CFP wrote:Where did anyone say that robot umpires were immediately becoming part of baseball and human umpires were being removed as of this spring training? Calm down man, Jesus Christ

CFP wrote:Where did anyone say that robot umpires were immediately becoming part of baseball and human umpires were being removed as of this spring training? Calm down man, Jesus Christ

bbref wrote:Rdef. Fielding Runs
Fielding Runs: Defensive Runs Saved
Defensive Runs Saved (DRS) is the most sophisticated public system available. It includes 8 factors:

Fielding Range Plus/Minus Runs Saved based on BIS-trained scorer observations and batted ball timing to determine the velocity of each batted ball.
Outfield arm runs saved based on exact counts of baserunner advancements and kills and the velocity of the hit ball.
Infielder double plays based on opportunities and rates they were turned based also on batted ball velocity.
Good play-bad play values which include 28 positive play types. For example: HR-saving catches, backing up a play, blocking a pitch in the dirt, and 54 misplays like missing the cutoff man, failing to anticipate the wall and allowing extra bases, not covering a base, pulling a foot off the bag, etc...
Bunt Fielding
Catcher SB/CS data (which is tweaked by the pitchers caught)
Pitcher SB/CS data (which is tweaked by the catchers behind the plate)
Catcher handling of the pitching staff via things like pitch framing and pitch calling

fangraphs wrote:For catchers we use the Stolen Base Runs (rSB) aspect of Defensive Runs Saved and Runs Saved on Passed Pitches (RPP) because there is no UZR for catchers. We currently do not include framing runs in WAR for catchers, and catcher defense is admittedly the most difficult to measure in general.

Shore wrote:I just looked just at the 30 catchers that had 300 PA or more, so "starting catchers", and compared their WAR from bbref and fangraphs (bWAR and fWAR). It's interesting because they use very different methods for valuing defense - fWAR does NOT measure/include pitch framing in their values, and bWAR DOES include it:

bbref wrote:Rdef. Fielding Runs
Fielding Runs: Defensive Runs Saved
Defensive Runs Saved (DRS) is the most sophisticated public system available. It includes 8 factors:

Fielding Range Plus/Minus Runs Saved based on BIS-trained scorer observations and batted ball timing to determine the velocity of each batted ball.
Outfield arm runs saved based on exact counts of baserunner advancements and kills and the velocity of the hit ball.
Infielder double plays based on opportunities and rates they were turned based also on batted ball velocity.
Good play-bad play values which include 28 positive play types. For example: HR-saving catches, backing up a play, blocking a pitch in the dirt, and 54 misplays like missing the cutoff man, failing to anticipate the wall and allowing extra bases, not covering a base, pulling a foot off the bag, etc...
Bunt Fielding
Catcher SB/CS data (which is tweaked by the pitchers caught)
Pitcher SB/CS data (which is tweaked by the catchers behind the plate)
Catcher handling of the pitching staff via things like pitch framing and pitch calling

fangraphs wrote:For catchers we use the Stolen Base Runs (rSB) aspect of Defensive Runs Saved and Runs Saved on Passed Pitches (RPP) because there is no UZR for catchers. We currently do not include framing runs in WAR for catchers, and catcher defense is admittedly the most difficult to measure in general.

Taking all that in, we would assume that the BEST pitch-framing catchers would have the biggest fWAR/bWAR discrepancies, because bWAR would include that magical ability, and fWAR ignores it. Offense isn't that hard to measure, so they'll be close to equal there.

What's weird is that the EXACT OPPOSITE is occurring. The 3 catchers with the biggest WAR differences are Yasmani Grandal (2.7 WAR diff), Tyler Flowers (2.2), and Austin Hedges (2.0). The 3 catchers that were 2019's best pitch framers (by runs saved) are... Austin Hedges, Tyler Flowers, and Yasmani Grandal. Same 3 guys. But all three of them are rated SIGNIFICANTLY better defensively by fangraphs than by bbref, the place that INCLUDES framing in its values.

The only logical conclusion, to me, is that the metric that attempts to include all aspects of catcher defense (SB/PB/framing/bunts), and is event driven (good/bad play, extra-bases taken, etc), finds that pitch framing value is dwarfed by the value of other aspects of catching defense.

