Article: On Pitch Framing And Glen Perkins

[Parker Hageman]

In an interesting development this week, the Minnesota Twins’ source of SABR-friendly quotes, Glen Perkins, has elaborated his position on the importance of pitch framing.

 

What makes this particularly intriguing is because a little over a year ago Perkins had explained that he felt that catcher Josmil Pinto needed to improve his framing game in order to contribute at the major league level. In his explanation, the closer suggested that framing ranked ahead of pitch calling when it came to the contributions of catching. Now Perkins says that pitch framing numbers are basically junk.

 

Is Perkins right? Is the idea of pitch framing just snake oil sold by data-pushers?Last year, the Pioneer Press’ Mike Berardino documented a conversation that Perkins had with a local radio show in which he deemed the ability to frame pitches as one of the most significant keys to a catcher’s ability. The discussion centered on Pinto and his subpar framing numbers.

 

“Pitch-framing ability, I think that makes the biggest difference in the world,” Perkins said on Phil Mackey and Judd Zulgad’s 1500 ESPN’s radio program in 2014. “Eric Fryer is really good at pitch framing, so I’m excited about that. He does a great job.”

 

Why does it make the biggest difference in the world?

 

“When you can get your pitcher borderline pitches and get them to go his way, that allows you not only to get ahead in counts but expand the strike zone and go further away,” Perkins said. “That goes a long way to having success. … I think that’s the most important thing. The game calling is secondary. You’ve got to be able to catch pitches around the zone. You need to get pitches. You can’t give pitches. The more pitches you can get, the better off our pitching staff is going to be.”

 

Pitch framing, to paraphrase former MLB umpire Jim McKean, isn't holding a ball or doing any special tricks, it is simply receiving the ball using the proper techniques. And when it comes to seeing results, some catchers are considerably better than others.

 

The notion of pitch framing’s worth extended to data-savvy teams like the Pittsburgh Pirates who, according to Big Data Baseball, zeroed in on free agent catcher Russell Martin almost exclusively on his ability to steal strikes on the outer edges of the strike zone. This, wrote Travis Sawchik, made signing free agent pitchers like Francisco Liriano that much more attractive. Blessed with an assortment of unhittable stuff, Liriano had faulty control but a rare swing-and-miss arsenal -- particularly when he was able to deploy his slider. Martin, the Pirates front office correctly surmised, could turn some of those borderline fastballs into strikes and allow Liriano to spin more sliders.

 

So as the front office of the Pirates rebuilt their rotation based on the belief that Martin had the ability to steal strikes -- whether because of skill, voodoo or otherwise -- only to become an annual playoff team, one of the Twins’ most outspoken proponents for using and understanding data has thrown shade at the data used in measuring pitch framing.

 

“That’s what frustrates me about the framing statistics,” Perkins told Berardino at some point this season. “I know when I say I don’t believe in them, that’s what a lot of guys do: They’ll believe in numbers that support what they think, what their opinion is, and they’ll not support stuff that doesn’t back up what they believe. That’s part of it for me, too.”

 

Wait. What? How does pitch framing go from “the most important thing” a little over a year ago to “I don’t believe in them”?

 

“There’s just too many variables,” he said. “I still think there’s bias in who’s pitching and bias in who’s hitting, regardless of the fact (umpires) get graded or not. I think some guys have tighter strike zones as pitchers and guys that are more established have a bigger strike zone. And hitters, too.”

 

To be fair, Perkins isn't completely off-base. While he may have overstated his position in 2014, pitch framing was far from a perfect science and measurement. In examining Josmil Pinto's shortcomings this past offseason, evidence of Pinto being unfairly docked on pitches that were in the strike zone but ultimately called a ball due to a pitcher grossly missing his location were highlighted. Available framing stats found at StatCorner.com do not account for a pitcher's intent. Is it the catcher's fault that he called for a slider away only to have to lunge back across the plate when a pitcher misses his spot?

 

That is why Baseball Info Solutions developed a Strike Zone Plus/Minus metric that accounts for factors other than just the catcher (all the gory details found here). Their study showed that even when considering the pitchers, hitters and umpires, Kurt Suzuki was still one of the worst pitch framers in the game at -15 runs in 2014. This season, despite showing improvements by StatCorner.com’s measurements, according to BIS’s Strike Zone Plus/Minus Suzuki is actually at -11 runs saved, again the worst framer in baseball.

 

Roughly translated, 11 runs equals about one win in the standings. Is that important?

 

"One pitch can mean the whole game,'' Russell Martin, who signed a five-year, $82 million contract with Toronto partially based on his framing abilities, told USA Today. "Going from a 2-1 count to a 1-2 changes that at-bat completely. As you go through the year, there are times when getting a call here and a call there can change the outcome of a whole year, really, when you're talking about being in the playoffs or missing the playoffs by one game.''

 

Perkins’ stance on pitch framing isn’t without its merit but at the same time, starting catchers have thousands of data points each season. While some measurement systems are grabbing a bunch of noise, patterns begin to emerge with various catchers who far exceed others at coaxing more out-of-zone pitches to be called strikes and fewer in-zone pitches to be called balls. There are reasons why some catchers like Jonathan Lucroy are perennially at the top of the framing list while others like Suzuki and Jarrod Saltalamacchia are pulling up the rear. What's more, there is now a framing metric that accounts for all the influencing factors (pitchers, umpires and hitters) which had previously concerned players like Perkins.

 

For the Twins who are doing their best to remain relevant in the wild card race, one game in the standings could end up being the difference between a one-game playoff berth or another October at home.

 

Click here to view the article

[Mike Sixel]

There is noise in the math that runs computers, is used to assess outcomes in business processes, in every measurement, there is noise. Denying that something is real because there are multiple variables and noise.....that's not going to lead to good outcomes in any line of business. I don't think that's what he's saying, but is sounds like that is what he is saying....

[HitInAPinch]

When you start talking about things like a players "intent" aren't you also saying that same thing could also be applied to all advanced metrics?  Like "The batter intended to hit the ball".

 

 

[Parker Hageman]

 

When you start talking about things like a players "intent" aren't you also saying that same thing could also be applied to all advanced metrics?  Like "The batter intended to hit the ball".

 

Yeah, that's it. 

 

[Nick Nelson]

Is it really an about-face? From what I can tell, his comments last year were discussing the value of pitch-framing as a concept, whereas these latest quotes questioned the validity of current metrics designed to measure it.

[Parker Hageman]

Is it really an about-face?

 

 

It's probably more of a step back than an about-face. 

 

The takeaway is that all the things that Perkins said he didn't like about the pitch framing stats are actually accounted for in Strike Zone Plus/Minus system. 

 

[Seth Stohs]

Did I read this correctly or miss something? I read this as:

 

1.) He believes that pitch framing is very important.

2.) He doesn't believe in the pitch framing statistics.

 

 

Jeepers... Me and Glen Perkins have something in common!

[Parker Hageman]

Did I read this correctly or miss something? I read this as:

 

1.) He believes that pitch framing is very important.

2.) He doesn't believe in the pitch framing statistics.

 

 

Jeepers... Me and Glen Perkins have something in common!

 

 

Correct. And I'm not attacking Perkins for not liking pitch framing statistics. I am assuming he was unaware that there is a pitch framing metric that accounts for all the items he listed. 

 

Let me ask you, why don't you believe in pitch framing statistics? 

 

 

[nicksaviking]

 

Is it really an about-face? From what I can tell, his comments last year were discussing the value of pitch-framing as a concept, whereas these latest quotes questioned the validity of current metrics designed to measure it.

 

Yeah, that's a good take.

 

I would also accept the take that Perkins is a human being who happened to get into some literature last year about pitch framing that he found interesting but as he continued to read more about the statistics he also found some contrasting opinions and his view might have softened.

 

If someone on this site doesn't change my opinion about a topic using sound logic and well stated reason at least once a month, it's been a bad month for you guys and gals.

 

I'm not going to pile on the only Twins player that has come out of the closet as willing to at least listen to modern baseball ideas.

[nicksaviking]

 

 

Let me ask you, why don't you believe in pitch framing statistics? 

 

Because Joe West appears to operate based on some kind of strange and nefarious agenda rather than normal human psychological expectations.

 

Otherwise, I'm game for the stats.

[jimbo92107]

 

Is it really an about-face? From what I can tell, his comments last year were discussing the value of pitch-framing as a concept, whereas these latest quotes questioned the validity of current metrics designed to measure it.

The difference between an art and a science is measurements, but the ability to quantify something as complex and subtle as "pitch framing" doesn't sound like it has crossed the line into science. For one thing, we're talking about the perceptions of umpires regarding the behavior of catchers, a combination whose variables themselves vary from one instance to another.

