Oz27

3 minutes ago, hangin n wangin said:

Here's the thing though. Pujols annoys me. Darvish doesn't. How many millions per win does that add to his total?

Damn, I was really hoping the next post would be something about RBIs.

8 hours ago, Dochalo said:

that explains why the difference might be small in certain cases whereas it does not explain why the article posted shows that CERA is not a sustainable skill.  If I can have a 5 win effect on the game by the way I frame, I am going to have a reproducible effect on my pitchers era.  5 wins isn't subtle.  buster posey should have a better cera than Sal Perez.  

Well in the same controlled environment he would, right? But there are far too many factors CERA doesn't account for (ballpark, quality of offense, quality of the pitching staff, umpires etc.) that it is impossible to compare one catcher to someone from another team and make reasonable judgements about them based off that metric. Even with two catchers on the same team, it isn't fair. I've read that Scioscia used it to compare two different catchers on his team (that was back in the Napoli/Mathis days), but only in their CERAs with specific pitchers. Even that is absurdly unfair though because it doesn't factor in so many things and also creates an unreasonably small sample. Did one guy catch that pitcher in Colorado and Houston and did the other guy do it in Oakland and San Diego? Did one guy catch him against two of the best hitting teams and did the other guy catch him against two of the worst? Did one guy happen to be catching with home plate umpires who have small strike zones? Over a large sample these things would even out, but in the scenario Scioscia was using it for the sample would not be big enough to eliminate the large chunks of noise and get it down to the signal. If we somehow recreated the same conditions for two catchers over a very large sample, then the better framer should have better CERA results (barring any other factors, such as if his game calling is vastly inferior). But that isn't possible for us to do.

It would be possible to take CERA, control it for many of those things I just mentioned and make it a more useful number. But I'm guessing the reason that hasn't been done is we just have better metrics to judge catchers. I know we disagree to an extent but I consider framing data very reliable. Game calling statistics are close on a public sense and I'm sure are already used by teams. We can calculate blocking and throwing runs easily enough. Also, even if you did control for those things there would still be an awful lot of noise in CERA too. Someone like Posey can frame all he wants but if he happens to be getting more shitty pitchers throwing meatballs down the heart of the plate than whoever he is being compared to, then his CERA (or CERA+ or whatever it would be) would still be worse.

If you include the posting fee, the Rangers will outlay $107 million over six years for Darvish. By both bWAR and fWAR he has been worth more than 15 WAR (15.4 for BR, 15.5 for FG), even though he missed an entire season. Even if he never throws another pitch for the Rangers, that works out to $7.13 million per win. If he has a 2 WAR season, that would make it $6.15 million per win. Either way, that is below the current market rate and will either be a pretty good or excellent return on the Rangers' investment.

If we really want to compare that to Pujols, so far he has been worth 14.7 WAR with the Angels and he has been paid $100 million. As it stands, he has been paid $6.8 million per win. Barring some super natural event, that number will soon go up by a lot however. The contract is strongly backloaded and his performance is declining. If he gets to 20 WAR with the Angels, he'll end up earning $12.5 million per win. Even if he gets to 25 WAR, which is an incredibly optimistic assessment, that would still make it $10 million per win.

24 minutes ago, Troll Daddy said:

Pretty bad hitter ... are you for real? You do know that Perez received the Silver Slugger Award for 2016. 

I guess 4 GG awards consecutively means squat nowadays.

• 4× All-Star (2013–2016)
• 4× Gold Glove Award (2013–2016)
• Silver Slugger Award (2016)
• World Series champion (2015)
• World Series MVP (2015)

I responded to this earlier, clearly you just lacked the ability to comprehend it. He also was a pretty bad hitter in 2016. His OBP was below .300 and OPS+ ranked him 11 per cent below average. He wasn't close to deserving of the silver slugger award.

And yes, using gold glove and silver slugger winners to judge a player's ability isn't smart. But keep copying and pasting that same thing, because that is a sign of real intelligence.

20 minutes ago, tdawg87 said:

That seems a little over the top though. His WAR is 2.8 but we're saying his pitch framing ability was worth 4 wins? 

BR's defensive metrics undersell Grandal by about two wins. His pitch framing was worth 26.7 runs (essentially two and a half wins) and overall defensively he was worth 27.5 runs, which is much better than his BR dWAR of 0.6. But BR's offensive statistics also sell him short. By true average, which BP uses for offensive value, Grandal was the 50th best hitter in baseball for anyone with more than 100 PA. By OPS+, which BR uses, he was down at 67th. So framing makes up a part of that difference but not all of it.

As for the Mathis/Perez thing, Perez is an awful framer and it really eats into his value. Given he was a pretty bad hitter too, he just wasn't a good player at all in 2016.

3 minutes ago, tdawg87 said:

What in the sweet christ is WARP

Wins above replacement player, or Baseball Prospectus' version of WAR. It's the only catcher WAR which includes framing data so is therefore the only one which is close to accurate.

1 hour ago, Troll Daddy said:

First, if you think I'm trolling then don't answer the question. 

