Posted by tecwrg on 9/10/2014 3:37:00 PM (view original):

Posted by damag on 9/10/2014 3:17:00 PM (view original):
A lefthanded infielder would have to have INCREDIBLE footwork, not just quick. Even on the most basic plays, he'd be dancin' all the time.

As for catcher, who becomes a catcher? A kid who is really good at it, and wants to do it. Or a kid who can't do anything else, right? So with all the above reasons and biases in play, you would need a lefthanded kid who INSISTS on playing C and is GREAT at it.

Catching is a specialized position.  You can't just put a kid "who can't do anything else" behind the plate.  He needs (a) the arm to throw accurately to 2B, and (b) the mobility and ability to be able to block pitches in the dirt. 

Plus, you need somebody who wants to do it.  One kids start getting older (I'm talking about 11/12 and older), you'll find than many of them are reluctant to play the position.  I think it's mostly a fear thing.

I'm not sure he meant "can't do anything else" in the way you took it.

I think he meant a kid that wasn't very adept at fielding pop-ups/groundballs or with limited range.   Basically someone who wants to play a position but can't.   A glorified backstop.

Of course, once kids are allowed to lead-off and steal, it's a different game.   Then it becomes a specialized position.

FWIW, catching sucks.   I did it one game just before HS(13-14).   Saturday afternoon in the summer.   Our normal C didn't show and the coach said "Can anyone catch?"  No one raised their hand so I said "Goddammit.  I'll do it."   Moved from SS to C for a day.  One day too long.  You get beat up and worn down.   By the end of the 7 inning game, I didn't even want to swing the bat let alone run the bases if I had the energy to get the ball out of the infield.   Sucks.

No disrespect intended, coach tec, just recounting all the stories I've ever heard about "I was the fat kid" or "I was the slow kid" or "I was the littlest brother." Same reasons some kids become hockey goalies. My main point was that with everything working "against" lefthandedness, the only way you'd ever see a LH catcher in the majors is if he were a lefthanded Johnny Bench. And even Johnny Bench played a few games at first base.

And THEN, if such a player were a great hitter, there'd be pressure today to move him to another position, to "preserve his bat" anyway.

I actually think Mike's original suggestion is most correct, anyone with a catching-quality LH arm is probably asked to try pitching.

Posted by arcticlegend on 9/10/2014 1:10:00 PM (view original):
Personally, I think the anti-lefty bias (at catcher and in the infield) is just an example of baseball sticking with a tradition despite any real reason to support it. The usual justification for avoiding lefty catchers is, as noted above, that they would have trouble the owning out runners when there's a righty in the batters box. But if that were the case, wouldn't righty catchers be at a disadvantage when a lefty is batting? If so, is think teams would steal a lot more when a lefty hitter is up, and that doesn't seem to be the case.

As for infielders, I'm told the problem is that a lefty has to pivot before throwing to first base, and that I costs them a fraction of a second to do that. But it seems to me if there was a talented fielder, he could make up for that delay with quick footwork and hands. I don't think there's any legitimate reason not to allow lefties to play these positions.

Wasn't there a long-ago thread about left-handed second basemen and turning double plays?

Okay, maybe I'm mistaken about lefty infielders.

I did find an interesting article on lefty catchers, though. Apparently the Pirates had one back in 1989, and the Brewers were actually kicking around the idea this season:

http://www.sportsonearth.com/article/44139204/milwaukee-could-use-a-left-handed-catcher-would-be-first-baseball-team-to-do-so-since-1989----why-are-left-handed-catchers-so-rare

Posted by arcticlegend on 9/10/2014 1:10:00 PM (view original):
Personally, I think the anti-lefty bias (at catcher and in the infield) is just an example of baseball sticking with a tradition despite any real reason to support it. The usual justification for avoiding lefty catchers is, as noted above, that they would have trouble the owning out runners when there's a righty in the batters box. But if that were the case, wouldn't righty catchers be at a disadvantage when a lefty is batting? If so, is think teams would steal a lot more when a lefty hitter is up, and that doesn't seem to be the case.

As for infielders, I'm told the problem is that a lefty has to pivot before throwing to first base, and that I costs them a fraction of a second to do that. But it seems to me if there was a talented fielder, he could make up for that delay with quick footwork and hands. I don't think there's any legitimate reason not to allow lefties to play these positions.

Why would you make this statement and then bail on it in less than 4 hours?

Posted by MikeT23 on 9/10/2014 5:24:00 PM (view original):

Posted by arcticlegend on 9/10/2014 1:10:00 PM (view original):
Personally, I think the anti-lefty bias (at catcher and in the infield) is just an example of baseball sticking with a tradition despite any real reason to support it. The usual justification for avoiding lefty catchers is, as noted above, that they would have trouble the owning out runners when there's a righty in the batters box. But if that were the case, wouldn't righty catchers be at a disadvantage when a lefty is batting? If so, is think teams would steal a lot more when a lefty hitter is up, and that doesn't seem to be the case.

As for infielders, I'm told the problem is that a lefty has to pivot before throwing to first base, and that I costs them a fraction of a second to do that. But it seems to me if there was a talented fielder, he could make up for that delay with quick footwork and hands. I don't think there's any legitimate reason not to allow lefties to play these positions.

Why would you make this statement and then bail on it in less than 4 hours?

In all likelihood, because of the surmounting evidence that disproved his original theories?

That's the thing.   If you're going to say "Conventional thinking is bullshit", I'd think you have some theory to explain why.

Another big reason that kids don't become catchers is that catching equipment is EXPENSIVE, meaning that you better be damn sure your kid is going to be catching for a long long time (say, ages 8-16) before you invest in the gear.  Add to that the difficulty (maybe not so bad with the internet) of getting LH catching equipment, and you have a shortage of any catchers, but especially LH catchers.

Posted by toddcommish on 9/10/2014 6:44:00 PM (view original):
Another big reason that kids don't become catchers is that catching equipment is EXPENSIVE, meaning that you better be damn sure your kid is going to be catching for a long long time (say, ages 8-16) before you invest in the gear.  Add to that the difficulty (maybe not so bad with the internet) of getting LH catching equipment, and you have a shortage of any catchers, but especially LH catchers.

Most youth leagues will provide catcher's equipment, albeit 99% of the time they will only provide RH gloves.  There may be a LH glove available to the league, but it will only be provided to a team that specifically requests it.

Most of the time (I assume), a kid will only have his own catchers equipment once he has established himself as a C.

Most youth leagues will provide catcher's equipment, albeit 99% of the time they will only provide RH gloves. There may be a LH glove available to the league, but it will only be provided to a team that specifically requests it.

Bingo! I'm left handed and had an interest in catching but they didn't have a mitt in little league. I think the combination of this and the game's bias has led to an embargo on left handed catching prospects. I agree with the masses. If 90% of the league hit right handed it may be justified but I don't think the numbers are all that out of whack.

I played a little bit of infield in Little League but was too young to notice its difficulties until I got spot starts as an adult in softball leagues. It's virtually impossible to turn a 6-4-3 double play as a 2b with your back completely turned to 1b. I had to play a deeper SS so I could take an angle at the ball which had me moving towards 1b on throws. 3b was the easiest of the 3 but still not a natural fielding position for a southpaw. You have to be an incredibly gifted lefty to play anything other than 1b which many, including myself, are not.

While the throw to 2B with a RH hitter in the box may be slightly affected, a LH catcher trying to throw a guy out at third over a ducking hitter could be problematic. If WIS logic says LH catchers are at a disadvantage throwing out runners stealing 3B, I would probably agree with that.

Think about this: how many catchers do you see today making pick-off throws to 1B over a LH hitter?

It's a different throw.     PIck-off throws aren't thrown over anyone.    It's a snap throw.   Catchers don't stand for them.

But I could see the batter/catcher getting tied up on a LH throw to 3B.  Especially on a swing and a miss.

Posted by MikeT23 on 9/10/2014 5:24:00 PM (view original):

Posted by arcticlegend on 9/10/2014 1:10:00 PM (view original):
Personally, I think the anti-lefty bias (at catcher and in the infield) is just an example of baseball sticking with a tradition despite any real reason to support it. The usual justification for avoiding lefty catchers is, as noted above, that they would have trouble the owning out runners when there's a righty in the batters box. But if that were the case, wouldn't righty catchers be at a disadvantage when a lefty is batting? If so, is think teams would steal a lot more when a lefty hitter is up, and that doesn't seem to be the case.

As for infielders, I'm told the problem is that a lefty has to pivot before throwing to first base, and that I costs them a fraction of a second to do that. But it seems to me if there was a talented fielder, he could make up for that delay with quick footwork and hands. I don't think there's any legitimate reason not to allow lefties to play these positions.

Why would you make this statement and then bail on it in less than 4 hours?

I wasn't taking a strong moral stance; my original statement was just an observation. Several people responded and disagreed, and they seemed to know what they're talking about. I'm certainly not too stubborn to ever change my mind.

Keith Law was asked this on his ESPN chat the other day and his answer was simple: Left-handed catchers become left-handed pitchers.

If you have a 16-yo with the arm strength and accuracy to be a top catcher, and enough understanding of the science/art of pitching to be a top catcher, he's at least going to be worth trying as a pitcher. More likely, he started pitching when he was 12. RH catchers might also try pitching, but LH pitchers are scarce so there's more incentive to try anyone who might succeed. Even if you're a bit below average, teams will keep giving you a shot until you prove you can't do it.  A RH C turned P would not get the same benefit of the doubt. A prospect-level catcher is going to have a strong arm; if he can throw a fastball over the plate, he'll have a pitching role and a much quicker path to the majors without that pesky learning-to-hit crap.

For what it is worth I think it is probably a combination of all the reasons discussed here....

Mostly equipment resources, and again like they said the talent of a Lefty with an accurate arm will most likely be asked to try pitching.. Would you rather pitch or catch??? Easy decision right? and If you do have an arm and are a lefty who can hit, would you rather catch or play a right field or 1b or catcher?

I guess I buy the angle thing, but that seems to me and excuse to move people form catcher