Article: Do Hitters Fear Some Catchers?

[Parker Hageman]

Trevor Plouffe’s last few days have likely been a rollercoaster.

 

After a forearm injury sidelined him for the rest of the 2014 season with just a few games to go, he was initially told he would not require surgery for repair. A trip to the Mayo Clinic confirmed that he would indeed require surgery to fix the arm. Then the only manager he has known with the Twins was let go and he raced across town (running two red lights) only to give his support following Ron Gardenhire’s exit interview at Target Field.

 

That’s quite a lot going through his head. Another interesting thought going through his head lately was the effects of catcher framing.Prompted by a stat on the subject provided by ESPN’s Stats & Info overseer Mark Simon, Plouffe inquired whether or not Rays’ catcher Jose Molina the leading catcher in coaxing extra strikes from outside the strike zone:

 

Download attachment: Plouffe2.png

Plouffe’s intuition was close -- according to ESPN/TruMedia Molina finished just behind Ross -- but it was actually the Angels’ Hank Conger whose 11.6% called strike rate on pitches outside of the zone led baseball this year.

 

This exercise always interests me: Players using their experience to guess what the data says. Plouffe has stood in with Molina behind the dish for 48 pitches in his career. Of those he has taken, six have been called strikes that have been out of the zone (16%). This is slightly higher than average (approximately 9%) but too small of a sampling to make any connection. Now, Plouffe was never rung up on any out-of-zone strikes looking, still, if you are Plouffe in the batters box, you might recall those few pitches with clarity.

 

That said, Molina has had his way with the Twins lineup dating back to 2010 and Plouffe certainly has observed a lot of his teammates shaking their heads on the way back to the dugout. In 16 games, he’s managed to steal strikes out of the zone at a 14% clip, which is the highest rate for a catcher facing the Twins in that time. Beyond that, the lineup has had just over 500 plate appearances while he has been the receiver and have hit just .207 -- the lowest average against by one catcher in that time (minimum 300 plate appearances).

 

There is plenty of discussion on whether or not framing adds the win value that some believe, but there is little question that it is a skill (just ask my

).

 

“I don’t put too much stock in that,” Twins catcher Kurt Suzuki told me this spring. “Don’t get me wrong, I think that has a lot to do with it but at the same time, what a pitcher does has a lot to do with it. If he’s all over the place, he’s obviously not going to get those borderline calls, not matter how good you make it look. If you are around the plate consistently, you are going to get those calls. There’s definitely an art to it, you look at the Molinas, they are pretty good at what they do.”

 

Plouffe and Suzuki are correct, the Molinas are pretty good. He has also had some pretty good pitchers throwing to him as well. For the most part, framing is always presented from the pitcher/catcher perspective but it is interesting to see that it may be possible that the catcher can have a psychological effect on a hitter. So does that mean that catchers like Molina while expanding the strike zone for their pitcher are able to induce more chases by the hitters attempting to protect this increasing strike zone?

 

According to ESPN’s data, Molina’s chase percentage is exactly league average dating back to 2010 (26.5%) which indicates that despite the ability to grab strikes off the plate, hitters are not necessarily enticed to go after those pitches at a higher rate.

 

Fans and analysts alike can continue to debate the catcher’s unseen effects on the game but it is interesting to find out that, at least in the case of Trevor Plouffe, the backstop can get inside a hitter’s head.

 

Click here to view the article

[Brandon]

Now, Plouffe was never rung up on any out-of-zone strikes looking, still, if you are Plouffe in the batters box, you might recall those few pitches with clarity.

 

I remember a story from Twinsgeek on how umpires are more likely to call a ball on a questionable pitch to avoid calling a k on a marginal pitch and more likely to call a strike to prevent the walk on a marginal hit.  So when I read this, I have to wonder what the counts are statistically when the framed pitches are called.  A full review of that will add legitimacy to pitch framing provided that most of the k's called are on 3-0 or 3-1 counts.  Since the Twins are strike throwers their catchers should tend to rate lower by the same logic.  Wait the Twins catchers do rate lower.  Something to consider.

