Dangit, my reply quoted the wrong stuff:
Posted by tedwmoore on 3/31/2011 2:46:00 PM (view original):
Yes, I almost amended my answer to include that pitch type is relevant to both catcher defense and an umpire's perception of the strike zone, but I am not certain that either of these changes my opinion, as both are issues of effectiveness. In the pitcher/batter duel, a catcher's ability to handle the pitch, or the ump's perception of its movements through the strikes zone, are both measures/constraints of its effectiveness. Neither, strictly speaking, impact the batter's ability to get wood on the pitch.
Maybe this is way off base, I don't know.
I'll disagree. The effectiveness of the pitch with respect to the hitter ends when it is either hit, or crosses the plate untouched. If catcher Smith can master handling the knuckler, while catcher Jones struggles (i.e. passed balls), then it's not a question of pitch effectiveness. It's a question of catcher effectiveness. Same pitch, possible different result based on the catcher.
This makes sense, different pitches stress a defense differently. Still not convinced.
We might say that a ground ball pitcher who features the sinker might need a better infield defense behind him. This makes the pitch type seem relevant. But having an effective infield defense is always important. Is the pitch type relevant because it results in more chances for the infield defense to prove themselves ineffective? I don't know what my opinion is on this.
So, when we say that the knuckballer requires a more agile catcher, does this make the pitch type relevant, or catcher defense?
I realize that this has moved beyond the initial discussion -- for instance, a pitcher's ground ball tendency is measurable in HBD -- but, you know, whatever.