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.

In response to jidgef's comment:

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.

Lester did look good. All his pitches were being located well. He is a notoriously slow starter from what I can remember and this year, if there is any hope at all for the playoffs, the team has to start well, unlike the last couple of years.

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.

In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

In response to jidgef's comment:

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.

Lester did look good. All his pitches were being located well. He is a notoriously slow starter from what I can remember and this year, if there is any hope at all for the playoffs, the team has to start well, unlike the last couple of years.

Jon Lester's career ERA by month: April 4.10, May 4.11, June 2.78. July 3.83, Auguest 4.14, September 3.72, Overall: 3.76

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.

In response to jidgef's comment:

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.

Maybe I shouldn't worry so much about Lester's loss of velocity. The guy can pitch. He was one guy I really had some doubts over this winter. I'm feeling better about him now. Now, if Buch can keep his back in check, Lackey return to form, Dempster and Doubront keep us in the games, maybe just maybe...

I can't bring myself to say it!

LOL!

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?

Look at Yadier Molina and his overall numbers, CERA and otherwize. Could it just be that he is the best overall defensive catcher in the game or is St. Louis mainly blessed with the best pitching coach in the game, best development staff in the game...etc? 

Compare Yadier with the other StL catcher and find out.

In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

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.

As with any other stat, you can't get a complete picture of a player's performance by just looking at the one stat. CERA is no different.   That doesn't mean it should be disregarded.  If used in the right context, along with other stats and the results of these studies, you can get a very good idea of a catcher's impact on a pitcher. 

The fact that the stat geeks are 50-60% of the way to understanding doesn't mean that what they have quantified isn't accurate.   It will be refined and tweaked, but the overall picture will likely remain the same.  I've read the same thing about defensive assessments in general, that the saber geeks are about 60% of the way to completely understanding defensive contributions. 

This hasn't stopped them from using said stats in their assessments of players.  It also hasn't stopped just about every MLB team from employing these very same saber guys to interpret these very same stats to make assessments for them.

FWIW, I have also read that the saber community is only about 80% (IIRC) of the way to completely understanding the offensive contributions of players.  Again, it doesn't mean that the stats they have are inaccurate or that they have should be disregarded.

In response to moonslav59's comment:

Look at Yadier Molina and his overall numbers, CERA and otherwize. Could it just be that he is the best overall defensive catcher in the game or is St. Louis mainly blessed with the best pitching coach in the game, best development staff in the game...etc? 

Compare Yadier with the other StL catcher and find out.

Statistically a very small sample size considering the number of variables involved. Time of the year, injuries, opponents...etc....right down to daily lineups. There are a ton of variables in this sort of eval.

In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

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.

As with any other stat, you can't get a complete picture of a player's performance by just looking at the one stat. CERA is no different.   That doesn't mean it should be disregarded.  If used in the right context, along with other stats and the results of these studies, you can get a very good idea of a catcher's impact on a pitcher. 

The fact that the stat geeks are 50-60% of the way to understanding doesn't mean that what they have quantified isn't accurate.   It will be refined and tweaked, but the overall picture will likely remain the same.  I've read the same thing about defensive assessments in general, that the saber geeks are about 60% of the way to completely understanding defensive contributions. 

This hasn't stopped them from using said stats in their assessments of players.  It also hasn't stopped just about every MLB team from employing these very same saber guys to interpret these very same stats to make assessments for them.

FWIW, I have also read that the saber community is only about 80% (IIRC) of the way to completely understanding the offensive contributions of players.  Again, it doesn't mean that the stats they have are inaccurate or that they have should be disregarded.

Teams win with good game callers. They can win much more, even if the other catcher is a way better hitter. Just because it can not be quantified with specific data, does not mean the catcher behind the plate doesn't have a large influence on how ell the pitcher does and hence how well the team does.

I agree. Some catchers, no doubt, call better games than others. I also agree that right now that ability cannot be quantified. You have produced a lot of data and facts about catchers and pitchers matching up. Again I ask you: are you a statistician? Do you know for a fact that what you have cited is statistically significant? Its interesting, for sure, but I do not know that it means much scientifically speaking. Can we call it "circumstancial evidence" for your case?

In response to jidgef's comment:

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.

Maybe I shouldn't worry so much about Lester's loss of velocity. The guy can pitch. He was one guy I really had some doubts over this winter. I'm feeling better about him now. Now, if Buch can keep his back in check, Lackey return to form, Dempster and Doubront keep us in the games, maybe just maybe...

I can't bring myself to say it!

LOL!

In response to RedSoxKimmi's comment:

In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

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.

As with any other stat, you can't get a complete picture of a player's performance by just looking at the one stat. CERA is no different.   That doesn't mean it should be disregarded.  If used in the right context, along with other stats and the results of these studies, you can get a very good idea of a catcher's impact on a pitcher. 

