New Catcher Abilities and Ratings

[peanburn]

Alright so I just typed this but it logged me out somehow and couldn't post it, so here is a shorter version.

Catchers are chosen be teams because of their different abilities, so it would be nice to see the following added:

1) Handles Pitchers (Handle Rookies/Handle Veterans)
2) Game Calling
3) Blocking
4) % Runners Thrown out (2nd/3rd)

For Example: Brad Ausmus of the Astros struggles to hit above the Mendoza line every year, but has a secure job. Why? Because he handles pitchers very well. Pettitte and Clemens even demended that he be resigned. Oswalt is better when Ausmus is catching. Ausmus also calls a great game and can block, so though he can't hit or throw, he is valuable. This would be a nice addition.

I think an algorithm could be used to slightly increase or decrease pitchers ratings for most of these.

Number 4 is a stat that could be addded. I would really like to see this.

[1998 Yankees]

Originally Posted by peanburn

Alright so I just typed this but it logged me out somehow and couldn't post it, so here is a shorter version.

My sympathies on this. It used to happen to me a lot; you just finished typing a long post and press "Submit Reply" with satisfaction only to see that you were timed out. You log on again but somehow your entire post has been lost. All those finely crafted words . . . tsk. Now what I do is periodically click "Preview Post" to keep the connection fresh, and I copy the post to Notepad temporarily, just in case.

As far as your suggestions, I like #1 and #2 as additional catcher ratings, although some folks here might criticize them as too arbitrary, not objective enough for their tastes. #3 could be thought of as already part of catcher defensive ratings IMO. It's good that you say #4 is a stat because that is part of the catcher arm rating.

I would like to see #1 and #2; consider those seconded here!

[RonCo]

If there were ever a way to statistically show that #1 or #2 actually affect the game, I could support that. I've read a zillion studies on them, though, and not found one that revealed any sign that such a skill influences outcomes. Therefore, I would argue heavily against such an inclusion.

[peanburn]

You could always have these as an option that could be turned on and off.

[1998 Yankees]

Originally Posted by RonCo

If there were ever a way to statistically show that #1 or #2 actually affect the game, I could support that. I've read a zillion studies on them, though, and not found one that revealed any sign that such a skill influences outcomes. Therefore, I would argue heavily against such an inclusion.

This is the type of argument that I remember from an earlier time when something similar about intangible catcher capabilities was suggested. In a simulation game like this one, some people mistrust an influence that cannot be documented and supported by hard statistics. I can see that. Optional might be the best bet.

[RonCo]

Options are always fine, of course.

I'm rooting for the "call the hot dog vendor" option. It seems to have as much influence on a game's outcome.

[sporr]

Originally Posted by RonCo

If there were ever a way to statistically show that #1 or #2 actually affect the game, I could support that. I've read a zillion studies on them, though, and not found one that revealed any sign that such a skill influences outcomes. Therefore, I would argue heavily against such an inclusion.

Exactly right. Though I guess the same could be said for "Leadership ability".

[RonCo]

Originally Posted by sporr

Exactly right. Though I guess the same could be said for "Leadership ability".

I should test that in v2007, but in v5, v6, and v2006, I could find no statistical tie between a player's ability as a leader and his statistical output. Whatever impact this had on the game was not evident on the field--unlike "clutch' which defnitely had an impact. If the game included a catcher's "handling pitchers" rating, and that rating were used as one of the factors by which a pitcher would sign with a team or not, I could handle that because then it would be part of the fantasy of player personality. But I think the suggestion would be that a catcher's ability to call a game would improve pitcher perfomance on the field. If that's that proposal, I vote strongly against it.

[Curtis]

Pitchers certainly believe in it, and does the belief make it true?

You could say that a '50' catcher ability (or 'Handle Pitcher') has no effect, while every point above or below that makes a .1% difference in pitcher effectiveness… unless there's a personality conflict, in which case positive modifiers become zero. (This to reflect pitchers who don't get along with their catcher, or who only work well with a 'buddy'.)

[sporr]

Originally Posted by RonCo

I should test that in v2007, but in v5, v6, and v2006, I could find no statistical tie between a player's ability as a leader and his statistical output. Whatever impact this had on the game was not evident on the field--unlike "clutch' which defnitely had an impact. If the game included a catcher's "handling pitchers" rating, and that rating were used as one of the factors by which a pitcher would sign with a team or not, I could handle that because then it would be part of the fantasy of player personality. But I think the suggestion would be that a catcher's ability to call a game would improve pitcher perfomance on the field. If that's that proposal, I vote strongly against it.

I agree.

[RonCo]

Originally Posted by Curtis

Pitchers certainly believe in it, and does the belief make it true?

You could say that a '50' catcher ability (or 'Handle Pitcher') has no effect, while every point above or below that makes a .1% difference in pitcher effectiveness… unless there's a personality conflict, in which case positive modifiers become zero. (This to reflect pitchers who don't get along with their catcher, or who only work well with a 'buddy'.)

Abraham Lincoln was said to ask once: "If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have?" His answer? ... "Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg."

We can certainly say that 50 = 0, and that a catcher could increase pitcher effectiveness by x% per point above. However, I have yet to find a study that shows this actually happens. People believe many things. Some of those are not true, despite fervent belief. Catcher influence appears to be either non-existent, or of such a tiny magnitude that its effect is not measureable by baseball stats.

[mrbill]

I guess its the purist in RonCo and others, myself included, that just can't bear to see ratings that aren't measureable somehow have an effect on the game.

I still hate "movement"

[Curtis]

I hate the title 'movement', but whatever you call it, some pitchers have a superior ability to keep the ball in the park, and the game should absolutely reflect that SOMEHOW.

[mrbill]

Originally Posted by Curtis

I hate the title 'movement', but whatever you call it, some pitchers have a superior ability to keep the ball in the park, and the game should absolutely reflect that SOMEHOW.

It is true, but its a small factor, not deserving of a major rating (IMO). And is anyone sure this rating changes so drastically over a career or is it more a pitching 'style'? I mean, which is more something a pitcher can change from age 18 to 35, their FB rate or their specialization at keeping fly balls in the park? (that's a question actually open for someone to answer)

League average seems to be 12% of fly balls are HRs.

Mariano Rivera only allows 5.8% of fly balls for homeruns, but he's uber-extreme, as it seems most of even the best pitchers still allow at least 8%. Clemens is 8.9, Kevin Brown 10, Glavine 8.8, Pedro 8.2...Maddux is 13%. If anyone knows somewhere to find a listing of everyone's career HR/FB stats, I'm pretty curious.

So, given that fly ball % differs a lot more (Lowe 18% for career, Harang 39%, Chris Young 52%), that should be the major factor in HR allowed.

You've got a variation of 8-14% for HR/FB, and 18-55% for FB%, so movement does have a place, just as a small modifier on HR allowed.

Anyone who does testing for 2006 (or 2007) have correlation between FB% and Movement to HR allowed?

[Curtis]

We've taken this off topic by now, but I've always preferred to use grounder/fly ratio as the determinant for home runs allowed frequency. Supposedly it IS now going to be (in 2007) a modifier to movement. Like you, I'd prefer it to be the other way around.

Randy Jones lives!

[RonCo]

GB% is a factor in HR allowed in v2006, and continues to be in v2007. Yes, I have tested it.

I agree that the whole Stuff/Control/Movement structure of the big picture ratings are troublesome, but no moreso than AR/H/2B/HR/BB/K of v5. As Curtis says, the movement/GB% pairing can now be thought of as controlling HRA. Just leave it at that. There are many issues with the pitching model, and I suspect that over time it will be morphed to something stronger. At present, the biggest work that's included in v2007 has to do with the way pitchers age--making sure their skillsets rise and fall appropriately--and the DIPS relationships between the statistical purposes of the various ratings.

In relation to the changes seen in stats (HR in the case of Mr. Bill's question), the OOTP model is being tuned to MLB historical data. On the whole movement ratings will change to properly reflect the aging performance of pitchers in a fashion that will mimick MLB pitchers. Match this with an improved aging curve for hitters power, and you'll find the game holds a stronger inner integrity than before. Is the model pristene at the detailed level? No. But it's better than it was before--and, really, until you go to a model that includes separate quality ratings for every pitch, there will always be some holes due to the abstractions of the modelling level.

I know my good friend Mr. Bill has drawn the firm "Movement Line of Death" with this game. I agree with his fundamental position. But I think he's missing the forest for the trees. v2006 was a superior game engine to v6. V2007 will again be a large step forward.

[Curtis]

Since the game now (2006) defaults to pitch-by-pitch mode during replay, I'm one of those micro-detail guys who would like to see each pitch rated seperately. I say that knowing that it would slow an already dirt slow game even further, and that it might turn a fairly simple process into a rock/paper/scissors guessing game. I guess I'd have to actually see it fail before I gave up on the dream.

I DON'T want to see seperate stuff/movement/control or velocity numbers for each pitch. Those could be master numbers, but I would like to see someone with an 80 curveball, 65 change and 40 fastball rating before I die.

As long as we've drawn your attention, RonCo, would you please explain to us, the uninitiated, what this DIPS system is? I know the 2006 system yields a higher projected ERA the higher the grounder/flyball ratio is, which runs counter to my experience. (Randy Jones circa mid-70s is my personal pitching hero.) Is it DIPS that causes this correlation?

And, yes, I know we're far, far off topic by now.

[RonCo]

DIPs. Hmmm....perhaps the best thing I could do here is point you to Google and ask you to type in Defense Independent Pitching Stats and see what you get.

Ultimately, it's the theory that starts with the idea that the pitcher is a primary influencer of Ks, BB, and HR, and the defense, ballpark and hitter are the primary infuencer on balls hit in play. But I view it as baseball's answer to quantum mechanics, because from that point on it gets complicated.

[RonCo]

For example, DIPS oriented thinkers would find it unsurprising that in Randy Jone's two finest seasons, he reduced his walks by a ton and gave up very few HR. The fact that he played in a pitcher's park with what appears to be _about_ a league average defense (when combined with maybe a little more luck than he had in other seasons) provided his BABIP advantage in those seasons. I haven't looked at him that closely for some time....but I definitly remember him out there on the mound perplexing hitters...for awhile, anyway.

[RonCo]

But, when Jones began to lose the ability to control walks, his stuff and "movement" wasn't good enough to keep him among the elite.