A Realistic View at 2013: Part II

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2013: Part II

    The only way CERA should be used is to compare catchers from the same team against each other by looking pitcher by pitcher and comparing the numbers while noting large sample size differences and/or tiny sample sizes.

     fromLet's look pitcher by pitcher for the final 2012 (Inn) CERA (note: some tiny sample sizes): 

     with    all              Salty          Shopp        Lava

    Lester    4.82   (107) 5.62    (49) 3.70     (49) 4.01

    Buch     4.56      (76) 6.30    (78) 3.28     (36) 3.79

    Doub      4.86  (124) 4.95    (32) 4.18      (5) 7.20

    Beck      5.23    (58) 4.47    (58) 5.46     (11) 7.94

    Cook      5.65    (77) 5.28     (5) 3.60      (12) 8.76

    Aceves   5.36   (53) 4.92    (15) 4.11     (16) 8.04

    Morales  3.77   (52) 2.96    (22) 4.91      (3) 6.79

    Bard       6.22   (36) 5.05    (21) 5.91      (2) 27.00

    Atch       1.58   (37) 2.41        (9) 0.00      (4) 0.00

    Padilla    4.50   (26) 5.47    (20) 2.75      (4) 6.75

    Melan     6.20   (26) 9.35       (8) 2.35    (11) 1.59

    Dice-K    8.28  (27) 5.93      (5) 7.20     (13) 13.50

    Taz         1.43  (31) 1.40     (12) 1.50    (12) 1.50

    Albers    2.29   (22) 2.86   (17) 1.56

    Miller     3.35   (23) 3.91     (11) 3.97     (6) 0.00

    Mort      3.21   (29) 2.79       (7) 2.70     (6) 2.84

     

    Breaking it down:

    4- Salty way worse than the norm: Lester, Buchholtz, Padilla, Melancon

    3- Salty worse than the norm: Atchison, Miller, Albers

    1- Salty worse but close: Doubront

    1- Salty better but close: Tazawa

    4- Salty better than norm: Beckett, Cook, Aceves, Mortensen

    3- Salty way better than the norm: Morales, Bard, Dice-K

     

    Salty ended up better with 8 pitchers and worse with 8 pitchers.

    Better than I expected when the season began.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from pumpsie-green. Show pumpsie-green's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2013: Part II

    There is far too much scatter to accept CERA as a useful statistic for me Moon. In addition, many of the sample sizes appear small. This would take the evaluation of a qualified statistician to sort out, and in their absence, I rely on so called experts to advise me. This quote is from Wikipedia:

    Catcher's ERA or CERA in baseball statistics is the earned run average of the pitchers pitching when the catcher in question is catching. Its primary purpose is to measure a catcher's game-calling, rather than his effect on the opposing team's running game.[1] Craig Wright first described the concept of CERA in his 1989 book The Diamond Appraised.[2] With it, Wright developed a method of determining a catcher's effect on a team's pitching staff by comparing pitchers' performance when playing with different catchers.[2]

    However, Baseball Prospectus writer Keith Woolner found through statistical analysis of catcher performance that "catcher game-calling isn't a statistically significant skill".[2] Sabermetrician Bill James, too, performed research into CERA, finding that while it is possible that catchers may have a significant effect on a pitching staff, there is too much yearly variation in CERA for it to be a reliable indicator of ability.[1] James used simulations of catchers with assigned defensive values to directly compare CERAs, which influenced Woolner to perform similar simulations but instead using weighted events to calculate pitchers' runs per plate appearance.[1] Through this, Woolner concluded that even if catchers do have an effect on pitchers' abilities to prevent runs, it is undetectable and thus has no practical usage.[1] He also stated that "the hypothesis most consistent with the available facts appears to be that catchers do not have a significant effect on pitcher performance".[1

     