 

Even so, clearly there is something going on. If a catcher stabs his glove away from the strike zone to catch every pitch, his "pitch framing" will probably be awful no matter the umpire. A slightly better technique is to position the glove outside the zone and move it inwards. Then there's the trick of freezing the glove after the catch, having moved it slightly in towards the zone.

 

Then there are other, more subtle tricks, like positioning your body a certain way, knowing the ump looks a certain way over your shoulder, to make certain pitches seem more centered in the zone. Or really obvious tricks like saying, "Wow, that was a great pitch," after a close one. You can seen catchers lobbying in this way, sometimes pointing a finger at the pitcher to say "great pitch," sometimes freezing the glove, etc.

 

Maybe what the Twins need is a catcher that's also a used car salesman. You want a polite, chatty, optimistic, enthusiastic guy that's certain his pitcher has great stuff today, and by the way ump, you're looking particularly good, too!

[Parker Hageman]

Because Joe West appears to operate based on some kind of strange and nefarious agenda rather than normal human psychological expectations.

 

 

In the current freely available iteration of catcher stats, all/most catchers will have some games with those types of umpires. While some will have an umpire like West a few more times than others, it all washes out in the long run. The new version of pitch framing stats takes the umpire into account. 

 

[troyhobbs]

If Perkins ever uses Eric Fryer and excited in the same sentence again I don't think we can take anything he says seriously

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

I would also accept the take that Perkins is a human being who happened to get into some literature last year about pitch framing that he found interesting but as he continued to read more about the statistics he also found some contrasting opinions and his view might have softened.

I think that might be giving Perkins a little too much credit here.  He was openly skeptical of Pinto already in the offseason when we first signed Suzuki, when he had barely even thrown to Pinto.  I think he latched on to the framing thing as a numerical justification of his preconceived beliefs (which he sort of admitted in a quote here).

 

Not that Pinto is any great shakes, but I don't think pitch framing was ever really in the top 3 reasons Perkins didn't like throwing to Pinto.

[Thegrin]

I hate all conversations about pitch framing.  The idea of pitch framing is the assumption that the umpires often make bad calls.  Since the umpires get many calls wrong, and we currently have the technology to call balls and strikes with 100% accuracy using cameras and whatnot .... then MLB should let technology call the pitches and leave the umpires out of it.

[Parker Hageman]

I hate all conversations about pitch framing.The idea of pitch framing is the assumption that the umpires often make bad calls.Since the umpires get many calls wrong, and we currently have the technology to call balls and strikes with 100% accuracy using cameras and whatnot .... then MLB should let technology call the pitches and leave the umpires out of it.

 

 

It's getting closer to reality. 

 

http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-automated-strike-zone-20150810-story.html

 

[TheLeviathan]

I like the concept of pitch framing statistics, but I think they are a major work in progress at this point.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

I hate all conversations about pitch framing.  The idea of pitch framing is the assumption that the umpires often make bad calls.

That's not the "idea" at all.  It's that pitches are fast, the strike zone is small, and there are a lot of borderline pitches, whether called by man or machine.  And around any margin, there are different ways to interpret what is observed, and different factors that contribute to that interpretation.  Nothing inherently bad about it.

Edited August 12, 2015 by spycake

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

Automate the strike zone, and everyone gets the same one, whether you are ben revere or Miguel Sano. The home plate umpire is still back there watching the pitch, like the article said. The umpire's clicker lights up and vibrates if the ball passes through the strike zone. The umpire then calls a strike just like he does now. No jobs are lost. Nobody even really notices anything different. I give it < 10 years.

 

 

 

[Mike Sixel]

 

That's not the "idea" at all.  It's that pitches are fast, the strike zone is small, and there are a lot of borderline pitches, whether called by man or machine.  And around any margin, there are different ways to interpret what is observed, and different factors that contribute to that interpretation.  Nothing inherently bad about it.

 

And machines would offer a lot of false precision too -- after all, the machine's strike zone would change with every batter and have to be constantly calibrated and re-calibrated by a human.  And the difference between two pitch's locations on these margins, as detected by the machine, may not even be visible to us.

 

Imagine two pitches, separated by a thousand of an inch or some similarly infinitesimal distance, along a line drawn by a man looking at a camera, and one is called a ball and the other a strike.  Is that really any better or more equitable than the current system?

