Article: For The Love Of Joe

[dxpavelka]

 

Why did Carew move to first base in 1976? Did it have anything to do with the knee injury he suffered in 1970?

Carew was never a stellar defensive player, certainly not at Mauer's level at his position, especially at turning the double play, and the injury certainly didn't help.  The fact that the Twins lacked a classic slugging first baseman at the time contributed as well.  The presence of guys like Lyman Bostock, Danny Ford & Larry Hisle helped overcome some of any perceived power shortage his presence at first may have caused.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

Another way to look at it, AL WAR rankings each year for 10 years. (2005-2014) plus a few accomplishments.

This is a better way to look at it, as compared to cumulative WAR over the entire period.  Although I'd probably look at MLB as a whole and not just the AL.

[KGB]

 

That's an interesting yet warped idea of how to look at it.  Take Mauer's 2009 where he was 4th in WAR and make it 39th. Your look kind of throws out the whole idea of consistent quality performance through a long time span, which is what the HOF should be about, IMO.  Averaging 4.4 WAR over a 10 year span (which is what he did from 2005-2014) shows quality performance over a long period.  That's averaging at an all star level over a 10 year span.

 

But interesting nonetheless.

Since this is over an 11 year time period, you have to divide out the rankings.  But if you look at his top 7 years, it compares to taking his ranking for each year.  Over the 11 year period his he would rank 24 among position players and if you added up each individual ranking, he would rank 22.  For comparison, Mike Piazza top 7 years from 1993 - 2004, he would rank either 13th or 15th depending how you wanted to look at it.

 

I think looking at them over a time period is better since it would value Mike Trout #1 ranking in 2013 with his 11.9 WAR higher than Albert Pujous 2006 #1 ranking with a 8.1 WAR.

 

Also this is valuable when comparing WAR to different time periods.  For example, you can't compare Oliva's WAR in a 16 team league to Mauer's WAR in a 30 team league since the total WAR points available increase with more teams.  The 30 team league has 1,000 available points (including pitchers) where a 16 team league would only have 533.  So a 4 WAR in 2015 is different than in 1965, so it's better to compare player rankings.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Also this is valuable when comparing WAR to different time periods. For example, you can't compare Oliva's WAR in a 16 team league to Mauer's WAR in a 30 team league since the total WAR points available increase with more teams. The 30 team league has 1,000 available points (including pitchers) where a 16 team league would only have 533. So a 4 WAR in 2015 is different than in 1965, so it's better to compare player rankings.

That's an interesting way to look at it.

 

On the other hand, replacement level is a lot higher today than it was 50 years ago.

 

And more players means it's harder to scale the rankings. What was 5th in a 16 team league should be roughly 9th in a 30 team league.

 

It's going to be tough to sell me on the idea it was easier for Joe to earn that WAR than, say, anyone who played before 1961. Or even 1981. There may be more overall WAR points in play but the level of competition for those points is much higher.

[ewen21]

I have seen people reflecting on Joe's career and making statistical comparisons about where he ranks against other players ever since he had that dreadful year in 2011.  It is as though the epitaph was being written when this all started with the premise being: has Joe done enough to secure his legacy?

 

I'm sorry, but who cares?  Why all the looking back for these last several years?  He had a handful of tremendous years and then he cratered.  We can speculate forever as to why this was, but the fact is he doesn't contribute a whole lot to actual wins and losses.  He hasn't since Target Field opened.  I see a guy who comes up in big situations looking to walk.  It's as though he is deathly afraid of looking bad.  It's been especially noticeable this year.  For anyone who watches the game and isn't trying to kid themselves, Joe Mauer takes a very passive approach to hitting.  ESPECAILLY when runs are needed at crucial times.  He has 86 plate appearances in close and late situations. In those at bats he has drawn 20 walks (including 5 intentional passes) with a .182 batting average. On the flip side, with the run differential greater than 4 he has 53 plate appearances, but only 4 walks. He is hitting .408 in those situations.  He's looking to do damage then?  THere is a reason why no one can name a single "Target Field moment" for Joe Mauer......he is more interested in getting a base on balls when he should be looking to do damage.  I guess his biggest TF moment would be that walk off walk several weeks ago.  What a thrill that was!

