Mike Piazza - Can an argument be made that he's the best catcher ever?

[dominik]

I would not say "only bad throwing".

throwing is maybe the most important skill (or maybe second next to blocking balls at which piazza was not great either-led the league twice in passed balls).

I think that throwing stats underrate great throwing catchers due to several reasons:
1.a good arm deflates CS% because only the best runners steal. a bad thrower on the other hand will have even slow runners try to steal on him. that raises his CS%. so the difference in throwing is actually bigger than the stats indicate

2.they only measure runners thrown out but another effect that is maybe even bigger is that there are much less steal attempts. this fear factor also holds down offense

3.runners will take shorter secondary leads (no fear of pickoff) against a great throwers. that means that a runner score less often and also can go from 1 to 3 less often. this is also a stat that is not measured but definitely a big effect

[Ubiquitous]

I would not say "only bad throwing".

throwing is maybe the most important skill (or maybe second next to blocking balls at which piazza was not great either-led the league twice in passed balls).

He led the league with 12 PB in 1995 and 1996. By comparison Bench led the league in his first full year with 18 PB and then had 14 the next year. Good for third place. He would then finish second in 1978 with 12 PB. Piazza had 7.5 PB per 1000 innings caught. Bench had 6.5 PB per 1000 innings caught.

I think that throwing stats underrate great throwing catchers due to several reasons:
1.a good arm deflates CS% because only the best runners steal. a bad thrower on the other hand will have even slow runners try to steal on him. that raises his CS%. so the difference in throwing is actually bigger than the stats indicate

But you want people who shouldn't be running running. It removes a baserunner, a potential run and gives you an out.

2.they only measure runners thrown out but another effect that is maybe even bigger is that there are much less steal attempts. this fear factor also holds down offense

True but era plays a much larger role. For instance in Bench's youth he was very very good at gunning down would be basestealers. Consequently very few people try to steal on him but then the times changed. Despite the fact that Bench was very good at throwing out runners steals attempts against him greatly increased and his own CS% went down a bit

3.runners will take shorter secondary leads (no fear of pickoff) against a great throwers. that means that a runner score less often and also can go from 1 to 3 less often. this is also a stat that is not measured but definitely a big effect

Pickoffs happen so few times and generally only happens because the runner is caught napping that I seriously doubt it has an effect on secondary leads. Though it would be interesting to see how often players were able to take an extra base with various catchers behind the plate.

[dominik]

pickoffs don't happen often but still I think that it has an effect on the runner.

yadier molina often gets very close to a pickoff. he doesn't really pick off a lot of people (like you said) but I'm sure it influences the runner to be a little more cautious the next time.

just one step more secondary lead could mean less DPs and more advances to the extra base or score over a season.

[csh19792001]

People's judgement gets really clouded over the stolen bases.

Not in this case!! Vis-a-vis Wins Above Replacement, The Baseball Gauge and other sites has Piazza as THE WORST DEFENSIVE CATCHER IN BASEBALL HISTORY.

I ran it out to 1000 catchers in MLB history, for all career lengths, and he's the worst. Tied with Tim McCarver, in fact. And it ISN'T a "Well, he played a long time, that's why he has the most negative value." There are guys up there with 8, 10, 12 year catching careers that were pathetic, too. He should've been moved to first base many, many years before, but he must've not been able to hack it in the field there, or it would've happened way back when.

Sort by "All 1B" then click the "Fld" header in the "Wins Above Replacement"
This is one of the few metrics that properly detracts from his overall value because of his awful defense

[Ubiquitous]

pickoffs don't happen often but still I think that it has an effect on the runner.

yadier molina often gets very close to a pickoff. he doesn't really pick off a lot of people (like you said) but I'm sure it influences the runner to be a little more cautious the next time.

just one step more secondary lead could mean less DPs and more advances to the extra base or score over a season.

I ran a WOWY for Yadier Molina's 2007 season. I picked that one because he only started 101 games that year, had been great at throwing out runners for several years, and was still great at throwing out runners that year. Plus he picked off 8 and 7 base runners the two years before. Anyway, with Yadier behind the plate a runner on first with no one else on base took an extra base 25.7% of the time while with any other catcher behind the plate for the Cards the runner took an extra base 29.2% of the time. Sample size was 113 singles to 65 singles. Unfortunately the data is so small that the difference in rates comes down to just two extra instances where the runner took an extra base on non-Yadier catchers but that is mitigated by the non-Yadier's throwing out two runners at third and a runner scoring from first on Yadier.

