Identifying Potential Strike Zone Disputes

There’s this thing about the World Series: It’s the only baseball left. There are two teams, and they need to finish before the offseason can begin. This is the most meaningful baseball on the calendar. After all, the World Series is the whole point. So you’ve got everyone focused on at least four games — and maybe as many as seven. There are days off in the lead-up, and there are days off in the middle. During that time, almost every single thing is analyzed. Every stone in the stony field gets turned in the World Series, which is also funny because it’s one series — and it’s baseball — which means we might as well not do any analysis at all. The long and short of this paragraph is this: There’s no harm in talking about how Salvador Perez and Travis d’Arnaud receive pitches.

By the numbers at StatCorner, and by the numbers at Baseball Prospectus, d’Arnaud is a better receiver than Perez. Perez seems to be somewhere in the area of average, while d’Arnaud is one of the better receivers. I could just leave the point here, but what might be more interesting are the juicier, more granular details. Like, with hitters, you could stop at wOBA, but why not look at sub-components like walks and power? I’m going to borrow from an excellent post-ALCS article by Tom Verducci. There’s a lot in there that’s worth your time, but I’m drawing from just one section.

As you recall, the ninth inning in Game 6 was a nail-biter, and a critical plate appearance featured Wade Davis striking out Ben Revere. That plate appearance might’ve turned in the middle of the at bat, when Revere took a strike on a pitch that seemed up and away. Here’s Dayton Moore, after the fact:

“We probably got the benefit of a [strike] call on Revere,” said Royals GM Dayton Moore, referring to a 2-and-1 pitch that was high and wide but called a strike by home plate umpire Jeff Nelson. “But we’ve been known to get pitches up with [Perez] back there. We never get pitches down—because he’s so big, he blocks the umpire.”

To review, here’s Davis going 2-and-2 on Revere, instead of 3-and-1:

Everything looks so clean. You might not even realize anything’s weird until you notice Revere’s reaction. That’s the hotly disputed strike-zone call from Game 6. Here’s the hotly disputed strike-zone call from Game 5:

That time, the Royals didn’t get the call. That time, the pitch was down. You can never really distill something so complicated into a single pair of .gifs. There could be any number of reasons why one call went one way and the other went the other way. We can’t put it all on Perez. But it at least suits what Moore was talking about. We have overall framing metrics. Those are what’s most important. But different guys have different strengths and different weaknesses. Indeed, Perez scores a little better catching higher pitches than lower pitches. His World Series counterpart, d’Arnaud, scores far better catching lower pitches.

I did some messing around on Baseball Savant. I identified areas high and low, each six inches tall, in which called balls and strikes were roughly 50/50. To be precise, the high zone resulted in an average of 48% strikes, and the low zone resulted in an average of 54% strikes. I collected 2015 data for catchers who caught at least 100 called pitches in each zone. That’s not a very big sample, but I ran with it anyway. Here are the World Series catchers, when they receive pitches up in the zone.

High Zone (65 qualifying catchers)

  • Perez: 51% called strikes (22nd)
  • d’Arnaud: 47% called strikes (41st)

The same catchers, receiving pitches down. This is where you see more of your “classic” pitch-framing.

Low Zone (72 qualifying catchers)

  • Perez: 48% called strikes (58th)
  • d’Arnaud: 68% called strikes (second)

With Perez, you see a slight preference for higher pitches. On the other hand, with d’Arnaud, you see a very strong preference for lower pitches. He was among the best low-pitch receivers in the game this year, and though some of that has to do with pitcher command, this isn’t something you fake. Let’s consider the difference between low-pitch strike rate and high-pitch strike rate. Out of 65 catchers, d’Arnaud ranks sixth-highest at 21%. Perez is toward the bottom, at -3%. He’s not the only catcher with a higher-pitch preference, but it’s quite a bit different from many of his peers.

