BA on Cubs/Pitch Framing

[David]

@BenBadler Wow. Must-read story/video on tech Cubs use to turn catchers into better framers: http://bit.ly/1I7T6jU

 

Much as technology helped usher in data-driven analysis that showed how valuable pitch-framing could be, new technology has also changed how catchers are trained. Newer three-wheel pitching machines have significantly changed how catchers can be coached by allowing them to get more work in less time, all with the challenge of catching pitches that do a much better job of replicating game speed and movement.

 

Some use the Hack Attack, some use the similar—but programmable—Home Plate Premiere. At this point, a team not using some form of the three-wheel machines is falling behind.

 

“The Hack Attack, that thing is amazing,” said Vance Wilson, the former big league catcher who now manages the Royals’ Double-A Northwest Arkansas affiliate. “That’s the greatest thing invented for a catcher.”

 

What the new machines do is permit the repetitions that were impossible before. At Cubs camp, catchers run the gauntlet. Five Hack Attacks are set up, allowing catchers to bounce from one drill to the next—a cutter to their right knee, followed by two low in the zone, followed by a slider to their left knee, followed by a ball in the dirt that requires blocking.

 

“We can catch 200 baseballs in a 20-minute span,” Davis said.

 

Ben Carhart, whom the Cubs converted after he played third base and pitched at Stetson, only knows catching with the new machines. “There’s no excuse not to be pretty good at what you want to do,” he said.

 

Other drills can let catchers learn how to properly frame a pitch on the edge—or just off the edge of the zone—with the occasional pitch further off the edge to reinforce the Cubs’ mantra: Receive strikes, catch balls.

 

For a borderline pitch, the glove needs to stay upright, using the elbow/arm to keep the glove still. For a pitch further off the plate, the catcher needs to know that he’s going to have to tilt his glove.

 

“The great thing is we can train to the extreme,” Cubs catcher Kyle Schwarber said. “How far can we go before we have to turn the glove over? How far can we go to the right sticking it? We train to see how low can we go making a bottom of the zone pitch look good. We train to every extreme possible.

 

“When we’re in the cage, we can play around with stuff. I can try this, then try that. When we go to the pen, we can then see if it works there. And then, maybe we can take it into game.”

 

Because there is so much repetition, proper habits can be built more quickly as well. A coach can correct a dropped head, a poor set-up or a tendency to tilt the shoulders, then repeat the drill until the catcher gets it right, pitch after pitch.

 

“It’s a whole different monster now. It’s something we spend a lot more time on,” Schwarber said. “If we can steal a strike, that can be a win. If it’s a borderline strike, you have to work your butt off on that pitch.”

 

Lots more at the link.

[imb]

Man I love Schwarber. I hope he can handle catcher, even if it's just for three or four years. He could work as a bridge beyond Rizzo that way.

[JennieGarthAlgar]

Schwarber is going to end up as one of the best catchers in the game, I just know it.

[JennieGarthAlgar]

Man I love Schwarber. I hope he can handle catcher, even if it's just for three or four years. He could work as a bridge beyond Rizzo that way.

 

Why is this idea of Schwarber replacing Rizzo becoming a thing? The only time we should be talking about replacing Rizzo is when his contract is up and he makes it known that he won't extend a few more years.

[Guest]

Man I love Schwarber. I hope he can handle catcher, even if it's just for three or four years. He could work as a bridge beyond Rizzo that way.

 

What

[Guest]

Man I love Schwarber. I hope he can handle catcher, even if it's just for three or four years. He could work as a bridge beyond Rizzo that way.

 

Why is this idea of Schwarber replacing Rizzo becoming a thing? The only time we should be talking about replacing Rizzo is when his contract is up and he makes it known that he won't extend a few more years.

 

And Rizzo is locked in through 2021 IIRC.

[imb]

You guys are weird. I'm just saying that Schwarber could take over as full-time catcher in 2016 (if all breaks right) and do it for a few years, then be an option to be moved to 1B while his body still works and Rizzo wants his $300m contract.

[Guest]

You guys are weird. I'm just saying that Schwarber could take over as full-time catcher in 2016 (if all breaks right) and do it for a few years, then be an option to be moved to 1B while his body still works and Rizzo wants his $300m contract.

 

Why wouldn't we just give Rizzo his $300M contract?

 

Also Scharber will want one too by then.

[Guest]

I think it's implicit that "Schwarber catches for 3-4 years and then is a bridge after Rizzo" means letting Rizzo go in free agency. Rizzo will likely be 32 when his deal is done so there's a very good chance they won't want to bring him back. Of course, the problem is, assuming Schwarber gets at least some service time next year he's only under control for 1 year beyond Rizzo's deal.

[imb]

You guys are weird. I'm just saying that Schwarber could take over as full-time catcher in 2016 (if all breaks right) and do it for a few years, then be an option to be moved to 1B while his body still works and Rizzo wants his $300m contract.

 

Why wouldn't we just give Rizzo his $300M contract?

 

Also Scharber will want one too by then.

 

why would we give a post-30 Rizzo a big contract?

[Guest]

I think it's implicit that "Schwarber catches for 3-4 years and then is a bridge after Rizzo" means letting Rizzo go in free agency. Rizzo will likely be 32 when his deal is done so there's a very good chance they won't want to bring him back. Of course, the problem is, assuming Schwarber gets at least some service time next year he's only under control for 1 year beyond Rizzo's deal.

 

[expletive] this so hard

 

they'll be printing money with their own network coming off several years of popularity and contention. they don't need to do that crap.

[Guest]

You guys are weird. I'm just saying that Schwarber could take over as full-time catcher in 2016 (if all breaks right) and do it for a few years, then be an option to be moved to 1B while his body still works and Rizzo wants his $300m contract.

 

Why wouldn't we just give Rizzo his $300M contract?

 

Also Scharber will want one too by then.

 

why would we give a post-30 Rizzo a big contract?

 

because he's a very good player and we'll have nothing else to spend all the payroll we'll be able to sustain on

[imb]

You guys are weird. I'm just saying that Schwarber could take over as full-time catcher in 2016 (if all breaks right) and do it for a few years, then be an option to be moved to 1B while his body still works and Rizzo wants his $300m contract.

 

Why wouldn't we just give Rizzo his $300M contract?

 

Also Scharber will want one too by then.

 

why would we give a post-30 Rizzo a big contract?

 

because he's a very good player and we'll have nothing else to spend all the payroll we'll be able to sustain on

 

lmao you seem very confident predicting 6 years into the future

[Guest]

You guys are weird. I'm just saying that Schwarber could take over as full-time catcher in 2016 (if all breaks right) and do it for a few years, then be an option to be moved to 1B while his body still works and Rizzo wants his $300m contract.

 

Why wouldn't we just give Rizzo his $300M contract?

 

Also Scharber will want one too by then.

 

why would we give a post-30 Rizzo a big contract?

 

because he's a very good player and we'll have nothing else to spend all the payroll we'll be able to sustain on

 

lmao you seem very confident predicting 6 years into the future

 

well this whole scenario is predicated on the idea that rizzo will be able to command such a contract and that schwarber will have a 3-4 year catching career and have a good enough bat to be seen as a worthy rizzo replacement, so...

[Guest]

I think it's implicit that "Schwarber catches for 3-4 years and then is a bridge after Rizzo" means letting Rizzo go in free agency. Rizzo will likely be 32 when his deal is done so there's a very good chance they won't want to bring him back. Of course, the problem is, assuming Schwarber gets at least some service time next year he's only under control for 1 year beyond Rizzo's deal.

 

[expletive] this so hard

 

they'll be printing money with their own network coming off several years of popularity and contention. they don't need to do that crap.

 

It's also nearly 7 years away so who knows what Rizzo's production will look like at that point. If there's no DH he's also at the bottom of the defensive spectrum too so there's less flexibility with having him on the roster, never mind the number. It's not a 'nope, never gonna extend Rizzo because he's over 30' statement, but rather acknowledging the reality that he'll be post prime at a premium offensive position and the Cubs may have better options(e.g. a filled out Kris Bryant that's a FA that same year).

[jersey cubs fan]

Man I love Schwarber. I hope he can handle catcher, even if it's just for three or four years. He could work as a bridge beyond Rizzo that way.

 

Why is this idea of Schwarber replacing Rizzo becoming a thing? The only time we should be talking about replacing Rizzo is when his contract is up and he makes it known that he won't extend a few more years.

 

Rizzo is controlled for 7 years until he is 31. Schwarber presumably has a couple more years to develop his catching skills and will then be on pace to debut as catcher* in 2017** and taking the full job by 2018. In 2021 Rizzo will be in his final contract year at 31, and Schwarber will be in his arbitration years at 28. At that point you have to strongly consider letting Rizzo walk, using the money elsewhere, and let Schwarber shift over to 1B, presumably with some other more defensively oriented catcher taking his job. He'd have that role for 2 years**.

 

 

*Assuming the plan is to keep him at catcher, otherwise bring him up this year.

**After his 12 days of service time considerations, giving you control through 2023.

[Guest]

I think it's implicit that "Schwarber catches for 3-4 years and then is a bridge after Rizzo" means letting Rizzo go in free agency. Rizzo will likely be 32 when his deal is done so there's a very good chance they won't want to bring him back. Of course, the problem is, assuming Schwarber gets at least some service time next year he's only under control for 1 year beyond Rizzo's deal.

 

[expletive] this so hard

 

they'll be printing money with their own network coming off several years of popularity and contention. they don't need to do that crap.

 

It's also nearly 7 years away so who knows what Rizzo's production will look like at that point. If there's no DH he's also at the bottom of the defensive spectrum too so there's less flexibility with having him on the roster, never mind the number. It's not a 'nope, never gonna extend Rizzo because he's over 30' statement, but rather acknowledging the reality that he'll be post prime at a premium offensive position and the Cubs may have better options(e.g. a filled out Kris Bryant that's a FA that same year).

 

If he's in a position to command whatever type of money he can command, there should be few franchises in a better position to give it to him, especially when you can get those things done before the player actually hits the market.

[imb]

sorry david, i know your software requires it, but im not going to list every obvious, rhetorical hypothetical

[Guest]

sorry david, i know your software requires it, but im not going to list every obvious, rhetorical hypothetical

 

the point is that "let someone else pay it" is a refrain for the poor teams. i don't want the cubs doing that crap with their good players outside of the most extreme circumstances (i.e. something like your player refuses to talk extension and insists on hitting the market, then receives an outlandish offer, and the cubs have an equal or better replacement readily available). if the cubs are popular for years and monetize their tv rights (not to mention all this other revenue generating crap they're building) the way they seem very sure they will, they shouldn't have a problem. they need to be and should be what the dodgers are now. they cant spend it in IFA, they can't spend it on the draft...it's either give it to their (and other teams') players or make ricketts some money.

[imb]

sorry david, i know your software requires it, but im not going to list every obvious, rhetorical hypothetical

 

the point is that "let someone else pay it" is a refrain for the poor teams. i don't want the cubs doing that crap with their good players outside of the most extreme circumstances (i.e. something like your player refuses to talk extension and insists on hitting the market, then receives an outlandish offer, and the cubs have an equal or better replacement readily available). if the cubs are popular for years and monetize their tv rights (not to mention all this other revenue generating crap they're building) the way they seem very sure they will, they shouldn't have a problem. they need to be and should be what the dodgers are now. they cant spend it in IFA, they can't spend it on the draft...it's either give it to their (and other teams') players or make ricketts some money.

 

maybe it's time to update your financial software. It's completely likely that the idea of paying a massive contract to a 30-whatever Rizzo is not a good idea, regardless if you're tossing money around like a [expletive] sultan.

[Guest]

sorry david, i know your software requires it, but im not going to list every obvious, rhetorical hypothetical

 

the point is that "let someone else pay it" is a refrain for the poor teams. i don't want the cubs doing that crap with their good players outside of the most extreme circumstances (i.e. something like your player refuses to talk extension and insists on hitting the market, then receives an outlandish offer, and the cubs have an equal or better replacement readily available). if the cubs are popular for years and monetize their tv rights (not to mention all this other revenue generating crap they're building) the way they seem very sure they will, they shouldn't have a problem. they need to be and should be what the dodgers are now. they cant spend it in IFA, they can't spend it on the draft...it's either give it to their (and other teams') players or make ricketts some money.

 

maybe it's time to update your financial software. It's completely likely that the idea of paying a massive contract to a 30-whatever Rizzo is not a good idea, regardless if you're tossing money around like a [expletive] sultan.

 

what do you suggest they do with the money then?

 

if the cubs have it to spend, you should want them to spend it to be as good as they possibly can, regardless of how much value they're getting out of it.

 

if they can sustain a $280M payroll, you should want them to.

[Guest]

Again, Rizzo can only play one position. Regardless of the cost, if 32-36 year old Rizzo is a worse option than the alternatives(which could include 29-33 year old Schwarber or 30-34 year old Kris Bryant depending on their defensive development), it's not being cheap to not extend him.

[imb]

sorry david, i know your software requires it, but im not going to list every obvious, rhetorical hypothetical

 

the point is that "let someone else pay it" is a refrain for the poor teams. i don't want the cubs doing that crap with their good players outside of the most extreme circumstances (i.e. something like your player refuses to talk extension and insists on hitting the market, then receives an outlandish offer, and the cubs have an equal or better replacement readily available). if the cubs are popular for years and monetize their tv rights (not to mention all this other revenue generating crap they're building) the way they seem very sure they will, they shouldn't have a problem. they need to be and should be what the dodgers are now. they cant spend it in IFA, they can't spend it on the draft...it's either give it to their (and other teams') players or make ricketts some money.

 

maybe it's time to update your financial software. It's completely likely that the idea of paying a massive contract to a 30-whatever Rizzo is not a good idea, regardless if you're tossing money around like a [expletive] sultan.

 

what do you suggest they do with the money then?

 

if the cubs have it to spend, you should want them to spend it to be as good as they possibly can, regardless of how much value they're getting out of it.

 

if they can sustain a $280M payroll, you should want them to.

 

I don't know what they should do with the money they'll theoretically have six years from now because I'm not a genie and I can't see what will happen in the next six offseasons.

[Guest]

sorry david, i know your software requires it, but im not going to list every obvious, rhetorical hypothetical

 

the point is that "let someone else pay it" is a refrain for the poor teams. i don't want the cubs doing that crap with their good players outside of the most extreme circumstances (i.e. something like your player refuses to talk extension and insists on hitting the market, then receives an outlandish offer, and the cubs have an equal or better replacement readily available). if the cubs are popular for years and monetize their tv rights (not to mention all this other revenue generating crap they're building) the way they seem very sure they will, they shouldn't have a problem. they need to be and should be what the dodgers are now. they cant spend it in IFA, they can't spend it on the draft...it's either give it to their (and other teams') players or make ricketts some money.

 

maybe it's time to update your financial software. It's completely likely that the idea of paying a massive contract to a 30-whatever Rizzo is not a good idea, regardless if you're tossing money around like a [expletive] sultan.

 

what do you suggest they do with the money then?

 

if the cubs have it to spend, you should want them to spend it to be as good as they possibly can, regardless of how much value they're getting out of it.

 

if they can sustain a $280M payroll, you should want them to.

Doesn't Trout's contract end sometime around then? I'd rather they spend it on the guy that plays further up the spectrum at a younger age. I'm sure there will be other possible examples. I don't want them to spend huge money on past-prime players just because they're already here. Spend the money, but spend it on the best possible options at the time. That may not be Rizzo (likely won't be Rizzo) at age 32.

[Guest]

Again, Rizzo can only play one position. Regardless of the cost, if 32-36 year old Rizzo is a worse option than the alternatives(which could include 29-33 year old Schwarber or 30-34 year old Kris Bryant depending on their defensive development), it's not being cheap to not extend him.

 

I'm not even necessarily trying to be specific to Rizzo, but whatever.

 

I think the Cubs are going to be making a [expletive] ton of money in the next few years, especially by 2020. If the covenant thing is real, it will also be over by then. I don't think they can fill out the payroll they can sustain with value signings and pre-arb extensions. If they have good players who can go on the market and command crazy salaries, they should want to keep said players because money is of little value to them at that point (ESPECIALLY if they are also as good at developing a pipeline of cheap talent as they think they are). Barring extremes, as a general rule, I don't ever want them making a move that makes them a worse team in the name of value. Not when you have a faucet of money and nowhere for it to go except player salary or ownership's pockets.

 

I mean, if ownership wants to operate that way, it's their prerogative and their team, but I'm definitely not gonna root for it.

 

Again, this is all under the assumption that Rizzo is good enough when he hits FA that he's able to command an outlandish contract...and if that's the case, I would have wanted us to extend him to a less outlandish one a year or two before that became an issue.

Edited April 2, 2015 by David