Now besides the obvious caveat about small size I should also mention that this study ignored what kind of batted balls the singles were or their location.

[Ubiquitous]

Not in this case!! Vis-a-vis Wins Above Replacement, The Baseball Gauge and other sites has Piazza as THE WORST DEFENSIVE CATCHER IN BASEBALL HISTORY.

Yes, in this case as well. For his career he was 61 runs worse than an average catcher as measured by Sean Smith. Mike Piazza when factoring in other defensive stats besides just stolen bases comes to about 4 to 5 runs below an average catcher. That's it. That isn't get out hte pitch fork and burn him type stuff.

[Ubiquitous]

Some things I forgot to mention:

Molina's backups in 2007 were Gary Bennett and Kelly Stinnett. Gary was never very good at throwing out runners and had a grand total of 1 pickoff for his career. In 2007 he caught 14% of would be base-stealers. Kelly was areound average for his career and was at 21% that year and had a grand total of 4 pickoffs that in his career. So what I am saying is that Yadier's replacements had nowhere near the ability nor repuation that he had.

As for Mike Piazza, here are some of my posts from the last time we discussed this:

By the way according to Sean Smith, creator of the WAR we commonly use, Mike Piazza was the 6th best catcher in the last 60 years at calling games. If that was factored in that would add 10.4 wins to his career WAR. Ivan Rodriguez on the other hand would lose 4.5 wins from his career WAR.

According to a couple of recents studies (one in the 2011 Hardball Time annual by Sean Smith and the other BProspectus) game calling/framing of pitches could very well be a much much more important element for catchers than stopping the running game.

It is important to note that WAR doesn't actually measure Piazza's defense. It only attempts to measures stolen bases allowed, caught stealing, errors, wild pitches, passed balls, and pickoffs.

Setting that all aside Piazza comes in as the 18th worst catcher in terms of RField for all catchers from 1901 that played at least 500 games and had 80% or more of their games behind the plate on a seasonal average basis. With three of the guys ahead of him getting over 1000 games played.

Michael Barrett for catchers is the absolute worst with -76 runs (career) but that is because of -15 runs for things done not as a catcher. He too has a -61 CATCH. Taubenese does have a -64 CATCH.

Out of all the below average CATCH catchers Piazza played the longest and consequently he racked up the second most negative runs in that category but Piazza was most certainly not the second worst CATCH catcher in MLB history. To get him there you have to set the filter to at least 1226 games played and then ignore playing time.

There really is no statistical evidence or anecdotal evidence to back up this claim. Mike Piazza was bad at throwing out runners. That we know; anecdotal and statistical evidence supports this claim and is not disputed. But not being able to throw out runners does not mean he is the worst defensive catcher in the game. Piazza did a lot of things that are required of catchers rather well. He just wasn't good at throwing out runners. If David Ortiz or Dave Kingman were put behind the plate you would get to see what a career DH would look like behind the plate.

[abolishthedh]

Echoing BigRon, my picks will not have changed much over the past couple of decades of great hitting. The eras vary too widely to offer comparison which I trust. However, any statistical comparison must weight the effect of defense quite heavily.

For example, we will never know to what extent Bench carried the younger members of his pitching staff as opposed to the extent the rest of the defensive team carried the staff. The only name pitcher prior to Tom Seaver (1977) which Bench caught in the starting rotation was Don Gullett, and Gullett was an oft-injured pitcher to say the least.

Times have changed more than any of us realize, IMO, including myself. The running game was a very big part of offense after Maury Wills and prior to Canseco/McGwire and the A's of the late 1980s. Bench was perfectly timed for this trend, because he had monstrous hands and could pioneer one-handed catching to combat base stealing. Bench was one of the last defensive players who transformed their positions in modern times (along with Ripkin and Sandberg).

So, in summary, my rankings would be (with consideration of segregation's effect on Campanella):

1. Bench
2. Berra (have you reviewed how little he struck out, in consideration of his reputation for a free swinger? Wow!)
3. Campanella
4. Ivan Rodriguez

And, I am not sure where I would place Piazza for the same reasons I have supported Bench.