Moore talked about Perez’s size. It’s a legitimate point; Perez is one of the biggest catchers in the game. Interestingly, he’s officially taller than d’Arnaud by only one inch, but — also officially — Perez outweighs d’Arnaud by 30 pounds. Perez does get in the way a little bit, and because he’s enormous, you can expect him to move only so gracefully. Here’s a pair of comparative screenshots, showing probably not very much at all.

perez2

d'arnaud2

Perez knows how to keep himself somewhat compact, but there are limits to how small he can get. And d’Arnaud might simply have better receiving technique. That’s not really a shot at Perez. He seems to do enough other things well, but for whatever reason or reasons, receiving isn’t a strength. He appears most comfortable catching higher pitches, and that makes you wonder about targets. At some point during his run of struggles, Johnny Cueto asked Perez if he could set a lower target, like Cueto said he was used to in Cincinnati. Whether that was something real, Perez tried to cooperate. A number of catchers will set targets below the knees. That’s not what Perez would do, so catching lower pitches forced him to move more. That movement could lead to fewer strikes, because umpires pay attention.

Maybe it’s not related to targets. Maybe it has to do with what the glove does after setting a target. Maybe it’s just the amount of motion involved in catching. Maybe it is about size and nothing else. The most likely explanation is there are multiple explanations.

Where we are is this: Travis d’Arnaud is a better receiver than Salvador Perez. Perez might have a slight edge getting strikes on pitches up in the zone, but d’Arnaud has a massive advantage down. For whatever reason or reasons, that seems to be real, so you can start anticipating where the strike-zone disputes are going to be in the World Series. Even without involving the specific umpires, you can guess that the Royals aren’t going to be thrilled with a call or three at the knees. And if there’s a close pitch up, the Royals will want it, and they might get it. There’s some chance the Royals hitters will be aggressive enough that d’Arnaud won’t have many borderline pitches to receive. But the catchers are likely to get their chances to make a difference. The Mets will take it.





Jeff made Lookout Landing a thing, but he does not still write there about the Mariners. He does write here, sometimes about the Mariners, but usually not.

29 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
doug Kmember
8 years ago

If only we could eliminate rating how well catcher’s deceive umpires from calling pitches correctly as a thing, what a wonderful game we would have. Never mind that the technology is there already (hence how we know when a catcher successfully deceives), it aint gonna happen in my lifetime.

troybrunomember
8 years ago
Reply to  doug K

(eye roll)

Let me guess, you are still fuming about [insert that one time] when your [insert your favorite team] lost [insert important game] due to that TOTALLY BLOWN CALL?!?!

So I guess you’d prefer you catchers to not “deceive” umpires? Maybe even turn around and dispute strike calls when the catcher feels like he accidentally got one?

(the other) Walter
8 years ago
Reply to  troybruno

Your eye-roll was low and outside. Enough so that not even good framing made it close. It doesn’t require sour grapes to wish balls and strikes were just called….ACCURATELY. Or to wish that umpires could apply, in real-time, what tv-viewers get in real-time about where the ball appears to have crossed the strike zone.

Is the game better the way it is now, where veteran pitchers seem to “get the benefit of the doubt” on close pitches, more than some rookie? Or veteran “he’s got a good eye” batters get the benefit that a rookie batter doesn’t?

If umpires carried an iphone with the strike zone view TV shows, and could glance at that on pitches he wasn’t sure on before making his call, thus eliminating most of the “called strike on pitches in the next batter’s box” we see now, would the game be better?

jim
8 years ago
Reply to  troybruno

Shouldn’t everyone be upset about every time that a team loses a game because of a blown call? Isn’t it that much worse when the call is blown because of deliberate deception by the player?

The game is better when it is decided by who plays the game better, not who deceives the officials better. If you want the latter, there is plenty of soccer out there for you.

Rob
8 years ago
Reply to  jim

Acting like deception has no place in baseball makes me think you’ve never watched it before. Part of the reason baseball is so appealing is because of the human factor. It’s more dramatic and enticing then letting a computer make all of the decisions. Player’s try to deceive opposing players as well as the umpires. Several examples come to mind even though many situations are decided now by Instant Replay. Catcher framing, the hidden-ball trick, having the 2nd basemen pretend to catch an errant throw to hold a runner, yelling “I got it” when rounding the bases (extreme, but still a valid example). It may not happen every game, but it is part of the game and I think it only makes the game more unpredictable and interesting.

jim
8 years ago
Reply to  jim

Deceiving your opponent, is indeed a big part of baseball, and several of your examples are quite good and make the game interesting (although the last one is definitely bush league).

