Master Index of Archived Threads


Framing a pitch

d'Kong76 Sep 24 2015 06:38 PM

Nothing is more annoying to me (well, a lot of stuff is) than hearing a commentator applaud a catcher framing a pitch. A ball or strike is where the ball passes the plate and the ump can't see when a catcher jerks his stupid mitt into place. It's just stupid.

cooby Sep 24 2015 06:55 PM Re: Framing a pitch

Tim mccarverism

d'Kong76 Sep 24 2015 06:57 PM Re: Framing a pitch

Even if the ump can see in the second that he has to make the call he's not doing his job if he relies on a framing. It's just stupid.

Centerfield Sep 24 2015 08:19 PM Re: Framing a pitch

As meaningful as catcher ERA. It's just stupid.

Ceetar Sep 24 2015 08:25 PM Re: Framing a pitch

d'Kong76 wrote: Even if the ump can see in the second that he has to make the call he's not doing his job if he relies on a framing. It's just stupid. Except there is A LOT of data to suggest it's not.

Ceetar Sep 24 2015 08:29 PM Re: Framing a pitch

2.4 inches from center of zone. This one is literally 1.1 inches from the center of the zone. both called balls thanks to poor framing. (And the Umpires being influenced by it)

d'Kong76 Sep 24 2015 08:44 PM Re: Framing a pitch

The point is, the strike zone is where the ball goes over the plate. Not what some some catcher does with his glove afterwards. If the ump is judging by the latter, he's not doing his job well.

Ceetar Sep 24 2015 08:48 PM Re: Framing a pitch

d'Kong76 wrote: The point is, the strike zone is where the ball goes over the plate. Not what some some catcher does with his glove afterwards. If the ump is judging by the latter, he's not doing his job well. well yes, which is why we should have robot umps, because humans suck at these things.

Frayed Knot Sep 24 2015 08:50 PM Re: Framing a pitch

d'Kong76 wrote: The point is, the strike zone is where the ball goes over the plate. Not what some some catcher does with his glove afterwards. If the ump is judging by the latter, he's not doing his job well. But that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. But, in general, I think you're right in that announcers tend to credit FAR too much to catchers and their slight of hand mojo. Hell, listen to the Nats announcers and they credit about 3/4 of the strike calls to the Washington backstops. -- OK it's probably not that many but it seems that just about each time a strike gets called and their electronic box thingie shows that the ball actually missed by an inch or three they just ring it up to their catchers.

Zvon Sep 24 2015 09:01 PM Re: Framing a pitch

Catchers have been doing this forever. Before "framing" we'd just say the catcher fooled the ump. And I do think catchers can fool umps in this manner and they should try to when they feel the time is right. I agree that making it a catcher's "tool" is stupid. Ceetar wrote: 2.4 inches from center of zone. This one is literally 1.1 inches from the center of the zone. both called balls thanks to poor framing. (And the Umpires being influenced by it) Two horrible examples. #1. Awful catcher #2. Catcher was more concerned with a possible pick off.

MFS62 Sep 24 2015 09:26 PM Re: Framing a pitch

d'Kong76 wrote: If the ump is judging by the latter, he's not doing his job well. Speaking of umps not doing their jobs well, by some strange coincidence, look who was umpiring at first base tonight. (The very mention of his name can result in bad things happening to the Mets) I predict this incompetent arbiter will make a bad call that will adversely affect the outcome of at least one game in this series. I hope not, but his track record is hard to ignore. Later

Ceetar Sep 24 2015 09:55 PM Re: Framing a pitch

Zvon wrote: Two horrible examples. #1. Awful catcher #2. Catcher was more concerned with a possible pick off. Why does that matter? These were clearly poorly framed pitches, regardless of the reason. But they crossed as close to dead center as you can possibly get, and the umpires called it a ball. It's not that common that they're THAT wrong, but when you start talking about the edges..well, the good framers definitely do better. There's a reason lefties can't hit lefties as well as righties hit righties. It's because the strike zone is literally wider for left-handed hitters. The Cardinals, from 2010-2015 are 449-317 when Yadier Molina is catching and 94-96 when he's not. Framing is extremely real.

Edgy MD Sep 24 2015 09:55 PM Re: Framing a pitch

Zvon wrote: I agree that making it a catcher's "tool" is stupid. But data does suggest that there is a class of catchers more effective at this than other catchers. Two of them play for the Mets.

