Catchers who get extra strike calls

[Kevin Seitzer]

My article today at Baseball Prospectus is about catchers who get extra strike calls for their pitchers and how they do it.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=15093

Exaggerated glove and body movements are well known to be distracting to umpires. As Brent Mayne wrote in The Art of Catching:

Simply catch the ball firmly. When the pitch and glove meet, that’s where the action should stop. The catcher should have enough strength to stop the momentum of the ball so that strikes don’t turn into balls. Think of a gymnast “sticking” a landing. Just “stick” the ball, hold it for a brief second, then throw it back.

Lucroy and Molina have that technique perfected. Varitek, on the other hand, appears to have lost dozens of strike calls every year because he does not.

I am not aware of any previous finding that the catcher dropping his head to follow a borderline pitch into his glove will cost him a strike call. However, I am convinced that it is an important factor making Doumit one of the worst receiving catchers in the majors. I have rarely, if ever, been able to identify such a striking mechanical difference between major-league players that has correlated so directly to performance differences. For the borderline pitches I reviewed where the catcher had otherwise quiet and stable mechanics, the presence or absence of the catcher head drop predicted the umpire’s strike call 31 of 32 times.

Catchers appear to have a substantial impact on the success of their pitchers through their ability to gain extra strike calls from the umpire. This is an important factor to consider when valuing the contributions of catchers to a team. We have identified at least two specific techniques that affect catcher performance in this arena. Given the important impact on major-league teams, further research along that line is warranted.

Access is free for non-subscribers.

[virgonomic]

When I umpire fast pitch softball, I sometimes give close calls based on how far the catcher has to bring the ball back when they frame a pitch. If it's more than a few inches, they aren't going to get it. Of course, I try to make the call based on the original path of the ball, but sometimes that 'framing' shows me how close it was.

[joncarlos]

this is amazing work. I've known for years that Ryan Doumit sucked even more than we thought, but I couldn't figure out why we couldn't quantify his crappiness.

[TranaGreg]

This concept of the head drop is fascinating. I've never noticed it before, but you can bet I will now. 31 of 32 times!

[Kevin Seitzer]

This concept of the head drop is fascinating. I've never noticed it before, but you can bet I will now. 31 of 32 times!

My supposition is either that the catcher is giving away that he thinks it was a borderline pitch by taking great care to catch it carefully (which is what Doumit seemed to be doing, and he didn't seem to do it as much on pitches that weren't borderline), or that the head drop is simply distracting to the umpire (which seemed to be more the case with some other catchers that I watched, like Rod Barajas, who seemed to do it on every pitch).

[TranaGreg]

My supposition is either that the catcher is giving away that he thinks it was a borderline pitch by taking great care to catch it carefully (which is what Doumit seemed to be doing, and he didn't seem to do it as much on pitches that weren't borderline), or that the head drop is simply distracting to the umpire (which seemed to be more the case with some other catchers that I watched, like Rod Barajas, who seemed to do it on every pitch).

I'm thinking the former ... the converse of this is saying that on pitches where the catcher doesn't have to visually watch the ball into the mitt he's clearly confident that the pitch is exactly where he wanted it ... therefore the ump doesn't have to question anything, he's simply concurring with the catcher in that it's a strike.

or we're overthinking this & it's just coincidence.

[Kevin Seitzer]

I'm thinking the former ... the converse of this is saying that on pitches where the catcher doesn't have to visually watch the ball into the mitt he's clearly confident that the pitch is exactly where he wanted it ... therefore the ump doesn't have to question anything, he's simply concurring with the catcher in that it's a strike.

or we're overthinking this & it's just coincidence.

I don't know, but I will say that always previously when I have had a theory about something mechanical that a player is doing to cause a certain result, that I will then look at another player or another situation, and it won't hold up. So I was quite shocked to see this working consistently across many catchers and many situations.

I doubt it's the full explanation for the effect, but I do believe it's at least a major contributor.

[virgonomic]

Jose Molina rocks!!!

[amcg]

If you haven't read this, do. It's a superb piece of work.

[Sharky]

+1!!!

[onejayhawk]

I remember a conversation on this subject about a knuckleball pitcher, I forget which one. The point is that his catcher would very nonchalantly catch the balls close to the plate. If the ball was not close, then the catcher would axaggerate his movements, to provide a contrast. There are reasons veteran pitchers have personal catchers.

J

[Kevin Seitzer]

J, I got some comments along those lines from a scout regarding Jason Varitek in response to my article.

[Kevin Seitzer]

Bojan Koprivica publishes an excellent piece of research on catchers blocking pitches:

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/another-one-bites-the-dust/