Random Cubs Musings

[Guest]

Framing is a [expletive] statistic. Let's just stop blindly trusting information because it has a number attached to it please.

Soon as you start actually reading the information and taking it for what it is.

It is [expletive] and it's worth nothing .

[jersey cubs fan]

I'm not exactly sure what you're asking here, but it's pitch f/x data, collected the same way across the board. Sometimes there is a fluky result on a false read, but those generally get filtered out of the data and it's obvious (like a 0 for either a horizontal or vertical pitch location, which would indicate the pitch went about 4 feet from its intended target), and is usually fixed later. Pitch f/x data is available to be gathered from MLB by anyone, so it's not exactly proprietary information that would be biased in some way.

 

I get that it is pitch f/x data, but how reliable is that for determining the strike zone in every stadium? Each stadium is obviously uniquely designed which makes their systems at least questionable as to the accuracy of how it is measuring strikes. It is one thing to judge speed and movement of any one pitch, but the strike zone is fluid throughout the league, from ump to ump, batter to batter. There are a whole bunch of reasons why a pitch that any one stadium's system determines to be in the zone may be called a ball.

The cameras track the trajectory of the ball, and it's accurate to within an inch. Since mounds, distances to the plate, and size of the plate are consistent from park to park, the data will be consistent across the board.

 

Well, an inch is more than nothing. And by definition it cannot maintain consistency from park to park.

 

And putting it on the framer is silly.

[ConstableRabbit]

I'm not exactly sure what you're asking here, but it's pitch f/x data, collected the same way across the board. Sometimes there is a fluky result on a false read, but those generally get filtered out of the data and it's obvious (like a 0 for either a horizontal or vertical pitch location, which would indicate the pitch went about 4 feet from its intended target), and is usually fixed later. Pitch f/x data is available to be gathered from MLB by anyone, so it's not exactly proprietary information that would be biased in some way.

 

I get that it is pitch f/x data, but how reliable is that for determining the strike zone in every stadium? Each stadium is obviously uniquely designed which makes their systems at least questionable as to the accuracy of how it is measuring strikes. It is one thing to judge speed and movement of any one pitch, but the strike zone is fluid throughout the league, from ump to ump, batter to batter. There are a whole bunch of reasons why a pitch that any one stadium's system determines to be in the zone may be called a ball.

The cameras track the trajectory of the ball, and it's accurate to within an inch. Since mounds, distances to the plate, and size of the plate are consistent from park to park, the data will be consistent across the board.

There can be fluctuations from park-to-park. See point 3 here.

[bukie]

Well, an inch is more than nothing. And by definition it cannot maintain consistency from park to park.

 

And putting it on the framer is silly.

 

By definition it always maintains consistency from park to park. I'm not sure how you could even think otherwise here. You not aware how motion tracking cameras work?

 

It's not all on the framer, but that's a part of it.

[Tyrant]

I'm not exactly sure what you're asking here, but it's pitch f/x data, collected the same way across the board. Sometimes there is a fluky result on a false read, but those generally get filtered out of the data and it's obvious (like a 0 for either a horizontal or vertical pitch location, which would indicate the pitch went about 4 feet from its intended target), and is usually fixed later. Pitch f/x data is available to be gathered from MLB by anyone, so it's not exactly proprietary information that would be biased in some way.

 

I get that it is pitch f/x data, but how reliable is that for determining the strike zone in every stadium? Each stadium is obviously uniquely designed which makes their systems at least questionable as to the accuracy of how it is measuring strikes. It is one thing to judge speed and movement of any one pitch, but the strike zone is fluid throughout the league, from ump to ump, batter to batter. There are a whole bunch of reasons why a pitch that any one stadium's system determines to be in the zone may be called a ball.

The cameras track the trajectory of the ball, and it's accurate to within an inch. Since mounds, distances to the plate, and size of the plate are consistent from park to park, the data will be consistent across the board.

 

Well, an inch is more than nothing. And by definition it cannot maintain consistency from park to park.

