2035 Offseason Trade Review

[Ted]

Back to that list, Ron, I think you basically listed all the above average hitting catchers. So 11 teams (out of 30) have catchers that can hit. If you go on (like you started to) maybe another seven or eight that have catchers who can kind of hit, but play good D. That still leaves a third of the league or so playing sub starter level catchers.

These are the "best" catchers on these teams, and most of them look like they will finish well under 2 WAR (for you anti WAR people, it's just an easy surrogate, and 2 is considered average starter level)

Atlantic City Alberto Padilla (5/5/8/9/3)
Charm City Gabriel Santana (5/4/5/5/6)
Hawaii Jason Weaver (5/6/7/6/6)
Huntsville Sam Adams (5/6/9/7/3)
Jacksonville Paul Scholes (5/5/3/5/5)
Mexico City Enrigue Nunez (6/7/6/3/7)
Omaha Bob Wagner (7/7/3/4/9)
Seattle Hector Garza (6/5/4/8/7)

That's 8 teams with utterly atrocious hitting catchers. And doesn't include three or four more teams with players like Valencia's Jose Molena (6/7/6/6/9) who if he was a corner outfielder, would be considered a AAAA players. Catcher is at this time (and probably all times) and pretty darn poor hitting position.


I was wrong in my statement about the dearth of good catchers, but after the good and goodish ones, the bottom falls out fast. The point is that there are a lot of teams that need an upgrade at catcher, and catcher is almost always a difficult position to have an above average players at. Compare the return for Camacho (probably a 65%th percentile catcher) to a 65% pitcher, or centerfielder, or whatever.

[bcslouck]

These are the "best" catchers on these teams, and most of them look like they will finish well under 2 WAR (for you anti WAR people, it's just an easy surrogate, and 2 is considered average starter level)

Charm City Gabriel Santana (5/4/5/5/6)

You bit your tongue. My guy is on pace for a 3.2 WAR. Is 4 games too small a sample size? No.. of course not...

You listed Padilla too. He isn't AC's starter, but he should be against LHP. He had like a .950 OPS vs them last year. I'm mad he signed for a MiLC when I offered him a ML contract to platoon with Santana. Santana won't hit, but he's the best defensive starter I've ever had. I'm hoping that will help my pitching and make up for the tepid bat.

Clearly though, C is an obvious upgrade spot for me. But I'm trying to ball on a budget.

[RonCo]

Back to that list, Ron, I think you basically listed all the above average hitting catchers. So 11 teams (out of 30) have catchers that can hit. If you go on (like you started to) maybe another seven or eight that have catchers who can kind of hit, but play good D. That still leaves a third of the league or so playing sub starter level catchers.

These are the "best" catchers on these teams, and most of them look like they will finish well under 2 WAR (for you anti WAR people, it's just an easy surrogate, and 2 is considered average starter level)

Atlantic City Alberto Padilla (5/5/8/9/3)
Charm City Gabriel Santana (5/4/5/5/6)
Hawaii Jason Weaver (5/6/7/6/6)
Huntsville Sam Adams (5/6/9/7/3)
Jacksonville Paul Scholes (5/5/3/5/5)
Mexico City Enrigue Nunez (6/7/6/3/7)
Omaha Bob Wagner (7/7/3/4/9)
Seattle Hector Garza (6/5/4/8/7)

That's 8 teams with utterly atrocious hitting catchers. And doesn't include three or four more teams with players like Valencia's Jose Molena (6/7/6/6/9) who if he was a corner outfielder, would be considered a AAAA players. Catcher is at this time (and probably all times) and pretty darn poor hitting position.


I was wrong in my statement about the dearth of good catchers, but after the good and goodish ones, the bottom falls out fast. The point is that there are a lot of teams that need an upgrade at catcher, and catcher is almost always a difficult position to have an above average players at. Compare the return for Camacho (probably a 65%th percentile catcher) to a 65% pitcher, or centerfielder, or whatever.

Well, I was responding to the comment that other than Areolla and one other, the league had no good catchers. But even looking at the list of the lower half you find lots of "it'll work" kind of guys. In addition, catcher is a place where the argument of elite defense being "worth" punting offense is always prevalent.

None of the guys on your list are "stars," but all of them can provide positive value.

Going up your list form the bottom:

Hector Garza is an atrocious hitting catcher? The guy's has a .361 OBP the past three seasons. He's not the greatest offensive powerhouse in the league, but if he keeps that number up, he's adequate. 2.5 WAR in about a season's worth of AB. To pull the math up, if you had 9 guys with a .361 OBP in your lineup, I think they would bat around about once every three days. So, assuming nothing but walks, they essentially guarantee at least one 3-run inning every three games--plus, of course, whatever else happens between those days.

Bob Wagner isn't great, but he's also averaged about 2.0 WAR over the past three seasons. Not crap.

Enrique Nunez is not so good but if you can keep him away from lefties he could probbaly at least play for a lower team. Like Mexico City.

