Scenario Opinion....

It is widely known that this HC will not put in extra time if he is not compensated for it, he has told the players that.  That is why he will not participate in the summer or fall program.  

 

And you can't have it both ways.  You can't preach that you are trying to have a winning season and then be loyal to SR's just because they are SR's when they are clearly not the best player for the position, and in this case not even the second best.

The starter on varsity is the catcher who gives you the best opportunity to win. The backup is the next best catcher. The JV roster, starters etc can be sorted out after the varsity situation is. Nothing else matters. Not who the players are. What grade they are in. What anyone outside of the coaching staff thinks. Nothing else matters. The players that the coaching staff believes give them the best opportunity to win, period. Your players deserve that. If I had 9 freshman that were the best options they would start. If you don't like that make sure when you are 18 you are better than a 15. Case closed in my book..

+1 on Coach May's post.

 

I'll only add that some coaches will give the SR the first shot at winning the position since it is the SR's final hurrah.  In other words its his position to keep or lose.  We all realize for most, varsity baseball is their last opportunity to play organized ball.  Most are not going to advance to the next level (college). If an underclassman ultimately proves to be the better player, they usually end up with the position.

 

Back in 2010 when my son was a sophomore (he's now at a D2 university), he beat out the returning senior for the catcher's position. He did this in the practices leading up to the first game.  But the senior had gotten the first shot at winning the position.  I give the senior credit.  He accepted his role as the backup/bullpen catcher and never complained.

 

Way back when I played HS football, the coach would always give the seniors the first chance to win or lose the position.  If an underclassman proved to be the better player, then he would get the position.

 

I do agree with Golfman on one thing - the stipend a HC receives is not enough for the time they put in.

My philosophy is if there is a Fr and Sr with the same skill set I'd rather have the Fr play. My reasoning is I have 4 years with the Fr and he is going to help me for 3 more years. The senior is done with the program after 20-ish games.

It doesn't get easier to keep your spot as you get older, it gets harder.

 

I am tending to agree with you Sampson.  The So is more pliable as a utility player and can fill a hole at almost any other positions.  That has been the downfall of the So, if you can call it that(good problem to have I guess), since he has not really had a chance to solidify the C's spot due to being needed elsewhere.  I do believe the Fr will end up with the C spot.  The Sr will end up being a back-up and bullpen guy.  The JR needs to learn to play 1B, because there is another Fr that should be the starter on JV

I have to ask, what makes the SR worse than the FR?  You hear all the time "So and so is the better player"...but WHY in this case?  My son is young, but maybe the flaws are bigger at that age and therefor far more noticeable. 

 

Three catchers on the team, one is super fast, with a weak arm, and tendency to drop fast pitches.  One has a bullet for an arm, the best receiver of fast pitches but he is slow and his blocking suffers because of that, and one is medium speed with a decent arm but can't make a quick decision to save his life....who is the "best" catcher?

The Sr's arm is the third best, his blocking is 4th, receiving is 2nd or 3rd, bat is 3/4, about even with the JR.  Speed is 3/4, again with the JR. Decision making he is 4th, leadership is 4th and game management 3/4.  He cannot process decisions at game speed, can't even do it at practice speed, and often turns into a fan during a play rather than a player.  Like I said before, a great kid, but not a good catcher.  The biggest problem is that he was left to foster at this position, will little to no coaching, and he cannot play any other position.  He hasn't even had another glove on his hand other than his mitt in 4 yrs at the school.

The one that can hit. 

Well that's not REALLY fair...technically speaking the bullet for an arm, best receiver, but slow kid is the #4 hitter.

 

BUT...he can play 2 other positions and get his bat in the lineup...also the medium at everything kid bats 6th (also plays 2 other positions), and the super speedy kid (he is only that position) bats 8th...they ALL can hit....who's the "best" catcher?  What makes a catcher "The BEST"?

CaCO... but are the other 2 the best at those other 2 positions?

This is the nuance that is putting a team/line up together.

Well, if they are to be considered at another position, I agree with Sampson.  If they are put in for their stick, their offensive production should out produce their defense to justify being in the lin-up

The "best" is whoever the coach determines is the "best" for his line up.  It doesn't matter what parents think.  It's the coach's team.  All the hand wringing on the sidelines doesn't matter.