[Freakshow]

Most season 6 WAR and 70 G at catcher

Rk                  Yrs From   To   Age
1       Mike Piazza   5 1993 1998 24-29
2       Gary Carter   5 1980 1985 26-31 H
3      Johnny Bench   5 1969 1975 21-27 H
4         Joe Mauer   3 2006 2009 23-26
5    Ivan Rodriguez   3 1997 1999 25-27
6      Carlton Fisk   3 1972 1978 24-30 H
7       Ted Simmons   2 1977 1978 27-28
8    Thurman Munson   2 1973 1975 26-28
9      Bill Freehan   2 1967 1968 25-26
10       Yogi Berra   2 1954 1956 29-31 H
11   Roy Campanella   2 1951 1953 29-31 H

Most seasons 4 WAR and 70 G at catcher

Rk                   Yrs From   To   Age
1       Johnny Bench  10 1968 1979 20-31 H
2        Mike Piazza   9 1993 2001 24-32
3     Ivan Rodriguez   8 1996 2004 24-32
4        Gary Carter   8 1977 1985 23-31 H
5    Mickey Cochrane   8 1927 1935 24-32 H
6       Jorge Posada   6 2000 2007 28-35
7        Ted Simmons   6 1972 1980 22-30
8         Yogi Berra   6 1950 1956 25-31 H
9        Bill Dickey   6 1931 1939 24-32 H
10         Joe Mauer   5 2006 2010 23-27
11     Jason Kendall   5 1997 2004 23-30
12       Gene Tenace   5 1974 1979 27-32
13      Carlton Fisk   5 1972 1990 24-42 H
14    Thurman Munson   5 1970 1977 23-30
15      Bill Freehan   5 1964 1972 22-30
16         Joe Torre   5 1963 1970 22-29
17    Roy Campanella   5 1949 1955 27-33 H
18    Gabby Hartnett   4 1928 1937 27-36 H
19        Buck Ewing   4 1884 1890 24-30 H

[Ubiquitous]

As I mentioned earlier in my posts the stats show Piazza to be very good at handling pitching staffs. Earlier this year Max Marchi of BPro ran a study on catchers and found that Piazza was tied for 3rd best catcher at handling pitching staffs. Piazza prevented 205 runs over average. Johnny Bench was by comparison average (2 runs over). #1 was Tony Pena followed by Mike Scioscia and Piazza was tied with Javy Lopez. The study goes back to 1948.

Here is a little blurb from the author.

The first thing that will probably strike you is Mike Piazza’s ranking. Piazza has always been considered a poor defensive catcher because of his inability to throw out basestealers. However, he fared well at avoiding passed balls and wild pitches (as Tom Tango showed in With Or Without You in The Hardball Times Annual 2008) and now emerges as one of the best ever at handling the pitching staff.

[BigRon]

As I mentioned earlier in my posts the stats show Piazza to be very good at handling pitching staffs. Earlier this year Max Marchi of BPro ran a study on catchers and found that Piazza was tied for 3rd best catcher at handling pitching staffs. Piazza prevented 205 runs over average. Johnny Bench was by comparison average (2 runs over). #1 was Tony Pena followed by Mike Scioscia and Piazza was tied with Javy Lopez. The study goes back to 1948.

Here is a little blurb from the author.

Just curious- do you know how he evaluated/quantified "handling" of pitching staffs? That seems to be a very difficult thing to quantify.

[csh19792001]

That's it. That isn't get out hte pitch fork and burn him type stuff.

Just answering the question posed by the thread starter.

-The stats point to Piazza makes him probably the worst defensive catcher in history that lasted, in the aggregate, based on the systems people have actually heard of, and use, not stuff you pull out of thin air from obscure places just to try to make your case.

-Catcher is THE defensive position.

-Therefore he's not the greatest catcher that ever lived. His inability to throw the baseball ruins his candidacy. Pudge, who played the same years he did, has been at least as good, and probably better, mainly because he lasted a lot longer.

[9RoyHobbsRF]

Any study that shows Mike Piazza as a better defensive C than Johnny Bench I would submit is seriously flawed

[Ubiquitous]

Just answering the question posed by the thread starter.

-The stats point to Piazza makes him probably the worst defensive catcher in history that lasted, in the aggregate, based on the systems people have actually heard of, and use, not stuff you pull out of thin air from obscure places just to try to make your case.

-Catcher is THE defensive position.

-Therefore he's not the greatest catcher that ever lived. His inability to throw the baseball ruins his candidacy. Pudge, who played the same years he did, has been at least as good, and probably better, mainly because he lasted a lot longer.

Sean Smith is the creator of the WAR that is used most often here. He is also a published author and wrote about this very issue in the latest The Hardball Times. Tom Tango is a published author, a well respected blogger, and is/was employed by several professional teams in various sports. Max Marchi is an author for Baseball Prospectus. This stuff isn't being pulled out of thin air from obscure places. This stuff is coming from well known and well respected sources.

