Impact of the Catcher

[Dream Job]

Perhaps catchers can play a bigger role in the effectiveness of a pitching staff. Such as calling games, calming pitchers down, etc. Kinda like the way Jason Varitek keeps the Red Sox pitching staff in check. Of course, some catchers would be better than others at this. Thoughts?

[RchW]

No statistical analysis suggests that this happens. BP in the book Baseball Between The Numbers has a chapter on the absence of the catcher effect. It was interesting to note today that Varitek sat out the game against the Yankees even though it was a Matsuzaka start. Seems that Victor Martinez's offense was more valuable.

I'm sure some catcher effect exists but there seems to be no reliable way of measuring it.

[Dream Job]

Thanks for the insight. While Francona decided to play Martinez over Varitek because of Varitek's lack of offense, I am sure another manager in MLB would have chosen to start Varitek, because of his intangibles behind the plate, and use V-Mart as a pinch hitter during a key situation late in the game. As such, I believe that it would be cool if OOTP increased the impact that catching ability has in the game. Even if its just by a small percentage.

[ike121212]

The effect, if any, is difficult to quantify. I'd say that this makes it unlikely to be added. On the other hand, Leadership ability is very similar and is in the game, so you never know what he might add. I don't know it's actual effect. I'm assuming it's minimal. I always thought it would be funny if more of this stuff were in the game and had no effect at all, to mock conventional baseball wisdom.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by Dream Job

Thanks for the insight. While Francona decided to play Martinez over Varitek because of Varitek's lack of offense, I am sure another manager in MLB would have chosen to start Varitek, because of his intangibles behind the plate, and use V-Mart as a pinch hitter during a key situation late in the game. As such, I believe that it would be cool if OOTP increased the impact that catching ability has in the game. Even if its just by a small percentage.

But if it can't be measured and its effect is in dispute (I think so) why would it just be dropped into the game?

[Dream Job]

The statement "it can't be measured" is not true. The impact that a catcher has on a ball game is almost always overlooked. I refer to Varitek once again, the main reason why he was re signed by Boston was due to the way in which he handles the pitching staff. So a catchers impact is "measured". Most of us just have not seen the statistics by which it is measured. Once again, the reason for this is because it's overlooked. So I don't think it would be a bad idea if we, the OTTP Gm's, had to decide whether we want to have an offensive minded catcher or a catcher with less offensive skills, but with the ability to call a great game, handle the pitching staff, and to learn new pitchers as they arrive.

[Dream Job]

Originally Posted by RchW

But if it can't be measured and its effect is in dispute (I think so) why would it just be dropped into the game?

The effects of everything is disputable in baseball.

[ae37jr]

One of the reasons why stats don't support this is because certain types of pitchers are effected greater then others. Someone like Greg Maddux in his prime could pitch to a great game caller or a rubber tire and wouldn't matter. The outcome will be the same. Why? Because he had enough intelligence to where he'd call his own pitches, never get rattled, and the catcher did just that...catch.

On the other hand take a guy like Oliver Perez. He's a nut case who can't repeat his delivery, tips pitches, and implodes after a few runs score. If an offensive minded catcher works with him then it's the blind leading the blind. If a defensive minded, high intelligence, high leadership catcher works with him to keep him calm, call his pitches, and correct his mechanics, then he has a shot at being an effective pitcher. Catchers are an extension of the pitching coach.

It would be neat if OOTP could reflect it in that way. Something like if a pitcher has an intelligence of 8(10 scale) or higher then the catcher is insignificant. If the pitcher's INT is 3 or lower then the catcher's leadership and intelligence are very important. Then if it's between 4-7, the catchers skills are somewhat important. You could always adjust the levels or add more, just the thought that counts.

[Athletics17]

http://espn.go.com/boston/columns/blog?post=4506360&name=gammons

Article by Peter Gammons on Varitek's age and lack of productivity. Sparks debate about his intangibles or Victor's Martinez's offense. It is toward the end of the article. Thought you guys might find it interesting.

[ike121212]

Originally Posted by Dream Job

The statement "it can't be measured" is not true. The impact that a catcher has on a ball game is almost always overlooked. I refer to Varitek once again, the main reason why he was re signed by Boston was due to the way in which he handles the pitching staff. So a catchers impact is "measured". Most of us just have not seen the statistics by which it is measured. Once again, the reason for this is because it's overlooked. So I don't think it would be a bad idea if we, the OTTP Gm's, had to decide whether we want to have an offensive minded catcher or a catcher with less offensive skills, but with the ability to call a great game, handle the pitching staff, and to learn new pitchers as they arrive.

If anything, announcers and other baseball people overstate the significance of this. It really is difficult to quantify and the results often contradict your expectation. CERA is a blunt stat. Boston has a good staff, so Varitek should have a good CERA. You can only separate his impact by comparing his CERA to other Boston catchers. This is where things get dicey because it's not a clean comparison. Some catchers catch certain pitchers exclusively. Most backup catchers give a small sample size. They may face stronger or weaker teams than average and the results are often inconsistent year to year.