    Note the part about Bill James, father of baseball stats, who also felt that CERA as currently constructed is not a useful objective way to measure how good a catcher is at preventing runs. Keith Woolner also came to this conclusion. I choose to believe these two statisticians rather than anyone here. No offense Moon, but these two are published experts. When I do not know the answer to something I find the most qualified advice I can find. I think these two guys fit the bill.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from pumpsie-green. Show pumpsie-green's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2013: Part II

    Here is another article by Woolner, apparently a statistician:

    http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=432

    And here is one of the conclusions for a rather long and complicated article:

    Though we would colloquially say that game-calling doesn’t exist, it’s more accurate to say that if there is a true game-calling ability, it lies below the threshold of detection. There is no statistical evidence for a large game-calling ability, but that doesn’t preclude that a small ability. For example, a genuine game-calling ability that reduces a pitcher’sERA by 0.01, resulting in a savings of about 1.6 runs per year for the entire team and could be masked by the statistical variance in the sample size we have to work with. Players would need to play thousands more games than they actually do to have enough data to successfully detect such a skill statistically.

    Note the underlined part. Apparently the sample sizes are just too small to be able to draw any conclusions about CERA. I do not pretend to know the stats behind his conclusion in detail, but I would just call him an "expert" in the area, unlike any of us.

     
  4. This post has been removed.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from emp9. Show emp9's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2013: Part II

    So publish something Moon, to get that " Expert" tag. ;)

    Meanwhile, the yardstick definition of becoming an "Expert" is anyone who puts in 10,000 hours on any given subject. 

     

    (Just something to think about)

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2013: Part II

    moon, I think it would be good to start a new CERA thread.  Especially now that Pumpsie is involved.  This discussion could go on awhile. :-)

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from RedSoxKimmi. Show RedSoxKimmi's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2013: Part II

    Pumpsie, as far as I can tell, all of the articles/studies you are quoting are fairly old.

    In 2008, Pitch f/x was introduced, and that revolutionalized what these stat geeks could do in terms of studying a catcher's effect on a pitcher.

    Since 2008, studies by Dan Turkenkopf, Sean Smith, and Mike Fast have all concluded that catchers do in fact have a significant impact on pitchers.

    CERA still may not be the best way to measure a catcher's impact due to its limitations in sample size, but a catcher's impact on a pitcher is very real. It has just been difficult to quantify in earlier years due to lack of technology.

    Bill James, to my knowledge, has never said that the catcher's impact on a pitcher does not exist, just that they have been unable to accurately measure it until recently. In fact, I read somewhere that he said that the scouts, not the numbers, were right on this one.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from pumpsie-green. Show pumpsie-green's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2013: Part II

    In response to RedSoxKimmi's comment:

    Pumpsie, as far as I can tell, all of the articles/studies you are quoting are fairly old.

    In 2008, Pitch f/x was introduced, and that revolutionalized what these stat geeks could do in terms of studying a catcher's effect on a pitcher.

    Since 2008, studies by Dan Turkenkopf, Sean Smith, and Mike Fast have all concluded that catchers do in fact have a significant impact on pitchers.

    CERA still may not be the best way to measure a catcher's impact due to its limitations in sample size, but a catcher's impact on a pitcher is very real. It has just been difficult to quantify in earlier years due to lack of technology.

    Bill James, to my knowledge, has never said that the catcher's impact on a pitcher does not exist, just that they have been unable to accurately measure it until recently. In fact, I read somewhere that he said that the scouts, not the numbers, were right on this one.




    Exactly. I am not saying that catchers have no impact on pitchers, just that the impact cannot be accurately measured using CERA and that the impact is possibly overrated. Its very difficult to come up with a statistically significant way to measure the impact of catchers on pitchers from what I can read about it.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from RedsoxProspects. Show RedsoxProspects's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2013: Part II

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

    Here is another article by Woolner, apparently a statistician:

    http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=432

    And here is one of the conclusions for a rather long and complicated article:

    Though we would colloquially say that game-calling doesn’t exist, it’s more accurate to say that if there is a true game-calling ability, it lies below the threshold of detection. There is no statistical evidence for a large game-calling ability, but that doesn’t preclude that a small ability. For example, a genuine game-calling ability that reduces a pitcher’sERA by 0.01, resulting in a savings of about 1.6 runs per year for the entire team and could be masked by the statistical variance in the sample size we have to work with. Players would need to play thousands more games than they actually do to have enough data to successfully detect such a skill statistically.