Fman99 Sep 25 2015 04:15 AM Re: Framing a pitch

Ceetar wrote: well yes, which is why we should have robot umps, because humans suck at these things. Put me in, Coach, I'm ready to play

d'Kong76 Sep 25 2015 05:50 AM Re: Framing a pitch

[fimg=700:3g9h516x]http://a.fssta.com/content/dam/fsdigital/fscom/mlb/images/2015/08/27/082715-mlb-instant-replay-pi-mp.vresize.1200.675.high.36.jpg[/fimg:3g9h516x]

John Cougar Lunchbucket Sep 25 2015 07:54 AM Re: Framing a pitch

Benjamin Grimm Sep 25 2015 08:06 AM Re: Framing a pitch

It does look like the umpire is watching the ball all the way to the glove. I guess he has to do that if there are two strikes, because he has to make sure the ball was caught, but that's not the situation here.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Sep 25 2015 08:15 AM Re: Framing a pitch

Who the heck is pitching? Number 0

seawolf17 Sep 25 2015 08:37 AM Re: Framing a pitch

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Who the heck is pitching? Number 0 Adam Ottavino.

Nymr83 Sep 25 2015 08:42 AM Re: Framing a pitch

framing is real and framing is a skill. you may say that you'd like to see the ability to influence the game with that skill removed, and the way to do that is a strike zone judged by a non-human. but until that happens you can't say its stupid to talk about because it IS there. here is one of MANY articles on the subject [url]http://grantland.com/features/studying-art-pitch-framing-catchers-such-francisco-cervelli-chris-stewart-jose-molina-others/

d'Kong76 Sep 25 2015 08:47 AM Re: Framing a pitch

Nymr83 wrote: you can't say its stupid Yes I can! In fact, I did. I'm not going to flog a deceased equine over it, but I will say one more time that a ball or a strike should be called as it crosses the plate. Not where some magician wearing the tools of ignorance moves his glove to. So there. Look it up in the rule book!

batmagadanleadoff Sep 25 2015 10:52 AM Re: Framing a pitch

There's a lot of words I can think of to describe pitch framing. "Stupid" isn't one of them. An extraordinarily skilled pitch framing catcher can save his team about 50 runs a season. No other defensive player comes even remotely close to having such an impact. The home plate umpire has a tiny blind spot, usually "on the black" and a skilled catcher can exploit the blind spot to his team's advantage. Why is that stupid? Are you saying that the catcher's stupid? Do you think that the umpire is calling some pitches incorrectly on purpose? Maybe you can respond with a thread about how Rey Ordonez was the best Mets shortstop ever.

d'Kong76 Sep 25 2015 11:19 AM Re: Framing a pitch

You'll have to share your math with us on how you get to 50 saved runs per season! That's a big round number to just throw at us as fact.

d'Kong76 Sep 25 2015 11:23 AM Re: Framing a pitch

One more thing, umpires are graded and monitored more and more these days than ever before. I doubt one to a man would admit that he allows pitch framing to alter his calls. Where the ball crosses the plate!!! It's not rocket science. Some of you sound like I'm disputing the existence of dinosaurs or something.

batmagadanleadoff Sep 25 2015 11:36 AM Re: Framing a pitch

d'Kong76 wrote: One more thing, umpires are graded and monitored more and more these days than ever before. I doubt one to a man would admit that he allows pitch framing to alter his calls. Where the ball crosses the plate!!! It's not rocket science. Some of you sound like I'm disputing the existence of dinosaurs or something. Truthfully, I have no idea what you're disputing. No. Idea. Not a clue. Allow? I guess you do think that umps screw up calls with intent.

Benjamin Grimm Sep 25 2015 12:01 PM Re: Framing a pitch

He's saying that if an umpire, when making a ball/strike call, doesn't consider the position of the catcher's glove when he catches the ball, then a catcher won't be able to influence the umpire's decision.

d'Kong76 Sep 25 2015 12:06 PM Re: Framing a pitch

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Truthfully, I have no idea what you're disputing. No. Idea. Not a clue. Allow? I guess you do think that umps screw up calls with intent. If you go back and re-read, I was disputing the applauding of pitch framing by commentators as being something so meaningful. I think Keef go me going this time around. More currently, I'm disputing your 50 runs per game claim. I asked how you arrived at that rather large figure. I don't know how that got you to screwing up calls intentionally.

