Mauer on wrong side of pitchf/x framing leaderboard

[Willihammer]

That's the website of the company that sells and installs pitchf/x. Not surprisingly, they claim it's terrific.

 

AFAIK, there is no independent verification of anything they claim. There is really no way to verify anything about pitchf/x, for that matter. If you believe in technology, then I suppose it's reasonable to take that on faith.

 

But there is nothing but faith to prove that pitchf/x is more accurate than the umpires.

 

Well, MLB uses it to grade umpires. I believe umpires use it themselves also.

 

You look at the phantom cams shooting 5000 fps now, and the 3d Matrix setup they have in Yankee stadium, optics are so good now that I am frankly surprised Sportvision isn't claiming the data isn't accurate to a few millimeters instead of a whole inch. But even if the technology is only accurate to a half-foot, that will still even out given a large enough sample. So I guess I don't even see how the accuracy or inaccuracy of it affects the validity of the findings here.

[LaBombo]

 

But there is nothing but faith to prove that pitchf/x is more accurate than the umpires.

Pitchf/x is probably far from perfect. But it seems to know that a pitch is a ball instead of a strike when a pitcher has just painted the inner edge of the batter's box opposite the hitter. Major league umpires sometimes do not.

[jorgenswest]

I could be wrong, but I don't think that's true. As WH posted above, I don't even think the top and bottom of the zone is considered to be different for different hitters.

 

3-d

 

http://baseball.physics.illinois.edu/FastPFXGuide.pdf

 

Is there any other ratio in baseball where the same player has consistently been at the only one at the very bottom of the list for 7 consecutive seasons?

[RealityBaseTwinsFan]

That makes sense intuitively but I don't think its been the case in reality. As mentioned before, we've been studying this for going on 5 years or more. A lot of guys have changed teams, pitching staffs have turned over, but these findings remain pretty consistent.

 

Plus, think about it. If a guy is missing his spots so regularly, he's not going to be around to amplify any bias very much. In Deduno's case, he's hit his spots pretty well this year actually, thus he's still on the team and not in AAA.

 

They specifically call out Mauer's effect being understated in the 5 year sample because he accounted for over 50% of the pitches thrown by those pitchers with Drew accounting for another 20%+. This was due to a organic pitching staff for the most part.

 

You must not be watching the "spots" the catchers are setting up for on Deduno's fastballs this year. Someone made a nice gif of it, which is right down the middle because with his crazy fastball it will end up anywhere but the target.

[jorgenswest]

Should the Twins make roster decision based on this skill? Should they use this data to help assess the skill?

 

The data and study were available at the time they signed Ryan Doumit. Aaron Gleeman referenced it after the signing. Doumit continued to be at the bottom of the list after joining the Twins. The Twins signed him to an extension.

 

It is clear that the Twins are either ignorant of the data or they believe it has little impact on the defense. While other organizations are playing poor hitting catchers that do well in framing pitches, the Twins continue to play Doumit.

 

Have they found a hidden value? Are the other organizations over estimating the impact of managing the strike zone by trading offense for defense at catcher?

 

Should the Twins have been using this data in making roster decisions? Should they stay status quo for 2014?

[diehardtwinsfan]

Well, first, it wasn't his best start of the year...that was against Boston, in Boston and DOUMIT was his catcher. His 2nd best start, against Seattle...again with Doumit.

 

Are we going to argue DOUMIT is a better catcher than Mauer and Butera?

 

Hmm... Doumit is the Diamond whisperer?

[diehardtwinsfan]

My 2 cents... Seems like certain teams (like the Yankees for instance) have always gotten the benefit of the call. I'd be curious if they are consistently up there in pitcher framing from year to year.

 

To me, these numbers say that the balls and strikes need to be automated. There shouldn't be that much disparity.. Period, and how a catcher frames the pitch should have nothing to do with whether it's a ball or strike.

[Guest USAFChief]

Should the Twins make roster decision based on this skill? Should they use this data to help assess the skill?

 

The data and study were available at the time they signed Ryan Doumit. Aaron Gleeman referenced it after the signing. Doumit continued to be at the bottom of the list after joining the Twins. The Twins signed him to an extension.

 

It is clear that the Twins are either ignorant of the data or they believe it has little impact on the defense. While other organizations are playing poor hitting catchers that do well in framing pitches, the Twins continue to play Doumit.

 

Have they found a hidden value? Are the other organizations over estimating the impact of managing the strike zone by trading offense for defense at catcher?

 

Should the Twins have been using this data in making roster decisions? Should they stay status quo for 2014?

Heck, I'll give this a shot:

 

no, maybe with more study, doubtful, probably if that's what they're actually doing, no, yes.

 

whew.

[jm3319]

 

BrooksBaseball.net: PITCHf/x Tool | Strikezone Maps

 

So to answer your question, yes, Dustin Pedroia is given the same zone as Big Papi, rightly or wrongly.

