NCAA tourney, Indians pitching rotation and more with TD – WFNY Podcast – 2014-03-20
March 20, 2014Browns play host to free agents Alex Carrington, Paul McQuistan
March 20, 2014I’ve long been an advocate of the offensively inclined catcher. This, I tend to think, is not the most radical stance I’ve ever taken. Those who disagree find themselves in the awkward position of saying they’d rather not field a catcher capable of an .850 OPS who can hit 25 home runs a year. That’s not a particularly winning argument.
Of course, there’s a bit more nuance to it than that. By playing a strong offensive player at catcher, you’re necessarily not playing him somewhere else on the field (or not on the field, in the case of the DH). To use an example from yesteryear, by playing Victor Martinez at catcher, the 2007 Indians were able to use Travis Hafner at DH and Ryan Garko at first. Since it’s fairly easy to find strong offensive first basemen and DHs, the Indians were able to field three offensive threats from a trio of positions that typically yields only two. In other words, a catcher who can hit lengthens a team’s lineup and adds runs. Scoring more runs means winning more games. What’s not to like?
This analysis is obviously leaving something out: Winning baseball games is not solely about scoring runs. It’s also about preventing them, which is achieved by way of both pitching and defense—two acts intrinsically tied to the catcher position. My argument has long been that as long as we didn’t have compelling evidence that a strong-hitting catcher’s defense was actually negating his offensive contributions, I’d rather keep the longer lineup and hope the improvement in run-scoring would outweigh any deficits in run prevention.
This is, more or less, the Victor Martinez argument. Sure, Victor could have played first base in 2007, effectively moving Ryan Garko and his .842 OPS to the bench1 in favor of Kelly Shoppach’s defense and his .780 OPS. But by exactly how much was Shoppach’s defense superior to Victor’s? How many runs would be prevented that Victor may have cost us? Was it worth the easily identifiable swing of 62 points in OPS? Not only did we not know the answer to that question (i.e. how many runs better was one catcher than another, defensively), but plenty of people couldn’t even agree on which guy was actually better. Throw in leadership and management of the staff and weird relationships with specific pitchers, and I tended to throw my hands up. Give me the guy who can hit. At least we know who that is.
Which of course brings us to Carlos Santana. For years, I’ve applied roughly this same logic to Santana’s situation. Sure, he’s not the greatest defensive catcher out there, and he’s likely costing us runs because of it. But keeping him behind the plate frees up first base for someone like Swisher, which frees up right field for someone like David Murphy (or a defensive game-changer like Drew Stubbs). A rolling DH spot prevents the sort of inflexibility we had near the end of Travis Hafner’s contract, where the lineup spot is basically lost to an aging player incapable of playing anywhere else. By keeping Carlos behind the plate, the argument goes, we are increasing our versatility while lengthening our lineup.
Two things have thrown this equation off-balance for me. The first is that Yan Gomes appears to be able to hit, lessening the impact of moving Santana from behind the dish. Gomes likely isn’t as good as he was last season (.826 OPS; 131 wRC+) nor is he likely as good a hitter as Santana (career .814 OPS; 128 wRC+), but he’s still a real, live hitter who isn’t Lou Marson (career .609 OPS; 74 wRC+). Even if Gomes is a league-average hitter, there’s considerable value in that behind the plate. On average last season, catchers were seven percent worse than a league average hitter, meaning that a league-average hitter would actually be an above average hitting catcher. In other words, we would likely be more than happy with Yan Gomes even at a 100 wRC+, which would represent significant regression from his 2013 campaign.
