Dan, it looks like Ivan Rodriguez blocked 51 fewer balls than Mike Redmond. Do you have any thoughts on how that difference might translate into number of runs allowed?

I'd be interested to see the number of balls in the dirt correlated to PAs with runners on, to see if/which/how often catchers who struggle blocking balls shy away from calling low pitches with runners on base.

Dan, this study was a great idea and the results are interesting. If the data is available, it would be nice to view the results further broken down by pitch type.

The results seem to roughly follow some of preconceptions about catchers who are excellent at blocking pitches, with guys like Ausmus, Varitek, and Y. Molina near the top of the list. I don't know if Redmond had that reputation, and I wouldn't have guessed that Bennett would be high on the list (but then again I haven't followed him much). I recall an interesting Hardball Times article which came out a year or so ago which rated catchers' defense. The article made an interesting observation that many of the best catchers at throwing out runners are not the best at blocking the plate, because their size prevents them from exhibiting agility. I thought about that comment when I saw Pudge Rodriguez at the bottom of this list.

Fantastic info to add to the toolkit for evaluating catchers. No surprise to me that I-Rod came in last as I've been regularly pointing out his teams have consistantly been poor for ERA (with the one Tiger team an obvious exception). There had to be a reason as his arm is killer and most feel game calling has minimal effect. However, if he is to ball blocking as Piazza is to throwing out runners then we might have an explanation.

The article made an interesting observation that many of the best catchers at throwing out runners are not the best at blocking the plate, because their size prevents them from exhibiting agility. I thought about that comment when I saw Pudge Rodriguez at the bottom of this list.

But Rodriguez is not big - especially since arriving in Detroit. He could figuratively fit in Lance Parrish's pocket.

I wonder how much his numbers stem from his decisions. For years he has been criticized for calling fastballs with runners on in order to improve his chances of throwing out basestealers. I haven't watched him enough to know, but perhaps some Michigoose can say whether he always stays on his feet even when setting a target for low pitches; you'd have to think that setting up on one or two knees would make it much harder to make strong throws to second.

Also, if he really has spent a career shying away from calling low breaking pitches, he may have denied himself the practice that would allow him to improve his pitch-blocking skills.

Dan, this study was a great idea and the results are interesting. If the data is available, it would be nice to view the results further broken down by pitch type.

...and by pitcher.

I imagine the accuracy and completeness of the data varies wildly for each catcher.

It seems like it depends on assuming that each actual pitch in the dirt is recorded as such, and I think that's a pretty large assumption to make...

Thanks for the feedback everyone.

I've added a new post with some updated numbers as Mike Fast pointed out that I had missed a category of balls in the dirt. Not much changed though.

I'll try and tackle the ideas raised here over the next few days.

I imagine the accuracy and completeness of the data varies wildly for each catcher.

It seems like it depends on assuming that each actual pitch in the dirt is recorded as such, and I think that's a pretty large assumption to make...

Very true. I wouldn't treat these numbers as gospel, but I think they're an interesting start.

However, if he is to ball blocking as Piazza is to throwing out runners then we might have an explanation.

No, you don't. Do you know how many blocked pitches add up to a run?

This might provide an opportunity to examine some of the claims the troll who runs the "Bad News Cubs" site was making a few weeks ago. Folks jumped all over his, and rightly so as he was/is a blowhard. But this info provides a way to break down his claim that the key to being a good catcher is catching the ball, not throwing out runners, or anything else for that matter. Might not be a worthwhile venture, of course. But then again, what else is there to do down here in Mom's basement after you gobbled up all the canned pears...

Interestingly enough, his man Bard does fare pretty well in this respect:

Josh Bard 927.33 innings 24 misses 202 opportunities 88% Blocked.

Bard seems to lead the second tier of catchers. Not an elite, but solid, as least as far as this particular study is concerned. Barrett is worse. Now of course we know that:

Other concerns that have been raised are the effects of the pitching staffs and the PITCHf/x scorekeepers. Unfortunately, I don’t really have a way to control for that at this point, so just keep those considerations in mind when using this information.

