Jason Varitek

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
You appear to believe that pitch selection has no effect on the results whatsoever. Is this fair to conclude?

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe the catcher has no effect on the performance of the pitcher.

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oy. Can someone else take over for me? All I can do now is repeat myself. Here is why "just watch the games" is not a legitimate answer; keep in mind I watched all these games, I remember every pitch, and performed an 'intensive microanalysis' while watching the game:

<font color="#666666"> "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" </font>

[ QUOTE ]
I know you guys are devotees of the stat sheet (as am I) and I understand about empirical vs. statistical analysis all too well.

[/ QUOTE ]

The best kind of empirical analysis is that which relies on objectively measured observations, which are collected into easily understandable 'statistics'. "Empirics" and "statistics" are not mutually exclusive. Yes, "watching the games" is one type of way to collect empirical evidence, but it's fundamentally flawed. That you don't understand this troubles me greatly, not only in regards to baseball analysis but about general life capabilities.

[ QUOTE ]
This is one of several baseball areas that sabermetrics seems unable to isolate or evaluate.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's only because you haven't ever bothered to investigate. It's been evaluated and studied rigorously. Please buy Baseball Between the Numbers, read it, then come back and have this discussion.

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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?).

[/ QUOTE ]

ISSCKM for getting into this discussion. WTF are you even talking about now? What does this mean?: "I'm talking solely about pitch selection here, not the results which are affected by countless other factors" -- how the [censored] do you manage that? How do you manage to evaluate the pitch selection without looking at the [censored] results? This isn't poker -- when you get it all-in with AA vs. 72o, you made the right play, regardless of the results. Simple algebra can demonstrate that. If Varitek calls for a curveball from Beckett and Giambi takes it into the bullpen, I'd like to know the objective measure that tells us this was the right pitch selection but the results betrayed it.

I cited thge 4 games where Red Sox pitching sucked and Varitek was behind the plate because it contradicts your claim that Varitek has some magical knowledge about pitch selection and the Yankees lineup -- if Varitek is God's gift to pitch selection, how do you explain the times Red Sox pitching gets knocked around when Varitek is catching? If terrible Red Sox pitching when Varitek is catching is explained away by "the countless other factors", WHY DON'T THOSE COUNTLESS OTHER FACTORS MATTER WHEN RED SOX PITCHING SUCKS AND VARITEK ISN'T CALLING THE GAME? How the [censored] do you know if Lopez and Mirabelli weren't calling amazing games, making perfect pitch selection decisions -- but those 'countless other factors' weren't just rearing their ugly heads? Oh, yeah, you "watch the games". [img]/images/graemlins/mad.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/mad.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/mad.gif[/img]

Seriously, though, I wish a group of experts would take the time to investigate these questions using the best evidence available. Oh, wait, they did!

Baseball Between the Numbers

I feel like I'm a book salesman here, but really, it's a good place to start if you want to begin understanding how to analyze baseball.

[ QUOTE ]
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 ]

None of this says anything about your (or anyone's) ability to objectively measure if Jason Varitek calls a good game or not. What we do know is that the best evidence available says a catcher's ability to 'handle pitchers' or 'call a game' is non-existent -- or, if it exists, no one can prove it. See below:

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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'.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, that's pretty much what it means.

[ QUOTE ]
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).

[/ QUOTE ]

Why don't you investigate the literature available and point out where they're wrong, then?

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

What? When? Link?

Even if he said this, it only goes to show you can't prove a negative. How should someone go about demonstrating catchers have no effect on a pitcher's performance? The best experts in the field have gone with the only option available to them -- they've proven that it's unobservable; in study after study, there is absolutely no corrlation between a catcher and the performance of the pitcher he's catching. Of course, the legend42's of the world will continue to claim that Varitek's pitch-calling skills are both important and real, but that "they can't be measured" in any kind of meaningful way -- hence why I say it's akin to a ghost story or a Voodoo curse.

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's what I don't get about your side of the argument -- how can you be so sure of Varitek's skill while seemingly aware of the impossibility of actually proving the skill exists? Of course, all the best baseball analysts in the business can do is prove just that -- all they can demonstrate is that no data exists to support your conclusion. I mean, if I said I distinctly remember the sky was red yesterday -- but every photo snapped of the skyline yesterday didn't have any evidence of a red sky -- it can only be called irrational (at best) to maintain the sky was truly red yesterday.

Here's what your argument about Varitek's game-calling skills boils down to, using my analogy:

1) Claim the sky was red yesterday
2) Concede there's no way to prove the sky was red yesterday
3) Take the concession that you can't prove the sky was red as a demonstration that it COULD have been red, since it's impossible to prove otherwise.
4) Continue on claiming the sky was red yesterday.

In other words:

1) Claim Jason Varitek's pitch-calling skills are real and important to the performance of the pitcher
2) Concede there's no actual way to prove that
3) Use that fact to say there's no way to prove that as evidence is might be true.
4) Continue to claim Jason Varitek's pitch-calling skills are real and important to the performance of the pitcher

[ QUOTE ]
Intensive microanalyisis (i.e. watching the games) is the best way to judge.

[/ QUOTE ]

You say 'intensive microanalysis', I say 'hopelessly subject to observer bias'.

[ QUOTE ]
(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?)

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay. You're wrong, but it's certainly okay.

[kyleb]

Good stuff.

[Kneel B4 Zod]

legend,
I feel your pain. I'm really not an uberstats guy, and intuitively I want to believe that simply by watching a game I can learn all I need to do. I'm uncomfortable believing that this can be mostly true in 1 sport (football) but not true in another (baseball), even though ultimately very similar humans are playing both. Or why "clutch" can exist in 1 sport but not another.

however, pitch calling skill his has been looked at in great depth - one great example is Baseball Between the Numbers. (read the book, it's fantastic). if there was evidence that Varitek had some incredible game calling skill, it would have to show up in his pitchers numbers. And it doesn't. Ultimately, no catcher has been able to affect his pitchers ERA

If it is true that somehow variance is ruling the day, and that no current sample sizes are large enough to capture the quality differences between Varitek and Joe Catcher, then game calling as a skill is so marginal at the MLB level that we shouldn't bother thinking about it.

PS: I realize that stats are becoming bigger in football, and that stats breakdowns play a role in player evaluation, but they are not nearly as big as qualitative reviews.

[Paluka]

I think that the media simply uses catchers to personify a team's overachieving or underachieving. If team with a great catcher fails to do well in the post-season, then that catcher lacks these mysteroius intangibles. If a a mediocre catcher is on a team that does really well, they decide he has skills that are invisible to the untrained eye.