I sometimes wonder if scouts and others, when they evaluate catchers, have some sort of implicit bias that makes them think guys who hit well aren't good defensively and vice versa. It just seems like we've seen guys who hit well in the minors but have a poor defensive reputation get called up and, surprise!, they're actually not that bad defensively. Or they're considered good defensively but their offense is questioned when it's actually OK. For example, Dillon Dingler has always had a good defensive reputation, but there were questions about his bat. That's despite raking at Ohio State in his last two years there and improving each time he repeated a level in the minors. Before he was called up in 2024, he hit .308/.379/.559 with 17 homers in 71 games at Toledo. Was he old for that level? Kind of, but he's a catcher.
Alejandro Kirk has always been a good hitter, but he wasn't supposed to be a good defensive catcher because he's kinda short and rotund. He was a Gold Glove finalist last year.
Ivan Herrera DH's a lot for St. Louis, but is there any evidence that he's a poor defensive catcher? Is Pedro Pages such a good defensive catcher that the Cards can justify starting his .590 OPS bat? I suspect they would be just fine defensively if Herrera was their full-time catcher and pretty much anyone else besides Pages was their DH. OK, Herrera hasn't thrown out any of the 26 guys who've attempted steals against him this year, but, so? We know that base stealing isn't that important overall to an offense. Herrera's offense is so good that his overall WAR is 2.2. Pages has thrown out 33% of the 48 steal attempts, but his overall WAR is -0.1. He's a replacement-level player who's starting on an MLB team.
By the way, Herrera has no passed balls against him in 303 innings. Pages has three PBs in 387.1 innings.
Maybe I'm wrong about how player evaluators feel about catchers with good bats, but that's my perception.
David