[ericchri]

You couldn't really take only a hitter's specific results with a certain catcher behind the plate into account when a hitter has a "feeling" about the catcher, though.  He's watching how his whole team is doing against that guy, and if he's watching from on-deck, or the dugout and seeing close pitches go for lots of strikes in those games he's taking that into his at-bat later knowing extra strikes are getting called.  I think that would somewhat explain why he hates hitting with Molina behind the plate, but actually has decent results overall.

Edited October 1, 2014 by ericchri

[Willihammer]

I remember a story from Twinsgeek on how umpires are more likely to call a ball on a questionable pitch to avoid calling a k on a marginal pitch and more likely to call a strike to prevent the walk on a marginal hit.  So when I read this, I have to wonder what the counts are statistically when the framed pitches are called.  A full review of that will add legitimacy to pitch framing provided that most of the k's called are on 3-0 or 3-1 counts.  Since the Twins are strike throwers their catchers should tend to rate lower by the same logic.  Wait the Twins catchers do rate lower.  Something to consider.

Maybe the biggest benefit of getting to a 2 strike count is the hitter expands the zone for you, less framing is required. In Plouffe's case, he didn't strikeout looking but he did strikeout 7 times swinging.

 

How many strikes did Molina steal getting to those 2 strike counts? Those would seem to have a trickle down effect.

[Parker Hageman]

You couldn't really take only a hitter's specific results with a certain catcher behind the plate for only his at-bats into account when a hitter has a "feeling" about the catcher, though.

 

 

I mean...

 

That said, Molina has had his way with the Twins lineup dating back to 2010 and Plouffe certainly has observed a lot of his teammates shaking their heads on the way back to the dugout. In 16 games, he’s managed to steal strikes out of the zone at a 14% clip, which is the highest rate for a catcher facing the Twins in that time. Beyond that, the lineup has had just over 500 plate appearances while he has been the receiver and have hit just .207 -- the lowest average against by one catcher in that time (minimum 300 plate appearances).

 

[Willihammer]

If batters are noticing, with accuracy, who the best framers are, then what more proof do the last framing skeptics need?

[jay]

I remember a story from Twinsgeek on how umpires are more likely to call a ball on a questionable pitch to avoid calling a k on a marginal pitch and more likely to call a strike to prevent the walk on a marginal hit.  So when I read this, I have to wonder what the counts are statistically when the framed pitches are called.  A full review of that will add legitimacy to pitch framing provided that most of the k's called are on 3-0 or 3-1 counts.  Since the Twins are strike throwers their catchers should tend to rate lower by the same logic.  Wait the Twins catchers do rate lower.  Something to consider.

 

Most catcher framing models already do take into account the variation in expected strike rates based on the count.  Baseball Prospectus is commonly referenced for pitch framing.  Here's their article where they talk about how their model factors in the count of the at-bat and how they've also accounted for pitch type, batter height, batter handedness and the guy pitching (all commonly used to say the numbers are bunk).

 

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=22934

[Mike Sixel]

It is clearly a skill....and it is clear pitchers have control over it too. No one is arguing with Suzuki on that. I bet he doesn't like that stat partly because it hates him as a catcher. 

[Richie the Rally Goat]

The other side of this is, if a batter is feeling defensive, such as Plouffe, regardless of the data, is he more likely to swing at a marginal pitch because he thinks the situation is not in his favor. In other words, maybe Plouffe wasn't wrung up looking because he swung at pitches he didn't like, or managed to get hits in instances that were less than ideal pitch situations.

[Thegrin]

Pitch framing is an art that should become extinct as soon as MLB lets technology call the balls and strikes.  Batters should focus on pitchers, not pitch framing and umpires faulty strike zones.

[Linus]

Well, since he is 10 for 25 I guess his perceptions are not entirely accurate. Defensive metrics are highly inaccurate with pitch framing being the worst culprit.

