Who Framed Victor Caratini?
It’s still April, so it may be premature to talk about the year’s most extreme events. If a home run was hit on a high pitch, there will likely be a higher pitch that gets hit for a home run later on. Think an umpire called a perfect pitch a ball? We’ve got plenty more time for an even better pitch to be missed. However, I think we may have already seen the best pitch frame of the year.
I don’t mean the pitch furthest outside the strike zone that gets called a strike — there’s still plenty of time for that to change. I’m talking about full dedication to the craft of pitch framing. Francisco Cervelli sold a pitch against the Cubs not just with his glove and his positioning, but with his whole being. You’ll probably see worse pitches sold for strikes this year. Heck, you might see Cervelli get more egregious calls than this. You won’t see better framing, though — I can pretty much guarantee it.
Let’s set the backdrop for the play: April 11, a Pirates-Cubs game at Wrigley. Cervelli was catching Joe Musgrove, who’s off to a tremendous start to the year — coming into the game, he’d thrown nine scoreless innings over two games. Home plate umpire Mike Estabrook had called an expansive zone all evening. By the bottom of the third, he’d already had words with two batters. One had been Cervelli himself — he struck out on three straight pitches, all looking, in the first inning.
Take a peek at the location of the pitch that led Cervelli to bark at Estabrook:

It’s safe to say that Cervelli had low pitches on the brain. After all, he probably thought every single pitch he saw in that first at-bat was low, out of the strike zone. By the third inning, Cervelli was working the same low strike Jose Quintana had used so effectively against him. He pulled a curveball from Musgrove to the bottom of the zone for a strikeout of Daniel Descalso:
Musgrove started Victor Caratini, the next batter up, with a fastball inside. Cervelli barely made an effort to frame it — he knows what he can and can’t get to, and there wasn’t much point in trying to make that pitch look good. Cervelli, it should be said, knows how to frame. He had a down 2017 and 2018 (a combined -11.5 framing runs per Steamer), but at his peak he was tremendous. In 2015 alone, he put up 20 framing runs. Now, emboldened by his own strikeout in the first inning and the curveball to Descalso, he was ready to frame a low pitch for a strike.
Watch a good-framing catcher receive a low pitch, and you can start to appreciate their craft. It’s not about grabbing the ball and then jerking your glove up into the zone; umpires are onto that trick. Instead, look at Cervelli set up low, way below the strike zone and surely below where Musgrove is aiming:

You might think it’s a weird place to set up for a pitch you’d like to be a strike, but there’s a plan behind it. Start low, and your glove will be rising when you catch the pitch. The impact of the ball might even push your glove up further, without any unnecessary sudden movements. Recent Pirates catchers have excelled at framing in this exact way. It’s part and parcel of the inside-and-down-in-the-zone philosophy Ray Searage has so famously espoused. By the time the ball is halfway home, Cervelli has already started to lift his glove:

Hey, maybe this pitch will be in the strike zone and maybe it won’t. Either way, it never hurts to present it to the umpire as cleanly as possible. That’s just workmanlike. Suddenly, though: disaster! Cervelli misjudged the pitch. Maybe he and Musgrove got crossed up, or maybe the slider just dropped more than Cervelli expected. Either way, he has to stop with the rising-glove trick and stab below the strike zone:

Now, on some days, this would be the end of the story. Some pitches just aren’t there to frame. Maybe if he’d stayed low the entire time he could pull it off. Even then, this pitch is low. Cervelli wasn’t done, however. He pulled out the emergency don’t-try-this-at-home move of pulling the glove up to the bottom of the zone. Maybe the umpire was blocked for a brief second and the glove’s finishing location will trick him. It’s not ideal, but it beats doing nothing:

Now, was this move subtle? Not really. Look at the strike zone on the bottom right and you can see that Cervelli is taking some liberties. It’s Mike Estabrook behind the plate though. He’s been calling these all day. Strike one!

This picture contains a multitude. Even as Estabrook calls the strike, Caratini is turning around to argue with him. He knows what just happened, and he doesn’t like it. Cervelli, meanwhile, is still holding the frame. It’s been a second since the ball crossed the plate. He doesn’t need to keep his glove there! He’s just doing it to further sell the illusion.
If this play ended here, you’d be justified in asking what all the fuss was about. That was a nice little receiving job, but it’s not unprecedented. Heck, every catcher in baseball is great at framing now. Most of them probably have the same start-low-end-high trick in their books, and they definitely all have the emergency glove relocation move. Wait a second though. Our story isn’t over:

Why is Cervelli asking for a new ball? This last pitch was purportedly in the strike zone, and he allegedly caught it cleanly. Even more importantly, what’s that baseball doing back near the backstop? That wasn’t there earlier! It must be dawning on Estabrook that he’s been had. This is an Ocean’s Eleven-level reveal. Estabrook was watching Cervelli’s hands when he should have been watching the ball. It’s sleight of hand at its finest.
Here, watch the play live instead of in a series of stills:
You can see how it happened. The ball goes out of Estabrook’s field of vision as it crosses the plate. Cervelli’s shoulder is blocking him right at the time of catching it. Why would you think anything is amiss? There’s the catcher, holding the ball in the zone as catchers often do after receiving a pitch with no one on. The ball’s in the glove, obviously. Where else would it be?
Think of how quickly Cervelli reacted. He’s spent his whole life catching, and when you miss a ball, you turn to look for it. Maybe there’s no one on base, but those instincts get drilled into you at a young age. Even if you manage not to look for the ball, you certainly don’t squeeze your glove like you caught it and hold the zone looking for a call. There’s no call to look for, because you don’t have the ball!
Cervelli, however, didn’t think that way. He realized he had an opportunity, and he pounced. Good pitch framing is sleight of hand, sleight of whole-body really. Great receivers make umpires see the world slightly differently than it is with subtle movements of hand and body. At its heart, Cervelli’s frame-without-ball is an extension of that. It’s a big extension though. It’s one thing to try to convince the umpire the ball crossed the plate an inch or so higher than it actually did, and quite another to convince him that the ball is in your glove when it’s 20 feet behind you.
To me, this play is a shoo-in for best pitch framing of the year. Will it end as the pitch furthest out of the zone that gets called a strike? Almost assuredly not. It will, however, probably be the purest example of the essence of pitch framing. Your job, as a catcher, is to convince the umpire of an alternative set of facts. Cervelli went above and beyond the call of duty here, but he did what catchers do. He convinced a man crouching behind him in a mask that he’d seen a strike, by any means necessary.
Ben is a writer at FanGraphs. He can be found on Bluesky @benclemens.
Not sure how anyone can argue against robot umpires at home plate.
Automated. Strikezone. Now.
No. Automated. Strike zone. Why take away a play as wonderful as that?
Didn’t look so wonderful to Caratini, presumably.
Because I’d like the game to be about the players, not the umpires
The focus of this article was Cervelli, notably not an ump.
Because it feels unfair. If I want acting, I’ll watch a movie. “Selling a pitch” isn’t a skill I feel needs to be a part of the game. 2 out of the 3 people involved in this pitch judging process didn’t do their job (the pitcher and the ump).
If an outfielder drops a ball he can’t “fake it” like he caught it and get the out just because the umps were too stupid to confirm, I don’t see why a catcher gets special treatment here.
I dont know about that, I think receiving is a pretty cool skill for a C.
But that would eliminate the human element of the game. An imperfect system is perfect.
The game will still be played by humans.
I’m there to see the umpires.
I personally enjoy the interactions with the players and couches that the Umpire at home plate brings to the game more than I would enjoy perfectly called balls and strikes.
As long as the Umpire is calling signs fairly, I don’t see an issue with keeping them. If they aren’t calling signs fairly, send back to AAA until they learn.
And by couches I meant coaches.
I think it’s cute people think everyone will just accept the wisdom of the robots, instead of questioning every decision they make like we do with human umpires.
Apparently you haven’t watched much tennis over the years. The whiniest whiners immediately shut up once that used technology for close calls.
apparently you haven’t watched baseball at all, in tennis the lines exist for real and are always there in the same spot, in baseball the strike zone is imaginary and every player comes to the plate with its own strike-zone measures. Sooner or later umpires will use some kind of technology I guess, but umpires are here to stay.
This is objectively hilarious, but hot damn I can’t wait until framing is no longer a thing that effects games.
But FanGraphs just added framing runs!
why?
Because I would prefer strikes and balls to be called as accurately as possible based on how whether they cross the strike zone, not how cutely a catcher catches it.
Framing is like the baseball version of flopping in a basketball game. Realize flopping is more of a judgement call that can’t be eliminated, but they both involve engaging in theatrics to get a call you shouldn’t get. I look forward to hopefully being able to eliminate the baseball version in the future.
I consider soccer to be a deeply flawed game precisely because of flopping — in some situations it is a better play for a defender to fake an injury than to actually defend, and I cannot respect a game whose rules embed that motivation. Basketball’s integrity seems to suffer to a lesser extent, probably due to the less disproportionate penalty for committing a foul.
And yet I loathe what robot umps would do to the game, and I love framing as a skill. So consistency demands that I identify some significant difference between framing and flopping. The first that comes to mind is that, erm, framing isn’t flopping — in the important sense that by positioning glove and body a certain way to frame a pitch, the catcher is not falling down and putting himself out of position to be a defender. So while the intent may be deception (as in flopping), the catcher is not abdicating his normal role in hopes of stopping the action to extract some penalty. I think that makes a difference, especially for the impact on integrity of the game. (and we generally embrace all manner of other deceptions inherent to baseball)
