What's so special about catchers?
by AnotherAaron on Jan 6, 2009 12:18 PM PST
57 comments
This is really bugging me, and it all goes back to Graham's post a few weeks ago (thanks, Graham!):
http://www.lookoutlanding.com/2008/12/22/699319/clement-the-catcher
So the difference between the worst catcher of all time and the best is on the order of 2 wins a season. Which isn't very much.
...snip...
For 5 runs of defensive upgrade, Jeff Clement would lose 25 runs of positional value. 25! Potential injuries aside, no matter how bad he looks in the field, there is no way that you shift Clement off his postion right now. As an average major league hitter, a level well within his ability to reach, he'd be worth 2-2.5 WAR as a catcher against 0-0.5 WAR as a DH/1B. Start being less conservative with his defence (after all, he's not going to be Piazza bad), and the difference only grows.
The implication here is that if a player is physically capable of squatting and catching most pitches, he should be used as a catcher until he is no longer capable of doing so.
Just for fun, let's try this with, I don't know, Raul Ibanez. You could substitute Adam Dunn or Pat Burrell or Bobby Abreu any of the other "should be DHing" types if you like, but Ibanez at least has worn a catcher's mitt at one time, so he's the most 'realistic' if you can even call it that.
Let's say that Ibanez is top-tier, first ballot, Poopertown Hall of Shame worthy. Half again as bad as Piazza as Piazza was as bad as average (-1 defensively). Theoretically, this only costs the team 15 runs? He gets 12.5 back just as a positional adjustment, which makes it almost a wash defensively.
Fangraphs has Ibanez at 2.3 WAR with the bat, but just 0.55 overall as a LF:
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/replacing-burrell-with-ibanez/
At -2.5 runs as a defensive catcher (-15 for being historically laughable, +12.5 for the positional adjustment), he's a +2 win player, and totally deserves his contract, for the first year, anyway.
If Piazza was -10 runs defensively, Ibanez would have to be about -30 to justify making him a LF instead of a catcher?
So...um...WTF?
I do my best to follow all the stats, but I must have gotten a few crossed up here, because barely-replacement-level LF just don't go on to be league-average catchers, right?
0 recs |
57 comments
Email
Print
Comments
The issue is you can't just stick any player in any position and expect it to work.
The positional adjustments exist because it is so hard to find guys who catch well AND can swing the bat well. Also, catching takes a large physical toll on a body. Wherever you are, crouch down right now for about sixty seconds, then picture being in and out of a crouch for over an hour. Your knees will not thank you.
I DRINK YOUR MILKSHAKE!!! I DRINK IT UP!!
by abender20 on Jan 6, 2009 12:30 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
It's a combination of things
Catching hurts your bat, and increases your chance of hurting yourself. On top of that, catcher defence has been historically overrated in MLB.
by Graham on Jan 6, 2009 12:32 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
If catcher defense was really higly overrated...
…it seems that at some point, a team would have really been able to exploit that inefficiency, and other teams would start to catch on.
There could also be some kind of intelligence threshold, too—some guys might be too stupid to call a whole game effectively and I would suspect that they would be weeded out of the position pretty early.
by ubelmann on Jan 6, 2009 11:06 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Sac bunting is over rated, stealing bases is over rated, using a 5-man rotation is over rated, closer usage is over rated, clutch is over rated, pinch hitting is over rated,
I could go on.
by Matthew on Jan 6, 2009 11:11 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah but wouldn't catcher defense qualify as the most overrated thing
by Edgar for Pres on Jan 7, 2009 8:48 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
There is at least a disagreement amongst baseball people amongst those things
With almost of those things, we see wide variations in strategy from team-to-team.
Some teams sac bunt a lot, and some barely at all. Some teams attempt to steal a lot, and some barely at all. Some teams pay a lot for the closer reputation, other teams don’t value it as much. All teams use a 5-man rotation, but I think some of that has to do with the players and agents not wanting to risk pitchers’ health—some teams have clearly made noise about wanting to do that, but haven’t been able to convince everyone involved to make it happen. Some teams will pay more for a supposed “clutch” hitter, other teams won’t.
And some of those strategic elements of the game (like bunting and SB) are just a matter of some people taking longer than others to react to shifts within the industry. (Giving up an out for a base is more costly in a high-scoring environment than a low-scoring environment.)
