NFT: MLB contemplates outlawing the shift

The position players should be able to position themselves in the best defensive position for each batter under every scenario.

they need to do something, every year baseball becomes more boring to watch. Its annoying watching guys hit rockets into the shift that should be hits and the 2nd basemen throws them out from right field

.

for the lukewarm baseball fan, the sort that determines whether a WS gets a 6 share or a 12 share, two of the foremost complaints are the lack of offense (distinct from good pitching) and the pace of the game. Absolutely nothing in the game is more boring than watching a slugger line one toward the gap, only to have his double snatched out of mid-air by the shortstop standing on the right side of the diamond? Ideally hitters will adjust and obviate the shift (or teams would start filtering out the pull-happy players and emphasize the ability to use the whole ballpark), but in the meantime we have a product that can at times be nearly unwatchable.

It's sad to watch a hitter have an entire opposite field wide open and watch them pull a grounder right into the shift time after time after time.

You're a pro hitter, you can't figure out how to go the other way? Teams are literally giving you a free hit if you can just poke one in that direction.

There is a generation of specialty pull hitters. Changing the rules because a trend was accounted for is nonsense. Changing the rules to generate offense, also nonsense.

Baseball has to compete with the increased commercialization of broadcasts, as has every other sport. It's the cost of success - huge TV contracts have to be paid for - yet baseball does virtually everything it can to slow down the game, suck the excitement out of every tense situation and reward boring.

Why on earth does the relief pitcher need warm up tosses with the catcher on the field when he's be in the pen warming up? Why is the time count between pitches never enforced? Why does the ump award time 5 times an at-bat?

Let's start there before rewarding shitty one dimensional hitters.

even though some of the shifts look ridiculous. Hitters need to be smart enough to adjust

The football equivalent is Eli trying to throw into triple coverage instead of taking the single coverage on the other side. Major league hitters should learn to go the other way. Take what the defense gives them.

Hate the DH too even after all these years. I like watching good defense. I like watching a manager having to decide whether to keep his pitcher in. I like seeing a hitter put the ball where it needs to be. If lack of offense is that big a deal lower the mound, make the gloves smaller, give all the batters 4 strikes or walk them with three balls. But don't go out of your way to reward one dimensional players.

The shift is the absolute worst thing to ever happen to baseball. It's complete garbage, just a travesty to the game.

If you can't hit past the shift then you need to get more batting instruction. It's a basic drill that all HS players engage in. Hit to a spot designated by the coach. Situational hitting. Handling pitches on the outside corner. These are basic things.

Next thing you know they will be limiting how fast a pitch can be thrown.

In comment 12108554 TJ said:

Quote:

Hate the DH too even after all these years. I like watching good defense. I like watching a manager having to decide whether to keep his pitcher in. I like seeing a hitter put the ball where it needs to be. If lack of offense is that big a deal lower the mound, make the gloves smaller, give all the batters 4 strikes or walk them with three balls. But don't go out of your way to reward one dimensional players.

These are all awesome ideas....if you want Major League Baseball to fold in about 4-5 years.

if a team wants to play the shortstop on the right side of the bag, let them. Leaves a gaping hole for the hitter on the left side. If they can't take advantage it's their own fault.

And how is this fair to spray hitters? They spend years learning to hit to all fields and now dead pull hitters get special protection?

Outlawing better defense is just going to create more visits to the mound and more pitching changes in important moments in the game.

Baseball has effectively eliminated most of the tension of the game with pauses and stoppages. It compromises the live and TV experience. The moment anything exciting happens everything stops. There is no crescendo in baseball. Even is the NBA when you get a lot of stoppages toward the end, you are working against the clock. In baseball without a clock you need acceleration to sustain suspense.

What if a guy in the NBA couldnt dribble left (fairly common). Would you have a rule preventing the defender from cheating right?

These guys should learn to spray the ball to the opposite field. It's a bit ridiculous.

positioning is one of the more interesting strategic aspects of the game.

And why reward a hitter for not being able to go the other way?

And you have an ENTIRE SIDE of the diamond to poke the ball through for a free base.

If you can't figure out how to do it, you should probably spend more time in the cages. It's pathetic that some of these guys can't figure out how to go the other way.

In comment 12108554 TJ said:

Quote:

Hate the DH too even after all these years. I like watching good defense. I like watching a manager having to decide whether to keep his pitcher in. I like seeing a hitter put the ball where it needs to be. If lack of offense is that big a deal lower the mound, make the gloves smaller, give all the batters 4 strikes or walk them with three balls. But don't go out of your way to reward one dimensional players.

Only baseball has this problem. As if there is something sacred about watching a pitcher come up and K on three pitches with runners in scoring position. It's about entertainment. I love baseball's icons too, but the game limits itself and its audience when it becomes so wedded to that past (and not to that past as it really was, but rather to a sanitized portrait of it) that it ignores the ways in which the game is becoming less appealing to the young and the casual fans.

In comment 12108575 arcarsenal said:

Quote:

And you have an ENTIRE SIDE of the diamond to poke the ball through for a free base. If you can't figure out how to do it, you should probably spend more time in the cages. It's pathetic that some of these guys can't figure out how to go the other way.

Comparing it to HS, where the average FB is probably low 80's and secondary stuff is rudimentary, is a little bit unreasonable. Using the whole field AND hitting with power is extraordinarily difficult. You can shorten a swing and have some control over where you put a ball, but once you start talking a high-90's FB or a wipeout slider it's enough to get wood on it, much less direct it.