My son beat out the a senior for the catcher's position his sophomore year.  He simply was better - better through down's, better blocking, better execution all around.  Come his junior year coach moves him to 3B.  The new catcher (another junior that had played on JV the year before) was almost as good, but the coach determined he needed my son's glove in the field more than he needed him behind the plate.  They were about equal in hitting ability.

The "not quick thinker" is the #2/3 pitcher and interchangeable in the outfield.  The "slow behind the plate" is also the #2/3 pitcher and one of two first basemen, the other 1B being a lefty pitcher, both very competent at 1B.

 

And yes, very glad I don't have to put together a line up or team!  Just wondering what makes a "best" at a position like catcher, they all seem to have such diverse skills.

So, with this line of thought the speedy catcher with the weak arm but near last in the batting order should be playing catcher because the coach can get the other 2 stronger bats in the line up without them playing catcher?  Is that right?

 

Does the weak arm for throw down's come into play at all in this decision or is it one of those base runners will run and throw downs rarely work anyway type of situation.

 

And for any of you that think I'm actually discussing this with the coach you are out of your mind!  I'm just trying to learn the coach-like mentality. I wouldn't dare tell him where to play my kid....lol....my kid would likely ride the pine for at least one game to teach me that ALL coach's decisions are final....I'm just curious about the different pieces coach's have to take into account when deciding these things.

The best catcher is behind the plate...IF the other two, who can play other positions, have a much better bat than the kids already at that position, then they may be slid into those spots, or DH....it's the old saying, "if you can hit, you don't/won't sit", as long as you're defense is not absolutely detrimental to the team

Oh, I get what you are saying...I think.  So UNLESS the other team starts taking advantage of the catcher's weak arm and poor receiving it would be best to leave him at catcher because the other 2 stronger bats can play other positions, and if the game warrants it the coach could always bring in a stronger armed catcher?  Is that right?

 

If that is right, wouldn't the weak bat SR in the OP scenario be the best to play catcher?  And in case you were wondering all of this really is going on on my son's team, it just tied back with the OP so well I had to ask. And in case you were wondering the speedy weak armed catcher IS the primary catcher on our team, but at least I understand it better now, so thanks!

No, I said the best CATCHER is behind the plate, not the best bat of the catchers in question.  A weak arm and bad receiving C is not the best catcher, IMO, no matter how good his bat is, but he may be considered for a DH if one is needed.  In my OP, the SR catcher is in the "none of the above" category

But in your OP the other possible catchers are needed at other positions right?

 

On our team the weak arm but speedy catcher has the weakest bat of the 3 catchers, but still in the line up.  And as you said they can play other positions in order to get the better 2 bats in the line up.

If you had to pick which one is more important; the ability to block and catch or to throw someone out at 2nd?  

Unless your Mike Piazza...

I think blocking, catching, and handling the pitchers is more important than throwing down.

In the OP, the So is needed to play SS, but being that the Fr & So are very similar, the Fr could probably easily play short for JV, since he is a 2B'man as his other position.  either way you have the So or the Fr available to V, as filling spots on JV will always be secondary, at least at this school.  Neither the Fr or the So are better on the infield than what is already on the field for V.

IMO, the primary skill for a catcher is the ability to block.  Blocking is unnatural and takes work.  Good blocking solves a lot of issues -- it prevents runners scoring from third or otherwise advancing, it protects the umpire, and gives pitcher's confidence. 

 

After blocking, then receiving.  Are strikes staying strikes?  Does he give the umpire the chance to call a borderline pitch a strike. 

 

Third would be Pop-time and accuracy on throw downs -- not just arm strength.  At the lower levels, a lot of things need to go right to catch someone stealing.  It is not all on the catcher.  The pitcher needs to be quick and the ss/2b has to be awake and be able to catch.   

   

So, in your opinion, blocking is more vital than receiving....that doesn't make sense to me.  Can you define "receiving". My observations have shown that the most vital thing is to catch the ball, then if you can't catch it block it.  But the first step is catching...unless you mean "receiving" as the ability to get borderline calls based on how you caught...but again, catching the ball is the key....you can be the best in the world at blocking but if you are having to block the ball because you couldn't catch it doesn't that affect the ball/strike calls?

 

 

Well, to start off with, you don't block catchable balls.  You may drop them, but if you are good at receiving, even if you drop the ball occasionally, and you have shown you know how to receive and frame or funnel and work a strike zone, a good umpire will still reward you with a strike.  Umpires like kids that know what they're doing behind the plate.  Keep the umpire clean and bruise free and you've made a new friend that, more than likely, you will have again several times during the season.  You should only be blocking balls that are not catchable

*sigh* yeah, you would think that you only block a ball that is not catchable, but it doesn't seem to be working out that way for our young team.

 

Thank you for the input though.

If they're blocking balls that are in the air, are you sure they aren't playing hockey????

LOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  I never thought about it like that, but with the hockey helmet style and the padding sometimes it DOES look more like a goalie than a catcher!!!!!!  Ah, thank you for that, I needed to laugh!

I don't think you have a catcher if he can't block, receive, handle pitchers and throw runners out.  You need an upgrade at that position.

If they cannot catch the basic fastball thrown close to the target, then the kid should take up soccer. 

 

Receiving is the ability to keep strikes as strikes and make borderline pitches look like strikes so you give the umpire a chance to do what he likes to do -- call strikes. 

 

 

This is a 12u team, handling pitchers is a rarity but as for the rest of it:

Catcher 1: Can Block and is fast in getting the ball out of his glove, but weak on receiving and throwing runners out and fast pitches are particularly difficult.

Catcher 2: Can receive well, including fast, and throw runners out, but he is weak on blocking and slow behind the plate

Catcher 3: Is medium on blocking, medium on receiving, including fast, and is capable of throwing runners out, but he takes forever to make the decision to throw so not so great on throwing runners out.

 

The OP talked about which catcher was the "best", and I was trying to figure out what "best" is defined as, i.e what traits are more desirable.

I think what is "best" may change from year to year (or possibly game to game)based upon the makeup of the other 8 starters but a catcher must be able to catch the pitchers at a minimum.

I've wondered why catchers aren't the highest players on the team?  

I don't think Brian McCann is too upset with his pay, or Max Pentecost with his 2.9 mil signing bonus from the draft :-).

The main reason is going to be that catcher's play less than most position players over the course of a season and a career due in large part to the pounding they take from playing the position. Related to that, they tend to be lesser hitters than players at many/most other positions for a couple of reasons.  One is that guys who can hit and field well enough to play a different position generally get moved off catcher to allow them to play more/longer (see Biggio, or Mauer, or even Lucroy or Posey whose bats get to stay in the lineup when they play 1B). The other reason is that catcher is so difficult to play that a lot of lesser hitters still have careers at the position thanks to the ability to contribute value defensively rather than offensively. They should be getting paid for that defensive ability, of course, but hitting talent is easier to see on the stat sheet and thus easier to support paying for, which biases the salary structure (as does the fact that a lot of times credit for plus defense shows up more on the pitcher's numbers than the fielder's).

That's a great question.  Of the top 25 currently highest paid players, 1 is a catcher.  Of the top 20 all-time, 0 are catchers.  Hmmm...

Best play period.  Best is combination of all skills.  I've started a freshman over a senior catcher because the freshman was the best.  I've also turned an OF into a catcher because the catchers in the system just could not handle the mental part of the game. 

 

I'll make some mad but will post some other opinions as well.  One year the parents of incoming freshmen wanted to talk.  They wanted to know if the freshmen would be given a fair chance to make varsity.  The reason for the talk was some of the local TB coaches and private instructors who said that these freshman players were so much better than the varsity players.  The TB coaches had pointed out all of the tournaments that these players had won and of which the previous players had not won.  My child was a senior that year.  I called her over and asked her how many local tournaments her team had won.  She said one.  I asked her how many local tournaments her tB team played in.  She said one.  I asked her how many states had her TB team played in that year and she said 9.  Then, I asked her about the how her TB team had done in a national tournament in Chattanooga that had over 100 teams in it.  She said 2nd place.  I told the parents that a lot of the varsity had been playing in those types of tournaments but that their children would get a fair tryout and chance to make the varsity.  One freshman made the varsity, and to be honest, those parents weren't at the meeting.  Their older daughter had been playing all summer with mine.  

 

Per coaches and pay.  Having been there, the loss of coaching pay hurts more than what has been represented here.  It isn't just the lack of getting a couple of thousand dollars in a year's pay.  It is cumulative.  For many districts like the one I coach in, once you reach certain years of service, you get additional increases.  Also, that coaching pay matters a whole lot when a coach finally reaches retirement.