The vast majority of programs do not recruit catchers. They recruit hitters who also have the ability to catch and play other positions. Unless you are an outstanding catcher, a true 1% you better bring more to the table.
pop times
- Thread starter iMlearning
- Start date
Welcome to Discuss Fastpitch
Your FREE Account is waiting to the Best Softball Community on the Web.
Isn't this fairly true for all positions except pitcher?
Next time you bump into this issue, show them this pic and have the coach point to the one is a catcher...
Greenmonsters
Wannabe Duck Boat Owner
IMO, its a short-sighted approach unless you're able to recruit and bring in a class of All Americans every year. IIRC, your DD (like most) much prefers pitching to a catcher rather than a hitter who catches!
Last edited:
I agree. But but the reality is that great catchers just like dominant pitchers are few and far between. Most coaching staffs are not equipped to develop either.
I saw a very interesting article about major league baseball catchers recently. Yes, I know fastpitch softball and major league baseball are different sports, and sauce for the goose may not always be sauce for the gander, but...
A few years ago some baseball staticians decided to see which catcher was more valuable to a team. One of the catchers was a good hitter, and an OK catcher. The other was Molina, who wasn't a very good hitter back then. The first thing they noticed was that Molina was more valuable than the better hitting catcher. Then, they decided to do some thought experiments. What if Molina hit below the Mendoza line? They realized Molina would be more valuable than a good hitting catcher below .220, and even below .110. They couldn't find a level at which Molina would be the less valuable catcher.
Why was this?
Their statistics showed that Molina had an extraordinary ability to "frame" a pitch, getting the close calls as strikes, rather than balls. Therefore, the pitcher, in effect, had a larger strike zone with Molina catching. This meant that the darn-near-impossible-to-hit balls just barely low and outside or just barely high and inside were getting called as strikes. Fewer hits, more Ks, fewer runs.
Now, in softball, things may be a bit different. I've seen how a catcher with a great pop time can discourage base stealing.
I've also noticed an interesting difference. IN one rec ball team recently, DD #3 was the the best pitcher and the best catcher. For another team, she was the best pitcher, and the second best catcher (the best catcher was also the second best pitcher, so the girls usually caught for each other. Their best catcher was the only one who could handle DD #3's fastball, and DD #3 was good enough to handle the other pitcher/catcher's fastball. I doubt she could've handled her own fastball).
On the team where DD #3 was the best pitcher and the best catcher, the team didn't give up as much when DD #3 was catching rather than pitching. When she was catching, the team had their best catcher catching, and their best 1B at first. When she was pitching, the team had their best 1B catching, and so the team was noticably weaker at both C and 1B. The team was still better off when DD #3 was pitching, but not THAT much better off.
A few years ago some baseball staticians decided to see which catcher was more valuable to a team. One of the catchers was a good hitter, and an OK catcher. The other was Molina, who wasn't a very good hitter back then. The first thing they noticed was that Molina was more valuable than the better hitting catcher. Then, they decided to do some thought experiments. What if Molina hit below the Mendoza line? They realized Molina would be more valuable than a good hitting catcher below .220, and even below .110. They couldn't find a level at which Molina would be the less valuable catcher.
Why was this?
Their statistics showed that Molina had an extraordinary ability to "frame" a pitch, getting the close calls as strikes, rather than balls. Therefore, the pitcher, in effect, had a larger strike zone with Molina catching. This meant that the darn-near-impossible-to-hit balls just barely low and outside or just barely high and inside were getting called as strikes. Fewer hits, more Ks, fewer runs.
Now, in softball, things may be a bit different. I've seen how a catcher with a great pop time can discourage base stealing.
I've also noticed an interesting difference. IN one rec ball team recently, DD #3 was the the best pitcher and the best catcher. For another team, she was the best pitcher, and the second best catcher (the best catcher was also the second best pitcher, so the girls usually caught for each other. Their best catcher was the only one who could handle DD #3's fastball, and DD #3 was good enough to handle the other pitcher/catcher's fastball. I doubt she could've handled her own fastball).
On the team where DD #3 was the best pitcher and the best catcher, the team didn't give up as much when DD #3 was catching rather than pitching. When she was catching, the team had their best catcher catching, and their best 1B at first. When she was pitching, the team had their best 1B catching, and so the team was noticably weaker at both C and 1B. The team was still better off when DD #3 was pitching, but not THAT much better off.
Greenmonsters
Wannabe Duck Boat Owner
Agreed, most don't fall into the dominant category; however, with catching more so than pitching IMO, there are fewer coaches that can distinguish between skill levels and, again relative to pitching, fewer coaches and instructors still that are capable of further developing the physical skills.
Would you think it is easier to "coach up" a decent catcher with a great bat, or a great catcher with an average bat? College coaches need players that can hit college pitching, and IMHO coaching up a good athlete defensively is much easier than trying to teach them to hit a 68 MPH riseball!
Greenmonsters
Wannabe Duck Boat Owner
Interesting question. The opportunity to distinguish the difference between an average- and great-hitting catcher only comes along 3 or 4 times per game whereas there are 75-100+ times/game when an average v. great defensive catcher has the opportunity to make a difference. In other words, a great catcher has 75-100 more opportunities to positively influence the game! Long recognized by MLB, but overlooked by most involved in FP IMO.
To answer your question, most coaches are better suited to coach up hitting than catching. Regardless of that, IMO taking the great defensive but average-hitting catcher and working on elevating their hitting would still be most productive.
Agreed on the hitting numbers, but not sure about the "75-100+ times/game when an average v. great defensive catcher has the opportunity to make a difference"
First, at the college level, wouldn't you need to throw out a large number of those pitchers that are straight to the glove where any catcher at that level should make?
Second, throw out all the pitches she misses when there is no runner on or it's not a dropped 3rd. They don't matter because they didn't "influence the game"
I guess my point is, how many times per game does a great defensive catcher make a difference over an average catcher? My bet is the number is nearly as high as 75-100.
With all that said, give me the defense. I have way more confidence in my ability to coach hitting. Plus, I'd rather my pitchers be confident in the girl behind the plate.
