Originally Posted by csh19792001
That is my position? Where did I state that my position is that Piazza was great defensively? Secondly, as I said to Wileyfan I never suggested anything so it is unclear to me what he is even talking about with that statement.
Registered User
If people here here want to throw out the stats people are actually heard of, and have gone through years of trial, error, and refinement.... fine. Try Total Zone Runs or Total Runs Saved. Piazza was horrendous in both. Below replacement level every single year of his career.
From Fangraphs:
TZ and TZL are both good metrics, although UZR and DRS are still considered the more accurate fielding metrics. However, UZR and DRS can only be calculated for modern-day players due to technology constraints, so TZ is the best historical fielding statistic available. If you want to compare a modern day player’s fielding with a player from the 1940s, TZ would be the statistic to use.
From The Baseball Gauge:
http://seamheads.com/baseballgauge/p...120536&tab=dra
Piazza makes Posada- not even an average defensive catcher- look pretty stellar by comparison.
Registered User
Back to the original question...
Piazza's overall value isn't on the same level with Bench and Berra. Not even close, on paper at least. Contemporaneously, Pudge Rodriguez was Piazza's equal while they were in the league together, and tacked on some value the last 4 years after Piazza threw in the towel after 2007.
Once again the stat you bring up has absolutely nothing to do with what Max, Sean, and Tom were attempting to look at with their studies. But it is kind of weird how you'll trumpet Total Zone which was created by Sean Smith but then completely ignore Sean's other findings without even bothering to look into them.
There is no "Total Zone" for catchers. Sean Smith uses "Catch" to measure catchers and he looks at stolen bases, caught stealing, wild pitches, passed balls, and pick offs. The TZ category on fangraphs for catchers is actually Sean Smith's "catch" plus TZ for for positions besides catcher. So no TZ would not be the statistic to use in this case.
"Catch" doesn't even attempt to look at the fielding of batted balls aspect of the position nor anything besides the running game and WP and PB. If you somehow think that makes it a comprehensive fielding metric then you are sadly mistaken.
Registered User
So you're saying that Piazza was fantastic at handling pitchers, and that more than negates his complete lack of control of the entire running game?
Registered User
I'm interested, lee. How about Pudge, Boone, Sundberg, Bench? These guys are considered the best ever on defense behind the dish. I'd like to see your findings.
Brad Ausmus is the same age and played in the same league with Piazza for the majority of both their careers. Ausmus defense based on other measures is outstanding. But if they're as incredilbly incomplete as Ubiquitous says, metrics like Win Shares, WAR, Runs Saved, UZT....and every other we've ever used here are totally invalid in measuring catcher defense.
They can be all be disregarded in this instance, I guess....
That isn't what I am saying. Sean Smith, the creator of TZ, Catch, and Game Calling, has Piazza at -61 runs for stolen bases, PB, and WP and has him at +112 at Game Calling Runs. He does not have any metric that measures how good or bad Piazza or any catcher was at fielding batted balls.
And as an aside Piazza did not have a complete lack of control of the running game. He threw out 23% of would be base stealers to a league average 31% and in his prime he was, I believe, at 26% to a league average 31%. Not good, no doubt about it, but it wasn't like every single baserunner attempted to steal on him and made it safely. AT his worst teams were able to steal on him once per game.
In 1996 the Rockies stole 10 bases on Piazza in one game and the Rockies won 16-15.
Here is the SB log:
1st inning: Ellis Burks walks with 2 outs, steals second and advances to third on a Piazza error. No runs are scored this inning.
3rd inning: Young steals second while Weiss strikes out. He then steals third. He finally steals home. Only run of the inning and can we really fault Piazza's arm for a steal of home.
4th inning: McCracken reaches on an error. McCracken steals second and then third while Young walks. Young then steals second. Weiss doubles scoring both. Later in the inning Bichette singles and then steals second but the next batter strikes out. 4 runs scored in the inning 2 by base stealers.
5th inning: With 2 outs Young steals second and then Weiss strikes out. 1 run scores in the inning but it is on Young's FC.
8th inning: With 2 outs Young singles and then steals second. Weiss then grounds out. 2 runs score that inning but they were before Young singled.