 

And putting it on the framer is silly.

 

It also seems like a week isn't nearly enough time to judge something like this.

[bukie]

I'm not exactly sure what you're asking here, but it's pitch f/x data, collected the same way across the board. Sometimes there is a fluky result on a false read, but those generally get filtered out of the data and it's obvious (like a 0 for either a horizontal or vertical pitch location, which would indicate the pitch went about 4 feet from its intended target), and is usually fixed later. Pitch f/x data is available to be gathered from MLB by anyone, so it's not exactly proprietary information that would be biased in some way.

 

I get that it is pitch f/x data, but how reliable is that for determining the strike zone in every stadium? Each stadium is obviously uniquely designed which makes their systems at least questionable as to the accuracy of how it is measuring strikes. It is one thing to judge speed and movement of any one pitch, but the strike zone is fluid throughout the league, from ump to ump, batter to batter. There are a whole bunch of reasons why a pitch that any one stadium's system determines to be in the zone may be called a ball.

The cameras track the trajectory of the ball, and it's accurate to within an inch. Since mounds, distances to the plate, and size of the plate are consistent from park to park, the data will be consistent across the board.

There can be fluctuations from park-to-park. See point 3 here.

The fluctuations aren't in the data, they're in the conditions at the park.

[ConstableRabbit]

Well, an inch is more than nothing. And by definition it cannot maintain consistency from park to park.

 

And putting it on the framer is silly.

 

By definition it always maintains consistency from park to park. I'm not sure how you could even think otherwise here. You not aware how motion tracking cameras work?

 

It's not all on the framer, but that's a part of it.

Again, it has to do with camera calibration in each park. The system and measurement tools are the same in each park, but there are slight differences in how they measure.

[jersey cubs fan]

Well, an inch is more than nothing. And by definition it cannot maintain consistency from park to park.

 

And putting it on the framer is silly.

 

By definition it always maintains consistency from park to park. I'm not sure how you could even think otherwise here. You not aware how motion tracking cameras work?

 

It's not all on the framer, but that's a part of it.

 

Well, the strike zone is not a fixed point in space, every ump calls it differently and every stadium has a unique setup for its system, so it would be a mistake to assume consistency.

 

And they are referring to it as a framing measurement, which very clearly puts the blame on the catcher.

 

 

Not to mention, they've played 2 teams in 2 stadiums so far and a small percentage of the league's umps have called their games.

[ConstableRabbit]

I'm not exactly sure what you're asking here, but it's pitch f/x data, collected the same way across the board. Sometimes there is a fluky result on a false read, but those generally get filtered out of the data and it's obvious (like a 0 for either a horizontal or vertical pitch location, which would indicate the pitch went about 4 feet from its intended target), and is usually fixed later. Pitch f/x data is available to be gathered from MLB by anyone, so it's not exactly proprietary information that would be biased in some way.

 

I get that it is pitch f/x data, but how reliable is that for determining the strike zone in every stadium? Each stadium is obviously uniquely designed which makes their systems at least questionable as to the accuracy of how it is measuring strikes. It is one thing to judge speed and movement of any one pitch, but the strike zone is fluid throughout the league, from ump to ump, batter to batter. There are a whole bunch of reasons why a pitch that any one stadium's system determines to be in the zone may be called a ball.

The cameras track the trajectory of the ball, and it's accurate to within an inch. Since mounds, distances to the plate, and size of the plate are consistent from park to park, the data will be consistent across the board.

There can be fluctuations from park-to-park. See point 3 here.

The fluctuations aren't in the data, they're in the conditions at the park.

Right, but the net result is the same. The same pitch thrown in 2 different parks can look differently in the data.

[sneakypower]

a good article on the topic:

http://grantland.com/features/studying-art-pitch-framing-catchers-such-francisco-cervelli-chris-stewart-jose-molina-others/

[MWV]

I read the article, and I see that the Cubs have more in-zone balls than any other team. I just don't follow why this is completely attributable to something as nebulous as framing.

