navarro

[harkness99]

I just wanted to add what garbage A** catching he does at times.

 

He cost Robertson at least two strikes.

 

 

Just terrible.

[Panerista]

I just wanted to add what garbage A** catching he does at times.

 

He cost Robertson at least two strikes.

 

 

Just terrible.

Cool story, bro.

[harkness99]

Cool story, bro.

 

 

Nice post... are you 12?

 

People who watched that inning know what I'm talking about. I blame Robertson more, but Navarro was also a culprit.

Edited July 19, 2016 by harkness

[elrockinMT]

I just wanted to add what garbage A** catching he does at times.

 

He cost Robertson at least two strikes.

 

 

Just terrible.

 

 

This is what the Mariners broadcasters were saying so it was noticeable for sure

[Chicago White Sox]

DFA Navarro, call up Smith. Hard for Kevan to be much worse, plus he might show enough to be part of our catching tandem next year. Nothing to lose at this point IMO.

[fathom]

He was catching like he was drunk that inning

[DirtySox]

His pitch framing is pretty comical. Some hilariously baffling GIFs that the SSS guys throw up on Twitter pretty often.

[Bigsoxhurt35]

I do feel for Hahn. It's like his major league moves have a black cloud surrounding them. Woof.

 

Didn't think I'd miss Navarro.

 

It's sad that Collins could come up and probably be our most patient hitter and best catcher.

Edited July 19, 2016 by SouthSideSale

[CaliSoxFanViaSWside]

I just wanted to add what garbage A** catching he does at times.

 

He cost Robertson at least two strikes.

 

 

Just terrible.

 

If you are talking about that 3rd strike ( accounting to pitch trax )on Cruz here is the real truth. Since I had DVR'd the game I slowed down every pitch looking where Navarro set up and where the pitch actually went.It was impossible to frame that pitch. Up until that pitch when Navarro set up low and away his glove was usually located on the outer third of the plate. For that pitch he set up low and away off the plate further than he had at any point that inning . He had to sweep his glove from off the plate outside to the inner third inside. Once your glove is moving like that you just can't stop your glove from continuing its momentum . I've said it time and time again. Umps will call a pitch that misses its location badly a ball many times. No one frames that pitch. It's all up to the ump at that point.

 

Not sure about the other pitch or pitches you are talking about but if you tell me I'll be happy to give it a look on the DVR.

[fathom]

https://mobile.twitter.com/WhiteSoxUmp/stat...257204643663873

[CaliSoxFanViaSWside]

https://mobile.twitter.com/WhiteSoxUmp/stat...257204643663873

 

OK what's your point? We all know it was a strike but the ump or Robertson (if he can be blamed for missing his spot badly but still throwing a strike) are to blame but certainly not Navarro .

Edited July 19, 2016 by CaliSoxFanViaSWside

[fathom]

OK what's your point? We all know it was a strike but the ump or Robertson (if he can be blamed for missing his spot badly but still throwing a strike) are to blame but certainly not Navarro .

 

Just how bad of a miss by West it was. I thought Navarro could have been under a little more control on that pitch. There were two curves that were close to being strikes that he caught with the glove heading down and gave Robertson no chance of getting the call.

[CaliSoxFanViaSWside]

Just how bad of a miss by West it was. I thought Navarro could have been under a little more control on that pitch. There were two curves that were close to being strikes that he caught with the glove heading down and gave Robertson no chance of getting the call.

 

But thats how Robertsons curve acts ,starts high and then dives down. A lot of umps are bad at calling a good knee high curve ball a strike because lots of catchers have to dip their gloves beneath the strike zone to catch it because that's where it goes.

 

I only watched the 1st 3 hitters slowed down pitch by pitch . The 3rd pitch to Cruz was a very nice curve. Navarro set up low and away and Robertson threw it there. Stopped it when I thought ball crossed the plate and it looked perfect. The downward action on the ball made Navarro bring his glove down but he didn't dip his glove . Pitch trax called it a ball and so did the ump. I honestly couldn't blame Navarro on that one either. After the Cruz AB I stopped.

 

Umps miss a good curve ball for the same reason hitters do.They call it a 12 to 6 curve for a reason . It starts off high on the clock (12 o'clock) then dives down to 6 .

Edited July 19, 2016 by CaliSoxFanViaSWside

[ChiliIrishHammock24]

His pitch framing is pretty comical. Some hilariously baffling GIFs that the SSS guys throw up on Twitter pretty often.

 

Yeah, it's really pretty unbelievable that no one corrects that s*** he does out there.

[Bigsoxhurt35]

Yeah, it's really pretty unbelievable that no one corrects that s*** he does out there.

It's not surprising considering this coaching staff and scouting. Flat out clueless.

[harkness99]

But thats how Robertsons curve acts ,starts high and then dives down. A lot of umps are bad at calling a good knee high curve ball a strike because lots of catchers have to dip their gloves beneath the strike zone to catch it because that's where it goes.

 

I only watched the 1st 3 hitters slowed down pitch by pitch . The 3rd pitch to Cruz was a very nice curve. Navarro set up low and away and Robertson threw it there. Stopped it when I thought ball crossed the plate and it looked perfect. The downward action on the ball made Navarro bring his glove down but he didn't dip his glove . Pitch trax called it a ball and so did the ump. I honestly couldn't blame Navarro on that one either. After the Cruz AB I stopped.

 

Umps miss a good curve ball for the same reason hitters do.They call it a 12 to 6 curve for a reason . It starts off high on the clock (12 o'clock) then dives down to 6 .

 

Honestly I don't agree. I'm a bit confused why you are making excuses for him.

 

I went back and watched it also. I'm 100% sure he could have framed those pitches better. Were they easy to frame? No but he made ZERO effort to sell them as strikes.

 

It's bad catching period. He is well known for his inability to frame pitches. This isn't anything new.

 

http://www.statcorner.com/CatcherReport.php

 

 

Edited July 19, 2016 by harkness

[Harry Chappas]

He really serves less of a purpose than Flowers did.

[CaliSoxFanViaSWside]

Honestly I don't agree. I'm a bit confused why you are making excuses for him.

 

I went back and watched it also. I'm 100% sure he could have framed those pitches better. Were they easy to frame? No but he made ZERO effort to sell them as strikes.

 

It's bad catching period. He is well known for his inability to frame pitches. This isn't anything new.

 

http://www.statcorner.com/CatcherReport.php

You have to be kidding me . You honestly think he could've framed that 3rd strike pitch to Cruz or sold it as a strike ? Do you not understand anything about catching ? About momentum ? How the hell do you sell that pitch as a strike ? I don't know why I am bothering but lets try to look at this logically and scientifically since you believe in pitch framing stats .

 

I wish I could do this with .gifs or still frames because it would be so much easier.Let's say we can agree Navarro set up 4 inches off the plate outside on that pitch.

 

This is going to be a very lengthy post and I will be as objective as possible to the point that I will point out my flaws in understanding pitch framing data.

 

I am doing this because catching is a very difficult position to play. It is extremely physically demanding. There is a term for the catchers gear that used to be more commonplace but is hardly heard now. The gear was called "the tools of ignorance" ? Now if you have never thought about that phrase, it's because to be a catcher you must be "ignorant" of the toll it takes on the body squatting inning after inning , getting hit in all parts of your body by foul balls, getting hit by bats, blocking fast, curving , knuckling pitches that you throw your body in front of getting hit in the hands, legs, crotch, getting run over my runners. Now of course catchers are not ignorant of these facts but the phrase is a colorfully descriptive way of saying you have to be either insane or ignorant of the dangers to play catcher. So I am very empathetic to catchers.

 

Now just because some mathematicians say they've discovered a way to grade pitching framing does not mean I automatically believe in it. I prefer to question things . I do not blindly follow the Shepherds of Sabermetrics because it is a fairly new science fraught with flaws like all fairly new sciences, especially the defensive metrics.

 

Now for my flaws. I am no mathematician or scientist. I do not comprehend that level of math. But I am in a position to look at things very logically and without emotion. Now do I believe that some catchers are more graceful and fluid in their abilities then others ? Absolutely, without question. It would be foolish not to .

 

Now let's look at the main pitch in question in depth and logically. Let's say for the sake of argument that you have no preconceived knowledge of Navarro's pitch framing stats so we can look at this without any bias. We will just look at the count on the hitter, where Navarro set up and where the pitch went and try to apply a little logic to it all.

 

Actually I'll look at 2 pitches to Cruz that occurred on the 1-1 count and the 2-2 count to be even more objective about this.

 

The 1-1 pitch to Cruz, Navarro set up on the outside corner glove low and over the plate but on the edge. I notice that as Robertson releases the ball Navarro's glove starts to drift up. I don't know why or if that is common for catchers receiving a curve since a curveball like Robertson throws will start higher and end up lower.Maybe it is actually a flaw with Navarro. Very hard to say not having studied how other catchers catch a curve. I freeze the pitch right before it hits his glove. It looks like a perfect pitch, over the plate but on the very edge and approx at the lower knees. Looked like Navarro caught it fairly well since the pitch ended up pretty much where it was designed to go . I have to question Navarro because his glove starts low ,drifts higher, then has to go back down again. The CSN pitch tracker indicates the ball is low. No part of the ball is touching the lower line of the strike zone but it does indicate it was over the plate on the edge. So I also have to question the pitch tracker. But maybe it is right because I also have to question the camera angle which we always see to the right of the pitcher so we can view both the pitcher pitching and the area around home plate. Joe West (the ump) calls it a ball. So pitch trax says its a ball, the ump says its a ball , my eyes ( with that camera angle mind you) say its a strike. Could it have been called a strike with a different catcher ? A different ump ? Of course the answer is yes. Borderline pitches can go either way but lets remember according to pitch trax and the ump it was a ball .

 

The 2-1 pitch Navarro sets up low and away on the plate . Pitch goes up and in catching a lot of the plate. So Robertson misses his spot badly but it's a fastball that Cruz misses so the count is now 2-2.

 

So now the 2-2 pitch. Navarro sets up again low and away perhaps 3-4 inches off the plate. What does this tell you ? Most likely indicates a pitch designed to be a ball outside the zone to try and get Cruz to fish. Since Cruz is right handed and Navarro is right handed ,catching a ball outside to a right hand hitter means he catches the ball backhanded if it goes where its designed.

 

Again Robertson misses badly. Looks like a fastball since the radar on Comcast says its 93 MPH. It whips in there inside . In the strike zone . Pitch trax had half the ball in the strike zone and half out on the lower edge and the ball definitely over the plate perhaps 3-4 inches on the inner third of the plate. It's called a ball. No surprise there since Robertson missed his intended target badly and Navarro had to sweep his glove from the from the plate outside to the inner third inside. This seems to be where those who say Navarro could have framed it better and myself disagree. Many umps will call a pitch like that a ball. Navarro stayed on his backhand to catch the pitch which might not be the ideal way to catch it but again it missed badly .This is where we apply some logic and a little science.

 

Home plate is 17 inches wide . Set up 3-4 inches outside off the plate , caught the ball 3-4 inches on the inner third. So he had to move his glove basically 17 inches or the whole width of home plate. That might not seem like a lot to some of you but lets apply more science here.

 

Robert Adair, author of The Physics of Baseball and a professor from Yale, said that a pitcher’s fastball takes about 0.45 seconds to arrive in the catcher’s mitt. eFastball reports the typical pitch reaction time (for hitters) for big fields as .424 at 90 MPH. Catchers have a very slightly longer time to react since a hitter is closer to the pitcher.Not sure if they are taking the pitchers stride into the equation which will further cut reaction time but lets says .424 is accurate for a catcher catching a 93 ( not 90) mph pitch. Each baseball weighs between 5- 5.25 ounces and at 93 MPH creates a lot of force. How much ? No idea . But I am pretty sure when you combine how much Navarro had to move his glove in a very short period of time ( basically a blink of an eye) with the force behind the pitch I can logically conclude that even if Navarro had very quick reaction time to seeing where that pitch was headed ,the force behind the pitch and his own momentum of moving his hand from one place to another in the blink of an eye means that particular pitch was not framable.

 

Oh I forgot I brought up how Navarro was set up to catch that pitch backhanded for a reason. Navarro had to move his glove approx 17 inches to catch that pitch. But he stayed on his backhand the whole way which appears very awkward and his glove strayed way off the plate inside after catching it. Perhaps another catcher flips his glove over and catcher it on the fore hand. I think that would take slightly more time. He only had so much time to react to that pitch and the route his glove took to get to it appears efficient and direct if not the most graceful looking. But that will happen when a pitch misses it location by so much and at that speed.

 

I know this won't change very many minds on the subject. I'm not even sure anyone will read it all the way through and actually give it some thought. After all this is a message board where we hardly ever discuss things at length . I am just asking us to question things more and not blindly follow the new age of stats and apply some baseball knowledge, common sense and logic.

 

source: http://fantasybaseballdugout.com/2010/09/0...l-reaction-tim/

Edited July 19, 2016 by CaliSoxFanViaSWside

[Jake]

Navarro has been worst or near-worst in the league in pitch framing for almost every season he's been in the league. There is little doubt that he cost Robertson big time in that inning. Robertson's command was still bad and that's why he ultimately got burned, but an average job of framing very probably could have gotten Robertson out of that inning. The reason to be frustrated is that Avila is hurt—he's not good when it comes to framing, but he's considerably better than Navarro on a year in, year out basis—and that Navarro hasn't hit as well as hoped.

[CaliSoxFanViaSWside]

Navarro has been worst or near-worst in the league in pitch framing for almost every season he's been in the league. There is little doubt that he cost Robertson big time in that inning. Robertson's command was still bad and that's why he ultimately got burned, but an average job of framing very probably could have gotten Robertson out of that inning. The reason to be frustrated is that Avila is hurt—he's not good when it comes to framing, but he's considerably better than Navarro on a year in, year out basis—and that Navarro hasn't hit as well as hoped.

 

I guess I should ask at this point why you or anyone believes in pitch framing stats or even if they are accurate why its such a big deal? You cannot say with 100% accuracy that another catcher with the same ump or another catcher with a different ump gets those calls because in that moment at that time there was only one guy catching and one guy umpiring and there is no other dimension where that can be changed . So saying Navarro cost him " big time" is pure conjecture.

I go through the time necessary to break some pitches down. You say " cost him big time" . Thanks for your in depth analysis and precise conclusion.

[GreenSox]

I just wanted to add what garbage A** catching he does at times.

 

He cost Robertson at least two strikes.

 

 

Just terrible.

He's terrible.

Avila is a good catcher, but injury prone. Hard to believe, but Hahn seriously downgraded the catching dumping Flowers for these 2.

[Bob Sacamano]

Play Narvaez!

[SI1020]

You have to be kidding me . You honestly think he could've framed that 3rd strike pitch to Cruz or sold it as a strike ? Do you not understand anything about catching ? About momentum ? How the hell do you sell that pitch as a strike ? I don't know why I am bothering but lets try to look at this logically and scientifically since you believe in pitch framing stats .

 

I wish I could do this with .gifs or still frames because it would be so much easier.Let's say we can agree Navarro set up 4 inches off the plate outside on that pitch.

 

This is going to be a very lengthy post and I will be as objective as possible to the point that I will point out my flaws in understanding pitch framing data.

 

I am doing this because catching is a very difficult position to play. It is extremely physically demanding. There is a term for the catchers gear that used to be more commonplace but is hardly heard now. The gear was called "the tools of ignorance" ? Now if you have never thought about that phrase, it's because to be a catcher you must be "ignorant" of the toll it takes on the body squatting inning after inning , getting hit in all parts of your body by foul balls, getting hit by bats, blocking fast, curving , knuckling pitches that you throw your body in front of getting hit in the hands, legs, crotch, getting run over my runners. Now of course catchers are not ignorant of these facts but the phrase is a colorfully descriptive way of saying you have to be either insane or ignorant of the dangers to play catcher. So I am very empathetic to catchers.

 

Now just because some mathematicians say they've discovered a way to grade pitching framing does not mean I automatically believe in it. I prefer to question things . I do not blindly follow the Shepherds of Sabermetrics because it is a fairly new science fraught with flaws like all fairly new sciences, especially the defensive metrics.

 

Now for my flaws. I am no mathematician or scientist. I do not comprehend that level of math. But I am in a position to look at things very logically and without emotion. Now do I believe that some catchers are more graceful and fluid in their abilities then others ? Absolutely, without question. It would be foolish not to .

 

Now let's look at the main pitch in question in depth and logically. Let's say for the sake of argument that you have no preconceived knowledge of Navarro's pitch framing stats so we can look at this without any bias. We will just look at the count on the hitter, where Navarro set up and where the pitch went and try to apply a little logic to it all.

 

Actually I'll look at 2 pitches to Cruz that occurred on the 1-1 count and the 2-2 count to be even more objective about this.

 

The 1-1 pitch to Cruz, Navarro set up on the outside corner glove low and over the plate but on the edge. I notice that as Robertson releases the ball Navarro's glove starts to drift up. I don't know why or if that is common for catchers receiving a curve since a curveball like Robertson throws will start higher and end up lower.Maybe it is actually a flaw with Navarro. Very hard to say not having studied how other catchers catch a curve. I freeze the pitch right before it hits his glove. It looks like a perfect pitch, over the plate but on the very edge and approx at the lower knees. Looked like Navarro caught it fairly well since the pitch ended up pretty much where it was designed to go . I have to question Navarro because his glove starts low ,drifts higher, then has to go back down again. The CSN pitch tracker indicates the ball is low. No part of the ball is touching the lower line of the strike zone but it does indicate it was over the plate on the edge. So I also have to question the pitch tracker. But maybe it is right because I also have to question the camera angle which we always see to the right of the pitcher so we can view both the pitcher pitching and the area around home plate. Joe West (the ump) calls it a ball. So pitch trax says its a ball, the ump says its a ball , my eyes ( with that camera angle mind you) say its a strike. Could it have been called a strike with a different catcher ? A different ump ? Of course the answer is yes. Borderline pitches can go either way but lets remember according to pitch trax and the ump it was a ball .

 

The 2-1 pitch Navarro sets up low and away on the plate . Pitch goes up and in catching a lot of the plate. So Robertson misses his spot badly but it's a fastball that Cruz misses so the count is now 2-2.

 

So now the 2-2 pitch. Navarro sets up again low and away perhaps 3-4 inches off the plate. What does this tell you ? Most likely indicates a pitch designed to be a ball outside the zone to try and get Cruz to fish. Since Cruz is right handed and Navarro is right handed ,catching a ball outside to a right hand hitter means he catches the ball backhanded if it goes where its designed.

 

Again Robertson misses badly. Looks like a fastball since the radar on Comcast says its 93 MPH. It whips in there inside . In the strike zone . Pitch trax had half the ball in the strike zone and half out on the lower edge and the ball definitely over the plate perhaps 3-4 inches on the inner third of the plate. It's called a ball. No surprise there since Robertson missed his intended target badly and Navarro had to sweep his glove from the from the plate outside to the inner third inside. This seems to be where those who say Navarro could have framed it better and myself disagree. Many umps will call a pitch like that a ball. Navarro stayed on his backhand to catch the pitch which might not be the ideal way to catch it but again it missed badly .This is where we apply some logic and a little science.

 

Home plate is 17 inches wide . Set up 3-4 inches outside off the plate , caught the ball 3-4 inches on the inner third. So he had to move his glove basically 17 inches or the whole width of home plate. That might not seem like a lot to some of you but lets apply more science here.

 

Robert Adair, author of The Physics of Baseball and a professor from Yale, said that a pitcher’s fastball takes about 0.45 seconds to arrive in the catcher’s mitt. eFastball reports the typical pitch reaction time (for hitters) for big fields as .424 at 90 MPH. Catchers have a very slightly longer time to react since a hitter is closer to the pitcher.Not sure if they are taking the pitchers stride into the equation which will further cut reaction time but lets says .424 is accurate for a catcher catching a 93 ( not 90) mph pitch. Each baseball weighs between 5- 5.25 ounces and at 93 MPH creates a lot of force. How much ? No idea . But I am pretty sure when you combine how much Navarro had to move his glove in a very short period of time ( basically a blink of an eye) with the force behind the pitch I can logically conclude that even if Navarro had very quick reaction time to seeing where that pitch was headed ,the force behind the pitch and his own momentum of moving his hand from one place to another in the blink of an eye means that particular pitch was not framable.

 

Oh I forgot I brought up how Navarro was set up to catch that pitch backhanded for a reason. Navarro had to move his glove approx 17 inches to catch that pitch. But he stayed on his backhand the whole way which appears very awkward and his glove strayed way off the plate inside after catching it. Perhaps another catcher flips his glove over and catcher it on the fore hand. I think that would take slightly more time. He only had so much time to react to that pitch and the route his glove took to get to it appears efficient and direct if not the most graceful looking. But that will happen when a pitch misses it location by so much and at that speed.

 

I know this won't change very many minds on the subject. I'm not even sure anyone will read it all the way through and actually give it some thought. After all this is a message board where we hardly ever discuss things at length . I am just asking us to question things more and not blindly follow the new age of stats and apply some baseball knowledge, common sense and logic.

 

source: http://fantasybaseballdugout.com/2010/09/0...l-reaction-tim/

Excellent post. Whether one agrees or not it is definitely worth a read and you deserve credit for an in depth analysis when attentions spans get shorter and shorter. I bolded the part I especially agreed with. A few years ago I sent baseball-reference.com a lengthy note expressing my misgivings with sabermetrics, doing my best to give chapter and verse on specific examples and areas of disagreement. This was after noting that they had completely revised their pitching WAR and D WAR stats, pitching WAR at least twice. In reply I was given a terse condescending reply and I learned my lesson. Don't try to debate this as you're dealing with the fervor of fundamental religion. I dislike sabermetrics and especially despise defensive metrics. I will look at OWAR and Pitching WAR but don't give defensive WAR the time of day. As for pitch framing stats I'm not even going there. That being said, as one poster has mentioned Navarro has made me miss Tyler Flowers who ironically was rated to be among the best at framing pitches. In any case, that is way down the list of what I expect and hope for in a catcher. Regarding the pitches in question I am on the fence as to whether Navarro could have done a better job at helping Robertson, who needed all the help he could get in that inning. Again, thanks for a noble attempt at taking the debate to a higher level.

[CaliSoxFanViaSWside]

Excellent post. Whether one agrees or not it is definitely worth a read and you deserve credit for an in depth analysis when attentions spans get shorter and shorter. I bolded the part I especially agreed with. A few years ago I sent baseball-reference.com a lengthy note expressing my misgivings with sabermetrics, doing my best to give chapter and verse on specific examples and areas of disagreement. This was after noting that they had completely revised their pitching WAR and D WAR stats, pitching WAR at least twice. In reply I was given a terse condescending reply and I learned my lesson. Don't try to debate this as you're dealing with the fervor of fundamental religion. I dislike sabermetrics and especially despise defensive metrics. I will look at OWAR and Pitching WAR but don't give defensive WAR the time of day. As for pitch framing stats I'm not even going there. That being said, as one poster has mentioned Navarro has made me miss Tyler Flowers who ironically was rated to be among the best at framing pitches. In any case, that is way down the list of what I expect and hope for in a catcher. Regarding the pitches in question I am on the fence as to whether Navarro could have done a better job at helping Robertson, who needed all the help he could get in that inning. Again, thanks for a noble attempt at taking the debate to a higher level.

 

Thank you for reading it. I spent a lot of time writing it and watching the pitches I mentioned in slo mo frame by frame on my DVR. I know I rub people the wrong way with constant questioning of pitch framing. I could've wrote even more citing others who question it, not just laymen like me but the same kind of guys who came up with it in the 1st place. But then again others rub me the wrong way by constantly referring to pitch framing as if it is the end all be all of what's important in a quality catcher. Even fangraphs had a more recent article about the better framers stats getting worse because umps are wising up.

 

I could have pointed out that the curveball was out of vogue for a while when the split finger pitch came into vogue and part of the reason was because it's just a very difficult pitch to call right.

 

I have been a keen observer of baseball for many years and even before pitch framing became a thing I thought umps were very poor calling pitches strikes that end up in the strike zone but miss their spot. It's just lazy umpiring focusing on where catchers set up more than on the strike zone itself and the height of each batter to establish that zone .

 

Again thank you for your kind words.

[Bob Sacamano]

Thank you for reading it. I spent a lot of time writing it and watching the pitches I mentioned in slo mo frame by frame on my DVR. I know I rub people the wrong way with constant questioning of pitch framing. I could've wrote even more citing others who question it, not just laymen like me but the same kind of guys who came up with it in the 1st place. But then again others rub me the wrong way by constantly referring to pitch framing as if it is the end all be all of what's important in a quality catcher. Even fangraphs had a more recent article about the better framers stats getting worse because umps are wising up.

 

I could have pointed out that the curveball was out of vogue for a while when the split finger pitch came into vogue and part of the reason was because it's just a very difficult pitch to call right.

 

I have been a keen observer of baseball for many years and even before pitch framing became a thing I thought umps were very poor calling pitches strikes that end up in the strike zone but miss their spot. It's just lazy umpiring focusing on where catchers set up more than on the strike zone itself and the height of each batter to establish that zone .

 

Again thank you for your kind words.

 

I definitely agree with just about everything you said. Pitch-framing as a stat is bull.

 

Edit: in reference to your post above.

Edited July 22, 2016 by soxfan2014