Let’s Make the Bullpen Catcher the Emergency Catcher
This postseason has featured plenty of interesting baseball with all sorts of compelling performances. Without diminishing Javy Baez’s tags or Clayton Kershaw’s brilliance, it’s probably fair to say that the two main storylines have concerned bullpen usage and the impact of replay. Perhaps we’ve reached a bullpen tipping point, but it seems almost certain that this postseason will lead the league to revise exactly how replay is applied to split-second base detachments.
While most people have latched onto these stories, I’ve had my eye on something different. The Cubs and Dodgers both carried three catchers for at least one series and have both used three catchers in a single game during these playoffs. Admittedly, this is a less important and obvious development than bullpen changes and replay controversies, but it sets up a discussion I’ve been wanting to have about a potential rule change.
Most major-league teams carry two catchers on their 25-man roster. Occasionally, you’ll find a team willing to carry three if one of the catchers can play another position or if one catcher is managing an injury, but for the most part there are two players who know how to catch on the roster and a utility player whose job it is to wear the gear if something terrible happens.
Given that the position is unique, managers are extremely hesitant to put someone behind the plate who isn’t a true catcher. It’s one thing to put a second baseman in left field for two innings, but receiving pitches is nothing like playing the other positions. This is a totally rational preference.
But one of the effects of this unwillingness in the game to risk using the emergency catcher is that managers rarely want to replace their starting catcher unless he gets injured. Catchers are less likely to be replaced on defense, in the box, or on the bases, because once a club turns to its backup catcher, they’re working without a net. If the backup gets hurt or ejected, the manager is then forced to break the glass and put the non-catcher Romine behind the dish.
Injuries aren’t that frequent, so some of this risk aversion is overblown. For example, it’s probably alright to pinch run for a slow catcher in the eighth inning without a problem — the odds that a backup gets hurt in one inning of work is quite small — but let’s accept the overall premise that getting caught with no catcher is sufficiently bad such that one has to avoid it in all but the most critical circumstances.
Given that, it strikes me that MLB should develop a rule that eases this risk. Catching is a taxing position and anything the league can do to rest its catchers — in order to keep them healthy and productive — is worth doing. Shaving a couple extra innings a week seems like a useful step in that direction. But MLB is also interested in more offense, which should lead them to encourage pinch hitting and platoon advantages for hitters. Were a manager is more comfortable replacing his catcher, he can let a slugging outfielder hit for the catcher a few times per week.
Catchers typically aren’t great hitters, so fewer at-bats mixed with more rest seems like something MLB would want to support. The question is how to craft a rule that facilitates this without disrupting the nature of the game in a meaningful way.
In the All-Star Game, for example, catchers are allowed to re-enter the game if their clubs use all the backup catchers on the roster and then the last of those suffers an injury. This kind of thing is sometimes allowed in high-school leagues, as well. Certainly this is fine in an exhibition contest. Over a full season, however, you could imagine a scenario in which teams cite questionable injuries to squeeze a little advantage out of rule designed to ease the catcher-replacement embargo. In the case, it’d be possible to pinch run for a slow catcher, score a run thanks to that speedy pinch-runner, and then have a backup catcher feign injury the next inning in order to bring the starter back. That’s not really the intent of the rule and it’s not easy to draft a rule in a way that easily prevents that. Even if the terms are composed by independent injury arbiter or something, how would it be possible to litigate the authenticity of a sore elbow?
The rule should be designed such that clubs are encouraged to use both catchers when it makes sense, but not to use the rule to get around MLB’s substitution rules. In other words, teams should be able to use their entire bench and not just their bench minus a catcher.
Enter the bullpen catcher. Every team employs at least one person whose job it is to catch warm-up pitches in the bullpen, and this person is typically a former catcher who wasn’t quite good enough to make it in the majors. I propose a rule that allows a team to bring its bullpen catcher into the game, but also turns the corresponding lineup spot into an automatic out.
This accomplishes our two goals, allowing a manager always to have a defensive catching option available in case of injury, while not creating any incentive for a team to benefit from a fake injury. Under these terms, it wouldn’t be possible to run for Buster Posey, invent an injury for his backup, and then bring Posey back. A manager could run for Posey and bring in his backup — and, were the backup to get hurt, there would still be a real catching option available. It would cost an out when Posey’s lineup spot comes around, but that seems like a worthwhile trade.
Presumably, teams wouldn’t need to utilize this rule very often because injuries aren’t terribly common, but it would allow them the peace of mind to use their actual backup catcher more often. That could be good for offensive production and durability.
I recognize that this isn’t exactly at the top of the list of what’s wrong with baseball, but it’s low-hanging fruit that would help players stay healthy and productive for longer. It would also be nice to see hard-working bullpen catchers get a little taste of big-league action. This rule change would provide a safety net without turning the current substitution framework into a farce, and as MLB and the MLBPA finalize a new CBA, it’s worth considering.
Neil Weinberg is the Site Educator at FanGraphs and can be found writing enthusiastically about the Detroit Tigers at New English D. Follow and interact with him on Twitter @NeilWeinberg44.
Not sure I agree with this one. I don’t see a strong need to allow bullpen catchers to play as well.
How many times has a team been forced to lose both catchers and play their utility player?
Not many, that’s the point, I think. It’s so rare it shouldn’t really register, but teams are so afraid of the possibility that moves never get made. This would allow for regular catcher removals without the fear of the nightmare scenario of being left with no catcher. That said, it is glorious to see an emergency catcher work. I’d be sad if they killed the possibility forever.
The nightmare scenario of asking your backup 3B to play catcher for a few innings is …. you lose one game.
Unless that’s the playoffs, who cares? You make a roster move the next day and bring up a new backup catcher.
Far more often in the last 100 years than a team that has played a lefty at C/2B/3B/SS combined. And if Jack Clements could be the 2nd/3rd best career catcher ever as of his retirement (1900) – and was the first player to ever don the tools of ignorance, it seems more than a bit silly to say that no lefty can possibly even play the position ever again even as an emergency backup.
Bluntly teams have a plethora of guys already on their 25-man roster who have virtually nothing to do in the field (except catch balls thrown at them) but who are (basically) prohibited from even practicing their fielding skills in half of it and in particular at the other position that involves catching balls thrown at them. Which directly creates the vicious circle of ‘tradition’ in Little League where lefty kids don’t even get the chance to don the tools.
Rules changes rarely are the solution for the constipation of tradition
Hockey has a similar rule – if both goalies are injured, then the team can essentially bring in anybody to fill in for the rest of the game as an emergency backup.
What is the current or potential skillset of a bullpen catcher? Can they throw effectively to the bases? Block pitches? Also, it would be possible for a manager to replace the backup with the bullpen catcher, and when the spot in the lineup comes up, just double switch with another bench player, thereby getting an inning or two of experienced catching before resorting to a utility player, and not getting hit with the automatic out.
Would be interesting, although I’m not sure I agree with making him an automatic out. It’s not really the team or player’s fault if you end up in a situation where you have to use an emergency catcher.
Also, it would be super sweet to see a bullpen catcher jack a dinger
I think Neil is referring to the fact that this hypothetical player won’t be able to hit major league pitching.
Hmm, I didn’t read it that way. If that’s the case, you’d think teams might invest a bit in a higher quality bullpen catcher. You might expect that to happen anyway. Bullpen catchers don’t really have to be all that good at catching.
Love it. Since the rule is intended to remove the disaster scenario (thereby increasing the likelihood of backup catcher usage) while simultaneously removing the perverse incentive of faking an injury, it makes a lot of sense.
Let’s say this auto-out catcher is on deck, there’s two outs, and two runners on. All you have to do is intentionally walk the current batter, and the inning is over.
Let’s say the auto-out catcher is four batters away, but the bases are empty with two outs. Just intentionally walk three batters in a row, and the inning is over.
Yeah, I’d just let them be a regular player out there, with the provision that you’re not allowed to pinch hit for them (so that you can’t simply keep pinch hitting and moving through your ranks of emergency catchers). So while they will probably be a worse batter than Lester, it’s not an automatic out.
Or just limit it to a single emergency catcher. Pinch hit for him and you’ve got nothing left.
Reminds me of the NFL ’emergency QB’. Each team has a 53-man roster, but each week must designate a 45-man active roster. This active roster almost always includes 2 QBs. Teams are allowed, however, to designate a 3rd emergency QB who does not count against the 45-man limit.
I think I disagree with your “automatic out” part. I see it as a way to discourage fake injuries to the backup, perhaps to set up a platoon advantage for the 3rd catcher. A different deterrent could be something like: if the backup catcher has to be replaced by the emergency catcher, then the backup must be placed on a, say, 7-day DL after the game. I think this would sufficiently discourage teams from trying to game the system.
That NFL rule is outdated: it used to be enforced by saying if the player designated as QB3 entered the game prior to the end of the third quarter, then QB1 and QB2 were prohibited from coming back for the rest of the game, but six seasons ago they did away with that rule so now game-day rosters simply consist of 46 players with no restrictions.
