Game-Calling Revisited - Chris Dial (August 16, 2003)
This was an excellent study on catchers. For those who missed it the first time, a definite read.
--posted by TangoTiger at 11:04 PM EDT
Posted 11:23 a.m.,
August 17, 2003
(#1) -
RossCW
This study seems to depend on the discredited parts of Voros claims. Or am I missing something?
Posted 1:08 p.m.,
August 17, 2003
(#2) -
Tangotiger
No, it is based only on those parts that are mostly catcher-pitcher in relationship (or those things that are not dependent also on the fielders). I don't think Chris should even have brought DIPS into play, or any of that other stuff.
Posted 2:35 p.m.,
August 19, 2003
(#3) -
bunnygrunt
A theory: clubs exert so much time and energy training and instructing catchers in the defensive aspect of the game that at the major league level the difference between the catchers who have survived is indetectable (except for controlling the running game)
This is not the same as saying that catcher defense is not important. If an organization decided to spend less time and energy working with their minor league catchers on their defensive skills based on the finding that there is no detectable difference in the defensive ability of major league catchers that could conceivably lead to a case of detectable differences
Posted 6:47 p.m.,
August 19, 2003
(#4) -
OCF
Does anyone know of any examples of players who did little catching at in the minors and then converted to that position in the majors? There were plenty of examples in the other direction. I can also think of examples of big hitters with little speed who were pushed into the lineup at catcher as some place to put them. Cliff Johnson comes to mind - but was Johnson mostly a catcher on the way up? What I'm fishing for is some way to detect hints of what bunnygrunt is suggesting by looking for extreme players.
Posted 8:03 p.m.,
August 24, 2003
(#5) -
acerimusdux
My problem with most of the discussion on this subject is that there is far too little recognition of the substantial run value that could result from even a "relatively small" impact of catchers game calling relative to pitching and fielding.
For example, a full time starting catcher might be expected to catch 6 times as many innings as a typical starting pitcher throws (strictly a guess, for something I could have easily calculated).
Suppose for example, that the catching position is able to reduce it's team's RA by as much only 5%. That might be far less than the impact of pitchers or even defensive fielding on RA. But the pitching values will be split up between 5 or more starters, and a relieving corps, while the fielding values with be affected by all 9 positions. Game calling by contrast will normally be mostly done by a starting catcher and a primary backup, so only 2 players will share any credit for most value that exists there.
For a team with a typical RA of 4.62 per game, if they could reduce tha by about 5% to about 4.40, would save over 35 runs (.22*162) over a season.
Likewise, suppose a catching staff is able to reduce a teams BB rate by 10%. Say the team has a typical rate of 3.30 BB/9IP. Lets suppose that is reduced to 3.00 BB/9IP. This would prevent maybe 48 walks (.30*160). Lets suppose they are replaced by balls in play and outs according to a H$ of .280. That would mean an average of 13.44 more hits and 34.56 more outs. Using .35 for the value of the walks saved, .56 for the value of non HR hits, and .30 for the additional outs, the expected value of the runs saved is roughly:
(.35*48)+(.30*34.5)-(.56* 13.5)= 19.6 runs
If it is possible that there are even a few catchers in baseball that are capable of saving as many as 20-40 runs due to game calling ability, that would be extremely significant. And I've seen nothing yet that seems to preclude this possibility.
If game calling ability in fact has any significant defensive impact, when added to the other aspects of catcher defense we are already able to accounnt for, it well may be that the catchers position is the most important defensive position in baseball.
Which is why I aprecciate the fine work that is being done here on the subject so much, as it is getting us closer to being able to measure this. But we clearly haven't gone far enough yet to say anything conclusive about the value of game calling.
Posted 8:03 p.m.,
August 24, 2003
(#6) -
acerimusdux
My problem with most of the discussion on this subject is that there is far too little recognition of the substantial run value that could result from even a "relatively small" impact of catchers game calling relative to pitching and fielding.
For example, a full time starting catcher might be expected to catch 6 times as many innings as a typical starting pitcher throws (strictly a guess, for something I could have easily calculated).
Suppose for example, that the catching position is able to reduce it's team's RA by as much only 5%. That might be far less than the impact of pitchers or even defensive fielding on RA. But the pitching values will be split up between 5 or more starters, and a relieving corps, while the fielding values with be affected by all 9 positions. Game calling by contrast will normally be mostly done by a starting catcher and a primary backup, so only 2 players will share any credit for most value that exists there.
For a team with a typical RA of 4.62 per game, if they could reduce tha by about 5% to about 4.40, would save over 35 runs (.22*162) over a season.
Likewise, suppose a catching staff is able to reduce a teams BB rate by 10%. Say the team has a typical rate of 3.30 BB/9IP. Lets suppose that is reduced to 3.00 BB/9IP. This would prevent maybe 48 walks (.30*160). Lets suppose they are replaced by balls in play and outs according to a H$ of .280. That would mean an average of 13.44 more hits and 34.56 more outs. Using .35 for the value of the walks saved, .56 for the value of non HR hits, and .30 for the additional outs, the expected value of the runs saved is roughly:
(.35*48)+(.30*34.5)-(.56* 13.5)= 19.6 runs
If it is possible that there are even a few catchers in baseball that are capable of saving as many as 20-40 runs due to game calling ability, that would be extremely significant. And I've seen nothing yet that seems to preclude this possibility.
If game calling ability in fact has any significant defensive impact, when added to the other aspects of catcher defense we are already able to accounnt for, it well may be that the catchers position is the most important defensive position in baseball.
Which is why I aprecciate the fine work that is being done here on the subject so much, as it is getting us closer to being able to measure this. But we clearly haven't gone far enough yet to say anything conclusive about the value of game calling.