 

Now his quads are sore.  OK, how does that happen?  It's not like he has pulled a muscle  It is more of the old "general soreness".  Last week he was interviewed and he said he saw something on video that made him change his approach at the plate.  He never actually attempted to articulate what he saw or what he is now doing.  He simply said he found something and it is making his legs sore.  Huh?  Another head scratcher.  Within two days of that article he was out of the lineup.

 

I am ambivalent to Mauer at this point and I have seen enough of these career retrospectives.  There isn't much to wonder about anymore, but we've been getting them for several years now.  What's the point in it?  To counter some just criticism of how he has gone about his business?  We heard so much about his workout routine and the Star Tribune ran a joke of an article with him "working out" at Mauer Chevrolet.  It think he had two five pound plates on the bar he was squatting.  Absolutely ridiculous.  All that work with the fat stretching guru and his legs still are sore?

 

 

I'm more interested in the here and now and I am more interested in the Minnesota Twins than I am Joe Mauer.  These last few years have not been that good.  Let's call a circle a circle and a square a square.  I don't care about the name.  I don't care about the contract.  He is an odd piece for this baseball team. He really doesn't fit, imo.  The old Mauer is an entirely different player and it only lasted for about five or six seasons.  If we are going to do a retrospective then there needs to be two separate stories.

 

[ewen21]

One thing I don't understand about Joe......

 

Every hitter goes up there looking for something.  Every hitter has a "happy zone" where they look to crush the pitch.  Joe almost NEVER does that.  You rarely (if ever) see him lay serious lumber on a fat pitch.  He is more likely attempt to slap that pitch into left field.

 

There is a time and a place for that, but Joe started doing it an he never ever stopped.  He has so much bat lag going through the zone that when his reflexes slow down a little more he will be completely cooked.

[AlwaysinModeration]

....if I had a car that lasted from 2001-2015 I would be very happy with that run. I would probably consider that car one of the best cars I had ever owned.

But did you get the car at a Mauer dealership?

 

For what it's worth, Morneau took the knee to the head in 2010 at age 29, and then won a batting title in 2014 and posted another 300+ BA in 2015. Mauer was sidelined with his (worst) concussion in 2013 at age 30. Next year he will be four years removed from the injury. It stands to reason he could have a good last two years on his contract. Hopefully it will be for a competitive Twins team.

[KGB]

 

That's an interesting way to look at it.

On the other hand, replacement level is a lot higher today than it was 50 years ago.

And more players means it's harder to scale the rankings. What was 5th in a 16 team league should be roughly 9th in a 30 team league.

 

It's going to be tough to sell me on the idea it was easier for Joe to earn that WAR than, say, anyone who played before 1961. Or even 1981. There may be more overall WAR points in play but the level of competition for those points is much higher.

When you add teams and players, you would not be adding additional top ten players, so your 5th best player wouldn't drop down.  Think of it in terms of expansion, the expansion teams are not going to playoff or MVP type talent, they are filling out the bottom half of WAR not the top 50.

 

The actual WAR isn't as important as the player rank, when comparing different era's,  It's like batting average, the numbers look the same from 1965 to 2015, but unless you look at the context of the era comparing the actual number is meaningless. 

[shimrod]

"I used that first pitch to see the pitchers motion and time it up."

 

I did my timing in the on-deck circle, so I was ready to hit when I stepped in the box.

 

An earlier comment noted that swinging at the first pitch more often would make the pitcher less comfortable throwing a cookie down the middle. If the pitcher's concerned Joe might swing maybe that first pitch is a ball, and Joe's ahead of the hitter.

 

It's a league of adjustments. The pitchers have adjusted to a freebie strike every time Joe steps to the plate and it's time for Joe to adjust by making them pay. Once they stop throwing fastballs right down the middle he can adjust back to doing what he's done his entire career and stare at the first pitch with his bat on his shoulder.

 

 

 

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

When you add teams and players, you would not be adding additional top ten players, so your 5th best player wouldn't drop down.  Think of it in terms of expansion, the expansion teams are not going to playoff or MVP type talent, they are filling out the bottom half of WAR not the top 50.

That's not even a little bit true.

 

Today, the 50th best player in MLB is almost surely better than the 25th best player 50 years ago. In my eyes, that can't even be disputed.

 

Racial integration, foreign players, astronomical salaries... Those aren't providing roster backfill players. Those are providing a crop of quality MLB players much larger than any time in history.

