A couple of thoughts about our current catchers and Adley Rutschman

[Sessh]

58 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

Maybe one day we'll go back to catching 1870s style: Unless it's two strikes the catcher is 10 feet behind the plate and just kind of smothers the pitch in the dirt on the bounce.  That has to be safer.  People survived catching back then with basically no protective equipment at all.  

Sure, let's go back to letting guys play with concussions, too. Better yet, let's not even test players for symptoms and get rid of the concussion list altogether. CTE isn't that bad anyway.

Obviously, someone has to play the position, but putting your best offensive player there is extremely risky. Let someone who isn't so critical to the team's success play the position. I know Rutschman hasn't done or proven anything yet, but if he lives up to expectations, I would rather him not be playing a position with such a high risk for injury when compared to other positions except pitchers.

[Frobby]

15 minutes ago, Sessh said:

Sure, let's go back to letting guys play with concussions, too. Better yet, let's not even test players for symptoms and get rid of the concussion list altogether. CTE isn't that bad anyway.

Obviously, someone has to play the position, but putting your best offensive player there is extremely risky. Let someone who isn't so critical to the team's success play the position. I know Rutschman hasn't done or proven anything yet, but if he lives up to expectations, I would rather him not be playing a position with such a high risk for injury when compared to other positions except pitchers.

I respectfully disagree.    Having an excellent two-way catcher is a huge advantage for a team.   And if that means the guy’s window of greatness might be 8-10 years instead of 15, so be it.   We only control him for 6+ years anyway.

[Ruzious]

Think of it this way; if you move him to 1B, he might become close to an all-star.  Keep him at catcher, there's a greater risk of injury, but he might become a HOFer.  I'm jumping the gun with a comment like that, but you see my point.  

[Can_of_corn]

1 hour ago, Sessh said:

Sure, let's go back to letting guys play with concussions, too. Better yet, let's not even test players for symptoms and get rid of the concussion list altogether. CTE isn't that bad anyway.

Obviously, someone has to play the position, but putting your best offensive player there is extremely risky. Let someone who isn't so critical to the team's success play the position. I know Rutschman hasn't done or proven anything yet, but if he lives up to expectations, I would rather him not be playing a position with such a high risk for injury when compared to other positions except pitchers.

So you are saying an increased chance of brain trauma is fine as long as the guy isn't an elite hitter?

Seems like a popular take.

[Sessh]

3 hours ago, Frobby said:

I respectfully disagree.    Having an excellent two-way catcher is a huge advantage for a team.   And if that means the guy’s window of greatness might be 8-10 years instead of 15, so be it.   We only control him for 6+ years anyway.

Sure it is, but don't pretend like we won't be locking him up longer than six years if he is as advertised. Getting 15 years is far better than 8-10 or less.. unless you only want him for six years? I doubt the new management will be letting him slip away like the previous regime did with Manny. Of course, if Rutschman is no good, this is all moot. I highly doubt that will be the outcome, though.

2 hours ago, Can_of_corn said:

So you are saying an increased chance of brain trauma is fine as long as the guy isn't an elite hitter?

Seems like a popular take.

Someone has to do play the position. I never said it was "fine", it's an act of prudence. If someone must do it, I would rather it not be my best player if I can help it.

2 hours ago, Ruzious said:

Think of it this way; if you move him to 1B, he might become close to an all-star.  Keep him at catcher, there's a greater risk of injury, but he might become a HOFer.  I'm jumping the gun with a comment like that, but you see my point.  

It's about what's best for the team not what gives a player a better chance of making the HOF.

[Can_of_corn]

7 minutes ago, Sessh said:

Sure it is, but don't pretend like we won't be locking him up longer than six years if he is as advertised. Getting 15 years is far better than 8-10 or less.. unless you only want him for six years? I doubt the new management will be letting him slip away like the previous regime did with Manny. Of course, if Rutschman is no good, this is all moot. I highly doubt that will be the outcome, though.

Someone has to do play the position. I never said it was "fine", it's an act of prudence. If someone must do it, I would rather it not be my best player if I can help it.

It's about what's best for the team not what gives a player a better chance of making the HOF.

