Jump to content
Brewer Fanatic

So Lucroy really isn't that good at pitch framing/game calling?


Recommended Posts

I guess there is a difference between 'game calling' and 'framing'.

 

In fact, it is MORE than that. They say they have, re catching, "crafted a statistical model that attempts to quantify the value of everything"

 

Surely they must have arrived at the number 42, as their answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pitching Framing=/=Game Calling

 

I don't even know how you measure game calling. Is it the catcher or pitcher who is good? Did the catcher call for an 0-2 fastball or did the pitcher override him? I mean I don't know how you statistically figure that out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brewer Fanatic Contributor
Considering there are basically no methodological details I can't even begin to rate how reliable their measure of game calling actually is.

Nailed it.

 

The article just says 'we figured out how to rate game calling' and offers no explanation to how they've actually come up with these numbers.

 

Maybe I missed something in the article.

 

Very strange way to report this info. If they really have developed a good game calling system, explain it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was going to see the comments before I added my own. This article basically a load of bologna specifically because of what some have pointed out that they don't even say how they came to their conclusion. Of course AJ Ellis is going to look like a great catcher when he catches Kershaw and Greinke in 40% of his games. And the line: "It's no coincidence that two of the last four Cy Young winners threw to the Tigers' Alex Avila." Yes, it is actually when those guys are Scherzer and Verlander. Outside of having a top guy or two the Tigers pitching has been nothing special. What a horrible article.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They do a statistical analysis to come up with the number of runs saved but fail to put that number in any sort of context. Just player X saved Y number of runs over a certain period of time. It doesn't appear to be weighted to consider playing time over that period. Nor does it appear to consider the ability of the pitcher to actually execute the called pitch. There seems to be no explanation at all how they isolated the catcher in the pitcher, catcher tandem. Let alone the background work usually done by the coaches and scouts. Maybe it does account for all those things but they sure didn't bother taking the time to tell us how.
There needs to be a King Thames version of the bible.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would have been really helpful if they had included the catchers Total Quarterback Rating as well.

Maybe they could expand to properly judge the economic impact of the catchers by taking a look at how the stock market does on days they catch?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More fine work from ESPN, a sports website with whom I have the highest regard.

 

Ok, I almost said that with a straight face....

There are three things America will be known for 2000 years from now when they study this civilization: the Constitution, jazz music and baseball. They're the three most beautifully designed things this culture has ever produced. Gerald Early
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would have been really helpful if they had included the catchers Total Quarterback Rating as well.

Maybe they could expand to properly judge the economic impact of the catchers by taking a look at how the stock market does on days they catch?

 

Don't get me started on their "total quarterback rating" nonsense. It's basically "hey, we threw a bunch of numbers into a blender, and this is what came out."

 

I didn't think too much of it to begin with. When I read a comment from one of their NFL writers stating "Colin Kaepernick actually outperforms Aaron Rodgers when his runs are included", it made me want to vomit.

There are three things America will be known for 2000 years from now when they study this civilization: the Constitution, jazz music and baseball. They're the three most beautifully designed things this culture has ever produced. Gerald Early
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah ESPN custom stats are almost always awful. Their QB stat is terrible as an example.

 

The funny thing is they push that QB stat on their bottom line constantly, like they think people actually think it's worth something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's just way too many variables to consider to quantify "game-calling" into a statistic. At least with pitch framing you can take a visual data set and determine how many extra strikes does a catcher earn where the pitch normally would be called a ball. But game-calling? As others have mentioned, what happens if the pitcher shakes off the catcher? What if (gasp) the pitcher doesn't locate the pitch where the catcher is set up? What if you're comparing two catchers and one is catching Kershaw/Greinke, and the other is catching a staff where they average a 4.50 ERA?
Gruber Lawffices
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah ESPN custom stats are almost always awful. Their QB stat is terrible as an example.

 

The funny thing is they push that QB stat on their bottom line constantly, like they think people actually think it's worth something.

 

When they push that stat on their bottom line it strikes me more like they're desperate for people to take it seriously. I think it frightens them that people don't, especially as hard as they've pushed it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

The Twins Daily Caretaker Fund
The Brewer Fanatic Caretaker Fund

You all care about this site. The next step is caring for it. We’re asking you to caretake this site so it can remain the premier Brewers community on the internet. Included with caretaking is ad-free browsing of Brewer Fanatic.

×
×
  • Create New...