Article: Video: Slowing Things Down To See Jason Castro’s Silent Skill

[Tom Froemming]

Jason Castro being the Twins’ biggest offseason addition last year sparked a lot of great discussion locally about catcher framing. But watching him in games, it was difficult to identify how he was working his magic behind the plate. And that’s exactly the point.As I noted in an article earlier this week, Twins rookie reliever Trevor Hildenberger had high praise for the help Castro provided him behind the plate. Dan Gladden, who was one of the interviewers, admitted that he initially questioned the value of framing, but that quickly changed after Castro’s arrival.

 

“I’m not kidding you, after about two months of watching him, yes, I can see it,” Gladden said. That interview is available as a podcast at WCCO.

 

How about we take a closer look at the man in action? Below is some video I slowed down, zoomed in and froze at around the moment Castro caught the ball. Many of these aren’t stolen strikes, they’re just good pitches, but what I’d like to convey here just how little Castro is actually doing.

Look at how quiet Castro’s body is. Notice how in a lot of these he gets himself into such a tiny crouch that he’s nearly into the fetal position. Even just look at how and where he sets up before the pitch. Most of what he’s doing is simply making sure the umpire gets a good, clean look at the ball.

 

Even when he calls for a ball up in the zone, Castro makes an effort to not get in his own way. You’ll notice he typically catches the ball with his hand about neck level at the highest. At around the 1:10 mark, he catches the pitch basically right in front of his face. If he had gotten up even taller instead, that may have blocked the umpires window ever so slightly.

 

When there is extra movement, it’s usually productive. On the video of Bartolo Colon included (around the 1:41 mark), you see Castro make an ever so subtle lean back toward the batter, the same direction the pitch is breaking, to further enhance the appearance that the ball had spun back into the zone.

 

There were numerous excellent articles written about Castro and framing, but one of the ones I learned the most from was this piece by Mike Berardino from late May. Here’s an excerpt of Taylor Rogers explaining how the little things make a big difference:

 

“When Kintzler is throwing and Castro sets up outside to a righty, he angles himself back into the plate,” Rogers said. “Not a lot, but just enough. I think that frees him up to bring that two-seamer back. It’s a good visual for the umpire.”

 

Meaning?

 

“That way he’s catching it square on his body,” Rogers said. “It might not be on the plate, but to the umpire it looks like he caught it right on his chest.”

 

Old-school fans like to mock pitch-framing, but to the guys that throw baseballs for a living, it’s a very real thing.

 

“Over time and throughout a game, the impact that has is huge,” Rogers said. “It’s one of those things that go unseen that are big, and I like that kind of stuff. It just allows you to have comfort and confidence out there that he can steal one every now and then.”

Per Baseball Prospectus, Castro ranked 32nd among the 110 catchers in Called Strikes Above Average last season. A lot of the statistical side of framing has more to do with the guy in front of and the guy behind the catcher than it does the receiver himself. Pitchers have to at least come close to hitting their spots and the umpires have to fall for the presentation. But either way, it’s great to see Castro still post an above-average mark in that metric.

 

There are a couple things I’d like to point out before we finish up. First, all the pitches included in the video compilation were called third strikes. I’d imagine a lot of Castro’s best work is not included in that sample, but those are the easiest pitches to find highlights for. And second, in digging through stuff I found a number of really great frame jobs by Chris Gimenez. I’d imagine every catcher in baseball is working very hard at framing these days.

 

Click here to view the article

[jimbo92107]

- Let the ump see the pitch.

- During the catch, always move your glove back towards the center of the zone.

- Don't jab or yank your glove. Be smooth, use small movements. 

 

Am I missing something complicated or subtle? This doesn't seem all that complicated or subtle. Seems like a fundamental skill. As a catcher, you want to make it look like catching this guy is easy, because he's always near the zone. 

 

I suspect that when a catcher is good at framing, he's also good at stopping wild pitches. He would have an advantage because he'd be anticipating the most likely variations in a correct delivery, as when a pitcher opens up too soon and the ball goes high arm-side. Cheating in the direction of likely error would help in fielding erratic pitches. 

 

As a pitcher, knowing that my catcher frames close pitches well, and that he also anticipates the occasional flubber, would give me a lot more confidence than if he simply reacted from the middle of the target outwards. 