Baseball is just terrible these days, man.

The reason these guys never adjust and learn to hit the ball the other way is because a pitcher can't put one under the guy's chin anymore. He'll be suspended and probably have an enraged, entitled asshole charging at home looking to fight.

So they continue diving over to the outside corner and hitting balls with authority to the pull side. And MLB's solution is to limit how you can play defense?

Just...ugh.

Make it so the hitters get to direct where all the defenders have to stand.

when the HS kids are doing indoor work, the coach will set up circles on the back wall of the hitting cage. The kids get 10 pitches and have to hit the designated circle.Those who cannot hit at least 6 of the 10 have to do it again until they learn how to do it. The coach throws the ball all over the plate too. The players has to learn how to adjust to make sure they hit the target.

This is a basic drill. There is no excuse for a major league ballplayer to be unable to execute that.

The point is that the major league hitter has had plenty of experience with situational hitting - which is what this drill tries to accomplish.

Among the very dramatic declines in quality of baseball, I don't think singles and doubles without runners in scoring position ranks incredibly high on the list.

In comment 12108576 Dunedin81 said:

Quote:

I love baseball's icons too, but the game limits itself and its audience when it becomes so wedded to that past (and not to that past as it really was, but rather to a sanitized portrait of it) that it ignores the ways in which the game is becoming less appealing to the young and the casual fans.

LOL I guess that explains it. I'm not young or a casual fan so I have trouble seeing that side of things.

[quote}Only baseball has this problem. As if there is something sacred about watching a pitcher come up and K on three pitches with runners in scoring position.[/quote]

LOL. I grew up watching American League ball post-DH and could never understand the traditionalists fondness for the automatic out. Or the wild excitement they see in the double-switch. Look the pitcher's now in the 6 spot in the order! Thrilling!

I guess if I had grown up sooner I would have opposed the DH so maybe if they do outlaw the shift it will see normal the next generation of fans.

In comment 12108535 MookGiants said:

Quote:

they need to do something, every year baseball becomes more boring to watch. Its annoying watching guys hit rockets into the shift that should be hits and the 2nd basemen throws them out from right field

I hate this reply. Not attacking you, Mook. But why "reward" the players for not learning how to hit to all fields? If they are dumb enough to hit into a defense specifically designed to stop them, that's on them.

If a player learned how to go the other way just a few times, teams would stop shifting. But no, let's pass a rule to allow the player off the hook.

Ridiculous

In comment 12108577 Dunedin81 said:

Quote:

In comment 12108575 arcarsenal said: Quote: And you have an ENTIRE SIDE of the diamond to poke the ball through for a free base. If you can't figure out how to do it, you should probably spend more time in the cages. It's pathetic that some of these guys can't figure out how to go the other way. Comparing it to HS, where the average FB is probably low 80's and secondary stuff is rudimentary, is a little bit unreasonable. Using the whole field AND hitting with power is extraordinarily difficult. You can shorten a swing and have some control over where you put a ball, but once you start talking a high-90's FB or a wipeout slider it's enough to get wood on it, much less direct it.

When did I compare it to HS?

I'm sorry but if you're in the majors and can't go the other way, that's your problem. They're giving you a massive gap. And plenty of hitters are able to go the other way. There are just power hitters who pull everything and that's their only approach.

I think it's absurd to force fielders into specific zones and not allow them to move just so we can see more hits. I don't think it's unreasonable at all to expect a few guys to figure out how to go the other way. If they can't do it, too bad.

I don't consider it an unfair advantage for the fielding team because they're giving you a free hit if you can just poke the ball in that general direction. It shouldn't be that hard.

Quote:

I don't consider it an unfair advantage for the fielding team because they're giving you a free hit if you can just poke the ball in that general direction. It shouldn't be that hard.

Any given hitter only has to do this a few times and the opposing teams will stop shifting on him.

Baseball is is boring because it's momentumless - not because the Astros kick ass at robbing one-dimensional hitters from on average less than a hit per four games.

In comment 12108588 TJ said:

Quote:

In comment 12108576 Dunedin81 said: Quote: I love baseball's icons too, but the game limits itself and its audience when it becomes so wedded to that past (and not to that past as it really was, but rather to a sanitized portrait of it) that it ignores the ways in which the game is becoming less appealing to the young and the casual fans. LOL I guess that explains it. I'm not young or a casual fan so I have trouble seeing that side of things.

But it's perception as much as anything else. The average game has gotten close to 45 mins longer over the last twenty years. Some of it is commercial breaks, some of it is the pitching changes, but a lot of it is things like shifts and plodding by pitchers and hitters. The game has changed even without specific rules changes.

It was bake's comment about HS, I thought you had said that too, my mistake.

A lot of the analytics guys think shifts cut down on pitching changes and is keeping pitching costs down. I don't see anyway at all eliminating shifts is going to speed the game, when IMO the most likely outcome is more situational pitching changes late in games.

In comment 12108606 christian said:

Quote:

A lot of the analytics guys think shifts cut down on pitching changes and is keeping pitching costs down. I don't see anyway at all eliminating shifts is going to speed the game, when IMO the most likely outcome is more situational pitching changes late in games.

The stat geeks love the shift because it is cerebral. Only problem is that there aren't enough stat geeks to do more than drive Twitter traffic. I say this as a quasi-stat geek myself, but frankly the Keith Laws and Dave Camerons of the world need to understand that while theirs is an interesting perch if the game actually functioned as they wanted it to it would draw lacrosse-level crowds.

