Are HOF Catchers worth the money?

[RedSoxJack]

I have had a long internal debate on the answer to this question, and finally want to bring it to the forum.

In my franchise which I have been playing since OOTP 16, I have been lucky enough to develop some stellar catchers. One is already in the HOF, another's career is near it's end but he'll be a HOFer as well, and the third is going into his second arbitration year but is already looking like a HOF candidate as well. He puts up stellar numbers (career .307/.380/.553, 132 wRC+, 5.7 WAR/season) and he is a solid defender (1.152 EFF, 97/100 catcher ability, though he has a weak arm).

This is a guy who will make the HOF if he stays healthy and keeps production up for long enough. At only 26, he could be a cornerstone for my franchise. Trouble is, he, along with many other 5-star catchers, has only started as many as 129 games in a season, and averages 126. Never had a long-term injury. While he is far and away the best catcher in the league, I have trouble paying someone $35M+ a year to play on 78% of the games.

I ended up trading away both of my previous HOF catchers that I developed, and I once even signed the #1 catcher to 4 year/$210M contract only to have severe buyers remorse and trade him at the deadline of his first year.

What do you do with your star catchers? Do you keep them, trade them, let them walk? Are they worth the investment or is it more worthy to just get a stud defensive catcher to hit at the bottom of the order?

Note: I am still playing OOTP 22, meaning the new defensive changes to the game don't apply (yet).

[Throne_Taker93]

I've never had that good of a catcher in any of my franchises, in OOTP. I do tend to agree with you though however, I'm skeptical of paying catchers big money for the exact reason you stated. The only thing I care about is their defense, their throwing arm, and their leadership abilities. I like my catchers to also be leaders just like in real life. Have you ever thought about possibly DHing your catcher on the days that they don't catch? Maybe that doesn't replenish their energy I don't know, just a thought.

[RedSoxJack]

Not sure if they can DH, I haven't tried that out either. I'm assuming they would not rest as quickly as if they just sat. Unfortunately I have a killer DH currently who I don't want to bench either.

[MathBandit]

Originally Posted by RedSoxJack

While he is far and away the best catcher in the league, I have trouble paying someone $35M+ a year to play on 78% of the games.

I much do you pay stud SP workhorses who only pitch ~14% of the team's innings?

[andyhdz]

Originally Posted by RedSoxJack

I have had a long internal debate on the answer to this question, and finally want to bring it to the forum.

In my franchise which I have been playing since OOTP 16, I have been lucky enough to develop some stellar catchers. One is already in the HOF, another's career is near it's end but he'll be a HOFer as well, and the third is going into his second arbitration year but is already looking like a HOF candidate as well. He puts up stellar numbers (career .307/.380/.553, 132 wRC+, 5.7 WAR/season) and he is a solid defender (1.152 EFF, 97/100 catcher ability, though he has a weak arm).

This is a guy who will make the HOF if he stays healthy and keeps production up for long enough. At only 26, he could be a cornerstone for my franchise. Trouble is, he, along with many other 5-star catchers, has only started as many as 129 games in a season, and averages 126. Never had a long-term injury. While he is far and away the best catcher in the league, I have trouble paying someone $35M+ a year to play on 78% of the games.

I ended up trading away both of my previous HOF catchers that I developed, and I once even signed the #1 catcher to 4 year/$210M contract only to have severe buyers remorse and trade him at the deadline of his first year.

What do you do with your star catchers? Do you keep them, trade them, let them walk? Are they worth the investment or is it more worthy to just get a stud defensive catcher to hit at the bottom of the order?

Note: I am still playing OOTP 22, meaning the new defensive changes to the game don't apply (yet).

Catcher's degrade a lot faster so any over their 30s I'm very leery of. I think this game gets it right

[JerseyPirate]

Never, ever sign a catcher to a long term deal past his age 32 season. 95% of them go downhill after that season.

When I have a stud 4+ star catcher, I try to lock him up in his 1st arbitration year in his mid 20's and tack on 3-5 years post-arbitration and then I let him go in FA. That way I get his best 10 years.

[JerseyPirate]

Never, ever sign a catcher to a long term deal past his age 32 season. 95% of them go downhill after that season.

When I have a stud 4+ star catcher, I try to lock him up in his 1st arbitration year in his mid 20's and tack on 3-5 years post-arbitration and then I let him go in FA. That way I get his best 10 years.

[sloanrobe]

Is there any way to increase your catcher's ability? How do you end up with a catcher at 97?

[MikeS369]

You were able to trade a 52.5 million dollar a year player?

[sabin357]

Originally Posted by sloanrobe

Is there any way to increase your catcher's ability? How do you end up with a catcher at 97?

If you play on a 1-100 scale instead of 20-80, it's not impossible. In fact, it can get up to around 255/200 skill level potentially since the "max" rating is not actually the max rating. You can see this by going into the editor in commissioner mode.

I play 1/100 with "show above 100" active on my current save. It's a bit different, but I'm enjoying it.

[sloanrobe]

But how does their ability actually increase? By just playing games and performing well?

[brotherblues]

Originally Posted by sloanrobe

But how does their ability actually increase? By just playing games and performing well?

