Framing a pitch

[Guest d'Kong76]

Nothing is more annoying to me (well, a lot of stuff is) than
hearing a commentator applaud a catcher framing a pitch. A
ball or strike is where the ball passes the plate and the ump
can't see when a catcher jerks his stupid mitt into place.

It's just stupid.

[Guest cooby]

Tim mccarverism

[Guest d'Kong76]

Even if the ump can see in the second that he has to make
the call he's not doing his job if he relies on a framing.

It's just stupid.

[Centerfield]

As meaningful as catcher ERA.

It's just stupid.

[Ceetar]

d'Kong76 wrote: Even if the ump can see in the second that he has to make the call he's not doing his job if he relies on a framing. It's just stupid.

Except there is A LOT of data to suggest it's not.

[Ceetar]

2.4 inches from center of zone.


This one is literally 1.1 inches from the center of the zone.


both called balls thanks to poor framing. (And the Umpires being influenced by it)

[Guest d'Kong76]

The point is, the strike zone is where the ball goes over the plate.
Not what some some catcher does with his glove afterwards.

If the ump is judging by the latter, he's not doing his job well.

[Ceetar]

d'Kong76 wrote: The point is, the strike zone is where the ball goes over the plate. Not what some some catcher does with his glove afterwards. If the ump is judging by the latter, he's not doing his job well.

well yes, which is why we should have robot umps, because humans suck at these things.

[Frayed Knot]

d'Kong76 wrote: The point is, the strike zone is where the ball goes over the plate. Not what some some catcher does with his glove afterwards. If the ump is judging by the latter, he's not doing his job well.

But that doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

But, in general, I think you're right in that announcers tend to credit FAR too much to catchers and their slight of hand mojo.
Hell, listen to the Nats announcers and they credit about 3/4 of the strike calls to the Washington backstops. -- OK it's probably not that many but it seems that just about each time a strike gets called and their electronic box thingie shows that the ball actually missed by an inch or three they just ring it up to their catchers.

[Zvon]

Catchers have been doing this forever. Before "framing" we'd just say the catcher fooled the ump. And I do think catchers can fool umps in this manner and they should try to when they feel the time is right.

I agree that making it a catcher's "tool" is stupid.

Ceetar wrote: 2.4 inches from center of zone. This one is literally 1.1 inches from the center of the zone. both called balls thanks to poor framing. (And the Umpires being influenced by it)

Two horrible examples.

#1. Awful catcher

#2. Catcher was more concerned with a possible pick off.

[MFS62]

d'Kong76 wrote: If the ump is judging by the latter, he's not doing his job well.

Speaking of umps not doing their jobs well, by some strange coincidence, look who was umpiring at first base tonight. (The very mention of his name can result in bad things happening to the Mets) I predict this incompetent arbiter will make a bad call that will adversely affect the outcome of at least one game in this series. I hope not, but his track record is hard to ignore.

Later

[Ceetar]

Zvon wrote: Two horrible examples. #1. Awful catcher #2. Catcher was more concerned with a possible pick off.

Why does that matter? These were clearly poorly framed pitches, regardless of the reason. But they crossed as close to dead center as you can possibly get, and the umpires called it a ball. It's not that common that they're THAT wrong, but when you start talking about the edges..well, the good framers definitely do better. There's a reason lefties can't hit lefties as well as righties hit righties. It's because the strike zone is literally wider for left-handed hitters.

The Cardinals, from 2010-2015 are 449-317 when Yadier Molina is catching and 94-96 when he's not.

Framing is extremely real.

[Edgy MD]

Zvon wrote: I agree that making it a catcher's "tool" is stupid.

But data does suggest that there is a class of catchers more effective at this than other catchers.

Two of them play for the Mets.

[Fman99]

Ceetar wrote: well yes, which is why we should have robot umps, because humans suck at these things.