A lot to digest and TLDR and all that, but it's right there: the best pitch-framers are poorly rated overall defensively by the metric that includes pitch-framing. For Flowers, it's -6 runs for bbref, +19 for fangraphs; for Grandal it's -11 and +21; and for Hedges, it's +4 and +27. In all cases, bbref ranks them at least 20 runs worse than fangraphs, using DRS, which includes framing.

WhiteyFan wrote:Lets start over with a simple question. What do you think happens to the overall offensive production from the catcher position as a result of MLB instituting robo-umps?

1. There will be no change.
2. There will be a slight, but barely noticeable increase.
3. There will be a notable, but not significant increase in offense.
4. There will be a significant increase.

I obviously believe it will be #4.

I expect within 5 years of institution, the catcher production will be more in line with that of a 3B/CI rather than less than a SS/CF as it is today.

bleh wrote:Fangraphs started counting pitch framing in WAR last year, that quote about not counting it is out of date: https://blogs.fangraphs.com/war-update-catcher-framing/

Shore wrote:

WhiteyFan wrote:Lets start over with a simple question. What do you think happens to the overall offensive production from the catcher position as a result of MLB instituting robo-umps?

1. There will be no change.
2. There will be a slight, but barely noticeable increase.
3. There will be a notable, but not significant increase in offense.
4. There will be a significant increase.

I obviously believe it will be #4.

I expect within 5 years of institution, the catcher production will be more in line with that of a 3B/CI rather than less than a SS/CF as it is today.

I believe the answer is 1 or 2, but demonstrably not 4.

First of all, we have no metrics that show that the best pitch framers are the most valuable defenders, but we have at least one metric that shows the opposite. Second, most importantly, is that catchers have never hit like that. If we go back 50 years worth of data, 1970-2019, before "pitch framing" was the cat's meow, catchers are the 2nd-worst hitting position, after SS. 2B is a little better, and everywhere else is significantly better. For many, many reasons. Catching, not pitch-framing, is disastrous to your body. It reduces effectiveness, and shortens careers. Thus, elite hitters tend to not be catchers, or move away from C. That won't change. And the barrier to being a ML catcher isn't "can he frame pitches"... that's a nuance, one they believe can be taught. The rest of it - catching, throwing, insanity, calling games, blocking pitches, etc. - explains how relatively poor hitters can make the majors - they can do the things necessary to be a catcher.

FWIW, the positions over the last 50 years, per bbref team batting by position splits:

1B: .800
RF: .780
LF: .772
DH: .763
3B: .748
CF: .742
2B: .707
C: .701
SS: .681

Shore wrote:

WhiteyFan wrote:Lets start over with a simple question. What do you think happens to the overall offensive production from the catcher position as a result of MLB instituting robo-umps?

1. There will be no change.
2. There will be a slight, but barely noticeable increase.
3. There will be a notable, but not significant increase in offense.
4. There will be a significant increase.

I obviously believe it will be #4.

I expect within 5 years of institution, the catcher production will be more in line with that of a 3B/CI rather than less than a SS/CF as it is today.

I believe the answer is 1 or 2, but demonstrably not 4.

First of all, we have no metrics that show that the best pitch framers are the most valuable defenders, but we have at least one metric that shows the opposite. Second, most importantly, is that catchers have never hit like that. If we go back 50 years worth of data, 1970-2019, before "pitch framing" was the cat's meow, catchers are the 2nd-worst hitting position, after SS. 2B is a little better, and everywhere else is significantly better. For many, many reasons. Catching, not pitch-framing, is disastrous to your body. It reduces effectiveness, and shortens careers. Thus, elite hitters tend to not be catchers, or move away from C. That won't change. And the barrier to being a ML catcher isn't "can he frame pitches"... that's a nuance, one they believe can be taught. The rest of it - catching, throwing, insanity, calling games, blocking pitches, etc. - explains how relatively poor hitters can make the majors - they can do the things necessary to be a catcher.

FWIW, the positions over the last 50 years, per bbref team batting by position splits:

1B: .800
RF: .780
LF: .772
DH: .763
3B: .748
CF: .742
2B: .707
C: .701
SS: .681

WhiteyFan wrote:

Shore wrote:

WhiteyFan wrote:Lets start over with a simple question. What do you think happens to the overall offensive production from the catcher position as a result of MLB instituting robo-umps?

