Catcher impact

[Touch'EmAll]

Are there any stats showing how good a catcher is at handling the pitching staff?

The catcher gives a sign. Then the pitcher goes with it or shakes it off looking for a different sign. Assume the best catchers in this department know the opposing hitters - their strengths, weaknesses, type of pitches they are good/bad at, location of pitches they are good/bad at. Also, good catchers may know how to "set-up" hitters - preferred first pitches, wasting a pitch, how deep in count to go, etc.

As an Angels fan, frustrated with their overall pitching. Perhaps the catcher, Stassi (and others over the years), could be better in this dept.? Or does the catcher really have minimal impact.

I have no stats to back it up, but my gut feeling is Yogi Berra was very good at this, but how would we know?

[steve B]

Maybe starting with No- Hitters a catcher has?
Carlos Ruiz had 4 for the Phillies, two with Halladay, a combined and one with Hamels

Jason Varitek also had 4, with Nomo, Lowe, Bucholz and Lester.
If I remember it right one was followed by a one hitter with Schilling who said the hit came on the only pitch he shook off.

Lots, including Berra with 3

https://www.mlb.com/news/catchers-wi...ost-no-hitters

What makes it a more difficult comparison, is the differing quality of the pitchers, for example Variteks were generally with decent but newish pitchers who went on to be good but not always great while Ruiz had Halladay for two of them.

Berra and other catchers before the advent of teams having 100% film availability and ways to look at the data to get a better idea of a hitters tendencies are probably more impressive.

[Mike D.]

I'm not aware of any one stat that captures everything a catcher can do, from game calling, general defense, pitch framing, blocking balls in the dirt, etc.

You'll sometimes see "catcher ERA", which is the ERA for all pitchers that throw to that catcher. It can be compared to games that that catcher doesn't catch. Lots of room for random variation there, for sure.

Maybe someday someone can solve the "how do we best value everything catchers do" problem in an all-inclusive way that somehow gets buy-in from the peanut gallery (tip, don't have two versions of it or have it fit into a "What's it good for?" classic song, like WAR).

[Mark17]

So much of it is subjective. I think the best we have, historically, is the Gold Glove award. And of course that can't possibly cover all the intangibles.

[Mike D.]

Originally Posted by Mark17

So much of it is subjective. I think the best we have, historically, is the Gold Glove award. And of course that can't possibly cover all the intangibles.

And especially historically, the Gold Glove award is reputational, or often connected with a big offensive season...so it's more of a "guidepost" than a "statistical measure".

It's also a bit dependent on the rest of the league, like Rookie of the Year. You could have an amazing rookie year and NOT win rookie of the year because someone else had a better year. You can win ROY with a very mediocre season because nobody does better.

If there are three great defensive shortstops in one league, and the 4th best just happens to be in the other league...the first and fourth best defensive shortstops win the GG.

[Casey2296]

I was always impressed with the way Buster Posey handled so many different types of Giants pitchers over the years.

Three no-hitters are another line on Posey’s impressive resume, which includes a Rookie of the Year Award, MVP, three World Series titles, seven All-Star appearances, five Silver Sluggers, a Gold Glove and a batting title. Cain’s perfect game was the first, and thus far only, in the storied history of the Giants franchise

[tschock]

Originally Posted by Mark17

So much of it is subjective. I think the best we have, historically, is the Gold Glove award. And of course that can't possibly cover all the intangibles.

Definitely subjective, but another way to 'measure' might be how they fare in their post catching career. How good are/were they as managers or coaches?

Catchers generally are the best position players that turn into managers. I believe it has a lot to do with much of the 'unmeasurable' things they need to address during the game. Some is instinctive, some is people skills, some may be related to being the only position that sees the entire field (and maybe has a better 'view' as to how the game is unfolding), and I'm sure a bunch of other 'intangibles' as well.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by tschock

Definitely subjective, but another way to 'measure' might be how they fare in their post catching career. How good are/were they as managers or coaches?

Catchers generally are the best position players that turn into managers. I believe it has a lot to do with much of the 'unmeasurable' things they need to address during the game. Some is instinctive, some is people skills, some may be related to being the only position that sees the entire field (and maybe has a better 'view' as to how the game is unfolding), and I'm sure a bunch of other 'intangibles' as well.

Also, being good managers might have an awful lot to do with maybe knowing how to handle pitchers better than anyone else.