    Note the underlined part. Apparently the sample sizes are just too small to be able to draw any conclusions about CERA. I do not pretend to know the stats behind his conclusion in detail, but I would just call him an "expert" in the area, unlike any of us.



    Uh, I basically said the same thing just yesterday I think. The sample size is to small to be statistically predictable, i.e. statistically relevant.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from RedsoxProspects. Show RedsoxProspects's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2013: Part II

    In response to RedSoxKimmi's comment:

    Pumpsie, as far as I can tell, all of the articles/studies you are quoting are fairly old.

    In 2008, Pitch f/x was introduced, and that revolutionalized what these stat geeks could do in terms of studying a catcher's effect on a pitcher.

    Since 2008, studies by Dan Turkenkopf, Sean Smith, and Mike Fast have all concluded that catchers do in fact have a significant impact on pitchers.

    CERA still may not be the best way to measure a catcher's impact due to its limitations in sample size, but a catcher's impact on a pitcher is very real. It has just been difficult to quantify in earlier years due to lack of technology.

    Bill James, to my knowledge, has never said that the catcher's impact on a pitcher does not exist, just that they have been unable to accurately measure it until recently. In fact, I read somewhere that he said that the scouts, not the numbers, were right on this one.



    I think the general consensus is that CERA differences are probably real but are overated in their significance and difficult to prove from a mathmatical standpoint given current sample sizes and the large degree of variability in the available data. 

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from RedsoxProspects. Show RedsoxProspects's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2013: Part II

    It's like we can't know that JBJ is ready from his spring training numbers but he sure looks ready in our perception from that small sample size. Sometimes perceptions are right but we can't PROVE them mathmatically from the available data.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2013: Part II

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

    Here is another article by Woolner, apparently a statistician:

    http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=432

    And here is one of the conclusions for a rather long and complicated article:

    Though we would colloquially say that game-calling doesn’t exist, it’s more accurate to say that if there is a true game-calling ability, it lies below the threshold of detection. There is no statistical evidence for a large game-calling ability, but that doesn’t preclude that a small ability. For example, a genuine game-calling ability that reduces a pitcher’sERA by 0.01, resulting in a savings of about 1.6 runs per year for the entire team and could be masked by the statistical variance in the sample size we have to work with. Players would need to play thousands more games than they actually do to have enough data to successfully detect such a skill statistically.

    Note the underlined part. Apparently the sample sizes are just too small to be able to draw any conclusions about CERA. I do not pretend to know the stats behind his conclusion in detail, but I would just call him an "expert" in the area, unlike any of us.



    But when 750-800  of the small sample sizes out of a 1,000 all point in the same direction, you have to think it's not a fluke.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from RedSoxKimmi. Show RedSoxKimmi's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2013: Part II

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

    Exactly. I am not saying that catchers have no impact on pitchers, just that the impact cannot be accurately measured using CERA and that the impact is possibly overrated. Its very difficult to come up with a statistically significant way to measure the impact of catchers on pitchers from what I can read about it.




    CERA can be used to accurately measure the impact that catchers have on pitchers if it is used correctly.  It's not a stat that should be disregarded just because of its limited use.

    With the advent of Pitch f/x in 2008, statisticians have made great strides towards  more accurately measuring the impact of catchers on pitchers in three categories - blocking pitches, pitch framing, and pitch calling.  From my understanding, they have a pretty good understanding of how blocking pitches and pitch framing impacts pitchers.

    The one area that they still have not been able to fully quantify is in pitch calling, although strides have been made in that category as well.