Put me in, Coach, I'm ready to play

[Guest d'Kong76]

[fimg=700:3g9h516x]http://a.fssta.com/content/dam/fsdigital/fscom/mlb/images/2015/08/27/082715-mlb-instant-replay-pi-mp.vresize.1200.675.high.36.jpg[/fimg:3g9h516x]

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

[Benjamin Grimm]

It does look like the umpire is watching the ball all the way to the glove. I guess he has to do that if there are two strikes, because he has to make sure the ball was caught, but that's not the situation here.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

Who the heck is pitching? Number 0

[seawolf17]

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Who the heck is pitching? Number 0

Adam Ottavino.

[nymr83]

framing is real and framing is a skill. you may say that you'd like to see the ability to influence the game with that skill removed, and the way to do that is a strike zone judged by a non-human. but until that happens you can't say its stupid to talk about because it IS there.

here is one of MANY articles on the subject http://grantland.com/features/studying-art-pitch-framing-catchers-such-francisco-cervelli-chris-stewart-jose-molina-others/

[Guest d'Kong76]

Nymr83 wrote: you can't say its stupid

Yes I can! In fact, I did.
I'm not going to flog a deceased equine over it, but I will say one
more time that a ball or a strike should be called as it crosses the
plate. Not where some magician wearing the tools of ignorance moves
his glove to. So there. Look it up in the rule book!

[batmagadanleadoff]

There's a lot of words I can think of to describe pitch framing. "Stupid" isn't one of them. An extraordinarily skilled pitch framing catcher can save his team about 50 runs a season. No other defensive player comes even remotely close to having such an impact. The home plate umpire has a tiny blind spot, usually "on the black" and a skilled catcher can exploit the blind spot to his team's advantage. Why is that stupid? Are you saying that the catcher's stupid? Do you think that the umpire is calling some pitches incorrectly on purpose? Maybe you can respond with a thread about how Rey Ordonez was the best Mets shortstop ever.

[Guest d'Kong76]

You'll have to share your math with us on how you get to 50
saved runs per season! That's a big round number to just throw
at us as fact.

[Guest d'Kong76]

One more thing, umpires are graded and monitored more and more
these days than ever before. I doubt one to a man would admit that
he allows pitch framing to alter his calls. Where the ball crosses the
plate!!! It's not rocket science. Some of you sound like I'm disputing
the existence of dinosaurs or something.

[batmagadanleadoff]

d'Kong76 wrote: One more thing, umpires are graded and monitored more and more these days than ever before. I doubt one to a man would admit that he allows pitch framing to alter his calls. Where the ball crosses the plate!!! It's not rocket science. Some of you sound like I'm disputing the existence of dinosaurs or something.

Truthfully, I have no idea what you're disputing. No. Idea. Not a clue.


Allow? I guess you do think that umps screw up calls with intent.

[Benjamin Grimm]

He's saying that if an umpire, when making a ball/strike call, doesn't consider the position of the catcher's glove when he catches the ball, then a catcher won't be able to influence the umpire's decision.

[Guest d'Kong76]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Truthfully, I have no idea what you're disputing. No. Idea. Not a clue. Allow? I guess you do think that umps screw up calls with intent.

If you go back and re-read, I was disputing the applauding of pitch
framing by commentators as being something so meaningful. I think
Keef go me going this time around.

More currently, I'm disputing your 50 runs per game claim. I asked
how you arrived at that rather large figure.

I don't know how that got you to screwing up calls intentionally.

[Ceetar]

d'Kong76 wrote: More currently, I'm disputing your 50 runs per game claim. I asked how you arrived at that rather large figure. .

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/sortable/index.php?cid=1819124

so far this year Travis d'Arnaud has 'framed' 47 balls into strikes.

[Guest d'Kong76]

That's pretty fancy! Who or what determines what an extra strike is?
I said I wasn't going to flog, but but I think it's a lot of horse hockey
and not as important as some media types, fans, etc. think it is.

Let's get an ex-ump on here and see what he has to say about how
pitch framing affected his game!

[Ceetar]

d'Kong76 wrote: That's pretty fancy! Who or what determines what an extra strike is? I said I wasn't going to flog, but but I think it's a lot of horse hockey and not as important as some media types, fans, etc. think it is. Let's get an ex-ump on here and see what he has to say about how pitch framing affected his game!

Pitch F/X says. They have extremely accurate cameras that can tell you what's a strike, plus can even tell you how often a pitch in a spot gets called a strike.