If they didn't wear gloves scores would be in the hundreds and you wouldn't even be able to have a catcher. Fingers would get broken on almost every play as well and batting averages would be in the .700s.
No problem with the catcher wearing gloves, much like in cricket with the wicket keeper.
Not sure why scores would be any more than they are now without gloves to be honest, so I'd disagree with you on that point.
It would certainly make the game a little more exciting and not dumbed down and easy.
A cricket ball is slightly larger than one for baseball and as hard, if not harder. It has a core of cork with string wound tightly around it and stitched leather case with a seam around the centre to enclose it all.
All players would need to do is learn the skill of catching a ball and as you can see from these videos, no bones were broken in the filming of these catches. :)
BTW.......If a player catches a ball, no part of their body can touch the boundary with the ball in their hands and beyond the boundary with any part of their body in contact with the ground, with the ball in their hands.
The average speeds for a world class fast bowlers and pitchers are probably similar and both would be able to vary the flight and speed of the ball, with cricket having the advantage of using the ground to make the ball move as well.
I have listened to the baseball commentators get apoplectic in seeing a catch and I look at it from a cricket perspective where it's done routinely gloveless and not with a bucket on the end of their arm!!
www.icc-cricket.com/video/3813524
www.youtube.com/watch?v=AUUwnBHSCb4
………….and the fairer sex also showing how to catch without gloves.
www.t20worldcup.com/video/3090456