    Here is a link to a great article about Varitek, and his value to a pitching staff.  You should also click on and read the articles that are linked in this Varitek article.  Very informative.

    http://www.overthemonster.com/2012/2/29/2830655/jason-varitek-advanced-catcher-defense

     

    Since when did you become a Bill James fan, anyway?

     

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2013: Part II

    Note the part about Bill James, father of baseball stats, who also felt that CERA as currently constructed is not a useful objective way to measure how good a catcher is at preventing runs. Keith Woolner also came to this conclusion. I choose to believe these two statisticians rather than anyone here. No offense Moon, but these two are published experts. When I do not know the answer to something I find the most qualified advice I can find. I think these two guys fit the bill.

    No offense taken, but these statisticians are responding to the useage of CERA to compare catchers on different teams, with different staffs, different parks, different defenses behind them, and more.  They are right: the stat is near useless when used that way, but when properly used, it can have a limited use that can be very telling or can detect trends to the good or bad.

    If it were just a coin flip, one would expect to see even small sample sizes even out over a long period of time and using hundreds of small individual pitcher sample sizes with 2 catchers from the same team over several years, it does not come out that way. There are clear differentials between the two catchers when looking at each pitcher year by year. The numbers are skewed when you look at overall career numbers, since one catcher might have caught a certain pitcher at a different point in his career. 

    When you look at a pitching staff one by one and find that over 75% of them do better with one catcher than the other, and then the same thing happens the next year, and the next year, and the next... It can not be a fluke. Just because nobody can pinpoint the exact reason it happens, does not make it go away.

    Catchers make a huge difference in the performance of a pitcher- just ask them. There is plenty of anecdotal evidence to prove that some pitchers prefer one catcher over another, and some even get demanding about it. The record of VTek vs various back-ups and then VMart and Salty is undeniable. The record of Mathis vs Napoli is undeniable. Combining all the small sample sizes one by one and determining how many pitchers do better with one over the other shows a clear disparity when one of the catchers is known to be a good defensive catcher/game caller/pitcher handler/ pitch framer... 

    Just because it can not easily be quantified, even by the best statisticians, does not mean the numbers must be discounted or ignored.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2013: Part II

    I think the general consensus is that CERA differences are probably real but are overated in their significance and difficult to prove from a mathmatical standpoint given current sample sizes and the large degree of variability in the available data. 

    How are they "over-rated" when only a few people believe in it?

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2013: Part II

    In response to RedSoxKimmi's comment:

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

     

    Exactly. I am not saying that catchers have no impact on pitchers, just that the impact cannot be accurately measured using CERA and that the impact is possibly overrated. Its very difficult to come up with a statistically significant way to measure the impact of catchers on pitchers from what I can read about it.

     




    CERA can be used to accurately measure the impact that catchers have on pitchers if it is used correctly.  It's not a stat that should be disregarded just because of its limited use.

     

    With the advent of Pitch f/x in 2008, statisticians have made great strides towards  more accurately measuring the impact of catchers on pitchers in three categories - blocking pitches, pitch framing, and pitch calling.  From my understanding, they have a pretty good understanding of how blocking pitches and pitch framing impacts pitchers.

    The one area that they still have not been able to fully quantify is in pitch calling, although strides have been made in that category as well.

    Here is a link to a great article about Varitek, and his value to a pitching staff.  You should also click on and read the articles that are linked in this Varitek article.  Very informative.

    http://www.overthemonster.com/2012/2/29/2830655/jason-varitek-advanced-catcher-defense

     

    Since when did you become a Bill James fan, anyway?

     



    Interesting read Kimmi. Thanks.

    We may never know why some pitchers continously did better with Vtek or some other catcher. Maybe some of it was just psychological or feeling in a comfort zone. Quite frankly, I don't really care what the reason is/was, except to quench my curiosity, what I really care about is that we have a catcher on our team who can help get the most out of our shaky staff. I like the Ross signing and have seen improvement in Salty in this area, so we will see. I expect 60-70% of our pitchers will have better CERA and OPS against with Ross, but I also expect them to do better with Salty this year than last year.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from pumpsie-green. Show pumpsie-green's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2013: Part II

    In response to RedSoxKimmi's comment:

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

     

    Exactly. I am not saying that catchers have no impact on pitchers, just that the impact cannot be accurately measured using CERA and that the impact is possibly overrated. Its very difficult to come up with a statistically significant way to measure the impact of catchers on pitchers from what I can read about it.