I don't think it's a good look to worry about one player's increased injury risk and not another.  Particularly when you are talking about something as serious as CTE.

[Sessh]

3 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

I don't think it's a good look to worry about one player's increased injury risk and not another.  Particularly when you are talking about something as serious as CTE.

Anyone who plays that position is going to be at an increased risk of taking blows to the head that do and don't result in concussions which both contribute to CTE risk. It is an unavoidable risk that goes with the territory of being a major league catcher, so with that being so, I would rather protect my best players from that risk if at all possible. It's not like football where pretty much everyone (except maybe the kicker) is at risk of this. In baseball, it's really just one position.

I am not worried about one player's risk and not another, but no amount of worrying will change the risk and so I don't think there's anything wrong with protecting your best assets from such an increased risk if at all possible. This risk is a given. Who plays in that position is not. Plenty of players willingly choose to play baseball and be a catcher and especially when you get to this level, you know the risks of being a catcher. Taking blows to the head is an unfortunate part of the job at times. It's not like guys put on the catcher gear being totally ignorant of the risks. They do so willingly. They already conceded that the risks are worth the reward. I am saying in this case, the risk to the player is NOT worth it. I don't think there's anything wrong with that or choosing to protect a particularly gifted player (potentially) in this way. I see no problem with this at all.

[Can_of_corn]

2 minutes ago, Sessh said:

Anyone who plays that position is going to be at an increased risk of taking blows to the head that do and don't result in concussions which both contribute to CTE risk. It is an unavoidable risk that goes with the territory of being a major league catcher, so with that being so, I would rather protect my best players from that risk if at all possible. It's not like football where pretty much everyone (except maybe the kicker) is at risk of this. In baseball, it's really just one position.

I am not worried about one player's risk and not another, but no amount of worrying will change the risk and so I don't think there's anything wrong with protecting your best assets from such an increased risk if at all possible. This risk is a given. Who plays in that position is not. Plenty of players willingly choose to play baseball and be a catcher and especially when you get to this level, you know the risks of being a catcher. Taking blows to the head is an unfortunate part of the job at times. It's not like guys put on the catcher gear being totally ignorant of the risks. They do so willingly. They already conceded that the risks are worth the reward. I am saying in this case, the risk to the player is NOT worth it. I don't think there's anything wrong with that or choosing to protect a particularly gifted player (potentially) in this way. I see no problem with this at all.

 

That isn't true and you know it.

Ryan Freel had CTE when he killed himself.

A number of non-catchers have had serious issues with concussions, recently Frazier with the Yankees.  Roberts of course was an infielder.

 

Of course you are, you are worried about your star offensive player's risk and not whomever replaces him at catcher. 

[Can_of_corn]

Hot take:

If catching is too dangerous for Rutschman to play they should do away with the position or at the least revamp it to lower the risk.

[Sessh]

3 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

 

That isn't true and you know it.

Ryan Freel had CTE when he killed himself.

A number of non-catchers have had serious issues with concussions, recently Frazier with the Yankees.  Roberts of course was an infielder.

 

Of course you are, you are worried about your star offensive player's risk and not whomever replaces him at catcher. 

I said it's "really only one position" at a significantly increased risk. I didn't say it's the only position because yes, it's not true. Injuries are par for the course for any athlete. Catchers suffer head injuries far more than players who are not catchers. In the context of the discussion, I figured what I meant was obvious. I never once said catchers are the ONLY players who suffer head injuries nor would I say that.

I am worried about his risk more because he is a more important part of the team. That doesn't mean I am not worried about the next guy. Worry changes nothing risk wise. You are framing this as an "either/or" argument and it's not. The risk is there no matter WHO is playing the position. This is absolutely not about worrying about one and not another. It's about protecting your best assets as best as possible from an increased risk that is not necessary. The risk is there no matter who plays there and at this time, nothing can be done to mitigate it.

When the Twins moved Joe Mauer to first base to avoid further concussion injuries, does that mean they didn't care about the risk to his replacement? Of course not.

[Sessh]

10 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Hot take:

If catching is too dangerous for Rutschman to play they should do away with the position or at the least revamp it to lower the risk.

