This article is why I believe CERA isn't a false stat

[nate]

http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2013/4/8/4196036/jose-molina-and-called-strikes

[The God of Runs]

Trout for Molina straight up.

[Blarg]

[Blarg]

2007 Playoffs vs Red Sox

 

Game 1 Napoli starting catcher, Angels lose 4-0

Game 2 Mathis starting catcher Angels tied 3-3 Naploi takes over as catcher Angels lose 6-3 bottom of 9th. 

Game 3 Napoli starting catcher Angels lose 9-1

 

For further information please see Rangers World Series 2011 involving 1 strike away.

 

Thus ends the Napoli vs Mathis debate.

[nate]

I just believe some catchers are much smarter about calling pitches that will keep the batter off balance or framing borderline pitches.  That has to have a big impact on pitcher performance. This article highlights that.

[jshep]

I don't think the studies into pitch framing validate CERA at all. If anything, it should hopefully push CERA further into irrelevance, because there are newer better ways of evaluating catcher's D.

 

CERA's problems remain the same, which is that it puts an awful lot that is out of the catcher's control on the catcher's shoulders.

[Taylor]

Jeff Mathis still sucks.

[Blarg]

I don't think the studies into pitch framing validate CERA at all. If anything, it should hopefully push CERA further into irrelevance, because there are newer better ways of evaluating catcher's D.

 

CERA's problems remain the same, which is that it puts an awful lot that is out of the catcher's control on the catcher's shoulders.

Ball and strike calls are not the catchers decision but how the umpire perceives where the ball crossed the plate can be. A good catcher that can frame the borderline pitch without the umpire seeing the mit movement is about all the influence a catcher can make. But that little difference can be enough to get an extra strike call or two an inning that then puts pressure on the batter to jump at borderline pitches making the Oswing zone greater for the pitcher. 

[gotbeer]

Part of the problem with CERA is that the quality of the pitchers caught plays a big part in the stat.  If someone caught Weaver 5 times and was a crappy catcher, and caught Blanton 5 times and was the best in the game, CERA will show the crappy catcher as the better one.  

 

While the theory behind CERA is a good one, it needs to evolve somehow.  Taking into account what the pitchers ERA is, and what his ERA is when Catcher X caught him.  Maybe a CERA differential?  Going into the game, pitcher had a 4.00 ERA.  In 6 innings he gave up 2 runs.   So for those 6 innings, he CERA differential is + 0.668, calculate for the relievers and so on.  Then again, maybe not, since if a catcher caught every inning of every game, he should get a differential of 0.0.  /shrug.

[Coachbulldog]

2007 Playoffs vs Red Sox

 

Game 1 Napoli starting catcher, Angels lose 4-0

Game 2 Mathis starting catcher Angels tied 3-3 Naploi takes over as catcher Angels lose 6-3 bottom of 9th. 

Game 3 Napoli starting catcher Angels lose 9-1

 

For further information please see Rangers World Series 2011 involving 1 strike away.

 

Thus ends the Napoli vs Mathis debate.

 

I hope your use of a four game sample size was an attempt to be sarcastic and you really don't believe it proves anything.

 

This was written in 2008, but here is a more detailed comparison between Mike Napoli and Jeff Mathis. 

 

2008 Los Angeles of Anaheim Catcher