     




    CERA can be used to accurately measure the impact that catchers have on pitchers if it is used correctly.  It's not a stat that should be disregarded just because of its limited use.

     

    With the advent of Pitch f/x in 2008, statisticians have made great strides towards  more accurately measuring the impact of catchers on pitchers in three categories - blocking pitches, pitch framing, and pitch calling.  From my understanding, they have a pretty good understanding of how blocking pitches and pitch framing impacts pitchers.

    The one area that they still have not been able to fully quantify is in pitch calling, although strides have been made in that category as well.

    Here is a link to a great article about Varitek, and his value to a pitching staff.  You should also click on and read the articles that are linked in this Varitek article.  Very informative.

    http://www.overthemonster.com/2012/2/29/2830655/jason-varitek-advanced-catcher-defense

     

    Since when did you become a Bill James fan, anyway?

     




    Thanks for the link. I will check it out later. I believe some of the things James has to offer are valuable; I never said otherwise.

     
  18. This post has been removed.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2013: Part II

    Ask Daniel Bard if he'd like VTek back as his catcher.

    2009

    w VTek 2.97 (30 inn)

    w Kott 4.15 in 9 inn

    w Mart 6.43 in 7 Inn

     

    2010

    w VTek  o.48 in 19

    w VMart 2.64 in 44

     

    2011

    w VTek  1.44 in 31

    w Salty  4.54 in 40

     

    2012 (starter)

    w Salty  5.05 in 36

    w Shop  5.91 in 21

     

    Ask Lester

    2008: Vtek 3.06/ Cash  4.74

    2009: Vtek 3.92/ VMart 1.62 (joined team after Lester regained form)

    2010: Vtek 1.88/ VMart 3.64

    2011: Vtek 2.48/ Salty  3.77

    2012: Shop 3.70/ Salty 5.62

     

    Ask Beckett

    Better every year with Vtek except his short season of 2010

     

    Ask Dice-K

    Way way way better every year with VTek, except his short season of 2009 when VMart's sample size was only 7 innings.

     

    Buchholz is the only guy who struggled more with VTek than others. His career numbers show:

    5.12 w VTek in 118 IP

    4.99 w Salty in 141 IP

    3.79 w Lava in 36 IP

    3.23 w Shopp in 78 IP

    2.83 w VMart in 241 IP

    It's hard to tell if 2008 was just a bad year or if VTek catching him made any difference, but that year skewed the numbers badly for VTek. He did very poorly with Cash that year too. If you go year by year, he doesn't look as bad with VTek as the career numbers show (an example of how CERA used incorrectly can be misleading).

    2008: Vtek  6.88/ Cash 5.79

    2009: VTek 3.72 in 10 IP/ VMart 4.34 in 77 IP

    2010: VTek 2.25 in 4 IP/ VMart  2.13 in 165 IP/ D Brown 11.25 in 4 IP

    2011: VTek 3.38 in 19 IP/ VMart 3.52 in 64 IP

    Even the pitcher who did worse with VTek than others still did better with him in 2 of 4 seasons.

     

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2013: Part II

    Thanks for the link. I will check it out later. I believe some of the things James has to offer are valuable; I never said otherwise.

    Yes, the ones that agree with you are valuable, right?

    LOL

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from pumpsie-green. Show pumpsie-green's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2013: Part II

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    Ask Daniel Bard if he'd like VTek back as his catcher.

