Old-Time Catcher Arms Topic

pinotfan
Posts: 1828 (0)
Hall of Famer
461 1
Hall of Famer
COMPLETELY UNSCIENTIFIC ANALYSIS

One of the frustrating things in the Sim to me is the ineffectiveness of old-time base stealers.  You just can't use them anywhere near their potential for stealing, their caught stealing percentages are too high.

So, why aren't old-time catchers' arms better?  Just doing a basic search of A+ arms for players who were primarily catchers and had at least 400 PA/162, here's the breakdown of how many there are per 20-year period (I did not allow for multiple occurances of the same player/season, as a quick look revealed there aren't that many):

1885-1900     2
1901-1920     17
1921-1940     29
1941-1960     16
1961-1980     154
1981-2000     92

Expansion undoubtedly had an effect starting in 1961, as did the scales tipping toward pitching resulting in more risks on the basepaths.  Still, looking at the deadball era, if basestealers were caught so often why aren't there more A+ arms?
12/11/2011 10:16 PM
zubinsum
Posts: 1731 (0)
Hall of Famer
72
Hall of Famer

If I recall correctly the SB and CS data is incomplete for old-time players and catchers.  THe WIS stats I think are guestimates in many cases.  I imagine that WIS clustered its guestimates towards the center of the spectrum.

But in general I agree with the idea that old-time catchers should have better arms.  I'd like to add that I believe SBs and CS should be normalized.

12/12/2011 12:36 AM
dahsdebater
Posts: 10041 (0)
Hall of Famer
284 290 18
Pro
I've often wondered the same thing.  As zub said, the data is incomplete.  Nevertheless, I would hope for self-consistent estimates and we certainly do not have that situation.
12/12/2011 2:31 PM
number9hobbs
Posts: 6 (0)
All Star
26 3 1
Prospect
this brings another question..  currently using Cap Anson at C in an OL and my starters are doing worse than in the past..  any correlation?  Does C ERA impact pitching?
12/12/2011 4:56 PM
boogerlips
Posts: 3731 (0)
Hall of Famer
205 45
Hall of Famer
no
12/12/2011 6:45 PM
cwillis802
Posts: 1591 (0)
Hall of Famer
475
Prospect
I'm glad you started this thread pinotfan. I've wondered about that too.  It seems to me that a lot of the old timers were actually slow runners. The hitters also didn't strike out that much. I wonder if the hit-and-run play was used more often back then, especially since fielding wasn't all that good. Since there was little HR power, runners took more risk on the basepaths knowing that the hitter probably could put the bat on the ball and they would safely get to the next base if not stretch it our to two bases or more.  But in taking this risk, perhaps they were thrown out stealing more often, even if the catcher had a mediocre throwing arm.  This is all just a guess on my part, but am wondering if anyone knows the historical strategies of the era and if this could be accurate.

I love using the oldtime hitters, but I always set their SB tendency to zero. I really hate giving up the outs on the basepaths.  I've thought about fielding an entire team of these guys sometime though and putting the hit and run sign to very aggressive just to see what happens. 
12/17/2011 3:03 PM
This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
Show
jfranco77
Posts: 4466 (0)
Hall of Famer
1330 1
Hall of Famer

It's an interesting question... if the collective baserunners from 1885-1900 have a 50% CS rate, then shouldn't there be a ton of A+ arms from that era? 

It was a different game, and a lot of those CS came from botched hit and runs, bad bunts, etc. So maybe a catcher throwing out 50% in that era isn't worthy of the same A+ that someone from 2011 gets. But there should still be a few.

12/19/2011 8:02 AM
patco_1981
Posts: 826 (0)
Hall of Famer
91
Rookie
If an old timer stole 50+ bases a season it seems to me that the manager had confidence in his running abilities. If a guy gets caught almost as much as he steals then a manager wouldn't let him go as often. Even though the stats were incomplete back then logic would dictate that a high SB guy probably didn't get thrown ouy as much as WIS thinks.
12/21/2011 7:34 AM
mixtroy
Posts: 1057 (0)
Hall of Famer
120 3 1 2
Prospect
Posted by jfranco77 on 12/19/2011 8:02:00 AM (view original):

It's an interesting question... if the collective baserunners from 1885-1900 have a 50% CS rate, then shouldn't there be a ton of A+ arms from that era? 

It was a different game, and a lot of those CS came from botched hit and runs, bad bunts, etc. So maybe a catcher throwing out 50% in that era isn't worthy of the same A+ that someone from 2011 gets. But there should still be a few.

That's a DAMN good point!!!!!!
12/21/2011 1:48 PM
mixtroy
Posts: 1057 (0)
Hall of Famer
120 3 1 2
Prospect

SOMEBODY had to be throwing them out.  And if pretty much half of the stolen base attempts (or more) were thrown out, then there MUST have been some good armed catchers.

12/21/2011 1:49 PM
Braziman
Posts: 551 (0)
Hall of Famer
295 9 7 9 50 5 40
Prospect
Posted by patco_1981 on 12/21/2011 7:34:00 AM (view original):
If an old timer stole 50+ bases a season it seems to me that the manager had confidence in his running abilities. If a guy gets caught almost as much as he steals then a manager wouldn't let him go as often. Even though the stats were incomplete back then logic would dictate that a high SB guy probably didn't get thrown ouy as much as WIS thinks.
Perhaps stolen bases in the 19th century were easier because the catcher didn't play as close to the plate back in that era -- see  wwvbbc.tripod.com/theearlygameoddfactsstrangerules.html.

"Typically, a catcher from the late 19th century would stand back some 5 to 10 feet behind the plate and act almost as a goalie and knock the ball down and sometimes take the pitch on the bounce."
12/21/2011 2:41 PM
Old-Time Catcher Arms Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2025 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.