You Know We Want it Bud...

We've all read the clammer surrounding whether or not to institute more instant replay into the game.  The issue is a hotly debated one, but there seems to be only one right solution...add more of it to the game.  The main problems I've gathered deal with increasing the time it takes to play a game, the "human" factor that umpires add to the game, and where do you draw the line on what can and cannot be reviewed?

If presented with statistics of game length in the NFL from before instant replay reached its pinnacle to pre-instant replay, I think we'd all be surprised to find that the length of the game did not increase drastically.  In fact, instant replay, itself, seems to be getting more and more efficient as umpires and referees get used to the system.  The biggest issues impacting the length of baseball games obviously rest with the media and the simple fact that there are no timers in the game of baseball.  Sure sure, you can tell me that there's a 30 second time limit per pitch but have you actually seen that called in a major league game?

As far as the other two concerns about instant replay, it's safe to say that as technology increases and becomes more prevalent in society, fans are going to want it implemented in the game.  Eventually it will be implemented, but if done properly by Bud Selig, it can be slowly added to leave baseball with that good ole "human factor".  If he appointed a committee to compile a list of scenarios that could or could not be reviewed, that list might be exhaustingly long, but it would provide a good starting ground.

The NFL has provided a great example and precedent.  While it may not be original for MLB to copy the NFL's system, it sure would help quiet all the noise surrounding controversial plays.  Give each manager a red flag and let him choose when to challenge.  You win your challenge, you earn a second one...it's as simple as that.  The longer you wait to add further instant replay to the game, the longer you look foolish Bud Selig.  Give the players, managers, umpires, and most importantly, the fans, what they want.

Bryce Harper Should be Catching

Whether you are a Sabermetric follower or not, everyone can agree that some positions on the baseball field are more difficult to play than others.  There is an obvious difference in the overall athletic ability of Andrelton Simmons compared with that of say, David Ortiz.  They're both great athletes, but it takes a more well-rounded skillset to play shortstop the way Andrelton does, than to play first base or step on the field 4 times in a game as a DH.  There are going to be a lot more athletes who are capable of learning to hit at the major league level, without worrying about defense, than there are who are capable of playing a demanding position like shortstop while also learning to hit at the major league level.  Sabermetrics calls this the defensive spectrum, and they rank each position by difficulty, which will also correlate to scarcity of players.  There is more scarcity of players at the more difficult positions.  You can read more here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_spectrum

Ideally you would have a dominant pitcher who can hit grand slams like little league and college baseball, and elite defenders at every position who can also hit like Barry Bonds in his prime on steroids.  We will never see a team like this, but if you're a GM, that's what you should be shooting for.  In reality you will only be able to achieve some percentage of this ideal team's production because of the scarcity of high skill position players who can also hit at an elite level.  The goal should be to pack your lineup with as many of these dual-threat guys as you can find and afford.

Bryce Harper is a guy who is going to hit at the highest level in his prime, and is already showing us a lot as a 19 year-old in the big leagues.  He is also a 5-tool athlete who can, and has played every position on the field except pitcher.  Since that is the case, why wouldn't you play him where he can make the most difference on your team?  That spot, after pitcher, would be catcher, according to the defensive spectrum.  How many teams have their best hitter playing catcher?  Maybe one or two, with McCann being up there.  This gives you a huge advantage over a team that has to play Kurt Suzuki (.215/.256/.268) at catcher because they don't have a better hitter who can also play there defensively.

It also allows you to put someone in left field, the second easiest position, where there are many replacement left fielders who can play defense AND hit.  You'll find them easier and cheaper, by a lot, than a Bryce Harper.

To be fair, the Nats have played him in center field a lot, which is the 5th hardest position to play (slash find players) but why wouldn't they play him at catcher to put their best possible team on the field?