[Platoon]

To expand a little on Jimbo's take. My lifelong neighbor was a very good amateur catcher and later a very good plate umpire. He always told me pulling the glove is useless. It's too obvious. But turning your body in to the plate, and catching the corners with the glove turned in shows the umpire the baseball. As does getting low and ease of movement. While I know that the line between balls and strikes in MLB is much finer, the principles are the same. In some of the frames shown Castro seems to be blatantly pulling the ball. On that point, as an umpire, when my friend heard a catcher question a non strike call after the catcher had pulled the ball over the plate he would ask the guy, "if it was so good, why did you have to pull it"? That was generally the end of the discussion. That said, I know that there are MLB catchers that are better than others at framing. The seemingly recent discover surprises me though. But then you read the Gladden comment, and wonder how Danno got a job as an analyst having not noticed something that I taught my kids

[Dave The Dastardly]

Count me as one of those old-school fans that likes to mock pitch-framing. If it's so subtle we can't see it, maybe it isn't there.

 

Kind of sounds like the emperor has no clothes.

[bird]

Not long ago I had an Uber driver whose son is a catcher at a Division II college who had spent a good deal of time filling in at various Twins practices as an extra catcher. The kid got to know some people pretty well, and apparently concluded from his conversations that a number of the coaches believed that the single biggest area of improvement for the pitching staff would be realized by bringing in a starting catcher who was good at framing pitches. This of course was pre-Castro.

[Tom Froemming]

 

As a catcher, you want to make it look like catching this guy is easy, because he's always near the zone. 

Exactly, well said. If the catcher can help make it look like the pitch went exactly where they wanted, the ump is more likely to call a strike even if it may be slightly off the plate.

 

In some of the frames shown Castro seems to be blatantly pulling the ball ...

 

The seemingly recent discover surprises me though. But then you read the Gladden comment, and wonder how Danno got a job as an analyst having not noticed something that I taught my kids

A lot of these look more exaggerated because of how the video is edited. In real time, those pulls are much less noticeable. Based on this quote from a Rhett Bollinger piece last February, Castro is more focused on keeping strikes for his pitchers than stealing them.

 

"The goal at the end of the day is to try to help your pitcher keep as many strikes as possible," Castro said. "And to not do anything to take away from presenting pitches that are in the strike zone to the umpires that would lead them to believe that any given pitch is not a strike."

 

I think the thing that's really sparked all the discussion is people trying to put a number on the value of pitch framing. But you're right, anybody who has caught at any level has some concept of this. I may not have known the best ways to present pitches to any given umpire, especially since they're all a little different, but I sure could tell if I was getting more or fewer calls, and had some sense that part of that was due to things I was doing.

 

I had a chuckle at your line about Dazzle. I wanted to point out that he's a believer mainly because he's somebody who's pretty resistant to new stats/trying to quantify things.

[Tom Froemming]

 

Count me as one of those old-school fans that likes to mock pitch-framing. If it's so subtle we can't see it, maybe it isn't there.

 

Kind of sounds like the emperor has no clothes.

You can see it. Take a look at how Castro is setting up before the pitch is delivered and how, as Rogers points out, he's trying to make sure to catch the ball square on his body. If his body is positioned differently and he's reaching, it makes it appear to the umpire that the pitcher missed his spot. 

 

So it's still up to the pitcher to hit the mark, or at least come close, all the catcher is trying to do is put that on display, making it look like a perfect pitch.

[ToddlerHarmon]

IMO, the video is impressive not because it reveals Castro pulling, but because it reveals the subtlety of it. He uses the necessary closing of his hand as an opportunity to change his wrist orientation, in the process moving the ball towards the center of the plate, but also bringing it to a dead stop.

 

It left me thinking that if umpires could track the ball well enough for framing to have no impact, well, they would be major league hitters instead.

[Parker Hageman]

First, all the pitches included in the video compilation were called third strikes. I’d imagine a lot of Castro’s best work is not included in that sample, but those are the easiest pitches to find highlights for.

 

 

Interestingly enough, Castro did not perform well in 2-strike situations as a receiver.

 

According to ESPN/TruMedia's data, he ranked 61st out of 71 qualified catchers per their Framing Runs Above Average stat (Castro was -1.34 FRAA with 2-strikes). 

 

In the raw form, with 2-strikes, Castro had just 64% of 2-strike pitches, that were in the strike zone and taken by the hitter, called a strike. Obviously there is an umpiring bias in those situations where umpires will shrink a zone with two-strikes and widen it during 3-0 counts, but Castro's rate was well below the league's average of 69.4%. Comparatively, Kurt Suzuki held a 66% rate last year. 