Second, this is a discussion thread.

Third, I'm don't buy into the 6.2 wins 

Lastly,

• 4× All-Star (2013–2016)
• 4× Gold Glove Award (2013–2016)
• Silver Slugger Award (2016)
• World Series champion (2015)
• World Series MVP (2015)

So he won a silver slugger award this year despite being a well below average hitter and not even close to the best hitting catcher in the American League. He has won a few gold gloves despite being a below average fielder every year of his career. He has made a few all-star teams despite having only one season in which he ranked as an above average player. Yeah, those awards don't mean much.

Discount advanced metrics and pitch framing all you want (as naive as that is to do), any argument in favor of Perez over Grandal is so flawed. Perez has a career OPS+ of 98, while for Grandal it is 118. In the five seasons Grandal has been in the big leagues, he has been a better hitter than Perez in four of them and they were essentially equal in the other one. This year, Grandal was 21 per cent better than a league average hitter and Perez was 11 per cent below average. By any reasonable player evaluation method, Grandal is so much better that it's just not funny. Copy and paste the same thing all you want, it doesn't make your argument any less silly.

29 minutes ago, tdawg87 said:

Grandal is better overall but this is not even close to accurate.

Grandal's WARP was 6.8, while Perez was at 0.6. The difference between those two numbers is, well, you know...

5 hours ago, Troll Daddy said:

Grandal or Salvador Perez ...  Who would you sign ?

best to worst framer

I'm sure there is some level of trolling here that I'm missing, but not only is Grandal 40 runs better than Perez on framing alone, he is also a better hitter (by a lot) and was worth 6.2 wins more than Perex last year. This is like asking if I would prefer Noah Syndergaard or Hector Santiago.

2 hours ago, arch stanton said:

Now I'm wondering what the umpires think of this. Surely they read these articles. Will there be a change in how they call games with the top framers? It just seems that with so many moving parts involved in this process there's bound to be a shift in the trend.

Here are Posey's framing runs by year, in order, since 2012: 23.1, 19.5, 23.6, 12.7, 27.6.

And for Grandal: 14.6, 5.5, 14.5, 25.6, 26.7.

They're the two players with the reputation as the best framers. This information has been widely available and acknowledged for awhile now and there hasn't been an impact of the sort you describe. While it is possible that it could happen, it seems extremely unlikely.

2 minutes ago, ettin said:

Oz you kind of act like this is a brand new thing which it is not. Pitch framing research and development has been around for at least 5-6 years in the public forum and probably longer in the actual team analytics departments. I don't think there is going to be too much more narrowing after the next 2 years or so. You can teach techniques but you can't make the person learn them and some will always be better than others. There is a sweet spot that we are probably at or close to being at in this realm. Most teams have likely implemented Minor League training regarding pitch framing long ago.

I think you're misinterpreting me. I'm not saying that the gap will disappear, nor am I saying that the gap will narrow to insignificance. But if the gap between the best and worst framers is 50-odd runs now, it wouldn't surprise me if we see that fall to the 40s over the next few years. That is still a big gap, obviously. I know this isn't new and even the least intelligent teams have been focusing on this for awhile now, but the impacts of that heightened attention won't end immediately. Aspiring catchers are going to realize this is something they need to work on, it will be taught more in the lower minors and college and high school and the low end of the spectrum should improve.

22 minutes ago, Stradling said:

Ok so about four strikes a game amount to 27 runs above average over the course of a season.  I'm skeptical but I'd like to not be.  How do we give something like this credence but ignore CERA?  

On CERA, have a read of this - http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=1489

In more basic terms, pitch framing data is controlled for many factors - most notably umpire and pitcher. Their impacts are factored into the metric you see at the end. There are no controls like that with CERA. There is a relatively strong year-to-year correlation in individual pitch framing results, while there is no meaningful correlation in year-to-year CERA totals (that is important because a strong year-to-year correlation indicates a statistic represents an actual skill, rather than random chance).

There have been many good articles posted in this to explain how and why pitch framing can be so valuable and why the statistics are so reliable. This is another good one - http://grantland.com/features/studying-art-pitch-framing-catchers-such-francisco-cervelli-chris-stewart-jose-molina-others/

1 hour ago, ettin said:

 

I'd be careful assuming the gap will continue to narrow. There will always be catchers who are good at it and those who are bad at it (particularly younger inexperienced catchers). That gap will fluctuate over periods of time based on talent so although I agree MLB could move to a system of automated strike and ball calling it is quite possible that never happens and we continue with the current system forever (which necessitates the need for good pitch framers).

The trend is very much in favor of narrowing and there are good reasons to believe that. It is being taught and valued more so players will both work harder at it once in the majors and focus on it more in the minors. Nevertheless, I expect there will still be a significant difference between the best and worst framing catchers in the foreseeable future.

43 minutes ago, Stradling said:

Obviously I don't know the math behind framing but to me it's extremely difficult to believe there's a 50 run separation between great and bad.  