So there are your 10 SB. Do you notice anything unusual about that list? The Rockies steal 9 bases through 5 innings and the only inning they don't try to steal is the only inning they don't have a baserunner. They must have known Piazza was horrible right? But if that is true why did they stop running after the 5th? The answer is because Hideo Nomo left the game after the 5th inning. The Rockies weren't really running on Piazza they were running on Nomo whose windup delivery was horrible for stopping the running game which I think a steal of home is ample evidence of. In fact 43 of Piazza SBA in 1996 happened while Nomo was on the mound. Nomo started 5 games in which Piazza was not catching for him and he allowed 9 stolen bases in those and in only one of those games did no one attempt to steal a base. The catcher who allowed the 9 stolen bases was Tom Prince who didn't have a bad arm.
How bad was Nomo at holding runners? Runners stole 300 bases off of him and only 99 runners were caught while he was pitching. In 1999 in Milwaukee he allowed 41 runners to steal a base. In 2001 with Boston he led the league by allowing 52 baserunners to steal a base. Nomo started 33 games in 1996 and had 63 people try to steal on him. Pedro Astacio started 32 games and only had 20 people try to steal on him. Tom Candiotti started 27 games and only 21 people tried to steal on him. Ismael Valdez started 33 games and only 27 people tried to steal on him. Ramon Martinez started 27 games and only 30 people tried to steal on him. Clearly Hideo Nomo was a big big part of the reason Mike Piazza allowed 155 stolen bases in 1996. Yet WAR ignores Hideo Nomo and puts the blame on Piazza and gives him a -.9 dWAR.
Further proof that pitchers play an integral part in SBA?
Armando Benitez.
The first time Piazza cracks -1 dWAR in his career is in 2001 with the Mets. He allows a league leading 114 stolen bases and only throws out 22% of would be basestealers. That year runners steal 11 bases on Armando Benitez while only being caught once despite only allowing 88 baserunners. Is that a fluke? Is it because of Mike Piazza? Well, from 1994 to 1998 Armando was with the Orioles and he allowed 37 stolen bases while only having 4 runngers get caught out of 233 baserunners. So in 2001 14% of baserunners attempted to steal and while Armando was with the Orioles almost 18% of baserunners attempted to steal. After Armando leaves the Mets he allows 27 stolen bases in 30 attempts out of 251 would be baserunners. 11% of baserunners. While he was a Met 13% of his baserunners attempted to steal on him.
Does this mean none of it is because of Mike Piazza? Nope. Piazza was not good at throwing out runner and even the best pitchers at preventing stolen bases would see their SBA rise with Piazza behind the plate (See Glendon Rusch for proof of that) but not all of the blame should be put squarely on him.
PS: In 1996 Nomo had 11 CS while he was pitching. Piazza was behind the plate and was the catcher threw out all 11 of those runners.
Last edited by Ubiquitous; 04-24-2012 at 07:45 PM.
Registered User
You trumpeted the findings of a new project that yielded the conclusion that Piazza was one of the best handlers of pitchers ever. And you also stated that handling pitchers is much more important than the components covered by the other stats raised.
From that, logically, I arrived at the conclusion that you assume Piazza was at least a very good defensive catcher, and you are in support the studies you cite as evidence while dismissing all the other defensive stats out there.
Registered User
You trumpeted the findings of a new project that yielded the conclusion that Piazza was one of the best handlers of pitchers ever. And you also stated that handling pitchers is much more important than the components covered by the other stats raised.
From that, logically, I arrived at the conclusion that you assume Piazza was at least a very good defensive catcher, and you are in support the studies you cite as evidence while dismissing all the other defensive stats out there.
Well, I guess relaying information can be called "trumpeted". But I did not state that game calling is much more important than catching runners. I said that there are a couple of studies that suggest that it "could" be more important. Secondly, talking about the game calling stats does not negate the other metrics. Again, "Catch" and "Game Calling Runs/Framing" are measuring two different things.
Registered User
Errrr, just to set the record straight: I did NOT state anything alleging that Ubiquitous claimed that Piazza was great defensively. What I DID address, directly in response to Ubiquitous' comments, were my reactions to the entire Marchi [et al] essays and comments on catcher FRAMING, etc. I did not rag on those, either. I did question the rather "definite" conclusions drawn and the expansion from those into evaluating managers as well on their "handling" of pitching staffs.
I wasn't buying; but I am sure they are losing no sleep over that, at all.