 

MLB pulls from a pool that's at least 10x (probably more like 100x) the size it was in 1960. Hell, the population of America alone has more than doubled since 1950, never mind the pool of players from Venezuela, PR, Dominican, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Europe, etc. That leads to better players (and lots of 'em), I don't care how many teams are in the league. It's a hell of a lot harder to make it to MLB today than it has been at any time in the history of the game because there are higher numbers of better athletes challenging for a limited numbers of spots.

[KGB]

 

Today, the 50th best player in MLB is almost surely better than the 25th best player 50 years ago. In my eyes, that can't even be disputed.

 

That not the point I'm making.  I'm sure Ricky Nolasco would dominate the 1900's

 

You said "What was 5th in a 16 team league should be roughly 9th in a 30 team league."  In 1970, Tony Oliva had the 9th best WAR in a 24 team league.  If they had actually expanded more teams in 1970, none of the new players would have been better than Oliva, so it's reasonable to assume he would have remained with the 9th best WAR.  But with the increase in teams, the better players probably would have received a larger portion of the additional WAR points available.

 

All stats need to be looked along with the players of that era.  Nobody is going to have Ty Cobb's career batting average, but that doesn't mean players today are not better hitter.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

That not the point I'm making.  I'm sure Ricky Nolasco would dominate the 1900's

 

You said "What was 5th in a 16 team league should be roughly 9th in a 30 team league."  In 1970, Tony Oliva had the 9th best WAR in a 24 team league.  If they had actually expanded more teams in 1970, none of the new players would have been better than Oliva, so it's reasonable to assume he would have remained with the 9th best WAR.  But with the increase in teams, the better players probably would have received a larger portion of the additional WAR points available.

 

All stats need to be looked along with the players of that era.  Nobody is going to have Ty Cobb's career batting average, but that doesn't mean players today are not better hitter.

I think we're talking past each other a bit.

 

Your original point was that there are more WAR points available today than there were in 1960.

 

But WAR is "Wins Above Replacement".

 

If "replacement level" is higher than it was 60 years ago, it's harder to earn 1 WAR than it was in the past. If there are more, better, players competing for a single point of WAR, the net result is approximately the same (and I'd argue it's harder today) no matter whether there are more points available at large. If 1,000 superior players are competing for 1,000 points of WAR, it's harder to earn that point than if there are 500 inferior players competing for 500 points of WAR.

 

On top of that, the player rankings as skewed. To be fifth best in a 500 player league (just using general numbers here for simplicity) means you're a top 1% player.

 

But to be fifth best in a 1,000 player league means you're a top 0.5% player.

 

That's why comparing eras simply by rank is a problem. Today, there are more players, better players, with a higher level of average player performance. The overall point pool is higher but that doesn't matter because the pool of competition is so much higher today.

 

It's akin to this:

 

If you're the fifth best high school player in Minnesota, that's great... But if you're the fifth best high school player in the nation, that means you're phenomenal.

 

If you're the fifth best high school player in the world, that means... Well, you get the point.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

But did you get the car at a Mauer dealership?

For what it's worth, Morneau took the knee to the head in 2010 at age 29, and then won a batting title in 2014 and posted another 300+ BA in 2015. Mauer was sidelined with his (worst) concussion in 2013 at age 30. Next year he will be four years removed from the injury. It stands to reason he could have a good last two years on his contract. Hopefully it will be for a competitive Twins team.

Maybe Mauer needs to move to Colorado?

 

FWIW, Morneau actually suffered another concussion in 2011 along with various other maladies that year -- check out his injury history at Baseball Prospectus:

 

And by the next year (2012), only 2 years removed from his big 2010 concussion, Morneau's performance had pretty much stabilized around ~107 wRC+ where it has stayed over the past 5 season, with the one exception of his first year in Colorado when he reached a 121.  (He's even at a 107 again this year for the White Sox.) 

 

Mauer certainly has the talent to have another little spike season like that, regardless of concussion recovery.  For a little while it looked like 2016 might be that season, but he will probably need a strong finish now to achieve that.

[Doomtints]

One thing I have thought about regarding concussions.

 

As we all know, kids have huge sugar cravings.  Truth is that at that age, sugar is needed for brain development.  There's a reason they crave an endless supply of it.