Ceetar Sep 25 2015 12:16 PM Re: Framing a pitch

d'Kong76 wrote: More currently, I'm disputing your 50 runs per game claim. I asked how you arrived at that rather large figure. . [url]http://www.baseballprospectus.com/sortable/index.php?cid=1819124 so far this year Travis d'Arnaud has 'framed' 47 balls into strikes.

d'Kong76 Sep 25 2015 12:41 PM Re: Framing a pitch

That's pretty fancy! Who or what determines what an extra strike is? I said I wasn't going to flog, but but I think it's a lot of horse hockey and not as important as some media types, fans, etc. think it is. Let's get an ex-ump on here and see what he has to say about how pitch framing affected his game!

Ceetar Sep 25 2015 12:44 PM Re: Framing a pitch

d'Kong76 wrote: That's pretty fancy! Who or what determines what an extra strike is? I said I wasn't going to flog, but but I think it's a lot of horse hockey and not as important as some media types, fans, etc. think it is. Let's get an ex-ump on here and see what he has to say about how pitch framing affected his game! Pitch F/X says. They have extremely accurate cameras that can tell you what's a strike, plus can even tell you how often a pitch in a spot gets called a strike.

d'Kong76 Sep 25 2015 01:12 PM Re: Framing a pitch

Umps got 47 pitches wrong, it doesn't support that he framed them. If it does, you'll have to explain it me. Slowly, please.

Ceetar Sep 25 2015 01:22 PM Re: Framing a pitch

d'Kong76 wrote: Umps got 47 pitches wrong, it doesn't support that he framed them. If it does, you'll have to explain it me. Slowly, please. Because all the data supports the idea of framing over umpire 'error'. But technically they're all umpire error, it's the REASON behind the error. The catcher has the ability to make the umpire err. nymr83 provided a link to an article that has two gifs. With roughly the same pitch thrown to the same umpire. The two catchers in question are ranked first and last in pitch framing from that time period, so this is meant to highlight the difference. These pitches are both in roughly the same spot. The pitcher hit the spot in both cases, meaning the catcher expected the ball right there. lefty batter. righty pitcher. Almost every variable the same except catcher. One is called a ball, the other a strike.

d'Kong76 Sep 25 2015 01:30 PM Re: Framing a pitch

I ain't buying that 47 times this year a pitch was framed and the umpire fooled. I'll concede that it happens, but it's certainly not something that can be measured in the manner that you are claiming. Still waiting on that 50 runs per year analysis, but I have all weekend!

Ceetar Sep 25 2015 01:46 PM Re: Framing a pitch

The whole concept is in flux, stats are tough! Here's a more recent article with a leaderboard. [url]http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2015/7/5/8893867/cubs-giants-pirates-catcher-framing-revisited It's not quite an exact science for figuring out value, but the data all backs it up, guys that are good framers are consistently getting calls. This isn't just random umpire-sucks luck. 50 runs seems like it might be high, looks like the best guys are getting closer to 25ish for a full season. Still, that's more than 2 wins just on framing.

d'Kong76 Sep 25 2015 02:03 PM Re: Framing a pitch

If an ump is fixated on the catchers mitt, and I'm not convinced that that's where he is (or should be) fixated, he can see the catcher move his glove. I think this used to be frowned upon when I was younger. Now it's hailed as some kind of skill and like I said in my opening post I find it annoying.

Edgy MD Sep 25 2015 02:11 PM Re: Framing a pitch

The thing is, the data certainly shows that catchers who tend to turn borderline balls into strikes and the catchers who tend to turn borderline strikes into balls are tend to repeat from year to year, which suggests that some guys are good at this and some guys are not.

d'Kong76 Sep 25 2015 02:19 PM Re: Framing a pitch

I'm gonna go to the store and frame me a twelve pack of data.