On another site I was talking about Piazza and Nomo and a poster named Tom Thress pointed me towards his website where he attempts to split the responsibility of stealing bases between catchers and pitchers. Doing it his way Ivan Rodriguez is +6 wins and Piazza is -5.2 wins. According to Tom's stat Ivan was the best in history and Piazza was the worst in history (long career wise) of basestealing, pickoffs, and balks. Nothing revealing there right? Except that the difference between the two isn't as dramatic as Sean Smith's "Catch". Under that formula Ivan was +166 runs while Piazza was -61 runs. A difference of 227 runs and almost 23 wins while under Tom's metric the difference is only 11 wins. Furthermore factoring in PB and WP to compare it directly to Sean's "Catch" we have Mike at -4.5 wins to Ivan +5.7 wins.
Basestealing Leaderboard
Explanation of how he went about it
Last edited by Ubiquitous; 04-25-2012 at 04:50 PM.
Registered User
csh: Here goes. What I have done is figured the catchers you mentioned and added a few more [some mentioned in the Marchi essays], in order to layout the metric ratings for each.
Also, there was a portion of the Marchi essays that lured me down a side street. I allege NO connection between Marchi's work and my little side street. However, I am intrigued by the possibility that an essential part of FRAMING [here I use the sense of the silent DIALOGUE between battery-mates] may be revealed by the relationship of "broken messages" [PB + WP] and batters faced in situations where these breaks can occur.
First, the ratings, derived from innings, PO, A, DP, E, PB, WP and event weighting for each data input and then held to a TEMPLATE of excellence unique to the position being measured. It in intentionally configured to resemble something familiar and easy to grasp in relating ratings to defense runs.
I list the catchers and their ratings. The last entry, a four place decimal number, is the "idea" for catcher-pitcher communication [which, if it has any credibility, holds the key to catcher "handling" of a pitching staff. The decimal number is the quotient of PB+WP/Innings Played * 1.350. IF we can arrive at a BASE level of MLB "average," we might be able to quantify the value of a solid, low number, and from there produce a "runs" value for the difference.
Catcher................... Rating.................. WP+PB Rate
Boone....................... .952..................... .0285
Sundberg.................. .957.................... .0266
Bench...................... .954..................... .0276
Fisk......................... .938..................... .0223
I-Rod....................... .956..................... .0348
Ausmus.................... .952..................... .0246
Ch. Johnson.............. .951..................... .0271
Lo Duca................... .941.................... .0267
Piazza..................... .921.................... .0250
Carter..................... .958.................... .0234
T. Pena................... .953..................... .0322
These catchers, active and/or retired were mentioned in the Marchi studies as among the best in pitcher handling. Here's how they fared:
R. Martin.................. .950.................... .0256
Y. Molina.................. .962.................... .0230
Varitek..................... .913.................... .0236
Mauer...................... .918.................... .0262
McCann.................... .926.................... .0274
Jo. Molina.................. .958..................... .0417
These ratings are career numbers. I am in no way trobled by the number of catcher clustered in the .950-.959 range. Interpreted into defense runs over a 10 year career, a .958 catcher will be about 3.27 defense runs better than one at .950 each season. Over 10 seasons, that's 33 runs or 3+ wins;and we do start with the premise that we are comparing MLB catchers [by whatever agenda] deemed to be among "the best."
Given equal playing time and 10 year careers, the gap between .962 and .921 = 16.8 defense runs per year; and over a decade it come to 168 runs or 17 wins.
That latter category, the PB+WP/Innings*1.35 still intrigues me. Say we have, just for the sake of a model, a STANDARD of 4%. Higher tan 4% and the catcher is a poor performer; but lower [the lower the better] percentages might mean defense runs saved. Not to beat it to death; but let's use Carlton Fisk [.0223] as an example:
Fisk experienced 426 WP + 129 PB during his career. That's a numerator of 555 "events." He caught 18,511.2 innings. Of those innings, we want to know approximately how many on-base situations might have allowed a WP or a PB to do damage by runner advancement. WHIP gives us that and the average is 1.35/inning. Thus, if we take 18,511.2*1.35 we have 24,990 "situations" for the "events" to occur.
555/24,990 = .0222. Depending upon the STANDARD [.04 seems much too high] then we can put a value on Fisk's performance. Say the standard is .035. Then 24,990 * .035 = 872 mas Fisk MIGHT have saved some 317 kinds of baserunner advance from happening. At, say, .47 runs, it COULD approach 149 runs in value over a career. Just thing out loud here. Check out our named catchers, and all but I-Rod, Tony Pena and Jose Molina benefit.
