The Catcher Question

Buck Ewing's Hall of Fame plaque

Buck Ewing’s Hall of Fame plaque

Recently somebody asked me who I thought were the greatest catchers ever. I made the appropriate reply, “Got me.” I think that rating catchers is the hardest rating job in baseball (well, maybe pitchers). The position is so different and so many factors that don’t weigh on other positions come into play that I don’t think any of us have yet come up with a definitive set of statistical information to answer that simple question.

There are a lot of reasons this is true. Let me give you one quick example: Buck Ewing. How good was he? It is evident from the information we have that he was a great, great player. But he was a great, great player in a game that was different from the modern game. Ewing’s career spans the 1880s and 1890s and for almost all the 1880s and the first part of the 1890s pitchers were restricted on how they could throw, and however they threw, they didn’t do it from a mound 60″6′ away from a home plate that was shaped differently than the modern one. Also, Ewing is a catcher. And that really does matter. “The tools of ignorance” are still evolving today and in the 1880s were in their infant stage. His glove might have kept his hand warm in winter, but wasn’t going to do much else. There was some padding, but not much. According to SABR, the catcher’s mask was an Ivy League invention of the mid 1870s and was essentially an adaption of the fencing mask. The chest protector comes in the early 1880s and is sometimes credited to Deacon White (again according to SABR). Flimsy is the operative word here. So how good was Buck Ewing at doing his fielding job? Well, the numbers show him not bad for 1880, but simply lousy for today. And part of that has to do with the equipment he’s using. And that’s a major problem with comparing catchers. The equipment today is just better.

We also have to deal with a factor of American history: segregation. By general consensus the best Negro League catchers were (alphabetically) Josh Gibson, Biz Mackey, and Louis Santop. How good were they? Again, “Got me.” I have some records available, but they are spotty and almost all of them are hitting, not fielding records. At the current stage of our knowledge we can determine that the Negro League catchers were good, but exactly how good is still a question.

And for course for catchers, fielding matters. Most people who saw both Ted Williams and Carl Yastrzemski play will tell you that Yaz was the better fielder. And nobody cares. If you hit like Williams no one cares if you can catch, they’ll find a place to play you (Hello, Harmon Killebrew). Greg Maddux was a superior fielding pitcher and no one ever said that about Randy Johnson. Why? Because deep down inside no one cared. Maddux was there to pitch and if he could field well then that was gravy. Johnson had less gravy but did his main job more or less as well and that’s what mattered. It doesn’t work that way with catchers (and shortstops). You have to be able to field your position and with all the work that SABR and Bill James and the various stat guys have done, fielding stats are still a work in progress, and catching stats are less far along than other positions (probably because there are so many more to consider).

Until these problems are solved answering the “greatest catcher” question is at best a crap shoot, although by now we can call it a more “educated” crap shoot than it used to be when I was a kid. I am comfortable in saying that almost all the “greatest” catchers played since World War II (with possible exceptions like Ewing, Gabby Hartnett, and the 3 Negro Leaguers I mentioned above). Beyond that I’m shooting craps with everyone else.


Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

5 Responses to “The Catcher Question”

  1. glen715 Says:

    This was a very enjoyable, informative, and well-written article, V! Points well taken about the fielding of pitchers and guys like Ted Williams and Harmon Killebrew. And you’re right— NO ONE could field the Green Monster like Yaz—- it seemed like he knew exacly where the ball was going to go after it ricocheted off it!

    However, I winced at one line— “According to SABR, the catcher’s mask was an Ivy League invention of the mid 1870s and was essentially an adaption of the fencing mask.” YIKES! Don’t bring up FENCING! That damned New Paltz State Fencing team cost me of any chance of making the New Paltz State Hawks baseball team in the spring of 1984! I could barely hit a ball while batting during the tryouts for the baseball team in 1984!

    Now that I’ve got you curious as to WHY I couldn’t hit the ball during baseball tryouts because the fencing team was holding a fencing match at the same time ( that &%#* fencing team!), I think I’ll write a post on my blog about what happened that day 32 years ago. I haven’t written a post in quite a while, V, and your bringing up fencing gave me an idea for a post!!! You’ll get notification in your e-mail that I’ve finished writing it once I’ve finished writing it, V!


  2. Miller Says:

    This is a great, great post. It’s honest, and in my opinion, accurate. I’ve recently re-looked very closely at my personal catcher rankings. Two weeks ago I had Bench, Carter, I-Rod, and then Ewing. Today it’s Ewing first, followed by the other three. I wasn’t confident in my answer then, and I’m not confident in my answer now. To add to your concerns, let’s talk pitch framing. Just because we only started researching it deeply in the last five or so years doesn’t mean it hasn’t always been a thing. But how much extra credit should Buck Ewing get for his pitch framing? I have absolutely no clue.

    I feel very confident that Honus Wagner is the best shortstop ever. I feel very confident that Mike Schmidt is the best third baseman ever. And I feel very confident that Babe Ruth is the best right fielder ever. As for catchers, maybe it could be seven or eight different guys.

    Thanks for this post!

  3. wkkortas Says:

    I think you have hit on something with the notion of catchers and evolution, because it is a position which seems to be constantly in flux–I mean, first base has been a primarily offensive position since the ascension of Ruth, and shortstop has always been primarily a glove-first position. What you need out of a catcher seems to change with how the game is being played–in the 50’s, when you could lead the league with 20 steals, how well your catcher threw wasn’t that much of an issue, but when you had guys stealing all those bases in the 70s, it became an issue. Even now, with the discussion of framing (which my gut tells me is seriously over-valued) the position is still changing, especially in terms of your backup catcher–who has a bat-first backup catcher these days? The aspects of what a team looks for in a catcher seems to be dragged around by how the game is being played at a particular junction in its history, and I can’t think of another spot among position players where that is truly the case.

  4. 2016 Update, Catcher | the Hall of Miller and Eric Says:

    […] of the HoME, verdun2, recently wrote about how difficult it is to evaluate catchers. We think we do a pretty good job here at the HoME, but we completely agree with verdun2 that […]

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: