Page 1 of 3
Should catchers be run for
Posted: 11 Jul 2025 07:02 am
by sikeston bulldog2
Good morning.
Catchers are slow on the base paths. They are so critical that a team carries three and rarely uses number three till emergency.
Of all the stupid rules, running for the catcher makes much sense, although I don’t like it.
Catchers up and down squatting creates several medical syndromes that affect running. Losing a stud catcher is killer.
Is running for a catcher to extreme, or common sense.
Enjoy.
Re: Should catchers be run for
Posted: 11 Jul 2025 07:07 am
by sikeston bulldog2
They could designate one player from the 26 man to run. If he gets hurt, catcher has to run for himself.
Could be an offensive advantage by using only a speedster in that position.
Re: Should catchers be run for
Posted: 11 Jul 2025 07:23 am
by JDW
So offhand, can't remember many C injuries from running the bases, but maybe that's just my lack of memory on the subject.
Anyway, no, I don't think it's needed.
A C like Realmuto that can run the bases makes him better at his position than a similar defensive/offensive C's that are slower on the bases. He's a veteran and can still run very well. Many C's are slow because of how they're built and are slow from day 1.
Molina was slow, but I think he still enjoyed the challenge of running the bases. Don't take that away from them, and variations in speed help some players differentiate themselves from the competition.
Re: Should catchers be run for
Posted: 11 Jul 2025 07:26 am
by scoutyjones2
sikeston bulldog2 wrote: ↑11 Jul 2025 07:02 am
Good morning.
Catchers are slow on the base paths. They are so critical that a team carries three and rarely uses number three till emergency.
Of all the stupid rules, running for the catcher makes much sense, although I don’t like it.
Catchers up and down squatting creates several medical syndromes that affect running. Losing a stud catcher is killer.
Is running for a catcher to extreme, or common sense.
Enjoy.
Teams carry 3 catchers? I don't think so..
Can we continue to lower the bar for being a true, all around ballplayer...no.
We already did away with the shift because players can't bunt or take pitches the other way. Now you want to have a designated runner for catchers? Ridiculous
Re: Should catchers be run for
Posted: 11 Jul 2025 07:27 am
by sikeston bulldog2
JDW wrote: ↑11 Jul 2025 07:23 am
So offhand, can't remember many C injuries from running the bases, but maybe that's just my lack of memory on the subject.
Anyway, no, I don't think it's needed.
A C like Realmuto that can run the bases makes him better at his position than a similar defensive/offensive C's that are slower on the bases. He's a veteran and can still run very well. Many C's are slow because of how they're built and are slow from day 1.
Molina was slow, but I think he still enjoyed the challenge of running the bases. Don't take that away from them, and variations in speed help some players differentiate themselves from the competition.
As an option. You don’t have to run for your catcher if you don’t want to. Your risk.
Very few catchers run well. They have been known to clog the bases.
The idea I’m using to compare to other ideas like ghost runner. This one has merit. Ghost runners have none.
Thanx for ur time
Re: Should catchers be run for
Posted: 11 Jul 2025 07:29 am
by sikeston bulldog2
scoutyjones2 wrote: ↑11 Jul 2025 07:26 am
sikeston bulldog2 wrote: ↑11 Jul 2025 07:02 am
Good morning.
Catchers are slow on the base paths. They are so critical that a team carries three and rarely uses number three till emergency.
Of all the stupid rules, running for the catcher makes much sense, although I don’t like it.
Catchers up and down squatting creates several medical syndromes that affect running. Losing a stud catcher is killer.
Is running for a catcher to extreme, or common sense.
Enjoy.
Teams carry 3 catchers? I don't think so..
Morning. Ur up early. If we can run for the catcher, we can eliminate the need for three. This adding another bat or defensive player to the 26 man roster.
Re: Should catchers be run for
Posted: 11 Jul 2025 07:32 am
by scoutyjones2
sikeston bulldog2 wrote: ↑11 Jul 2025 07:29 am
scoutyjones2 wrote: ↑11 Jul 2025 07:26 am
sikeston bulldog2 wrote: ↑11 Jul 2025 07:02 am
Good morning.
Catchers are slow on the base paths. They are so critical that a team carries three and rarely uses number three till emergency.
Of all the stupid rules, running for the catcher makes much sense, although I don’t like it.
Catchers up and down squatting creates several medical syndromes that affect running. Losing a stud catcher is killer.
Is running for a catcher to extreme, or common sense.
Enjoy.
Teams carry 3 catchers? I don't think so..
Morning. Ur up early. If we can run for the catcher, we can eliminate the need for three. This adding another bat or defensive player to the 26 man roster.
I'm always up early
Who carries 3 catchers? Cards have WillyCon but he's their 1b..
Backup your claim because i contend your whole opinion is based on a fallacy, and is just ridiculous.