 

actually that's a bad example since Pedroia's RHH and Ortiz is a LHH, but you get the idea.

I'd say it's wrongly

From mlb.com: [h=5]Rule 2.00: The Strike Zone[/h]The STRIKE ZONE is that area over home plate the upper limit of which is a horizontal line at the midpoint between the top of the shoulders and the top of the uniform pants, and the lower level is a line at the hollow beneath the kneecap. The Strike Zone shall be determined from the batter's stance as the batter is prepared to swing at a pitched ball.

 

This tells me that their strike zone is flawed from the start. The way I interpret the mlb.com definition is that a 6 foot 5 player has a bigger zone than a 5 foot 8 guy. I know the simulated zone is a composite of "generally called strike zones" but they are still by definition different for each player.

 

My point that I'm trying to make and struggling to put into words is that the pitchf-x thing can be accurate down to 0.0001 mm for all I care. It's still portraying the pitch to a zone that is inconsistent and variable for every batter. So say the pitch catches the corner of the nice box on the screen and the ump calls it a ball. That doesn't necessarily mean he blew the call. It just might be that the pitch missed HIS strike zone for THAT batter, regardless of how the catcher presented it. I know that with a million samples this effect may get evened out, but the strike zone is BY DEFINITION a variable target. Again, my point is that NO ONE really knows what the ump's strike zone is for that batter, and I personally don't think an average rectangle can be used to base percentages or statistics off. I know the stat is in its preliminary stages and is not supposed to be taken as a tell-all stat yet, but I feel they somehow need to adjust their definition of the strike zone.

[Willihammer]

My point that I'm trying to make and struggling to put into words is that the pitchf-x thing can be accurate down to 0.0001 mm for all I care. It's still portraying the pitch to a zone that is inconsistent and variable for every batter. So say the pitch catches the corner of the nice box on the screen and the ump calls it a ball. That doesn't necessarily mean he blew the call. It just might be that the pitch missed HIS strike zone for THAT batter, regardless of how the catcher presented it. I know that with a million samples this effect may get evened out, but the strike zone is BY DEFINITION a variable target. Again, my point is that NO ONE really knows what the ump's strike zone is for that batter, and I personally don't think an average rectangle can be used to base percentages or statistics off. I know the stat is in its preliminary stages and is not supposed to be taken as a tell-all stat yet, but I feel they somehow need to adjust their definition of the strike zone.

Right but all of this is ironed out by the fact that players, teams and umpires travel around all the time.

 

Again this study in the OP, for the data running up to the week ending 7/26, is the cumulative of the 2013 season. 1.25 batters per inning, 3.8 pitches per PA, we're talking roughly 1125 batters and around 4275 pitches received by every team through the first 100 games. It doesn't long for the sample to get huge. That's why again, I'm having a hard time grasping why these concerns about individual player zones or random inaccuracies with the optics are a concern.

[Willihammer]

They specifically call out Mauer's effect being understated in the 5 year sample because he accounted for over 50% of the pitches thrown by those pitchers with Drew accounting for another 20%+. This was due to a organic pitching staff for the most part.

I don't follow. It sounds like Mauer was the constant, not the pitchers, necessarily.

 

You must not be watching the "spots" the catchers are setting up for on Deduno's fastballs this year. Someone made a nice gif of it, which is right down the middle because with his crazy fastball it will end up anywhere but the target.

 

This has become somewhat mythical I think. Mauer sets up in the middle of the plate because Deduno has poor command, yes, but not because his movement is unpredictable. He's not throwing knuckleballs.

 

This is ironically one of the things pitchf/x makes very clear. In addition to measuring where the ball crosses the plate, it also tells us the verticl and horizontal movement of pitches, even the axis of rotation and RPMs.

 

BrooksBaseball.net: PITCHf/x Tool

 

http://www.brooksbaseball.net/pfxVB/cache/movement.php-pitchSel=465679&game=gid_2013_08_02_houmlb_minmlb_1&batterX=&innings=yyyyyyyyy&sp_type=1&s_type=2.gif

 

The other thing is, if a guy is wild and constantly throwing out of the zone, and falling behind in counts, then if anything that could make a catcher appear to be a better framer. Because in 2-0 and 3-0 that's when umpires are more likely to call borderline strikes than any other counts. Likewise, a pitcher having good command wouldn't necessarily be given more borderline strikes, particularly if he's getting ahead 01 and 02 all the time.

[jay]

Heck, I'll give this a shot:

 

no, maybe with more study, doubtful, probably if that's what they're actually doing, no, yes.

 

whew.

 

Not trying to make this a personal attack at all, but I'm curious. You seem to have a good understanding of most advanced metrics, yet seem to argue against using them. I can agree that a common fallacy is jumping to conclusions, but this doesn't seem to jive. Are there any advanced metrics that you support or a context where they should be used?