The other reason I’m ready to move Santana off catcher has to do with recent research on the impact pitch-framing and how particularly awful Santana is at framing. For the uninitiated, pitch framing is essentially a catcher’s ability to get a ball called a strike. Some are very good at this:2
Some are not:
It may or may not surprise you that Santana happens to be bad at pitch framing. It will almost certainly surprise you how many runs and wins being bad a pitch framing will cost you. There are various methodologies here, but the basic approach is to assign a run value to a called strike or a called ball and then give credit when a catcher turns a ball (from pitch f/x data) into a strike, or vice versa.3
Let’s look at the framing leaderboard last year. I’ve limited the list to AL catchers with at least 6,000 pitches caught. All data from StatCorner’s calculations:
Some quick terminology. When Yan Gomes was catching, 10.3% of pitches in the strikezone (according to pitch f/x) were called balls. 8.0% of pitches that were out of the strikezone were called strikes. On the aggregate, Gomes got about 115 “more calls” than the average catcher in 2013 did, which meant about 1.5 pitchers per game better than average. That amounted to more than 15 runs saved over the course of his season (which, remember, was partial, as both he and Santana had more than 6,000 pitches caught).
Looking at the swing from Gomes to Santana and assuming that a “full-time” catcher would have about twice these sample sizes, we end up with a difference of almost 45 runs (positive 30 for Gomes and negative 15 for Santana)—somewhere between four or five wins, just on framing along. The difference between 90 wins and 95, just on pitch framing.
Of course, half a season of data is hardly enough to hang one’s hat on, compelling though it may be. So I created a list of all catchers with at least 700 innings caught in at least two of the last three seasons. I included their defensive runs saved—which does NOT incorporate framing—along with framing numbers from StatCorner. I combined them into a categore called “CATCHER RUNS”, converted that to wins, and Voila:
Santana has cost his team, on average, more than two wins per season compared to the average defensive catcher—more than any other catcher on the list by a not inconsiderable margin. He’s bad at framing. He’s bad a blocking pitches. He’s bad at holding runners and preventing stolen bases. And taken together, he’s so bad at so many things that he’s costing his team a considerable number of wins each season.
What’s troubling about all this is that Santana could be good at any of the things I’ve outlined above. He has a great arm. He’s athletic and by no means slow-footed, at least compared to some of his Molina-based colleagues. Many of the things he stinks at just require effort to improve. Framing and footwork aren’t mysteries—they’re effort-driven.
But Santana either hasn’t been taught properly or is a recalcitrant student. Either way, he’s negating a good portion of his offensive value simply by donning the tools of ignorance most days.
Which I guess means that I’ve finally got the evidence I need. The cost-benefit equation for keeping Santana behind the plate just doesn’t make sense to me anymore. Not now that we know just how costly his defense has been. So maybe Lonnie Chisenhall rides the pine for a bit or we lose the flexibility of a rolling DH. Maybe Santana plays more first than Swisher and Giambi finally becomes the bench coach he should be.
Regardless, I think we know enough about Yan Gomes to trust him. And enough about Santana not to.
- I do not acknowledge the proposed sobriquet “Ryan Garko, Left Fielder”. [↩]
- GIFs taken from this wonderful piece last year on Grantland. There have been other great pieces, especially here and here that are worth your eyeball time. [↩]
- For instance, there is a change in run expectancy from a 0-0 count to 0-1 count. Were a catcher to frame a ball that would’ve resulted in a 1-0 count into a strike resulting in a 0-1 count, the value of that framed pitch would be the difference in run expectancy between a 0-1 count and 1-0 count—a fraction of a run to be sure. But do this thousands of times in a season, and you see how the numbers can add up. [↩]
59 Comments
Jon, we’ve been discussing this topic the past couple years and I have been reading as much as I can on it (in addition to those you list, fangraphs has had a couple very good articles on it – in particular they had one on how much Santana & Marson were hurting Tribe pitchers – this was before Gomes took over I believe sometime last April?).
I agree with what you put above and it is definitely a reason I am much more comfortable putting Gomes behind the plate as our main catcher.
The one line I completely disagree with though is:
Many of the things he stinks at just require effort to improve. Framing and footwork aren’t mysteries—they’re effort-driven.
Blocking balls in the dirt is mostly an effort thing and Santana has shown a poor job of it at times, yes. Footwork is partially an effort thing but alot of it has to be instinctual.