 

Yes, there is some (weak) correlation between this year's numbers and last year's, but the range is just a matter of +/- 2 or 3 called strikes per game. Certain pitchers get strikes others don't get (see ConstableRabbit's post). Certain hitters get balls others don't get. Certain counts get calls others don't get (can't recall the link, but it has been demonstrated that strike zones swell on 3-0 and shrink on 0-2). It sucks for the Cubs (so far), but I don't see sufficient causal evidence to pillory Castillo.

[ConstableRabbit]

I read the article, and I see that the Cubs have more in-zone balls than any other team. I just don't follow why this is completely attributable to something as nebulous as framing.

 

Yes, there is some (weak) correlation between this year's numbers and last year's, but the range is just a matter of +/- 2 or 3 called strikes per game. Certain pitchers get strikes others don't get (see ConstableRabbit's post). Certain hitters get balls others don't get. Certain counts get calls others don't get (can't recall the link, but it has been demonstrated that strike zones swell on 3-0 and shrink on 0-2). It sucks for the Cubs (so far), but I don't see sufficient causal evidence to pillory Castillo.

Yeah, that was pretty fuzzy. Kind of a throw in at the end of an article.

 

Some sort of index is needed to help attribute/estimate the extent of strike zone drivers.

[bukie]

No, the assumption that it's mostly framing is a bit unfounded, but the data is still odd. Especially the one pitch called a ball that was practically down the middle.

 

Call it umpires unwilling to give edges to wild pitchers (which is just another good reason that umpires are stupid).

Call it umpires being fooled by catchers that make balls look like strikes, or vice versa.

 

I still don't like the concept that the strike zone varies wildly based on non-objective variables.

[bukie]

Actually, what I'd find interesting is how varied the strike zone is depending on the umpire calling it. I know some umpires are notorious for bad zones, or even worse, inconsistent zones.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Robot strike calls to make it all moot, plz.

[MWV]

I still don't like the concept that the strike zone varies wildly based on non-objective variables.

 

I agree completely. And given the ease with which reliable, 9-parameter newtonian trajectories can be calculated, it's increasingly stupid that we entrust balls and strikes to umpires.

[Guest]

I still don't like the concept that the strike zone varies wildly based on non-objective variables.

 

I agree completely. And given the ease with which reliable, 9-parameter newtonian trajectories can be calculated, it's increasingly stupid that we entrust balls and strikes to umpires.

Agreed.

[RynoRules]

Hey, I'm thinking this Rizzo kid can play a little...

[Guest]

Food for thought with Arrieta starting to get close to game ready, who goes down when he's activated? It looks like it'll be Schlitter, which is a bit of a shame since he's been effective so far. Hard to see Grimm or Rondon getting the boot though, and the rest can't be demoted.

[davell]

Food for thought with Arrieta starting to get close to game ready, who goes down when he's activated? It looks like it'll be Schlitter, which is a bit of a shame since he's been effective so far. Hard to see Grimm or Rondon getting the boot though, and the rest can't be demoted.

 

Mystery injury? Villanueva or Edwin being the candidates?

[Cubswin11]

Food for thought with Arrieta starting to get close to game ready, who goes down when he's activated? It looks like it'll be Schlitter, which is a bit of a shame since he's been effective so far. Hard to see Grimm or Rondon getting the boot though, and the rest can't be demoted.

 

Mystery injury? Villanueva or Edwin being the candidates?

Samardzija trade*

 

Only half joking*

[Tangled Up in Plaid]

DFA Barney.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

DFA Barney.

 

I can think of three position players on the roster I'd DFA before him easily. A few more that are close.

[jersey cubs fan]

DFA Barney.

 

I can think of three position players on the roster I'd DFA before him easily. A few more that are close.

 

Yeah but tomorrow you're going to like Olt again.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

DFA Barney.

 

I can think of three position players on the roster I'd DFA before him easily. A few more that are close.

 

Yeah but tomorrow you're going to like Olt again.

 

I'll never like Lake. Probably never like Kalish.