Backstop Blues

As A's fans we've seen a few very good catchers over the last twenty years. Terry Steinbach, Mickey Tettleton, Mike Heath, Ron Hassey and the current Ramon Hernandez. Terry Steinbach always reminded one staff member of an Imperial Guard of Ancient Rome the way he handled himself and went about his duties. All of us at the staff have an affection feeling of Terry Steinbach simply because he was around so long and helped the transition during the great teams of the late 80's to the lean years of the mid-90's.

Catchers are often rushed through the minor league ranks because of their, "work behind the plate" it's often said. In reality, it's because they have decent skills and their age helps a ton.

If anyone ever needed to look cool in a baseball movie, the easiest thing to do was to put him at catcher. Tom Berringer in Major League, Kevin Costner in Bull Durham, Kevin Costner's Dad in Filed of Dreams, Robert DeNiro in Bang the Drum Slowly...you get the picture. Possibly only quarterbacks in movies get better lines.

There is something about wearing the mask and chest protector that makes for instant respectability. Or is it something else entirely? Is it because catchers are always having their physical abilities finish their careers before the are ready to call it quits? In the direct translation world; are baseball's catchers the beat up quarterbacks we always relate to? It would seem logical since pitchers are more like kickers and punters; seem to be an awful lot of them around but very few worth keeping around.

The question comes to mind, then, where are all of the good catching prospects? With the exception of Joe Mauer in Minnesota, nobody seems to be able to tout a prospect that will catch more than 100 games behind the plate in three years.

A further question arises then, where the hell is baseball headed? Why are pitchers getting paid so well, being babied out on the mound while catchers seems to be ground up and tossed like a rosin bag with a hole in it?

For years pitchers were abused by managers either too stupid, too stubborn or too much of both to actually understand the limitations of the human body. We still see half of baseball cringe every time a pitcher under age 25 gets around Jeff Torborg or wears a Chicago Cubs uniform. Fortunately somebody threw out the notion that you should pay attention to the number of pitches a pitcher throws. Further, you should pay attention to the number of innings a pitcher throws at an early age. If you don't know anything about mechanics or the physics of baseball, the very least you can do is walk out to the mound around 90 pitches and ask a guy how his day is going. If you don't like his answer or the fact that the opposition is about to start it's fourth time through the order you can ask him if he would like to discuss the matter in the clubhouse.

No, pitch counts really don't matter. Sort of like the number under the sign that says 'Speed Limit' doesn't matter. But, you need to have an idea of what gets your pitcher into trouble and what doesn't. 100 pitches have become the preverbal line in the sand. Not because it is where the human body hits a wall, but where managers should be thinking that a contract extension is better than looking for work every few years.

By 90 pitches there should be activity in the bullpen and if there is a runner in scoring position after 100 in a close game, managers might like to stretch. Or better yet, have the pitching coach stretch for them.

It's really about pitcher safety, a manager's job security and very little to do with anything else. It's better to yank a guy too early than too late for the sake of his health and the sake of the game. It's also better to be able to use the pitchers you already pay too much money as many times as possible during their contract.

The baseball season is a marathon, not a sprint. Having a starting pitcher go 15-10 and start 35 games is more valuable than a starting pitcher who goes 12-4 and only starts 20 games because of injury. Especially when the price tag is around $10 million.

Would you take Jamie Moyer or Brian Anderson?

Would you take Todd Pratt or Pudge Rodriguez?

The A's made a move last week that slipped under the radar of most people. Picking up Mitch Melusky might be the start of a plan by Billy Beane to solve the catcher riddle.
The American League has had a Designated Hitter rule for a long time. About 30 years. Even for baseball, 30 years is a long time. Anytime a catcher gets to age 30 he is thankful to still be in the game. If he makes it to 35, he is a rarity and lucky if he has a multi-year deal. Catchers often become managers or coaches, more often than any other position player. Something about squatting, probably.

Perhaps this is why catchers have never been let up on. Their peers also include their coaches. "If I can catch a double-header in 100 degree heat, you can, catch 12 innings of a night game" might be the prevailing wind.

Baseball has been wasting the talents of the boys behind the dish for too long and something has got to give. Catchers need days off and need to be more versatile. A number of players in high school and college are pitcher/catcher combos. Often picking either when signing a major league deal. Fine. But the guy who decides to catch should also think about shagging some flies or even trying his hand at third base.

Catchers have to have decent arms and decent footwork. So, plugging a guy in at third or first base for 15-20 starts shouldn't be unusual. It should be the norm. Having your backstop out in rightfield should be looked upon as an asset for 10-15 games a year, not a liability.

The National League does not have a DH. But, we don't understand why pitcher/catcher batteries don't often change when a reliever is brought in. Doesn't it make sense to give the starter and the starting catcher the rest of the game off? Especially if it provides the catcher with 4-5 additional years on his career?

In the American League, why a team has not been able to get two catchers who can split the DH duties; one day catch the next DH, is beyond our scope of understanding. A catcher shouldn't have to be behind the plate more than 120 games a season and around 100 if there's a decent back-up available.

MLB should seriously consider a 26th player on the MLB roster. Should the game go more than nine innings, a team may opt to use it's 26th. It just makes sense for the longevity of the guys with the masks who do a majority of the dirty work.

The NFL allows teams the comfort of an emergency quarterback in the rare chances two are too injured to play. Often times, it's a punter, receiver or even defensive back that serves as the emergency quarterback.

The owners would, of course, hate the idea of a 26th roster paycheck to cut. Owners rarely have enough vision to realize they would be able to keep payrolls down by having many catchers to chose from and more utility players to boot in the market. A catcher/mid-infielder? A catcher/left-fielder? Don't be surprised to see it happen in the near future.

Baseball traditionalists would argue that the timing and connection between a pitcher and catcher would be disrupted. Sort of like a QB only being comfortable with his hands up one guy's crotch.

Please.

Fast guys lead off and slow guys play catcher. Pitchers have to have an overpowering fastball and closers only pitch the 9th. Plugging in Todd Hundley at catcher because he is a catcher by trade 140 games a year (if he can stay healthy) is a waste of money and time. It's an affront to the 10 other catchers in the organization who could just as easily weakly ground out to the pitcher on a regular basis, for a few million dollars less, too. It's also an insult to our collective intelligence to watch players like Ivan Rodriguez, Mike Piazza and Jason Kendall have their careers shortened because they creak when they walk and when they stand still.

People who don't understand sports forget that between the lines what matters are things like, competition, winning and integrity. Having a catcher behind the plate at 80% because he is the everyday catcher and he is able to prop himself up for 270 minutes is a futile maneuver. Figuring out a way to keep players at 100%, even if it means denying a player 40-50 at-bats over a season, is worth more when it means 1000-1500 more at-bats for a career.