    2009

    w VTek 2.97 (30 inn)

    w Kott 4.15 in 9 inn

    w Mart 6.43 in 7 Inn

     

    2010

    w VTek  o.48 in 19

    w VMart 2.64 in 44

     

    2011

    w VTek  1.44 in 31

    w Salty  4.54 in 40

     

    2012 (starter)

    w Salty  5.05 in 36

    w Shop  5.91 in 21

     

    Ask Lester

    2008: Vtek 3.06/ Cash  4.74

    2009: Vtek 3.92/ VMart 1.62 (joined team after Lester regained form)

    2010: Vtek 1.88/ VMart 3.64

    2011: Vtek 2.48/ Salty  3.77

    2012: Shop 3.70/ Salty 5.62

     

    Ask Beckett

    Better every year with Vtek except his short season of 2010

     

    Ask Dice-K

    Way way way better every year with VTek, except his short season of 2009 when VMart's sample size was only 7 innings.

     

    Buchholz is the only guy who struggled more with VTek than others. His career numbers show:

    5.12 w VTek in 118 IP

    4.99 w Salty in 141 IP

    3.79 w Lava in 36 IP

    3.23 w Shopp in 78 IP

    2.83 w VMart in 241 IP

    It's hard to tell if 2008 was just a bad year or if VTek catching him made any difference, but that year skewed the numbers badly for VTek. He did very poorly with Cash that year too. If you go year by year, he doesn't look as bad with VTek as the career numbers show (an example of how CERA used incorrectly can be misleading).

    2008: Vtek  6.88/ Cash 5.79

    2009: VTek 3.72 in 10 IP/ VMart 4.34 in 77 IP

    2010: VTek 2.25 in 4 IP/ VMart  2.13 in 165 IP/ D Brown 11.25 in 4 IP

    2011: VTek 3.38 in 19 IP/ VMart 3.52 in 64 IP

    Even the pitcher who did worse with VTek than others still did better with him in 2 of 4 seasons.

     



    Which of these are statistically significant and what is the probability that they are real and not by chance? Are you a statistician? I at least admitted that I am not. When there is something I do not know I go to who I think are the most believable sources I can to get the answer. With all due respect, why would I believe you instead of Bill James?

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from pumpsie-green. Show pumpsie-green's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2013: Part II

    In response to RedSoxKimmi's comment:

     

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

     

    Exactly. I am not saying that catchers have no impact on pitchers, just that the impact cannot be accurately measured using CERA and that the impact is possibly overrated. Its very difficult to come up with a statistically significant way to measure the impact of catchers on pitchers from what I can read about it.

     




    CERA can be used to accurately measure the impact that catchers have on pitchers if it is used correctly.  It's not a stat that should be disregarded just because of its limited use.

     

    With the advent of Pitch f/x in 2008, statisticians have made great strides towards  more accurately measuring the impact of catchers on pitchers in three categories - blocking pitches, pitch framing, and pitch calling.  From my understanding, they have a pretty good understanding of how blocking pitches and pitch framing impacts pitchers.

    The one area that they still have not been able to fully quantify is in pitch calling, although strides have been made in that category as well.

    Here is a link to a great article about Varitek, and his value to a pitching staff.  You should also click on and read the articles that are linked in this Varitek article.  Very informative.

    http://www.overthemonster.com/2012/2/29/2830655/jason-varitek-advanced-catcher-defense

     

    Since when did you become a Bill James fan, anyway?

     

     




     

    Here is one good quote from the article. It says what I have been saying all along: that there is no current methodology to measure how good a game a catch calls and that this represents a significant portion of his CERA. Not all of it, I realize, since you can measure how many pitches a catcher pulls back into the strike zone and how many balls he blocks from becoming passed balls and how many base stealers he throws out (though this data set is frequently due to the pitcher and not the catcher). There are some other links that I looked at that are very complicated but failed to convince me that you can measure the ability of any catcher to call a good game and hence reduces the value of CERA as a valuable measure for catchers. If you only have an understanding of 50% of someone's performance, as the article you cited implies, how can you really claim you understand the performance of a player? It would be like evaluating you on your job taking into account only 50% of what you do. Is it totally useless? No. But pretty close to it. I would have hated to have my raises determined by an evaluation of half of what I did if it was the bad half.

