Radical Baseball: Catcher? We don’t need no stinking catcher!

Take a deep breath and try to not dismiss this out of hand.  You are about to enter deep Radical Baseball, a trip down memory lane on my evolution about some baseball fundamentals.

I am guessing that 99% of baseball fans and 90% of baseball players want no part of playing catcher.  I’m guessing that almost all parents and grandparents do not want young children whom they love to play catcher.  Let’s get started.

Extend foul territory 45 feet from home plate into what is now fair territory, a curved line from foul line to foul line.  This eliminates those annoying dribblers, especially bunts.

FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 19, 2008 Fool Proof Strike Zone

It’s back to basics. Years ago a kid on a farm would practice pitching by throwing at a tire hung on the side of a barn. In cities improvised baseball games like stick ball had strike zones drawn on the wall behind the batter. No catcher needed as the ball would bounce back to the pitcher if not hit. Everyone facing the batter could see if the pitch was in the strike zone. These concepts can be applied to MLB. Move the plate umpire behind the pitcher. Place something behind the plate that would be a target for the pitcher. Ideas: – barrel – whole in a netting – whatever works. The target would be round, not a rectangle like the current strike zone; that’s more fair as those corner strikes are hard for the batter to judge and for pitchers to throw to. The width of the current strike zone is the width of the plate, 17 inches, plus the diameter of the ball, about 4.5 inches: 21.5 inches. The new target could be 21.5 inches or 20 inches to make more simple. The same size strike zone would apply to all batters. That is a change. No other team sport varies something for the size of the player…

Only baseball has the silly rule that a batter has a personal strike zone. I might allow the batter to select the height of the target but not change the size. Pitchers would now have a uniform size target for every batter. That’s fair. The umpires would no longer vary the strike zone based on individual interpretation. Either the ball goes into the target area or it does not. The catcher could be deployed elsewhere. The umpire could hand the pitcher a new ball. Ball boys/girls could keep the batting area free of loose balls. The metaphor for a catcher is backstop. A backstop is a wall. Who wants to play wall? It’s easily the most ridiculous position in team sports. Most baseball players want no part of catching. Put that player in fair territory where he can do some good. How about next to the pitcher where he could field balls hit up the middle and still be close enough to cover home plate? I have already advocated that base runners may not take a lead until the ball is hit. That would speed up the game as the pitcher would have one pitching motion (no stretch position) and no need to check the runner and throw to the base. The new strike zone rule would eliminate the getting the sign from the catcher ritual. Throw the ball where the batter can hit it and judge that in a fair and simple way.

SATURDAY, JULY 4, 2009 Catcher: position of ignorance.

Cather’s gear is called the tools of ignorance. That’s putting it mildly. Baseball catcher is easily the stupidest position among the three American team sports. Only football center comes close. Catcher could be eliminated if MLB had any imagination. It’s not like only a couple of baseballs are available for a game. Or there were no ball boys to quickly supply a ball to the pitcher.

SATURDAY, AUGUST 8, 2009 Imaginary strike zone.

There are no physical limits to the strike zone. It is an imaginary three dimensional area hovering above ground. To make it even more elusive, it’s size varies with each batter.

The pitcher imagines its location, then throws and hopes to place the ball within it. The batter imagines where it might be and swings through that area. Finally, the plate umpire imagines whether a baseball traveling over ninety miles per hour and moving erratically has passed through any part of it or possibly grazed the edge of it.

Pretty stupid. Especially when its’ totally unnecessary. Just place an object behind home plate as a target and judge whether or not a pitch has hit it. Jeez, is that so complicated? Try an archery bull’s eye on a tripod. Aside from being a fool proof strike zone, it allows those two most pathetic human beings, the catcher and plate umpire, to move out of harm’s way and go someplace in fair territory.

… 

consider stickball in which the strike zone was drawn on a wall. OK, it was usually drawn way to high but I’m sure Bud Selig, MLB commissioner, can deal with that.

So why does baseball have this most odd and primitive feature at the center of the game? Because it is ancient! Baseball officials and fans refuse to transform it while America’s former national pastime slides into irrelevance…

A nice simple cheap low tech strike zone does the trick. A side benefit is that games will speed up; no catcher, no need for signs between catcher and pitcher. Of course, one of my other ideas would need to be implemented: runners may not leave the base until the ball is hit.

Starting count at 3-2 and limiting the batter to three swings would seal the deal.

Some fans may ask: how ever will you get the ball back to the pitcher and gather up all those baseballs? It’s been done for about 100 years. Funny baseball never noticed. Ever watch tennis, especially Wimbledon or the U.S. open? Those ball boys and girls do a great job. We could train baseball ball boys and girls to do more than mostly sit around and occasionally interfere by grabbing a fair ball. Oops.

It all sounds too good to be true but a fundamental part of baseball could be improved with this simple common sense change. What are the chances it will be implemented? What are the chances it will be considered? What are the chances it will be mocked?  Baseball: the imaginary game.

Golden Stick Wiffle Ball League Action 2008 GSWL.

Lessons from Wiffle Ball.  Check out the strike zone. No stealing. No catcher. No plate ump. Cool.

As with most things try to reverse the order and see if it makes sense.  Suppose that 150 years ago baseball had done things as I have described.  Now imagine someone suggesting that we eliminate this nice, safe, sure system and replace it with a human being squatting behind home plate, taking unnecessary punishment to perform an unnecessary task better preformed without a catcher.  And don’t forget the imaginary strike zone.  Add to that our intent to dramatically slow down the game with all the jerking around that has become modern baseball.  Who the heck would change to what we have deluded ourselves into thinking is the only way baseball can be played?  Baseball can be better than that.  So can we.

________________________________

You can follow the personal blog of Kenneth Matinale here: Radical Baseball