I don’t like the 7-day DL: we don’t need to give injured players a incentive to stay in the game. Not all legitimate, can’t play today injuries require a DL stint. Sometimes a finger just swells too much.
Yes! The current run environment could use more automatic outs.
While I love snark, I hate when people absolutely miss the point.
This idea should increase offense by being able to pinch hit or pinch run for the catcher more often.
If teams are really that concerned about using their backup catcher, why wouldn’t they carry 1 less relief pitcher and add a 3rd string catcher?
Or as another alternative that would not require an awkward rule change, why not spend more time developing utility players who are at least reasonably prepared to handle emergency catcher duties? There are plenty of players who were drafted as catchers and switch positions in the minors. If they don’t make it as regulars, they could spend time in winter ball catching, with the upside being a major league utility job.
You can eliminate the incentive for fake injuries by requiring the “injured” player to immediately be placed on the 7-day DL (like a concussion) in order to activate the 3rd catcher.
But then you encourage teams/players to play through injuries. If, say, your backup catcher for the game happens to be Buster Posey, and he tweaks his elbow, you might not want the team to think “well, if we take him out we lose Posey for the next week, so let’s hope his shoulder holds up” only to have him blow it out a couple plays later.
This is true, and perhaps the utter inadequacy of the bullpen catcher at other things baseball would be incentive enough. Real prospects and veteran depth are going to be in MiLB getting regular playing time, not rotting away in the pen warming up relievers.
“At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.”
Give the freak outs we still hear when someone proposes that the NL add a DH, I’m guessing this will not be popular, but I like it.
Interesting. One (unintended?) consequence would be that teams may start employing “real” catchers (i.e. the guy who lost the competition to be the backup catcher) as their bullpen catchers. Not sure if that’s a good or bad thing.
Another thought: One idea to discourage teams from getting too strategic (instead of the “automatic out” thing): If a team employs the emergency catcher in a game, then none of the players who played catcher previously are eligible to play in the following game. (One or both can be placed on the DL and their replacements can play).
There are collective bargaining issues here. The bullpen catcher isn’t on the roster, isn’t accruing service time, isn’t subject to minimum salary requirements, etc.
You probably couldn’t create a rule allowing teams to sub in a random non-union, non-roster player for a few innings once in a while. You could allow for the instant addition and removal of a bullpen catcher to and from the roster in emergency situations, but you would need to make some players exempt from options rules and the like, which would probably be impossible.
Once you go down this road, you essentially wind up having to just create a 26th roster spot, at which point teams will once again be weighing the costs and benefits of carrying a 3rd catcher.
I like this proposal. It could be especially useful in a long extra inning game. I don’t think managers really want their regular catcher to squat behind the plate for 16 innings. This rule will allow him to take that catcher out without worrying about the possibility of having to use an emergency catcher that isn’t really suitable at the position and is a candidate to get injured in that capacity too.
Seriously?
Instead of the automatic out, how about making the emergency catcher hit with one of those little bats they sell in the souvenir stands.
If you are going as far as the automatic out, why not just allow the first catcher to re-enter the game? You could still make it require an actual injury, but teams would be unlikely to feign injury if the result is re-inserting the starting catcher but requiring him to be an automatic out. That would be way simpler logistically. Otherwise, you might see some teams getting amazing defensive bullpen catchers and using them liberally when they believe it is unlikely the spot in the order will come up again.
“Enter the bullpen catcher.”
No thanks. This will create incentives for teams to manipulate the system, like hiring specific players to be their “bullpen catcher” only to try to use them in the game. Also, which bullpen catcher? Teams have multiple. On top of that, can they change their bullpen catcher daily? Inning-wise? Once he’s in, who warms up the relievers?
Here’s a better alternative: let teams that want or need a third catcher (or fourth) teach a utility player to be a super utility. Christian Bethancourt, Contreras, Gattis… all can play multiple positions (and two of those examples are good enough to be in the lineup as often as the year can!).
If teams truly need anger backup, they’ll find one.
I like this idea. I don’t think you need to call him the “bullpen catcher”, though he could fill that role if a team wanted him to do so. Just make a 26th roster spot available that could only be used for an emergency catcher — a guy eligible to enter the game only as the third catcher of the game and only if the catcher he replaces goes on the DL. Given those limits, I don’t think there’d be a need for the “automatic batter out” rule you suggest.
I respectfully disagree. The roster limitations are part of the game. It is unnecessary to add this wrinkle. Like several people have already mentioned, if it were such a big issue that a rule change needed to be made, managers would risk having one less bullpen pitcher, or, god-forbid they have to develop one of their young players into a serviceable emergency catcher that gets used maybe once a year.
The 25 man roster limit exists for a reason. If you want a third catcher, then carry one.
wouldnt this create an incentive for the opposing team to steal wildly? Bullpen catchers aren’t necessarily known for their arms
Isn’t the easier solution just to have your current “emergency” catcher catch a few bullpens or simulated games in spring training or have him warmup a reliever in the pen during a game here and there throughout the season?
In the .00000000001% chance that this actually happened, you’re likely only needing someone to get behind the plate and fake it for an inning or two in a game you’re probably not winning anyway. If you have had your emergency catcher catch a bullpen or two every so often, he’s going to be more than capable enough to finish the job without total embarrassment or injury.
I do think this is something that could be “fixed” if/when MLB goes to a 28-30 man “active” roster, with a 25 man “playing” roster that dresses for each game, similar to the NHL and NFL. I think that is something that MLB should move towards anyway in an effort to prevent teams from gaming service time and options as well as allowing teams to get banged up players who need a few days off but aren’t hurt enough for a DL stint to get some rest.
Of all the options available, why not just allow re-entry for the starting catcher? (Or simply for any one player, who the manager must identify beforehand?) The starting catcher can be pulled for any reason, and be out of the game for any period of time, and then re-enter once at any point in the game. Then he can’t re-enter again if he’s pulled once more. That’s simple and easy and has no CA impacts, right?
this is one of those ‘not-an-awful-idea-but-its-not-really-broke-so-we-dont-really-have-to-fix-it’ type of articles dave seems to write all the time…
personally i think that its not an awful idea but its not really broke so we dont really have to fix it.
with the Cubs I don’t think it was about safety. they had Ross who is defensively good and Lester’s personal catcher so he could not be left off. then there was Montero who was bad most of the season due to injury and aging but is too expensive to be traded or released (he also hit pretty good his final month) and then you have a young guy in contreras who is actually good.
I’m pretty sure the Cubs would have liked only two catchers but due to the flexibility of their roster they didn’t really need an extra position player (contreras himself is pretty flexible and can play LF, first and even third base).
next year I’m sure they carry only two catchers (of course helped by schwarber coming back who likely is the emergency catcher).
BTW I would think for half a game you could go with a position player pretty easily. just designate one athletic infielder who might have caught in high school and have him work on catching for one hour a week. that is not ideal but consider the likely is only needed for 5-10 innings a year at best. no need to waste a roster spot on another catcher.
I dislike this idea. As this situation happens so rarely, and when it does, I relish watching non-catchers strap on the gear. Once this happened, and the Padres had former catcher Phil Nevin play catcher. I think the backup catcher was on paternity leave, and the Padres got caught with an emergency. Also, Pedro Feliz played an inning of catcher for probably similar reasons.
That said, I would love to see the Orioles’ 59 year old bullpen catcher, Rudy Arias enter a game.
As others have commented, would games end on an “automatic out”? Lame. It ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
Interesting idea, but I’m not sure that it really solves the problem. And I really don’t like the “automatic out” idea, which introduces a completely foreign concept to baseball (with the potential for farcical IBB’s, as a commenter noted above).
I think the real problem is that managers are irrationally scared of being forced to use the emergency catcher beyond what probabilities dictate.
What’s actually the chance that the backup catcher gets hurt after the starter leaves the game? I’d love to see research about catcher injury rates per inning played to get a feel for this number, but anecdotal observation suggests that it’s really low. And what’s the lowered probability of winning a game with the emergency catcher in for a few innings? It would be lower, but it shouldn’t be an automatic loss. My understanding is that the designated emergency catcher puts in at least a little practice at the position to be ready for the possibility of having to play in a game.
So, especially in the regular season, my sense – admittedly without having the precise math – is that managers are irrationally avoiding a meaningfully lowered (but not 0) win probability in something like less than 1 game per season by giving up the opportunity to increase win probability somewhat in several games per year. By looking at in-game catcher injury rates, we could presumably determine just how different those win probabilities would have to be to justify the current conventional wisdom.
I also question whether managers would feel that much better about having to use the bullpen catcher than the emergency catcher. It’s still a player who may not be able to control the running game and isn’t used to calling games with the team’s pitchers. Is the bullpen catcher that much better at catching pitches or blocking balls in the dirt? Or is the real fear that an emergency catcher will go out there and hurt himself trying to catch, and then the team also loses a useful utility player?
So, would this idea really change behavior, especially if the bullpen catcher is going to be an automatic out? Or is existing behavior simply a result of irrational loss aversion?
This would have been so awesome when Man Soo Lee was the bullpen catcher for the White Sox.
This would, of course, lead to teams employing AAA and AA catchers as their bullpen catcher.