Duned - the problem is the teams looking for empirical statistical advantages aren't going to just step back to traditional tactics if the shift disappears. They'll employ other situational approaches they deem advantageous. And basically all situational baseball costs a lot of time, stops the game and will start happening earlier and earlier in games.

there would be a lot of .800 batting averages. Hitting is hard and you can do all the high school you want, the best hitters are going to make outs 7 out of 10 at bats.

Not through a 3 foot opening. It's not like the shift is turning the park into an obstacle course.

I get that hitting is difficult but that's why these guys are where they are. If a hitter literally can't do anything but pull the ball, that's his own fault.

It's a timing thing more than anything else.

The Trap in Hockey. You may hate it, but you have to figure out a way to beat it.

for those saying that the batters should adjust....why shouldn't the pitcher have to adjust? Back in the day, before the shift took over the world, the onus was on the pitcher to keep the hitter off balance and keep the ball on the outside part of the plate. But now, since they can't do their job, the shift bails them out and penalizes the batter.

While it sounds simple in theory, you can't expect a pull hitter to just flip a switch and turn into a slap hitter. It's not going to happen. And even if it did, you really want to see David Ortiz or Jose Bautista slapping singles the other way all the time? Is that really good for the game? That's about as exciting as watching pitchers flail away aimlessly as they can't come close to making contact, but there will be a couple of times a season where the pitcher actually makes contact, with eyes closed, and the National League guys will scream "see, that's why the pitchers should hit!".

You guys may find that stuff exciting. The rest of the planet does not.

Once you establish that you can go the other way and take the free base a few times, they'll start playing you regularly again. It's the guys like Howard and Teixiera who literally cannot go the other way off a tee who are the reason why teams employ these shifts.

If you need to watch slugfest just to enjoy baseball, maybe you don't like it as much as you thought. Who knows.

two IF to a side? Fine, sink the SS in shallow left, LF to left center, CF to right center, RF to shallow right, it's the shift by another means. Outlawing defensive tactics to favor one dimensional hitters strikes me as inane and unnecessary.

are able to hit it the other way, but they think (or are taught) that their contributions should come from their power so they'd rather take their chances at a multiple base hit or home run to Knicks guys in than trying to slap a single the other way.

This consideration is stupid though. Teams should be able to line up their guys wherever they want...

In comment 12108550 christian said:

Quote:

There is a generation of specialty pull hitters. Changing the rules because a trend was accounted for is nonsense. Changing the rules to generate offense, also nonsense. Baseball has to compete with the increased commercialization of broadcasts, as has every other sport. It's the cost of success - huge TV contracts have to be paid for - yet baseuball does virtually everything it can to slow down the game, suck the excitement out of every tense situation and reward boring. Why on earth does the relief pitcher need warm up tosses with the catcher on the field when he's be in the pen warming up? Why is the time count between pitches never enforced? Why does the ump award time 5 times an at-bat? Let's start there before rewarding shitty one dimensional hitters.

+1

also include the wheel play on an attempted bunt or even the 2nd baseman covering 1st when the 1st baseman charges?

I've always found it annoying.

But this rule change would just feel so weak. Teams should be able to position their fielders anyway they please.

brilliant idea for games:

In comment 12108792 arcarsenal said:

Quote:

Once you establish that you can go the other way and take the free base a few times, they'll start playing you regularly again. It's the guys like Howard and Teixiera who literally cannot go the other way off a tee who are the reason why teams employ these shifts. If you need to watch slugfest just to enjoy baseball, maybe you don't like it as much as you thought. Who knows.

I hate slugfests. So, there's that. I'd rather watch a nicely pitched 3-2 game any day. But I don't think the shift fits into that category. I also don't think it's realistic to ban it, I just wish that it was a fad that never existed.

Also, has there ever been a case of a hitter slap hitting his way out of the other team shifting? Teams WANT the power hitters to slap it the other way, or bunt. They aren't going to stop shifting Teixera because he slaps a couple of balls to third base.

And one more thing, why is it that when people have differing opinions, they get accused of loving slugfests and not liking baseball as much as the supposed "purists"? What the hell is a purist anyways? It sounds to me like it's someone that hates change. That doesn't make them better fans, no matter how much they like to try to convince themselves that they are. I've been watching baseball for 40 years and still love it. Never miss a Yankee game (on television). That doesn't mean that I love everything about it, and it couldn't use some changes.

and owners pay for it. So players who can't beat the shift are sprinkled all over the major leagues.

Next thing you know, Manfred will be evaluating the body armor the hitters wear.

the mound lowered

Reduce the strike zone, strikeouts go down, run scoring goes up.

to players and maybe they will adjust. Who needs to change when money is in their bank regardless of how they play

In comment 12108889 BigBlueShock said:

Quote:

In comment 12108792 arcarsenal said: Quote: Once you establish that you can go the other way and take the free base a few times, they'll start playing you regularly again. It's the guys like Howard and Teixiera who literally cannot go the other way off a tee who are the reason why teams employ these shifts. If you need to watch slugfest just to enjoy baseball, maybe you don't like it as much as you thought. Who knows. I hate slugfests. So, there's that. I'd rather watch a nicely pitched 3-2 game any day. But I don't think the shift fits into that category. I also don't think it's realistic to ban it, I just wish that it was a fad that never existed. Also, has there ever been a case of a hitter slap hitting his way out of the other team shifting? Teams WANT the power hitters to slap it the other way, or bunt. They aren't going to stop shifting Teixera because he slaps a couple of balls to third base. And one more thing, why is it that when people have differing opinions, they get accused of loving slugfests and not liking baseball as much as the supposed "purists"? What the hell is a purist anyways? It sounds to me like it's someone that hates change. That doesn't make them better fans, no matter how much they like to try to convince themselves that they are. I've been watching baseball for 40 years and still love it. Never miss a Yankee game (on television). That doesn't mean that I love everything about it, and it couldn't use some changes.