Paul Scholes has always been a horrible hitting catcher, but he's been uber-elite behind the plate. Insert classic "how much does catching defense matter" argument here.

Sam Adams is death to the opponent's running game, and a mega-power bat who will do just fine in Huntsville's park. Not an elite hitter, but a 2-3 WAR player if he gets full time.

Gabriel Santana may well wind up being replacement overall, but at least you can look at him as see that he's there for that outstanding defense. He's a kid. We'll see what comes of it.

Alberto Padilla is never going to put up 4 WAR, but when he playes he puts up positive numbers. He's got power and plate discipline that moves him up above replacement. Again, not a guy who's goingto bring you a championship, but he's still capable of 1.5-2.5 WAR in a full season.

[RonCo]

Regardless...name a season in the MLB where EVERY TEAM had an average or above OFFENSIVE catcher. The existence of 6-8 teams who are employing below average offensive catchers is to be expected unless you live by Lake Woebegon.

[Lane]

Regardless...name a season in the MLB where EVERY TEAM had an average or above OFFENSIVE catcher. The existence of 6-8 teams who are employing below average offensive catchers is to be expected unless you life by Lake Woebegon.

Off Topic

MLB: Since 2013
Using a minimum of 300PA (since hardly any catchers are "qualified") there's only been two seasons (2013, 2017) where more than 10 catchers had a wRC+ of 100 or greater

[RonCo]

I just realized I left off Hawaii's Jason Weaver (and Fernando Ortiz, who is similar). They will both be sub-par offensive catchers, but have bazookas on their shoulders that should shut down all but the elite best running games--or at least slow them down a little--the Tropic's pitchers don't hold runners very well on the whole.

So, yeah, Hawaii could use an upgrade. But is now the time?

[agrudez]

There is no world where Sam Adams consistently puts up 2-3 WAR as a starting C.

[RonCo]

There is no world where Sam Adams consistently puts up 2-3 WAR as a starting C.

Fair enough, but he put up .6 WAR in 117 AB last year. If I have my math right, that equates to 2.56 WAR in 500 AB.

[RonCo]

He's had other years where he's done similarly well. It's fair to say he's getting older or that there's a decent chance he'll regress. But to say "there's no world" where that can happen seems odd to me since it has actually been happening.

[udlb58]

Paul Scholes has always been a horrible hitting catcher, but he's been uber-elite behind the plate. Insert classic "how much does catching defense matter" argument here.

I know I'm digging up a relatively out-of-date post here, but going through some stuff I've missed. All I can say about Scholes is, when I started in this league, I thought catcher defense was next to worthless (go look at what I had behind the plate in 2026). Since then, I did a study for a media guide and now I've pretty much punted offense in favor of stronger defense ever since. So, that'll tell you how much catcher defense appears to matter.

I'd say half of those guys you listed above don't belong behind the plate. They are liabilities in a league that runs as much as ours, and are drags on the K/BB rate of their staffs.

[RonCo]

Paul Scholes has always been a horrible hitting catcher, but he's been uber-elite behind the plate. Insert classic "how much does catching defense matter" argument here.

I know I'm digging up a relatively out-of-date post here, but going through some stuff I've missed. All I can say about Scholes is, when I started in this league, I thought catcher defense was next to worthless (go look at what I had behind the plate in 2026). Since then, I did a study for a media guide and now I've pretty much punted offense in favor of stronger defense ever since. So, that'll tell you how much catcher defense appears to matter.

I'd say half of those guys you listed above don't belong behind the plate. They are liabilities in a league that runs as much as ours, and are drags on the K/BB rate of their staffs.

When bases were being stolen at a 64-65% rate, I wanted guys to run as often as possible against me. But, yes, if they're succeeding at 73% or more (as they should, and as they are now), then running game prevention is more valuable.

[RonCo]

Now let's talk about framing.

[agrudez]

I'm in the same boat. I've always thought catcher defense was useless, but in our current arcade-style setting I wouldn't dream of putting somebody without a +arm behind the plate.

[RonCo]

OOTP is weird, though. You've got a guy like Aaron stone with a 6 arm throwing out 34% of base stealers. So, on the whole his performance is probably about run neutral, and which is toward the top of the table. The random nature of catcher arm performance is always interesting. I don't really care it runners run three times as often as long as they are still getting thrown out at a decent clip.

[scottsdale_joe]

Imho
The Ward trade for Vancouver was a definite D (for Dumb) rated trade.
A) They are nowhere near win-now territory.
B) Ward is a borderline starter at best and they didn't need him in the bullpen.
B) They absolutely could not afford to pay his salary especially after signing Hahn to his ridiculous extension.
The prospects, at least, were no great loss.

It's an A- for YS. They didn't need Ward, they got rid of his salary, and they cleared $10 million in cap space for next year.
The prospects almost don't matter a twit to them (again, imho).

[udlb58]

OOTP is weird, though. You've got a guy like Aaron stone with a 6 arm throwing out 34% of base stealers. So, on the whole his performance is probably about run neutral, and which is toward the top of the table. The random nature of catcher arm performance is always interesting. I don't really care it runners run three times as often as long as they are still getting thrown out at a decent clip.

Yes, but from 2033-2034 you can see the difference in catcher D (in the run game). Scholes allowed .6 fewer steals per game than Stone (.9 vs 1.5) while throwing out .4 more runners per game (.9 vs .5), though Scholes did have the higher RTO%. So teams didn't attempt to run nearly as much against Scholes, and he was more successful at throwing them out when they did test him, but Stone created more outs because of the elevated steal attempts. Now, is it more valuable that .6 runners per game ended up in scoring position, or that .4 outs per game were created?

Those stats don't take into account the framing adjustment that OOTP has. Pitchers who were throwing to Scholes would have had a higher % of strikes and lower % of balls than they would have if pitching to Stone.

[RonCo]

I’m not sure what we’re arguing about, I guess. I mean, there’s no question defense makes a difference, and that Scholes is a far superior glove than Stone.

RUNNING GAME RUNS/WINS

Doing a “classic” run analysis of the running game against each catcher using .34/-.66 as the basis for run value (and including PB as if they are CS, and which I'll attach below) shows that since 2032, Scholes has been about 3.7 wins better than Stone as a defender. This does not include any impact of framing—which is an interesting question that I’d love to study some time in order to get a quantitative value.

Still, that’s’ 3.7 defensive wins—about 1/year.

If you want to argue the value of a steal goes up in our run environment—let’s say it goes from .34 runs to .36 (about a 5.9% increase in value)—then Scholes has been 4.08 defensive runs better than Stone.

OFFENSIVE VALUE/WINS

Of course, through that period Stone has created 11.7 WAR to Scholes’ 3.1, a 8.6 win difference—meaning that over that same time period Stone has been about 12.5 wins better than Scholes with the bat (and that’s counting the super-weird 2033 regression to sub-WAR ranges when he did not catch.

FRAMING CONVERSATION

So, to be of equal value, Scholes’ framing advantage has to be 8-9 wins over that period. Is it possible? Sure. How would I know? I can say that looking at CERA (always a dangerous state to my eyes, but it's what we've got so we should look at it) says Scholes might be a couple hundredths of a point better—maybe, maybe not? But would framing show up there?

It all depends on how the game implements framing. My understanding is that there are very small mods to K-rates and BB-rates for it (though technically I wonder if there should be an adjustment to BABIP in order to capture the influence of count in the process. I have, however, no real faith either way that the game is doing what some have said. I just don’t know. I can say, though, that if the game resolves situations as I understand it does, the actual count you see (strikes and balls) is effectively cosmetic in that it’s backed into as a result of the play rather than used as a driver of the result—which I admit sounds wonky, but there you go.

Bottom line, though, is the unless framing results in about 2.5-3.5 Wins/year, Stone is a considerably better value to his team than Scholes—and that’s despite the huge defensive advantage Scholes has over Stone.

[agrudez]

You can make a similar statement about any all glove, no bat vs. all bat, no glove player. The potential value a player accrues offensively is just so much more than what they might accrue defensively (just look at an elite glove's ZR vs. an elite bat's RC... which, despite their faults, attempt the same conclusion from the opposite end of the spectrum). It's why I've never understood "punting" a position with a terrible bat just to get a marginally better glove in the lineup. You should be doing the reverse (punting the glove to get a marginally better bat in) - even at prime defensive positions.

[RonCo]

an outstanding glove can elevate a mediocre bat to a place where the player is valuable (someone like Des Moines' Chon comes to mind..he's a guy that can do 2-2.5 WAR with a tepid bat as long as he gets on base a little). But a sub-zero stick is very hard to overcome with defense. Back in his twenties, Scholes was easy to see as a huge value because he paired that amazing defense with a bat that wasn't a zero.

That said, it's still fair to say that the great unknown in the case of catchers is the influence of framing in the game of OOTP.

[udlb58]

I'm not really arguing anything other than trying to say that catcher defense is as important as defense at any key position (like SS or CF). They contribute both in keeping the run game in check, and in gaining extra strikeouts/fewer walks for pitchers. For one of the old media guides (somewhere between 2027-2029), I created a handful of identical leagues with injuries and development turned off. I created a high arm/high ability catcher in one, a high arm/low ability in another, low arm/low ability, and low arm/low ability and simmed some single seasons. The only differences were the catcher's defense (and I made him a stud hitter, so he would be guaranteed to start). I can't remember the actual results, but there was a clear increase in strikeouts and decrease in walks for the staff with the high ability catchers. I was also surprised that ability seemed to help CS%.

Playing a catcher with a 5 or 6 rating at C should be viewed the same as playing a CF or SS (or 2B) with a rating of 5 or 6. You probably don't want to do it, but if he's a great hitter and you have a good DH/1B (and no real viable replacement), then you can fudge it.