Deceiving the official, on the other hand, is cheating (or attempting to) in any sport.

The fact that you see cheating as an appealing part of the game is kind of sad.

Rob
8 years ago
Reply to  jim

It could be considered cheating, but I think most wouldn’t and we call it part of the game. PED’s of any kind are obviously cheating, but pitch framing? That’s part of the game and the job of the catcher.

And why would deception of an opponent not constitute cheating?

The whole point is that having umpires make calls brings a human element to the game. Whether you like it or not, part of the game is exploiting the human element as much as possible. Reminds of the commentary during a game where Keith Hernandez described a move he would use to influence the umpire’s call, pulling the rear leg off the bag just as or just before the ball enters the mit.

arc
8 years ago
Reply to  jim

The whole point is that having umpires make calls brings a human element to the game.

You keep bringing this up as if it is an end in itself. It isn’t.

The human element of sport is watching human athletes do skillful things. It doesn’t go away when the misjudgments of officials are removed.

Football wasn’t any less “human” when instant replay removed the “element” of getting a lot of calls wrong. Neither has baseball and neither would baseball if the strike zone were automated.

jim
8 years ago
Reply to  jim

We call it part of the game because it was unavoidable until recently. The umpire necessarily has an obstructed view of pitches that makes deception by the catcher (framing) possible, because of where he stands.

So yeah, framing is a skill, in the same way that diving is a skill in soccer. In soccer this is only possible because refs can’t see everything at once. With the advent of multiple cameras capturing most, if not all of the game, diving could (and/or should) be eliminated from the game.

You are making an argument that is essentially parallel to this one: “Because some soccer players are really good at “selling” a dive, it should be kept as part of the game, even though we now have the means to detect and eliminate them (though it might not be feasible to do so in real time). Fooling the ref with a good dive is part of what keeps the human element in the game, and keeps it interesting to watch.”

That’s crazy. It’s a corruption of the game in soccer, and a corruption of the game in baseball. We now have the means to detect and eliminate it in baseball – in real time, no less. This can only be a good thing.

If shifting the focus of the game away from the mistakes of the umpires, and towards the actual performance of the baseball players makes it less interesting to you, then perhaps it is simply controversy for its own sake, and not baseball that you actually enjoy.

jim
8 years ago
Reply to  jim

I should mention that I don’t entirely fault catchers for developing framing skills. It has long been a part of the game and they would be foolish to neglect it entirely.

Framing is not just a question of trying to get pitches out of the zone called as strikes – it is also about ensuring that pitches that are actually in the zone are not mistakenly called balls. That parallel does not exist with respect to diving in soccer, which is all about trying to get something “extra” by deceiving the ref.

In any case, I’m sure someone will object to catchers who earn their keep with their framing skills losing their jobs. That may be true in the short term, but I’d much rather they be valued according to actual baseball skills: throwing out runners, calling a smart game, and blocking errant pitches.

In fact, removing the required body position/catching technique necessary to frame pitches correctly could very well result in a real opportunity to improve at least 2 of the skills listed above. I’d call that a good trade in the long run.

francis
8 years ago
Reply to  doug K

If the technology was available in the 1860’s, it would have been implemented at inception. Now we have to live without it because of some people’s quaint notion of tradition.

It’s absurd. I don’t recall the story where foul poles or fences or lights ruined the game.

Jetsy Extrano
8 years ago
Reply to  doug K

A naive implementation of robot umps is going to give significantly more K & BB and fewer BIP, and that would bore me.

Human umps tend to shrink the zone in pitchers’ counts and expand it in hitters’. A Bayesian robot would too, to some extent, but less so because its eyes are better. This is a bug in human umps, but if we remove it then if like some counterbalancing increase in balls in play.