Framing though, is a nuance thing IMO. It takes years to catch it in just the right way to frame it for the umpires. It is extremely difficult to catch the ball as a catcher while also not flinching or moving the glove as you instinctually want to do. I think this is likely why Santana struggles while the Molina’s thrive at it. They have been taught to catch in just this certain way their entire lives. Carlos was an infielder who the Dodgers wanted to try as a catcher because he was athletic and could be a +bat there.
Also, I have been learning some coaching from a group of minor league coaches here in Austin and they have really opened my eyes to alot of the nuances in it. There are certain methods of “when” you want to frame versus when you “don’t” want to frame to get the calls. One easy example is you want to only frame strikes early and want to giveaway balls (just moving the glove after a catch) to develop implicit trust with the umpire. Then, you want to move that strike zone out wider very slowly as the innings go on. Obviously, alot more than just that, but there is alot of thought that goes into this stuff.
Your stats support exactly what my eyes have seen the last years. And you could have found much more damning video, of Carlos lunging toward the other batter’s box on borderline pitches. Maybe certain things aren’t reflected by these stats, like the effect throwing to Carlos has on a pitcher’s psyche when he’s getting upset at being squeezed by the ump or rising pitch counts.
I’ve gotten blasted here for suggesting what you write: Carlos has had like 7+ years in professional baseball as a full-time catcher. As a top prospect he’s been lavished with attention. Hard to believe all the defensive tutors, from single A to Alomar, were deficient. Like another Carlos before him (Baerga) he’s passionate about baseball, but the part he really loves is swinging the stick and that’s where his effort has been. I get that he’s sad about not catching – way more fun to be engaged every moment of the game. But having fun and being major league competent are two different things. If the Tribe had options I would have supported this move 2 years ago.
He’s been trained in framing for 7 years. If he’s still reacting like an infielder and not noticeably improving (and he is not) then it’s questionable whether he will get much better. And if he’s still not exerting the effort to use proper technique to block pitches, that leads me to believe that effort/concentration is a major prob of his in learning all the defensive techniques.
Look, some guys – Julio Franco, Rico Carty, Baerga, Manny – play the game to hit, it’s in their soul. I’m glad we have one of them. Glad they’re putting him in a position where he can daydream a little more about his next AB.
I agree. That is part of my point. It’s hard to overcome something so instinctual and not everyone can do it no matter how much effort you put into it.
I know you guys have been commenting on this for some time. I’ve been meaning to write about it for at least a year, just haven’t gotten around to it. But thanks for keeping it in the forefront in the meantime. Obviously I think it’s a big deal.
As to your comment about whether or not pitch-framing can be learned with hard work, I’d direct you back to that Grantland piece. I won’t quote it all, but here are some snippets:
There’s no one-size-fits-all plan for grooming great receivers — and not every catching instructor agrees on the proper way to receive pitches — but there are, generally, two types of improvements a player can make. There’s the mechanical change, which can be adopted immediately, and the incremental increase in comfort and confidence that comes with experience, repetition, and familiarity with a pitching staff.
-snip-
Stewart recalls a mechanical tweak that helped him in 2008: “I had my thumb pointing down. That’s kind of the natural way you learn to catch. But [Yankees bench coach Tony Pena] had me turn my glove so my thumb was more pointing toward the second baseman area instead of pointing down at the plate. It helped me work on balls coming on my left side easier. I didn’t have to turn my whole arm.”
-snip-
Yeager focuses first on a catcher’s stance. “I think you can correct some guys that are doing something just by the positioning of his arm,” he says. “Sometimes they have a tendency to get the arm inside of the knee, or they get it on the outside of the knee, and … their knee sometimes gets in the way … Everything in the positioning is a key.”
Lower the target, turn your thumb, adjust your crouch. That’s the easy stuff. It may feel unnatural at first, and it takes some time to get used to, but it can produce improvement overnight. The more grueling method of improvement, the one that over the long run produces the greater gains, is as simple as it is painstakingly slow: catch. Catch in games, catch in the bullpen, catch in side sessions, and then do it again in your dreams after you finally fall asleep. “Baseball is a habit,” Cervelli says. “It’s a repetition. You’ve got to repeat things every day, and they come.”
