I'm way late in posting this...but I just got too involved in OOTP5 and forgot to post the results.

In OOTP4 (latest version when this was originally posted) the number of passed balls were 4-5 times the rating in the game...a 1 rating = 4 PB's per 162 games...4 rating = 16 per 162 games.
I used the scale: Excellent Catcher = 0 rating...Good =1...Average= 2...Fair=3...and Poor=4.

This scale worked well with OOTP4.

Marcus fixed this in OOTP5.

The new rating system is much better, but not perfect.

I will use this scale in my next league:

Excellent = 0-3 PB rating
Good.......= 4-8 PB rating
Average..= 9-12 rating
Fair.........= 13-16 rating
Poor.......=16-20 rating

I will post the results in a few weeks.

ive noticed that historical leagues using the lahman db for players import most, if not all catchers, with a C arm. eg, i imported the '73 season, '79 season and one from the 80's.

if i remember right, all of the catchers in the three imports had C arms. i had to go in and change them myself. i used some of the sources cited in this thread. you may also want to look at some of the earlier B. James Baseball Abstracts. For several years (early-mid 80's), he had a great breakdown of SB's by opponents vs. catchers. i use that a lot for modern players, esp. some of the lesser known talents.

if you like, i can post those numbers later here tonight, once i get home from work.

v'

It would be good to know the arm strength of catchers, especially if it's based on facts and not random like the Lahman...which is still a great source and help for OOTPB fans.

Fielding range and arm strength is really difficult to find.

I use the Antik DBase and it seems from time to time that the catchers actually import in with arm ratings other than C. With Lahman's Database it is always C.

is that because of how it imports, or something in the db itself?

v'

I find for old catchers, looking them up on baseball library when I'm editing them as rookies gives me a good idea of who has a really good arm.

do you mean biographical info? thats what i do for the earlier years, historical baseball abstract is always good, any other narrative account works well really.

if you dont do that, players like ray schalk really lose much of their value and usefulness, as defense is their strength; otherwise he's just an average hitter.

v'