dinosaur jesus Sep 25 2015 02:28 PM Re: Framing a pitch

I'd say that if umpires are consistently making the same wrong calls with the same catchers, year after year, then you have to say it's due to something the catchers are doing. Framing is an obvious guess, and I don't know a better one. As for how many runs a catcher saves or costs a team with those calls, that's really not that difficult to calculate. The data is out there on run-scoring probabilities with a given count in a given situation. So if an umpire's call makes the count 3-1 instead of 2-2 with a runner on second and one out, there's a real, measurable difference in the number of runs that are likely to score. And those things add up. Obviously there's a lot of randomness involved, and we're talking about probabilities, not actual results. But it seems very plausible to me that a catcher could save his team a lot of runs over a year just by how he catches the ball. Fifty? Sure, why not? And I don't know what umpires are supposed to do about it. They make their calls based on whether a pitch looks like a ball or a strike, and they get fooled sometimes. There's no way around that. They know that catchers are working a kind of sleight of hand with them, but they can't just make a mental correction and say to themselves, "That looked like a strike, but Grandal's really good at framing, so it probably wasn't." They have to go on what they actually see, whether or not it's what actually happened.

Edgy MD Sep 25 2015 03:41 PM Re: Framing a pitch

Fifty is probably a stretch. Here's a good place to look at some of the numbers. They have Francisco Cervelli leading the league at 26.1. He was pulling in 1.47 calls per game in 2014 as a part-time with the Yankees, but upped that to 1.83 as a regular this year. That's a nice little improvement, but not random. And certainly, you can do different work with a different staff.

d'Kong76 Sep 25 2015 03:47 PM Re: Framing a pitch

I'm amazed at the number of people who subscribe to this voodoo.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Sep 25 2015 06:06 PM Re: Framing a pitch

d'Kong76 wrote: Let's get an ex-ump on here and see what he has to say about how pitch framing affected his game! The ump doesn't need to be STARING at a catcher's mitt to be affected-- however minimally-- by the way the ball is caught. Our eyes are fooled by background motion and all manner of other context information all day, every day, in situations that are a lot easier to process than 100-mph spinning ball against mottled background in bright light under various stressors. Also, do you really think that umps are the people to make honest assessments of their own error rates, much less the source of said errors? Looking at stolen strike numbers and saying "bad umping" is like looking at the number of balls that fall in on Cuddyer in the outfield and saying, "they're just hitting them where he ain't."

d'Kong76 Sep 25 2015 06:16 PM Re: Framing a pitch

I'm clearly in the dog house on this topic... oh well.

Edgy MD Sep 25 2015 08:01 PM Re: Framing a pitch

Tough inning. Good thing d'Arnie got them out of it by framing a pitch.

Rockin' Doc Sep 25 2015 08:08 PM Re: Framing a pitch

He didn't get a hit, but what a nice at bat by Dilson Herrera.* *Never mind me. I thought I was in the IGT when I posted this. It's hell getting old.

batmagadanleadoff Sep 26 2015 10:59 AM Re: Framing a pitch

http://grantland.com/features/studying- ... na-others/ Start here and you'll get to "saving his team 50 runs a year". Granted, it takes an extraordinarily skilled outlying pitch framer to save his team the 50, but it can be done. Ozzie Smith never saved his team 50 runs a year on defense. Never came close. Pitch framing is scientifically proven. Like with numbers and all. BTW, I posted this same article the day it ran, two years ago and your response was to fucking mock me, which is what you've been doing for like eight years now. Catchers have been engaging in all sorts of trickery since the dawn of baseball. Why shouldn't they? It shouldn't surprise anyone that baseball at its highest level should be a cutthroat affair. I remember reading about an old-time (Pre WWII) catcher -- I forget his name -- who, at the right moment, would snap his fingers to mimic the sound of a bat nicking the pitch. He would do this on certain checked swings to trick the ump into thinking that the batter made contact with the pitch in order to induce an incorrect strike call. The umpire's blind spot exists because the ball is smaller than the catcher's mitt and as it approaches the mitt, it disappears from the umpire's vision. Think about it. The umpire can't see the ball hitting the catcher's mitt. He can only "hear" that sound of ball hitting mitt.

d'Kong76 Sep 26 2015 12:21 PM Re: Framing a pitch

batmagadanleadoff wrote: http://grantland.com/features/studying-art-pitch-framing-catchers-such-francisco-cervelli-chris-stewart-jose-molina-others/ Start here and you'll get to "saving his team 50 runs a year". Granted, it takes an extraordinarily skilled outlying pitch framer to save his team the 50, but it can be done. Thanks, I'll read it during the week. I'm as open minded as the next guy, but I'm having trouble with such a high number of runs. It's one pitch and who knows what the batter will do the next one regardless of wonderfully he may have stole the one before.