Posted by oriolemagic on 8/3/2010 3:44:00 PM (view original):
that thinking is flawed.  PC does not affect how often a pitcher throws a bad pitch.  It i a modifier on the overall outcome, that is it.

No, it's a modifier on a pitcher's Pitch ratings - again, at least according to CS.

Everything is "a modifier on the overall outcome". That's a non-answer, just like saying "it affects OAV" is a non-answer. How it affects the overall outcome is the issue, because that's where you can get an edge on the people who just think "higher is better" or "it's a modifier on the overall outcome."

how is higher not better...?

I think you're missing the point...

Posted by antonsirius on 8/3/2010 3:31:00 PM (view original):

Posted by saintonan on 8/3/2010 1:31:00 PM (view original):
It sounds like you're mainly disagreeing with the magnitude of influence, and I don't really have enough data to contest the point. If the rule of thumb is true that I've seen tossed around in previous threads where 10 points of PC results in a variance of 0.1 staff ERA, then the influence would be more than you're saying, but it still may not add up to an entire new pitch.

I think the main point is that as a variable in the equation, it's limited by the skills of the pitcher. An elite pitcher isn't going to get much benefit out of a catcher with great PC, but that fringy 5th starter could see a big benefit.

Disagree entirely, the benefit is there whether the pitcher is good or bad. You can make arguements that it would have a greater effect on better pitchers.
Basically the choice is do i want to take a lesser bat for a skill that effects every one of the opponents ABs,or do i want to take a better bat and hope that he hits in his 3-5 PA to make up the difference? To me its a no brainer.

It's been a few weeks since the last thread like this.  Is there some kind of alarm that goes off triggering the creation of these?

Posted by Crump123 on 8/3/2010 5:51:00 PM (view original):

Posted by antonsirius on 8/3/2010 3:31:00 PM (view original):

Posted by saintonan on 8/3/2010 1:31:00 PM (view original):
It sounds like you're mainly disagreeing with the magnitude of influence, and I don't really have enough data to contest the point. If the rule of thumb is true that I've seen tossed around in previous threads where 10 points of PC results in a variance of 0.1 staff ERA, then the influence would be more than you're saying, but it still may not add up to an entire new pitch.

I think the main point is that as a variable in the equation, it's limited by the skills of the pitcher. An elite pitcher isn't going to get much benefit out of a catcher with great PC, but that fringy 5th starter could see a big benefit.

Disagree entirely, the benefit is there whether the pitcher is good or bad. You can make arguements that it would have a greater effect on better pitchers.
Basically the choice is do i want to take a lesser bat for a skill that effects every one of the opponents ABs,or do i want to take a better bat and hope that he hits in his 3-5 PA to make up the difference? To me its a no brainer.

So then, make the argument. Don't just say it exists.

Posted by antonsirius on 8/3/2010 4:37:00 PM (view original):

Posted by oriolemagic on 8/3/2010 3:44:00 PM (view original):
that thinking is flawed.  PC does not affect how often a pitcher throws a bad pitch.  It i a modifier on the overall outcome, that is it.

No, it's a modifier on a pitcher's Pitch ratings - again, at least according to CS.

Everything is "a modifier on the overall outcome". That's a non-answer, just like saying "it affects OAV" is a non-answer. How it affects the overall outcome is the issue, because that's where you can get an edge on the people who just think "higher is better" or "it's a modifier on the overall outcome."

I dont think I am missing the point at all.  You made the argument that how it affects the outcome is how you can get an advantage on people who believe "higher is better"...  Well I am one of those people who believe a higher pitch calling is better and until you tell me how higher isn't always better I will believe that.

Not going to sacrafice other ratings to get an increase of 1 or 2 on PC, but if its a difference between a guy who is a good hiter with a 30 pitch calling and a guy who is an adequate hitter with a 70 pitch calling I am starting the adequate hitter at catcher every single game.

Posted by overeasy on 8/3/2010 5:57:00 PM (view original):
It's been a few weeks since the last thread like this.  Is there some kind of alarm that goes off triggering the creation of these?

Yes.  It's similar to the alarm that tells us to start a thread complaining about injuries, but not like the alarm that tells us to start a thread asking if a particular player is any good.

He said you missed the point because you obviously did.

Its not that he is saying higher isn't better the point is that you need to know why. Thats why I started this post.

For instance if it improves your pitchers control and you already have a staff where everyone is +90 control how important or benificial is it to you to sacrafice a bat for a high PC? Or if it impacts splits, you might want to match up the pitcher with great everything except splits with the great PC catcher. Or if it adds to grounball frequency PC is probably more important in bandbox ballparks like Coors than in places like Burlington.

Higher is better, but the point is how/why.

Posted by antonsirius on 8/3/2010 4:37:00 PM (view original):

Posted by oriolemagic on 8/3/2010 3:44:00 PM (view original):
that thinking is flawed.  PC does not affect how often a pitcher throws a bad pitch.  It i a modifier on the overall outcome, that is it.

No, it's a modifier on a pitcher's Pitch ratings - again, at least according to CS.

Everything is "a modifier on the overall outcome". That's a non-answer, just like saying "it affects OAV" is a non-answer. How it affects the overall outcome is the issue, because that's where you can get an edge on the people who just think "higher is better" or "it's a modifier on the overall outcome."

I've noticed the CS/Site Staff are experts at the non-answer.

Posted by tmantom3285 on 8/4/2010 3:34:00 PM (view original):
He said you missed the point because you obviously did.

Its not that he is saying higher isn't better the point is that you need to know why. Thats why I started this post.

For instance if it improves your pitchers control and you already have a staff where everyone is +90 control how important or benificial is it to you to sacrafice a bat for a high PC? Or if it impacts splits, you might want to match up the pitcher with great everything except splits with the great PC catcher. Or if it adds to grounball frequency PC is probably more important in bandbox ballparks like Coors than in places like Burlington.

Higher is better, but the point is how/why.

Higher is better because its a modifier on everything, not one area.  At least thats what I am going with ;)