I wouldn't mind if this were in the game and had a minuscule effect, but I'd rather they didn't. Leadership is in the game and is even tougher to quantify.

[Dream Job]

Originally Posted by ae37jr

One of the reasons why stats don't support this is because certain types of pitchers are effected greater then others. Someone like Greg Maddux in his prime could pitch to a great game caller or a rubber tire and wouldn't matter. The outcome will be the same. Why? Because he had enough intelligence to where he'd call his own pitches, never get rattled, and the catcher did just that...catch.

On the other hand take a guy like Oliver Perez. He's a nut case who can't repeat his delivery, tips pitches, and implodes after a few runs score. If an offensive minded catcher works with him then it's the blind leading the blind. If a defensive minded, high intelligence, high leadership catcher works with him to keep him calm, call his pitches, and correct his mechanics, then he has a shot at being an effective pitcher. Catchers are an extension of the pitching coach.

It would be neat if OOTP could reflect it in that way. Something like if a pitcher has an intelligence of 8(10 scale) or higher then the catcher is insignificant. If the pitcher's INT is 3 or lower then the catcher's leadership and intelligence are very important. Then if it's between 4-7, the catchers skills are somewhat important. You could always adjust the levels or add more, just the thought that counts.

My thoughts exactly...

[Dream Job]

Originally Posted by ike121212

I wouldn't mind if this were in the game and had a minuscule effect, but I'd rather they didn't. Leadership is in the game and is even tougher to quantify.

As the EA sports slogan goes, if it is in the game, it's in the game. In this case, if it's in the game, it should be in the game.

[Carplos]

When are we adding "veteran presence" then?

[Left-handed Badger]

Originally Posted by ae37jr

One of the reasons why stats don't support this is because certain types of pitchers are effected greater then others. Someone like Greg Maddux in his prime could pitch to a great game caller or a rubber tire and wouldn't matter. The outcome will be the same. Why? Because he had enough intelligence to where he'd call his own pitches, never get rattled, and the catcher did just that...catch.

On the other hand take a guy like Oliver Perez. He's a nut case who can't repeat his delivery, tips pitches, and implodes after a few runs score. If an offensive minded catcher works with him then it's the blind leading the blind. If a defensive minded, high intelligence, high leadership catcher works with him to keep him calm, call his pitches, and correct his mechanics, then he has a shot at being an effective pitcher. Catchers are an extension of the pitching coach.

It would be neat if OOTP could reflect it in that way. Something like if a pitcher has an intelligence of 8(10 scale) or higher then the catcher is insignificant. If the pitcher's INT is 3 or lower then the catcher's leadership and intelligence are very important. Then if it's between 4-7, the catchers skills are somewhat important. You could always adjust the levels or add more, just the thought that counts.

Greg Maddux might not be a good example. He always avoided Javy Lopez. (though, maybe an old rubber tire was a better catcher than Javy, I dont know)

It would give actual value to the catcher position in OOTP. As it stands, there are very few good hitting catchers in most OOTP leagues. But, also as it stands unless they have a bazooka hanging off their shoulder or they give up 20 PBs a year they serve less defensive impact than a 1B. So, offense in OOTP at C is a premium. But, there are few good-hitting catchers. So, therefore you have to waste 2 spots on the roster (because if you play any non-catcher there they will give up 20 PBs and then some) just to catch a thrown ball essentially.

I do, however, like the idea of INT being a factor like that. Maybe, in the scheme of things it shouldnt be of much effect overall in OOTP. (or maybe just end up being a factor for the tandem for say 4-5 of the 30+ starts) But, it would at least give some value to position of catcher other than bat and arm.

[StyxNCa]

Being someone who has played out every inning of every game of his team's 9 year history I have seen where there is some effect already in there. I have no clue what combination of what ratings cause this effect but I have seen my longest tenured SP go from back to back 30 win seasons with one catcher (30-3, 30-5 with 7 of the 8 losses coming with the backup catcher behind the plate), then the next 3 years was pretty mediocre with another catcher after I traded away the first one (so mediocre I almost traded him), and now he is back on pace for 30 wins with my young catcher. Last season he was at 4-4 when I decided to try the rookie catcher and the pitcher then went on a 14 game winning streak and became the best pitcher I had (which is saying something since my #1 pitcher is ranked #2 in the entire majors). This season he continued where he left off last season.

The common traits of the 2 catchers he has had success with are extremely high intelligence levels and good work ethic. The pitcher has an extremely low intelligence rating and so-so work ethic.

The other SP's I have had have not been impacted by any catchers so it can't be said that any catcher will have an effect on every pitcher because he won't, but there are those that will effect one pitcher, be it in a good way or bad.