Well, I don't think it's a terribly unrealistic deduction to think that if someone dislikes the shift and claims it makes things less exciting, they probably like more hits and more runs. If you're not one of those people, so be it.

But I honestly don't think a lot of the guys who get shifted CAN slap it the other way. They still hit it directly into the shift. Usually on the ground.

Teams don't necessarily play them that way because they think the hitter will still choose to try hitting one out instead of going the other way. They do it because they know the hitter can't go the other way. They're daring the hitter to do it. If hitters hit it down the line a few times, they'd shift back over at least somewhat.

I don't know, I just think it's silly to force position players to line up a certain way. They should be free to play wherever they want. It's not creating an unfair advantage.

should be allowed to play wherever they want. Baseball has much bigger problems than the shirt, starting with:

- the absurd amount of time between pitches
- the ridiculously late start of playoff games to ensure that the game loses the interest of kids
- the lack of doubleheaders and day games
- games being played in frigid weather in November
- the number of mound visits
- MLB screwing with the baseball cores to influence offense
- the monstrous elbow pads players wear that allow them to lean over the plate

Player should be able to position themselves wherever they think it the best defensive position. When implemented, the shift does create holes, hitters need to do a better job of adjusting and taking advantage of that and if so teams will be less likely to implement it on them.

But, I hate the idea of outlawing even more. All this does is reward stupid, stubborn, and shitty hitters. There is no functional reason to ban it. It doesn't lengthen games.

Lengthening games is to the direct advantageous of teams. Longer games = more commercials, and at the average time slot of 4-7 PM for a Fox Sports or team controlled network, you're competing against re-runs of Step by Step and Judge Judy at the time slot. The cost of producing a live game is incredibly cheap versus original programming or syndication. It's a steal for the network, especially for the team-owned networks.

The Wilpons and Steinbrenners aren't losing sleep over WS ratings when their making return on 162 games a year.

You can already see the cost benefit analysis the networks are doing with much of the playoffs moving from network to cable, following regular season games going virtually all cable.

Baseball has clearly become more boring to most fans with the advent of the shift. And to say that hitters should adjust makes sense in theory, but is typically only a reasonable argument if pitchers would actually throw pitches to the middle and outside corners more often with the shift on. But pitchers with good control regularly jam hitters in those situations, and even a lot of good hitters who can normally go the other way have trouble doing so when jammed. So lots of hard hit balls that would clearly be base hits otherwise are robbed by guys standing in short right field.

So if they banned the shift I wouldn't weep, but I can appreciate the arguments against doing so as well.

I don't buy that that happens as regularly as you imply (the success of it not the attempt) and IMO better hitters should be able to exploit it, but sadly too many current players aren't "better" hitters.

If nothing else they should lay down a bunt towards third base more often when those extreme shifts are put on some hitters. Sure it would take away the extra base hit but if guys perfected their bunting they would have a base hit at will unless the team gave up on the shift.

when Giambi and later Tex would come to bat with first and second and no outs and pull the ball into a DP rather than dropping a bunt for a bases loaded, no out situation.

that MLB players changing their swings/approach is as easy as changing their underwear is hilarious.

Honestly, how many of you guys have gone to the batting cages or stepped in against 80/90+ mph? Making contact is not easy. Making legit contact is so difficult that less than 1% of the people who try to do it for a living can actually do it. It's not as easy as "well, he's a pro, he should be able to figure it out"...we're talking about less than a half second of time to decide on a dozen things. It's the single hardest skill in professional sports. The notion that a guy who's honed his swing for 20 years can suddenly wait ...thismuch...longer to start his swing is akin to telling a LH hitter to bat RH. They make it look easy so you think it's easy...try training your body to do ANYTHING different after 20 years of doing the same thing. It's amazingly difficult, and that's why you don't see much success with ANYONE who tries to do it.

This doesn't mean I'm in favor of disallowing the shift...but if baseball wants to remain a viable, interesting sport that the next generations will take interest in, they'd be wise to do it. The NFL has made it exceedingly difficult for defensive backs to play in this league, and the result has been an offensive explosion and the highest ratings and earnings the league has ever seen. Creating more offense in baseball (especially now that PED testing is so tight) is a no-brainer to generate interest in the future of the game. The great pitchers will still be great. The small percentage of hitters who can use the whole field will continue to be stars, and the guys who have been marginalized by the shift will be reborn with very little negative blowback. But this idea that MLB hitters should have to adjust to succeed is going to send the game into a bad, bad place of 3-2 games where good hitters are losing hits due to some dude sitting 10 yards deep in RF making plays that weren't made for the previous 100 years of the game.

