Catcher Throwing Isn't That Big of a Deal
Nice article for the Wall Street Journal by Dave Cameron. Here's a nice quote:
"Over the last five years, the percentage of runners thrown out on the bases only has a .15 correlation with run prevention, which suggests there's almost no impact on a team's chances of winning (a correlation of 1 represents a direct relationship, whereas 0.0 shows there's no relationship at all).... So don't worry if your team's catcher throws to second like a nine-year-old. The best way to stop the opposing team from scoring is to avoid putting runners on base in the first place."
6 months ago
devil_fingers
18 comments
2 recs |
Email
PrintComments
well thank god
that scare is over. bring on the 9 year olds!
"red bull is amaZing" -Coco Crisp
by grantfunk on Apr 27, 2009 2:28 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
They could
most likely handle the bat better than Olivo
Marriage is a great institution, for those that like being in institutions.
by fats on Apr 27, 2009 2:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Tough call
They would definitely have the same basic approach.
"Now…put that in your [BLEEP]ing pipe and smoke it." -Hal McRae
by Sweep_the_Leg on Apr 27, 2009 4:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
the nine-year-old might be more willing to bunt, though
by DarthYoshi on Apr 27, 2009 4:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
not to mention,
they’d be so scared in the box they would undoubtedly swing at less shitty pitches.
If you were thinking, you wouldn't have thought that.
by Warden11 on Apr 27, 2009 5:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
They'd be shorter too = smaller strike zone
just bat like the kid in “Rookie of the Year” – cower at the back corner of the batters box and take walks
by Top Ramen on Apr 27, 2009 6:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sign one up!!
"Now…put that in your [BLEEP]ing pipe and smoke it." -Hal McRae
by Sweep_the_Leg on Apr 27, 2009 8:13 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Other than pitch-calling
What exactly does a catcher do in the field that has any effect with no men on base? The occasional foul pop-up behind the plate? The rare bunt that dies so close to the plate that even the pitcher can’t get to it (and in that case, what’s the likelihood of even the best fielding catcher getting the runner at first)?
Catchers in the field mainly have to a) catch a pitched ball, but if they fail to, then that only advances runners already on base (except for the rare dropped third strike), b) protect the plate from runners coming home, again indicating that said runners already got as far as third base previously, and c) catch base-stealers. The fact that it’s better to not put runners on in the first place has hardly anything to do with the catcher.
Chaim Mattis Keller New York City's # 1 Royals fan!
by cmkeller on Apr 27, 2009 3:15 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
they are usually mega reservoirs of grit
"Things could always be worse." - Buddy Bell
by buddyball on Apr 27, 2009 3:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
What an odd way to measure value of catching basestealers.
It’s not surprising that the correlation is low. The difference between a great caught stealing rate and a poor rate is, what, maybe 1 more out every 5 or so games? The vast majority of runs will naturally have nothing to do with how effective a team is at throwing out runners. I wonder what the correlation between run prevention and a team’s RF UZR is. Would anyone use a low correlation to prove that RF defense is trivial?
by kcdc1 on Apr 27, 2009 3:58 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
good point
I’ll have to re-read it. I could be wrong, but I don’t think he’s saying that catcher defense is trivial, but that throwing out runners isn’t as significant as it seems (he doesn’ t mention this, but it’s also just part of catcher defense, if understandablyt he most eye-catching).
Not sure how much I agere or disagree with Cameron on this, I just thought it was an interesting and short piece.
I'm not a sabermetrician, but I do play one at Driveline Mechanics.
by devil_fingers on Apr 27, 2009 4:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, I'm not really sure what to think of it...
So the point is even if your catcher sucks at throwing out baserunners, you can still have a very successful team? Sure. Just like if your starting pitching is less than stellar, you can still win quite a few games if you’ve got a lineup full of mashers (as the White Sox have also shown). Or if your bullpen sucks, you can win games as long as your starters always go deep into ball games.
Something he sort of touches on, but then doesn’t really, is how having a poor-throwing catcher affects a team’s likelihood of attempting more steals. One would think it has to go up, but I suppose it’s impossible to quantify or measure what certain managers are thinking as the season progresses. Did they run because they knew Pierzynski’s arm sucked? Or would they run anyway? You’ll never know that for sure.
"Now…put that in your [BLEEP]ing pipe and smoke it." -Hal McRae
by Sweep_the_Leg on Apr 27, 2009 4:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think part of his point might be, or could be extended by saying
that once you look at both 1) the run expectancy of a stolen base, and combine that with 2) he difference between a good-throwing catcher and a bad one, that it really doesn’t turn out to be that significant.
That’s just a guess.
I'm not a sabermetrician, but I do play one at Driveline Mechanics.
by devil_fingers on Apr 27, 2009 4:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, if that's the case...
then you stated it much more succinctly and understandably than he did. Bravo. Makes sense to me.
"Now…put that in your [BLEEP]ing pipe and smoke it." -Hal McRae
by Sweep_the_Leg on Apr 27, 2009 4:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
that correlation stat looks bogus to me
or at least the way it’s presented.
1) it should be put in context: how does .15 compare to another aspect, say the OBP or UZR of the catcher?
2) it seems very rudimentary: how about looking, for instance, at a stat that tries to measure the value of those stolen bases/runners thrown out (i.e. run expectancy per DF above)? or look at the correlation involved with number of SB’s given up/runners thrown out to try to capture SB prevention and not just % thrown out.
3) correlation is not causation: maybe teams that are good (hypothetically speaking) don’t care so much about SB% because they are good at preventing baserunners anyway. a factor like that would throw off correlation. also, there is usually a positive trade-off for having a catcher with a lousy arm, which is that he’s a good hitter. maybe (again hypothetically speaking) the white sox put up with giving up a high % of SBs because they feel like their offense (or even the other defensive factors) (or grit) of their catcher makes up for it.
just saying
by benfunke on Apr 27, 2009 6:34 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Another myth debunked
Good work by Cameron.
The immoderate moderator
by NYRoyal on Apr 28, 2009 1:38 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Even better (this means you Farnsworth)
The best way to stop the opposing team from scoring is to avoid putting runners on base in the first place.
An even mostest better way is to avoid putting runners on all 4 bases with one swing. On the other hand, that’s one way to save your catcher’s arm.
"I'll be the first one to tell you, Don't follow me. I'll let you down. Follow Jesus." Trey Hillman
OK, got it.
The General Theory of Royaltivity
by kabrink on Apr 28, 2009 8:04 AM EDT reply actions 1 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
Related FanPosts on Royals Review
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
