Jason Varitek

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
"Savvy", or "grittiness", or "leadership" don't really address what Varitek's greatest defensive asset is: his pitch calling. He has the strengths, weaknesses, and tendencies of AL hitters, especially the Yankees, burned into his brain, and he's practically a game theorist as far as varying his patterns. He knows how important it is to get ahead in the count, especially against the Yankees, he knows what each pitcher's best "get me over" pitch (and theior 2nd best, and their 3rd best...) as well as their best out pitch, and which hitters are most vulnerable to it, and which hitters know they're vulnerable to it enough to guess on it, and then just how often to cross them up.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I know it's hard to mine evidence of a catcher's effect on a pitcher's performance from the stats, but sometimes you just have to watch the games.

[/ QUOTE ]

I remember watching the Sox/Yankees game on June 5th; just in case we need a reminder as to what happened, here's Beckett's line (Varitek caught the game):

IP: 1.1
Hits: 7
Runs: 8
Earned Runs: 7
Walks: 2
Ks: 1
HRs: 2

Here's Beckett's like from May 30th against the Blue Jays (a game I also watched) -- another AL East opponent that I'm sure Varitek has 'burned into his brain', where, due to the special knowledge only he possesses, like the 'importance of getting ahead in pitch counts', he would be able to perfectly apply his game theory approach to calling pitches:

IP: 4.2
Hits: 10
Runs: 7
Earned Runs: 7
Walks: 1
Ks: 7
HRs: 4

There was also, of course, the May 24th game against the Yankees at Fenway (that I watched) where Matt Clement started, and Jason Varitek called the game; keep in mind that as this game was a night game at Fenway, Varitek would be able to utilize his knowledge of exactly how the lights reflect off of various season ticket holders' wedding rings (knowledge which he had burned into his brain), so that he could call exactly the right pitch that would cause the batter's eye to (just for a split second) glimpse into these magical, blinding areas (that only Varitek knows of), which would distract them at just the exact right moment so that those batters would invariably swing hopelessly and miss. Here is Clement's line from that night:

IP: 4.1
Hits: 9
Runs: 8
Earned Runs: 8
Walks: 4
Ks: 4
HRs: 0

Lest we not forget the gem of a game Varitek called when Schilling started against the Yankees on May 10th, which I watched:

IP: 5
Hits: 8
Runs: 6
Earned Runs: 6
Walks: 2
Ks: 5
HRs: 3

So let's return to what you said earlier:

[ QUOTE ]
I know it's hard to mine evidence of a catcher's effect on a pitcher's performance from the stats, but sometimes you just have to watch the games.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't help but agree. Having absolutely no empirical evidence to draw from, we're forced to just "watch the games", which (I'm sure we can all agree) is a completely infallible and objective method of performance evaluation.

After watching these games, however, I'm left to conclude that, ZOMG, Varitek is a complete pitch-calling-donk with no idea how to call a game, particularly against division rivals. The proof is in the pudding, baby. Just watch the games and you'll see.

[legend42]

Okay, whatever. There are games in which Babe Ruth struck out four times, also- what's the point?

I wasn't claiming that Varitek has supernatural powers, only that he's an excellent pitch caller, and pitch selection (as well as poor execution, of course) has been a major problem for the team since he got hurt.

Varitek did have trouble finding a rhythm with Beckett this year. He's thrown several very good fastballs that have been turned on and blasted, which makes you think the hitters are either guessing right, or that Beckett might be tipping somehow (or they're just getting exceedingly lucky over a small sample size). Varitek had similar problems with Derek Lowe over much of 2003-4. Lowe's sinker had as much action as ever, but hitters were consistently laying off it, and when Tek would adjust to more fastballs, the hitters would be often be thinking ahead of him, and ready to pounce. Sometimes you zig when you should be zagging.

The point is that Varitek takes the pitch calling seriously. He studies and prepares for it, and usually has the hitters off balance. Javy is either uninitiated or doesn't care, and Mirabelli is too predictable. And yes, the fact that most of the pitching staff is godawful doesn't help, either.

[srjunkacct]

[ QUOTE ]
Javy is either uninitiated or doesn't care

[/ QUOTE ]

IIRC, Greg Maddux pretty much refused to pitch to Javy Lopez when they were both with the Braves.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
what's the point?

