Posey to No Longer Block Plate

[Don Quixote]

As Buster Posey makes his return in spring training, manager and former catcher Bruce Bochy has instructed him to no longer block the plate when runners are attempting to score.

Article.

Do you agree? Will this limit his effectiveness?

[sangar]

After what happened last season, I'm not surprised.

Football has instituted rules against hitting unprotected players, baseball should do the same. It's one thing if the catcher has time to set, but for the runner to throw a head shot just as the ball arrives should be illegal.

[Pedro Cerrano]

I've long felt that collisions at home plate are a necessary evil in our game. Until MLB makes it an automatic out if a runner intentionally collides with a catcher in lieu of touching the plate, San Francisco will be at a disadvantage by not allowing their catcher to block the plate.

[crissfan172]

Might as well make him play first. Watching Wieters play, it's so obvious how big a role blocking the plate is in a catcher's defensive ability. You're going to get hit if you block the plate, but you have to put yourself in a position to block the plate without getting hurt. It's not easy, but it's very possible.

[Lucky Jim]

It's a tough play, but am I missing the long litany of players who've been injured blocking the plate? I mean, there was Fosse and Posey. But who else?

[DrungoHazewood]

After what happened last season, I'm not surprised.

Football has instituted rules against hitting unprotected players, baseball should do the same. It's one thing if the catcher has time to set, but for the runner to throw a head shot just as the ball arrives should be illegal.

I think a simple solution would be to announce a clarification of the existing rules. Come out and say that the rule that says you can't block the plate without possession of the ball means that a catcher absolutely cannot block access to any part of the plate unless the ball is actually in his possession. So no more setting up and digging fortifications while the ball is still knocking around the RF corner, and inviting a collision. The only mashups at the plate would be if the catcher had the ball in hand with the (obviously Oriole) runner was still 45 feet up the line.

[DrungoHazewood]

It's a tough play, but am I missing the long litany of players who've been injured blocking the plate? I mean, there was Fosse and Posey. But who else?

There was the Rick Dempsey vs. Bo Jackson incident. Bo is still picking pieces of the Dipper out of various orifices.

[Lucky Jim]

There was the Rick Dempsey vs. Bo Jackson incident. Bo is still picking pieces of the Dipper out of various orifices.

I think Deadspin gets part of it right: http://deadspin.com/5886517/buster-p...ugging-catcher

A step further: what if Buster Posey's bat is too valuable to risk letting him catch at all? In the wake of his injury, Posey's agent raised the possibility of changing the rules to outlaw home-plate collisions. But home plate collisions, as noisy and spectacular and highlight-worthy as they are, aren't the scourge of catchers. Think of it like the concussion in football: attention gets paid to the "Jacked Up"-style crushing hits, but all available research shows the real danger comes from the small, repeated hits. For a catcher, it's the wear and tear of regular games that takes the toll. Day after day, year after year of foul tips to the mask and crouching in that unnatural position leave catchers without their speed and their cartilage. Catching is inherently dangerous and career-shortening. Why feed Buster Posey to the catching position just because he's able?

They also get part of it very wrong:

If you've got a young hitter who shows every indication of having a long and productive career ahead of him, why wouldn't you remove him from harm's way? Catching is the natural enemy of the long and productive career.

Unless someone is an elite-elite bat, why move him from behind the plate when you can maximize your short-term value w/ his performance relative to position? Basically, if you move him, you're gambling that the player in question is going to have a long-career with a single team. This is incredibly uncommon. Further, contending teams are always going to value a win this or next year over a win in five. And so the only teams that aren't incentivized to maximize value by keeping a player at catcher are teams that won't contend in the short-term. But those teams are the least likely teams to retain talent.

I think the take-away is this: teams should basically (and rightfully) view a player as a 6-year possession. Teams are are crazy to move players off of catcher to "preserve" value when that value is likely to be preserved for another team. In the end, no team does or should care whether a player is "productive into his late 30s" when they can maximize short-term value.

So, if you're a contender, be happy w/ your value, maximize it, and try to move it before the contract expires. If you're not a contender, you trade the guy. Perhaps Baltimore should be listening.

[DrungoHazewood]

Unless someone is an elite-elite bat, why move him from behind the plate when you can maximize your short-term value w/ his performance relative to position? Basically, if you move him, you're gambling that the player in question is going to have a long-career with a single team. This is incredibly uncommon. Further, contending teams are always going to value a win this or next year over a win in five. And so the only teams that aren't incentivized to maximize value by keeping a player at catcher are teams that won't contend in the short-term. But those teams are the least likely teams to retain talent.

I think the take-away is this: teams should basically (and rightfully) view a player as a 6-year possession. Teams are are crazy to move players off of catcher to "preserve" value when that value is likely to be preserved for another team. In the end, no team does or should care whether a player is "productive into his late 30s" when they can maximize short-term value.

So, if you're a contender, be happy w/ your value, maximize it, and try to move it before the contract expires. If you're not a contender, you trade the guy. Perhaps Baltimore should be listening.

For a smaller market team with a window to compete, I've always thought I'd take their core of young pitchers and go all Dusty Baker on them. That goes double for a team like the O's that has nothing to lose anyway - nobody wants to resign or just sign here in the first place.

What everybody forgets about Billy Martin and his quest to get 300 innings each out of McCatty, Norris, Langford, etc was that it worked. Sure, they all burned out in a couple years. But he took a 54-108 team and had them winning the next year, and in the playoffs the year after. Tell me you wouldn't fall on the ground and kiss Buck's feet if he got 900 innings and a playoff run out of Matusz, Britton and Tillman, but then they combined for 100 innings the rest of their careers.

[Lucky Jim]

For a smaller market team with a window to compete, I've always thought I'd take their core of young pitchers and go all Dusty Baker on them. That goes double for a team like the O's that has nothing to lose anyway - nobody wants to resign or just sign here in the first place.

What everybody forgets about Billy Martin and his quest to get 300 innings each out of McCatty, Norris, Langford, etc was that it worked. Sure, they all burned out in a couple years. But he took a 54-108 team and had them winning the next year, and in the playoffs the year after. Tell me you wouldn't fall on the ground and kiss Buck's feet if he got 900 innings and a playoff run out of Matusz, Britton and Tillman, but then they combined for 100 innings the rest of their careers.

I remember having this discussion a few years ago w/r/t to pitching - I'm sure you were part of it. It was great. Just one of those, let's think outside the box conversations that used to happen on here all of the time.

[russ snyder]

I think a simple solution would be to announce a clarification of the existing rules. Come out and say that the rule that says you can't block the plate without possession of the ball means that a catcher absolutely cannot block access to any part of the plate unless the ball is actually in his possession. So no more setting up and digging fortifications while the ball is still knocking around the RF corner, and inviting a collision. The only mashups at the plate would be if the catcher had the ball in hand with the (obviously Oriole) runner was still 45 feet up the line.

You make a really good point. They have a rule like this in the NCAA for Women's Softball. If the catcher blocks the plate without the ball, the umpire calls obstruction on the catcher. You'll always have collisions at the plate in baseball, but a rule like this would cut down on injuries.

As far as injuries, I recall Carlton Fisk suffering a season ending knee injury after he was run over by Leron Lee in the early 70's. I know Mike Sciosia was injured several times as a result of home plate collisions.