 

By the time one hits the mid-40s, sugar isn't as necessary and the cravings are much lessened.  When you once could eat an entire cake as a kid, at middle age half a piece is about all you want before it starts tasting disgusting.

 

What I'm getting at is, if high-sugar diets help brain development, would going on a short-term high sugar diet help with post-concussion symptoms?  Athletes like Mauer are probably dedicated to low-sugar, high-protein diets and maybe this is the opposite of what their body needs when it comes to dealing with a concussion?

Any doctors here wish to comment?  

Edited August 26, 2016 by Doomtints

[dxpavelka]

 

I have seen people reflecting on Joe's career and making statistical comparisons about where he ranks against other players ever since he had that dreadful year in 2011.  It is as though the epitaph was being written when this all started with the premise being: has Joe done enough to secure his legacy?

 

I'm sorry, but who cares?  Why all the looking back for these last several years?  He had a handful of tremendous years and then he cratered.  We can speculate forever as to why this was, but the fact is he doesn't contribute a whole lot to actual wins and losses.  He hasn't since Target Field opened.  I see a guy who comes up in big situations looking to walk.  It's as though he is deathly afraid of looking bad.  It's been especially noticeable this year.  For anyone who watches the game and isn't trying to kid themselves, Joe Mauer takes a very passive approach to hitting.  ESPECAILLY when runs are needed at crucial times.  He has 86 plate appearances in close and late situations. In those at bats he has drawn 20 walks (including 5 intentional passes) with a .182 batting average. On the flip side, with the run differential greater than 4 he has 53 plate appearances, but only 4 walks. He is hitting .408 in those situations.  He's looking to do damage then?  THere is a reason why no one can name a single "Target Field moment" for Joe Mauer......he is more interested in getting a base on balls when he should be looking to do damage.  I guess his biggest TF moment would be that walk off walk several weeks ago.  What a thrill that was!

 

Now his quads are sore.  OK, how does that happen?  It's not like he has pulled a muscle  It is more of the old "general soreness".  Last week he was interviewed and he said he saw something on video that made him change his approach at the plate.  He never actually attempted to articulate what he saw or what he is now doing.  He simply said he found something and it is making his legs sore.  Huh?  Another head scratcher.  Within two days of that article he was out of the lineup.

 

I am ambivalent to Mauer at this point and I have seen enough of these career retrospectives.  There isn't much to wonder about anymore, but we've been getting them for several years now.  What's the point in it?  To counter some just criticism of how he has gone about his business?  We heard so much about his workout routine and the Star Tribune ran a joke of an article with him "working out" at Mauer Chevrolet.  It think he had two five pound plates on the bar he was squatting.  Absolutely ridiculous.  All that work with the fat stretching guru and his legs still are sore?

 

 

I'm more interested in the here and now and I am more interested in the Minnesota Twins than I am Joe Mauer.  These last few years have not been that good.  Let's call a circle a circle and a square a square.  I don't care about the name.  I don't care about the contract.  He is an odd piece for this baseball team. He really doesn't fit, imo.  The old Mauer is an entirely different player and it only lasted for about five or six seasons.  If we are going to do a retrospective then there needs to be two separate stories.

Lengthy response to something you're not interested in.

[KGB]

 

But WAR is "Wins Above Replacement".

 

But WAR doesn't actually correlate to wins.  It's at best a compilation of many stats during a year to compare players across positions during the year.  So, it ranks player during a given year.  The 5th best player in 1950 is the 5th best player for that year. Same as the 5th best player in 2016.  WAR doesn't show which player is better because the era's are so different.

 

 

[ewen21]

 

Lengthy response to something you're not interested in.

You aren't actually disputing any Mauer related points I made

[Brock Beauchamp]

But WAR doesn't actually correlate to wins. It's at best a compilation of many stats during a year to compare players across positions during the year. So, it ranks player during a given year. The 5th best player in 1950 is the 5th best player for that year. Same as the 5th best player in 2016. WAR doesn't show which player is better because the era's are so different.

Ugh. Sorry, but it's like you're intentionally missing my point. I'll put it in clearer terms.

 

Pick which one is more impressive:

 

1. Fifth most valuable player in the West Arkansas Little League finals

 

2. Eighth most valuable player in the College World Series

 

More players aren't a bad thing if the players are better. You're using a raw number without factoring in talent level or number of participants.