In comment 12109230 Homersimpson said:

Quote:

that MLB players changing their swings/approach is as easy as changing their underwear is hilarious. Honestly, how many of you guys have gone to the batting cages or stepped in against 80/90+ mph? Making contact is not easy. Making legit contact is so difficult that less than 1% of the people who try to do it for a living can actually do it. .

It is easy without movement. Movement is what makes it difficult. A pitching machine or flat #1 can be hit by many.

I understand the point though :)

agreed. Straight is not all that difficult. Straight with the potential of not straight is what makes it so tough.

The point remains. Baseball has suffered a massive loss in interest in the past 20 years. If they want to turn every game into a 2-1 contest, they're going to suffer some pretty serious consequences. I watch baseball because I love it, but watching my Yankees struggle to score 3 runs every night last season really, really sapped my excitement for a game every night. I'm as die-hard as they get. If they're in danger of losing me, what does that mean for the future of the sport as viable entertainment?

Pitches with movement are going to be more difficult to go the other way with and no one is claiming it's so easy a caveman can do it but it's not like every guy in baseball is a pure pull hitter. It's the guys who literally pull everything that get fucked over the worst by the shift.

We're going to penalize fielders because a hitter can only hit a ball to one side of the field? That's ludicrous.

If we need runs so badly for ratings and that's what this all comes down to and what is most important, just let everyone do steroids.

Sports have been this way forever. Adjustments, counter-adjustments, etc, etc.

There are so many things that can be changed to improve baseball without forcing fielders to stay in specific places just to make sure that hitters who can't go the other way can get on base.

almost exactly what Homersimpson wrote.

Even the most skilled hitters cannot adjust their swings to handle the shift effectively. On most shifts, a hitter could have a super-high BA just by bunting to the gap to the opposite side of the pitcher from where the infielders are clustered. Why don't they do it? Because to completely give up on their power swing is terrifying, given the risk that they won't get it back.

Steroids were a scourge, all right, but they at least offset the massive size, length and athleticism of the current generation of pitchers. Adding the shift just gives the team in the field another advantage. Teams averaged 163 HR, .749 OPS and .264 BA in 2008. That has come down in a straight line to 140, .700 and .251. Pitchers are winning, for at least three reasons: lack of PEDs, the change in the physical makeup of pitchers, and the shift. You can't fix the first two, but you can fix the third. The other alternative, making the hitters do better, just won't work. Ever.

The last I read and I'll dig it up in the morning is the latest Fangraphs analysis of missed hits in shift situations was roughly 2 batter average points across a season. There are cleaner ways to retrieve that amount of productivity.

It's easy to assign blame for the pace, offensiveness numbers, etc. on defensive alignments, but it's not the villain it's made out to be.

In comment 12109312 arcarsenal said:

Quote:

It's the guys who literally pull everything that get fucked over the worst by the shift. We're going to penalize fielders because a hitter can only hit a ball to one side of the field? That's ludicrous.

Wait...there's one hitter and 9 defenders. No defender in baseball can be "penalized." If a 2B can't get to the ball that a LH hitter pulls, that's a penalty? No. That's the game as it was designed.

The "shift" product isn't nearly as fun as the pre-shift product. I can't see how anyone can argue that. Are you really saying that watching Dan Murphy scoop a ball 20 yards deep in RF is the way this game was intended to be played? I can't agree with that.

I can't get on board with forcing them to stay in specific places just because certain hitters are limited to half of the diamond.

You're literally saying "you have to play the field right here even though you know the ball is going to go a few feet to your right" To me, that's absurd.

I do think you're penalizing the fielders by forcing them to stay in one alignment and not allow them to position themselves differently.

I don't need to see scoring all the time to enjoy baseball. I don't enjoy football any more now than I used to because the rules turned into not even being allowed to put a hand on a WR. In fact, I liked when teams could actually play defense.

really...you do.

BUT...what's to prevent the 2B from playing anywhere he wants between 1B and 2B? If the hitter finds that hole, so be it. You can still play towards tendencies without putting 3 guys on one side of a given base. In fact, you could reward your scouting by placing your defenders in a good position to eliminate a pull-hitter.
I won't disagree that there are arguments on both sides, but I'm thinking about the health and well-being of the sport. If baseball continues down this road where runs are nearly impossible to score, we're going to enter a really bad era for the game.
I'll even meet you halfway. Allow the shifts, but lower the mound. Take SOME advantage away from the defense, because if you don't, we might as well be entering the 2nd dead-ball era.

Something's gotta give for the health of the game, and we can sit here all day and put it on the offense to figure it out, but I think deep down, we all know that it might take a decade for the offense to figure it out. Baseball can't afford a 10 year era where nobody scores any runs.

The boring thing isn't that teams are shifting, it's that we have these three-true-outcome hitters who only ever hit the ball to one side of the field. I'm of the mind that a team should be allowed to position its fielders however it wants (other than pitcher and catcher), so long as it doesn't result in a delay of game (so I am in favor of enforcing the pitch clock beginning from when the pitcher retrieves the ball from the catcher, as opposed to when the pitcher toes the rubber). If a team wants to position all seven other fielders on the right side of the infield and can do so in a timely manner, I'm all for it. If the batter doesn't like the way the defense is positioned he is more than welcome to try and hit the ball to the gaping hole the defensive alignment has created. Against the more severe LHB-pull shifts, any drag bunt, groundball or blooper to the left side of the infield is going to be a hit as long as it gets past the pitcher.

by all means...let's reduce the game of baseball to two-dozen bunts per game because the defense is putting 7 players on the right side of the field.

Shit. Do you people really want to watch that kind of game? It'd be literally the death-knell of the sport. Done. Over. Nothing left of the great game that gave us 100 years of really great sport.

The "just-bunt" crowd...you're so deeply missing the forest for the trees, in this argument. You'd turn a great, great game into a totally unwatchable farce.

In comment 12109363 Homersimpson said:

Quote:

really...you do. BUT...what's to prevent the 2B from playing anywhere he wants between 1B and 2B? If the hitter finds that hole, so be it. You can still play towards tendencies without putting 3 guys on one side of a given base. In fact, you could reward your scouting by placing your defenders in a good position to eliminate a pull-hitter. I won't disagree that there are arguments on both sides, but I'm thinking about the health and well-being of the sport. If baseball continues down this road where runs are nearly impossible to score, we're going to enter a really bad era for the game. I'll even meet you halfway. Allow the shifts, but lower the mound. Take SOME advantage away from the defense, because if you don't, we might as well be entering the 2nd dead-ball era. Something's gotta give for the health of the game, and we can sit here all day and put it on the offense to figure it out, but I think deep down, we all know that it might take a decade for the offense to figure it out. Baseball can't afford a 10 year era where nobody scores any runs.

Lowering the mound isn't a terrible idea. MLB had its lowest walk rate per game (2.88) since 1968 (2.82), and the second lowest since 1921 (2.79)... so yeah, basically in the neighborhood of lowest walk rate since the dead-ball era. And pitchers have always tried not to walk people, but walks were undervalued for hitters for most of baseball history, so when you adjust for context (and continually rising strikeout rates), we are in a historically hostile environment for offense.

I think the easiest fix, though, is to shrink the called strike zone (which can probably be accomplished more economically than ever these days - run some off-season training for umpires calling simulated balls and strikes, grade them against PitchF/X enough times, and their strike zones should gradually conform more closely to whatever zone MLB wants to employ). Shrink the strike zone and you will see a drop in K% and a rise in BB%, which is what we really want (BABIP is actually doing perfectly fine league-wide, another reason why I don't see shifts as a real long-term problem).

Get rid of the strikes 3" off the black, and train it and enforce it, and you don't need to outlaw the shift.

I do think lowering the mound is something I'd be in favor of and something I think should happen.

Seeing fielders forced to stay aligned in one way and watching balls get hit through gaps where they would be but aren't allowed to be just wouldn't sit well with me. And then what's to say people won't start lobbying for outfielders to have to stay positioned at a certain depth and not allow them to cheat in closer to the IF or move back towards the wall? I just don't know if that's a road they should go down.

I don't want to see hitting get completely taken out of the game, I just think that hits that wouldn't occur if the fielders were allowed to position themselves differently would feel cheap.

Lowering the mound would definitely provide a slightly better balance without removing the shift, IMO. I would sooner do that for sure.

Remove the human error aspect and make it cut and dry. A pitch is either a strike or it's not. No more of one pitcher getting certain calls and another one not or umpires who seem to expand or shrink their strike zones within the same game.

I'm not gung ho about doing this but if the strike zone is smaller, I don't know if I'd trust Blue to enforce it correctly.

In comment 12109368 Homersimpson said:

Quote:

by all means...let's reduce the game of baseball to two-dozen bunts per game because the defense is putting 7 players on the right side of the field. Shit. Do you people really want to watch that kind of game? It'd be literally the death-knell of the sport. Done. Over. Nothing left of the great game that gave us 100 years of really great sport. The "just-bunt" crowd...you're so deeply missing the forest for the trees, in this argument. You'd turn a great, great game into a totally unwatchable farce.

Uh, where do I start...

First of all, nobody is going to put seven fielders on the right side of the infield. But I don't think we need a rule that says "you can't put seven players on the right side of the infield", because if a team thinks that's a good idea, knock your socks off, let's see what happens (what happens is the manager gets fired and replaced by a human being with a functional brain). The only rule we need regarding fielding is the one already in place that says the catcher has to remain in position to catch the ball.

Second, in what world would teams continue shifting against a player who can successfully push the ball the other way? Do it two or three times in a row and teams stop shifting you. Try and fail a few times in a row and you stop, either because you figure you like your chances more trying to hit over the shift, or because your manager tells you to stop bunting until you give it more practice. There is no scenario where we see player after player repeatedly try to bunt down the third-base line.

The bunt/swinging bunt against the shift is analogous to a constraint play in football - you might audible to a quick screen if you see you have an obvious WR vs. DB numerical advantage on one side of the formation, but we don't have to worry about a team running nothing but quick screens all day because either the screens fail and the offensive coordinator moves on to another plan, or the screens succeed a couple times and the defensive coordinator starts calling different defenses. It's the same thing with the shift - either you can beat the shift and teams stop shifting, or you can't beat the shift and you go back to your normal offensive approach. I don't see how any of these approaches are a problem or something that spells doom for baseball.

Seriously, does anyone really think that there is a significant number of baseball fans who turn on their TVs, see too many players on one side of the infield, and decide that they're done with baseball because god dammit the shortstop needs to stand where he normally stands even if he's 95% positive that the ball is going to be hit somewhere else? Teams can put their players wherever they want as long as they do so in a timely manner, and BABIP is none the worse for wear (no, really, BABIP is fine league-wide - for all the shifts we see, the number of hitters whose approaches are completely destroyed by the shift is actually pretty small).