 

I do believe you do see some of the skills highlighted in the video that Tom was talking about. The part about him making himself small is spot on. That's one thing Castro talked about this spring:

 

“I’m a bigger catcher, so I figured it is something even more important for me to position myself to give the umpire a better lane to see the pitch,” he says. “That definitely helps. You can definitely tell when you are set up on one side of the plate and your pitcher misses, you can tell when you probably blocked the umpire from see where the pitch really crossed. For bigger guys, it’s something to take into account.”

 

It's a hard skill to see visually, that's for sure. And even if a catcher executes everything properly, the umpire may still call it a ball because of the bias or because the pitcher had been somewhat erratic.

 

One catcher who I have come to love to watch work behind the plate is Roberto Perez. He's a solid receiver (one of the best "framers" in 2017) but he also plays mind games with the hitter, shifting constantly before the pitch and brushing dirt, setting up high before dropping down low. Hitters start thinking a high fastball is coming based on his set-up then, nope, slider down. Keep an eye on him when the Indians play. 

 

 

[Dantes929]

Its not a new thing but the metrics are fairly new.    I don't know how much faith to put into the metrics and if I put a lot of faith in them I am not so sure that ranking 32nd is all that impressive.    Part of the value is if the pitchers have faith in it.    Its not a new concept but metrics or not I think pitch framing is both a talent and a skill.   For example I think I would stink at it no matter how much I worked at it but if I worked at it I would stink less.    If Castor is naturally better at it than Susuki and also works at it more then he will be better at it.   If that results in a sum total of two pitches a game that was either stolen or not given away it is probably worth it.   Just kind of tough proving it.    

[PDX Twin]

I can't wait until this doesn't matter because pitches are called correctly, every time, by real-time technology. Maybe this happens about the time that Castro retires?

[Tom Froemming]

 

Its not a new thing but the metrics are fairly new.    I don't know how much faith to put into the metrics and if I put a lot of faith in them I am not so sure that ranking 32nd is all that impressive.

That is in the top 30 percent of all the catchers BP has data on, but I agree with your main point. I'm not sure how much to put into the metrics either. That's why I originally didn't go too deep, but here goes nothin' ...

 

Just for reference, in 2016 Kurt Suzuki ranked 63rd among 104 catchers in CSAA (just outside of the top 60 percent). Also, Castro had more than 6,400 chances. There were 14 guys ahead of him in CSAA who had fewer chances than Chris Gimenez. I'm not sure when that stat stabilizes, but among catchers with at least 5,000 chances (basically the guys who served as the primary catchers for their team) he ranked 11th.

 

So the numbers would say he was a dramatic improvement over Suzuki and that he's above average, but not elite.

[Doomtints]

For being a silent skill, we sure talk about it a lot and measure it a lot.

[ashbury]

Per Baseball Prospectus, Castro ranked 32nd among the 110 catchers in Called Strikes Above Average last season.

It would be interesting to see a similar video study performed on one of the catchers in the bottom ten of this list. Not to throw dirt on the poor guy, but to contrast more clearly with the images seen here.

[Platoon]

"The goal at the end of the day is to try to help your pitcher keep as many strikes as possible," Castro said. "And to not do anything to take away from presenting pitches that are in the strike zone to the umpires that would lead them to believe that any given pitch is not a strike."

 

 

Maybe the most pertinent thing said on this topic so far. Don't give away strikes being jumpy or awkward.

Edited January 25, 2018 by Platoon

[Tom Froemming]

 

It would be interesting to see a similar video study performed on one of the catchers in the bottom ten of this list. Not to throw dirt on the poor guy, but to contrast more clearly with the images seen here.

Agreed. I did take a look at some video of James McCann, who is rated as one of the worst, but of course it's the same deal with Castro where the only highlights you can find are of called third strikes.

 

I thought about maybe re-watching a game with both Castro and McCann, but I don't know how I'd pull the video on those. Both my technology and ability to use it only goes so far, lol.

[Ebby Calvin Laloosh]

I'm not sure whether the pitch framing stats flush this out or not, but my eye sure did. Watching Castro v. Suzuki catch is like night and day. I seem to recall many times that Suzuki would set up inside, the pitcher misses his spot and maybe hits the outside corner but because Suzuki has to lay out to catch the ball there is no chance at getting the call. Castro is so much quieter behind the plate even on the pitches that miss by a mile. Just a nicer catcher to watch play. 

[Nine of twelve]

The term "pitch framing" is a misnomer that euphemizes its true nature. The correct term is "faking out the home plate umpire". The fact that there are metrics for it and that it's a topic of discussion on this web site strongly reflects the need for the implementation of a good automated pitch calling system ASAP.

[KirbyDome89]

"A lot of the statistical side of framing has more to do with the guy in front of and the guy behind the catcher than it does the receiver himself."

