MLB survey: What's the one thing you would change about baseball?

[GwynnInTheHall]

If you are running the Padres and are told that a full ABS system is being implemented in MLB next year, who do you choose to play the catcher position and what stance do you have them use?

And say that in the same hypothetical, all 60 or so current MLB catchers are made free agents, how many of them have MLB jobs next year?

Since I don't know any MLB players (or catchers) personally I'd probably have an easier time making this kind of call. I only see Catchers who are frame first guys being impacted as the position will still require someone who can call the game (to the extent catchers still do that) Limit the number of WPs and PBs. I'd put a premium on those who can limit SBs as I see an increase at attempts once the throw overs are limited and the bases are bigger (at least I think that will increase attempts.). As for stance, The Traditional stance as opposed to the one knee down--not as much need for that if you're using ABS correct?

Padre catching is an area I'd like to see them upgrade at. Campusano looks to be the best bat, Alfaro the best arm and Nola not great at either. If I can't upgrade through trade or FA I'd start Campusano next year in a Traditional stance. Both Nola and Alfaro are Arb eligible so one of em will be gone but unless the Padres go out and get an established #1 catcher, probably Nola will stay as back up even though his defense is horrible. Alfaro, cannon and all, just strikes out too much and his glove is more suspect than Nola's

As to your 2nd hypothetical--As you can see from my Padre answer, there aren't many immediate upgrades at the position league wide. I'd think a handful might be demoted to spot start/back up as guys like Hedges (and I use him because of my familiarity with his play) but the position would gradually evolve to a offensive/strong throwing arm dominant position as you alluded to in a previous post. Once ABS is announced as an incoming feature, teams will start to change how they approach the position and though some will indeed lose their gigs, others will get those gigs.

Again, it's easy for me to say--sorry but we're going in a different direction as I have no personal connection with anyone in the game--That's might be different for you as you'd actually know some of the guys who'd lose their jobs.

[GwynnInTheHall]

Calling balls and strikes is a different realm than outs on the bases. Plus, base reviews aren't that frequent. There will probably be multiple ball/strike challenges a game.

As for the ejection concern, batters will no doubt be instructed to be calm and signal for a challenge as opposed to losing it right away. As it is now, hitters are rarely tossed for arguing a call.

Inherently, knowing you can challenge and overturn a called ball or strike will reduce the agitation of players in those situations. I'd wager that balls and strikes are where the Umps ego comes into play most often and where the guy behind the plate feels the need to be the Alpha on the field. Taking that need to establish dominance, to save face (ego) by relegating those decisions (balls and strikes) to an automated system, relegates Home Plate Umpires to a human PA system for the ABS program. That is fine by me, the less 'human element' by arbiters of the game, the better for my taste.

[Kevin Seitzer]

Since I don't know any MLB players (or catchers) personally I'd probably have an easier time making this kind of call. I only see Catchers who are frame first guys being impacted as the position will still require someone who can call the game (to the extent catchers still do that) Limit the number of WPs and PBs. I'd put a premium on those who can limit SBs as I see an increase at attempts once the throw overs are limited and the bases are bigger (at least I think that will increase attempts.). As for stance, The Traditional stance as opposed to the one knee down--not as much need for that if you're using ABS correct?

Padre catching is an area I'd like to see them upgrade at. Campusano looks to be the best bat, Alfaro the best arm and Nola not great at either. If I can't upgrade through trade or FA I'd start Campusano next year in a Traditional stance. Both Nola and Alfaro are Arb eligible so one of em will be gone but unless the Padres go out and get an established #1 catcher, probably Nola will stay as back up even though his defense is horrible. Alfaro, cannon and all, just strikes out too much and his glove is more suspect than Nola's

As to your 2nd hypothetical--As you can see from my Padre answer, there aren't many immediate upgrades at the position league wide. I'd think a handful might be demoted to spot start/back up as guys like Hedges (and I use him because of my familiarity with his play) but the position would gradually evolve to a offensive/strong throwing arm dominant position as you alluded to in a previous post. Once ABS is announced as an incoming feature, teams will start to change how they approach the position and though some will indeed lose their gigs, others will get those gigs.

Again, it's easy for me to say--sorry but we're going in a different direction as I have no personal connection with anyone in the game--That's might be different for you as you'd actually know some of the guys who'd lose their jobs.

I think you're being FAR too conservative here compared to what actual MLB teams would do. I'm guessing only a small handful of current MLB catchers would keep jobs, based on their ability to hit. Teams would prioritize offense at that position way over WP/PB prevention. If you could have Juan Soto or Josh Bell play at that position and do it standing up, why wouldn't you do that? You're throwing away a bunch of wins by not thinking outside the box.

[GwynnInTheHall]

I think you're being FAR too conservative here compared to what actual MLB teams would do. I'm guessing only a small handful of current MLB catchers would keep jobs, based on their ability to hit. Teams would prioritize offense at that position way over WP/PB prevention. If you could have Juan Soto or Josh Bell play at that position and do it standing up, why wouldn't you do that? You're throwing away a bunch of wins by not thinking outside the box.

I can see that, though I think you'd still have to be in a crouch to receive the pitch for a strike no? But I get your--Bat first option as my initial thought was to convert Profar to Catcher as his arm is great and his bat is better than the current crop of Padres--though I believe Campusano's bat is pretty good as well. Even if your assertion that most catchers in the game will lose their jobs, that's just the way it goes when things evolve in any industry and like I said--having no personal attachment to these guys--it wouldn't affect me much if at all.

