Note to Boras---Wieters rated the 9th worst "framing"-

[Kalkan]

When it gets to the point that big words like tangential are thrown around along with a belief that everything can be measured by statistics it's time for me to bow out. I'm just a hayseed that loves baseball, lol.

Well, shucks, ain't that an Aunt Sally.

[Satyr3206]

Well, shucks, ain't that an Aunt Sally.

Nope, it's Jethro and he's gonna throw you in the cement pond. And in my statistics classes it was said that there are lies, damned lies, and statistics. You can bend them to mean, and prove, almost anything.

[Redskins Rick]

Nope, it's Jethro and he's gonna throw you in the cement pond. And in my statistics classes it was said that there are lies, damned lies, and statistics. You can bend them to mean, and prove, almost anything.

Sounds like my high school math teacher, he said you can pretty much take any set of numbers and twist them to support whatever position you feel like taking.

[Kalkan]

Sounds like my high school math teacher, he said you can pretty much take any set of numbers and twist them to support whatever position you feel like taking.

Which is one of those things that really is not true as long as you have a decent understanding of the methodology and metadata.

[El Gordo]

There is a certain amount of subjectivity involved so that is where some skepticism comes in. The human element. Same thing with the defensive metrics.

Perhaps this has been said earlier I didn't feel like reading though this whole thread. But while one can use pitch fx to determine OZ pitches that were called strikes, a lot of subjectivity would have to go into deciding whether this was due to the C's slight of hand, the pitchers influence, re: Madux and Galvine, or the umpires poor eye sight.

[luismatos4prez]

Which is one of those things that really is not true as long as you have a decent understanding of the methodology and metadata.

In one of the many arguments over WAR on here a couple years ago, a poster stated that he didn't buy into WAR because there was no way that they could account for the fact that there are 30 different ballparks that have strong effects on batted ball outcomes.

When it was explained to him that park effects were included, and were actually a major component of the calculation, he still didn't buy it. When an article clearly explaining the calculation of these park factors was posted, he actually refused to read it since he just didn't think it was possible to account for park factors.

Some people just don't like the idea of math giving a more accurate evaluation of a player than a guy who's sat on his couch and watched a game a night for years.

That being said, I still take pitch framing and defensive metrics with a truckload of salt.

[DrungoHazewood]

My guess is you haven't stood a few feet behind someone throwing major league caliber pitches. The reason framing matters is because perception of the ball can be skewed at that velocity/level of movement -- particularly considering the ump has to set up on the inner o outer half of the plate and view across the zone.

Exactly why baseball desperately needs an automated ball and strike system. Framing is the ability to fool an ump into calling pitches incorrectly.

[waroriole]

Perhaps this has been said earlier I didn't feel like reading though this whole thread. But while one can use pitch fx to determine OZ pitches that were called strikes, a lot of subjectivity would have to go into deciding whether this was due to the C's slight of hand, the pitchers influence, re: Madux and Galvine, or the umpires poor eye sight.

This is a good point. Did anyone answer this question?

[DrungoHazewood]

Sounds like my high school math teacher, he said you can pretty much take any set of numbers and twist them to support whatever position you feel like taking.

Sure, if your goal is fool people there are a lot of ways to do that. But luckily a lot of folks know where the "on" switch is for their brains and use them to develop logical, supportable positions.

[mdbdotcom]

Exactly why baseball desperately needs an automated ball and strike system. Framing is the ability to fool an ump into calling pitches incorrectly.

Not necessarily. When Charles Johnson was with the Orioles, he absolutely could not receive a Scott Erickson's sinker on the corner. He consistently swatted at the pitch and gave the umpire no choice but to call it a ball. A good two-seamer is hard to catch.

There's a great Bill Freehan video I saw years ago in which he explains the difference between catching the ball and receiving the ball. Very edifying for me.

[DrungoHazewood]

Not necessarily. When Charles Johnson was with the Orioles, he absolutely could not receive a Scott Erickson's sinker on the corner. He consistently swatted at the pitch and gave the umpire no choice but to call it a ball. A good two-seamer is hard to catch.

There's a great Bill Freehan video I saw years ago in which he explains the difference between catching the ball and receiving the ball. Very edifying for me.

There is NOTHING in the rule book that says ball/strike calls are dependent on how the catcher catches the ball. The determination should be made on where the ball does or doesn't cross the plate.

If Major League Baseball wants to introduce a component of the definition of balls and strikes that involves catcher mechanics or framing they need to write it in the rules. Otherwise, provide the umps with the tools necessary to enforce the as written rulebook.

[mdbdotcom]

There is NOTHING in the rule book that says ball/strike calls are dependent on how the catcher catches the ball. The determination should be made on where the ball does or doesn't cross the plate.

If Major League Baseball wants to introduce a component of the definition of balls and strikes that involves catcher mechanics or framing they need to write it in the rules. Otherwise, provide the umps with the tools necessary to enforce the as written rulebook.

Umpires perceptions are effected by the catcher. There's no way around it. How many times have you seen a dropped ball, even one right down the middle, called a strike?

[DrungoHazewood]

Umpires perceptions are effected by the catcher. There's no way around it. How many times have you seen a dropped ball, even one right down the middle, called a strike?

I know that's the current reality. I also know that it's counter to the rule book, and there are tools that would fix this problem.

[Frobby]

Framing is the ability to fool an ump into calling pitches incorrectly.

Not necessarily. When Charles Johnson was with the Orioles, he absolutely could not receive a Scott Erickson's sinker on the corner. He consistently swatted at the pitch and gave the umpire no choice but to call it a ball. A good two-seamer is hard to catch.

There's a great Bill Freehan video I saw years ago in which he explains the difference between catching the ball and receiving the ball. Very edifying for me.

There is NOTHING in the rule book that says ball/strike calls are dependent on how the catcher catches the ball. The determination should be made on where the ball does or doesn't cross the plate.

I think you are missing the point. Framing is more than the art of fooling the umpire into calling a ball a strike. It's also receiving the strikes in such a way that they get called strikes. So, your desire to take catching skills out of balls and strikes is fine if that's the way you prefer it, but there is more to framing than fooling the umpire.

[DrungoHazewood]

I think you are missing the point. Framing is more than the art of fooling the umpire into calling a ball a strike. It's also receiving the strikes in such a way that they get called strikes. So, your desire to take catching skills out of balls and strikes is fine if that's the way you prefer it, but there is more to framing than fooling the umpire.

I want the rules called by the book. If umps are unable to do that because some catchers aren't catching the pitch a certain way then let's fix it.