Compared with soccer/basketball and even football, baseball offers very few opportunities for the game-stopping penalty-extracting flopping: basically catcher/runner interference and failing to attempt to avoid hit by pitch. Just another reason baseball is superior to other games.
“Positioning the body” in such a way as to make a ball appear to be a strike is exactly flopping! Good flopping requires positioning one’s body in such a way that a thing that is not actually a foul appears to be a foul to a neutral observer. You can be called for a tech in basketball or a yellow card in soccer if you get caught flopping. Either way, it’s engaging in disingenuous theatrics to try to get a call. And baseball incentivizes catcher to try to get inaccurate calls in this way, which is what you’re ostensibly saying makes soccer invalid as a whole. So not sure why you’d like that incentive in one case and not the other.
Side note: defenders don’t really flop in soccer. If you flop as a defender, the best thing you’re getting is a free kick in a non-threatening area and the worst is you get nothing and now you’re on the ground while the other team is attacking your goal. It is essentially never a good play for a defender to flop.
Sorry, soccer is even worse than I described: in some cases the *offensive* player has greater incentive to fake an injury than actually try to kick the ball through the goal in real time (I mixed up basketball and soccer flopping).
As for the apparent inconsistency you raise, I believe I already addressed that. While all flopping involves positioning the body in a deceptive way, not all positioning of the body in a deceptive way constitutes flopping. To my mind, a big part of what makes flopping objectionable is the intentionally falling down part (and, in soccer, the writhing anguish). Framing doesn’t have that.
I think that framing is such a big part of batting as well, and contributes to how hitters adjust during the game to the ump’s strike zone, and the catcher at work. So putting in robot umps takes away from the game in more ways than just accurate calls. It changes the fabric of the game on the balance between pitching and hitting. That day to day, game to game, series to series adjustment is just such a big part of the game, and each part contributes to that, terrible Angel Hernandez calls included (shudder).
And hitters arguing strikes and balls and seeing Harper’s head explode from time to time is a decent part of why I watch the game anyways .
Beyond that, defenders may not flop, but they work the dark arts too. Sergio Ramos is the king of that.
It was a low zone all night. There were probably 10 pitches up in the zone called balls. I agree with rhdx above.
———————————————
OK after looking at the pitch locator it was maybe 6 pitches but it seemed worse that night.
Beautiful delivery. The entire time I was like… WHY SCREENSHOTS?? NEED GIF!!
But then you pulled a fast one on me too. Well done mr Clemens
wow. just wow
Funny how this will be cited as exhibit A for robot umps.
And exhibit A against robot umps.
Delightful article. Thank you Ben!
It’s like they say: Confidence always wins.
A great article. Gotta love baseball.
I’ve always liked Cervelli since he was with the Yanks. I’ve been impressed with what a solid player he’s turned out to be.
#WhateverItTakes
Cervelli is a fine member of the post-truth society.
Funniest thing is the umpire hesitating giving Cervelli another ball
I’m saddened that there was no mention of the next pitch, where Cervelli pulled a rabbit out of his glove and it was called a strike. Caratini then turned around and angrily yelled “Hare you serious?!!”.
this article is the very reason i check this site every day. thank you so much, ben! excellent piece. made me smile like a goon as i watched that final gif about 25 times in a row
Ben this was a fun read, thank you.
bad ass
Great stuff Ben, you hit it out of the park again, figuratively speaking
Ben, congrats on noticing this bit of minutiae and the expert crafting to make a very fun read. Thanks.
Cervelli is by far one of my favorite Pirates. “When the moon hits your eye like a big pizza pie…”
Tangential question for rules experts: If that pitch had been called STRIKE THREE, and the ump still handed Cervelli a new ball, with which he recorded the out … would the Cubs have any recourse?
nevermind, I misunderstood the question
I’m pretty sure the new ball is never in play in this situation. It would be embarrassing for the umpire, but the batter would be safe.
Umpires should probably check, though. After what happened to Correa today I’m not sure any ball outcome should be discounted.
By all means. Let’s celebrate inaccuracy and cheating instead of using the opportunity to get MLB to provide an honest product.
Gee whiz.
Given that there is no rule stating how the catcher can move his glove, and a called strike is defined as one that is so deemed by an impartial umpire, framing is manifestly neither ‘cheating’ nor dishonest. A good word might be ‘gamesmanship’. And insofar as the umpire is impartial, framing is completely fair. Insofar as it is a skill, it adds variability that can be manipulated by strategy. Hooray for framing!
Huge Cubs fan here. Huge “Robot Umps Today” fan as well.
This was not cheating.
I never thought I would be excited for the Atlantic League season to begin, but now I can’t wait.
This is the hidden ball trick of frame jobs. Damn.
This should surprise no one:
“Cervelli is an avid soccer fan, and a supporter of Serie A football club Juventus.”
I see this more as the worst frame job of all time. He showed up an umpire, in April, in the GIF era. This is almost certainly going to lose him dozens of calls over the course of the season, because the other umpires are all going to know this happened. If it was in late September, maybe it’s a great job, and the umpires can laugh it off and forget over the winter. But now? They’re going to be thinking about this every time they work behind him.
He should probably try to do something super-memorably boneheaded to embarrass himself and make people think about that first, just to get the stink of this frame off him.