he wrote a lot for SI before he died, and a compilation of those articles was made into a pretty good book.

his idea was to do away with pitchers. he saw them as whiney, overpaid, injury-prone money pits. why not replace them with very fast, very accurate pitching machines. with a combination of three wheels you can simulate any pitch in the book, and some that aren't.

the catcher would be the focal point of the defense, which is a good thing because catchers are probably the smartest and most athletic players on the field. they would call the pitch and coordinate the fielders.

so... good idea/bad idea?

6/18/2006 8:03:54 PM

No.

/thread

** seriously, while interesting it isn't feasible and I would never watch the game again..

[Edited on June 18, 2006 at 8:05 PM. Reason : x]

6/18/2006 8:05:25 PM

how is it not feasible?

6/18/2006 8:06:50 PM

From a technical stand point it is, but overall it isn't realistic.. that's what I meant. Unless you're talking about a new, XFL type league where it is implemented. Baseball at every level will always have a pitcher.. and it should.

[Edited on June 18, 2006 at 8:09 PM. Reason : typo.. sorry, cooking dinner too]

6/18/2006 8:08:27 PM

FUCK everyone who spent their lives working to be a pitcher

[Edited on June 18, 2006 at 8:10 PM. Reason : fdsa]

6/18/2006 8:10:26 PM

who wants to watch robot baseball

6/18/2006 8:12:53 PM

besides the comfort factor (meaning people are comfortable with the fact that a pitcher is necessary- a la english vs metric), why is a pitcher so indisposable?

i guess the man vs man thing, but it would spread the focus of the game around the field.

^^ i would.

[Edited on June 18, 2006 at 8:15 PM. Reason : hyf]

6/18/2006 8:14:21 PM

I have a problem with removing the BIGGEST variable in the sport. Nothing against you or Mr. Thompson, but it is utterly absurd to me..

6/18/2006 8:16:01 PM

the only interesting dynamic baseball has is the batter vs pitcher battle....

fielding and base running are interesting on maybe 3-5 plays a game...

so no.

6/18/2006 8:16:13 PM

synergizer said:

Quote :

"he wrote a lot for SI before he died, and a compilation of those articles was made into a pretty good book"

1. Of course he wrote before he died. What else is he gonna do, write after he died?

2. It wasn't for Sports Illustrated. He wrote for ESPN, specifically ESPN.com. As far as I know, he never wrote for SI.

3. That "pretty good book" is called Hey, Rube, after his column.

6/18/2006 8:18:05 PM

all you would be doing is shifting the variability to home plate.

^ i stand corrected, corrected, and clarified.

[Edited on June 18, 2006 at 8:20 PM. Reason : ninjitsu]

6/18/2006 8:18:35 PM

BALK!

6/18/2006 8:18:50 PM

blah blah blah you must be this ignorant to post in sports talk

6/18/2006 8:19:02 PM

how is posing a hypothetical scenario ignorant?

use your imagination for just a minute.

[Edited on June 18, 2006 at 8:28 PM. Reason : extra]

6/18/2006 8:23:54 PM

hunter thompson has a vivid imagination

dont take it too seriously

6/18/2006 9:12:07 PM

xenu was his homeboy

6/18/2006 9:13:58 PM

why not have optical robots scan the field and bullet passes to wide receivers, while we're at it


since, you know, quarterbacks are overpaid and injury prone too

6/18/2006 9:19:34 PM

not the same.

6/18/2006 9:20:31 PM

why is it different

6/18/2006 9:25:34 PM

What a terrible idea.

Let's have a robot play QB and let the other 10 players guard each other in football too.

6/18/2006 9:28:19 PM

hell, while were at it, get rid of the bases, and let there just be an all out robot battle.

6/18/2006 9:28:20 PM

you guys are freaking out.

i'm saying the guy had a point when he angrily said that pitchers are easily replaceable.

a pitcher is not as integral as a quaterback. i can't believe such fervent baseball defenders are equating it with football.

entertain the possibility.

6/18/2006 9:41:51 PM

Quote :

"a pitcher is not as integral as a quaterback"

are you serious

that is completely moronic

a pitcher is more integral than a quarterback

if he isn't making good pitches, his team is fucked

Quote :

"entertain the possibility"

we are

we're explain what a stupid fucking possibility it si

6/18/2006 9:45:04 PM

This is the worst idea ever floated in the history of the Internet.

6/18/2006 9:45:53 PM

Quote :

"a pitcher is not as integral as a quaterback."

In some cases, the pitcher is more important.

You can have a good running game and defense in football and still get by (2000 Ravens, the Bears the last couple of years) but you CANNOT win without pitching.

6/18/2006 9:46:08 PM

once again equating baesball with football, and a pitcher with a quarterback.

a catcher can replace a pitcher in HST's vision. a quarterback is irreplaceable.

6/18/2006 9:51:23 PM

Let's not lose sight of the fact that this guy also claimed the catcher is the smartest and most athletic player on the field.