But as far as catcher defense goes, if no one—no one at all—is willing to put in a catcher who is worse defensively than Piazza, I think it’s more reasonable to keep looking for reasons why that is rather than claim that we see something that no one else in baseball has figured out.
by ubelmann on Jan 7, 2009 10:28 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Why should I accept that baseball groupthink is truth?
by Graham on Jan 7, 2009 10:33 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
if 30 people think it it must be incontrovertible fact, duh
Nice Guys Finish Third - Hopelessly lost, but makin' good time.
by pdb on Jan 7, 2009 10:36 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
There are strong financial incentives for discovering large inefficiencies
There are a lot of arguments out there for why managers don’t matter that much, but I think the best one of them is to look at their salaries. If Lou Piniella was made from 100% win like many fans claim he is, and he could turn a bunch of hacks (say a 75-win team) into contenders (say an 85-win team), then it would be worth some team to pay him like the Yankees pay A-Rod.
But we know that no managers are worth that much because no one is willing to pay even close to that much for an upgrade at manager. Managers are worth about as much as utility players, and as such, that’s how they are paid.
Similarly, if this catching positional effect was really as large as you claim, people would have stumbled upon it by now and the market would adjust over time. There are even a lot of teams out there who take numbers like this seriously, but even those teams aren’t trying to acquire no-defense catchers on the cheap. Usually when you think you’re the only guy in the room with a clue, you’re wrong.
by ubelmann on Jan 7, 2009 10:41 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
How did this turn into me thinking I've discovered something?
Tango’s work in the Annual clearly shows that catcher defence is overrated.
by Graham on Jan 7, 2009 10:49 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
So, here's my argument:
The 20 run historical spread represents a market inefficiency probably caused by managers overreacting to good/bad catchers.
Here’s what I see your argument as:
You can’t be right because someone would have noticed by now otherwise. There is therefore no inefficiency.
by Graham on Jan 7, 2009 10:55 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
And personally I think believing that no new market inefficiencies are possible is odd.
by Graham on Jan 7, 2009 10:59 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Just no new market inefficiencies that are that large
Baseball is a pretty mature game and I think that by and large, teams have come to a point where the industry average is pretty good.
I think a lot of the inefficiencies that pop up are more an issue of teams not adapting enough to changing circumstances like the run-scoring environment being really high or really low. Perhaps the gap between how first basemen and catchers hit over the last decade has increased from past decades? That would make me a lot more comfortable with the idea that no one has caught on to this until now.
by ubelmann on Jan 7, 2009 11:10 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't think it's that large on average
Good bat-poor glove catchers tend never to be catchers in the first place – even in HS and college level baseball. So while moving a league average bat, -15 run catcher to first might cost a win or so, it’s hardly common enough that it’s costing all of baseball large amounts of money every year.
by Graham on Jan 7, 2009 11:17 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
That is essentially what I have said
I would clarify my position to read that I don’t think it’s quite true that there is quite no inefficiency, but I think that it is unlikely that the inefficiency is so large that it is in the 1-2.5 win range for each catcher in the -10-20 run range. Therefore, I think it’s likely that there is still some element of catcher defense that we are missing. It’s not like it would be the first time that we haven’t measured things quite right.
by ubelmann on Jan 7, 2009 11:01 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Who is claiming it's a 1 to 2.5 win inefficiency?
by Matthew on Jan 7, 2009 11:02 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
It follows from the numbers
-10 run fielder at C (which themselves almost don’t exist) to -10 run fielder at 1B costs you 20-25 runs in positional value. Even if you take that as 20 runs, the player has to become a +10 fielder at first base to it to be an even swap. And I think that a lot of bad defenders behind the plate probably aren’t going to become above average defensive first basemen.
by ubelmann on Jan 7, 2009 11:23 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
You're missing the playing time adjustment and the offensive improvement inherent in being not a catcher
by Graham on Jan 7, 2009 11:24 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
(which is probably around 15 runs total)
by Graham on Jan 7, 2009 11:29 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Total like over his career or total like over one season?
If it is one season, then it would seem to explain—at least to a large degree—why no one tolerates worse-than-Piazza defense at catcher.
You had the positional adjustment from C to 1B at 25 runs. That’s the main cost in moving a player from C to 1B. Now you’re saying that the playing time adjustment and offensive improvement is going to gain 15 runs in offensive value by moving to 1B. The cost already is down to just 10 runs.
So any catcher who is a -10 defensive catcher would only have to be a league average fielder at first base to make it an even wash. And league average defense at first base is not an especially high bar to reach. A -15 defensive catcher would only have to be a -5 fielder at 1B, and a -20 defensive catcher would only have to be a -10 fielder at 1B.
