Sox Sign Dioner Navarro

[Bob Sacamano]

I assume we'll sign a veteran to a minor league deal.

[Jose Abreu]

But he only caught 37 games last year. Avila caught 43. The concern is they are both coming off limited seasons behind the plate.

Well, Navarro was kinda stuck behind Russell Martin...

[shysocks]

Since I can't or won't be taking statistic classes or whatever math applies here I have to break it down in more simplistic terms which unfortunately many of us here have to do. Just because you trust the new data doesn't mean a damn thing to me. I have to assume too much here. Trust the data, trust the guy interpreting the data, trust pitch f/x , trust his math, trust his baseball knowledge, trust you. Sorry no can do.

All right, I'll lay it out step by step. Keep in mind there is at least one other system, Baseball Prospecus'. Its data is behind a paywall.

 

1. We have pitch F/X data for pitches that were not swung at. I think you are misunderstanding this part: Pitch F/X is what determines the location of each pitch, not the author studying the path of the ball. It’s just data he already has. It is not that much to ask that you trust the pitch F/X system. MLB trusts it enough to use it in the Gameday app. It has shown it can be slightly flawed in judging pitch type and velocity, but for pitch location – which is all we care about here – it is basically unimpeachable. Each of these data points was called either a strike or a ball by the umpire; that’s something we also can’t dispute.

 

2. We have an interpretation of the strike zone. Studying the rulebook strike zone wouldn’t do us much good because the data shows umps do not follow it. So we want a “recognized” strike zone. Judging each catcher’s sample against that should be more valuable than using the rulebook zone, because that’s what players actually experience in games.

 

The explanation for that zone is explained very well here. He basically divided the space above the plate into small segments, took the likelihood of a pitch that hit each segment being called a strike, and found that the area where that number was 50% or more looked like one ellipse for lefty hitters and a different ellipse for righties. Those oval shapes are the recognized strike zones used to craft the leaderboard.

 

So again, we have a dataset of hundreds of thousands of pitches, we know where the pitcher threw them, and we know whether they were called strikes or not. We use that to approximate the true strike zone. This is probably the biggest leap of faith required; as you said, it’s a “judgment.” But it is only a judgment of how the umps actually called games, not how they should have. The "should have" part is just based on this data.

 

3. From there it's simply grouping the data by catcher (“The catcher is simply used as a grouping point. There's no attempt to control for the pitchers, the umpires, the counts, or anything other than which side the hitter stood on.”). Any pitch outside the oval is judged outside the zone. If the ump called it a strike, the catcher got credit. Any pitch inside the oval is judged inside the zone. If the ump called it a ball, the catcher was penalized. Add it all up, compare the percentages to the league average, do some arithmetic, and you have the leaderboard.

 

To me the methodology makes plenty of sense. What is up for grabs is how much credit or blame to assign to the catcher, which the piece goes out of its way to acknowledge. I don’t know the answer, and I’ve already gone out of my way to acknowledge that.

 

But if you accept the premise that how a catcher receives the ball affects how the umpire sees it, then you have to accept that the catcher deserves some share of the credit or blame. And I don’t see how you could deny that premise – that evidence is out there. How many times have we seen a catcher drop a pitch right down the middle and have the ump call it a ball, for example.

[LDF]

It's Flowers and Soto. Just keep that in mind. They were fine as a tandem, but still extremely mediocre.

 

now i have heard everything, we as fan are being trained to accept mediocrity as the normal standard. i wonder why???

 

 

[beautox]

We have a nice offensive platoon situation going now. I understand Flowers "pitch framing" ranking is one of the best but I still think his numbers are inflated simply by catching Chris Sale. He was never able to stop the running game.

Thank you! even Dave Cameron has said on several occasions that pitching framing and the added value to it is flawed because you can't accurately assign value to the catcher or the pitcher for making said pitch.

 

Personally its refreshing to me to have a new catching core and i think it affords them the ability to go with a pretty hard platoon, health and herm willing the catching core should be able to provide above average offense and average defense.

 

Navarro vs LHP .270/.336/.439 - wRC+ 110

Avila vs RHP .251/.358/.423 - wRC+ 116

 

thats for their respective careers.

[ChiliIrishHammock24]

This isn't an exciting move, but I think it's one that makes us better, and costs us absolutely nothing. Not marginally better, but again, at no cost. Free upgrade, if you will.

 

Here is what I posted in the Navarro rumor thread, but I'm sure the platoon situation has been discussed thoroughly by now....

 

"Navarro owns a career 110 wRC+ versus lefties, while Avila has a 116 wRC+ versus righties. Last year Navarro had batting .278 with a 145 wRC+ versus lefties and actually walked 5% more than he struck out. And for his career versus lefties, he has walked 8.5% of the time and only struck out 10.2%.

 

I get that Navarro is a switch hitter, but he appears much better against lefties, and with Avila doing much better against righties, maybe start them according to L/R match-ups.

 

This could lead to a solid split platoon if that is indeed the plan."

[ChiliIrishHammock24]

Also, I decree we call them Navila to make it easier.

[Bigsoxhurt35]

Also missed 6 weeks with a hammy pull.

That's a big hammy pull

[LDF]

Also, I decree we call them Navila to make it easier.

 

i am game.

[Bigsoxhurt35]

I can get behind Nevila! N for Navarro, Ila for Avila and a little evil twist in there.

[BigEdWalsh]

I assume we'll sign a veteran to a minor league deal.

Do we still have Brantly and Kottaras?

 

[Dick Allen]

Navarro will have to be facing some righties or Avila will play 80% of the time.

[BigHurt3515]

Navarro will have to be facing some righties or Avila will play 80% of the time.

 

Well he is a switch hitter so I am sure he will

[Vance Law]

I like that they're at least not falling back on the easy less-than-optimal options with Flowers and Alexei. Avila and Navarro are a good bet to outproduce Flowers/Soto, maybe by a bunch, and for cheaper. Navarro, it would seem, is not making more than $2.5 million. Probably less.

[CaliSoxFanViaSWside]

Thank you! even Dave Cameron has said on several occasions that pitching framing and the added value to it is flawed because you can't accurately assign value to the catcher or the pitcher for making said pitch.

 

Personally its refreshing to me to have a new catching core and i think it affords them the ability to go with a pretty hard platoon, health and herm willing the catching core should be able to provide above average offense and average defense.

 

Navarro vs LHP .270/.336/.439 - wRC+ 110

Avila vs RHP .251/.358/.423 - wRC+ 116

 

thats for their respective careers.

 

And also the problem with pitch framing is now people point to it and say Flowers is a good defensive catcher. His strongest point of value is his rapport with the pitchers and maybe how he calls a game ( debatable). That's it .He's terrible at blocking pitches in the dirt . It's not his fault he's a huge guy and just not nimble or quick enough. Why don't people trust their own eyes ?

[LDF]

And also the problem with pitch framing is now people point to it and say Flowers is a good defensive catcher. His strongest point of value is his rapport with the pitchers and maybe how he calls a game ( debatable). That's it .He's terrible at blocking pitches in the dirt . It's not his fault he's a huge guy and just not nimble or quick enough. Why don't people trust their own eyes ?

 

this is a yr by yr debate and it now comes to an end. flowers has alot of good for what many was saying is his defense. but the sox is changing that, they was some more offense coming from their catching position, at maybe the expense of the defense. ok that is their call. but other positions need to be address more than catching for that offense.

[BlackSox13]

I think the new catching duo is something to be excited about. A healthy Avila is is better defensively than Flowers and Navarro is at least on par with Flowers except Navarro has a better arm. The Sox should be throwing out more base runners this year and the platoon bats of Navarro/Avila should put up more offense than Flowers as well. The catching position needed to be upgraded and has been and it did not cost the Sox prospects or much money which leaves plenty of resources to be used to fill a few gaping holes.

[ChiSox59]

I don't understand what the economics of this deal haven't been announced.

[CaliSoxFanViaSWside]

All right, I'll lay it out step by step. Keep in mind there is at least one other system, Baseball Prospecus'. Its data is behind a paywall.

 

1. We have pitch F/X data for pitches that were not swung at. I think you are misunderstanding this part: Pitch F/X is what determines the location of each pitch, not the author studying the path of the ball. It's just data he already has. It is not that much to ask that you trust the pitch F/X system. MLB trusts it enough to use it in the Gameday app. It has shown it can be slightly flawed in judging pitch type and velocity, but for pitch location – which is all we care about here – it is basically unimpeachable. Each of these data points was called either a strike or a ball by the umpire; that's something we also can't dispute.

 

2. We have an interpretation of the strike zone. Studying the rulebook strike zone wouldn't do us much good because the data shows umps do not follow it. So we want a "recognized" strike zone.

 

To me the methodology makes plenty of sense. What is up for grabs is how much credit or blame to assign to the catcher, which the piece goes out of its way to acknowledge. I don't know the answer, and I've already gone out of my way to acknowledge that.

 

But if you accept the premise that how a catcher receives the ball affects how the umpire sees it, then you have to accept that the catcher deserves some share of the credit or blame. And I don't see how you could deny that premise – that evidence is out there. How many times have we seen a catcher drop a pitch right down the middle and have the ump call it a ball, for example.

 

I appreciate you making the effort and I'll also point out that I make an effort to get used to new stats. I don't say negative things too much any more about sabermetric offensive stats but the defensive ones are still a bit much to handle.

 

I think pitchframing is cited way too often and people do trust the new data and guys like you who spout it for fear of falling behind the times or appearing stupid (ones who trust it without hesitation ,not you) Now too many people think Flowers was good defensively which is absurd because he might (and I say might with great hesitation) get some strikes called that aren't strikes . The data may say its 169 or 38 or somewhere in between but as you acknowledge just because the data has assigned it to the catcher doesn't mean its the catcher who caused the difference

 

As for my issues . I've seen the Gameday app online many times And pitch f/x does follow the flight of the ball unless the graphics used on Gameday are for show.I know it also shows its ultimate destination. Even if the final location of the pitch is basically unimpeachable my issue stills lies with how its determined to be a ball or strike. In order to get a true view of the strike zone one first must see the stance of the hitter . Then to be truly accurate you need a directly overhead view of the plate This will determine if any part of the ball went over the plate. . Then you need a side view . After its determined that the pitch was over the plate , next you see if it was in the batters strike zone . While it was crossing the plate was it between his lower knees and whatever the upper part of the zone is now (varies from ump to ump). If pitch f/x uses all that then I apologize for wasting your time but I'm pretty sure it doesn't. So if I have it right it still takes a person prone to his own biases and judgments about the strike zone to call a ball or strike from what he sees as location from pitch f/x.

 

I do accept that how the catcher catches the ball affects how the ump sees it but also how he sets up and catches the ball as close as possible to where he set up. The example you cited about dropping a pitch right down the middle and it being called a ball , frankly I don't see a lot. What I do see a lot more often is when a catcher sets up outside and the pitch goes inside and the catcher has to move a lot to catch the pitch, that pitch is called a ball when it appears to be a strike much more often. That means the ump is giving the catcher and the pitcher some credit for doing what they tried to do which in my eyes means the pitcher has to be accurate as to where the catcher sets up. I give the catcher almost no credit for crouching still and presenting a target and catching the pitch as quietly as possible ( meaning glove doesn't move very much after he catches the pitch). In other words, an umpire is more consistent and accurate when the pitcher displays those same qualities.

 

Good discussing it with you though. I just don't think even if you do trust it ( which I don't) the significance of how important it is is pretty low. I mean if Flowers was 2nd in HR's or RBI's or in batting average or walks or OBP or slugging or OPS ,OPS+ or wRC it's highly doubtful he would be non tendered. There's a few guys out there whose defensive skills make the a much more valuable guy and Tyler Flowers isn't one of those guys by a longshot and that's the truer crux of the matter.

[Y2Jimmy0]

I don't understand what the economics of this deal haven't been announced.

 

 

The Sox haven't announced the deal yet and probably won't until he passes a physical.

[Jose Abreu]

The Sox haven't announced the deal yet and probably won't until he passes a physical.

If* he passes it... recently more players have been failing them. Still rare, but a possibility.

[Y2Jimmy0]

If* he passes it... recently more players have been failing them. Still rare, but a possibility.

 

 

He'll pass.

[LDF]

I think the new catching duo is something to be excited about. A healthy Avila is is better defensively than Flowers and Navarro is at least on par with Flowers except Navarro has a better arm. The Sox should be throwing out more base runners this year and the platoon bats of Navarro/Avila should put up more offense than Flowers as well. The catching position needed to be upgraded and has been and it did not cost the Sox prospects or much money which leaves plenty of resources to be used to fill a few gaping holes.

 

i agree. no matter how i try to paint a positive picture for flowers, it comes back to his hitting. the team needs to get better and until the system starts producing, these kind of fixes are needed.

[flavum]

1 yr/ 4 mil

[GGajewski18]

1 yr/ 4 mil

 

Good deal. We just paid 6.25 million for our starting catchers that have pretty good splits. I'm happy.