6/18/2006 9:52:43 PM

please to explain how he's not

6/18/2006 9:53:27 PM

a catcher is by far the least athletic player on the field

not that he isn't important

but jesus christ

they don't call ivan rodriguez pudge for nothing

6/18/2006 9:54:04 PM

^^Umm look at the players that are catchers.

OMG is this guy serious?

[Edited on June 18, 2006 at 9:54 PM. Reason : ^^]

6/18/2006 9:54:13 PM

Quote :

"please to explain how he's not"

for starters, the catcher has the most limited defensive zone of any player on the field

and just by glancing over the list, there is not a single catcher in the top 100 all-time stolen base leaders

http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/SB_career.shtml

ditto for triples

http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/3B_career.shtml

catchers are also notoriously bad hitters, both for average and power

[Edited on June 18, 2006 at 9:57 PM. Reason : ]

6/18/2006 9:56:35 PM

who is the most reactionary player on the field?

who squats and prays that the fastball coming at his face is where it should be?

what other baseman risks being run over or kicked in the chest with cleats?

catchers are the hardcore players on the field, they are decent batters, and they deserve more recognition.

the games hinges too much on pitchers.

^ i think that catchers are more important due to their defensive capabilities, call me crazy.

[Edited on June 18, 2006 at 10:03 PM. Reason : gcd]

6/18/2006 10:00:37 PM

You probably shouldn't ever talk about baseball again.

6/18/2006 10:01:55 PM

^^ outfielders risk injury by clashing with fences, dugouts, fans, and other players, the pitcher risks a line drive to the face, infielders risk cleats up baserunning. everyone risks something.

[Edited on June 18, 2006 at 10:02 PM. Reason : .]

6/18/2006 10:02:31 PM

This guy risks sounding like an idiot every time he posts something about baseball.

6/18/2006 10:03:30 PM

idiot like a fox.

6/18/2006 10:04:21 PM

Quote :

"who is the most reactionary player on the field?"

the shortstop

Quote :

"who squats and prays that the fastball coming at his face is where it should be? what other baseman risks being run over or kicked in the chest with cleats?"

yeah that just screams athleticism

Quote :

"they are decent batters"

no they aren't

on average, the catcher is by far the weakest spot in the lineup

i don't have the stats right here, but i'll be glad to look them up

Quote :

"the games hinges too much on pitchers"

probably because they are the most important and arguably the most talented player on the field

catchers are easily replaceable

that's why teams carry two, if not three, catchers

for the benefit of everyone, you should just stay out of sports talk

--

p.s.

kicked in the chest?

wtf

what catcher has ever been drop kicked

[Edited on June 18, 2006 at 10:08 PM. Reason : ]

6/18/2006 10:05:39 PM

you can snap the ball directly to a running back, the pitcher has to be the source for every single play in baseball

pitcher nudges out qb in the sense of criticality

6/18/2006 10:06:26 PM

the pizza on a bagel thread is more intelligent than this one.

6/18/2006 10:06:50 PM

statefan24 is my boy

6/18/2006 10:07:21 PM

definitely less of an affront to sports talk.

6/18/2006 10:08:02 PM

^^^^^
personally I'd argue 3rd base is more reactionary

even though they typicly cover less ground and have less per play responisbility theres just much less time to handle something at 3rd

[Edited on June 18, 2006 at 10:08 PM. Reason : extra^]

6/18/2006 10:08:14 PM

its definitely an arguable point

they call it the hot corner for a reason

and really, you can't argue against the pitcher being the most reactionary player on the field

they have to field screaming line drives in milliseconds

6/18/2006 10:09:20 PM

well i tried.

6/18/2006 10:09:38 PM

I agree it would be interesting but if these machines are made what is to say it wont throw the perfect pitch and with these machines, it would be easier to cheat and make those things virtually unhittable

6/18/2006 10:11:35 PM

let's eliminate baserunning too. we should just let the pitcher robot tell us to what base the runner should advance to after judging the trajectory and velocity of a hit baseball. it would really make it a lot fairer for people who aren't great runners, like catchers.

6/18/2006 10:12:35 PM

making a basehit in baseball is one of the hardest things to do in sports already, theres a reason people only bat .280 etc.

6/18/2006 10:12:53 PM

what do we do when they start giving the pitching robots steroids?

6/18/2006 10:15:21 PM

6/18/2006 10:16:06 PM

Quote :

"making a basehit in baseball is one of the hardest things to do in sports already, theres a reason people only bat .280 etc."

And whats even more telling that those batting .280 are actually doing very well.

I'd also say that 3rd basemen is the most reactionary. With the number of right handers and the way hitters tend to pull it down the line they have the least time to make a play. Yes, pitchers are closer but they are not expected to make the defensive stops and rarely are a factor defensively (unless their name is Maddux).

6/18/2006 10:40:50 PM