In the last few versions I haven't seen it really move. Basically a guy's catcher ability the moment he's created tells you what he'll be the rest of his career, with little to no change. It's less affected by age too, from what I recall. It eventually collapses just like everything else, just takes longer.

[Biggio509]

Originally Posted by brotherblues

In the last few versions I haven't seen it really move. Basically a guy's catcher ability the moment he's created tells you what he'll be the rest of his career, with little to no change. It's less affected by age too, from what I recall. It eventually collapses just like everything else, just takes longer.

Yeah it is like the basic fielding ratings for everyone. A player can get better at the positional rating but catcher ability, arm, IF/OF range, IF/OF error, IF/OF Arm, and turn DP don't seem to change in anyway you can see until the player declines. The game never put potential on any of this, it is just what it is.

That maybe realistic. This is the type of stuff you learn well before the minors. Although I would like to see range decline more slowly and have a probability of increase, the error and maybe arm are pretty much what they will be by the time a guy is in the majors. I think it is rare someone starts off a bad fielder and becomes a good one. I can't think of any examples. I can see a guy might get slightly quicker or less quick over time affecting range or a OF getting body comp right increases movement but I am not sure how much more you can work on glove work and arm by the time a player is in the minors.

I think the one counter example is Pete Rose who was scouted as not being able to field, hit, or run. In the minors he had a high work ethic and learned a lot. So maybe those ratings are fixed for everyone at the point of signing a contract.

[Pelican]

I agree with the thought that catchers over 30 are not worth long-term contracts, and thus would be prime trade bait. There are two exceptions to this approach. The first is Carlton “Pudge” Fisk, who against all odds was a top catcher into his forties. The second is related, and that is the DH option. If you have a DH in your league, that presents a way to “rest” a veteran catcher from grueling work behind the plate. Not sure, but I suspect that the game engine assigns less fatigue and injury risk, when a catcher is at DH. If not, if should.

[Brad K]

If you sign a HOF player from free agency at best he's worth all the money you pay him. Same thing if he wants to go to free agency and you sign him late in his existing contract.

[NoOne]

i'm not a fan of paying or overpaying for a "good bat relative to position" ... i will pay for good bats, though.

the difference between top-end offense vs avg is a much smaller gap with some positions... offense there is a luxury and expensive. leave that to large budget teams.

You will more likely accrue more runs scored with respectable or better defense by investing cash elsewhere. payroll is a ever-changing context, so there may be times when you can fit it in without any opportunity costs. These are great times to invest in an expensive ss/c etc.

i don't like war, but the concept conveys the right message -- i don't want to pay 10-20M for 1 war difference.... unless i already have a young cheap team filled out and term and money of contract fits.

spend money efficiently and get better results guaranteed. spend like a drunken sailor when there are no opportunity costs.

[LisaLarose]

I want to know whether HOF Catchers worth the money and I am glad I found my answer over here. Thanks all for the suggestions. I also play OOTP 22 and that is why I came here to find out my answer. I am curious to know about this because I have taken a loan and Fit My Money helped me a lot by giving me all the information I need to take a loan from a bank.

[Pelican]

One other thought is that, while catcher is a prime defensive position, and in that sense HOF hitting is a bonus, the reality is that even a durable catcher in his prime will max out at 125-140 games. Unless you have DH and want to slot him there, that’s a hugely expensive star who sits for 15-25 games a year. No other position player with those skills would miss so many games. If he needs to rest for 10-20% of the games, shouldn’t the salary be 10-20% less than other position players? Plus catchers are more likely to get injured, and to miss games. Seems like there should be a discount for that.

[BarneyRubble]

Originally Posted by Pelican

One other thought is that, while catcher is a prime defensive position, and in that sense HOF hitting is a bonus, the reality is that even a durable catcher in his prime will max out at 125-140 games. Unless you have DH and want to slot him there, that’s a hugely expensive star who sits for 15-25 games a year. No other position player with those skills would miss so many games. If he needs to rest for 10-20% of the games, shouldn’t the salary be 10-20% less than other position players? Plus catchers are more likely to get injured, and to miss games. Seems like there should be a discount for that.

This is reasonable thinking. However, what other player on the team is involved in EVERY single play, not just balls in play, but EVERY pitch. Other position players stand around most of the game.

That said, I value good catchers and prefer a platoon if I can find the right players. I don't seek after HOF catchers because of their 'normally' short careers.

[Pelican]

Originally Posted by BarneyRubble

This is reasonable thinking. However, what other player on the team is involved in EVERY single play, not just balls in play, but EVERY pitch. Other position players stand around most of the game.

That said, I value good catchers and prefer a platoon if I can find the right players. I don't seek after HOF catchers because of their 'normally' short careers.

True. Spoken like a former catcher. When my youngest son took up catching in Little League, it totally changed my focus as a doting parent. At any other position (except, of course, pitcher), I could wait for the crack of the bat, and look to see if the ball was hit to (or near; or by; or through) my kid. And after the game, amazing how beat up he was from blocking pitches in the dirt, squatting in the heat, chasing pops. As an OF, for me it was truly a lot of standing around, waiting for something to happen.