Re: Should catchers be run for
Posted: 11 Jul 2025 07:38 am
by sikeston bulldog2
scoutyjones2 wrote: ↑11 Jul 2025 07:32 am
sikeston bulldog2 wrote: ↑11 Jul 2025 07:29 am
scoutyjones2 wrote: ↑11 Jul 2025 07:26 am
sikeston bulldog2 wrote: ↑11 Jul 2025 07:02 am
Good morning.
Catchers are slow on the base paths. They are so critical that a team carries three and rarely uses number three till emergency.
Of all the stupid rules, running for the catcher makes much sense, although I don’t like it.
Catchers up and down squatting creates several medical syndromes that affect running. Losing a stud catcher is killer.
Is running for a catcher to extreme, or common sense.
Enjoy.
Teams carry 3 catchers? I don't think so..
Morning. Ur up early. If we can run for the catcher, we can eliminate the need for three. This adding another bat or defensive player to the 26 man roster.
I'm always up early
Who carries 3 catchers? Cards have WillyCon but he's their 1b..
Backup your claim because i contend your whole opinion is based on a fallacy, and is just ridiculous.
My claim is catchers may hurt themselves running bases. I looked but got no real finds. Based on the idea that they may hurt themselves, I thought that eliminating them would be an idea. Also add more offense with more speed on bases .
I was really comparing my idea against other imposed rules, like ghost runner. My idea makes more sense than ghost runner, or throw over limits, or batters faced, rules.
Just an idea.
Re: Should catchers be run for
Posted: 11 Jul 2025 07:46 am
by scoutyjones2
sikeston bulldog2 wrote: ↑11 Jul 2025 07:38 am
scoutyjones2 wrote: ↑11 Jul 2025 07:32 am
sikeston bulldog2 wrote: ↑11 Jul 2025 07:29 am
scoutyjones2 wrote: ↑11 Jul 2025 07:26 am
sikeston bulldog2 wrote: ↑11 Jul 2025 07:02 am
Good morning.
Catchers are slow on the base paths. They are so critical that a team carries three and rarely uses number three till emergency.
Of all the stupid rules, running for the catcher makes much sense, although I don’t like it.
Catchers up and down squatting creates several medical syndromes that affect running. Losing a stud catcher is killer.
Is running for a catcher to extreme, or common sense.
Enjoy.
Teams carry 3 catchers? I don't think so..
Morning. Ur up early. If we can run for the catcher, we can eliminate the need for three. This adding another bat or defensive player to the 26 man roster.
I'm always up early
Who carries 3 catchers? Cards have WillyCon but he's their 1b..
Backup your claim because i contend your whole opinion is based on a fallacy, and is just ridiculous.
My claim is catchers may hurt themselves running bases. I looked but got no real finds. Based on the idea that they may hurt themselves, I thought that eliminating them would be an idea. Also add more offense with more speed on bases .
I was really comparing my idea against other imposed rules, like ghost runner. My idea makes more sense than ghost runner, or throw over limits, or batters faced, rules.
Just an idea.
No, it doesn't. It's akin to banning the shift. Excusing and lowering the bar for a professional ballplayer, by saying, hey...it's ok you run slowly...we will give you a runner
It's ok you can't put the ball in play other than pulling everything . We will just prevent teams from doing what they shoild.
For me, Ghost runner should be used after an extra inning or two, not immediately in the 10th.
The shift should be allowed.
Love the minimum batters faced. Tired of LOOGY/ROOGY. Slowed the game and, for those who hate the DH, it's the s logic. A pitcher should be capable of facing 3 batters, regardless of hitters handedness. Love the pitch clock.
I may push throw overs to 3 but it really isn't causing as much distress as I thought it would. I thought SBs would explode, plus with the pizza box based.
Re: Should catchers be run for
Posted: 11 Jul 2025 07:59 am
by sikeston bulldog2
scoutyjones2 wrote: ↑11 Jul 2025 07:46 am
sikeston bulldog2 wrote: ↑11 Jul 2025 07:38 am
scoutyjones2 wrote: ↑11 Jul 2025 07:32 am
sikeston bulldog2 wrote: ↑11 Jul 2025 07:29 am
scoutyjones2 wrote: ↑11 Jul 2025 07:26 am
sikeston bulldog2 wrote: ↑11 Jul 2025 07:02 am
Good morning.
Catchers are slow on the base paths. They are so critical that a team carries three and rarely uses number three till emergency.
Of all the stupid rules, running for the catcher makes much sense, although I don’t like it.
Catchers up and down squatting creates several medical syndromes that affect running. Losing a stud catcher is killer.
Is running for a catcher to extreme, or common sense.
Enjoy.
Teams carry 3 catchers? I don't think so..
Morning. Ur up early. If we can run for the catcher, we can eliminate the need for three. This adding another bat or defensive player to the 26 man roster.
I'm always up early
Who carries 3 catchers? Cards have WillyCon but he's their 1b..
Backup your claim because i contend your whole opinion is based on a fallacy, and is just ridiculous.
My claim is catchers may hurt themselves running bases. I looked but got no real finds. Based on the idea that they may hurt themselves, I thought that eliminating them would be an idea. Also add more offense with more speed on bases .
I was really comparing my idea against other imposed rules, like ghost runner. My idea makes more sense than ghost runner, or throw over limits, or batters faced, rules.
Just an idea.
No, it doesn't. It's akin to banning the shift. Excusing and lowering the bar for a professional ballplayer, by saying, hey...it's ok you run slowly...we will give you a runner
It's ok you can't put the ball in play other than pulling everything . We will just prevent teams from doing what they shoild.
For me, Ghost runner should be used after an extra inning or two, not immediately in the 10th.
The shift should be allowed.
Love the minimum batters faced. Tired of LOOGY/ROOGY. Slowed the game and, for those who hate the DH, it's the s logic. A pitcher should be capable of facing 3 batters, regardless of hitters handedness. Love the pitch clock.
I may push throw overs to 3 but it really isn't causing as much distress as I thought it would. I thought SBs would explode, plus with the pizza box based.
Awesome write. Your position is understood and of course respected. Good write.
Re: Should catchers be run for
Posted: 11 Jul 2025 08:48 am
by Jatalk
sikeston bulldog2 wrote: ↑11 Jul 2025 07:02 am
Good morning.
Catchers are slow on the base paths. They are so critical that a team carries three and rarely uses number three till emergency.
Of all the stupid rules, running for the catcher makes much sense, although I don’t like it.
Catchers up and down squatting creates several medical syndromes that affect running. Losing a stud catcher is killer.
Is running for a catcher to extreme, or common sense.
Enjoy.
I would be happy with rules similar to softball but limited. Maybe allow two designated runners in a game where player run for can stay in the game. I think it could add some excitement. Maybe bring speed back to being part of the game etc.
Re: Should catchers be run for
Posted: 11 Jul 2025 08:52 am
by moose-and-squirrel
sure.. expand the roster so a group of track stars do all the running..
and then add a group of players that do nothing but hit..
silliness.. either play ball or don't
this aint rec league softball
Re: Should catchers be run for
Posted: 11 Jul 2025 08:57 am
by sikeston bulldog2
moose-and-squirrel wrote: ↑11 Jul 2025 08:52 am
sure.. expand the roster so a group of track stars do all the running..
and then add a group of players that do nothing but hit..
silliness.. either play ball or don't
this aint rec league softball
Two intents. One as you noted. Two, show comparison to other rules. Meaning, my idea may have been as good as the banned shift, or ghost runners, but it still has no place in baseball.
All bad ideas?
Re: Should catchers be run for
Posted: 11 Jul 2025 09:02 am
by ClassicO
It's interesting that the two relatively fast catchers on our team are both moving out of the catcher position–– Contreras and Herrera. Burly and Arenado are two of the slowest people on the team, but we don't pinch run for them.
Note: I don't have speeds for Bernal or Crooks, but the former looks faster than the latter, and neither of the big boys is quick. But they are both better defensive catchers than what we have now, not to mention far better offense. Bernal is a stud.
Statcast running speeds for Cards (not equal to baserunning skill, of course):
- Screenshot 2025-07-11 at 8.57.11 AM.png (128.91 KiB) Viewed 277 times
Re: Should catchers be run for
Posted: 11 Jul 2025 09:17 am
by moose-and-squirrel
sikeston bulldog2 wrote: ↑11 Jul 2025 08:57 am
moose-and-squirrel wrote: ↑11 Jul 2025 08:52 am
sure.. expand the roster so a group of track stars do all the running..
and then add a group of players that do nothing but hit..
silliness.. either play ball or don't
this aint rec league softball
Two intents. One as you noted. Two, show comparison to other rules. Meaning, my idea may have been as good as the banned shift, or ghost runners, but it still has no place in baseball.
All bad ideas?
the 'ghost runner' was implemented to speed up the game.. I'm for it.. just like the pitch clock and limited throws to 1st
the shift still exists, just not in the exaggerated form.. ok with that too
Re: Should catchers be run for
Posted: 11 Jul 2025 09:18 am
by scoutyjones2
ClassicO wrote: ↑11 Jul 2025 09:02 am
It's interesting that the two relatively fast catchers on our team are both moving out of the catcher position–– Contreras and Herrera. Burly and Arenado are two of the slowest people on the team, but we don't pinch run for them.
Note: I don't have speeds for Bernal or Crooks, but the former looks faster than the latter, and neither of the big boys is quick. But they are both better defensive catchers than what we have now, not to mention far better offense. Bernal is a stud.
Statcast running speeds for Cards (not equal to baserunning skill, of course):
Screenshot 2025-07-11 at 8.57.11 AM.png
Are you sure they are better than Pages defensively?