On top of that, if the 15 runs is per season and not per career, we can note that first basemen age better than catchers, so in the long term, the improvement on defense relative to position wouldn’t even need to be a full 10 runs.
Given that, I guess it seems like major league teams are acting pretty rationally in not allowing anyone to be a worse-than-Piazza catcher, and I don’t see where they are hugely overrating the importance of catcher defense.
by ubelmann on Jan 7, 2009 11:53 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
One season
Catchers who are that bad defensively tend to be almost as awful at first though. In addition, the +10 happens when being a catcher is actively hurting their hitting development – so if you have a great hitting catcher you won’t get that full bonus.
The long term becomes irrelevant after club control passes. They’re not your problem anymore.
by Graham on Jan 7, 2009 12:06 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Long term
The long term is certainly much less relevant after club control passes, but there are cases where a player has larger trade value if teams don’t expect them to decline soon. For instance, when the Twins dumped Santana, the Mets would probably not have been as interested in obtaining him if they thought his arm would fall off. That is a admittedly a rather secondary effect, though.
There is also some evidence that most catchers take longer to reach their peak value, which could be important if you are only going to control a player for his club control years and don’t care about his value after that.
by ubelmann on Jan 7, 2009 1:21 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't think shifting -anyone- who can't play defence to catcher is a good idea
The inefficiency is in moving borderline catching prospects who can hit off their position for reasons of defence alone*. How often does this crop up?
*I.e. not due to injury or hitting development concerns.
by Graham on Jan 7, 2009 11:09 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I know you didn't claim that
But there have to be a group of 10 to -20 run catchers out there-those would be the borderline catching prospects you’re talking about. I don’t know that there are a ton of them out there, but it seems like compiling such a list would be difficult since a lot of them probably move positions at AA or below, especially on teams that are not as aggressive about promoting prospects as the Mariners were under Bavasi.
by ubelmann on Jan 7, 2009 11:17 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Said catchers have to be great hitting prospects though.
How often in the past 5 or 10 seasons has a great hitting, poor defensive catcher come through the minors and been switched off position?
by Matthew on Jan 7, 2009 11:30 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
This is going to get bogged down in discussions about what qualifies as 'great' hitting prospects
so let’s take an example or two:
Josh Willingham
Daric Barton
(Neil Walker would’ve been a better example if he hadn’t shat the bed in 2008)
On the other side, what do you make of positional shifts TO C – Rob Johnson, Adam Smith, etc.? Are these teams that sort of intuit the inefficiency here? Or just a way to keep guys with more intangibles than hitting ability moving in a system?
by marc w on Jan 7, 2009 11:50 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not asking for one or two example.
I’m asking for a complete number, because you need that in order to determine how frequent it happens. My suspicion is that it happens very rarely.
The point of the prospect being good/great at hitting is that the prospect does have to be better than the current best option at catcher, who we will presume to be better than the prospect at fielding. Moving a guy who was going to be just a back-up catcher to some other position isn’t costing teams anything. It’s only people who could have been starting catchers.
by Matthew on Jan 7, 2009 12:05 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
"I’m asking for a complete number, because you need that in order to determine how frequent it happens."
Well, I’d like HITf/x. Some things aren’t possible at this juncture.
When Josh Willingham was in AAA for the Marlins, the team started a 33yo Mike Redmond. In 2006, the Marlins turned to Miguel O-fucking-livo. My suspicion here is that everyone in the Marlins org believed that Willingham was a better option than Olivo or anyone else, but that they still wanted his lead glove in LF and not C.
Again, maybe this doesn’t happen often, maybe it does, but I think it can be useful to walk through this with a real world example.
Barton was an absolutely elite hitter whose defensive reputation was so bad that he was moved to 1B (where he still sucks) in low A ball. At that level, the current best option at C is basically irrelevant. So: should a great hitter EVER be moved off of C below AA?
by marc w on Jan 7, 2009 2:21 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
If Piazza helped his team so much...
…why haven’t those teams who employed him continued to seek out no-defense, all-bat catchers? There are poor-defense/good-hitting players at other positions, why would catcher be the exception that no organization has caught onto in the long term?
When the range of good defensive performances at every other position is much larger, I find it likely that we either aren’t capturing the full difference in defense amongst catchers, or there is something else we’re missing. It’s all well and good to say that many teams are overrating some thing, but I find it quite unlikely that essentially every single team is making a $5-10M mistake every single year. It doesn’t pass the smell test. When our measurements of baseball are that far removed from the what actually happens, I think it’s time to step back and admit that we must be missing something.
by ubelmann on Jan 7, 2009 10:12 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I think you're missing the idea.
