I have always advised Little League mothers to raise their sons to be catchers. It`s the quickest way to the big leagues. At Comiskey Park this week, there was more evidence of the catcher`s rewards. They become managers. Gene Lamont, the new White Sox dugout boss, was a catcher, and so was Seattle`s Bill Plummer, who, like Lamont, is in his rookie season as a big-league manager. Neither Lamont nor Plummer had what could be described as a distinguished playing career.
In parts of five seasons, all with Detroit, Lamont got into 87 games and compiled a career batting average of .233. Plummer played twice as long, 10 years, and got into 367 games. His lifetime average was .188. Plummer played behind Randy Hundley and Johnny Bench, the reigning catchers of the time. Lamont understudied Bill Freehan, also an All-Star.
Some Cub fans may remember Plummer. He broke in with the Cubs in `68, during the Leo Durocher era, when Hundley was catching every day. Plummer was with the Cubs for the entire season. Nonetheless, he caught a total of only three innings. He had two at-bats.
”One in April and one in May,” Plummer recalled.
For the record, he struck out and flied to center.
But, as has been said, all`s well that ends well, and Plummer and Lamont have ascended the baseball ladder. And it`s more than likely they wouldn`t have made the climb if they hadn`t been catchers.
Fact is, seven of the 26 big-league managers were catchers. The others are Jim Leyland, Pittsburgh; Johnny Oates, Baltimore; Jeff Torborg, Mets; Buck Rodgers, California; and Joe Torre, St. Louis. Only Rodgers and Torre were everyday players.
Are catchers smarter?
”No, that`s not it,” Lamont said. Then he laughed. ”I couldn`t hit;
that`s when I realized I better become a manager.”
Later, Lamont conceded the catcher has an edge over pitchers and position players.
”If there is a manager on the field,” Lamont said, ”it`s the catcher. The catcher is more involved in the game.”
He guides the pitchers and, in effect, controls the flow of the game.
Plummer agreed.
”The manager works through the catcher,” Plummer said. ”Your thought processes are always working. The manager will be asking you, `Is this guy losing his stuff?` You have to be thinking ahead.”
Plummer also insisted there is as much pressure on the catcher as the pitcher.
”You`re responsible for calling the pitches,” he said. ”Winning run on second base. Tying run on third. You have to be thinking, `What should he throw this guy?` I loved it. I thrived on that type of pressure.”
Last summer, when Jim Essian managed the Cubs, he expounded on the subject. Essian was also a catcher with limited batting ability.
”The catcher has to be aggressive,” Essian said. ”And we have to have a good knowledge of the game.”
Still, Essian was dismissed. Wise as he was, the Cubs, under his command, were no better than a second-division club.
Doug Rader, a former third baseman who has managed a couple of teams, most recently last year`s California Angels, insisted catchers do not necessarily lead the league in the brains department.
”Any player can have a catcher`s mentality,” said Rader, presently the Oakland A`s hitting coach. ”A player`s physical proportions often dictate where he plays. So to say a catcher is smarter is not the case. He`s just bigger, physically.”
Rader cited Graig Grebeck, the White Sox utility infielder, as a
”smart” player. Grebeck is only 5 feet 7 inches and 160 pounds, too small to be a catcher.
”If he was bigger, if he was 6-1 and 210 pounds, he could have been a catcher,” Rader said. Rader also put pitcher Bob McClure in this category.
”Because he`s a pitcher a lot of people don`t know he has a managerial intellect,” Rader said.
Pittsburgh`s Leyland agreed with Rader.
”It`s a fallacy,” said Leyland, who caught for seven years in the minors. Leyland never hit more than .243 and never played higher than Double- A.
”Most of `em start managing at 26 because they can`t hit,” Leyland said.