The stats that you are pointing to are by their own admission incomplete.

[Ubiquitous]

Just curious- do you know how he evaluated/quantified "handling" of pitching staffs? That seems to be a very difficult thing to quantify.

WOWY. I'd say it most certainly is hard to quantify and over the last 5 to 10 years we've seen a lot of opinions on how to measure this.

[leewileyfan]

I read, then re-read the Max Marchi essays on catcher evaluations for "framing," aka handling pitchers and willing "strike" calls from umpires. I followed each link, including forums where I read poster comments.

It is heavily based on mathematical models, supported bu scatter plots for pitch distributions, by nature of pitch, elevation as it approaches the hitters' strike zones and is largely dependent upon machines that plot and record pitch location and movement.

It is refined to segments of inches within the strike zone and purports to project the relative numbers of pitches per game that can be projected to be "on the black lines" where a good framing catcher can win strikes from umpires.

It shows a great deal of effort and a great faith in the credibility of mathematical constructs as applied to elements of defense as nuanced as catching.

Its findings for the "best" include Mike Scioscia, Javy Lopez and Mike Piazza. The study, dating back to 1948 makes room for Jim Hegan, Carlton Fisk and Russell Martin among its leaders.

It's not my cup of tea, because it purports to apply mathematical precision over a matrix of supposition. When a study inclues A.J. Pierzynski among the top catchers and denounces Charles Johnson as "the worst," I get squirmy and tend to say, no thanks."

There's no mention of Jim Sundberg or I-Rod [that I saw]. There's also no mention of Buddy Rosar. It would have been interesting to see some mention of Jason Varitek's career which, for me, might have explored a precipitous and extended decline in many quarters, yet might have fed some supportive data for more subtle excellence in "framing."

P.S. Michael Barrett gets favorable notive from the study, a kind of afterthought, after Russel Martin, Jose Molina and David Ross - among modern catchers.

[csh19792001]

It's not my cup of tea, because it purports to apply mathematical precision over a matrix of supposition. When a study inclues A.J. Pierzynski among the top catchers and denounces Charles Johnson as "the worst," I get squirmy and tend to say, no thanks."

And rightfully so. If the findings of a given metric fly in the face of all other metrics as well as all the qualitative and observational input, it is invalidated as a metric itself. Clearly well intentioned....but still bunk. It's probably a very good (first or second attempt) at a new system of measurement.

[Ubiquitous]

And rightfully so. If the findings of a given metric fly in the face of all other metrics as well as all the qualitative and observational input, it is invalidated as a metric itself.

Except it doesn't fly in the face of all other metrics since "all other metrics" that you are using do not measure what he was attempting to measure nor does any of of the "observational input" have to do with what he was looking at as well. Just because someone says "can't throw therefore bad catcher" doesn't mean that every aspect of his defensive game has to be subpar.

[leewileyfan]

The more I read into this, the more interested I become. In reading all the mathematical and truly sabermetrically-oriented essays [and favorable comments from within that community], the less I am convinced of the results ... and the more wrapped up I get in an approach a bit less precise and a lot more intuitive.

You can't really question an approach unless you have something constructive to contribute; so I'll take a shot at doing just that.

1. Catcher evaluation is and must be co-dependent upon pitching elements. "Battery" is a great old world to define the relationship, because there must be a connection, a flow, and a result.

2. Such a co-dependent relationship demands focus on two prime elements; and as I see it, the best way to preserve that focus is to throw out extraneous data.

3. Catcher function is communication, guidance, providing a sturdy target, and conveying a sense of command. It is NOT that the catcher "runs" the pitcher, but rather that he provides an atmosphere [a funnel into which to pitch the ball]. The more the catcher can do to help the picture stay focused, the better the job he is doing.

4. Part of that focus is game-calling, a shared partnership in which the pitcher must have confidence that his catcher can CALL for the pitcher's STUFF, because he can handle it. Some old-timers [catchers] are unfairly downgraded defensively because they actively called for knuckle-balls [knowing what they were in for]. Others looked better [but hurt their pitcher [relationships] for calling "safer" pitches.

5. Another part of that focus is the catcher MAKING the pitcher aware that he [the catcher] is MONITORING the on-base situation.

6. The catcher who has established the relationship in the above areas has also EARNED the respect of the umpire calling balls and strikes [because they notice such things].

I have just started to construct a model to evaluate catcher "command" [game-calling, framing, management]. Feed back is invited.