Markus said he hasn't programmed any catcher effect, which is good because if one tried to do it they would probably end off having too much of an effect, but something in the numbers crunching that does cause an effect in some cases.

[Dream Job]

Originally Posted by Carplos

When are we adding "veteran presence" then?

I wouldn't be opposed to it. Veteran presence can either hurt you or help you. Look at Milton Bradley and how his season correlates to the season that the Cubs have had this year. Surely that will play a role when GM's consider trading for him or signing once he becomes a free agent again. I just think it would be fun to have to consider such things when playing OOTP. I also think that users should have the option to switch this feature off if they are opposed to it.

[Carplos]

Originally Posted by Dream Job

I wouldn't be opposed to it. Veteran presence can either hurt you or help you.

I am cry.

Maybe we should add "how much sex they're getting per week," 'cause that's gonna affect their attitude and mood too!!!!

[Dream Job]

Originally Posted by Carplos

I am cry.

Maybe we should add "how much sex they're getting per week," 'cause that's gonna affect their attitude and mood too!!!!

Perhaps....

[Carlton]

In modern baseball you could put a Russian non English speaking catcher behind the plate and it wouldn't matter.

Pitchers get info overload from scouts and coaches

But back in the day, a Catcher like Ray Schalk, or the 3rd out Bill Bergen were invaluable. Not only did they block the plate well, have very good arms, but they memorized tendencies of hitters.

What I do for those catchers is give them high intellegence and work ethic. Then most of my deadball managers have a strategy that favors defense 100% over offense. Of course OOTP puts the better sabermatic player in there anyway...and once again I had high hopes for OOTP being on spot historically only to be disappointed. It's great for modern replays though

[Goody]

Johnson, Bedard, Washburn, and Big Games Baby | Seattle Sports Insider


Great article about catching influence and CERA based off of the Seattle Mariner's season, in which Rob Johnson got many starts over Kenji Johjima even when they were both healthy.

(7/7/2009) Right now, Rob Johnson's CERA is 2.80, and Kenji Johjima's is 4.93. Those numbers are NOT happening in a vacuum, but if they were, our reaction would still be, "Let's investigate that further."

When we did, we would find that (1) in 2008, CERA's did not reflect the same thing, since Johjima's CERA was a little (.2 to .4 runs) *better* than everybody else's; (2) in 2007, Johjima's CERA was far (1.2 runs) worse than everybody else's; (3) in 2006, Johjima's CERA was far (1.2 runs) worse than the backup's; over his career, Johjima's CERA has been about 1 run worse than his backup's.

.................

The 4-year numbers don't occur in a vacuum, either. The pitchers on the field have routinely told us that they pitch much better when catchers other than Johjima are behind the plate.

This is like a tennis player telling us repeatedly that that he doesn't play well on grass, and then our checking the numbers and finding out he is in fact lifetime .850 on clay and .490 on grass. At that point, if I keep ignoring the player's OWN reports of why he plays lousy on grass, it is ME being Neanderthal, not the player. At that point, I need to just stop, and ask that tennis player exactly WHY he loses on grass.

The pitchers tell us that Johjima doesn't call pitches to their strengths. Johjima tells us that he calls pitches to the batters' weaknesses. This is the disconnect.

I'm heavy into game theory, and I believe that a Master Of The Game BECOMES GOOD ENOUGH that he is comfortable tailoring his attack to the opponent's weaknesses. I think that this defines mastery -- that you have all weapons at your disposal and you tailor them to the fluid circumstances emerging.

American pitchers do not pitch that way; in this sense they are less accomplished than Japanese pitchers. But Johjima's attempts to adjust have been disastrous. They would be for me, too. If I tried to awkwardly start adjusting my chess, or aikido, attacks based on what I like to do, as opposed to "echoing" my opponent's mistakes, I would play terribly. Johjima calls pitches terribly, because ignoring the batter is extremely awkward for him.

Greg Maddux and Jamie Moyer pitch the "Japanese", or Game Master, way. If Johjima called pitches for them, they would probably love him.

And we're not trying to disrespect American pitchers. Felix pitches in a "devolved" way, throwing what he wants to throw, but that doesn't mean he wouldn't beat Team Japan. He probably would. Mike Tyson and George Foreman dictated the fight to their opponents. I'm not saying that you can't play that way.

............................

As I've said before, I don't suspect this is fundamentally Johjima's fault. I think it's fundamentally everybody else's fault. That's a silly thing to say, but it's occasionally a TRUE silly thing to say. Check Johjima's CERA in the WBCs that Japan always wins.

As San-Man notes, sometimes it's not a manager's fault that a clubhouse quit; it's 25 players' fault. The logical, and sad, thing to do is to change the manager.

I think that Johjima is, in a very real sense, too highly evolved to catch in America. But that comes down to the same thing: he should leave America, and go catch in Japan where he is appreciated.

As you know, we mean it benevolently.