1. There will be no change.
2. There will be a slight, but barely noticeable increase.
3. There will be a notable, but not significant increase in offense.
4. There will be a significant increase.

I obviously believe it will be #4.

I expect within 5 years of institution, the catcher production will be more in line with that of a 3B/CI rather than less than a SS/CF as it is today.

I believe the answer is 1 or 2, but demonstrably not 4.

First of all, we have no metrics that show that the best pitch framers are the most valuable defenders, but we have at least one metric that shows the opposite. Second, most importantly, is that catchers have never hit like that. If we go back 50 years worth of data, 1970-2019, before "pitch framing" was the cat's meow, catchers are the 2nd-worst hitting position, after SS. 2B is a little better, and everywhere else is significantly better. For many, many reasons. Catching, not pitch-framing, is disastrous to your body. It reduces effectiveness, and shortens careers. Thus, elite hitters tend to not be catchers, or move away from C. That won't change. And the barrier to being a ML catcher isn't "can he frame pitches"... that's a nuance, one they believe can be taught. The rest of it - catching, throwing, insanity, calling games, blocking pitches, etc. - explains how relatively poor hitters can make the majors - they can do the things necessary to be a catcher.

FWIW, the positions over the last 50 years, per bbref team batting by position splits:

1B: .800
RF: .780
LF: .772
DH: .763
3B: .748
CF: .742
2B: .707
C: .701
SS: .681

Well, again, I dont think any previous data is applicable. That's how much I think it will change things. I believe the catcher position will be forever discussed as the "pre-robo-ump" and "post-robo-ump" eras. Obliviously some (most?) of you don't agree. That's ok. Will be interesting to track.

Thanks again for digging up the info and giving your opinion. I do appreciate it.

bleh wrote:Fangraphs started counting pitch framing in WAR last year, that quote about not counting it is out of date: https://blogs.fangraphs.com/war-update-catcher-framing/

My issue with pitch framing is... if Grandal is worth 5 fWAR due to his pitch framing, then why did not a single team want to give him more than a 1 year deal last year? Why did Tyler Flowers, one of the best pitch framers who had 2.1 fWAR in 85 games, sign for only 1 year $4 million? The same year Travis D'arnaud signs for $16 million... Either all 30 teams with their hordes of ivy league analytic guys are undervaluing pitch framing, or the guy doing this stuff for free for Fangraphs (and WhiteyFan) are overvaluing it. My hunch says it's the latter.

@JimBowdenGM
There is a growing belief amongst NL GM’s that the DH will be instituted for NL as early as 2021. FWIW.

@pedrogomezESPN
New for the 2020 MLB season: Much like NFL referees have done for years, umpires will be mic’d up and tell fans in attendance and those watching on television and listening on radio if reviewed calls are upheld or overturned. They may also explain rules, if necessary.

The magnitude of impact of having a good framing catcher as opposed to a bad framing catcher was on the same order of magnitude as the impact of having a good hitting catcher as opposed to a bad hitting one.

Catcher is considered the most defensive-oriented position in the game. The catcher’s defensive skills: framing, throwing and blocking, constitute nearly half (45.8%) the above pie graph. Most of that half (31.3%) comes from framing.



When electronic strike zones are implemented, Framing’s 31.3% portion of the pie will drop to zero. With the elimination of framing, the new distribution of the relative impacts of catcher skills looks like this:



Getting rid of framing makes the entire pool of catchers more homogenous. (this is really the most important point of everything Im saying)

Catcher is now a more offensive position.

A well-implemented electronic strike zone may be good for the sport, but it does diminish the role of the catcher by taking away potential defensive value.

This past year, MLB asked the Atlantic League to implement a curious rule of allowing a batter to try to advance to first base on any pitch that gets past the catcher, whether it be a wild pitch or a passed ball. Although it is informally known as “stealing first base,” it is really more akin to the scenario of reaching first base safely on a dropped third strike. The difference is that now it doesn’t have to be strike three to happen.

It seemed a bizarre experimental rule, deviating more from traditional baseball rules than any of the other experimental rules. Joe Sheehan in his newsletter proposed one possible reason this rule was included: by creating more blocking chances, you add some defensive value back to the catcher that was lost with the elimination of framing: