Why are there no left-handed catchers? Form follows function

Aw snap!! Will the real Larry Haney please stand up?

I give up!!  I have to address this issue. 

I have seen so many articles / blogs recently regarding the "Why are there no LH Catchers" question from some esteemed sources -- such as the NY Times and SABR -- that cite long-time players and managers  opinions as to why the situation is the way it is and yet nobody touches on the central issue. 

So I figured I would take a crack at it. 

The NYT asks current major league catchers Joe Mauer, Brian McCann and former catcher and manager Joe Torre and they can't seem to put a finger on it, leaving the author to highlight "poor" Bennie DeStefano as some victim of institutional bias and prejudice preventing him from playing the position he loves and "Gosh, darn it would be pretty darn good at". He would be the equal of all those right-handers if he were just given the opportunity. 

It's pretty laughable. 

From the New York Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/16/sports/baseball/16catcher.html?_r=2&

Left-Handed and Left Out

Like Ladies Night and pitchers named Wilbur, left-handed catchers are effectively extinct — for reasons on which there is bizarrely little consensus.

"I have no idea," said Joe Mauer, the Minnesota Twins' All-Star catcher (right-handed, naturally).

"Is it because there are more right-handed hitters?" offered Atlanta Braves catcher Brian McCann.

"There's been nobody come into a game for 20 years? Really?" said a nonplussed Joe Torre, an All-Star catcher throughout the 1960s. "Well, first off, left-handed pitchers don't throw the ball straight."

"It's a slow-changing game," said Distefano, now the hitting coach of the West Michigan Whitecaps, a Detroit Tigers Class A affiliate. "It takes a creative manager that's willing to go with something that might be a little outside the box."

No lefty has strapped on the gear since. Few people know why. Youth leagues see the occasional left-handed catcher — gloves for them are readily available in local sporting-goods stores — but never in pro ball. Distefano understands better than anyone which theories make sense and which do not  (Hardball Times article shown below - CS) .

====

Well "say it ain't so, Bennie" or just take a breath and think it through. Because there is a simpler, albeit less sinister explanation.

If people would just think like a T-baller, they would figure it out much easier. 

Ever watch a T-baller the first time he / she hits the ball, so excited that he / she runs down the 3B line and everyone laughs? To him / her it's perfectly reasonable to run down the 3B line. Some even come back to the dugout asking why they can't run the bases that way. Those are the rules, we tell them. But what would happen if they changed the rules? 

IDK, let's think through the implications / ramifications shall we?

The preponderance of RH catchers and IF's is mainly due to the initial design of the field and the choice of requiring runners to advance counter-clockwise. 

That decision has conspired to embarrass young T-ballers across the country who have a 50/50 chance of getting that initial choice right.  

Form follows function.  It's as simple as that. 
In baseball, as surely as "to Chance" follows "Tinkers to Evers", "form follows function". 

It is the pervading law of all things organic and inorganic,

Of all things physical and metaphysical,
Of all things human and all things super-human,
Of all true manifestations of the head,
Of the heart, of the soul,
That the life is recognizable in its expression,
That form ever follows function. This is the law.

-- Louis Sullivan

We can debate why they chose this path -- some speculate it was to blaze a different path than cricket and that the Americans wanted to differ from the British game -- but baseball was derived from Rounders, a British game as well, and they ran the bases this way. 

from knowledgerush.com
http://www.knowledgerush.com/kr/encyclopedia/Rounders/

Imagine how many LH catchers and middle infielders there  would be today if the inventors of the game viewed the rules through the eyes of modern day T-ballers -- who hit the ball and scurry down the 3B line as if it were the destination to first base? 

If 3B were the first base batters were required to touch and 1B became the third base -- and thus the higher value base ( one base away from scoring ) -- the whole personnel dynamics of major league rosters would change. Because the advantage / disadvantage of right versus left - handedness would change. If the base paths ran in the opposite direction from the initial rules choice,  it would be as difficult for RH players to throw well without turning their bodies 180 degrees as it is currently for LH players. 

And since form follows function, we would see the following changes in positioning on fields across the nation in very short order. 

