Jnai said:
I'm not really sure what you mean by "abstract statistical models" vs. "measuring just events that happen on the field", but the rest is true. Although, the hope with WAR or any similar value metric is that because of the thought that went into designing the metric, lazy analysis with WAR is better than lazy analysis with other aggregate ways people have used in the past to measure player value. Anyway, this is not the thread for yet another rehashed WAR discussion.
For what it's worth, I mentioned WAR as an attempt to
not have the conversation become about WAR at the expense of considering the independent contribution of framing. :c070: Fortunately, it hasn't, though I think the importance of the issue is related to things that smas mentions about WAR.
What really interests me about the framing issue is in isolating a new aspect of what a player brings to the table. I really like the approach you guys bring to the article of using the advanced data you have at the granular level with respect to locational probabilities and on differences in expected runs on pitch counts (both huge advances over the older models) and then reaggregate the data to get a huge sample with the obvious advantages of reliability.
Where I balk at its association with WAR is not about WAR per se, but my hope that people tend to emphasize the contribution independently in addition to whatever overall component of value it has. In my comments above, I never said Cameron said WAR sucked, I said he said it destroys data. To be more precise, I should have said that it unnecessarily obscures data. Like certain others here, I wouldn't mind WAR's use nearly as much if it were published as a kind of slash line with the various components of hitting, fielding, baserunning, etc. And for catchers, that would include framing.
The reason for this is that I think some of the teams--including the Red Sox--look to minimum levels of proficiency in addition to overall value added. Take the SAT for example (the old 1600 one to start with). They might want someone who scored a minumum of 1200, but also no less than 600 on either section. As such, a guy with a 750 defense but a 500 level offense might not make the cut because while he has an overall value of 1250, he would present a gap in the batting lineup. This is specifically analogous to the conversations we had last year about whether or not Iggy could make up for his lack of bat with his glove.
Similarly, I think the Red Sox already see catcher in at least three major components: batting, defense and game planning--I think the knock against Lavarnway with the FO is that he is weak in that third component. As such, making good grades in two categories but insufficient in the third means no go. This is over-simplified, obviously, and there may be different weights to the different components.
But the larger point is that it becomes possible to assess a skill that adds value, I think it's terribly important not just to incorporate but, but to keep an eye on the different factors of what makes a player valuable in different ways, and I think this pitch framing factor could offer a new area of not just adding value, but teams demanding a certain minimal competency. Great work.
wolfe_boston said:
I found an article that estimated Benji Molina generated a defensive runs saved from pitch framing of 50 for 2012. Based on the value of DRS his revised WAR he would have challenged Trout. So yes, if these calculations are accurate, catchers like B. Molina should be offered the big bucks.
Bracketing the true identity of the Mystery Molina, wouldn't this be an argument that pitch framing is still underrated in the league?
