Tracking Catcher Framing
- Thread starter Darnell's Son
- Start date
Interesting to note that Sandy Leon was above average at +0.31, David Ross continued to work magic for batterymate Lester (+1.24, with his stolen strikes almost entirely against RHB), while old frenemies Salty (-1.09) and Pierzynski (-1.03) framed just as badly as ever.
Has there been any change league wide in the distribution of framing abilities? (i.e., in the standard deviation of framing rates) I've been wondering if given the recent attention, umps would have caught wind and stopped falling for it, for lack of a better term. This has been my big concern with making decisions based on framing (i.e., which catcher to keep, whether teams should pay for it in FA, etc)-- it seems like it's a talent that relies on the umps allowing it to exist, and therefore could disappear at any moment if umps are able to adjust.
edit: based on just the last 2 years of data posted above, no. stdev in 2015 was 0.88, but in 2016 it was 1.00, indicating slightly *more* variance among catchers, not less. though that's just 2 years.
edit: based on just the last 2 years of data posted above, no. stdev in 2015 was 0.88, but in 2016 it was 1.00, indicating slightly *more* variance among catchers, not less. though that's just 2 years.
Fangraphs had this article that the difference between catchers is shrinking each year.
"In 2011, the standard deviation was 219. Last year, the standard deviation was 108, or basically half what it had been. The spread between teams has been chopped by that much."
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-ongoing-rise-of-the-pitch-framing-floor/
The thought is that as framing has gained attention more teams are focused on it and are teaching young catchers how to frame pitches.
"In 2011, the standard deviation was 219. Last year, the standard deviation was 108, or basically half what it had been. The spread between teams has been chopped by that much."
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-ongoing-rise-of-the-pitch-framing-floor/
The thought is that as framing has gained attention more teams are focused on it and are teaching young catchers how to frame pitches.
I asked the same question earlier this year (Is Catcher Framing Disappearing?) and I didn't get a really clear answer; there are other changes over the same period (the size and shape of the strike zone changed; umpires became significantly more accurate) that affect the numbers as well. The very worst framers have mostly disappeared, which suggests that framing is being considered. But the very best are not as much better than average either. That may be because Jose Molina (4 extra strikes per game in 2008!) got old and retired, or it may because everyone is getting better so it's harder to be much better than average, or, whatever.
If catcher framing was getting better across the board, shouldnt called strike% be up and called ball%be down? is that happening?
Called strikes have been going up for years, but dropped marginally the last couple years. But there are so many other influences on called strikes, ranging from the changing size of the strike zone, to the rise of the monster middle-reliever, to the changing batting philosophies over time, that I'm doubtful the change in framing's influence is detectable, even if it exists.
I`ve thought the amica pitch zone now makes the umpires more accountable. Isn`t it used in most ballparks now?
It's not "the Amica Pitch Zone", which is just a gimmick, but yes, in January of 2010, the umpire’s union ratified a new contract with MLB that, for the first time, allowed management to use video to evaluate umpires; since then, umpire accuracy has improved significantly ("The Surprisingly Uncommon Missed Call by the Umpire").
My own unasked question is what does a good framing catcher do to a batter? Are they more likely to have a higher percentage of swinging at borderline pitches because of the reputation of the catcher? Is there even a way to quantify (and/or qualify) this?