There’s more, but the point is you have to work on these things. You might not become a Molina, but you should be able to get better with hard work. Here are Santana’s +Calls since he broke in:
2010 2011 2012 2013
Carlos Santana -39 -183 -186 -57
If there’s improvement there, I’m not seeing enough. He was worse in 2013 than 2010, and 2012 was the single worst season for a catcher since pitchf/x data has been available.
I don’t think it’s as easy as saying seven years, especially when they’ve all come after his 21st birthday, especially when a lot of the time spent instructing him has to do with his batting. So much of the necessary development comes before DR kids get brought stateside, and despite the seven years, he surely hasn’t caught anywhere near the same number of innings in his career (amateur, minors, majors) that someone like the Molinas have. He’s never been good, but I think you’re being a bit harsh on him.
It still amazes me how much we have learned about the game from an analytical POV in the past 10-15years and how much we will likely continue to learn as the sample sizes grow (and we get further away from the PED-era of the 90s).
I definitely agree you have to work on it and baseball is definitely repetition. It’s why my little league baseball practices are centered around “100s”. A good practice is 100 throws, 100 catches, 200 swings. Easily said, hard to do in just over an hour with 13×5-8yo’s and also getting in all of the understanding of the game at the same time, but I try.
On the non-improvement, it could be he doesn’t put enough effort in. It could be that he is being given different direction from the different people that have been in place. It could be that he just doesn’t have the mental/physical nature needed for the position. I will agree that given Sandy has been around the past few years that part of it is likely some effort there.
Gomes hands down is a better catcher defensively not to mention probably a better friend to his pitching staff then is Santana but Santana’s bat and versatility are just as important. The fact that they got Gomes and he has rewarded them thus far for me was perfect timing in that it allowed Santana to move out from behind the plate which should only increase his longevity in baseball. Personally I prefer to see Santana at 1B or DH but if he can play 3B it’s a tremendous option. I’m just hoping he doesn’t because it means Chisenhall is doing the job.
Good stuff
How many times does santana just hold his right hand up for a new ball when he hasn’t really even tried to stop it. I just don’t think catching is Santana’s thing now that he knows he has become a very valuable hitter. I would probably argue that it takes more time to practice to maintain skills as a catcher than any other infield position, and it is harder on the body.
I have a feeling Chiz will start out hot. Hopefully he does and it continues. I am predicting 2 HR in after the first 2 series.
“Framing and footwork aren’t mysteries—they’re effort-driven. ”
I reject this notion. If it were so easy to become an effective catcher, every schmoe in the minors would be putting in the effort so as to make the bigs.Sure, effort plays a part, but it’s not as simple as that. Natural ability is more a deciding factor. Catching major league pitching may look easy. It is not.
Also, from everything I read, Carlos wants to play catcher. If it were just a matter of a little extra work, don’t you think he’d put in the time?
And considering all the reports talk about how hard he’s worked to play 3B this year, I have to believe he did just as much at the catcher position.
Agree on both the development of catchers and issues with pitch framing.
Good point.
I’m not naive. I know some players work harder than others. But –
1.) I’ve never seen anything in Carlos to suggest that he is lazy (like showing up to camp out of shape)
2.) Playing Major League Baseball is way, way, way, way more difficult than most of us will ever realize
I’m just spitballing there on the pitcher, but I think it makes a lot of sense that borderline calls fall on the pitcher too. Wasn’t the pitcher-ump relationship considered a bigger factor than the catcher-ump one in the pre-Questec days? Maddux and Glavine were given credit for getting the borderline strikes, not Javy Lopez.
Didn’t notice you had already addressed this.
I’d just point out that playing concert piano at the highest level involves a lot of practice too, yet only a few rise that high.
What’s the variation from year to year on the pitch framing numbers for other catchers? Seems like defensive statistics vary widely from year to year.
I’ve no problem with you rejecting that notion. But keep in mind you’re rejecting what actual catchers and coaches have put forth–not just me. Again, I’d point you to the back half of the Grantland piece.