In comment 12109390 arcarsenal said:

Quote:

Remove the human error aspect and make it cut and dry. A pitch is either a strike or it's not. No more of one pitcher getting certain calls and another one not or umpires who seem to expand or shrink their strike zones within the same game. I'm not gung ho about doing this but if the strike zone is smaller, I don't know if I'd trust Blue to enforce it correctly.

A few reasons:

One, some people like the traditional aspect of calling balls and strikes based on the inherently flawed judgment of a human being, just like some people like the traditional aspect of having defenders stand where they're "supposed" to stand (note: I know there are other potential arguments against the shift besides tradition - just noting that a lot of the people who are anti-shift are opposed for reasons that mostly boil down to what they think baseball is "supposed" to look like). I would prefer a completely accurate strike zone, but lots of people would be very unhappy if baseball went that route, so if we can get an acceptable fix while keeping human balls and strikes around, I'm okay with that result.

Two, umpires haven't always called such a large zone - it's moved that way over time, and so I don't see why we can't move it back. It won't be perfect, but we don't need everyone to call the bottom of the strike zone at exactly the same height, we just need the average strike zone to shrink by an appropriate amount.

Three, part of the reason more strikes get called now, particularly at the bottom of the zone, is because most teams have actual statistical methods for evaluating pitch framing that couldn't possibly exist prior to PitchF/X. I don't think pitch framing has to be part of the game forever, but since teams have made significant organizational decisions based on pitch framing, I think legislating the value of that skill out of existence needs to be part of a CBA negotiation. The current CBA expires after 2016, so I think a change could be fair at that point, but a whole bunch of teams would cry foul if MLB tries to eliminate human balls and strikes without significant advance warning.

Personally, I think going to computerized balls and strikes would be a net positive, and the only thing I'd really miss is all the interesting pitch-framing research, but I understand why MLB isn't having meaningful public discussion about computerizing the strike zone.

.

can start juicing the baseballs again like they did in the late 90s if they want more offense. I think they deadened the balls right after the height of the steroids allegations as a way to show that they were effective in cleaning up the sport and that is why pitching has taken off.

easy to tell to 30-somethings who have been swinging (and have been taught to swing) for the fences since they hit pro ball. And I love OBP as much as the next guy but are we pretending that if every 20 ABs or so Teix laid down a bunt (with maybe a 50% success rate) that would fix the problem? No. It might still be in a team's interest to overshift him.

I think people are conflating a couple things. People like good pitching, and people like good defense. People will come to the ballpark to see both. People tend not to come to the ballpark to see good managing. The shift is boring baseball, and even if that is worth three or four wins over the grand scheme of things it's still a net negative for baseball.

isn't killing offense, it's lack of contact that is. League wide BABIP is on par with the 80s when offense was higher. Too many ABs are ending in either a K or a BB and it's dragging the games out and taking away exciting plays.

I'd wait a few years and see if the trends continue and then, if so, consider lowering the mound slightly rather than outlawing shifts.

In comment 12109604 Metnut said:

Quote:

isn't killing offense, it's lack of contact that is. League wide BABIP is on par with the 80s when offense was higher. Too many ABs are ending in either a K or a BB and it's dragging the games out and taking away exciting plays. I'd wait a few years and see if the trends continue and then, if so, consider lowering the mound slightly rather than outlawing shifts.

I think the reason they're more willing to outlaw the shift is that with rare exceptions it's a pretty novel concept, certainly in its frequency and its extent. Even though the rules would be novel, the phenomenon they're addressing is generally novel too. The mound has been at the same height for more than forty years. Appropriately or not, the mound at the present height is not viewed as a novelty.

should limit the amount of mound visits per inning between a pitcher and a catcher. That will speed up the game. It is more ridiculous than the number of timeouts basketball coaches get.

produce a change in the behavior of young pitchers, or whether that gets ironed out over time. I'm not sure it'll stay a MILB phenomenon long enough to make such a judgment, but if so that could produce positive changes.

for Dead Ball Era style baseball. Apparently the ideal game to a lot of these people is Wee Willie Keeler bunting all over the place.

National League fans are fucking weird people.

In comment 12109558 Dunedin81 said:

Quote:

easy to tell to 30-somethings who have been swinging (and have been taught to swing) for the fences since they hit pro ball. And I love OBP as much as the next guy but are we pretending that if every 20 ABs or so Teix laid down a bunt (with maybe a 50% success rate) that would fix the problem? No. It might still be in a team's interest to overshift him. I think people are conflating a couple things. People like good pitching, and people like good defense. People will come to the ballpark to see both. People tend not to come to the ballpark to see good managing. The shift is boring baseball, and even if that is worth three or four wins over the grand scheme of things it's still a net negative for baseball.

The shift is boring baseball in your opinion. I personally like seeing defenses actually try to take a player's spray chart into consideration. The thing I consider to be boring baseball is seeing a batter come to the plate and know that he's unlikely to put the ball in play, and that if he does put the ball in play it's almost certainly going to be hit to a particular side of the field. Allowing shifting favors batters whose swings result in a greater diversity of possible outcomes.

If a batter could successfully beat the shift with even a 40% success rate, the shift is turning that player into the offensive version of Ichiro circa 2004 (actually, probably an even better player than that, considering the change in offensive environments). No defense is going to voluntarily shift on a regular basis against a player who has proven he can beat it at a 40% clip - it may still be useful on a situational basis, but that's it. If Tex, Ryan Howard, etc. are so stuck in their current approach that they're unable or unwilling to try something different, why exactly do we want to change the rules in order to protect them?

