Tools of Irrelevance?

[UpTooLate]

 Link

Somewhat interesting article on how much the defensive skill of the catcher actually contributes to team ERA.

 Over the past three seasons, the Astros have had a 3.67 E.R.A. with Brad Ausmus behind the plate and a 4.44 E.R.A. without him; Ausmus's 0.77 reduction leads the major leagues among catchers with at least 2,000 innings.

I as understood it, the point of the article is to show that defensive abilities of the catcher are irrelevant in spite of appearing otherwise.  Assuming that is true, is Ausmus an exception or do Chavez and Quintero just plain suck?

[JimR]

why waste your time with that?

[UpTooLate]

I'm bored.  When do spring training games start?  Seems like years since the Series.

[pravata]

Schwarz and Woolner.

[HurricaneDavid]

From the post title I assumed this was about Carlos Beltran.

[SeanBergmanRules]

Catcher ERA might be the most worthless stat ever.  Most catchers have a specific guy they catch for.  If you had Ausmus catch Rodriguez and Astacio last year, and let Chavez catch Oswalt, Pettitte and Clemens, the stats would look a lot different.

[EasTexAstro]

Quote:
Catcher ERA might be the most worthless stat ever.  Most catchers have a specific guy they catch for.  If you had Ausmus catch Rodriguez and Astacio last year, and let Chavez catch Oswalt, Pettitte and Clemens, the stats would look a lot different.

And yet, there is a reason Ausmus caught the guys he did. They asked for him. There is a reason he will be back: The asked for him. HQ could have caught Roy, but Ausmus did, because Roy wanted him. Yes, stat-wise, it might be worthless, but there is a reason why Brad caught the best.

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:
why waste your time with that?

Because there may be something useful to learn from it. Just because you refuse to understand something does not mean other people are wrong not to stick their head in the sand with you.

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:
Catcher ERA might be the most worthless stat ever.  Most catchers have a specific guy they catch for.  If you had Ausmus catch Rodriguez and Astacio last year, and let Chavez catch Oswalt, Pettitte and Clemens, the stats would look a lot different.

You obviously didn't read the article before you commented on it, since this possibility is discussed in it.

[JimR]

bullshit. tell me all about catchers' ERA, Mr. Expert. and then go fuck yourself right after you do.

my hand in the sand?

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:
bullshit. tell me all about catchers' ERA, Mr. Expert. and then go fuck yourself right after you do.

my hand in the sand?

I made a typo.  It should have been head in the sand.  It has since been corrected.

I am no expert.  I just think there is something to be learned from looking at questions like this rather than dismissing them as a waste of time.  As the study suggests, catcher's ERA does not appear to offer anything useful.  That does not mean it was erroneous or wasteful, or even nefarious, for someone to take a look at it.

It is a pity that disagreement makes you so uncomfortable and that you hold other people in such disrespect that you have to tell them to fuck off.

[pravata]

Quote:

Quote:
why waste your time with that?

Because there may be something useful to learn from it. Just because you refuse to understand something does not mean other people are wrong not to stick their head in the sand with you.

Neither Schwarz nor Woolner know the first thing about catchers and what pitchers need from catchers.  Dismissing all statements, made by pitchers and catchers about their relationship as the basis for their theory is getting off on the wrong foot.  Digging up a quote from a catcher that sounds like it agrees was a good touch though.  Catcher ERA?  Seriously? Not everything that can be counted counts.

[JimR]

nothing useful about catchers' ERA? it took a "study" to tell you that? anyone who will not waste the time to study some stupidass theory has his head in the sand? how about SS ERA? have you studied that yet?

disagreement does not make me uncomfortable. it happens all the time. the words you chose to express your disagreement pissed me off and still do.

[Froback]

I don't have a big feeling about Catcher's ERA or stats like that, but I do feel there are certain aspects of evaluating baseball that statistics do an excellent job of, and there are certain areas where they don't.

It is always a matter of understanding the stat, and the facts surrounding how those statistics were collected.

For example, I think defense (and defensive ability) is much better evaluated in the traditional scout sense (you have to watch them to understand), while batting skill can be judged very well using statistics (if you understand their context).  Let's face it, Bagwell's stance is so out-there that standard scouting would say he will have issues at some point, but the stats told a different story.  But in defensive situations there is never a level playing field between players.  Different players might have different types of chances and other factors can come into play, for catchers who is throwing them the pitches can make a huge difference, as well as their fellow teammates.

So when it comes to defense I doubt there will ever be a stat that truely can capture the essence of evaulating who is better.  But I am more than willing to listen to people try to find it.

More info is ussually better than less.

[pravata]

Quote:
I don't have a big feeling about Catcher's ERA or stats like that, but I do feel there are certain aspects of evaluating baseball that statistics do an excellent job of, and there are certain areas where they don't.

It is always a matter of understanding the stat, and the facts surrounding how those statistics were collected.

For example, I think defense (and defensive ability) is much better evaluated in the traditional scout sense (you have to watch them to understand), while batting skill can be judged very well using statistics (if you understand their context).  Let's face it, Bagwell's stance is so out-there that standard scouting would say he will have issues at some point, but the stats told a different story.  But in defensive situations there is never a level playing field between players.  Different players might have different types of chances and other factors can come into play, for catchers who is throwing them the pitches can make a huge difference, as well as their fellow teammates.

So when it comes to defense I doubt there will ever be a stat that truely can capture the essence of evaulating who is better.  But I am more than willing to listen to people try to find it.

More info is ussually better than less.

Do you think this person writing the article agrees about the amount of information available even though he declares the "traditional scout sense" irrelevant, right in the title?  I also thought that asking Piazza whether a catchers defensive skills were relevant was humorous.

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:
nothing useful about catchers' ERA? it took a "study" to tell you that? anyone who will not waste the time to study some stupidass theory has his head in the sand? how about SS ERA? have you studied that yet?

disagreement does not make me uncomfortable. it happens all the time. the words you chose to express your disagreement pissed me off and still do.

I chose my words in response to your apparent contempt for the opinions of people who see the game differently than you do.  I thought you of all people would be unlikely to take them personally.

Have you never heard an announcer, coach or player say something like, "that shortstop saves a run per game with his glove?"  If that is so, why is it pointless to see if there is some way that manifests itself in the number of runs the team allows?

The problems with catchers' ERA are methodological and not conceptual.  The issues are sample size, playing time and battery pairings.  The issue is not that it is "stupidass" to think that if a catcher improves his team's defense, that should be reflected in the number of runs his team allows.

In fact, it would be "stupidass" to assume that if he does improve his team's defense, it would not be reflected in the number of runs his team allows.

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:
Neither Schwarz nor Woolner know the first thing about catchers and what pitchers need from catchers.  Dismissing all statements, made by pitchers and catchers about their relationship as the basis for their theory is getting off on the wrong foot.  Digging up a quote from a catcher that sounds like it agrees was a good touch though.  Catcher ERA?  Seriously? Not everything that can be counted counts.

I have no information about what kind of knowledge or Schwarz or Woolner has regarding catchers and what pitchers need from catchers.  Could you please share the information you have to support your statement?

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:
Do you think this person writing the article agrees about the amount of information available even though he declares the "traditional scout sense" irrelevant, right in the title?  I also thought that asking Piazza whether a catchers defensive skills were relevant was humorous.

I think it is humorous that baseball teams continue to sign Mike Piazza to play catcher despite the fact that everybody on this forum knows that playing Mike Piazza at catcher is so dumb.

[astro pete]

Quote:
nothing useful about catchers' ERA? it took a "study" to tell you that? anyone who will not waste the time to study some stupidass theory has his head in the sand? how about SS ERA? have you studied that yet?

disagreement does not make me uncomfortable. it happens all the time. the words you chose to express your disagreement pissed me off and still do.

Have you read "Moneyball?"  I finally started it over the weekend, and really am actually enjoying it despite the fact that I can't read a page of it without thinking of you.  My favorite quote thus far comes from Mike Gimbel, the "brains of the Red Sox organization" during the 80s, who, when analyzing baseball, cautions against watching too much of it.

[pravata]

Quote:

Quote:
Do you think this person writing the article agrees about the amount of information available even though he declares the "traditional scout sense" irrelevant, right in the title?  I also thought that asking Piazza whether a catchers defensive skills were relevant was humorous.