Where did you get this 5-10M mistake from?
by Matthew on Jan 7, 2009 10:18 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Graham's claim...
…is basically this:
The worst a catcher can be defensively is -10 runs relative to other catchers. The positional difference between C and 1B (where most good-hitting catchers get moved if they can’t keep hitting) is 25 runs. Even if an atrociously bad defender like Piazza moves to first base, he could probably still be a -10 run defender relative to other first basemen.
So a team that would move someone like Mike Piazza from catcher to first base would cost themselves 2.5 wins, which is essentially a $12-13M mistake.
And if everyone who defends worse at catcher than Piazza—the 20 to -10-run defenders-gets moved to first base, then there are a bunch of teams out there costing themselves 1.5-2.5 wins by making this move, which is actually more like a $7-13M mistake.
by ubelmann on Jan 7, 2009 10:35 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
My claim is not that the worst a catcher can be is -10
My claim is that since the difference between the worst and best catchers in ML history is 20 runs, a catcher’s true +/- values are being artificially multiplied by teams who believe in catcher intangibles like game calling, or don’t properly value stolen bases/wild pitches/passed balls.
by Graham on Jan 7, 2009 10:40 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Sorry, I misspoke there
Your claim is that the worst that catchers have been is -10 compared to average.
This implies that all of the 10-20-run catchers have been moved off of the position. Given the difference between what an average catcher hits and what an average first basemen hits, this means that nearly all of those -10-20-run catchers-unless they became Doug Mientkiewicz at first base—were less valuable in their new position than they were at their old position.
You think that the historic -10 to +10 range of catcher defense (to the degree that we’re able to measure it) represents some kind of big inefficiency and I think that there are probably some good reasons why that has been so if there are zero historical outliers.
by ubelmann on Jan 7, 2009 10:51 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The reason it's there is that baseball people have grown up obsessed with catcher defence.
And until about a month ago nothing has been done to show otherwise.
by Graham on Jan 7, 2009 10:52 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
No, that isn't Graham's claim. The worst a catcher can be is much much much much much worse than -10 runs.
Graham pointed out that the worst any regular catcher has been is -10 and that since Clement has made it this far as a catcher, there’s a decent bet that Clement is qualifies as a regular catcher.
And for your valuations, you’re ignoring the hitting and playing time drain on catchers. You’re also assuming that all teams are making this mistake and that no team might have better internal options for C or 1B than a catcher with a decent bat but horrid defense.
by Matthew on Jan 7, 2009 10:49 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
No.
Somebody like Ibanez or Dunn or whomever, fall under the category of emergency catchers, people who do not catch or maybe have caught a game or two within the past 5 seasons.
That group is, on average, something like -50 runs with the glove behind the plate.
by Matthew on Jan 6, 2009 12:36 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
That's the answer I was looking for
So, essentially, the group “Major League Catchers” is subject to a heavy selection bias before the calculations even begin. I suppose every position is, but C (and SS?) especially.
The defensive adjustments are on the same scale, but moving around on that scale isn’t just about adding and subtracting.
So obvious, yet so confusing.
Thanks.
by AnotherAaron on Jan 6, 2009 1:26 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
There is a reason why there are so many Managers in baseball that are former Catchers
Catcher is generally your most important defensive position. The Catcher is involved in every play. The Catcher is basically the coach on the field, directing the defense, calling the pitches, etc…
And then put all that with the fact that very few people WANT to be a catcher, and that is why any catcher who is good at what he does AND can hit is valued extremely highly.
facepalm.jpg
by Zonis on Jan 6, 2009 2:25 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Have you ever noticed that Kenji gets hit in a balls every other game?
by JI on Jan 6, 2009 8:55 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Is this Chris Snyder of the Arizona Diamondbacks?
Formerly dpseadvr.
by Kermit. on Jan 7, 2009 12:02 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, I put that together from the reference but have never seen the guy.
That happened before I found LL, they were still in contention and I thought there might be a chance they would offer on one of our catchers, like Burke. Stupid front office. (M’s)
Formerly dpseadvr.
by Kermit. on Jan 7, 2009 9:55 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Oh I forgot. He finished the inning!
Formerly dpseadvr.
by Kermit. on Jan 7, 2009 9:57 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
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.
