Comments on: Catcher fielding heuristics http://www.fungoes.net/2007/11/08/catcher-fielding-heuristics/ Official blog of the St. Louis chapter of SABR Fri, 03 Feb 2012 15:37:19 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: haltz http://www.fungoes.net/2007/11/08/catcher-fielding-heuristics/comment-page-1/#comment-4739 haltz Sun, 11 Nov 2007 10:54:07 +0000 http://fungoes.net/?p=1004#comment-4739 Couple of typos: "guy" should be "gut," and there's probably a joke to be made there. The last sentence of my second paragraph should read "If you knew the amount of balls in the dirt, and then the amount of past balls and wild pitches, that should be sufficient for your metric." Couple of typos:

“guy” should be “gut,” and there’s probably a joke to be made there.

The last sentence of my second paragraph should read “If you knew the amount of balls in the dirt, and then the amount of past balls and wild pitches, that should be sufficient for your metric.”

]]> By: haltz http://www.fungoes.net/2007/11/08/catcher-fielding-heuristics/comment-page-1/#comment-4738 haltz Sun, 11 Nov 2007 10:51:45 +0000 http://fungoes.net/?p=1004#comment-4738 I'm not following you or Mr. Fox, Pip. In the main entry you said you were just after "chances" and then we could go from there. I agree that this should certainly improve things. However, in both of the comments, Dan and you seem to imply that you'd need to know which pitches were blocked and which weren't. If you knew the amount of balls in the dirt, and then the amount of past balls and wild pitches for your metric. Perhaps I'm misreading something. As for QRF, I wonder how well a runner's CS% correlates from yty. It's always seemed a little fluky to me on a player level, but that's just a guy reaction. I wonder if you did this for enough runners (let's say 60 different players try and steal on a catcher in a given year) that you aren't going to see something pretty similar for most catchers. On the other hand, it stands to reason that only the best thieves would run on someone like Molina. Maybe you'd find that QRF is inversely proportional (to some degree) with a catcher's career CS%, and maybe offensive environment as well (or they only run in high leverage situations). Perhaps there's a constant to be found and Molina's CS are actually substantially more valuable than Joe Averagecatcher. Just thinking out loud. I’m not following you or Mr. Fox, Pip. In the main entry you said you were just after “chances” and then we could go from there. I agree that this should certainly improve things.

However, in both of the comments, Dan and you seem to imply that you’d need to know which pitches were blocked and which weren’t. If you knew the amount of balls in the dirt, and then the amount of past balls and wild pitches for your metric.

Perhaps I’m misreading something.

As for QRF, I wonder how well a runner’s CS% correlates from yty. It’s always seemed a little fluky to me on a player level, but that’s just a guy reaction. I wonder if you did this for enough runners (let’s say 60 different players try and steal on a catcher in a given year) that you aren’t going to see something pretty similar for most catchers.

On the other hand, it stands to reason that only the best thieves would run on someone like Molina. Maybe you’d find that QRF is inversely proportional (to some degree) with a catcher’s career CS%, and maybe offensive environment as well (or they only run in high leverage situations). Perhaps there’s a constant to be found and Molina’s CS are actually substantially more valuable than Joe Averagecatcher.

Just thinking out loud.

]]> By: Pip http://www.fungoes.net/2007/11/08/catcher-fielding-heuristics/comment-page-1/#comment-4737 Pip Sat, 10 Nov 2007 16:44:02 +0000 http://fungoes.net/?p=1004#comment-4737 I respect Dan's opinion, so I'm not sure if I'm misunderstanding what he's saying or simply disagree. Having done about half the games at Busch this past summer for MLBAM, I can tell you first-hand that we tracked blocked pitches very accurately. The f/x display onscreen or the x-and-y coordinates for balls in the dirt may be off, perhaps. But as for whether a catcher actually blocked a pitch in the dirt, I'm confident that that data is highly accurate (in addition to trying to get it right live at the ballpark, we also had support people in New York who review each game to make sure). I respect Dan’s opinion, so I’m not sure if I’m misunderstanding what he’s saying or simply disagree. Having done about half the games at Busch this past summer for MLBAM, I can tell you first-hand that we tracked blocked pitches very accurately. The f/x display onscreen or the x-and-y coordinates for balls in the dirt may be off, perhaps. But as for whether a catcher actually blocked a pitch in the dirt, I’m confident that that data is highly accurate (in addition to trying to get it right live at the ballpark, we also had support people in New York who review each game to make sure).

]]> By: azruavatar http://www.fungoes.net/2007/11/08/catcher-fielding-heuristics/comment-page-1/#comment-4736 azruavatar Sat, 10 Nov 2007 01:53:50 +0000 http://fungoes.net/?p=1004#comment-4736 I asked Dan Fox about the application of the pitch f/x data to catchers and he basically said that the way they label the pitches is bogus. He implied that there isn't consistency about when a ball is actually blocked in the dirt or if it skirts away, etc. I absolutely agree that catcher defense very much needs to be quantified (and hopefully disproved in large part -- but that's just my own slant). I asked Dan Fox about the application of the pitch f/x data to catchers and he basically said that the way they label the pitches is bogus. He implied that there isn’t consistency about when a ball is actually blocked in the dirt or if it skirts away, etc. I absolutely agree that catcher defense very much needs to be quantified (and hopefully disproved in large part — but that’s just my own slant).

]]>