I think it is humorous that baseball teams continue to sign Mike Piazza to play catcher despite the fact that everybody on this forum knows that playing Mike Piazza at catcher is so dumb.

Yeah, me too.  But, you know, Cam Bonifay was a GM one time and he made a bunch of dumb moves so that proves that baseball teams aren't really all that smart.

[pravata]

Quote:

Quote:
Neither Schwarz nor Woolner know the first thing about catchers and what pitchers need from catchers.  Dismissing all statements, made by pitchers and catchers about their relationship as the basis for their theory is getting off on the wrong foot.  Digging up a quote from a catcher that sounds like it agrees was a good touch though.  Catcher ERA?  Seriously? Not everything that can be counted counts.

I have no information about what kind of knowledge or Schwarz or Woolner has regarding catchers and what pitchers need from catchers.  Could you please share the information you have to support your statement?

Either you're incredibly stupid or incredibly unattentive. (edit) Or you're just being an asshole for the fun of it.

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:
Yeah, me too.  But, you know, Cam Bonifay was a GM one time and he made a bunch of dumb moves so that proves that baseball teams aren't really all that smart.

I agree.

The "baseball teams are smart" argument should only be trotted out when the baseball team has done something one agrees with, not when the baseball team has done something one disagrees with.

[pravata]

Quote:

Quote:
Yeah, me too.  But, you know, Cam Bonifay was a GM one time and he made a bunch of dumb moves so that proves that baseball teams aren't really all that smart.

I agree.

The "baseball teams are smart" argument should only be trotted out when the baseball team has done something one agrees with, not when the baseball team has done something one disagrees with.

And vice versa.

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:
Either you're incredibly stupid or incredibly unattentive. (edit) Or you're just being an asshole for the fun of it.

As fun as you might assume it is to be an asshole sometimes, I am making a serious point.  Although Woolner writes about baseball statistics for a living, and although Woolner makes a lot of skeptical comments regarding the conventional wisdom on the relationship between pitchers and catchers, I am not going to assume from this that Woolner does not know the first thing about the subject.  It could be that he just disagrees with the conventional wisdom, which does not necessitate that he is ignorant of it.

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:

Quote:
The "baseball teams are smart" argument should only be trotted out when the baseball team has done something one agrees with, not when the baseball team has done something one disagrees with.

And vice versa.

Precisely.

[pravata]

Quote:

Quote:
Either you're incredibly stupid or incredibly unattentive. (edit) Or you're just being an asshole for the fun of it.

As fun as you might assume it is to be an asshole sometimes, I am making a serious point.  Although Woolner writes about baseball statistics for a living, and although Woolner makes a lot of skeptical comments regarding the conventional wisdom on the relationship between pitchers and catchers, I am not going to assume from this that Woolner does not know the first thing about the subject.  It could be that he just disagrees with the conventional wisdom, which does not necessitate that he is ignorant of it.

We've hashed out Woolner before.  The high sounding "as much information as possible" cant doesn't include information that can't be understood.

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:
We've hashed out Woolner before.  The high sounding "as much information as possible" cant doesn't include information that can't be understood.

He might be wrong to exclude the stuff.  That does not mean he does not know the first thing about it.  There is a difference.

[pravata]

Quote:

Quote:
We've hashed out Woolner before.  The high sounding "as much information as possible" cant doesn't include information that can't be understood.

He might be wrong to exclude the stuff.  That does not mean he does not know the first thing about it.  There is a difference.

Just not one, in sorting out his "ideas", worth caring about.

[Fredia]

The Link
interesting take on why the pitchers trust ausmus so... in a few years i could envision him working as a coach for the astros

[ybbodeus]

Quote:
 My favorite quote thus far comes from Mike Gimbel, the "brains of the Red Sox organization" during the 80s, who, when analyzing baseball, cautions against watching too much of it.

Funny, but I can't help but think of how that pertains to the Pinwheel, though I'd change the closing by deleting TOO MUCH OF.

Sorry to intrude on the debate.

[The Gaffer]

What a fucking load of bullshit.