There's also the small sample size problem. But still, it is interesting. Seems to me that a good catcher can 'catch,' 'call games,' and 'throw.' Since neither Bard nor Barrett can do all three of those things, they are not very good. If either were elite at 'catching', blocking 95% like Redmond, for example, then perhaps Bad News Bears may be onto something. What, exactly, aside from the last nerves of folks on this site, is difficult to quantify...

No, you don't. Do you know how many blocked pitches add up to a run?

Using the Run Expectancy calculations on Tango's site, a WP/PB was worth .27 runs in 2007.

I'll have more on this in a post tomorrow, but initial calculations show Varitek was 5.5 runs above average in 2007 and Rodriguez was 7.6 runs below average.

Followup with results from 2005 and 2006 is now up.

I'm surprised I am the first to mention this, but a "ball in dirt" is a WP. A PB is something else altogether (with very very very few exceptions). Largely, the dividing line between a WP and a PB is whether or not the ball hit the dirt before it got to the catcher.

This analysis would really need to use WP only.

Wow on Varitek. It looks like he was around +5 RAA without Matt Clement, and -1 or -2 RAA with him. And he might've topped the 3-year list had it not been for that.

I'm not trying to argue that this makes Varitek the best. I suppose it could be argued that the rest of Boston's staff would make him look better by having better control than the typical staff. After all, if one pitcher can have that big an impact on the final result, minimizing the number of "those" pitchers on the staff could be a big factor. That said, if that were the case Posada and Pudge would have done better.

This is where it gets difficult. To paraphrase a comment on Dan's site, catcher defense mostly consists of catching, throwing, and calling. It's all intermingled:

- Game calling affects staff quality by an unknown quantity.
- Staff quality affects catching (blocking) by an unknown quantity.
- Game calling affects throwing by an unknown quantity.
- Vice-versa on all this.

...and so on. Don't get me wrong, Dan, your work to date is a lot better than anything we've had to this point. But (as you're aware) it's only scratching the surface of what is probably the most complex on-field position to analyze. I'm looking forward to the next few years as the body of data gets larger and the signals continue to emerge from the noise.

I'm surprised I am the first to mention this, but a "ball in dirt" is a WP. A PB is something else altogether (with very very very few exceptions). Largely, the dividing line between a WP and a PB is whether or not the ball hit the dirt before it got to the catcher.

I, for one, never knew this or I forgot it. I thought that it was mostly an arbitrary decision on the scorer's part. I'll have to reread The Diamond Appraised, but I think that's where I got that idea from.

...and so on. Don't get me wrong, Dan, your work to date is a lot better than anything we've had to this point. But (as you're aware) it's only scratching the surface of what is probably the most complex on-field position to analyze. I'm looking forward to the next few years as the body of data gets larger and the signals continue to emerge from the noise.

This is my take, too, but this is still great work. It really begins to verify what I've thought of the catching position, that the throwing is vastly overrated relative to other parts of the catcher's game. I would love to see the data on Mike Piazza in his prime, just to get a better handle on how he rates historically.

I'm surprised I am the first to mention this, but a "ball in dirt" is a WP. A PB is something else altogether (with very very very few exceptions). Largely, the dividing line between a WP and a PB is whether or not the ball hit the dirt before it got to the catcher.



I, for one, never knew this or I forgot it. I thought that it was mostly an arbitrary decision on the scorer's part. I'll have to reread The Diamond Appraised, but I think that's where I got that idea from.

I thought much the same thing as Jon, with the reality being pretty much what Chris outlined though. The lack of actual definition and my belief that a PB should count against a catcher's block percentage are why I kept them in.

Would it make more sense if I treated PB like OOZ plays are treated in zone rating? Add them as both a miss and an opportunity?