-- LH catchers would be preferred over RH catchers due to the anatomical advantage of throwing more efficiently to the higher value base.  

-- LH infielders would be preferred over righties due to the ease of throwing to the "new" 1B as well as the advantage of turning the DP in the opposite direction.

-- RH pitchers would be advantageous over LHP due to their improved ability to hold runners on the "new" 1B and preventing them from moving closer to scoring position. 

-- RH batters would now be one-step closer than LH batters and be preferred due to being in the most advantageous position to get to first base. 

All the advantages stated are marginal -- almost imperceptible at times -- but that's where games are decided -- at the margin. The close call at first that does / doesn't go your way. The stolen base itself is almost always a banger, whether at second or third base. The handedness of the catcher would make no difference on throws to second base in either scenario, because 2B would be 2B even if you change the order / direction, HOWEVER!!! that throw to third -- wherever you choose to locate it -- does determine the selection of the other positions. It's simply a higher value target and the placement matters. 

I would invite any managers that believe the selection of catchers is based on some inherently evil bias or mindless tradition to try placing a LH catcher behind the dish long-term and see how long it takes for the opposition to exploit the advantage.

Or give that poor LH outfielder some long-term reps at SS and see how many bangers at 1B are beat out against you. And how many more games you lose as a result of said choices. 

I liked the fact that the best "other" consideration came from of all places Bill "Spaceman" Lee in this article. 

Left Handed Catchers

http://bb_catchers.tripod.com/catchers/catchleft.htm

However, consummate left-hander Bill Lee argues against the left-handed catcher. "Lefties can't play catcher because your head hangs over home plate when you make a tag." "You've got the ball in your right hand, you're blocking the plate with your left foot. When you go to make the tag, you're exposed. A lefty catcher would get killed

And like all the other theories posited, changing the direction the bases are run in -- like our T-baller does routinely -- would change the entire dynamic here as well. In that case, the RH catcher would be at more risk from incoming base-runners from the opposite direction. All the various theories hinge on the direction batters are required to run and the order and location of the bases. All the natural selection of positions flow from that and can be changed by same. 

Form follows function.  It's as simple as that.

===

from the Hardball Times:

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/top-10-left-handed-catchers-for-2006/

Why There Are No Left-Handed Catchers

Let's review the various reasons that have been given to explain the non-existence of the lefty catcher.

1. Difficulty in throwing to second base with a right-handed batter at the plate. This is the reason, I think, most commonly given. It also happens to be the one we can check with a high degree of confidence. If it's hard for a left-handed catcher to throw out a runner at second base when there is a right-handed batter in the box, we should be able to observe the same difficulty for a right-handed catcher throwing with a left-handed batter at the plate.
   First of all, just how many more right-handed batters are there than left-handers? Perhaps not as many as you might think. In 2004, 57% of plate appearances were by right-handed batters. A majority, yes, but not a huge one.
   So, how did catchers do throwing out runners when a lefty or righty was at bat? We can measure this directly using play-by-play data, but there is one subtlety that needs to be considered. Because of platooning, right-handed batters will face left-handed pitchers more often than left-handed batters will and the opposite is true for left-handed batters. It's also true that the average stolen base success rate is significantly worse when a left-handed pitcher is on the mound. This makes sense, as the left-handed pitcher has a much easier pickoff move to first base.
   So, to take this into account, I will compare the stolen base success rate when a left- or right-handed batter is at the plate for a given pitcher handedness. Here, it's easier to see if I show you a table:

   +--------------+-------------+------+------+--------+ | pitcher hand | batter hand | sb2  | cs2  | sb2pct | +--------------+-------------+------+------+--------+ | L            | L           |  714 |  383 | 0.651  | | L            | R           | 1707 | 1023 | 0.625  | | R            | L           | 4366 | 1822 | 0.706  | | R            | R           | 5357 | 2140 | 0.715  | +--------------+-------------+------+------+--------+ 