Since Jose Molina was mentioned in the Marchi study as one of the best, I know my tangent is a departure from his frames of reference.
Any thoughts? Feedback?
Registered User
Did csh actually maintain that lwf stated something alleging that Ubi claimed that (Marchi said?) that Piazza was great? If I follow the discussion correctly, it looks as if the issue is whether or not someone, I'm not sure who, either claims that someone thinks that not having a weak arm does or does not fail to disqualify someone from being a bad catcher. Or perhaps it's the other way around. At any rate, the denials are completely credible all around.
Registered User
As a post script to post #63 above, here's how I'd figure a "runs" value for the WP+PB/Inning*1.35[WHIP f]:
1. Get catcher PB + WP.
2. Find catcher innings played [season, career, year-to-date].
3. Multiply innings by WHIP [either actual, if available] or 1.35 as a default "average."
4. Do the division PB+WP/Innings*1.35 and get quotient.
5. Establish a fairly strict "acceptable/average/anticipated" rate for comparison. [Something close to .03 and < .04. Pushed to the wall, I'd suggest .035].
Take catcher innings*1.35 and find .035 of that number. Say we are looking at a season, with 1,000 innings played. [1,000 * 1.315 * .035 = 47.25 = the sum of WP + PB STANDARD for this player's innings played.
No do the player's actual figures: 17 PB + 19 WP = 36/1000*1.35 = 36/1350 = .0267. The player is 11.25 WP +PB lower than [better than] PAR. IF each such unit it worth .47 defense runs, then tat would be .47*11.25 = 5.29 defense runs saved in this specific catcher discipline.
In the sense of the thread and the Marchi work on framing, Mike Piazza would be helped in this category. Say Piazza is .921 and the average MLB catcher is rated [overall] at .945. At a glance, Piazza comes off -9.82 defense runs in a season.
Now, if the average catcher is at .035 in the WP+PB category; and if Piazza is at .025, let's look at that over 1,000 innings.
1,000 * 1.35 = 1350 = denominator.
LG AVG = 1350 * .035 = 47.25 PB+WP
Piazza at .025 = 34, = 13.25 better than AVG [PAR]. At .47 per unit, that would give Piazza an offsetting +6.23 runs in the category.
That's the context of the discussion as I see it.
Pretty much every single system I've seen that measures PB and WP comes up with the view that Piazza was one of the best at preventing them but it doesn't really add up to a lot. For instance Thess credits him with about +7 runs on this component.
Registered User
I got involved in the whole discussion because I like to keep an open mind on player evaluations. Why try to construct a metric, if I let personal bias enter the picture?
I believe you steered the thread in the direction of Marchi, his essays, and the dialogue the followed among his peers in the sabermetric community. Clearly, I was intrigued at the possibility of any real breakthrough in the very cloudy area of pitcher handling, game calling, and pitch management by skilled battery mates.
Up until now, my participation in the thread had been to share my experience and reaction to the Marchi work, which I have said I can not buy into. Nor is it a simple topic, in one dimension. It addresses framing in the narrow "sweeping" into the strike zone of "near misses" just outside the virtual "lines" the outline the strike zone; and puts a value on it. It expands from this into scatter-plots of pitches, their "breaks," heights and drops as they enter the contact zone, umpire-catcher mind-play ... an onto the vast area of evaluating managers for their handling of pitching staffs.
I have not knocked it; but in all honesty, I was compelled to review the writings [that were presented ... full in-depth study charges a premium on B-P] a second and third time before acknowledging that much rigorous work went into it but my reaction was that of one who has been to an elaborate display of smoke and mirrors.
At the CORE of the CONCEPT, I came away with something far less sophisticated, far less intricate. To me, as a former amateur pitcher, if I want to evaluate "game calling," "framing," "sweeping the strike zone," "gathering rosebuds," "gilding the lily" or "putting lipstick on the pig" I want evidence that deals with effective communication between the catcher and the pitcher. We have that evidence, in neon, with the two simple data elements: PB and WP.
By [my perspective and experience] definition, a catcher is the "manager" of the battery. He calls the game OR is the conduit of his manager's strategies from the bench. He must provide a backstop and a living target for his pitcher, which need not be widely telegraphed by glove placement. It might be a different part of "himself" for whatever pitch, the un-gloved hand, the knee pad, or the mask, all relayed by signals that may have nothing to do with the fingers being flashed. The catcher, like it or not, has to keep his pitcher focused; and that includes paying attention to base runners.