The fact that the stat geeks are 50-60% of the way to understanding doesn't mean that what they have quantified isn't accurate.   It will be refined and tweaked, but the overall picture will likely remain the same.  I've read the same thing about defensive assessments in general, that the saber geeks are about 60% of the way to completely understanding defensive contributions. 

This hasn't stopped them from using said stats in their assessments of players.  It also hasn't stopped just about every MLB team from employing these very same saber guys to interpret these very same stats to make assessments for them.

FWIW, I have also read that the saber community is only about 80% (IIRC) of the way to completely understanding the offensive contributions of players.  Again, it doesn't mean that the stats they have are inaccurate or that they have should be disregarded.

Well put, and I am pretty sure that smart management teams are not waiting for the proper expalnation as to why most pitchers do better with one catcher over another. If they do, they realize it and begin to make moves to maximize those gains.

The Angels clearly value the CERA related are of a catcher's game. They started Mathis over the much better hitter, Napoli more often than not. The team record when Mathis started was way better than when Napoli caught, even though mathis was one of the worst hitters in MLB during his tears with the Angels, and Napoli was one of the best hitting catchers of that time. (Another point in the argument of defense over offense at certain important positions.)

I know wins and losses are team stats, and crediting or blaming a win or loss on a catcher is heading into very speculative areas, but take a look at these numbers when Jeff Mathis was the Angel catcher vs when he was not:

  w/Mathis  w/others  (Mathis OPS/Team catcher OPS incl Mathis)

2007  34-18    60-50  (.627/.672)

2008  58-32    42-30  (.593/.755) Napoli .971

2009  46-32    51-33  (.569/.725) Napoli .817

2010  29-33    51- 49  (.497/.667) Naps .801

2011  45-34    41-42  (.484/.555) Conger .656/Wilson .546

Look at the massive offensive disparity between Mathis and Napoli, and yet the team won more with Mathis. Can't say why, so let's ignore the numbers right?

The wins and losses are even more astounding between VTek and the other Sox catchers over the years, even the years where VTek was the worse offensive catcher:

These are the numbers after VTek's offense went south.

      w/VTek  w/others (VTek's OPS/Team catcher OPS including VTek's)

2008  73-47    22-20   (.672/.650) Cash .620

2009  61-45    34-22  (.703/.750)  VMart .907

2010  18-9      71-64  (.766/.793)  VMart .884

2011  42-22    48-50  (.723/.737) Salty .741/Lava .833

Total  194-126  175-156

Now you can see why I value catcher defense and CERA-related areas of a catcher's game. I have also done studies on opponent's OPS with each catcher- very similar results as CERA. 

Even if you take away Beckett's 20-10 team record in his starts in 2011 from VTek, the team still went 22-12 when Vtek was the catcher. This is much better than 48-50 with other catchers with pitchers not named Beckett.

I know this will upset some Yankee fans, but Posada's CERA numbers were usually worse than his back-up, and sure enough, even though he outhit his back-up by a ton, his winning percentage was lower than his back-ups'. I don't have the numbers, but harness did the legwork, and I trust his data like I trust my own above.

Teams win with good game callers. They can win much more, even if the other catcher is a way better hitter. Just because it can not be quantified with specific data, does not mean the catcher behind the plate doesn't have a large influence on how ell the pitcher does and hence how well the team does.

Just asking...

Does Iggy start the season...and just never come out? 

Did Farrell and Nieves believe they could resurrect this staff--and thus no off season     persuit of starters?

Does JBJ start the season...and just never come out?

When do we start feeling about Papi the way we felt about Lowell in his last year or Catfish Hunter the last year he pitched?

Since we now have Aceves skill set well covered, is there any reason to want him to stay on the team?

Is it just me or does anyone else feel like they just wandered into a math class?

VTek had a poor throwing record, one of the most over-used defensive catcher stat know to baseball, and yet teams scored less when he was the catcher. It didn't matter who was pitching, the results were nearly all the same. year after year after year. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to accept that Vtek was influencing the results, even if in some unkown way. I don't need to know the exact reason of the influence: it could be voodoo for all I care, but to me the facts are undeniable. VTek made a huge difference to the pitchers he caught, and they will all tell you the same thing. That's enough for me.

You know what: it looks the same way to me. I just don't know how to measure his effect objectively and put a number on it. Thats what I am saying. You can look at your data and watch him play, but you still cannot accurately put a number on his performance and compare it in a meaningful way to any other catcher by using CERA. CERA is simply not objective enough for me....or for Bill James.

It's as simple as this...Tek's pitchers TRUSTED him to always call the right pitch in the right spot. If a pitcher and catcher believe in each other, better pitches are executed. One of the strongest pieces of evidence of this was when Schilling lost his no-no on the last out of the game after he shook Tek off.