Skills Evaluated But I Do Not Find Being -3.4 Runs As A Big Negative. This is basicly rounding error when compared to league average for the number of plate appearances Bengie caught.
The science behind the runs being discussed in the link is far more reliable then the science behind the runs being discussed in this attempt to evaluate catchers. Both my statement in the link and my statement here can be true.
So your first argument is : Regardless of whether the science is correct, 3.4 Runs is not a big difference.
Now you are saying your argument is : Well, ok 3.4 Runs is a big difference, but only if they are real runs. The science used is incorrect, so the run differential is irrelevant.
WHAT?
Obviously any links in the above post are probably NSFW
The Difference Is a Matter Of Reliability Not Correctness.
The science used to evaluate offense is more reliable then the science used to evaluate catcher defense. Therefore 3 runs means more More reliable and thus not rounding error0 when discussing offense then it does when discussing catcher defense.
by giantsrainman on Oct 14, 2009 10:01 PM PDT up reply actions
but your qualifier was “I Do Accept The Evaluaton Of The Skills Evaluated But I Do Not Find Being -3.4 Runs As A Big Negative”
So your issue was not the method, but the actual numbers produced by the method.
Obviously any links in the above post are probably NSFW
I Accepted It As An Estimate Which If You Read The Article Was All It Was Intended To Be.
by giantsrainman on Oct 15, 2009 10:30 AM PDT up reply actions
So even an estimated -3.4 Runs is a negative. It is not zero. If it equals zero, then you did not accept the article as an estimate.
Your argument was : regardless of the method, -3.4 runs is rounding error. The method could be completely sound, but 3.4 runs is rounding error.
Then you were caught with your pants down because your previous position was : 2 runs is 2 runs, it is not zero runs.
Obviously any links in the above post are probably NSFW
All Ready Covered.
And I think you get the point but are just being a prick about it.
by giantsrainman on Oct 15, 2009 10:57 AM PDT up reply actions
actually i’m pretty sure marcello knows the difference between runs and wins, but you are just being a prick about it. Whatever the case is, my work here is done.
Obviously any links in the above post are probably NSFW
actually i’m pretty sure marcello knows the difference between runs and wins
They’re butt pee and not-Matt-Cain, right?
Proud father of Juan Carlos Perez. Think Albert Pujols at a position to be determined.
I Already Acknowledged That I Initially Missunderstood Marcello's Point.
I did indeed at first make the mistake of not looking up his link and thinking he was refering to this instead.
30 Runs Is 3 Wins And If One Was Against The Rockies This Is Enough To Get Us In The Playoffs!
by giantsrainman on Oct 15, 2009 11:13 AM PDT up reply actions
I’m sorry that you don’t accept it, but every shred of evidence that has been found on the issue has ultimately concluded that. Find a single study that suggests the opposite. If you want I can link you to a multitude of studies that have found exactly that…
by Missing Barry on Oct 14, 2009 6:52 PM PDT up reply actions
Just Becuase The Measurers Haven't Figured Out How To Measure It Doesn't Mean It Doesn't Exist
To me the fact that not a single MLB executive, manager, or coach (that I know of) has ever made a statement in agreement with assumption and that there are plenty of examples of them behaving in a way that shows they completely disagree has greater weight to me. Therefore I believe that these MLB people are right and the measureers making this assumption are wrong.
by giantsrainman on Oct 14, 2009 6:58 PM PDT up reply actions
MLB executives, managers and coaches used to pay people for BA and RBI’s, what’s your point? Hey, when the facts don’t agree with your conclusions you’ve been conditioned to believe, just throw the facts out and continue believing in what you think you see, right?
by Missing Barry on Oct 15, 2009 7:02 AM PDT up reply actions
Gamecalling is very much a real thing, and we can moderately track it via a WOWY (With Or Without You) method. The question is, just how much of an impact does it really have?
The pitcher is the one that executes the pitch; the position players in the field are the ones that make or fail to make the plays. A catcher can call all the right pitches and give all the right locations, but he’s not the one that determines where the pitch winds up or what happens if the ball is put into play. There’s DIPS for pitchers. Maybe there should be DICS for catchers.
And yes, I’m aware of how that sounds.
If it’s large enough to be tracked by the “WOWY” method, how come no one has done so? The closest thing I’ve seen is some analysis of Jose Molina and AJ Burnett after the ALDS personal catcher bruhaha, but one case hardly legitimizes a theory. We’d expect some extreme outliers even with a completely random variation.
VAE PVTO DEVS FIO
Bill James and John Dewan track it. They first introduced it in The Fielding Bible, Vol. II. Bill has the data up on his site. The problem with it is that they’re using Earned Runs Saved, and there’s too much noise in that data because of the reasons I mentioned above.
It works pretty well for a player’s entire career (like what Tango’s done), but I wouldn’t trust it much on a single-season basis.
I’m interested just in the “game-calling” aspect of things. The Tango link above doesn’t seem to be relevant to that. Do you have any links that suggest different MLB catchers have a significant amount more or less “game calling ability” than others? I’ve never ready anything that suggests that and have read a number of studies that suggest there is no significant difference…
by Missing Barry on Oct 15, 2009 7:00 AM PDT up reply actions
That was more or less an intro to how WOWY works. If I remember correctly, Tango had an article in one of The Hardball Times’ annual issues and applied it to catchers. Bill James talked about it extensively in The Fielding Bible Vol. II and used Tim McCarver and Steve Carlton as the example.