[harmon]

I think you're being FAR too conservative here compared to what actual MLB teams would do. I'm guessing only a small handful of current MLB catchers would keep jobs, based on their ability to hit. Teams would prioritize offense at that position way over WP/PB prevention. If you could have Juan Soto or Josh Bell play at that position and do it standing up, why wouldn't you do that? You're throwing away a bunch of wins by not thinking outside the box.

Further to my previous post which I guess you're ignoring, is your belief that pitch framing is by far the most impactful defensive aspect of the catcher's job and that all the other items I listed are easily replaceable by most guys with a good bat?

As far as I can see pitch framing is the only thing that changes in a full ABS.

[chancellor]

I think you're being FAR too conservative here compared to what actual MLB teams would do. I'm guessing only a small handful of current MLB catchers would keep jobs, based on their ability to hit. Teams would prioritize offense at that position way over WP/PB prevention. If you could have Juan Soto or Josh Bell play at that position and do it standing up, why wouldn't you do that? You're throwing away a bunch of wins by not thinking outside the box.

Interesting and cool POV. I was more in-line with harmon's thinking - yes, one skill, that of pitch framing is eliminated. But the catcher will still be in a crouch, wearing all the gear, partly responsible for controlling the running game, WP/PB prevention, popup/bunt/short ground ball defense and so on, so I was thinking more like a quarter to a third of catchers would be replaced. That's still a lot, but nowhere near what I think you're implying.

[Kevin Seitzer]

Further to my previous post which I guess you're ignoring, is your belief that pitch framing is by far the most impactful defensive aspect of the catcher's job and that all the other items I listed are easily replaceable by most guys with a good bat?

As far as I can see pitch framing is the only thing that changes in a full ABS.

I'm not ignoring you, I just didn't happen to see it when I glanced through the thread.

I think most of those things you listed matter. I don't see why the current crop of catchers is necessarily good at them or why you'd choose to do them out of a squat. Throwing runners out would be easier from a standing position. Catchers now have to stand up (usually) to throw to second base. Pretty sure you could still block balls in the dirt from a standing position, too. You'd probably adapt a little, maybe take an offensive-lineman-in-pass-protection type of stance or something not strictly standing fully upright. But I don't see why you would choose to squat.

And once you don't choose to squat, it doesn't take nearly so much out of your knees, and it opens the position to a lot of players with more offensive ability. Yes, they'd still need a decent throwing arm, but a lot of players have that. And they'd need to be smart enough to handle the game-planning, although maybe you go to calling pitches from the bench like they do in college.

It's not a case where you'd simply remove a handful of catchers who are really good at framing and bad offensively. By removing framing from the equation completely, you radically change the demands of the position.

[Kevin Seitzer]

Also, not that it matters nearly as much as the changes to the catcher position, but I assume the home plate umpire would also position himself very differently if he didn't have to call balls and strikes. Probably stand considerably further back from the plate? I'm not sure. He'd still need to call foul tips and hit by pitch and catcher's interference, so maybe he would need to be on top of the plate for that. But no reason to position himself in the slot like he does now.

[Kevin Seitzer]

Catchers in the 1800s didn't squat. Also, a lot more players played catcher along with other positions. I think you'd go a significant way back in that direction.

[Kevin Seitzer]

Heck, here's a picture from 1925:

[Todd Zola]

I don't think irony is the word, but even though I hate the fact framing is effective, I'd prefer the manner the catcher receives the ball remain an integral part of the game so as not to sell out for blocking pitches, controlling the running game or eschewing defense altogether.

Keep in mind how teams approach defensing base stealers is unclear with the new rules. It may even differ if the pitcher has exhausted his two "free" pickoff attempts.

To answer the initial question, I would codify a more consistent baseball, hopefully with enough tack to make sticky stuff moot. If the latter isn't done, I'd codify how much of a specific substance a pitcher is allowed to apply to his fingers.

[Kevin Seitzer]

Btw, I'm not arguing that a full ABS system is a good or a bad thing. I'm just saying that it would introduce huge changes to the catching position, and that people who are in favor of ABS need to reckon with those changes. I'm pretty sure that recognition of that fact is why MLB has been using the ABS challenge system in Triple-A this year.

[GwynnInTheHall]

Any thoughts on MLB lifting blackout rules? As it stands, a NL west fan living in Las Vegas can't watch ANY NL West games on MLB.TV nor the A's or Angels--Heck, I moved to Tucson (400+ Miles) and they Padres are even blacked out here.

[GwynnInTheHall]

Btw, I'm not arguing that a full ABS system is a good or a bad thing. I'm just saying that it would introduce huge changes to the catching position, and that people who are in favor of ABS need to reckon with those changes. I'm pretty sure that recognition of that fact is why MLB has been using the ABS challenge system in Triple-A this year.

Aren't they also trying out full ABS implementations as well? How have both been received?

[Kevin Seitzer]

Aren't they also trying out full ABS implementations as well? How have both been received?

The ABS system itself works quite well. And yes, they have tried out full ABS implementations in A ball in previous seasons. They have learned and made a number of tweaks to the system, including the shape of the strike zone. The feedback I hear on it is good.