[jay]

Well, since he is 10 for 25 I guess his perceptions are not entirely accurate. Defensive metrics are highly inaccurate with pitch framing being the worst culprit.

 

If the 10 for 25 is what convinces you this is inaccurate, I get the perception there isn't much of a chance you'd believe anything different regardless of the immense amount of statistical research with far more significance than 10 for 25.

[Linus]

Ok how about his observations are precisely the type of biased observations that are scorned sabremetricians?

[jay]

If you don't like the run values assigned to framing, place your own value on the difference of an extra 340 strikes over the course of this season between Lucroy and the combo of Suzuki+Pinto.  

 

Their statistical model to calculate the "predicted strikes" accounts for just about every variable you can think of, as outlined in the article I linked earlier.

 

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/sortable/index.php?cid=1667331

 

Does it seem crazy to think the best framer could get an extra 2 strikes a game compared to some of the worst?  It doesn't to me.

 

Their numbers call that difference 40 runs over the season.  That's saving one run every four games based on getting 2 extra strikes in every game.  How many times would one more strike in a key spot prevent a huge inning?  It doesn't seem all that crazy either...

[Linus]

So hitters are "scared" of certain catchers because they garner an extra two strikes per game?  They wouldn't even notice an extra two strikes per game much less fear it.  I get that certain catchers are better behind the plate than others but the whole notion gets extrapolated much too far.

[Parker Hageman]

So hitters are "scared" of certain catchers because they garner an extra two strikes per game?

 

 

Nobody said "scared". I think what Plouffe is conveying (in addition to the framing stats) is that some catchers like Molina can make hitters feel uncomfortable.

 

I like how 'Sconnie put it above:

 

The other side of this is, if a batter is feeling defensive, such as Plouffe, regardless of the data, is he more likely to swing at a marginal pitch because he thinks the situation is not in his favor. 

 

 

I think the conversation from the hitter's perspective is ready to be had. Would love to hear more players like Plouffe share their thoughts.

[old nurse]

If batters are noticing, with accuracy, who the best framers are, then what more proof do the last framing skeptics need?

The skepticism is in the actual effect of pitch framing. The basisi of the numbers  used to "prevent" runs assumes it is called evenly throughout the game. Where is the proof?

[Linus]

Nobody said "scared". I think what Plouffe is conveying (in addition to the framing stats) is that some catchers like Molina can make hitters feel uncomfortable.

 

I like how 'Sconnie put it above:

 

 

 

I think the conversation from the hitter's perspective is ready to be had. Would love to hear more players like Plouffe share their thoughts.

Parker: the title of the article is.........

[Parker Hageman]

Parker: the title of the article is.........

 

 

Click bait. Thanks Linus.

 

I would encourage people to read the post before making generalizations in the comment section. 

[jay]

The basisi of the numbers  used to "prevent" runs assumes it is called evenly throughout the game.

 

Skeptics could say you have to account for the inning, the exact plate appearance taking place, the exact speed of the runners on base, the profile of a batter based on the time of day, the angle of the pitcher's arm.... you could go on and on.  There's a reasonable sample size far before that where those effects are extremely minimal.

 

Do you believe the best framers could get 2 more strikes a game than the worst framers?  If so, what's that worth in runs over the course of 162 games?

[old nurse]

\

Do you believe the best framers could get 2 more strikes a game than the worst framers?  If so, what's that worth in runs over the course of 162 games?

Agaim, the assumption is that the pitch framing is likely to happen equally across a game. If it happens less in close games the benefit is less. If fit happens more for strike 1, the effect is less. If it happens more on 3 ball counts, the effect could be the umpire not the framing. If it causes pitchers to throw more out of the zone pitches in the era of pitch counts, the benefit would be less as the guy coming in the 5/6 inning is rarely as good as the starter.

The best framer over the worst framer. Debate the benifit by picking having one extreme versus the other. Doumit played 50 games a year at cattcher , Lucroy if uninjured 120-130 for a reason. What is the difference between the best full time catcher and the worse? Even a more fair comparison, what is the difference between the average of the best 3 versus the worse 3.

