Kenyan marathoners, karate guys breaking bricks with bare hands and the Easter bunny analogies aside, I think most informed baseball fans would agree that playing the position of catcher for 9 innings is the most physically taxing defensive position (other than pitcher) on the baseball diamond. Personally, I don't even think that is debatable. Skin, I think you are way off base (no pun intended) on this one.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
@grote15 said:
Kenyan marathoners, karate guys breaking bricks with bare hands and the Easter bunny analogies aside, I think most informed baseball fans would agree that playing the position of catcher for 9 innings is the most physically taxing defensive position (other than pitcher) on the baseball diamond. Personally, I don't even think that is debatable. Skin, I think you are way off base (no pun intended) on this one.
It may be the most demanding of the positions, but that doesn't mean it affects hitting ability. When catchers play other positions they don't improve in their hitting ability.
Squatting itself is a beneficial human movement for body strength, not a detrimental one. Humans that can train their body to do something as simple as squating at catcher for a nine inning game, will increase their core strength and actually be more capable of doing other movements...not be less capable.
As for Lynn and Tenace, Lynn crashing into outfield walls and throwing his body all over the place at high speeds was more physically hampering than catching was.
Also, if Dallas were even a tiny bit accurate that catching saps offense, then Tenace is already getting credit for that when he is being compared to the low offense positional adjustment that is given to catchers. It is already intertwined in the analysis.
And catchers have short careers because many are poor hitters to begin with, and when their offense declines to sub human levels, teams can no longer accept it...despite their continued defensive ability.
Speaking of defensive ability...that seems to stay quite a long time for catchers...which should be the first thing to go if catching really was that taxing on their bodies.
OK, technically this means I lied when I said I'd drop this topic, but there's quite a bit of stuff out there on how catching affects offense, and I found the chart below the most interesting. There is an inherent bias in the chart that works against the premise that catching lowers offensive production, in that only the most durable catchers are asked to catch more than a handful of games without a day off. In other words, day 1 includes every catcher and day 8 includes the far smaller group of the most durable catchers. The most durable catchers saw the decline shown in the graph on day 8; if all catchers were used 8 days running, the dropoff by day 8 would have been enormous. But, even with that bias working against me, the affect is still pretty clear. The chart is based on 30+ years of data (over 100,000 ABs on day 1).
Comments
Kenyan marathoners, karate guys breaking bricks with bare hands and the Easter bunny analogies aside, I think most informed baseball fans would agree that playing the position of catcher for 9 innings is the most physically taxing defensive position (other than pitcher) on the baseball diamond. Personally, I don't even think that is debatable. Skin, I think you are way off base (no pun intended) on this one.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
It may be the most demanding of the positions, but that doesn't mean it affects hitting ability. When catchers play other positions they don't improve in their hitting ability.
Squatting itself is a beneficial human movement for body strength, not a detrimental one. Humans that can train their body to do something as simple as squating at catcher for a nine inning game, will increase their core strength and actually be more capable of doing other movements...not be less capable.
As for Lynn and Tenace, Lynn crashing into outfield walls and throwing his body all over the place at high speeds was more physically hampering than catching was.
Also, if Dallas were even a tiny bit accurate that catching saps offense, then Tenace is already getting credit for that when he is being compared to the low offense positional adjustment that is given to catchers. It is already intertwined in the analysis.
And catchers have short careers because many are poor hitters to begin with, and when their offense declines to sub human levels, teams can no longer accept it...despite their continued defensive ability.
Speaking of defensive ability...that seems to stay quite a long time for catchers...which should be the first thing to go if catching really was that taxing on their bodies.
OK, technically this means I lied when I said I'd drop this topic, but there's quite a bit of stuff out there on how catching affects offense, and I found the chart below the most interesting. There is an inherent bias in the chart that works against the premise that catching lowers offensive production, in that only the most durable catchers are asked to catch more than a handful of games without a day off. In other words, day 1 includes every catcher and day 8 includes the far smaller group of the most durable catchers. The most durable catchers saw the decline shown in the graph on day 8; if all catchers were used 8 days running, the dropoff by day 8 would have been enormous. But, even with that bias working against me, the affect is still pretty clear. The chart is based on 30+ years of data (over 100,000 ABs on day 1).