Catcher defense?

[Mean Dean]

There are two ways to get PBs. One is off the CATCH-X as I was describing there. In those situations, if you roll the possible PB, whether the PB actually occurs depends on the pitcher's WP rating; you roll again, and if the roll (out of 20) is less than or equal to the pitcher's WP, then a PB results. This is to reflect the fact that wilder pitchers not only create more WP, but more PB as well (knuckleballers are the most vivid example of this.) So although lower-range catchers have more possible PBs against them, the main factor in whether the PBs actually happen is the WP rating of the pitchers. (Catcher's range, then, would be more important if you happen to have several high-WP pitchers, and even less important if you happen to have several low-WP pitchers.)

The other way to get a PB depends solely on the catcher's PB rating. In every plate appearance with a runner on base, there is a 2.5% chance of a possible PB. That is then a straight roll against the catcher's PB rating to determine whether it happens.

[quote:992871b632]I'm bemused that a catcher's range rating plays no part in cutting down hits from bunt attempts or whatsmore isn't referred to in a sort of GB (Catcher)? sense. Surely a more fleet footed catcher reduces the number of bunts for hits and gets to more balls pounded into the dirt in front of the plate. I would have thought a super-advanced "Catch-X" would be checking his range to see if he makes that sort of play. [/quote:992871b632]
To be fair, technically there is that sort of thing, but the effect is so small as to be negligible. In a CATCH-X in a DP situation, a 1 range catcher will have a 10% chance to turn a 1-6-3 double play, a 2 range catcher will have a 5% chance, and a 3 through 5 range have none. There is a similarly tiny difference between the ranges in whether the grounders are gbBs (fielder's choices) as opposed to gbCs (runners advance). And on a bunt, there is a 2.3% chance of a "defense" roll to the catcher where the catcher's range rating plays a small role in the lead runner's safe chances (e.g., on this roll, if the lead runner has a 14 speed, he will have a 55% chance against a 1 catcher of being safe at the next base, and a 70% chance against a 4 catcher. Of course, if the lead runner has any kind of decent chance and the opposing manager has any kind of sense, he'll probably just take the out at first anyway.)

But, these are all little things. If you look at the CATCH-X fielding charts, surely the main thing that will strike you about them is that there's hardly any difference between a 1 and a 4, and that without runners on base (which is the majority of the time,) they are literally identical.

[JIMDAKE]

Okaaaay....
Went down and fished out a super-advanced fielding chart from my boardgame collection (I don't usually play S-A off cards, way too many rules to keep in mind, better suited to the computer and online games). So this will be simplified. I'll leave it to one of the statistical analysis nuts (you know who you are) to provide the full pctg breakdown if they're so inclined. (The computer engine may apply some extra rules beyond the board game...but Strat does that by layering additional chance splits on top of the board game rules, not replacing them (thus keeping compatibility), but I'm not familiar with what would apply here.) Only Bob Winberry really knows for sure!

Apart from errors and the occasional rare plays, which modify the split roll to describe how the play was botched, the 20-line split chart suggests the following:

20% of the chances (rolls 1-4) are the same for all ranges:
-- A 1 roll for all ranges generates either a wild-pitch (if runners on) or a squib single (5%).
-- A 2,3, or 4 roll generages either a wild pitch (if runners on) or a squib ground out.

Biggest difference is rolls 5-18 -- these generate a potential passed ball, based on the catcher's PB rating. This oiccurs:
For a 1: rolls 5-7 (15%) ... rolls 5-16 are popouts or foulouts
For a 2: rolls 5-10 (30%)
For a 3: rolls 5-13 (45%)
For a 4: rolls 5-16 (60%)
For a (ugh!) 5: rolls 5-18 (70%)
The remaining 2-4 chances are various types of grounballs. A 1 has a 10% chance of a potential double-play ball, a 2 has 5%, others none.

This might very well be the most convoluted of all the position X-charts.

So yeah, all things considered I'd rather have a slugger (even though I have Pena right now on my MM team)... but that 4 will see relatively more balls rolling thru to the backstop.

[Ragnarokpc]

I see . . . I knew I had seen some hits in the offline game that were "Single in front of home plate, Bo Diaz couldn't get to it!" or "Dribbler to catcher, play made by Bo Diaz" depending on whether or not the play was made. Looks like a relatively small amount of difference. Still . . . just like errors, I am not overly fond of WP/PB. It's great when you're pitching, runner on second, you intentionally walk the batter to set up a double play . . . and your catcher loses the ball, moving the runners up and taking away that double play. But I digress.

Looks like there are only a few situations where runners get on due to bad D behind the plate. I have no idea about Super Advanced Bunting, but I'm thinking that will be pretty minimal too. For me, though, I'm always going to try to have good D at any position . . . at least a 2. It ticks me off too much when a groundball gets hit to a fielder that could have ended the inning, only to have it go through for a hit or an error because he wasn't good enough. That happened to me the other night offline, lost a game because my 3 at SS couldn't reach a ball in the gap. But that's my two cents.

[honestiago1]

Of course Arm has to be the important factor in catcher D. Stopping that running game is the main thing they do. After that, I like a low PB/T rating. Range is not near as big a consideration, though it seems goodarm/good range go hand in hand (any 4 rated catchers with a negative arm? Gedman is a 3 with a -2).