[KGB]

 

Ugh. Sorry, but it's like you're intentionally missing my point. I'll put it in clearer terms.

Pick which one is more impressive:

1. Fifth most valuable player in the West Arkansas Little League finals

2. Eighth most valuable player in the College World Series

More players aren't a bad thing if the players are better. You're using a raw number without factoring in talent level or number of participants.

We agree, Ugh

 

I've never said player of today are not better than players 50 years ago.  What I'm saying is you can't just look at WAR to compare players from different era's.  WAR is a calculation based on the competitiveness of the players during the season and the total available WAR points. WAR doesn't factor in talent level from different years.  So you can't compare just the raw WAR numbers from 2015 to 1965 because the calculation are based on yearly stats.  What you can compare is what a player did against the league during the year his WAR was calculated.

 

The comparison isn't between a regional little league final and the college world series.  It's between the 1965 MVP and the 2015 MVP.  Both are MVP of the best league during there season.  How is that not comparable?

 

 

[Brock Beauchamp]

We agree, Ugh

 

I've never said player of today are not better than players 50 years ago. What I'm saying is you can't just look at WAR to compare players from different era's. WAR is a calculation based on the competitiveness of the players during the season and the total available WAR points. WAR doesn't factor in talent level from different years. So you can't compare just the raw WAR numbers from 2015 to 1965 because the calculation are based on yearly stats. What you can compare is what a player did against the league during the year his WAR was calculated.

 

The comparison isn't between a regional little league final and the college world series. It's between the 1965 MVP and the 2015 MVP. Both are MVP of the best league during there season. How is that not comparable?

Okay, I see what you're saying. I thought we were talking about relative performance and further down the WAR chain, not the top of it.

[DrNeau]

 

He had a handful of tremendous years and then he cratered.

 

Agreed. Of all qualifying MLB 1B, he is ranked 18th out of 22 in OPS. In RBIs, he is ranked 20th of 22.

 

Stats since 2014 (going on 3 full years):

.272 AVG 

24 HR (No way he hits 6 more to raise his 3-year average to 10.)

167 RBI (A measly 60 RBIs/year during that span would have him at 180. He has 46; curious if he will even get 55.)

[dxpavelka]

 

You aren't actually disputing any Mauer related points I made

Nor did I pretend to.

[Doomtints]

 

I think we're talking past each other a bit.

 

Your original point was that there are more WAR points available today than there were in 1960.

 

But WAR is "Wins Above Replacement".

 

If "replacement level" is higher than it was 60 years ago, it's harder to earn 1 WAR than it was in the past. If there are more, better, players competing for a single point of WAR, the net result is approximately the same (and I'd argue it's harder today) no matter whether there are more points available at large. If 1,000 superior players are competing for 1,000 points of WAR, it's harder to earn that point than if there are 500 inferior players competing for 500 points of WAR.

 

On top of that, the player rankings as skewed. To be fifth best in a 500 player league (just using general numbers here for simplicity) means you're a top 1% player.

 

But to be fifth best in a 1,000 player league means you're a top 0.5% player.

 

That's why comparing eras simply by rank is a problem. Today, there are more players, better players, with a higher level of average player performance. The overall point pool is higher but that doesn't matter because the pool of competition is so much higher today.

 

It's akin to this:

 

If you're the fifth best high school player in Minnesota, that's great... But if you're the fifth best high school player in the nation, that means you're phenomenal.

 

If you're the fifth best high school player in the world, that means... Well, you get the point.

 

Sounds like a good solution is to not use WAR.  Let's face it, no one needs WAR.  The other stats are ample for getting a picture of a player.  WAR/OPS+/ERA+/wRC+/FIP all fluctuate by year (and thus era), so just use stats that don't fluctuate if you want to make a comparison.  You can also make your own stats if you see a gap.

 

Personally I love OPS+ and ERA+ but I freely recognize that they can't be used for comparing players in different eras.  There's nothing wrong with everyone using the same care and avoiding WAR and FIP in this situation, which I admit might sound sacrilegious as WAR and FIP are the flavors of our generation.

