ALL-TIME TOP 100: Catchers

[HoustonGM]

OK, but who are we talking about here? How's defensively equal? Mike Piazza was only a catcher because he put on pads and squatted behind home plate. You're not saying that he was defensively equal to Johnny Bench or Joe Torre are you?

Joe Torre, probably. Torre played more at 1st and 3rd than he did catcher.

[ohms_law]

well... yea, maybe. I don't know. I think Torre was still probably a better defensive player (all around) than Piazza.

[robinhoodnik]

Agreed on the lack of importance placed on the non hitting aspect of the position. I'm also going to point out the obvious fact that there's no way to put into numbers every other aspect of the job. How do you measure the preparation of a true catcher?
I-Rod can (or could) throw out fast runners from his knees. Piazza could throw out, maybe, if he was standing, had forward momentum, and a strong breeze behind him, a hobbled monkey with a blindfold on and a refrigerator tied to his back.

[robinhoodnik]

Here's #21 on the list.

[jcbarr]

Tettleton is on this list? Are you kidding me? Not only is that crazy talk, but he is 22nd!! That is just insane. In 14 years he played only 669 games at catcher. Only one year did he even play more than 100 games at that position, and I'm sure that he was not among, or even near the top 20 in the league defensively any of those years. To even place him on this list just doesn't make any sense. I don't even think the guy is among the top 25 offensive catchers in history...

I'm not gonna give this ranking system any respect at this point, until someone can make me believe that Mickey belongs up there.

[robinhoodnik]

Yeah, when I saw Tettleton, I immediately also thought, Matt Nokes.

[HoustonGM]

Tettleton played the majority of his career at catcher - 872 games at catcher, 361 at DH, and 267 games at first and outfield. jcbarr, where are you getting your numbers? He played 872 games at catcher, and had two years where he played 100+ games. He definitely makes sense to be placed on this list. It makes less sense to place Joe Torre on this list than it does Tettleton. 22 is probably high, but he was a very good hitter.

[kenny1234]

One way of getting around the complaints about players such as Tettleton would be to only calculate Win Shares based on the stats accumulated at catcher. It would be interesting to see if it affected the list very much.

[jcbarr]

Hitting home runs alone does not make you a good hitter. I know that BA isn't the end all stat, but a career .241...I don't see how you can make an argument for any guy who hit that poorly for his career. He never even approached .300.

His OBP was steady but he struck out way too much.

[HoustonGM]

Hitting home runs alone does not make you a good hitter.

No, but hitting home runs and getting on base does.

I know that BA isn't the end all stat, but a career .241...I don't see how you can make an argument for any guy who hit that poorly for his career. He never even approached .300.

Because despite a low batting average, he did not make many outs, and he hit for very good power. Was Harmon Killebrew not a good hitter?

His OBP was steady but he struck out way too much.

So? A strikeout is just an out. I'd rather have a player make few outs, and have the outs he does make be strike outs, than have a player make a lot of outs and only a few of them strikeouts. Yes, there are times when a non-K out is better than a strikeout, but overall, it's just an out, and outs are bad. Tettleton, despite a lot of strikeouts, did not make a lot of outs, and that is good. I'll take a .370 OBP and 30 home runs any day.

[Rongar]

Wass, whatever else is said, I award you and Justin an "A" for effort...I for one, have c&p'd your list for future reference...as for the chorus of criticism, well, no good deed goes unpunished...

[jcbarr]

I'm not going to get in to this argument. It's one that will go on forever and I shouldn't have even brought it up in the first place to be honest.

Looking over his numbers though, his arm wasn't all that bad as far as CS % goes. I still don't think 22 is the right place for Mick, but then again that is all open to interpretation.

You are always going to find flaw in things like this. Basically everyone's definition of "best" is going to be different. Some will take hitting in to account more than defense, and some just have personal preference. It is much easier to rank the best offensive or defensive catchers, but to rank just the "best" catcher, is nearly impossible.

[HoustonGM]

I agree that 22 is probably too high. But Tettleton should definitely be ON the list, and is underrated.

[jcbarr]

I will agree for him to ON the list. I guess that I'm just more of a perception guy. I remember watching him play and there was always the feeling that he was a Rob Deer type of guy.

Anyhow, looking over some of these guys I have found some pretty interesting stuff. When I saw Gene Tenace, I thought, no way, that guy wasn't that good, but when I took a closer look, he was an OBP machine.

[Reade]

I agree that 22 is probably too high.

probably not if they put hundley at 41. He couldn't play a lick of defense and had really only one above average hitting year. **** is dad was 3 times the catcher he was and he's not on the list