Also, just because something can be improved by effort, that doesn’t mean it’s “easy”, as you call it. I can get better at chess or better at weight-lifting or better at writing through repetition and hard work. That’s actually the opposite of easy.
And again, not everyone can be a Molina brother, and I’m not arguing that. Especially when you start catching as late as Santana did. But you’d like to see improvement. I just haven’t.
I think there’s a law of diminishing returns on the repetition though. Carlos Carrasco (and a thousand pitchers like him) have put in countless hours making countless throws and working on mechanics, yet he still isn’t quite there.
Do we call pitchers lazy? Or do we say – “pitching is really hard”. It’s more than simply say – do this with your mechanics. Think there is a lot of the same thing here.
“But keep in mind you’re rejecting what actual catchers and coaches have put forth”
But how many of the top .1% (or whatever number you chose) at some activity would say “I’m just this naturally talented”? They’ve worked hard, so they believe it has to do with a lot of their hard work, but they don’t see the guy who worked just as hard but isn’t as good.
Wouldn’t be the first time a baseball catcher or coach was completely wrong.
In your examples, as in others, there is a natural ceiling for everyone. It’s not a matter of just putting in more time, however easy or not. It’s may not be a matter of simply learning new mechanics (because again, then why can’t pitchers do that?).
Also: We don’t think of it like this, but concentration is in itself a physical act, no different than throwing and catching. So to say – Santana needs to concentrate more or better – is unfair. Just like we wouldn’t expect a kid with ADD to be able to do so. It’s the same as saying that a player needs to throw harder or run faster.
This is from an interview from Fangraphs with an unnamed player: “The next step would be to get an Adderall or another ADD medication. Legal amphetamine prescriptions are how I circumvented drug testing. Now I had a “medical issue” which required Adderall. When I stood on the mound while on Adderall, everything faded away except for the catcher’s mitt. No crowd noise, no distractions. It was almost like being in the Matrix. Although you were sped up, everything slowed down.”
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/sunday-notes-mets-orioles-expos-drug-use-in-the-minor-leagues/
Can’t remember exactly, but I recall reading some funny stories about some HOF player becoming a hitting coach and failing miserably. Rickey Henderson I think, which would make sense. His instruction basically amounted to – hit like me.
I’m not going to post here a “report” that calls Santana lazy, but rest assured there are several out there.
The point is that I don’t want to bring this sort of analysis in, because then we’re letting talk radio effectively shape the narrative.
Absolutely. That’s a great call. How many times have I read about Maddux shrinking the zone? Too many.
To me, pitch framing is a great example of the good and bad in sabermetrics. Here’s a new, very exciting concept that does reveal something about the game, yet people start assuming undeniable truths in it before it has been vetted, analyzed, reanalyzed, and so on. There’s a lot going on in the pitcher/catcher/hitter/umpire relationship.
I’ve wondered: does where a player stand in the batters box influence how an umpire makes calls?
Just curious – when you say “reports” are you saying fan opinion or beat writer insinuations or what?
I think we’re disagreeing on a very minor point, or maybe not at all. So let’s not prosecute a nature-nurture argument we’ve no hope of solving.
I think players can get better at pitch framing through practice, effort and good instruction.
I would guess you do too. So we’re mostly fighting over the margins, methinks.
That’s an awesome comment. That second BP piece I linked to actually adjusts for pitchers, counts, etc in order to get a bit more probabilistic. Interesting that Santana still fares poorly, but I’m guessing he gets some relief for exactly the reasons you point out.
Sure, margins, but when we get to the far edges of the bell curve, margins start meaning a lot.
that’s an interesting data point. i’ll admit that I don’t know offhand despite pouring over these articles/numbers in the past.
For obvious reasons the beat writers try to stay away from this stuff. Mostly from scouts and/or fans who are watching his defense and “deeming” it lazy. That gets picked up as a narrative and off we go.
Again, this is the sort of thing I DON’T want to engage in here. I put as much faith in these reports as in a player claiming to be in the best shape of his life. They’re all the sort of stuff that impedes understanding, IMO.