An average ball, which is framed for a strike, is worth 0.14 runs. Buster Posey was worth 27.6 framing runs above average in 2016, which equates to something like 197 framed strikes above average. That may seem like a lot, but when you consider that came from 7630 framing chances it really is not. That equates to an extra framed strike, compared to the average catcher, every 38.7 pitches caught. It is not unreasonable to see how someone could be that good, or how someone could be similarly bad.

15 minutes ago, Stradling said:

So you have no faith that these guys are better options?

Is the current bench Perez, Marte, Pennington and Revere? If so, I don't really see how that is better than what we had last year.

16 hours ago, arch stanton said:

It's better than it was. It's been a couple years since there's been a single LFer capable of league average production and now there's one in LF and one on the bench. There's speed and defense. Everyone on the bench to start the season will be someone we've all heard of.

We'd all heard of Cliff Pennington, Daniel Nava and Craig Gentry and that was f'n useless.

10 minutes ago, Angelsjunky said:

When I think of who deserves the #1 spot it is the answer to this question: If I could protect only one prospect on the farm, who would that be? For me the answer is easy: Jahmai Jones, and it isn't all that close.

This doesn't mean I'm "down" on Thaiss, just not as enthusiastic - and it is because of his similarity to Cron (and perhaps Calhoun). Another in the Trumbo-Cron lineage is nice to have, but not super exciting. Now maybe Thaiss can be better than Cron--I hope so--but until we see that, I'll happily take Jahmai first.

I also disagree with the notion that Jahmai has a "much, much lower floor" than Thaiss. Floor is often determined by make-up--meaning, players with poor make-up tend to have a wider range of floor to ceiling--and Jahmai has great make-up. I see his floor as being a very good platoon outfielder/fringe major league starter, which isn't all that great but isn't far from Thaiss's floor, which is Cron in 2014-15.

While I agree with everything else you said, I disagree with the bolded section. Guys whose pro careers start in the same promising way Jones' has flame out at AA all the time. He is 18 and most of his career has been in rookie ball, so the gap between the floor and the ceiling is always going to be huge for a guy like that. Given the age and limited track record, that is an awfully optimistic floor to set.

2 hours ago, AngelsLakersFan said:

Interesting read from The Hardball Times. Pitch Framing Was Doomed From the Start

It seems to echo what I was saying to @Oz27 about the gap between the best and worst framers decreasing because of teams actually seeing the data.

I've been avoiding reading this because I've got a hard copy of the THT annual and I want to read it in that. But I've heard a bit about the premise of the piece and, yeah, that certainly seems to be what is happening.

It would seem very likely we are past the point of the Ryan Doumits of the world playing behind the plate, so that gap will narrow. But it's not like the gap is nothing now either. The best MLB framer was 52 runs - or more than five wins on framing alone - better than the worst framer in 2016. 

But I'm totally on board with a robot calling balls and strikes. It is such an obvious way to make this sport fairer.

I'm still surprised by how many publications are ranking Thaiss ahead of Jones. I guess it is the old "ceiling vs certainty" debate and I know Jones' floor is much much lower than it is for Thaiss. But if things work out for Jones he has the tools to be a well above average major leaguer. I don't see how Thaiss has anywhere near that ceiling unless he can play a position other than 1B.

49 minutes ago, Mr Meeseeks said:

Yep just like I was trolling last year.

 

lol. I was just thinking about that thread the other day. Good times.

But seriously, our 2015, 2016, 2017 bench is going to be awesome.

20 minutes ago, WeatherWonk said:

Yeah, I know, but I thought I also read that a #4 hitter gets around 20-30 fewer ABs, over the course of the season, than a leadoff hitter.

 

I'm all for Trout at #2. Just wish the manager understood that. Maybe Eppler can convince him of things that Dipoto never could.

Haha, not holding my breath for that last bit. I don't get too worked up about the lineup order because it doesn't make that big a difference but it is a bit frustrating when it is as obvious as it is in this case.

7 hours ago, Troll Daddy said:

My 'book' says, you bat Trout third. You all should know by now that Trout/Pujols are joined at the hip for a reason. 

So you can use RBI totals to give Pujols credit for Trout's success?

24 minutes ago, WeatherWonk said:

I'd put Trout at #1 before I dropped him to 4th. You want your best player to at least get up in the first inning. And you certainly dont want a relatively low OBP guy like Albert ahead of him.

 

My order would be the same as wopphil. 

 

The studies are pretty clear that the best hitting opportunities come to your second and fourth hitters. But he should hit second to maximize his plate appearances.

27 minutes ago, Dochalo said:

I feel like his increase fly ball rate has got to be a mechanical issue related to his injury or a bad habit picked up as a result.  It's not like his bb rate dropped in half or he went from 20 to 7 hrs.  Also, he's a 4th OFer.  Is his presence going to make or break this team?  

Not likely. And I want to be clear, I don't dislike the signing. I just think the level of excitement some have shown over the signing is rather strange.

'The Book' answered this question pretty clearly. Your best hitter should be hitting second.