Author Topic: On The Farm (11/14 - 08/15)  (Read 78412 times)

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16248
Re: On The Farm (11/14 - 08/15)
« Reply #510 on: February 20, 2015, 04:20:25 pm »
Let's assume that framing is hugely significant, more significant than the offensive differential between Posada and Molina. 

3 Questions, from a prospect/development standpoint,: 
1.   how easy is it to scout?
2.  How teachable is it? 
3.  What kind of "tools" are essential to being a really good pitch framer? 

Scouting:  It's easy enough to read a hitter's stats and determine whether he was very effective.  Last year Schwarber was very effective.  Easy to scout power, easy to scout velocity.  How easy is it to evaluate framing skills?  Will the Cubs "know" whether he's going to be a framing asset or a framing liability by the end of the year?  Is there enough minor-league PitchFX type data to evaluate that statistically?  Is it something that's scoutable by eyeball? 

Teachable:  How much can be learned just by wanting to and being coaches towards the ideal?  Can anybody learn it, if they're coached right and they try hard?  How much is head smarts versus physical tools?  If it is teachable, how long does it take? 

Tools:  Assuming there are some "tools" involved, what are they?  Does schwarber have them?  BlueJay says being big helps.  Ausmus wasn't. 

One "tool" may perhaps be visual.  Theo suggested that Schwarber's ability to see the ball as a hitter may also benefit him as a framer?  Do guys who get fooled by movement as hitters also tend to get fooled by movement as catchers and react late? 

Reb

  • Guest
Re: On The Farm (11/14 - 08/15)
« Reply #511 on: February 20, 2015, 04:22:28 pm »
1) If I'm really confident that framing is worth what people are saying and the numbers where significantly in favor of Molina then yes.  I am I personally there, right now, no.
2.) Only the steroid era and that is more of a maybe.
3.) No.  The Cubs just need lefties so if I was on the fence it would matter.
4.) I'm serious about the body type.  Big guys cover more of the plate with their mass, so less movement is needed to catch the ball.

It was an internal Yankee study quoted in a Grantland article, so nobody has it.  From the data the public ha,s it is at best a wash if you assume Pujols was producing around 60 runs above average on offense.  Peak Pujols produced more and peak framing Molina couldn't catch him.

Okay, thanks. 

My own view is that I have no idea what value to place on framing (other than confident it has a value of some kind). 

But, can't a case be made that Pujols in his prime was the best hitter in baseball and that, roughly during that period, Jose Molina was among the worst hitters in baseball? Think that the Molina vs. Pujols/Posada study argument is the kind of thing that somebody would fabricate if they were trying to undermine the framing argument, like an agent provocateur or the like. Let's make the case that the the worst hitter is more valuable than the best hitter because of framing--and see if  folks buy it?

So, the notion that one component of catcher defense outweighs the offensive disparity (and maybe all other catching components) is amazing to me.  If that is true the, as Robb notes in his post, MLB must immediately go to an automated strike zone to get a more fair and accurate ball/strike system.

Also interesting that seems like no insiders within the game believe the value is anything close to the Molina vs. Pujols/Posada study.  The Yankees, who actually did the study, completely ignored the study results by letting Molina walk away for $800,000 to the Jays.  Don't think they do that if they remotely believe the study. 

Also haven't seen much discussion of this in baseball media, other than sabermetric circles.  Back in the 1980s, sabermetric stuff was widely ignored too but folks are a lot more sophisticated today.  Don't think a good study would be ignored.  Yes, Cubs to some extent are taking framing into account in roster construction but it is one thing to prefer Ross over Castillo overall and another to prefer Jose Molina over Albert Pujols in his prime/Posada.  And, yes, framing is referenced in general baseball media but rarely with any specifics regarding specific value.

In any event, all pretty interesting stuff. 

 

Reb

  • Guest
Re: On The Farm (11/14 - 08/15)
« Reply #512 on: February 20, 2015, 04:34:00 pm »
Don't know the answers to questions posed by Craig (as to Schwarber) but wonder if maybe a guy who is defensively raw and unschooled (like Schwarber) might be more coachable as to framing than somebody who already has a firm technique in receiving the pitch?

Of course, must have the talent to begin with.  Seems like Cubs should be able to see that pretty quickly with Schwarber.  Then, it's a matter of mastering the craft. There does seem to be a certain level of enthusiasm within the organization about him catching but hard to know if it's about framing or all the other stuff a catcher has to do. Have to wonder how much they focus on teaching him framing compared to all the other stuff. 

If he is very poor at framing, hypothetically, the studies would say why bother, right?  Just put him in LF, even if he's decent at all other aspects of catching. Very poor Schwarber framing and we're back in the Jose Molina study.  Guessing that Cubs are not looking at it quite that way.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16248
Re: On The Farm (11/14 - 08/15)
« Reply #513 on: February 20, 2015, 04:46:37 pm »
....If he is very poor at framing, hypothetically, the studies would say why bother, right?  Just put him in LF, even if he's decent at all other aspects of catching. Very poor Schwarber framing and we're back in the Jose Molina study.  Guessing that Cubs are not looking at it quite that way.

Agree. 

