I created a bit of controversy on Twitter a few days ago (imagine that) when I tweeted my top 10 to-date 2018 projections for the total value of position players, including batting, base running, and defense, including positional adjustments. Four of my top 10 were catchers, Posey, Flowers (WTF?), Grandal, and Barnes. How can that be? Framing, my son, framing. All of those catchers in addition to being good hitters, are excellent framers, according to Baseball Prospectus catcher framing numbers. I use their season numbers to craft a framing projection for each catcher, using a basic Marcel methodology – 4 years’ weighted and regressed toward a population mean, zero in this case.
When doing this, the spread of purported framing talent is quite large. Among the 30 catchers going into 2018 with the most playing time (minors and majors), the standard deviation of talent (my projection) is 7.6 runs. That’s a lot. Among the leaders in projected runs per 130 games are Barnes at +18 runs, and Grandal and Flowers at +21. Some of poor framers include such luminaries as Anthony Recker, Ramon Cabrera, and Tomas Telis (who are these guys?) at -18, -15, and -18, respectively. Most of your everyday catchers these days are decent (or a little on the bad side, like Kurt Suzuki) or very good framers. Gone are the days when Ryan Doumit (terrible framer) was a full-timer and Jose Molina (great framer) a backup.
Anyway, the beef on twitter was that surely framing can’t be worth so much that 4 of the top 10 all-around players in baseball are catchers. To be honest, that makes little sense to me either. If that were true, then catchers are underrepresented in baseball. In other words, there must be catchers in the minor leagues who should be in the majors, presumably because they are good framers though not necessarily good hitters or in other arenas like throwing, blocking pitches, and calling games. If this beef is valid, then either my projection methodology for framing is too strong, i.e., not enough regression, or BP’s numbers lack some integrity.
As a good sabermetricians should be wont to do, I set out to find out the truth. Or at least find evidence supporting the truth. Here’s what I did:
I did a WOWY (without and with you – invented by the illustrious Tom Tango) to compare every catcher’s walk and strikeout rate with each pitcher they worked with to that of the the same pitchers working with other catchers – the without. I did not adjust for the framing value of the other catchers. Presumably for a good framing catcher they should be slightly bad, framing-wise, and vice versa for bad-framing catchers, so that there will be a slight double counting. I did this for each projected season 2014-2017, or 4 seasons.
I split the projected catchers into 3 groups, Group I were projected at greater than 10 runs per 150 games (8.67 per 130), Group II at less than -10 runs, and Group III, all the rest. Here is the data for 2014-2017 combined. Remember I am using, for example, 2017 pre-season projections, and then comparing that to a WOWY for that same year.
Total PA | Mean Proj per 130 g | W/ BB rate | WO/ BB rate | Diff | W/ SO rate | WO/SO rate | Diff |
74,221 | -12.6 | .082 | .077 | .005 | .197 | .206 | -..009 |
107,535 | +13.3 | .073 | .078 | -.005 | .215 | .212 | .003 |
227,842 | -.2 | .078 | .078 | 0 | .213 | .212 | .001 |
We can clearly see that we’re on the right track. The catchers projected to be bad framers had more BB and fewer SO than average and the good framers had more SO and fewer BB. That shouldn’t be surprising. The question is how accurate are our projections in terms of runs. To answer that, we need to convert those BB and SO rates into runs. There are around 38 PA per game, so for 130 games, we have 4,940 PA. Let’s turn those rate differences into runs per 130 games by multiplying them by 4,940 and then by .57 runs which is the value of a walk plus an out, which assumes that every other component stays the same, other than outs. My presumption is that an out is turned into a walk or a walk is turned into an out. A walk as compared to a neutral PA is worth around .31 runs and an out around .26 runs.
Total PA | Mean Proj per 130 g | W/ BB rate | WO/ BB rate | Diff in runs/130 | W/ SO rate | WO/SO rate | Diff |
74,221 | -12.6 | .082 | .077 | +14.0 | .197 | .206 | -.009 |
107,535 | +13.3 | .073 | .078 | -14.0 | .215 | .212 | .003 |
227,842 | -.2 | .078 | .078 | 0 | .213 | .212 | .001 |
Let’s make sure that my presumption is correct before we get tool excited with those numbers. Namely that an out really is turning into a walk and vice versa due to framing. Changes in strikeout rate are mostly irrelevant in terms of translating into runs, assuming that the only other changes are in outs and walks (strikeouts are worth about the same as a batted ball out).
Total PA | Mean Proj | W/ HR | WO/HR | Diff | W/ Hits | WO/Hits | Diff | W/ Outs | WO/
Outs |
Diff |
74,221 | -12.6 | .028 | .028 | 0 | .204 | .203 | .001 | .675 | .681 | -.006 |
107,535 | +13.3 | .029 | .029 | 0 | .200 | .198 | .002 | .689 | .685 | .004 |
227,842 | -.2 | .029 | .029 | 0 | .199 | .200 | -.001 | .685 | .683 | .002 |
So, HR is not affected at all. Interestingly, both good and bad framers give up slightly more non-HR hits. This is likely just noise. As I presumed, the bad framers are not only allowing more walks and fewer strikeouts, but they’re also allowing fewer outs. The good framers are producing more outs. So this does in fact suggest that the walks are being converted into outs, strikeouts and/or batted ball outs and vice versa.
If we chalk up the difference in hits between the with and the without to noise (if you want to include that, that’s fine – both the good and bad framers lose a little, the good framers losing more), we’re left with outs and walks. Let’s translate each one into runs separately using .31 runs for the walks and .26 runs for the outs. Those are the run values compared to a neutral PA.
Total PA | Mean Proj per 130 g | W/ BB rate | WO/ BB rate | Diff in runs/130 | W/ Outs | WO/
Outs |
Diff |
74,221 | -12.6 | .082 | .077 | +7.7 | .675 | .681 | +7.7 |
107,535 | +13.3 | .073 | .078 | -7.7 | .689 | .685 | -5.1 |
227,842 | -.2 | .078 | .078 | 0 | .685 | .683 | -2.6 |
So our bad framers are allowing 15.4 runs more per 130 games than the average catcher or than their others at least, in terms of fewer outs and more BB. The good framers are allowing 12.8 fewer runs per 130 games. Compare that to our projections, and I think we’re in the same ballpark.
It appears from this data that we have pretty strong evidence that framing is worth a lot and our four catchers should be in the top 10 players in all of baseball.