1. Isolate the KNOWN data elements that SUGGEST any breakdown in catcher-pitcher communication. I suggest that there are only two of these: Passed Balls [very often from crossed "signals"] and Wild Pitches [which by one scorer may we Wild Pitch ... then a Passed Ball by another observer]. Identifying these two elements is not a search to fix "blame" on anyone - just to identify mis-communication.

2. Determine the era you are dealing with. Each will have somewhat different inputs. For example:

1901-1919, the Deadball Era, I suggest a catcher seasonal model of 100 Games; 900 Innings; and [referring to historic WHIP data] about 1.35 batters faced per inning. That would give a model of 900 innings * 1.35 Batters Faced, Catcher = 1,215. That's the proposed denominator.

3. Scrutiny of the 1901-1920 period suggests an average [to less-than average] catcher will experience 22 PB and 33 WP. We have a possible numerator.

4. Do the division: 55/1,215 = .0453 or 4.53% a base of catcher-pitcher relationship "breakdowns" base on a reasonable estimation of batters faced.

Doing the same thing with succeeding "generations:"

1921-1949 115 Games = 1,035 innings *1.45 [hitting] = 1,500 innings; 25 PB + 35 WP = 60/1400 = .04 or 4.0% base.

1950-1987 120 Games = 1,080 innings * 1.35 = 1,450 [rounded]; 25 PB + 35 WP = 60/1450 = 4.13%.

1988-Present: 140 Games = 1,260 innings * 1.35 = 1700 innings [rounded]; 25 PB + 55 WP = 80/1700 = 4.71%.

If all estimates hold up, a pretty fair base of 4.25% might cover 1901-2011 without too much distortion. Of course, just applying the correct percentage to the proper generation is no challenge. Since I said the percentages were average to below average, a higher standard might be a straight 4%. [Hey, this is my second day toying with this].

I have applied PB + WP divided by Batters Faced, Catcher to the study's "best" framers and handlers of pitchers back to 1948. Here's how they fared:

Scioscia .0322
Ja. Lopez .0228
Piazza .0250
Fisk .0223
Pierzynski .0343
R. Martin .0339
J. Hegan .0159
Jo. Molina .0418
Etchebarren .0247
LoDuca = .0267

I added in the following out of curiosity, because the author referred to Charles Johnson as "awful."

Jim Sundberg .0266
Charles Johnson .0271
Buddy Rosar .0164
Yadier Molina .0255
I-Rod .0348

Out of curiosity, I took Piazza [.0250] versus our average [.04] and get Piazza .04-.025 = .0125 better than the model average. If we go back to his "batters faced" [18,299] the product = 18,299 * .0125 = 274.49 positive 'elements." I'd have to go back to the article to find the values, but if there are 275 events better than average, and each event is single-pitch based [causing baserunner advance], I'd guess .4 would be fair [depending on the base-out situation - could be closer to .6]. That could be a run value of between 110-165 runs saved, career.

P.S. I went back and checked. He has +205 runs saved for Piazza. He has 150 for Jim Hegan, Applying the model I just described, I get 166-250 as a possible range for Hegan.

The study also has Batters at 57,000 for Piazza. How? I dunno.

[Ubiquitous]

Mike Piazza caught 13,555 innings which means he faced at least 40,665 batters. If he faced 57,000 batters that means his pitchers had a WHIP of about 1.20 something that seems rather reasonable.

[leewileyfan]

Mike Piazza caught 13,555 innings which means he faced at least 40,665 batters. If he faced 57,000 batters that means his pitchers had a WHIP of about 1.20 something that seems rather reasonable.

Yep. Just figured it out myself. Catching 13,555 innings, with a WHIP ratio of 1.35 = 18,299. That covers men who get on base via W + H. The difference covers the batters who may play a part in the WHIP elements [guys on base who can advance on those subsequent WP + PB. That's the entirety of what I called Batters Faced, Catcher.

3.15*18,299 = 57,642. [AHA!]

[leewileyfan]

Except it doesn't fly in the face of all other metrics since "all other metrics" that you are using do not measure what he was attempting to measure nor does any of of the "observational input" have to do with what he was looking at as well. Just because someone says "can't throw therefore bad catcher" doesn't mean that every aspect of his defensive game has to be subpar.