 

Ya, I think you are finding all the edge cases here to argue "you can't make it 100% perfect, so don't improve it at all".....at least that is how it reads.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

Ya, I think you are finding all the edge cases here to argue "you can't make it 100% perfect, so don't improve it at all".....at least that is how it reads.

Not my intent.  Just disputing the notion that pitch framing implies bad calls.  I'll delete the offending paragraph(s).

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

Automate the strike zone, and everyone gets the same one, whether you are ben revere or Miguel Sano.

That would be changing the very definition of the strike zone, which would be a much bigger deal than the umpire effects of pitch framing, IMHO.

[Mike Sixel]

 

That would be changing the very definition of the strike zone, which would be a much bigger deal than the umpire effects of pitch framing, IMHO.

 

I think he means everyone gets the one in the rule book, not that a 5 foot player and a 7 foot player get the same zone.....I'd bet good money on that being his intent.

[Otto von Ballpark]

I think he means everyone gets the one in the rule book, not that a 5 foot player and a 7 foot player get the same zone.....I'd bet good money on that being his intent.

Invoking Revere and Sano sure seems like a reference to height.

[Brock Beauchamp]

I would hate to see the human element of umpiring removed from baseball, even if that means my favorite team occasionally gets the shaft.

 

Try your best to hold umpires accountable but don't remove them from the game entirely. Part of the reason I enjoy baseball is its old world charm. Don't sanitize it to the point where machines are involved.

 

Sometimes we love things because of their imperfections, not in spite of them.

[Thrylos]

 

Did I read this correctly or miss something? I read this as:

 

1.) He believes that pitch framing is very important.

2.) He doesn't believe in the pitch framing statistics.

 

 

Jeepers... Me and Glen Perkins have something in common!

 

Hope not.  Unless you like statistics when they support your argument

 

Nothing to see here:  Perkins opened mouth and inserted size 11 cleat, making clear that he had a personal and not a performance issue with Pinto last season...

 

If he changed his mind about the metric (heck, stuff happens,) he owns an apology to Pinto for the bus tire marks...

 

But I suspect that he didn't...

[Steve Lein]

The human element of the pitcher/hitter/umpire interactions, is one of the most important strategic and fundamental aspects of playing the game of baseball to me. I am 100% against robot-umpires.

 

Now, there certainly should be a better way to hold the umpires accountable.

[TwinCityGuy]

He doesnt't believe in the pitching framing statistics, because they are bunk.  Perk knows what a good framing catcher looks like, more so then the statistics that try and take everything into account (ump, pitcher, hitter).  It is whether or not the catcher can catch or can't catch.  Stats for that can't take in account for everything that matters (setting up inside, getting outside pitch)  some catchers and make everything look perfect.  No apology to Pinto is needed.  He was a "hitting" catcher not defensive, if he got picked up by another team then maybe an apology for being wrong would be appropriate, Pinto is out of the LEAGUE.

 

[Parker Hageman]

He doesnt't believe in the pitching framing statistics, because they are bunk.

 

 

Again, that's patently false. The ones freely available have too much noise but over the course of a season (or multiple years) you will see that the catchers who pitcher laud as having great skill for framing are always near the top. Now there is another level metric that removes assigning all of the skill set to just the catcher. It's a vastly improved measurement.

 

That being said, pitchers and players do not have to believe in any stats. They don't even have to understand them or acknowledge their existence. Front offices do. They are the ones who have to look at a player's entire body of work and make million dollar decisions. The Rays looked at framing stats. The Pirates looked at framing stats. The Astros looked at framing stats. They exist. It is beneficial to have players who understand data and what it is trying to fundamentally accomplish -- like having Brian Dozier understand why he is shifting into shallow right field. 

 

You can chose to ignore it -- like some in this thread have mentioned without explanation as to why they don't "believe" in them -- but the fact is it exists and teams do use it. 

[bizaff]

 

The human element of the pitcher/hitter/umpire interactions, is one of the most important strategic and fundamental aspects of playing the game of baseball to me. I am 100% against robot-umpires.

 

I don't understand the argument against it, but I want to.  When you say important strategic and fundamental aspects, are you referring how the pitcher and hitter have to adjust to what a human umpire is calling for balls and strikes?  Is it just that simple or am I leaving out part of the argument against robot-umpires?