Trading catchers

[PSUColonel]

I don't know if it's just me, but in the actual MLB, how often do you see catchers traded in season, or even at all? There must be a reason for this. What is the reason?, and how can OOTP simulate this? I'm guessing it's because the catcher and pitchers develop cohesion. (much like a QB and receivers in football) If this is true, is this something you would like to see implemented, and perhaps blended with the catcher ability rating?

[RchW]

Are catchers traded more often in OOTP than IRL?

[Charlie Hough]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

I don't know if it's just me, but in the actual MLB, how often do you see catchers traded in season, or even at all? There must be a reason for this. What is the reason?, and how can OOTP simulate this? I'm guessing it's because the catcher and pitchers develop cohesion. (much like a QB and receivers in football) If this is true, is this something you would like to see implemented, and perhaps blended with the catcher ability rating?

Actually, Bill James has done a thorough comparative analysis and has shown extensive data to disprove that catchers have any truly significant impact on pitcher performance. So I'd rather not see catcher cohesion as a factor in OOTP.

But managers and GM's clearly believe in the ability of catchers to 'manage' a pitching staff, so I don't disagree with modeling this in OOTP. If it makes catchers less likely to be traded in season in real life, then it makes sense to reflect this. But we need to see some analysis of the real life trade data to be sure this is the case.

[RchW]

Six catchers were traded in real MLB in 2012. In my latest fictional MLB season one catcher was traded.

I'm not quite clear what OOTP should be doing differently?

[PSUColonel]

were those trades in season?

EDIT: also, were they minor league catchers? It seems to me it very rarely ever happens at the MLB level.

[VanillaGorilla]

Piazza was traded twice in 8 days.

[David Watts]

Originally Posted by Charlie Hough

Actually, Bill James has done a thorough comparative analysis and has shown extensive data to disprove that catchers have any truly significant impact on pitcher performance. So I'd rather not see catcher cohesion as a factor in OOTP.

But managers and GM's clearly believe in the ability of catchers to 'manage' a pitching staff, so I don't disagree with modeling this in OOTP. If it makes catchers less likely to be traded in season in real life, then it makes sense to reflect this. But we need to see some analysis of the real life trade data to be sure this is the case.

How has that Red Sox pitching staff performed since Varitek retired

[VanillaGorilla]

Originally Posted by Charlie Hough

Actually, Bill James has done a thorough comparative analysis and has shown extensive data to disprove that catchers have any truly significant impact on pitcher performance. So I'd rather not see catcher cohesion as a factor in OOTP.

Having watched your namesake make many a start in Arlington Stadium, I quickly soured on a catcher that was a local favorite but didn't seem to care how many PBs he gave up (he displayed horrendous defensive fundamentals epitomied by nonexistent foot work behind the plate).

On the other hand, a young Chad Krueter (who was not picking up a big league check because of his bat) was a pleasure to watch, defensively.

Since this specific comparison deals with PBs, we do not see a statistical impact on CERA between Krueter and others. However, imho, Charlie Hough had a better chance of winning any given game, from 1988-1990, with Chad Krueter catching than anyone else on those rosters.

While there may not be sufficient sample sizes of data for James et al to make a definitive statement statistically, I am confident in stating Krueter catching Hough offered a lower RA expectancy than Petralli catching Hough.

And then came Pudge......

[Cinnamon J. Scudworth]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

I don't know if it's just me, but in the actual MLB, how often do you see catchers traded in season, or even at all? There must be a reason for this. What is the reason?

Even replacement-level MLB catchers are a rare commodity. Or at least, they are much rarer than, say, replacement-level outfielders. Teams often do not feel like they have another candidate waiting in the wings if they were to trade a catcher.

[Neolithic]

My Cubs traded Soto this year at the deadline.

[EvilGenius]

I've watched baseball for maybe 20 years now. Since then, the game has changed, and has changed again since.

• Steroids has caused an explosion of power hitters. I remember watching some old games of Reggie Jackson. If he played today, he'd have the build of some of the lead-off hitters of the steroid era, much less a middle of the lineup basher. Cleaning up the game is starting to see a return to normality.
  
• Teams have become more comfortable with sabermetrics. As such, bunts and stolen bases are quickly becoming extinct.
  
• Perfect games/No Hitters are becoming more frequent.
  
• Pitchers were ruining their careers playing in Colorado. Humidors seems to have reversed that unfortunate trend.
  
• Relievers are being used more and more frequently, a trend that's not likely to ever change.
  
• On the horizon, instant replay is soon to be implemented.

The point being, in 20 or so years of real life baseball has shown a lot of evolution. My fictional league has been in existence for about 40 years, thus you would expect twice as many changes. Some people have run their leagues for over 100 years. I don't necessarily mind "deviations" such as catchers being traded mid-season more frequently. Things change, things evolve.

