February 24, 201610 yr https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverythi...omepage%2Fstory Actually an article from the Washington Post on the reason why the Republicans didn't try to stop Trump (until it was too late)...buried within was a quite interesting section (and comparison) with the concept of pitch framing and why it's already waning in influence (and partially explaining another reason why Tyler Flowers wasn't retained). "In short, over the past year or so catchers who were historically skilled at pitch framing stopped having consistent success at it. What’s puzzling about this is that over the past decade, new data about the location of pitched balls made it easier for teams to use catchers who were excellent pitch framers. So what happened? Sullivan’s hypothesis is that because of all the analysis of this phenomenon, umpires are now cognizant of pitch framing. They responded to the new data by becoming more suspicious of catchers who are really good at it: ...but the unu s ual thing about thi s i s it ’ s related only s omewhat to actual on-field talent. The re s t i s in the hand s of the umpire s , and at s ome point, umpire s were going to catch wind of what wa s ta k ing place. And then they could have a re s pon s e, becau s e umpire s don ’ t want to be manipulated, not intentionally and not for a team ’ s direct gain. So, in other words, analysts noticed a real thing in baseball, analyzed it, and quantified it — but because the umpires care about this stuff as well, they internalized this analysis and changed the way they called the game, thereby obviating the analysis to some degree."
.thumb.jpg.1bfa21502c2c2825cb6fd525bc016063.jpg)
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.