Excellent note on that second BP piece. I guess that’s the next step. Questec and then Pitch F/X let us know where the advantages were being gained or lost, but we still have some work to do cleaning up the data.
I would stamp that to he is either lazy behind the plate or has mental lapses (the passed balls, the not paying attention to runners, possibly the pitch framing). But, those fans/scouts are purely going by what they see during games. The coaches/beat-writers see which guys are working hardest and would know if it is truly a lack of effort/laziness or is more on the mental lapse side.
Nothing can be determined for sure, so I agree we should move on from there.
right, and I’m not trying to minimize the role of talent. As obvious local proof, Gomes was primarily an infielder in college, has been catching full-time way fewer years than Carlos, and he’s much better. I think we agree: Carlos isn’t improving and is still trying to backhand balls in the dirt. He’s about to turn 28, and if he still has muscle memory problems reacting to that pitch, enough.
Also, how big is the dataset for all this? I’m guessing the data is coming from Pitch/FX, right?
the real questions
(1) is Santana is improving? (by numbers it doesn’t look like it – need to analyze those numbers to be sure)
(2) can Santana improve? (if he hasn’t by now and isn’t, then I’d guess not much)
(3) does it matter if Gomes can hit at 80% of his value from last year? (obviously not)
yes
I’d say no, no, no. I’d guess the wear and tear of catching is already catching up to Santana. I think you need some bionic knees to last more than a few years as an everyday catcher. And I’ll gladly take a league average bat from Gomes for the rest of his Indian career.
Could part of the reason Jimenez was so bad in 2012 be because of the catcher? A bad framer would put him in many more bad pitcher counts than not (he also didn’t have a great April and May of 2013, when Santana was catching).
Umm, delete my comment, I just realized you said the same thing a was thinking…A lot of Jimenez’s ineffectiveness may’ve been the catcher.
No doubt boosted by facing the Twins at home. The Sewage Coliseum/Black Hole doesn’t seem to be too homer-friendly, especially with the A’s pitching.
Santana is a good option as an emergency catcher, certainly not an everyday option there. It would be great if his defense can be comparable to Josh Donaldson of Oakland (he converted from catcher as well), heck even Sandoval level defense will suffice for him. Regardless, the Indians should carry a legitimate backup catcher on the roster (Carlin and Treanor being the choices), especially with Giambi hurt. Aviles, Raburn, and Johnson lengthen the bench, as does Santana (the slotted DH), Swisher, and Brantley.
Plus there’s going to be some new metric that evaluates how well a catcher performs behind the plate; i.e. a way to spot the next Molina-level receiver. I read somewhere that Gomes was just below the Molinas in regard to handling the position defensively.
I’d rather have Santana as the regular back-up catcher. Broken record time: I do not think he is going to stick at 3B at all. At best, it’ll be spot duty. I also don’t want to waste a roster spot on a 3rd catcher especially if we waste one on Giambi.
if that metric is not called “molina” then I don’t know what to tell you.
also, I would just draft any of the Molina kids at age 17 and take my chances.
The problem is that we get the pitch framing data from pitch/fx which, last I heard, is not available in minor league stadiums. So it’s going to be old school eyeball-scouting.
I don’t want to waste a roster spot on a 4th catcher (Raburn is the emergency catcher) and I don’t want to waste one on Giambi either (cmon 60-day DL).
well, Gomes caught much of 2013. So couldn’t you also turn that around and give some credit for their improvement to Santana’s absence behind the plate?
Gomes is worth 0.7 Molinas.
Santana? 0.9 Anti-Molinas.
In a perfect world Chisenhall rises to meet the competition for his job in Santana and is victorious. That would be a win-win situation. I don’t mind seeing Santana play some 3B if need be I just prefer seeing him at 1B or DH instead.
I wanted Nelson Cruz. I thought even with his PED suspension that the Orioles got him at a steal for $8M even if for just one season. I would have preferred to have seen him in the Indians OF instead of a platoon between Murphy and Raburn but oh well.