What is normal? "Normal" is relative to the needs of the league at that moment. If the game doesn't have a lot of decent catchers at the moment, then you may very well see a lot of trading. Even if you use the MLB quickstart, the financials aren't quite a duplicate of the real world, and maybe finances are contributing to this particular evolution. Who is to say that this isn't exactly what would happen in the real world if the league's composition was the same?

So I am hesitant about labeling this as a problem without more information.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

were those trades in season?

EDIT: also, were they minor league catchers? It seems to me it very rarely ever happens at the MLB level.

Go look for yourself. It takes 5 minute on BR.

[PSUColonel]

Originally Posted by VanillaGorilla

Piazza was traded twice in 8 days.

I'm not saying it can't and shouldn't happen.. I'm just saying from my own observations that it seems very rare.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

I'm not saying it can't and shouldn't happen.. I'm just saying from my own observations that it seems very rare.

No one is disagreeing. So the purpose of the thread is?......

[PSUColonel]

I am not suggesting this is in fact a problem, but rather an observation to be debated.

[JohnHoward]

Originally Posted by RchW

No one is disagreeing. So the purpose of the thread is?......

if you read his posts, you already know the purpose of this thread is the same as all the others. enough said.

[BIG17EASY]

Instead of making general observations, let's try to find the data that exists.

Looking through BR's list of 2012 transactions, I count eight catchers who spent time in the big leagues in 2012 who were traded between April 1 and Sept. 30. Teams traditionally carry two catchers on the active roster, so that's roughly 60 catchers in the big leagues on most days (not counting expanded September rosters), figure teams average two other catchers on the 40-man (or 60-day DL) throughout the season, so that brings us to approximately 120 big league catchers. So if eight were traded, that's 6.7 percent of the big league catchers were traded at some point last season.

Obviously I'm guess-timating on the exact amount of catchers who spent time on a 40-man roster, but I think I'm in the ballpark. Now, rather than debating an observation made on a whim, we can debate whether that 6.7 percent is a high rate, low rate or about what we'd expect.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by BIG17EASY

Instead of making general observations, let's try to find the data that exists.

Looking through BR's list of 2012 transactions, I count eight catchers who spent time in the big leagues in 2012 who were traded between April 1 and Sept. 30. Teams traditionally carry two catchers on the active roster, so that's roughly 60 catchers in the big leagues on most days (not counting expanded September rosters), figure teams average two other catchers on the 40-man (or 60-day DL) throughout the season, so that brings us to approximately 120 big league catchers. So if eight were traded, that's 6.7 percent of the big league catchers were traded at some point last season.

Obviously I'm guess-timating on the exact amount of catchers who spent time on a 40-man roster, but I think I'm in the ballpark. Now, rather than debating an observation made on a whim, we can debate whether that 6.7 percent is a high rate, low rate or about what we'd expect.

Since trades are an opportunity occurrence there can never be a right answer. No catchers were traded in 2011 and 7 in 2010. Each season, each contract, each injury occurrence is a separate event. Trying to quantify a "right" number from uncalculable opportunities is pure guesswork. Tying that into a mythical team cohesion is silly.

[BIG17EASY]

Originally Posted by RchW

Since trades are an opportunity occurrence there can never be a right answer. No catchers were traded in 2011 and 7 in 2010. Each season, each contract, each injury occurrence is a separate event. Trying to quantify a "right" number from uncalculable opportunities is pure guesswork. Tying that into a mythical team cohesion is silly.

Wasn't Tim Federowicz part of that three-way Dodgers-Red Sox-Mariners trade last year?

Anyway, I agree 100%. There are so many factors that go into whether or not a player gets traded that it's basically impossible to determine what a "normal rate" would be. The whole premise of this thread is, well, I won't say it. But my point was to at least throw some hard data out there so that the thread wasn't built around a perception someone came up with off the top of their head.

[Charlie Hough]

Originally Posted by VanillaGorilla

Having watched your namesake make many a start in Arlington Stadium, I quickly soured on a catcher that was a local favorite but didn't seem to care how many PBs he gave up (he displayed horrendous defensive fundamentals epitomied by nonexistent foot work behind the plate).

On the other hand, a young Chad Krueter (who was not picking up a big league check because of his bat) was a pleasure to watch, defensively.

It's been a long time since I read the Bill James piece, but I think he controlled for this and cited catchers working with knuckleballers as a separate issue. Regardless, in a case like this, it's really just a matter of the catcher's fielding and/or error rating. As you've pointed out, it's not an issue of the catcher influencing my performance but rather how well he can catch a knuckleball that moves erratically. The original issue here is about the belief that a catcher can affect a pitcher's performance based on how well he 'manages' a game or a pitching staff.

In response to the post about the Red Sox staff since Varitek retired, I know the post was intended as a joke. But, in all seriousness, how did the same staff perform before he retired when the backup catcher started instead? That's the sort of analysis that James did, and it was amazing to see how the same pitchers performed at the same level or even sometimes better when the backup started ahead of a catcher who was believed to be a seasoned veteran who really handled pitchers well.