[Mike Sixel]

I find it odd that when teh framing stuff came out before, people trumpeted how it showed how much better Mauer was than Doumit.....now that they are on the other side, the metric is not valid. Or maybe I'm remembering the converation wrong last year.....

[Guest USAFChief]

Not trying to make this a personal attack at all, but I'm curious. You seem to have a good understanding of most advanced metrics, yet seem to argue against using them. I can agree that a common fallacy is jumping to conclusions, but this doesn't seem to jive. Are there any advanced metrics that you support or a context where they should be used?

I try to do my research and form my own opinions. As a general rule, IMO many people jump on the latest trendy "advanced metric" and treat it as gospel before there is good reason to do so. An example would be defensive metrics, where a couple years ago many people where making outrageous claims based on nothing but "UZR says so." I don't recall the exact details, but I remember posters on BYTO--who generally are smart savvy baseball fans--making claims about the Twins saving 80ish runs simply by swapping out an OFer.

 

In any case, I'm skeptical about pitch framing. Maybe there's something to it, but I'm going to need to see more before I buy into it fully, or start to believe teams are actively shaping their rosters based on it.,

[drjim]

I try to do my research and form my own opinions. As a general rule, IMO many people jump on the latest trendy "advanced metric" and treat it as gospel before there is good reason to do so. An example would be defensive metrics, where a couple years ago many people where making outrageous claims based on nothing but "UZR says so." I don't recall the exact details, but I remember posters on BYTO--who generally are smart savvy baseball fans--making claims about the Twins saving 80ish runs simply by swapping out an OFer.

 

In any case, I'm skeptical about pitch framing. Maybe there's something to it, but I'm going to need to see more before I buy into it fully, or start to believe teams are actively shaping their rosters based on it.,

 

If I may piggyback on this. I also am skeptical of some of the newer metrics and how quickly that are accepted. This is especially true when they try to quantify the subjective rather than the objective.

 

I would use pitch f/x as a scouting enhancement but would hesitate to use it as an objective measurement tool.

 

And perhaps more to the relevant point, it was pretty clear Doumit was a mediocre (or worse) defender with or without this study.

[jorgenswest]

An article about pitch framing that include quotes from several teams.

 

Studying the art of pitch framing by catchers such as Francisco Cervelli, Chris Stewart, Jose Molina, and others - Grantland

 

Those teams may be on the wrong side of the debate, but they certainly are on the opposite side of the debate than the Twins.

 

By signing and extending Doumit, the Twins have shown that they are ignorant or discount its impact on runs scored. I hope it is the latter. I think they are the wrong side of the argument, but doing the research and taking a side is better than being ignorant.

 

They can't be in a wait and see position. You don't sign Doumit for three years if you think it is possible this skill has significant impact on runs.

[drjim]

There is a tradeoff though. Could they be consciously trading defense for offense? Especially since Doumit was also signed to DH. The roster construction due to Mauer causes some unique decisions relative to other teams.

[jay]

In any case, I'm skeptical about pitch framing. Maybe there's something to it, but I'm going to need to see more before I buy into it fully, or start to believe teams are actively shaping their rosters based on it.,

 

And that's fair. I don't exactly trust some of the attempts to quantify pitch framing so far. The numbers may be true, but the cause is not isolated at all. I think that same effect holds true for a few of the other metrics out there.

 

That said, plenty of advanced metrics hold all sorts of water. Framing holds some, but the debate is how much. I think my fear matches jorgenswest that the Twins are not finding ways to use this data contextually and thereby give other teams an advantage with additional evaluation methods.

[Mike Sixel]

How is Doumit as a DH? Fangraphs predicted he'd be the worst in the AL before the season started.....9th out of 11 qualifiers....taking out defense (for DH?) and baserunning, he's the worst hitter of the 11....

[jay]

How is Doumit as a DH? Fangraphs predicted he'd be the worst in the AL before the season started.....9th out of 11 qualifiers....taking out defense (for DH?) and baserunning, he's the worst hitter of the 11....

 

Yeah, he's not exactly good at anything. He does have a pretty sweet red beard though.

[drjim]

How is Doumit as a DH? Fangraphs predicted he'd be the worst in the AL before the season started.....9th out of 11 qualifiers....taking out defense (for DH?) and baserunning, he's the worst hitter of the 11....

 

What was the rank last year?

[ThePuck]

How is Doumit as a DH? Fangraphs predicted he'd be the worst in the AL before the season started.....9th out of 11 qualifiers....taking out defense (for DH?) and baserunning, he's the worst hitter of the 11....

 

Doumit and Willingham pretty much had career years last year. To assume either would repeat last year, or even one, was pretty unrealistic. These aren't young 20 year olds going into their prime.

