5 takes: The calls Trevino doesn't get

Plus, the best jump you'll see and why 3-2 counts are just different

Today, I thought I’d do another “5 takes” post on the action we’ve seen thus far. The running game has been off the chain, so I’ve picked out a few moments that stand out in that area. I’ll also highlight a hole for the game’s best receiving catcher and the concept of a pre-determined swing.

Let’s jump right in:

1. Trevino and the top rail

Jose Trevino was (by most metrics) 2022’s top framing catcher. Trevino, like most top receivers, picks up most of his extra strikes on pitches down below the zone. To grab those extra strikes, Trevino and others use a one-knee setup that allows them to work a little lower. If you missed it, I covered that approach a few weeks back.

But Trevino wasn’t perfect. Here’s his framing record by area of the zone in 2022, per Baseball Savant. Trevino was above-average for the the percentages shaded in red and below-average for percentages shaded in blue:

The high pitch. Trevino was actually a below-average receiver on pitches thrown above the zone in 2022.

In the one-knee overview, I didn’t get into the details on how exactly the one-knee approach helps present low pitches to the umpire. In a nutshell, it’s all about glove movement. If a catcher’s glove is moving away from the strike zone when he receives a pitch, that pitch will look like it’s moving away from the zone, too. And vice versa: If the glove is moving toward the strike zone, that pitch will look more like a strike.

This is why a glove that is moving low-to-high on a low pitch will get more calls than a glove moving high-to-low. And by lowering a catcher’s arm/glove, the one-knee makes low-to-high movement a more likely outcome.

The one-knee is also sometimes accompanied by a “glove drop,” in which a catcher will set his glove on the ground as the pitcher delivers. By starting with his glove on the ground, the catcher is further guaranteeing that he’ll have to work low-to-high.

The one-knee and the glove drop both focus on the low pitch but don’t work as well with a high fastball. That’s because a glove starting on the ground has to shoot up through the zone to catch that pitch. The momentum of the glove carries it up and away from the zone, which is the opposite of what an umpire would want to see. To receive a high fastball, a glove that starts high and moves back toward the zone is best fit to get more calls.

This low-glove setup choice explains why most of the stronger receiving catchers actually lose strikes (relative to the average catcher) on pitches thrown above the zone. The tradeoff works out fine most of the time, because all breaking pitches, changeups, and some fastballs are meant to be thrown down.

Jose Trevino is very familiar with this tradeoff. He faces it every time he catches Gerrit Cole, who targets his fastball above the belt almost exclusively. (Cole isn’t the only one, of course; the Yankees love to elevate.) Let’s walk through an example of Trevino’s approach to the high fastball in 2022 and what he might be up to right now.

Low-to-high-to-low

This pitch to Mike Yastrzemski on Opening Day is a good example of the incompatibility of Trevino’s setup and Cole’s heater. Trevino starts by flashing Cole a target that is up/away from the hitter. He then does the “glove drop” (second frame) just before the pitch is thrown.

When the pitch is halfway to home plate, Trevino starts to raise his glove to meet it. He does beat the pitch to the spot (below, second frame), which allows him to stop his glove and keep its momentum from carrying it any further away from the zone.

But his effort to pull the pitch back to the zone is too little, too late. His glove had already moved so much in the opposite direction that this last-second yank looks too contrived. Trevino doesn’t get the call.

All of this movement happens incredibly fast. Watch this one in real time:

So what can Trevino do to grab calls along the top rail of the zone? He could ditch the glove drop and start his glove higher on high fastballs. When he flashes a high target to a pitcher like Cole, he could hold it there (several of the best high-ball framers do this).

Trevino would definitely be capable of making this change; in fact, it looks like he’s already attempted a step in the right direction. In the clip below (3rd inning, Tuesday), he drops his glove a tad, but not all the way to the ground:

Trevino got the call on this one - he still works low-to-high-to-low here, but the movement does look quieter. It’s always fun to watch the best work to get even better.

2. This is what Spring Training was for!

With all the attention that catcher pop times are receiving, I’m a little surprised we’re not seeing more on pitcher times to the plate. We have some established big league pitchers who are really slow to the plate (like 1.5 to 1.7 seconds slow), and a catcher’s arm doesn’t matter if it’s paired up with these pitchers.

Mike Clevinger (with his big, slow leg kick) is one example. Because Clevinger isn’t adapting to a runner-friendly environment, the White Sox have put in a few non-delivery-related running game control methods to help him out. These methods were on display in Clevinger’s last start (April 8th), and they didn’t go well:

Catcher-cued pickoff throws

These aren’t a “new” thing, but I think we might see them more often in a pickoff-rationed environment. Here’s how they work:

• The call to throw over to first base likely comes from the dugout.

• The catcher (Yasmani Grandal) gives the pickoff sign to the pitcher and sets up with a (fake) target.

• The runner takes his lead, and the catcher peeks out of the corner of his eye. When the catcher sees a good moment to throw over, he turns his glove over to cue the pitcher.

• The pitcher sees the glove turn over and picks off.

An example:

There’s nothing wrong with this one; it turned out pretty well. But it was the second pickoff attempt in the at-bat, and it came after an earlier, weaker attempt to throw over at McCutchen. With his long limbs, Clevinger’s “normal” pickoff move (like his delivery) is slow.

Clevinger now has burned both pickoff attempts and is a sitting duck. He’s slow to the plate, and he can’t make a good attempt to first if he doesn’t have it pre-set. So, after waiting a pitch, there goes McCutchen…

This is (a) not a great jump for the runner, (b) a runner with above-average, but not flashy speed, and (c) a pitchout, I think. None of that mattered. The pitcher was too slow.

3. A timing play (gone wrong)

The White Sox have tried to put in at least one more play to help a slow Clevinger out: this one came after Oneil Cruz singled and stole second on Clevinger. The White Sox, thinking that Cruz might still be a threat at second base, set up a timing play for Clevinger and his shortstop (Tim Anderson). You can tell this was a pre-set play, rather than a spontaneous pickoff attempt, because Clevinger isn’t looking when Anderson starts breaking toward second. Here’s how it went:

This angle demonstrates how hard the play is to execute. Clevinger makes a blind turn and throws to a moving target (Anderson). Results like this one aren’t uncommon.

This is a play that might’ve gotten a dedicated half-hour of practice time in Spring Trainings of old, but there is now a clear need for more repetition. Because if pitchers like Clevinger aren’t going to ditch their big leg kicks, they’re going to need to be really good at these other tools.

4. The greatest jump of all time

There’s been some buzz around the momentum/vaulted lead, which is essentially the base-stealing application of the short primary lead /bigger secondary lead concept that I raised in a prior post. It seems like exactly the type of thing that MLB wanted to encourage with the new rules - a “backyard” style of play¹.

As the “advance scout” in the room, I’m biased - but I think the additional attention paid to leads and jumps is fun. While Statcast-y measurables like sprint speed are sometimes presented as if they can reduce stolen bases down to an equation, the quality of a runner’s jump has yet to be quantified.

The other day, I caught the best jump I’ve ever seen. No momentum lead needed here:

I cut this clip when the pitcher (Adrián Martínez) starts toward the plate. At that point, Myles Straw is at least halfway to second base. Martínez telegraphed his intention to go to the plate with a head nod pattern. Straw must have picked up on this sequence and guessed that Martínez was set on going to the plate rather than throwing over. Straw could be a 90th percentile runner or a 30th percentile runner and it wouldn’t have mattered here.

With the time and resources big league staffs have to pick through video for these types of patterns, predictable sequences like this one can no longer be overlooked in young pitchers. Pitchers like Martínez will have to shake these hitches out before making a major league transition. The incentives in place for runners are that much bigger than they used to be.

5. 3-2 swingers

At an Angels/Dodgers exhibition a few weeks ago, Sam Blum tweeted out this video of Taylor Ward’s auto-take on a 3-2 count:

I like this because I don’t know that I’ve ever seen an auto-take from a hitter in a 3-2 count. It’s actually a lot more common to see the opposite: a 3-2 “pre-determined” swinger. Why is that? Let’s have Justin Turner weigh in:

“That’s a conversation I have a lot around the cage,” Turner added. “You see guys who are 0-2 and then they battle and fight and they spit on some tough pitches and work their way up to 3-2. And then because the count flips to 3-2, the hitter thinks it’s back in their favor and they have that let down. And now they think, ‘Oh, it’s 3-2. They’ve gotta throw a strike.’ But if you go and look at the numbers, the strike percentage on 3-2 is really low. So controlling that mindset is important.”

Turner and Ward seem to agree here. The numbers don’t back up an aggressive 3-2 approach from the hitting side. Turner, in highlighting the mental shift that hitters experience, suggests that how you got there is important, too.

Curious who the league’s 3-2 chasers might be? Here are a few from the past few years:

You’ll notice that these sample sizes are pretty small. 3-2 counts don’t happen that often, and I restricted only to fastballs (breaking balls have different base rates for chase swings). So, you might be wondering if we can really categorize a hitter as “aggressive” or “passive” based on 25-30 pitches. I share your concern.

Commenter pb asked a similar question last week within the context of hitter preferences toward first-pitch curveballs. Does Christian Vázquez’s 0 swings on 22 first-pitch in-zone curveballs really mean we can drop one in without fear of an ambush swing?

I’d respond with two thoughts. First, instead of using “raw” rates, we could try our best to model/control for context in each of these situations. For example, a 3-2 fastball or an 0-0 curveball chased two feet outside the zone probably says more than one chased an inch off the plate.

But even after controlling for context, we’re still only looking at 25-30 pitches. Any conclusion we draw will probably be hand-wavy at best. On the extreme ends (the Votto’s and Jose Ramírez’s), there’s probably something there. In the middle, who knows. Welcome to the job of the advance scout.

To close, here’s my favorite 3-2 chase swing of the year to date. Anthony Rizzo on a 96 mph Gregory Soto fastball last week:

Pre-determined swing? You decide.

That’s all for now. Have a great week!

1. The momentum lead, with its timed shuffle steps, fits the pitch clock well. Pitchers can counter it; varying timing and peeks to first base can work to slow it down.