Edited October 2, 2014 by old nurse

[Linus]

Ok, so catchers stealing two strikes per game are putting fear into hitters. I got it. If that's true- you ain't much of a hitter.

[jay]

Agaim, the assumption is that the pitch framing is likely to happen equally across a game. If it happens less in close games the benefit is less. If fit happens more for strike 1, the effect is less. If it happens more on 3 ball counts, the effect could be the umpire not the framing. If it causes pitchers to throw more out of the zone pitches in the era of pitch counts, the benefit would be less as the guy coming in the 5/6 inning is rarely as good as the starter.

 

That's simply not true.  It was true in some of the early framing models, but it's not any more.  If you read the BP article linked above, it explains how they account for and remove the effect of the count in the AB, the umpire, the pitcher, plus plenty more.

 

The best framer over the worst framer. Debate the benifit by picking having one extreme versus the other. Doumit played 50 games a year at cattcher , Lucroy if uninjured 120-130 for a reason. What is the difference between the best full time catcher and the worse? Even a more fair comparison, what is the difference between the average of the best 3 versus the worse 3.

 

 

You completely avoided my question.  Lucroy compared to Suzuki+Pinto is an almost identical number of chances and an excellent comparison between "good" and "bad" framers for a team.  Here are some 2014 numbers from the BP stats page linked above:

 

Lucroy = 10379 chances, +185 strikes

Suzuki = 8174 chances, -106 strikes

Pinto = 2146 chances, -52 strikes

Suzuki+Pinto = 10320 chances, -158 strikes

That's a difference of 343 strikes over the course of the 2014 season.

 

Full-time catcher is a pretty vague description, but let's call it more than 7500 chances (only 20 qualify).  

Top 3 (Lucroy, Zunino, Martin) = 27489 chances, +502 strikes (average of +167 strikes)

Bottom 3 (Salty, Navarro, Suzuki) = 24098 chances, -353 strikes (average of -118 strikes)

That's a difference of 285 strikes between the averages over the course of the 2014 season.

 

It's close to 2 strikes a game.  That seems reasonable.  So, I'll ask again, what's that worth over the course of a season?  It's gotta be more than zero... ?

[old nurse]

That's simply not true.  It was true in some of the early framing models, but it's not any more.  If you read the BP article linked above, it explains how they account for and remove the effect of the count in the AB, the umpire, the pitcher, plus plenty more.

 

 

You completely avoided my question.  Lucroy compared to Suzuki+Pinto is an almost identical number of chances and an excellent comparison between "good" and "bad" framers for a team.  Here are some 2014 numbers from the BP stats page linked above:

 

Lucroy = 10379 chances, +185 strikes

Suzuki = 8174 chances, -106 strikes

Pinto = 2146 chances, -52 strikes

Suzuki+Pinto = 10320 chances, -158 strikes

That's a difference of 343 strikes over the course of the 2014 season.

 

Full-time catcher is a pretty vague description, but let's call it more than 7500 chances (only 20 qualify).  

Top 3 (Lucroy, Zunino, Martin) = 27489 chances, +502 strikes (average of +167 strikes)

Bottom 3 (Salty, Navarro, Suzuki) = 24098 chances, -353 strikes (average of -118 strikes)

That's a difference of 285 strikes between the averages over the course of the 2014 season.

 

It's close to 2 strikes a game.  That seems reasonable.  So, I'll ask again, what's that worth over the course of a season?  It's gotta be more than zero... ?

It does not take into account that pitch framing is still not shown to be called evenly across the game . 2 extra strikes in garbage time or low leverage situations is nothing.

There was a study done last year in beyond the boxscore that showed on the pitchers that changed teams the WOWY effect for pitchers with a different catcher was .02 difference on the ERA. The predicted value was .04 based on the model you cite. In general the pitch framing is only half as effective as the claim.  So yes it is more than zero, but is it significant enough to change outcomes?No studt shows that.