[/ QUOTE ]

The point:

[ QUOTE ]
I wasn't claiming that Varitek has supernatural powers, only that he's an excellent pitch caller, and pitch selection (as well as poor execution, of course) has been a major problem for the team since he got hurt.

[/ QUOTE ]

*How do you know that*? Saying "I watched the game" is a non-starter; see above. I watched all those games when the performance of the pitching and ostensibly the pitch-calling was downright awful, and cited games against the Yankees, where (if we followed your logic) the pitch-calling skills Varitek apparently has would most be on display.

How do you know he's an excellent pitch caller, and that pitch calling is a problem since he got hurt? Again, and I must reiterate, saying "just watch the games" is not a legitimate answer. Similarly, neither are "that's just my opinion", "listen to the guys on WEEI", or "that's what I've seen", etc. etc. If you feel is IT a legitimate answer, then certainly all of the games when Red Sox pitching got lit up by the Yankees and Varitek WAS catching would certainly taint your conclusion.

The claim that Varitek is an especially wonderful pitch-caller, or that he has some magical powers in calling a game, etc. seem to fall apart for JUST THE REASONS YOU MENTION -- yes, Babe Ruth often struck out four times a game, and yes, the Red Sox pitching has (in some instances) not been good since Varitek has been hurt. Since you seem to have a knowledge of what sample sizes are, and why pointing out all the times the Red Sox pitchers were awful against the Yankees even when Varitek was catching isn't proof that Varitek doesn't know how to call a game, you should also see why saying "but look at how bad the pitching was over the weekend" is not proof of what kind of influence Varitek does or doesn't have over the quality of pitching performances.

To abandon the Socratic method for a moment and cut to the chase -- here's the *larger* point: The reason your logic fails (your logic = Varitek's pitch calling skills and his absence + the lack of Lopez's/Mirabelli's pitch calling skills = Red Sox pitching bad) is that rigorous analysis and scrutiny have been applied to such claims about catchers effecting pitchers' performance (see BBTN) and no such skill has ever been observed to have an effect in any kind of meaningful way...hence why I implied you were ascribing supernatural qualities to Varitek, because like supernatural claims about ghosts, psychic powers, Voodoo curses, etc., perhaps such phenomenon do exist, but they've never been observed in any kind of meaningful way.

Had you said that Red Sox pitching sucked over the weekend because of a gypsie curse, it would have been about as meaningful as saying the Red Sox pitching sucked over the weekend because of Varitek's absence. The claims have similar demonstrable merit. The only reason the later explanation seems more plausible is because of commonly-believed and reinforced narratives about Varitek being 'a gamer', having 'unique leadership skills', or 'a sixth sense about pitch-calling' are repeated ad nauseum, despite the fact that they're similarly unproven when said once or ten thousand times. Varitek just has the good fortune of being liked by his teammates and the media, so the narrative about his mystical game-calling/leadership skills gets repeated ten thousand times.

[THAY3R]

You go girl!

[NT!]

The Angels broadcasters on mlb.tv tonight were all over Lopez' jock about what a great game he was calling. AND WE WON WHOOOOOOOO

NT

[sublime]

[ QUOTE ]
The Angels broadcasters on mlb.tv tonight were all over Lopez' jock about what a great game he was calling. AND WE WON WHOOOOOOOO

NT

[/ QUOTE ]

obviously varitek was talking to him via two way radio.

[legend42]

[ QUOTE ]
*How do you know that*? Saying "I watched the game" is a non-starter; see above. I watched all those games when the performance of the pitching and ostensibly the pitch-calling was downright awful, and cited games against the Yankees, where (if we followed your logic) the pitch-calling skills Varitek apparently has would most be on display.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who ever said pitch calling was the critical factor of every single game? You can call a superb game, and still lose 10-2, and vice versa. I believe that since Varitek has been out, poor pitch selection has negatively affected the team's chances to win, particularly in a couple crucial at-bats in recent games. You appear to believe that pitch selection has no effect on the results whatsoever. Is this fair to conclude?

