Skip to main content

This is more of a speculative topic but since this forum is typically pretty "dead" I was wondering...

 

With collisions at home pretty much a thing of the past, I wonder if the "need/desired body type" of catchers will stay pretty massive. I've always thought there is some innate desire for catchers to be beefy in terms of mass and muscle build, in part to help block the plate and with collisions. I wonder if, now and going forward, there will be a move for catchers to have faster feet and athleticism and LESS bulk? Of course, the ideal is speed and mass but I'm talking general trends since having both in high levels is tough.

 

Or, is the BULK to help with power and throwing velocity? In that, all catchers should mash and have a cannon. But what about those who have a strong arm and power but are not really bulky by genetics or desire?

 

I also have seen some really tall catchers of late. As in 6'3' to 6'4+". They seem to have a harder time setting up low and blocking as rapidly as catchers in the 6'0" vicinity. At some point is there conventional wisdom on how tall is too tall for the position? Or is bigger always better?

Last edited by Batty67
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

I think this is a chicken or egg type question.

Meaning are catchers first bulky or do catchers get bulky by catching?  I believe the latter.  Consider the number of swats a catcher does during the course of the game.

This exercise causes thick thighs,butt, etc.  Catchers remain quick but no longer fast; he runs like a catcher.

Last edited by Coach Rick

Thanks Coach Rick, but I'm not just talking about the lower half mass and I totally get your point. My 2017 catcher certainly has some substantial lower half obvious strength from playing primary catcher for many, many years (but he's still very fast for a catcher). I'm talking about upper half too, as in, weight lifting to deliberately bulk-up.

 

Hope we get lots of great feedback and liven up this board.

 

 

I can't find the thread but we have discussed this before.  The general consensus of the previous thread was that the position will likely move to a more shortstop agile body type.  However, in many ways it already has.  Right now if the player wasn't playing catcher he would likely be playing short stop, quick and agile are the trademarks of a great catcher, or so the other thread pointed out.

 

As for the very tall catcher becoming more common, I don't really understand that.  I thought in order to be a good catcher you had to have a bullet for an arm.  If you have a bullet for an arm and are 6'4 why aren't you on the mound learning how to pitch properly?

The past few years it feels as if the focus has moved to bigger, stronger, faster for all positions.  I've been looking at lots of college rosters close to us and I think it comes down to what the coaches believe.  For instance, at UofM and MSU, only one catcher is 6'0"; all others are 6'2"-6'5".  They're all BIG.  Then you look at Ohio State and some of the others in Big Ten and they're in the 5'10"-6'0" range.  When looking at the lower D1s, D2 and D3 in the area, they're all over the board.  So I guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder?  One thing that is a constant is that they have to be strong and fast and close to fearless; as well as being able to hit the cover off the ball.    

 

 

Add Reply

×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×