[USAFChief]

If you don't like the run values assigned to framing, place your own value on the difference of an extra 340 strikes over the course of this season between Lucroy and the combo of Suzuki+Pinto.  

 

Their statistical model to calculate the "predicted strikes" accounts for just about every variable you can think of, as outlined in the article I linked earlier.

 

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/sortable/index.php?cid=1667331

 

Does it seem crazy to think the best framer could get an extra 2 strikes a game compared to some of the worst?  It doesn't to me.

 

Their numbers call that difference 40 runs over the season.  That's saving one run every four games based on getting 2 extra strikes in every game.  How many times would one more strike in a key spot prevent a huge inning?  It doesn't seem all that crazy either...

I am a sceptic about pitch framing, so take that into account. Disclaimer posted.

 

An extra 2 strikes a game...I guess that's possible. Although my hunch is further research down the line will call that into question, much like many of the writers who treated defensive metrics as gospel a few years ago are backing off that stance now.

 

But 40 runs per year? I don't think that's possible.

[jay]

It does not take into account that pitch framing is still not shown to be called evenly across the game .

Why does it have to? Or, prove that it isn't. Like I mentioned before, skeptics can raise a million potential variables.

So yes it is more than zero, but is it significant enough to change outcomes?No studt shows that.

I don't see how something with an impact greater than zero doesn't change an outcome eventually. When you consider there are 4,860 games in every season... it could be quite often.

[jay]

But 40 runs per year? I don't think that's possible.

You? Skeptical? The latest BP model already scales back the run impact significantly as they've improved on assigning the value. It could very well change more.

 

If 2 strikes a game seems possible... humor me if you don't mind, what's that worth on average over the course of a season?

 

Some of those 320 strikes inevitably directly lead to the end of an at bat. Most don't, but we know there's some sort of value in being ahead 1-2 instead of behind 2-1. Include whatever that's worth to you also (the model does).

Edited October 6, 2014 by jay

[USAFChief]

You? Skeptical? The latest BP model already scales back the run impact significantly as they've improved on assigning the value. It could very well change more.

If 2 strikes a game seems possible... humor me if you don't mind, what's that worth on average over the course of a season?

Some of those 320 strikes inevitably directly lead to the end of an at bat. Most don't, but we know there's some sort of value in being ahead 1-2 instead of behind 2-1. Include whatever that's worth to you also (the model does).

Honest questions:

 

earlier in this thread you said BP's model showed 40 runs. Is that the "scaled back" number?

 

If that's a scaled back estimate, why should I believe it's now correct, when the same claims would have been made last year, only with a larger number of runs saved? They had it wrong before, but now they have it right?

 

As for what 2 strikes per game is worth, I don't know. Assuming 2 strikes per game is accurate, which is not in evidence by the way, I would say not a lot. Not 40 runs, for sure, IMO. That doesn't pass the smell test, for me at least.

 

I've been wrong before, I could be wrong here. But something like this can't be proven, one way or the other, so I will just have to go with my sense of what's probable.

[jay]

earlier in this thread you said BP's model showed 40 runs. Is that the "scaled back" number?

 

It is.  It's roughly the difference between the best and worst.  They've factored in many more variables than the earlier models.  One of the biggest adjustments they've made was accounting for the influence of the pitcher -- for example, Yadi "gave back" half his runs due to the staffs he's had in StL.

 

Sure, it could still be wrong.  Most people at least accept that framing is a real thing.  If it's a real thing that is turning balls into strikes, that has to have a value. 

 

The hard part there is turning that value into the equivalent of runs.  It's an imaginary world where you can never know what the outcome would have been otherwise, so they have to use "expected runs" based off an incredible amount of data.  It's hard to fathom the number of opportunities to influence a pitched ball in just one season (like 10,000) and the size of that impact.  40 runs passes the smell test for me, but 20 runs or even just 10 runs is significant.