   Columns 3-5 show the stolen bases, caught stealing and stolen base success rate at second base for the different combination of pitcher/batter handedness. You can see that the average stolen base percentage is higher when a right-handed pitcher is on the mound. Given this effect of the pitcher handedness, we need to compare the first two rows and rows three and four separately. Remember, we are looking at right-handed catchers, and if there is a problem with "throwing through the batter," we should observe a higher stolen base percentage when a left-handed batter is at the plate.
   The table shows that this seems to be the case when a left-hander is pitching, but the opposite is true when a right-hander is pitching. In both instances, though, the differences are quite small and a statistical analysis of these results (I'll spare you the hairy details) shows that there is no significant difference between the stolen base success rates with left- or right-handed batters at the plate. In other words, throwing through the batter does not have a measurably negative effect on caught stealing rates for catchers.
2. Difficulty in throwing out a base stealer at third base. To make the throw to third base, a left-handed catcher would have to swivel his body to the left to make the throw. A right-handed catcher can throw to third base almost without moving his feet after he catches the pitch. Unfortunately, we cannot do a similar check as we did above. (We could if a runner on second base tried to steal first!) However, a right-handed catcher who makes a pickoff throw to first base has to execute the same footwork as a left-handed catcher throwing to third.
   So, to try to understand the mechanics of throwing to first or third base from behind the plate, I watched some video of such plays. Armed with my subscription to MLB.TV and my play-by-play database (to tell me where to look), I looked at several pick-off throws to first base and some throws to third base on stolen base attempts.
   While watching throws to first base, it didn't appear to me that a left-handed batter standing in the box interfered in any way with the throw. A right-handed catcher throwing to first has to turn quickly to his right to be in position to throw. This motion brings his right arm well behind the batter, who doesn't seem to interfere at all.
   I also watched several throws to third base. Here the catcher does not have to make the jump-turn, but rather can just throw without moving his feet at all. So, that's an advantage for a righty catcher. However, there is a disadvantage for the righty: a right-handed batter in the box is somewhat in the line of fire. I observed that batters will move out of the way to varying degrees. On one play Vlad Guerrero was at the plate, Pudge Rodriguez was behind it and Erstad attempted a steal of third. While Pudge made the throw, Vlad bent fully over at the waist, his torso ending up parallel to the ground. He looked like a near-sighted person who has just dropped something valuable and is peering at the ground looking for it. Erstad was out.
   Even though batters will generally try to get out of the way, at least to some degree, it still looks like they disturb the throw to third base somewhat. The caught stealing data for steals of third base bear this out: the average success rate for steals of third is higher when a right-handed batter is at the plate, 73.7% compared to 68.2%, and this time the difference is statistically significant.
   So, based on my observations, I would say that a lefty catcher would be slightly slower on the throw to third, based on the more complex footwork required, but he'd be hindered less by the batter. Add in the fact that steals of third, in the grand scheme of things, make up a very small portion of a catcher's responsibilities, and I don't see this as a problem for a left-handed catcher.
3. Lefty throw "moves" more, causing trouble for second baseman. I came across this "explanation" recently and I'm not convinced. Obviously, any catcher, lefty or righty, would have to learn to make accurate throws to second base. If left-handed pitchers like David Wells, Mark Buehrle and Andy Pettitte can show excellent control, I don't see why a left-handed catcher couldn't make an accurate throw to second base.
4. Difficulty in tagging out a runner at home. When a catcher sets up to receive a throw from the outfield for a play at the plate, he generally stands in front of the plate, with his left foot on the third base foul line, just off the plate. As he catches the ball, he leans down over the foul line, closing off the path of the approaching runner. The ball is in his left (glove) hand which can easily sweep down for the tag. This play for a left-hander would definitely be more difficult. To make the tag with the right hand, he'd have to make a half-turn of this body (a counter-clockwise rotation) to get the tag down.
   I think this is a real disadvantage, but I doubt in the end it makes a ton of difference, simply because the play doesn't happen that often. In 2005, the average team threw out 12 runners at the plate (excluding force-outs, where no tag is required). Of these 12 plays, some fraction are not close and some don't present any particular difficulties for a left-hander, for example a basic 5-2 fielder's choice, or a play that resulted in a run-down. In any case, I would estimate that the tagging problem for a lefty results in no more than a run or two for the opposition over the course of a season.
5. Left-handed catcher's mitts are not available to Little League players. This was true when I played Little League ball and in fact, it would have been a real impediment for a left-handed kid becoming a catcher. That was a while back though, (I don't enjoy broadcasting my age, but let's just say that Joe Pepitone was the Yankee first baseman my first year of Little League) and I thought I'd check to see what the current situation is.
   So, I contacted Craig Seidel, who is the President of the Palo Alto Little League, in Palo Alto, California. Craig told me that left-handed catcher's gloves are supplied to every team in the Palo Alto Little League:

   In keeping with Little League principles, we wish to make baseball as accessible as possible...we provide almost anything a child will need to play, regardless of size, skill, handedness or other factors.

   Asked if there were any left-handed catchers currently in the league, Craig responded:

   I don't know exactly how many left-handers we have catching. At lower levels, players rotate positions so most players are likely to try catching. As they specialize more in upper divisions, we tend to have fewer catchers in general. I don't believe there are any impediments for a left-hander to become a catcher in our league.

   So, sometime between the days of Joe Pepitone and Jason Giambi left-handed catcher's gloves became available to Little Leaguers.

Advantages for Lefty Catchers

There are not many advantages for left-handed catchers, but there are a couple:

1. Fielding bunts/nubbers in front of home plate. The left-hander has an easier throw to first base after fielding a ball in front of home plate. This is especially true for a ball fielded up the third base line, where a right-handed catcher would have to rotate his body about 180 degrees to be able to make a strong throw to first base.
2. Catching breaking pitches from right-handed pitchers. With the glove on the right hand, a lefty catcher would be in better position to catch low outside (to a right-handed batter) pitches. A righty will often have to backhand that pitch, while a lefty can frame it normally (perhaps coaxing a few extra called strikes from the umpire). Of course, the opposite is true for a lefty-pitcher, left-batter combination, but there are fewer of those.

What Bill James Said

Bill James himself comments on the left-handed catcher issue in his Historical Baseball Abstract. James writes:

The notion that a left-handed person could not be a major league catcher is absurd...The biggest reason there are no left-handed catchers is natural selection. Catchers need good throwing arms. If you have a kid on your baseball team who is left-handed and has a strong arm, what are you going to do with him?

The answer to the question is, of course, turn him into a pitcher.

This actually sounds like a pretty good reason to me. Pretty good, but not perfect. I agree that there'd be a tendency to move lefties who can throw into pitching roles, but I find it hard to believe that every single strong-armed lefty would end up on the mound. Maybe the kid doesn't like to pitch. Maybe he likes to wear shin guards. Maybe his hero is Brad Ausmus. If natural selection were the primary force at work, I think you'd see a preponderance of righties behind the plate, but an occasional lefty would come along. But they haven't, at least not in the last 100 years or so.

My Own Theory

Based on the above reflections, I feel like it's safe to say there is no good reason why a left-handed thrower could not succeed at the professional level. So why aren't there any? My own guess, and this is just wild speculation (one of my favorite activities), is that originally left-handers were not trusted as much as their righty counterparts. They were considered fluky, flaky, crazy if you like. Left-handed pitchers were considered the worst: Hall of Famer Rube Waddell is an example of a nutty left-hander from the old days, while Spaceman Bill Lee is a more modern example.

Ring Lardner, baseball reporter and short-story writer, is considered one of the finest observers of the game back in the Dead Ball Era. Here's a bit from his story "My Roomy," in which the narrator tries to explain the bizarre, downright psychotic behavior of his teammate, Buster Elliot. After concluding that Elliott "wasn't no stew" nor was he a "dope," our narrator observes:

There wouldn't of been no mystery about it if he'd been a left-hand pitcher—but he wasn't. He wasn't nothin' but a whale of a hitter and he throwed with his right arm. He hit left-handed o' course; but so did Saier and Brid and Schulte and me, and John himself; and none of us was violent.

Since the catcher is also traditionally a team leader, it makes sense that teams would be reluctant to give that job to perceived nut-cases. Later, when left-handers had mostly lost their reputation for goofiness, tradition has assured the continued absence of the left-handed catcher.