[ QUOTE ]
How do you know he's an excellent pitch caller, and that pitch calling is a problem since he got hurt? Again, and I must reiterate, saying "just watch the games" is not a legitimate answer.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why not? Those are the games I'm talking about. I know you guys are devotees of the stat sheet (as am I) and I understand about empirical vs. statistical analysis all too well. This is one of several baseball areas that sabermetrics seems unable to isolate or evaluate.

[ QUOTE ]
you should also see why saying "but look at how bad the pitching was over the weekend" is not proof of what kind of influence Varitek does or doesn't have over the quality of pitching performances.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know that. That's why I'm talking solely about pitch selection here, not the results which are affected by countless other factors, which you seem to be focusing on, in the 4 games you chose to cite where the pitching lines were horrible (do you remember anything about the pitch selection in those games, btw?).

Here's the thing. If a pitcher has a 10% chance of throwing a first pitch curveball for a strike, and the batter is only going to swing at ANY first pitch about 15% of the time, it is nonsensical to throw a first pitch curveball. When a pitcher DOES throw a fist pitch curveball in that spot, it is very poor pitch selection. Can we agree on THAT?

Now, what's up for debate are the consequences of that bad pitch selection. Maybe it means very little or nothing at all. We know hitters hit better when ahead in the count, but it is extremely difficult to measure the degree of importance of this one minor decision. Because first how do we know it's a bad decision from just looking at the stats? Maybe the ump missed a call. Maybe they were setting the hitter up for later. Maybe it was in one of those small aforememntioned percentages where the pitch was actually a strike. Maybe the pitcher shook off the catcher's fastball call. Who keeps track of these things, and how can we tell how they manifest themselves statistically? We simply don't know. That's why we watch the games!

[ QUOTE ]
rigorous analysis and scrutiny have been applied to such claims about catchers effecting pitchers' performance (see BBTN) and no such skill has ever been observed to have an effect in any kind of meaningful way

[/ QUOTE ]

I should have skipped directly to this part, because I knew this was the crux of the matter. As I've been trying to explain, 'lack of demonstrable proof' does not equal 'no effect'. It is very possible that all the studies are simply not rigorous enough. They're looking either in the wrong places or are not digging deeply enough (and it may not even be possible to dig deeply enough). Even Bill James has openly admitted that he doesn't think there is a "scintilla of evidence (that catcher's have little to no impact on a pitcher's ERA)"- going back on that and other faulty conclusions he drew early on. Sample sizes are too small, there are too many variables, an overwhelming element of inherent randomness, and the data is just way too unstable to accurately evaluate a catcher's defensive contribution based on ERAs.

Think about it for a second. We know pitch selection is SOMETHING, right? Even if it were randomly generated by rolling dice on the mound, it would at least alter the dynamic of each at-bat, and therefore the game, correct? So the question becomes how to evaluate good vs. bad pitch selection, and measure its overall effect on the game. As I have said, I believe it's almost impossible working backward from the results. Intensive microanalyisis (i.e. watching the games) is the best way to judge.

(And yes, that is all "just my opinion", and on this subject, I will take it alnog with the hundreds of games I've watch Varitek catch (and the thousands of pitches I've watched him call) as well as the words of people in baseball who claim that he's one of the best game callers, over all the studies that supposedly conclude that pitch selection has no effect on a team's run allowance. Okay?)

[legend42]

[ QUOTE ]
The Angels broadcasters on mlb.tv tonight were all over Lopez' jock about what a great game he was calling. AND WE WON WHOOOOOOOO

[/ QUOTE ]

He was much better behind the plate. The pitchers were shaking him off quite a bit and he was constantly making trips to the mound, but I'd much rather see that than him dozing off behind the plate. He did a great job framing the outside corner, and it helps a bunch to have a pitcher who could actually hit that spot.

They still threw Vlad way too many juicy ones when ahead in the count. Let's hope they amend that tonight, or at least that it doesn't bite em.

[Triumph36]

legend -

The problem is that pitch selection is inherently unquantifiable. We can't know with certainty A: whether the pitch called is the pitch thrown or B: whether the location called for is the location of the pitch. We also don't know whether another pitch would've had any more success or failure than the pitch thrown. It is entirely possible that all of these factors over the course of a season cancel each other out, which is why BBTN reached the conclusion it did.