Baseball has been abuzz this week over catchers, blocking the plate, and collisions. The hullabaloo began with Buster Posey’s gruesome ankle injury knocking him out of action for a lengthy piece of time. The controversy and discussion has continued throughout the last week including news today that A’s GM slash resident Buddha of Baseball Billy Beane has told his catcher Kurt Suzuki to avoid home plate collisions. We talk catchers and West Coast division races in this week’s roundtable…
Strike 1: Buster Posey’s injury has led to a debate about plays at the plate. Should baseball do something to protect catchers or is this injury and others just part of the game?
Garrett Wilson: I actually no longer care what they do about collisions at home plate. I just want MLB to make a decision one way or the other so that I can stop hearing everyone complain about it. I suppose if they were to do something, my choice would be to make it mandatory that you go in feet first into home plate. Yes, there is still an injury risk as we saw with Ryan Doumit, but if guys aren’t trying to barrel each other over, it makes things safer for everyone involved.
Pat Lackey: It’s a tough topic, but I don’t like just dismissing it out of hand because “that’s the way it’s always been.” It’s sort of a sliding scale here; catchers are really the only people on the field that block the plate with their legs because they’re all geared up, which, in turn, is why it’s the only position that has full-body collisions. Of course, home plate is also one place where you can slide through the base with no potential for ill effect, which gives runners more momentum and also creates a potential for injury. And home plate is the most important base. Why shouldn’t catchers be allowed to block it if they have the ball? Do we need to legislate that? Catchers certainly know the risks of blocking the plate and runners know the risks of starting a collision. It’s not an easy decision to make, but I do think it’s a conversation worth having.
Mark Smith: The only reason home-plate collisions are a part of the game is because MLB allows for them to be. If MLB had created a no-collision rule years ago, no one would even consider it (like they don’t at the other bases) at home plate. Runners would just go around. There’s no reason for catchers or runners (don’t forget them!) to get hurt in a mid-May game on a run that may or may not matter. It makes no sense to have these injuries.
Joe Lucia: Three words: barbed wire cage. There’s nothing baseball can do aside from banning sliding at the plate, but this isn’t little league. What would define a close play, anyway?
Daniel Moroz: Agree with Mark that there’s some status quo bias here. If rules were in place to help avoid collisions, I don’t think anyone would be trying to change them. Saying the runner can’t go in trying to dislodge the ball seems simple enough, and though something about the catcher not blocking the plate may be a little tough to judge, it’s not like umps don’t have to make those types of calls elsewhere (for example, on check swings).
Strike 2: The 4 AL West teams are separated by 2.5 games as of Wednesday afternoon. Does any team stand out in the pack as a potential division winner and playoff challenger?
Mark: It will be interesting to see who is willing and able to make a big deadline deal. The Angels and Rangers stick out to me as the contenders. The Rangers could use a front-of-the-rotation guy and a late-inning reliever, but they seem like the best-suited to win the division as things currently stand. The Angels could use a big bat or just refuse to put Vernon Wells back in the lineup. The A’s have the best pitching staff, but they need a lot of help on offense for which they’d have to probably sell the farm (not recommended). The Mariners are surprisingly decent, but they have the worst run differential in the division.
Daniel: I had them as Rangers-A’s-Angels-M’s before the season, and that’s what I’m sticking with. Of course it’s possible that any of the clubs could make the playoffs, but Texas should be the favorites with a relatively steady decrease in odds going along such that Seattle is a longshot.
Joe: Every team has their strengths, and every team has their weaknesses. Before the season, I picked the A’s, and I’m staying with that pick. I really like their young pitching staff, even with the issues with Brian Fuentes and Bob Geren, and despite their mediocre offense.
Garrett: I’ll try my best to stifle my Angel-homerism here. I think this division is so tight specifically because there is no standout team. Each team has its strengths, but also has some fatal flaws. The Rangers showed last year that this roster is dangerous, and I think they could do some post-season damage if they heat up at the right time, even without Cliff Lee. The rest of the division is pretty much in the same boat in that they don’t have very good offense, but they have potentially scary rotations. Would you want to face Weaver-Haren or Hernandez-Pineda or Gonzalez-Anderson? I don’t think Seattle can actually make the post-season, but the other three could all make some noise if they catch a hot streak or just the right matchup.
Pat: I think at the end of the year the Rangers are going to have won that division pretty handily. They’ve had some injury problems early in the year, but they weren’t a fluke last year (I know they don’t have Cliff Lee this year, but they have plenty of pitching) and they have the best run differential in the division at the moment. They’re well-rounded (unlike the A’s, who have great pitching but can’t hit) and even though the division is full of well-run teams, I think that Jon Daniels the best GM to react if their injury problems persist. Honestly, I wouldn’t be surprised if this division isn’t all that close in the end.
Strike 3: Staying with West Coast Bias this week, the D-Backs have surprisingly won 7 straight to take the NL West lead. Are they contender or pretender?
Joe: I just wrote about the Diamondbacks on Tuesday, and my verdict was that they have the potential to get even better as the season goes on due to offensive struggles by their core players.
Pat: For a few years, I’ve felt like the Diamondbacks were pretty big underachievers with the young talent they have on their roster. The Giants and Rockies are both very good teams, but I think the Diamondbacks should be able to hang in at the top of the division. Really, it’s going to depend on how well their pitching staff holds up as the summer wears on.
Daniel: The Diamondbacks are contenders in that division, though I’m not sure they have the pitching to stay on top all year. I still think the Rockies take the West, but it wouldn’t be surprising if Arizona was only a couple games back.
Mark: Sure, why not? In that division, everyone has problems, and if the D’Backs can add another starting pitcher and reliever (should have kept Haren, right?), they would look pretty solid all around. I don’t buy Ryan Roberts keeping this up, and if he doesn’t, they may need a 3B, too. But like I said, no one in that division is really poised to make a big run other than maybe the Rockies if Troy Tulowitzki and Carlos Gonzalez can get things figured out.
Garrett: Can I just re-use my answer for the AL West question? No? Darn. Sure, the D’Backs can hang around in the NL West, they have more than enough offense to remain an average to above average team, and it looks like above average might be all that is needed to win that division. However, their rotation scares me a bit, so I have serious doubts about whether or not they could win a post-season series.