To affix certain responsibility to pitchers for poor caught stealing rates by their catchers seems quite fair; but at the bottom line, the catcher has to "take the pitcher in hand" to a reasonable degree to keep him reasonably awake. There are also pitching coaches and managers. SOMEBODY has to take even the worst prima donna in hand, on occasion.
Communication gliches are betrayed by PB and WP because they signal some kind of crossup. I am not talking about the occasional total fiasco of a pitch that flies into the stands or into the netting because the pitcher stumbled off the mound. There are those; and there are miscommunications.
I just find it a little strange that you led us into this avenue [for which I say, "Thanks;" and now seem so ready to discard it on the recommendation of a new character [Thess] being added into the mix. This reference also offers NO context. Is the +7 runs per season or for a career. To what standard is it being calculated?
I COULD see Piazza [as I stated] gaining +6.23 runs in a season [not too far from Thess]; but if that's a career reference, we have no connection at all. Among very fine catchers, the +6.23 might not move Piazza much further up the comps ladder, if the others rate as well as he. However, in fairness to Piazza, it highlights a meaningful part of the game in which he was solid, thus making his evaluations a bit more respectful.
Fair comps and evaluations are all I'm after.
Last edited by leewileyfan; 04-25-2012 at 09:45 PM.
It is career.
Registered User
I don't think he's number one, but you could make a case for number 3 behind Bench and Berra. Berra the best when you include postseason play with Bench slightly better in the regular season. Piazza makes sense at number 3 to me.
I think it also depends on your team's needs as well. Certainly the teams that Berra and Bench were on were offensive powerhouses, and so they didn't need the extra offense Piazza could provide. Put them on Piazza's teams, that needed a legit offensive threat, and in Dodger and Shea stadiums, and their numbers would plummet, and the teams would suffer. I think The Dodgers and Mets were happy to put up with subpar defense in order to get Piazza's bat in the lineup. Berra and Bench were fine hitters, but I don't think your team is going far if they are the best hitter in the lineup.
Last edited by willshad; 04-27-2012 at 12:42 PM.
The Natural
ya those Yankee and reds teams never won anything
1. The more I learn, the more convinced I am that many players are over-rated due to inflated stats from offensive home parks (and eras)
2. Strat-O-Matic Baseball Player, Collector and Hobbyist since 1969, visit my strat site: http://somgamersparadiseforum.smfforfree4.com/index.php
Berra and Bench were not the best hitters in the lineup.
The Natural
who was better than Berra in 1951?
who was better than Bench in 1972?
BTW the two players were MVPs both years
both years the teams won pennants
Last edited by 9RoyHobbsRF; 04-27-2012 at 01:32 PM.
1. The more I learn, the more convinced I am that many players are over-rated due to inflated stats from offensive home parks (and eras)
2. Strat-O-Matic Baseball Player, Collector and Hobbyist since 1969, visit my strat site: http://somgamersparadiseforum.smfforfree4.com/index.php
Registered User
After Bench and Berra you could make a case for probably ANY of 6-10 other guys depending on your emphasis.
Cochrane and
Dickey were pretty much universally ragarded as the best all time up until Bench
Fisk
Carter
I-Rod
Campy
Hartnett
And Ewing who though its hard to evaluate career-wise, was probably the very best PLAYER in baseball for at least a stretch.
I have had these guys ranked in virtually every order imaginable.
I think that Piazza is most similar to Josh Gibson though-Gibson probably getting a little overrated and Piazza somewhat underrated.
Registered User
Just looking at quick counting stats, it shows how close the three (Bench, Berra, and Piazza) are.
Regular Season
Bench 389 HR, 1376 RBI, 0.267 AVE (17 seasons)
Berra 358 HR, 1430 RBI, 0.285 AVE (19 seasons)
Piazza 427 HR, 1335 RBI, 0.308 AVE (16 seasons)
Postseason
Bench 10 HR, 20 RBI, 0.266 (6 seasons) 169 AB
Berra 12 HR, 39 RBI, 0.274 (14 seasons) 259 AB
Piazza 6 HR, 15 RBI, 0.242 (5 seasons) 120 AB
Now that doesn't account for the defensive side, of course. You could make pretty good cases for Cochrane and Campanella because they accomplished what they did in fewer seasons. Fisk got into the same region, but it took him 24 seasons to do it. I think that might drop him back a few notches, not far, but a few notches.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks