Top 10 catchers

[Rog]

Buster Posey was chosen the #2 catcher by the MLB Network.  In a direct switch of positions from last year, Yadier Molina was chosen #1.  Two-time Executive of the year agreed with "The Shredder," the objective analytic formula that makes MLB's official selection. 

Bill James and host Brian Kinney both chose Buster #1, while former catcher Dave Valle had Buster at #3.  It should be noted that James, the so-called Godfather of Analytics, said it wasn't even close between Buster and the youngest Molina brother.

James may have offered a clue as to why Buster allows so few balls to go to the backstop despite blocking techniques that are on occasion less than ideal.  He cited Buster's "agility" behind the plate.  Kinney, I believe it was, stressed Buster's "athleticism."  It has been mentioned here that Buster's hands, developed as a shortstop, are very soft.

During his time in the majors, Buster has stood clearly above the other catcher candidates, leading in both OBP and SLG.  (It should be noted that Joe Mauer is now considered a first baseman.) 

No ranking was made of him defensively, although he was spoken of favorably, but it was mentioned that there were MANY excellent defensive catchers out there.  My guess would be that Buster ranks near the bottom of the top quartile of catchers defensively, or perhaps near the top of the second quartile.

Buster was also cited for his leadership.  It was mentioned that he caught 121 games last season.  Only one catcher (Molina) has averaged that many games over the past five years. 

He was called an MVP-caliber player, and it was noted that eventually he might follow Mauer to first base.  Given the prowess of Brandon Belt there, I'm thinking third base if Pablo is gone and left field if the Round Mound of Pound is still pounding in San Francisco. 

Because Belt would cover more ground in the outfield, perhaps he would eventually move to left and Buster would play first.  If Pablo Sandoval slows down, it might even be possible Pablo would move to first, opening up third base for Buster.

Barring an injury to Belt this season, it appears Buster is destined for fewer games this season and more on the bench.  Fairly soon, though, the Giants will start transitioning Buster out from behind the plate.  It seems possible that during the transition, Buster might fill in at first, third and in left. 

During his Hall of Fame career, Johnny Bench also played both corner infield positions and all three outfield slots, including two starts in center field!  Bench was primarily a catcher until his two final seasons, during which time he played mostly third base along with a little time at first. Johnny made only two starts behind the plate in his last two campaigns.

It appears Buster is on track to become the best catcher of his generation.  It is possible he might become the best since Bench.  It also appears he might wind up playing behind the plate the lowest percentage of any top catcher. 

His lack of foot speed, accentuated by his horrific ankle injury in 2011, could make him a little iffy at other positions as he ages.  His hands should help him at either of the two corner outfield positions, but it would seem there is a lot of outfield in AT&T for him to wind up in left field there -- even though that would seem the natural place if both Belt and Sandoval stick around.  He has plenty of arm for any of the outfield positions, but speed would be an issue even now.

In the meantime, Buster is the #1 or #2 catcher in the game right now.  As the 31-year-old Molina ages, Buster should become the clear #1 guy.  Bill James says he's already there -- "and not by a little."

[klaiggeb]

Rog--It appears Buster is on track to become the best catcher of his generation. It is possible he might become the best since Bench. It also appears he might wind up playing behind the plate the lowest percentage of any top catcher.

---boly says---

I'm going to reserve judgment on this one until he has caught a total of 5 FULL years in the majors.

But from what I SEE... calling Buster, FROM A DEFENSIVE STANDPOINT ONLY one of th best of his generation is like calling Mike Piazza one of the best of his.

Too many people simply can't look beyond the offense, and that includes analysts and writers.

Valle rating him up there surprises me.

I would have picked a number of catchers in front of Buster.

Molina, obviously, but I think the guy up in Milwaukee is waaaay better as are a couple of others whose names I can't think of at the moment. I'll have to go look them up, but right now, I'm off to Church and I haven't the time.

Defensively, for me, Buster is somewhere in the 8 to 10 range.

boly

[Rog]

Boly -- I'm going to reserve judgment on this one until he has caught a total of 5 FULL years in the majors.

Rog -- Of course. Because he was called up two months into the 2010 season and missed about four months after his horrible 2011 injury, Buster has played only the equivalent of three seasons. Thus far he's on track for the Hall. So was Tim Lincecum after four seasons.

Boly -- But from what I SEE... calling Buster, FROM A DEFENSIVE STANDPOINT ONLY one of th best of his generation is like calling Mike Piazza one of the best of his.

Rog -- Buster certainly isn't the best defensive catcher in the game. I have pegged him in the bottom of the top quartile or the top of the 2nd. Probably around #10, which would put him only five spots above average.

But to compare Buster defensively to Mike Piazza? That seems way off base to me. However, I'm going to change my position on that a bit.

In looking up Piazza's defense, it appears he was far better than he was given credit for. He threw out only 23.2% of runners, while other catchers catching the same pitchers threw out 35.5%. He also made a lot of errors (124 over his career) and twice led the league in passed balls. His 356 wild pitches allowed weren't bad, but the 102 passed balls allowed were high.

So why is he considered above-average? He seems to have caught a darn good game, according to the statistics. His pitchers allowed a 3.80 ERA, while other catchers catching the same pitchers allowed a 4.34 ERA. That half run seems very significant. The same thing with the 25 fewer points of OPS his pitchers allowed with him behind the plate.

Overall, those who most closely evaluate such things believe Piazza was an above-average catcher defensively.

I still think Buster is clearly better. Unlike Piazza, he has been clearly above average in throwing out runners. He has been better at avoiding wild pitches (despite a tough staff to catch), and he has been much better at not allowing passed balls.

As for helping his pitching staff, Buster's catcher's ERA last season was 3.84 compared to the other catchers' 4.39. In 2012, he led 3.50 to 4.05. In 2010, Buster was ahead 3.18 to 3.53. Only in 2011 were the other catchers better, at 3.12 to 3.34. His comparisons have been improving.

Mike helped his staff's ERA more than Buster has, but Buster too has had a very positive impact. Buster's throwing and passed balls been far better, and his wild pitches and

I haven't run a comparison to Yadier Molina (maybe later), and I consider Yadier to be one of the top defensive catchers of all time. But I would be surprised if Buster isn't closer to Yadier than Mike is to Buster.

I'm glad you brought this point up, Boly. Mike appears to have been a lot better than he is usually given credit for. But I think Buster has been clearly the better of the two.

Boly -- Too many people simply can't look beyond the offense, and that includes analysts and writers.

Rog -- That's why you should read some of the guys I read.

Boly -- Valle rating him up there surprises me.

Rog -- Dave was talking all-around, not just defensively.

Boly --I would have picked a number of catchers in front of Buster.

Rog -- Defensively, I think you're right. There are a handful of REALLY good defensive catchers out there. Overall, it's pretty tough to rate Buster lower than 2nd. I thought Yadier was clearly the better of the two last season, but I'll bet Buster is better this year.

Boly -- Molina, obviously, but I think the guy up in Milwaukee is waaaay better as are a couple of others whose names I can't think of at the moment. I'll have to go look them up, but right now, I'm off to Church and I haven't the time.

Rog -- The Cincy catcher is really good, as is the Royals'. He's a marginal backup, but I think former Giant Chris Stewart is special.

Boly -- Defensively, for me, Buster is somewhere in the 8 to 10 range.

Rog -- He is rated a little higher than that, but I'm pretty much with you. I believe he was the consensus #5 in Bill James' annual, but I too would have him just a couple of ticks lower.

But when you're a pretty good defensive catcher to go along with being the best-hitting catcher in the game, you're talking super star. And Buster has thus far been that -- even though Piazza was a better hitter than Buster. I think Mike was the best-hitting catcher of all time. Not bad for a 62nd-round pick.


Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2186/top-10-catchers?page=1#scrollTo=18780#ixzz2sqGwv5B8

[klaiggeb]

Rog---But to compare Buster defensively to Mike Piazza? That seems way off base to me

---boly says---

Rog, I didn't compare them. I used a simile. As in Buster is no more in the top 3 than Piazza was.

Piazza was border line awful. Buster is not. He's just... okay.

You putting him # 10 is close to where I'd put him.

boly

[Rog]

Let's compare the numbers we know about Buster compared to the other Giants catchers from 2010 through 2013. Their innings are about the same (3027 for Buster; 2800 for the others), so let's just compare numbers.



Both Buster and the other Giants catchers have 23 errors. The same number.



Buster has 9 passed balls, while the other catchers have 24. Buster looks outstanding here.



Buster has allowed 88 wild pitches; the other catchers have allowed 144. Buster looks excellent here.



Buster has allowed 97 total pitches to get by him compared to 168 by his teammates. Once again, excellent.



Buster's 216 stolen bases allowed is somewhat less than the other catchers' 247, and he has thrown out slightly more runners, 103 to 99. That gives Buster 32.3% caught stealing to his teammates' 28.6%. League average has been 28%. Buster appears to be above-average here.



I gave Buster's catchers ERA compared to his teammates year by year. Without calculating the total, it would appear Buster's catcher's ERA is about a third of a run below his fellow catchers. Buster appears to be above average.



So if we compare Buster to his teammates, here is how they fare by categories:



Errors -- Average

Passed Balls -- Outstanding

Wild Pitches -- Excellent

Pitches missed -- Excellent

Stolen bases -- Above average

Catcher's ERA -- Above average



When we look at all the areas we can measure, Buster would appear to be between above-average and very good. Let's say he is a bit better than good.



Three points grab my attention:



First, Buster's pretty darn good behind the plate. I'm going to say somewhere between 5th and 10th among the 30 catchers. The numbers might indicated a lower number more than a higher one.



Second, while Buster's ball blocking techniques might need some work, his athleticism, agility and soft hands made that arguably the best area of his catching. Not all fielding looks pretty, but it is the results that count.



Third, a catcher's defense may be easier to measure than the other defensive positions. Buster's numbers paint a pretty accurate picture when he his compared to his fellow catchers. Either they've been pretty horrible, or else he's been pretty good. Sanchez is poor, Whiteside and Molina have been OK, and Stewart and Quiroz have been pretty darn good. I think the evidence is strong that Buster is pretty good.

[Rog]

Let's compare the numbers we know about Buster compared to the other Giants catchers from 2010 through 2013. Their innings are about the same (3027 for Buster; 2800 for the others), so let's just compare numbers.



Both Buster and the other Giants catchers have 23 errors. The same number.



Buster has 9 passed balls, while the other catchers have 24. Buster looks outstanding here.



Buster has allowed 88 wild pitches; the other catchers have allowed 144. Buster looks excellent here.



Buster has allowed 97 total pitches to get by him compared to 168 by his teammates. Once again, excellent.



Buster's 216 stolen bases allowed is somewhat less than the other catchers' 247, and he has thrown out slightly more runners, 103 to 99. That gives Buster 32.3% caught stealing to his teammates' 28.6%. League average has been 28%. Buster appears to be above-average here.



I gave Buster's catchers ERA compared to his teammates year by year. Without calculating the total, it would appear Buster's catcher's ERA is about a third of a run below his fellow catchers. Buster appears to be above average.



So if we compare Buster to his teammates, here is how they fare by categories:



Errors -- Average

Passed Balls -- Outstanding

Wild Pitches -- Excellent

Pitches missed -- Excellent

Stolen bases -- Above average

Catcher's ERA -- Above average



When we look at all the areas we can measure, Buster would appear to be between above-average and very good. Let's say he is a bit better than good.



Three points grab my attention:



First, Buster's pretty darn good behind the plate. I'm going to say somewhere between 5th and 10th among the 30 catchers. The numbers might indicated a lower number more than a higher one.



Second, while Buster's ball blocking techniques might need some work, his athleticism, agility and soft hands made that arguably the best area of his catching. Not all fielding looks pretty, but it is the results that count.



Third, a catcher's defense may be easier to measure than the other defensive positions. Buster's numbers paint a pretty accurate picture when he his compared to his fellow catchers. Either they've been pretty horrible, or else he's been pretty good. Sanchez is poor, Whiteside and Molina have been OK, and Stewart and Quiroz have been pretty darn good. I think the evidence is strong that Buster is pretty good.

[Rog]

Let's compare the numbers we know about Buster compared to the other Giants catchers from 2010 through 2013. Their innings are about the same (3027 for Buster; 2800 for the others), so let's just compare numbers.



Both Buster and the other Giants catchers have 23 errors. The same number.



Buster has 9 passed balls, while the other catchers have 24. Buster looks outstanding here.



Buster has allowed 88 wild pitches; the other catchers have allowed 144. Buster looks excellent here.



Buster has allowed 97 total pitches to get by him compared to 168 by his teammates. Once again, excellent.



Buster's 216 stolen bases allowed is somewhat less than the other catchers' 247, and he has thrown out slightly more runners, 103 to 99. That gives Buster 32.3% caught stealing to his teammates' 28.6%. League average has been 28%. Buster appears to be above-average here.



I gave Buster's catchers ERA compared to his teammates year by year. Without calculating the total, it would appear Buster's catcher's ERA is about a third of a run below his fellow catchers. Buster appears to be above average.



So if we compare Buster to his teammates, here is how they fare by categories:



Errors -- Average

Passed Balls -- Outstanding

Wild Pitches -- Excellent

Pitches missed -- Excellent

Stolen bases -- Above average

Catcher's ERA -- Above average



When we look at all the areas we can measure, Buster would appear to be between above-average and very good. Let's say he is a bit better than good.



Three points grab my attention:



First, Buster's pretty darn good behind the plate. I'm going to say somewhere between 5th and 10th among the 30 catchers. The numbers might indicated a lower number more than a higher one.



Second, while Buster's ball blocking techniques might need some work, his athleticism, agility and soft hands made that arguably the best area of his catching. Not all fielding looks pretty, but it is the results that count.



Third, a catcher's defense may be easier to measure than the other defensive positions. Buster's numbers paint a pretty accurate picture when he his compared to his fellow catchers. Either they've been pretty horrible, or else he's been pretty good. Sanchez is poor, Whiteside and Molina have been OK, and Stewart and Quiroz have been pretty darn good. I think the evidence is strong that Buster is pretty good.

[Rog]

Let's compare the numbers we know about Buster compared to the other Giants catchers from 2010 through 2013. Their innings are about the same (3027 for Buster; 2800 for the others), so let's just compare numbers.







Both Buster and the other Giants catchers have 23 errors. The same number.







Buster has 9 passed balls, while the other catchers have 24. Buster looks outstanding here.







Buster has allowed 88 wild pitches; the other catchers have allowed 144. Buster looks excellent here.







Buster has allowed 97 total pitches to get by him compared to 168 by his teammates. Once again, excellent.







Buster's 216 stolen bases allowed is somewhat less than the other catchers' 247, and he has thrown out slightly more runners, 103 to 99. That gives Buster 32.3% caught stealing to his teammates' 28.6%. League average has been 28%. Buster appears to be above-average here.







I gave Buster's catchers ERA compared to his teammates year by year. Without calculating the total, it would appear Buster's catcher's ERA is about a third of a run below his fellow catchers. Buster appears to be above average.







So if we compare Buster to his teammates, here is how they fare by categories:







Errors -- Average



Passed Balls -- Outstanding



Wild Pitches -- Excellent



Pitches missed -- Excellent



Stolen bases -- Above average



Catcher's ERA -- Above average







When we look at all the areas we can measure, Buster would appear to be between above-average and very good. Let's say he is a bit better than good.







Three points grab my attention:







First, Buster's pretty darn good behind the plate. I'm going to say somewhere between 5th and 10th among the 30 catchers. The numbers might indicated a lower number more than a higher one.







Second, while Buster's ball blocking techniques might need some work, his athleticism, agility and soft hands made that arguably the best area of his catching. Not all fielding looks pretty, but it is the results that count.







Third, a catcher's defense may be easier to measure than the other defensive positions. Buster's numbers paint a pretty accurate picture when he his compared to his fellow catchers. Either they've been pretty horrible, or else he's been pretty good. Sanchez is poor, Whiteside and Molina have been OK, and Stewart and Quiroz have been pretty darn good. I think the evidence is strong that Buster is pretty good.

[klaiggeb]

--boly says---

Rog, I know you'd rather evaluate Posey strictly by numbers. I can't do that. The numbers tell me he's average or above averge, but what I SEE is not above average.

His technique is not polished, and for his 4th+ year in professional baseball, it SHOULD be more polished than it is.

Not perfect. Not great. Just smoother and more polished.

Other than Lincecum, he's blessed by having a staff that mostly, has decent to good control.

Casilla may walk guys, and Affeldt may throw the occasional "scud," but mostly, they're in or around the strike zone.

In addition, as someone pointed out a whillllllllllleeeee back, for a long time, he didn't catch a lot of Tim's games.

Sorry, Rog, but we're going to have to agree to disagree.

#8-10 is the best I can defensively rank Buster.

do I want him gone?


HHHHHHHHHHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEECCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK no!

He can play for me anytime!

A team player who gives me his BEST every time out there.

You can't put a price on that, and his has talent with the bat as well.

boly

[islandboagie]

A few questions for you, Boly.

Were Willie McGee and Julio Franco below average hitters? They had an unorthodox batting stance, should they be judged on their performance or judged on your critique of their mechanics?

[Rog]

Boly -- Rog, I know you'd rather evaluate Posey strictly by numbers. I can't do that. The numbers tell me he's average or above averge, but what I SEE is not above average.

His technique is not polished, and for his 4th+ year in professional baseball, it SHOULD be more polished than it is.

Not perfect. Not great. Just smoother and more polished.

Rog -- I'm not at all saying his technique is polished. I have acknowledged you point that it isn't.

Here is my point: Either Buster is pretty darn good (not great), or the other catchers the Giants have had the past four years (Molina, Whiteside, Stewart, Quiroz and Sanchez) are pretty darn bad -- especially when it comes to not letting pitches get by them.

Either Buster is pretty good, or the other catchers in the league have much tougher pitchers to catch.

Either Buster is pretty good, or he's pretty lucky. And the sample size is getting a little big for that.

My whole point here has been that Buster has done a nice job of overcoming his poor technique with athleticism, agility and soft hands. He may not be doing it the best way, but it is working.





Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2186/top-10-catchers#ixzz2syUdlzJa

[Rog]

Boly -- #8-10 is the best I can defensively rank Buster.

Rog -- I MIGHT be able to get him as high as #5, but you and I pretty much see the same results. To me, it's not that Buster isn't pretty good, but that there are some REALLY good defensive catchers around these days.

I'm still struggling with how Johnny Bench had so many passed balls and wild pitches until 1970, when he really cleaned those up. His best throwing was done early in his career, but it may be that his best overall catching defense came a little later.

As good as Johnny's arm was, I think Yadier Molina's is even better. Johnny threw out 43% of the guys who tried to steal against him. Yadier has been even better at 45%. And the real difference is considerably more than that.

Johnny's 43% came when the league average was 35%. Base stealers weren't as efficient back then, although some of them were very prolific. Yadier's 45% has come in an environment in which only 28% of base stealers have been thrown out.

The base runners in Yadier's generation are thrown out only four-fifths as often as they were when Johnny played. I think Yadier is just an EXCEPTIONAL fielder -- and he has learned to hit. With Buster's being injured in 2011 and having (for him) a so-so year last season, I think it is hard to argue that as good as Buster has been, Yadier hasn't been the best catcher in baseball over the past three seasons.

Back in 2006 when Yadier hit just .216, I can't imagine thinking he might become a Hall of Fame candidate. But he was only 23. Now at 31, it is far from unimaginable. Although he's moving to first base this season, Joe Mauer will make it to the Hall. Buster's off to a good start. I'm guessing one more of the fine crop of catchers might play well enough to eventually get into the Hall of Fame discussion.

Am I wrong here, or are we having something of a Golden Age of catchers?

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2186/top-10-catchers?page=1&scrollTo=18793#ixzz2sybF5GZp

[Rog]

Boagie -- Were Willie McGee and Julio Franco below average hitters? They had an unorthodox batting stance, should they be judged on their performance or judged on your critique of their mechanics?

Rog -- You make an intriguing point here, Boagie, and I appreciate the support of my position. But Boly will tell you that those two guys (and the amazing Stan Musial) were in good position when the pitch was released, despite their very unorthodox stances.

It's similar to the argument I have made for Buster, but a little different.

I guess we are left to wonder how excellent Buster would be in ball blocking if he had good technique. He's pretty darn good at it anyway.

It's like a Jamaal Wilkes jump shot.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2186/top-10-catchers?page=1&scrollTo=18794#ixzz2syguYiSP

[allenreed]

Interesting that with all the talk of great catchers, Pudge Rodriguez doesn't get a mention.

[islandboagie]

Interesting you should mention him, Allen. I consider him a player during the steroid era who never got caught. But a great catcher nonetheless.

[Rog]

I didn't mention Ivan, but believe me, I thought of him during this discussion. Even looked him up at the time. He yielded a lot more passed balls and wild pitches than I would have expected. Sure-fire Hall of Famer though. Played at a high level for a LONG time.

Coming back to Boagie's comment, sometimes players do get things accomplished in unorthodox ways, as he stated. Boly is a coach, so it is natural that he would be strong on fundamentals and attitude. One thing about Buster is that his numbers behind the plate HAVE declined a bit. But the results he gets are still better than most catchers. And of course, there's no question about his attitude.

Pitchers presently throw a wild pitch about every third game. With Buster catching, it's been about every fourth game. Catchers allow a passed ball about every 17 games. Buster has allowed one about very 40. Overall, catchers allow about two pitches to get by them every five games. Buster has allowed a pitch to get by him about twice every seven games.

Buster's technique = bad. Buster's results = good.

[allenreed]

So boag, you just assume Pudge did steroids? Why?

[Rog]

Anyone have ideas on how Johnny Bench went from allowing an above-average number of passed balls and wild pitches through 1969 to allowing a below-average number thereafter? The change was abrupt, so Johnny must have changed something he was doing.

[Rog]

This is rather fascinating. While trying to find out about Johnny Bench and passed balls, I came across a site that listed the catchers with the lowest percentage of passed balls per game in the 20th and 21st centuries. The data was through 2007, and the minimum games caught had to be 800.

The leader as of 2007 was old-timer Buddy Rosar (1939-1951), who had .0300 passed balls per game. The #2 guy was a much more recent catcher, Brad Ausmum, well-known for his defense. Brad was at .0304 per game at that time and wound up his career at .0315. That figure too would have placed Brad at #2 on the list.

So here we are talking about a catcher with poor technique (admittedly more in reference to wild pitches than passed balls), and the player we're discussing (Buster) has actually performed at a historic level with regard to passed balls. Buster hasn't yet caught 800 games; in fact, he's just short of halfway, with 395 games caught. But so far his percentage is .0228 passed balls per game. In other words, the guy who was best as of 2007 had nearly a third more frequent passed balls than Buster has had so far.

The above kind of supports the point that Buster may have poor technique, but he makes up for it with athleticism, agility and soft hands, doesn't it?

I had no idea Buster was doing so well historically when it comes to passed balls, so once again I am indebted to those who questioned his technique and (perhaps) his results.

[Rog]

Can't find much regarding any change that Bench made to help him drop his high totals of passed balls, but ESPN Classic does mention that despite winning the Gold Glove in 1958, Johnny led the league in passed balls with 18. It also mentions that he improved to the point where he didn't allow a single one in 1975.

[islandboagie]

Allen- So boag, you just assume Pudge did steroids? Why?


Boagie- Jose Canseco claimed that he personally injected Pudge with steriods. Not a fan of Canseco, but just about all his claims have turned out true.

[allenreed]

Could be. I hadn't heard that. I don't pay alot of attention to Canseco.

I don't believe Johnny Bench played in 1958.

[Rog]

Allen -- I don't believe Johnny Bench played in 1958.

Rog -- 1968. But you knew that, right?

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2186/top-10-catchers#ixzz2t8dPrCS6

[Rog]

Because it's noticeable part of the game, I think catchers over time have been overrated because they threw well.

An example would probably be Johnny Bench in 1968 (or was that 1958?) and 1969. Would one viewing the whole picture have voted him the Gold Glove in his first and second full seasons?

In 1968, he made 9 errors, committed 18 passed balls and allowed 55 wild pitches. 1969 wasn't much better. He made 7 errors, committed 14 passed balls and allowed 63 wild pitches.

As previously mentioned, in 1970 it was like a switch was turned on, and he made 12 errors but allowed only 9 passed balls and 32 wild pitches.

So why was Johnny chosen for the Glove those two seasons? Three reasons, I'm guessing:

. His hitting made him very high profile.

. His one-handed catching did the same.

. He threw out 47% and 55% of base stealers and picked off 12 and 7 runners.

When I look at Johnny, I see a guy with a great and accurate arm who was still learning his trade in the other areas of catching. It doesn't appear it was because of his prowess with his pitching staff, either. The staff ERA in the year before Johnny was the full-time catcher was 3.05 (2nd in the NL). In 1968, the Year of the Pitcher, it somehow rose to 3.56 (10th). In 1969, it rose to 4.11 (9th).

I'm not questioning that Johnny had a great career behind the plate. He threw out runners with the best of them and after 1969 stopped allowing passed balls and wild pitches. But in his first two full seasons, I can't see why he deserved his first two Gold Gloves. It certainly doesn't appear he deserved them.

Let me ask you this: If a catcher comes in and allows more passed balls and wild pitches, makes more errors and has his pitching staff regress by over a full run per game in two years, does he appear to come CLOSE to being a Gold Glove catcher? I didn't know enough to question it at the time, but it certainly looks shaky now.

[allenreed]

I think most know that offense has alot to do with the GG voting, even though it's not supposed to. See: Bonds, Barry.

[Rog]

Allen -- I think most know that offense has alot to do with the GG voting, even though it's not supposed to. See: Bonds, Barry.

Rog -- You make a good point here. I thought about that. But there is a counter-trend, which is that players tend to win their Gold Glove a year or two sooner than they should -- and then, as you mentioned with Bonds -- win them a year or two too long.

Maybe I'm missing something here, but Bench's first two full seasons don't appear to be CLOSE to Gold Glove caliber (although from then on, they do appear so). I'm not sure how a catcher -- even with Bench's great arm -- becomes a Gold Glover when he makes more errors and allows both more passed balls and wild pitches -- AND sees his team's ERA go up half a run each year.

I'm a big fan of Johnny's, just as I was and am a big fan of Sandy Koufax. But in each case, there are big questions.

The ones mentioned here regarding Bench are less troubling (although perhaps more puzzling) than Koufax's, since they involved only two years and cover only one side of the ball. Koufax's are troubling because while outside of Dodger Stadium he was still the best pitcher in the game, at Dodger Stadium he was the best pitcher EVER in the game -- by a lot. If Koufax was truly that dominant at home and not significantly aided by the park, why wasn't he dominant by nearly as much on the road?

I suppose there are other inconsistencies in logic among top players, but these are the two I'm stumbled into. And I'm not trying to take away from these players' being great. There is no question they were. But questions still remain and I suppose will remain forever.

I wonder if Bench himself would tell us everything came together for him behind the plate after his first two full seasons. After Johnny is gone, there will likely be at least one baseball scholar who stumble into this same situation and have big questions.

With Sandy it is easier to see how he became so dominant at Dodger Stadium. He was a pitcher whose game was coming together beautifully, and he found a way to maximize the pitchers' advantage at Dodger Stadium better than anyone else I know of. The questions here are what specifically about Sandy allowed him to take such advantage of home park -- and why didn't that translate nearly as well to the road? If it had, Sandy would have had the best five-year stretch in history. He's pretty close as it is.

With Johnny, I suspect I'll never know how he turned on the catching light bulb so quickly. And how so many thought he had already turned it on two years prior.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2186/top-10-catchers#ixzz2t9vlWbCp

[donk33]

Feb 12, 2014 15:08:18 GMT -5 Rog said:

Because it's noticeable part of the game, I think catchers over time have been overrated because they threw well.

An example would probably be Johnny Bench in 1968 (or was that 1958?) and 1969. Would one viewing the whole picture have voted him the Gold Glove in his first and second full seasons?

In 1968, he made 9 errors, committed 18 passed balls and allowed 55 wild pitches. 1969 wasn't much better. He made 7 errors, committed 14 passed balls and allowed 63 wild pitches.

As previously mentioned, in 1970 it was like a switch was turned on, and he made 12 errors but allowed only 9 passed balls and 32 wild pitches.

So why was Johnny chosen for the Glove those two seasons? Three reasons, I'm guessing:

. His hitting made him very high profile.

. His one-handed catching did the same.

. He threw out 47% and 55% of base stealers and picked off 12 and 7 runners.

When I look at Johnny, I see a guy with a great and accurate arm who was still learning his trade in the other areas of catching. It doesn't appear it was because of his prowess with his pitching staff, either. The staff ERA in the year before Johnny was the full-time catcher was 3.05 (2nd in the NL). In 1968, the Year of the Pitcher, it somehow rose to 3.56 (10th). In 1969, it rose to 4.11 (9th).

I'm not questioning that Johnny had a great career behind the plate. He threw out runners with the best of them and after 1969 stopped allowing passed balls and wild pitches. But in his first two full seasons, I can't see why he deserved his first two Gold Gloves. It certainly doesn't appear he deserved them.

Let me ask you this: If a catcher comes in and allows more passed balls and wild pitches, makes more errors and has his pitching staff regress by over a full run per game in two years, does he appear to come CLOSE to being a Gold Glove catcher? I didn't know enough to question it at the time, but it certainly looks shaky now.

dk...your making a big to do over some stats without telling the whole story...your talking about one of the youngest full time catchers in baseball...I guy who at the age of 20 caught 154 games and 10 double headers in one season...and you don't think that might have some negative effect on a guy compared to a Posey who was older and needed a day off after catching 3 games in a row.....and the pitching staff changed...and it appeared that the ERA increase was mostly in the pen....and as Bench said in a book...a catcher can pad his stats by calling for high pitches, mostly fast balls, etc....

[donk33]

This comparison of Posey to Bench, Molina etc. continues to have some distortions....Bill James' 2014 book has Posey ranked #7 by the Fielding Bible guys which includes James as one of the twelve judges...James picked Posey as #5...Posey's placing as high as &th was a result of the 12 voters having a big spread of votes. Posey was rated as following...5th (by James), 9th, Not Rated in top 10, 7, 10, 8, 8, 10, NR, 5,9,9....SO 3 HAD HIM 7TH OR BETTER AND THE OTHER 9 HAD HIM (Hit Caps) by mistake....8th or higher...2 didn't have him in the top 10.....so, I would say that Posey being #1 is an over kill because his hitting didn't make up Posey being given a 30% caught stealing % is a little distorted because the Giants pitchers picked off 10 runners while Posey was catching which is included in his thrown out total...in fact he was only 17 cs in 80 attempts....it is apparent that the pitchers, with Posey catching, do a better job of holding runners than with any other catcher....another indication of what the league things of Posey's ability to throw out runners 90 attempts to steal against Posey...Molina had only 52 attempts against him....

Since Rog has the Bill James book and I only copy parts in the book store...why not give a full run down of Posey's stats in comparison to the other catchers in their fielding...Posey is far behind in the stats they give....also, James is predicting a rebound in Posey's hitting even though he was terrible in the last half of the season...maybe Posey's work outs will help...as I suggested during the season...his body couldn't stand the strain of catching every game...unlike Johnny Bench...and I'll tell Lou Brock, Maury Wills, etc. that you said the base runners were stinko in Bench's era....

[Rog]

dk...your making a big to do over some stats without telling the whole story...your talking about one of the youngest full time catchers in baseball...I guy who at the age of 20 caught 154 games and 10 double headers in one season...

Rog -- These are all valid points and have previously been made by you and/or me.

Don -- and you don't think that might have some negative effect on a guy compared to a Posey who was older and needed a day off after catching 3 games in a row.....

Rog -- It certainly would. The game was different back then. Despite the hardships the catchers faced back then, their wild pitches plus passed balls weren't much different than today. Today's catchers are more athletic and better rested, which makes me believe today's pitchers are harder to catch. They throw harder, which would likely contribute to that. Since batters are less contact hitters now, they also seem to throw more balls in the dirt once they get ahead.

Don -- and the pitching staff changed...

Rog -- The pitching staff was pretty close in 1969 to what it was in 1968. The four additions had ERA's of 3.23, 3.98, 4.04 and 2.29, which didn't hurt much. The increase was mostly due to Milt Pappas (5.50 from 3.35), Billy McCool (4.97 from 3.42) and Bill Lee (5.15 from 4.44). There were more changes in 1969, and the high ERA's of Jim Merritt (4.37), Jack Fisher (5.50) Pedro Ramos (5.16)and Al Jackson (5.27) were certainly detrimental. In the case of all but Merritt, it could be attributed to old age. That said, Merritt pitched more innings than the other three combined.

Don -- and it appeared that the ERA increase was mostly in the pen

Rog -- A lot of it was -- although the relievers also didn't throw nearly as many innings as the starters.

In summary, most of the pitchers who hung around pitched worse, and several of the additions didn't pitch well either.

You made some good points here, but I don't think they explain more than a part of the difference. I wasn't saying the increased ERA's were due to Johnny necessarily, but those increases did seem to make it unlikely that he had a POSTIVE effect on the staff.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2186/top-10-catchers#ixzz2tKLz01y7

[donk33]

Feb 14, 2014 15:54:48 GMT -5 Rog said:

dk...your making a big to do over some stats without telling the whole story...your talking about one of the youngest full time catchers in baseball...I guy who at the age of 20 caught 154 games and 10 double headers in one season...

Rog -- These are all valid points and have previously been made by you and/or me.

Don -- and you don't think that might have some negative effect on a guy compared to a Posey who was older and needed a day off after catching 3 games in a row.....

Rog -- It certainly would. The game was different back then. Despite the hardships the catchers faced back then, their wild pitches plus passed balls weren't much different than today. Today's catchers are more athletic and better rested, which makes me believe today's pitchers are harder to catch. They throw harder, which would likely contribute to that. Since batters are less contact hitters now, they also seem to throw more balls in the dirt once they get ahead.

Don -- and the pitching staff changed...

Rog -- The pitching staff was pretty close in 1969 to what it was in 1968. The four additions had ERA's of 3.23, 3.98, 4.04 and 2.29, which didn't hurt much. The increase was mostly due to Milt Pappas (5.50 from 3.35), Billy McCool (4.97 from 3.42) and Bill Lee (5.15 from 4.44). There were more changes in 1969, and the high ERA's of Jim Merritt (4.37), Jack Fisher (5.50) Pedro Ramos (5.16)and Al Jackson (5.27) were certainly detrimental. In the case of all but Merritt, it could be attributed to old age. That said, Merritt pitched more innings than the other three combined.

Don -- and it appeared that the ERA increase was mostly in the pen

Rog -- A lot of it was -- although the relievers also didn't throw nearly as many innings as the starters.

In summary, most of the pitchers who hung around pitched worse, and several of the additions didn't pitch well either.

You made some good points here, but I don't think they explain more than a part of the difference. I wasn't saying the increased ERA's were due to Johnny necessarily, but those increases did seem to make it unlikely that he had a POSTIVE effect on the staff.

dk...Bench didn't throw the ball to the batters, he only threw the ball back to the pitcher... I also think catcher's ERA is highly over rated...it is the pitcher's final responsibility on what pitch is thrown. One of the obvious problems with Posey that I have commented on is that pitchers shake a lot of pitches off that Posey signed for...and this was verified when Bochy said that they have to get Posey and the pitchers on the same page...