    Here is the relevant take home message IMO:

    We've made great strides with the last few years of PitchFX data and now have a basic understanding of the effects of pitch blocking and framing. Measuring game calling is probably the last big unknown, at least when it comes to the game on the field. To me, game calling will be the biggest single aspect of catcher defense, and also the hardest to isolate. Without it, we're probably 50-60% of the way to understanding.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from jidgef. Show jidgef's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2013: Part II

    Today's report from the fort...

    Whenever I hear the name Marco Duarte I will immediately remember how he cost me watching my first major league perfect game in person. Lester (18 straight outs), Carter and Hanrahan (3 more straight outs each) and then Duarte, ugh. It's the first time this season we actually stayed for the entire game and we only stayed that long because the "perfect" game was in play, but it was Duarted. Lester was obviously fabulous, and just to fuel the CERA debate, it was Ross who was catching him. Carter and Hanrahan looked equally good; throwing strikes and working quickly can be contagious!

    We would not have been even considering the perfect game if not for the wizardry of Iglesias who prevented two hits, one by going up the middle to pick a grounder headed for center and the other by backhanding a liner off the bat of Longoria in the third base hole. He was 0 for 3, being thrown out on a good bunt attempt by a great play by Longoria, something about turnabout is fair play?? He lined to left in another at bat, but left two guys on with his only bad at bat in the middle innings.

    Gomes and the poor outfield defense of the Rays was our offense. Middlebrooks, Napoli and Overbay all hit the ball hard. Victorino returned and got a hit, but it was simply a well-placed fifteen hopper up the middle. Ellsbury has perfected the routine 4-3 putout and is not working counts at all. With Ross catching and Salty DHing, we could have been looking at the opening day lineup, especially if Drew and Papi both start the season on the DL. 

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2013: Part II

    In response to jidgef's comment:

    Today's report from the fort...

    Whenever I hear the name Marco Duarte I will immediately remember how he cost me watching my first major league perfect game in person. Lester (18 straight outs), Carter and Hanrahan (3 more straight outs each) and then Duarte, ugh. It's the first time this season we actually stayed for the entire game and we only stayed that long because the "perfect" game was in play, but it was Duarted. Lester was obviously fabulous, and just to fuel the CERA debate, it was Ross who was catching him. Carter and Hanrahan looked equally good; throwing strikes and working quickly can be contagious!

    We would not have been even considering the perfect game if not for the wizardry of Iglesias who prevented two hits, one by going up the middle to pick a grounder headed for center and the other by backhanding a liner off the bat of Longoria in the third base hole. He was 0 for 3, being thrown out on a good bunt attempt by a great play by Longoria, something about turnabout is fair play?? He lined to left in another at bat, but left two guys on with his only bad at bat in the middle innings.

    Gomes and the poor outfield defense of the Rays was our offense. Middlebrooks, Napoli and Overbay all hit the ball hard. Victorino returned and got a hit, but it was simply a well-placed fifteen hopper up the middle. Ellsbury has perfected the routine 4-3 putout and is not working counts at all. With Ross catching and Salty DHing, we could have been looking at the opening day lineup, especially if Drew and Papi both start the season on the DL. 



    Thanks again, Jid. It's getting to the point where the ST sampe sizes are getting big enough to feel some optimisim over our starters. Lester is the big guy this year. There's no debate now between him and Beckett. It's all Jon now. 

    Have you seen any radr gun reporst on his fastball? I'm concerned over his loss of velocity over the last year or two.

     

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from jidgef. Show jidgef's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2013: Part II

    Moon today his fastball was sitting at 93-94, his cutter at 88-90, and his breaking pitches at 80-82. That's if you can believe the board at Jet Blue. But his location was outstanding, only going to 3 balls on two hitters out of eighteen. For some perspective, Hanrahan was 96 on the fb and 84 on the slider. Cobb topped out at 90 and his off-speed stuff was around 78-80.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share