Even if there is no study that proves this effect exists, it doesn’t mean that it’s not there, just that we don’t know how to detect it.
Even if there is no study that proves this effect exists, it doesn’t mean that it’s not there, just that we don’t know how to detect it.
And that’s obviously true, I just think it’s very reasonable to give it only a minimal amount of thought/significance if a number of people have gone looking for it and found nothing significant, and nobody has found anything to the contrary.
I don’t have any of the annual publications or anything so I haven’t read whatever they might have studied, but from what I’ve found by reading everything I have access to on the internet I have yet to see any evidence “game-calling” might actually be a skill that has a significant effect on the end results of games, that also varies widely enough across MLB catchers to be worth looking/paying for.
I think someone needs to do a study incorporating Pitch F/X data – we’ve only scratched the surface of the vast amount of knowledge that data has for us and I think it would be a great tool to see how different pitch sequences lead to different results, and possibly how different catchers may call for different pitch sequences and thus get different results…
by Missing Barry on Oct 15, 2009 9:41 AM PDT up reply actions
Just talking out loud here:
But I’ve always wondered about game-calling abilities. Everyone knows Tim Lincecum has an awesome changeup. Most likely every catcher catching him will call for the changeup and not, say, his 4th best pitch.
Same with most pitchers. They have obvious top-pitches and then some ones that aren’t as effective. Shouldn’t every catcher, no matter how experienced, know which pitches are good ones vs. bad ones? If so, how much does calling pitches really matter?
Does that make any sense?
Yeah that’s basically what I think, too, and what I think the fact that finding evidence for “game-calling” is difficult might suggest. Basically, from one C to the next, there’s not going to be any significant difference over the course of a long period of time in how they call a game. People will notice a good pitch sequence and think, hey, we got a strikeout, good pitch call…but that’s one time. Do certain C’s call for good pitch sequences more often than others (and bad sequences less often)? I just don’t believe, based on the research I’ve seen, that there’s any meaningful difference over the course of a long enough period of time (like a season, for instance).
by Missing Barry on Oct 15, 2009 10:19 AM PDT up reply actions
Why Then Is it So Hard To Find A Single GM Or Manager That Agrees?
by giantsrainman on Oct 15, 2009 10:32 AM PDT up reply actions
How Do You Know That They Do Not Agree? Did You Talk To Any Of Them In Person?
Obviously any links in the above post are probably NSFW
Their Actions Say They Do Not Agree.
If any agreed they why can’t you find a quote showing that agreement?
by giantsrainman on Oct 15, 2009 10:58 AM PDT up reply actions
Yes
Because Manager and GM quotes are never full of cliches and misdirection.
Proud father of Juan Carlos Perez. Think Albert Pujols at a position to be determined.
So Minnesota drafted Joe Mauer and started him because he is a great game caller mirite?
It serves no purpose for any GM to come out and say that he doesn’t believe in game calling. If I was a GM, I’d keep that to myself too.
Keith Law, who worked in the toronto front office, has said numerous times that Catcher Calling Game is one of the most overrated concept in all of baseball.
Obviously any links in the above post are probably NSFW
Just for the record, because you want some indication of agreement, just look at last offseason with the Red Sox and Varitek. You know how much the Red Sox ended up paying him this year? $5 million. You know how much Fangraphs think he’s worth based on their WAR formula? $5.6M last year. $5.9M this year. There is no “game-calling” part of their formula. Good GM’s do not pay any significant amount of money for something they don’t have any evidence has a meaingful impact on winning baseball games.
by Missing Barry on Oct 15, 2009 11:08 AM PDT up reply actions
Yeah, I think the marketplace is where you truly find out what GMs believe. Catchers get paid according to their offense and their ability to control the running game, not game-calling ability.
And does it need to be pointed out that ultimately, the pitcher is responsible for pitch selection?
Please hit better, Randy Winn.
Because most managers and a number of GM’s in baseball (Brian Sabean anyone?) are fucking idiots and grew up in their little bubble of baseball people who told them it mattered, so they believed it did. Just like they believed in RBI men who had some special ability to drive runners in that other hitters of equal ability did not have. Just like they believed a pitchers W-L record was a meaningful way to judge how good a pitcher was. What’s your point?
Find me evidence that good GM’s pay for “game-calling” ability, by the way. Just because Brian Sabean touts it doesn’t mean every GM signs an OBP black hole for “game-calling” ability.
by Missing Barry on Oct 15, 2009 11:03 AM PDT up reply actions
Can't disagree with you at all here.
I believe there was a study (maybe it was Dan Turpenkoff? Not sure) using Pitch F/X data that showed some catchers “framed” pitches better than others, but don’t quote me on that. I could be remembering it wrong! But I agree that it would be a good idea to see if we can measure pitch sequencing. That would be an ideal step in the right direction.
I’ve also wondered about framing pitches, and I’ve read discussions about how to go about studying it, but it seems like there are a lot of problems with any conclusions you can draw from a study like that. It seems there may be a lot of factors that may affect called balls and strikes unrelated to the catcher “framing” the pitch – LHH’s vs. RHH’s, the pitcher and the specific pitch in terms of movement/deception and what not, the specific umpire, LHP’s vs. RHP’s, the count, the hitter, etc….
Definitely an interesting topic, it just seems like a difficult one to tackle to me. I’d love to see any efforts to do it, though.
by Missing Barry on Oct 15, 2009 11:47 AM PDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