 

Perfect context.

 

Stealing a strike here and there is certainly beneficial, as is having a rapport with your pitchers. 

[wabene]

It would be interesting to see how many favor an automated pitch calling system. Baseball is an old game with many traditions and an atmosphere all is own. Not so sure I want to lose the quirks; "ump's calling it close today" or the arguments at home plate, the sideways glances etc.

[Parker Hageman]

 

The term "pitch framing" is a misnomer that euphemizes its true nature. The correct term is "faking out the home plate umpire". The fact that there are metrics for it and that it's a topic of discussion on this web site strongly reflects the need for the implementation of a good automated pitch calling system ASAP.

 

Incorrect. Most catchers I've spoken to hate the term "pitch framing". The correct term is "receiving the ball the right way". 

 

That doesn't just mean "stealing strikes". It also means keeping pitches in the zone from being called balls. This was as significant problem for the Twins from 2014-2016: They'd lose more pitches in the strike zone than any other teams. 

 

 

The Astros were one of the best at the "framing" statistic in that time. Here's what Castro said about what the Astros' focused on:

 

“Keeping strikes in the strike zone,” he explained. “Not doing anything to the pitch to take away from its quality. If it is on the corner and it is breaking one direction, you are trying to counteract the break so it doesn’t, by the time you catch the ball, pull your arm out of the zone.”

 

It's not about yanking a glove back across the plate -- it's about receiving the ball in a manner that maximizes the pitcher's intent. 

[gil4]

 

- Let the ump see the pitch.

- During the catch, always move your glove back towards the center of the zone.

- Don't jab or yank your glove. Be smooth, use small movements. 

 

Am I missing something complicated or subtle?

There are some subtleties, like slight turns of the body or the wrist on certain pitches, or not rising up too high to catch a pitch near the letters.  But for the most part it's just difficult to actually do it at a top level while also worrying about so many other things.

 

That said, I know that there are MLB catchers that are better than others at framing. The seemingly recent discover surprises me though.

There always were guys who had the reputation as being good receivers. What's new is the attempt to actually quantify the advantage (or disadvantage, depending on the catcher.)

[ashbury]

But for the most part it's just difficult to actually do it at a top level while also worrying about so many other things.

Yeah, you're not going to earn a lot of brownie points with the umpire if you allow a pitch to smack him right in the facemask, all in the name of not reaching up too high and depriving your pitcher of a called strike.

[Parker Hageman]

 

Yeah, you're not going to earn a lot of brownie points with the umpire if you allow a pitch to smack him right in the facemask, all in the name of not reaching up too high and depriving your pitcher of a called strike.

 

[h2oface]

When a catcher hits like Castro, you have to go elsewhere to give some props and love. I too long for the day that a skill to cheat the balls and strikes from being what they are is not a part of the game. Until then, I hope Castro is the best at the cheat for the next two years.

[nmcowboy]

oh Castro tricksie little hobbit he is!

[snepp]

 

When a catcher hits like Castro, you have to go elsewhere to give some props and love. I too long for the day that a skill to cheat the balls and strikes from being what they are is not a part of the game. Until then, I hope Castro is the best at the cheat for the next two years.

 

What?

[Nine of twelve]

Incorrect. Most catchers I've spoken to hate the term "pitch framing". The correct term is "receiving the ball the right way". 

 

That doesn't just mean "stealing strikes". It also means keeping pitches in the zone from being called balls.

You can call it whatever you like, but the objective is to convince the umpire that a pitch is a strike whether the pitch is in the strike zone or not. This is not how things should be. If a pitch is in the strike zone it should be called a strike. If it is not it should be called a ball. If automated systems perform this task better than umpires, and they do, the umpires should be replaced and this aspect of catching would properly be rendered moot.

[Teflon]

This is exactly how the Russians would rig baseball if they couldn't do it through Facebook. 

[Parker Hageman]

 

You can call it whatever you like, but the objective is to convince the umpire that a pitch is a strike whether the pitch is in the strike zone or not. This is not how things should be. If a pitch is in the strike zone it should be called a strike. If it is not it should be called a ball. If automated systems perform this task better than umpires, and they do, the umpires should be replaced and this aspect of catching would properly be rendered moot.

 

Until the day they release the flying cars and automated strike zones*, a catcher who receives the ball the right way is going to be more valuable than those that do not. Like it, lump it, make your mind up to it because it's here to stay. 

 

*Baseball Prospectus today just published a detailed look at why this is too complicated to roll out any time soon. https://www.baseballprospectus.com/news/article/37347/robo-strike-zone-not-simple-think/