.
Hey Bill had a Q (and A) that relayed several things I hadn't realized:
.
Hey Bill, I have an issue that has long confused me, and I hope it's not so broad a query as to be unanswerable. I hear broadcasters variously attribute in-game pitch selection to the manager, the catcher, or the pitcher, depending on what narrative they seem to be painting at the time (e.g. "he used to be a thrower now he's a pitcher who knows what to throw when"). Sometimes seemingly contradicting themselves by solely attributing this ability to separate players at different times.
So with caveats that there is obviously variation among teams and likely within the same team depending on the catcher/pitcher's experience, and that it is a somewhat collaborative activity, would you say there is an 'industry standard' for how pitches are called in MLB? i.e. 80% of the time the catcher calls the pitch and the pitcher may wave him off? Or 60% of the time the manager calls all the pitches from the dugout? And if there IS a standard, can you speak to how it has evolved over time? Thanks!
Asked by: RyanTheMover
Answered: 6/23/2016
I would not exactly say that there is an industry standard, no. In 80 or 90% of the cases, the final decision rests with the pitcher himself. The pitcher has to be comfortable with the pitch he is trying to throw.
However, pitchers have all different personalities, and the pitcher for obvious reasons cannot signal for the pitch. The catcher has to send the signal; the pitcher has to accept or reject the signal. Some pitchers are passive or accepting, and will accept whatever signal they are given. Mark Buehrle, because he believes the most important thing is to push the pace of the game, has not shaken off the catcher in several years. Other pitchers shake off the sign constantly. There is very wide variation in this element.
As to the catcher. . .well, you have all kinds of different catchers. You have rookie catchers, and you have 15-year veterans. You have intelligent catchers, and you have stupid catchers. You have assertive personalities and passive personalities. You have catchers who know what their pitcher wants to throw, and catchers who really can't get onto the same wavelength with the pitcher.
The manager MAY leave it entirely in the hands of the catcher, or the manager may make the calls, or he may assign the bench coach to send signals to the catcher, or he may assign the pitching coach to send signals to the catcher. So again, you have wide variation there. The Red Sox rarely call pitches from the bench; it is believed (correctly or not no one can really say) that Mike Scioscia always calls the pitches from the bench. A few years ago there was a veteran catcher who would call the pitches from the bench even when he wasn't catching.
So I don't think you could say that there IS any industry standard, no. Every combination of manager and catcher and pitcher is a different animal, and it could work in many different ways.
/ James
.
CERA's
Sabermetric dogma holds that -- since it has not yet been measured to the investigators' satisfaction -- there is no such thing as a CERA (catcher ERA, or the influence on one catcher vs. another with respect to a single pitcher).
This is wrong on the face of it, since it has since been discovered that "pitch framing" gains and loses many runs, so ERA's would of course vary based on that alone. Any ability Pudge Rodriguez had to throw out hitters, any ability to jump on bunts for 2-1 putouts, any of that should logically have driven differences in a given catcher's ERA. Odd to me that the saber community continues to insist there's no such thing.
But, be that as it may, if there was no such thing as CERA (and indeed, CAN be no such thing) then Mike Scioscia's concern about pitch calling would be a waste of time. In fact any pitch call would be a waste of time.
.
MARK BEUHRLE
Hadn't occurred that there was such a thing as a pitcher who always, always threw what the catcher signalled for. But you get to thinking about it, and this "execute the play the best you can" is true in many sports. A basketball shooter has a play called for him? He comes around the pick and tries to make the shot that was designed. This seems to be Beuhrle's mindset. And why shouldn't it work?
.
FELIX HERNANDEZ shakes off the catcher a ton, almost calling his own game. His intelligence is Maddux-like, but he doesn't look like a valedictorian, maybe, so he gets nowhere near enough credit for his IQ.
HISASHI IWAKUMA stands there gazing in patiently until he gets the signal he wants. Included in his plans are throw a fastball up the ladder on pitch 4, and stuff like that; location plays in to the pitch call, so the pitcher needs to be involved on some level.
WADE MILEY - Is there any difference between Miley's "flurry pitching" and what Beuhrle does?
JAMES PAXTON - In 2016, I don't remember a specific instance of K-Pax shaking off the catcher even once. He gives an impression that he does not care what he throws :- )
TAIJUAN WALKER - Maybe am remembering this wrong in the mind's eye: he seems to not shake off the catcher either.
.
NOVELTY PITCHERS
SAMPSON, LEE, LEBLANC - The Mariners had a 120 ERA+ a month ago and now it's down to 105. You wonder if the league picked up on pitch tendencies that still mystify the M's. Not saying it did happen; just saying it wouldn't surprise if this had been a hidden factor.
Mike Marshall believed to his core that the optimal solution was randomly-generated pitches, implying that the hitters had a tendency to outthink offense. The NFL rules back him up; random generators are illegal in the press box. So Felix' and WBC-san's "pitchability" may mean that instead of hitters knowing 45% of the time what's coming, they're down to 37% with those two pitchers. Compared to 33% against a random generator.
Or not.
.
CERA's
Right now Iannetta's ERA is 3.63, Steve Clevenger's 4.27.
Whatever the situation with Iannetta and Clevenger and Servais, something hasn't been working right the last month. Not that we're trying to burn the pitch-call brain trust in effigy; there have been a lot of injuries and they've faced some good lineups.
.
PLAYOFF ODDS REPORT
The M's chances of making the playoffs aren't zero; per Fangraphs it's 18%. The chance of playing meaningful games in September is, then, quite a bit higher. It's tough to root for a team that just got swept a 4-gamer, but ... it's tougher for Servais to fly home on the plane. There are plusses to staying attached during the down times, if that's your choice.
It's certainly mine. :- ) And it's amusing to watch a team +46 runs that is below .500. Back in 1973 they wouldn't have even noticed the run differential or the 111 OPS+ and 105 ERA+; they'd just have shrugged and figured it was the Padres being the Padres.
There's a subset of cyclists who think that being green grants them not only the moral high ground, but physical immortality, judging by the way they smugly pedal up the winding hill to my house. Bobby Fischer believed that there was a world conspiracy against him; cyclists and Dr. D think that being right means a conspiracy FOR them, that everything will be fine in the end.
Being right is good health insurance on the movie screen, but Servais and Dr. D are wavering as to its efficacy off the movie screen.
.
NEXT UP: POTD WADE LEBLANC
DiPoto knows LeBlanc better than you or I know Felix; perhaps JeDi feels that LeBlanc is throwing at the top of his ability right now. Would be nice...
BABVA,
Dr D