Just to address the Marchi [and others] study into "framing" and "handling pitching staffs," it does NOT, in any way, start with the premise you suggest above. The studies [in at least three parts that I know of] purportedly provide a statistical breakthrough in catcher evaluation in the following areas, which, at the very least, are multi-layered and nuanced:

1."Framing" pitches, which skill allegedly is measurable and quantifiable into a "runs" value, ostensibly a unique catcher skill in making borderline pitches appear to be strikes to umps behind the plate. It goes so far as to quantify the numbers of pitches per game that qualify for such measurement, adding the caveat that if you include consider the entire strike zone borders into consideration, then you must factor that into the equation. [As I understand it, the elemental borders are low-inside and low-outside].

2. Taken to logical conclusions, this element of the study is ball-strike-shift-per-pitch valuation [called "framing"]; and over a career of batters faced, has distinctive run value of its own. A large part of this is what might be called "umpire seduction," although some of those making informed comments suggested that this might easily confused with batter individual reputation for knowing the strike zone.

3. I can applaud such diligent work, if only some of these pioneering seers into sabermetrics could restrain themselves from condescension to the very players they are evaluating. To refer to Charles Johnson as "awful" on the one hand, then include Michael Barret among your leaders, suggests a certainty of one's data that does indeed "fly in the face" of informed observation and plain baseball common sense.

There are published metrics that avoid CATCHER altogether. There are others that offer evaluations that may be conflicting in the findings they offer. Hey, it's all well and good; BUT these particular studies are offered on B-P, which has largely shifted into paid subscription participation. The cast of people making comments to the Marchi studies are mostly laudatory and comfirming of sabermetric admirability.

This can become self-fulfilling prophecy among the anointed; and readers might well be cautioned against being too eager to accept what is presented purely on the basis of who is doing the presenting.

I am no way "ragging" on Marchi. I merely question the value of graphic pitching scatterplots, the physics of the movement of pitches measured, the succeptibility of home plate umpires to seduction by catcher framing ... as sound bases for catcher evaluation.

The study even goes so far as to evaluate managers and their handling of pitching staffs as an outgrowth of the data. When mathematical regression and graphic plotting collide with strike zone dimensions and human connivance, I just tend to ask if there is a simpler, less graphic, way.

[Ubiquitous]

Just to address the Marchi [and others] study into "framing" and "handling pitching staffs," it does NOT, in any way, start with the premise you suggest above. The studies [in at least three parts that I know of] purportedly provide a statistical breakthrough in catcher evaluation in the following areas, which, at the very least, are multi-layered and nuanced:

I'm not suggesting Marchi starts with the premise that because Piazza can't throw out a runner his defense is bad.

[leewileyfan]

There is a second side to this catcher evaluation metric for "framing" [which, if I ever use the term again, for me will encompass all aspects of catcher stance, providing a target, signals, pitch calls [and pitchouts], and receiving the pitch to the optimum results for the pitcher. The second side has to do with incorporating the "value" so that it can be translated into "bases" or "runs."

Marchi projects some +205 "framing" runs for Piazza; and running the model I put forth, I could see something between +100 to +160 as possibilities. However, to get the entire picture, all elements must be incorporated into a CATCHER DEFENSE PROFILE, an overall value, from which strong and weak elements can be individually debated.

In my own metric, I lump PB + E as if all were, in fact, errors. I believe this is right and fair, because no PB is recorded unless a runner advances. That smacks very much of being an error hiding under an alias. The WP I presently do NOT include in the catcher evaluation at all, the point being that pitchers eventually do have to be held accountable for "something."

Now, if I were to buy into this "framing" concept at all, I'd have to add WP into the catcher's bag of negatives because we've put a new spin on it: IF we are evaluating catcher "handling of pitchers" [aka "framing"] any mis-communication blunder [WP + PB] must be pinned on the tail of the donkey wearing the mask, mitt, chest and shin protectors.

Presently, the CAUGHT STEALING % factors in at about 30% or so of catcher evaluation. FRAMING, in a universe of maybe 70-80 combined PB + WP in a season, would seem to factor in a bit less, say 20%.

I am thinking that, incorporating this into my metric will have less than dramatic effects on ratings. Since WP would be added as negatives, and FRAMING MIGHT be added as a modifying positive, it may be a wash.

If anybody is interested and wants to name a few catchers [1901-2011], I'll be glad to run a few tests to see what effect, if, any, occurs.

[csh19792001]

Just to address the Marchi [and others] study into "framing" and "handling pitching staffs," it does NOT, in any way, start with the premise you suggest above.

Yeah, but he's throwing it out there and hoping nobody reads it. It supports his position that Piazza was great defensively, and that hardly being able to throw the ball to the bases ISN'T a crucial facet of catcher defense.

Jeter had some great skills, but he was very poor defensively, in the aggregate. Same with Piazza.