I don't know if it can be lowered right now. I certainly hope it can one day, though. I cringe every time I see a catcher take one to the head.

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, Sessh said:

I said it's "really only one position" at a significantly increased risk. I didn't say it's the only position because yes, it's not true. Injuries are par for the course for any athlete. Catchers suffer head injuries far more than players who are not catchers. In the context of the discussion, I figured what I meant was obvious. I never once said catchers are the ONLY players who suffer head injuries nor would I say that.

I am worried about his risk more because he is a more important part of the team. That doesn't mean I am not worried about the next guy. Worry changes nothing risk wise. You are framing this as an "either/or" argument and it's not. The risk is there no matter WHO is playing the position. This is absolutely not about worrying about one and not another. It's about protecting your best assets as best as possible from an increased risk that is not necessary. The risk is there no matter who plays there and at this time, nothing can be done to mitigate it.

When the Twins moved Joe Mauer to first base to avoid further concussion injuries, does that mean they didn't care about the risk to his replacement? Of course not.

Mauer was at an elevated risk, his risk for further injury was in fact higher than that of his replacements.

That isn't the case here.

[Sessh]

5 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Mauer was at an elevated risk, his risk for further injury was in fact higher than that of his replacements.

That isn't the case here.

All catchers are at an elevated risk. All of them. You'd be hard pressed to find one who hasn't taken multiple blows to the head. I don't even think such a catcher exists. The point is using your logic, the Twins didn't care about the risk to his replacement. Knowing the reality of the situation, prevention is better than tempting fate until something happens. You can't protect everyone, but you can protect some of them. Using the same logic, maybe we don't care about any of these catchers since we ask them to play the position knowing what may happen. This argument just doesn't hold up. SOMEONE has to do it. Worrying does not change a thing. It's there. It's not going anywhere for the time being. Someone has to do it. It has nothing to do with caring about one and not caring about another. Nothing.

I seriously doubt that any catcher would be concerned about this. They'd be thrilled to play catcher knowing that they could take one off the mask at any time and they'd do it without hesitation. They signed up for it. They know and understand the risks. No one's arm is being twisted and no one is being deceived. This is what they love doing risks be damned.

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, Sessh said:

All catchers are at an elevated risk. All of them. You'd be hard pressed to find one who hasn't taken multiple blows to the head. I don't even think such a catcher exists. The point is using your logic, the Twins didn't care about the risk to his replacement. Knowing the reality of the situation, prevention is better than tempting fate until something happens. You can't protect everyone, but you can protect some of them. Using the same logic, maybe we don't care about any of these catchers since we ask them to play the position knowing what may happen. This argument just doesn't hold up. SOMEONE has to do it. Worrying does not change a thing. It's there. It's not going anywhere for the time being. Someone has to do it. It has nothing to do with caring about one and not caring about another. Nothing.

I seriously doubt that any catcher would be concerned about this. They'd be thrilled to play catcher knowing that they could take one off the mask at any time and they'd do it without hesitation. They signed up for it. They know and understand the risks. No one's arm is being twisted and no one is being deceived. This is what they love doing risks be damned.

No.

People who have had concussions in the past are at an increased risk of further damage.  His actual risk level was higher.   That would be how Roberts managed to re-injure himself sliding into a base.  No one thinks of sliding into a base as a dangerous activity right?

 

I think we are done here, I'm not getting off my position that it is unseemly at best to remove Rutschman from the catcher position on the basis of the risk of head trauma.

[Ruzious]

1 hour ago, Sessh said:

Sure it is, but don't pretend like we won't be locking him up longer than six years if he is as advertised. Getting 15 years is far better than 8-10 or less.. unless you only want him for six years? I doubt the new management will be letting him slip away like the previous regime did with Manny. Of course, if Rutschman is no good, this is all moot. I highly doubt that will be the outcome, though.

Someone has to do play the position. I never said it was "fine", it's an act of prudence. If someone must do it, I would rather it not be my best player if I can help it.

It's about what's best for the team not what gives a player a better chance of making the HOF.

Lol, is that last comment intended to make any sense whatsoever?