Edited August 30, 2016 by Doomtints

[ashbury]

The parallels of Ernie Banks's career to Joe's are striking. There's never an exact match between high-end players, but the main difference I see is that we don't know yet whether Joe still will be a productive everyday player at age 38.

 

If he does, the analogy I see says that he breezes into the Hall when the time comes.

 

The chances are very high that he doesn't, and then the analogy becomes problematic. I still say he should go in, but would he? (I guess that's what this thread is about. )

[DrNeau]

The best comparison I can come up with is Don Mattingly. His first 7 or 8 seasons, he absolutely raked. But injuries took their toll,

and from ages 30-34 his drop anticipated that of Mauer’s. And by age 35 or so, he was out of baseball.

 

Don Mattingly and Joe Mauer are not going to the Hall-of-Fame...

 

One of the better comparisons I've seen.

[jimmer]

I think Mauer was a better player than Mattingly. Though having some similarities,does it matter Mauer has 6 more WAR in 1000 less PAs and will likely end up with 10+ WAR more than Mattingly does?

Edited August 31, 2016 by jimmer

[Mike Sixel]

Funny, I always compare Mattingly to Hrbek....

[ewen21]

 

I think Mauer was a better player than Mattingly. Though having some similarities,does it matter Mauer has 6 more WAR in 1000 less PAs and will likely end up with 10+ WAR more than Mattingly does?

I disagree.  I don't see many similarities between the two at all.  First of all, Mattingly has only 239 more plate appearances than Mauer going into tonight's game, but managed to drive in nearly 300 more runs.  He drove in over 110 runs in five different seasons.  That matters.   Joe's big thing is he walks.  Mattingly hit for average and slugged up until his back injury.

 

I saw plenty of Mattingly being that I am a 50-year-old dude living in upstate NY (lived in Oneonta where Mattingly played in '79).  I have seen plenty of Mauer.  I am not partial to either, and although it would be impossible to exaggerate how much I hate the Yankees I have to say... Mattingly did damage for about six or seven seasons.  Joe did damage for one season in my mind.  In just 239 more plate appearances Mattingly has 676 more total bases.  Of course, Joe has 226 more walks in 239 LESS plate appearances.  

 

If you want to bring up positional value during Mauer's best years and put it up against Mattingly's best years.  OK.  I would say advantage Mauer for that moment in time.  Looking back in their careers?  Mattingly is the better hitter in my mind.  

 

And no....Mauer will not get in the Hall.  Not the way he cratered at age 30.

[Rosterman]

No one doubts Mauer's place in Twins history, and we would like to see him remain a Twin always and forever. What will be interesting to see is what happens when his contract expires and if he wants to continue to play.

 

He is a Hall of Fame catcher, but his status continues to go down the longer he plays as a lesser first baseman. He's not bad, he's just not in the best.

 

It's one of those things where he can work, but the Twins have to revolve their system around him and his needs for playing time and at bats. You don't want to be a first baseman in training if Mauer is holding down the bag for two years, and what if he decides to play for another 3-4-5. 

 

And you can usually find better alternatives to the designated hitter. The Twins have two right now. Sano and, in the wings, Walker, albeit probably shortterm for one, but the other could develop into a David Ortiz decade of being the big smiley face of the Twins.

 

We want Joe to play, to be great again with the bat, to shine, and get those October moments along with another batting title or two and become a Hall of Famer. We do. But somehow, the team is going in a different direction.

[jimmer]

I'm not the one who came up with the Mattingly comparison nor am I the one who said Mattingly was the best comparison.  I questioned the comparison.

 

Anyway, Mauer: Better BA, better OBP, better OPS+, better wRC+, much better numbers with RISP, and he did that mostly while enduring the physical demands of playing catcher. Mattingly got to play the least demanding position on the field.

 

Taking all that into consideration, Mauer's the better hitter, and he's a better overall player.  And he didn't 'crater' until he had the concussion. He was having his 3rd best season when that happened.

 

3 batting titles (no AL catcher in history has even one) an MVP, led the league in BA/OBP/SLG % becoming the first player in 30 years to do it, and no other catcher ever did it.

 

Considering everything, I'll take Joe as the better offensive player, and better player period. Mattingly does have him by 90 or so HR, though, again, a 1st baseman versus a catcher.  Mauer could make the HOF. He ranks favorably with other HOF catchers.

Edited September 1, 2016 by jimmer