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 29618
Re: On The Farm (11/14 - 08/15)
« Reply #514 on: February 20, 2015, 04:47:13 pm »
Don't know the answers to questions posed by Craig (as to Schwarber) but wonder if maybe a guy who is defensively raw and unschooled (like Schwarber) might be more coachable as to framing than somebody who already has a firm technique in receiving the pitch?

  I'm far more worried about the number of hypothetical home runs he hits.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3285
Re: On The Farm (11/14 - 08/15)
« Reply #515 on: February 20, 2015, 05:50:24 pm »
Automating the strike zone should lead to shorter game times, too.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1647
  • Location: O'Fallon, IL
Re: On The Farm (11/14 - 08/15)
« Reply #516 on: February 20, 2015, 05:54:22 pm »
If I were a professional umpire, I would be incredibly ashamed of my fellow umpires if I believed pitch framing was nearly as important as some here seem to accept.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16442
Re: On The Farm (11/14 - 08/15)
« Reply #517 on: February 20, 2015, 06:34:15 pm »
I have no doubt that framing causes some pitches off the plate to be called strikes.

My distrust is in the conversion from increased strikes to decreased runs scored.  The logic that I have seen in quantifying the conversion has not been very convincing to me.

If Ross were the best "framer" in baseball, I would still rather have Castillo, let alone Pujols/Posada, at catcher.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17183
Re: On The Farm (11/14 - 08/15)
« Reply #518 on: February 20, 2015, 07:17:19 pm »
Baseball America's top 100 list:

http://www.baseballamerica.com/minors/top-100-prospects-tools-2/

1: Bryant
3: Russell
12: Soler
19: Schwarber
38: Edwards
83: McKinney

You have to wonder where Baez would rank had re remained in the minors all season and put up a full season that simply projected his 2014 minor league stats oveer a full minor league season.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17183
Re: On The Farm (11/14 - 08/15)
« Reply #519 on: February 20, 2015, 07:27:21 pm »
Let's assume that framing is hugely significant, more significant than the offensive differential between Posada and Molina.

Let's assume pigs can fly....

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18846
Re: On The Farm (11/14 - 08/15)
« Reply #520 on: February 20, 2015, 08:39:09 pm »
Craig

1) It can be scouted.  Quantifying it at minor league level would be difficult.  It would take pitchF/X and data on pitchers and umpires.
2) The Astros taught Castro how to frame pitchers.  How much it can be improved on and can everyone be improved?  I don't know.  Castillo stabs at the ball and you would have to completely change how he catches the ball.  It may be recognition or just how he catches it so it may not ever get any better.  Catchers are moving their upper body to catch the ball, not their gloves and also how the glove is pointed when catching it.
3) the tools are being absent or appearing to be absent of movement when catching the ball.  Your trying to fool the ump into thinking you are setup in the strike zone and the pitcher is hitting his spot.  The bigger you are the more area you cover and the less movement is needed to catch the pitch.  Small guys can still be good framers but it takes more skill.

As far as how valuable it is, I would think it is on the high end of what people are coming up with.  A batter may have 4 AB to influence a game.  A catcher can have 120+ attempts to influence the game.  What is the difference in batter OPS between a 2-1 count and a 1-2 count?  Framing 1 pitch can provide that multiple times a game.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16442
Re: On The Farm (11/14 - 08/15)
« Reply #521 on: February 20, 2015, 09:00:08 pm »
Your math is probably a little high there, if for no other reason than of the 120 pitches that are thrown, the catcher probably only catches about half of them, since many are hit before they reach the catcher's glove.  In addition, a fair proportion are obvious strikes or obvious balls regardless of who is the catcher.

Are there any studies which quantify how many balls a good catcher can turn into strikes in a typical game?

Reb

  • Guest
Re: On The Farm (11/14 - 08/15)
« Reply #522 on: February 20, 2015, 09:07:12 pm »


As far as how valuable it is, I would think it is on the high end of what people are coming up with.  A batter may have 4 AB to influence a game.  A catcher can have 120+ attempts to influence the game.  What is the difference in batter OPS between a 2-1 count and a 1-2 count?  Framing 1 pitch can provide that multiple times a game.


The high end.

Okay, put aside Pujols-type offense for Posada, where you're not certain of relative framing value.

Does high end confidence mean you'd take Jose Molina (OPS+ of 64) as your long-term career catcher over Posada straight up (121 OPS+)?

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4025
Re: On The Farm (11/14 - 08/15)
« Reply #523 on: February 20, 2015, 10:32:56 pm »
Give me Schwarber swinging a hypothetical 120-ish OPS+ left-handed bat and I'll live with his warts defensively.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18846
Re: On The Farm (11/14 - 08/15)
« Reply #524 on: February 20, 2015, 11:43:37 pm »
Your math is probably a little high there, if for no other reason than of the 120 pitches that are thrown, the catcher probably only catches about half of them, since many are hit before they reach the catcher's glove.  In addition, a fair proportion are obvious strikes or obvious balls regardless of who is the catcher.

Are there any studies which quantify how many balls a good catcher can turn into strikes in a typical game?

I think I've seen somwhere around 6-7 strikes above expected for the elite guys.   If you compare it to Castillo it might be around 10.  I also saw a study that I didn't dig into that the elite guys cause hitters to swing at more pitches out of the zone as well.