[Willihammer]

I would use pitch f/x as a scouting enhancement but would hesitate to use it as an objective measurement tool.

 

Why?

 

edit: MLB has bought and paid for these services already. Presumably, if MLB is grading umpires against the readings, then they've tested the accuracy. Why on earth people shouldn't a team take the data and run with it?

[drjim]

Why?

 

edit: MLB has bought and paid for these services already. Presumably, if MLB is grading umpires against the readings, then they've tested the accuracy. Why on earth people shouldn't a team take the data and run with it?

 

I'm hesitant to quantify the subjective.

 

My understanding is mlb evaluations take into account the the close pitches as not being clear one way or the other.

[Willihammer]

I'm hesitant to quantify the subjective.

Eh? The rules are very clear about the strike zone. There's nothing subjective about it.

 

If people have qualms with the overlay that Mike Fast created, fine. But I see no reason not to trust the readings from pitchf/x.

[jay]

I would use pitch f/x as a scouting enhancement but would hesitate to use it as an objective measurement tool.

 

And perhaps more to the relevant point, it was pretty clear Doumit was a mediocre (or worse) defender with or without this study.

 

Why?

 

edit: MLB has bought and paid for these services already. Presumably, if MLB is grading umpires against the readings, then they've tested the accuracy. Why on earth people shouldn't a team take the data and run with it?

 

It's about as objective as anything can get. Understanding the measurements it takes and relating it to a strike zone becomes objective as well with sample size. A certain pitcher (or catcher) isn't going to face an overwhelming influence of midgets at the plate more than any other pitcher over time.

 

Given that the measurements from PitchFX are accurate, it's how we construe them that can lead to interpretation issues. However, this is a pretty clear example of a new tool that is supporting the scouting view -- Doumit is a terrible receiver. Trying to quantify the effects of that (metrics on framing) is different than demonstrating existance.

[Guest USAFChief]

An article about pitch framing that include quotes from several teams.

 

Studying the art of pitch framing by catchers such as Francisco Cervelli, Chris Stewart, Jose Molina, and others - Grantland

 

Those teams may be on the wrong side of the debate, but they certainly are on the opposite side of the debate than the Twins.

 

By signing and extending Doumit, the Twins have shown that they are ignorant or discount its impact on runs scored. I hope it is the latter. I think they are the wrong side of the argument, but doing the research and taking a side is better than being ignorant.

 

They can't be in a wait and see position. You don't sign Doumit for three years if you think it is possible this skill has significant impact on runs.

 

I agree 100% with hoping the Twins have done enough research to form an educated opinion on this and all research.

[Willihammer]

However, this is a pretty clear example of a new tool that is supporting the scouting view -- Doumit is a terrible receiver.

 

Well, what BP is saying with the data, is that Mauer might not be a lot better. Something I suspect most scouts would disagree with. Because they don't trust the technology, the overlay, the sample size, or whatever.

[drjim]

Well, what BP is saying with the data, is that Mauer might not be a lot better. Something I suspect most scouts would disagree with. Because they don't trust the technology, the overlay, the sample size, or whatever.

 

This is the crux of my skepticism. I support using any information to support scouting.

[AROG]

First of all, I am sorry if someone has already pointed this out, I have read (mainly skimmed) most of the posts so I think I am good.

 

Joe as well as AJ are tall catchers. Because they are so tall the lower strikes are not going to get called because their knees are higher, where as there chest is also higher making the top part of the zone more likely to be called. That has always been the case with tall catchers. Catchers like JP Arencebia and Molina have a very low crouch so they get the low call, but not the high one. That is why historically teams have always gone with smaller catchers but recently, the ability to hit has made it more difficult to decide if they will give up the possibly low strikes for someone to drive in runs.

 

Someone said that Doumit is catching Diamond better, here are the stats this year;

Doumit: 65.2 IP 11.1 H/9 5.76 ERA 1.6 HR/9 2.9 BB/9 3.7 K/9 and 1.29 K/BB

Mauer: 30.2 IP 12.6 H/9 5.28 ERA 0.9 HR/9 1.8 BB/9 5.0 K/9 and 2.83 K/BB

Clearly Mauer is doing better with Diamond then Doumit, I think someone said something about Buetera. First of all, he only caught one of Diamond's games this year, and second of all I don't think anyone disagrees that Buetera is a better defensive catcher then most players in the league, the problem is he can't hit.

 

Lastly, to go along with the Deduno point. The Twins pitchers are terrible. They are wild in the zone. They don't typically walk a lot of guys but they have missed there spot from one side of the plate to the other. Burt comments on this a lot during the broadcasts to Dick. Dick will complain because fox trax says it is a strike and Burt will say that when you miss your spot that bad the umpire generally wont give the call.

 

PS Arencebia gets to catch Behrle all the time, that has to help.