I'm not suggesting that bunting against the shift is some super-easy thing that players can just pick up in a day - I'm saying that, just as the defense has the shift as a weapon to use against a severe pull hitter, a severe pull hitter has options at his disposal against an over-shift. Are they super-easy options? Not necessarily, but why does it need to be? And even if we knew for a fact that none of these guys can learn to bunt or make some swing adjustments to hit more to all fields, why exactly is it a problem that defenses position themselves in a way to turn a few more pulled balls into outs? We don't have a significant downward spike in BABIP - BABIP goes down about 30 points on ground balls when the shift is on, but infield shifts are only used for about 10% of batters and doesn't have much of an effect on fly balls either way, so in aggregate we're talking about one or two points of BABIP league-wide.

Legislating the shift out of existence strikes me as a solution that presumes the shift is actually a problem, but I don't see much of a substantive argument besides "I don't like it" or "a few players will be worse until/unless they learn to hit the ball to the other side of the field". It's perfectly fine to not like those things and make an argument against the shift on a strictly aesthetic basis, but framing the shift as a significant contributor to the decline in offense (which I don't necessarily think you're doing) or as an objectively negative aspect of the game is something I don't see any evidence for.

In comment 12109630 Greg from LI said:

Quote:

for Dead Ball Era style baseball. Apparently the ideal game to a lot of these people is Wee Willie Keeler bunting all over the place. National League fans are fucking weird people.

Try again.

Wee Willie Keeler had it right

but I hate reactive changes. I'd much rather force hitters to learn how to hit. The game will improve dramatically.

If they are going to outlaw anything it should be all the equipment that has enabled statisticians to change how the game is prepared for and played. That would have a much greater impact.

In comment 12110108 RasputinPrime said:

Quote:

but I hate reactive changes. I'd much rather force hitters to learn how to hit. The game will improve dramatically. If they are going to outlaw anything it should be all the equipment that has enabled statisticians to change how the game is prepared for and played. That would have a much greater impact.

In five or six years' time, at least. These changes take time, because they have to start with prospects. This is a generation of hitters for whom power has been the most important skill.

but it's smart baseball. So I consider this baseball's market forces at work.

Now it's up to the dead-pull hitters to change their game and be reintroduced to the middle and left center parts of the field...

around for a while. It was used against Ted Williams. Here's an excerpt from an interview of the author of a biography of Williams:

"Let me get something else out of the way: If you could line up all the hitters in baseball history with all of them at their peak, under the same conditions, against the same pitchers and in the same ball park – would you take Ted over everyone, including Babe Ruth?

Absolutely Ted. You don’t have to make him any allowances for the years he missed in the military to see his greatness, but if you do give him credit for those years, his numbers would be absolutely awesome. Not just the home run totals, and I think he probably would have reached 700, but the points off his batting average by missing those prime seasons.

And not just that. One thing your book made clear to me was the effectiveness of the “Williams shift” – or, as some called it, the Boudreau shift because it was invented by Lou Boudreau — which put most of the players on the right side of the field to counteract that dead-pull hitter’s stroke. Why didn’t he go against it by slapping balls to the opposite field?

Pride. Just silly stubborn pride. He just had to show that he could beat it.

Didn’t he realize that he was playing against the percentages, especially when other teams started using it? That by hitting a ball over third base or down into the corner for a double or something might make them stop using it?

He did realize it, but belatedly, and it cost him points on his batting average."

In comment 12110122 bw in dc said:

Quote:

but it's smart baseball. So I consider this baseball's market forces at work. Now it's up to the dead-pull hitters to change their game and be reintroduced to the middle and left center parts of the field...

Baseball's "market force" is the consumer. Who preferred the long ball (pre and probably post baseball's insufferable recriminations about PEDs) to watching a bunch of 30/100 guys turn into .230 hitters.

In comment 12110187 Dunedin81 said:

Quote:

Baseball's "market force" is the consumer. Who preferred the long ball (pre and probably post baseball's insufferable recriminations about PEDs) to watching a bunch of 30/100 guys turn into .230 hitters.

Even if we start from the assumption that people want to see more offense, fixing the strike zone will have a significantly stronger effect on league-wide offense than eliminating the shift (which, again, only accounts for one or two points of variation in leaguewide BABIP).

The run environment has gone down seven-tenths of a run (about 3400 runs total) the past decade. Eliminating shifts is only going to give back about 200 runs - the effect would be virtually indistinguishable from noise. If we assume that decreased offense is a problem, shift legislation is not a solution. It's just something for Manfred to point at and proclaim he's doing something to boost offense. The drastic increase in K/BB is the real culprit.
FanGraphs on shifts - ( New Window )

it's about the game play. Great defense saves runs, but great defense is exciting in and of itself. People show up to see Ozzie Smith, people tune in for that. The shift is not about great defense, it's about great managing, and it'll be a cold day in hell before people show up to see Joe Maddon. Fans want to win, absolutely, but you need a product you can market. Yes adjusting the strike zone can help with that too, but a low strike is not as ugly to look at as a line out to the a third IF on the right side of the diamond.

K/BB is one indicator of the problem, but a more accurate indicator would be K%-BB%, because that maps more closely to the actual effects that strikeouts and walks have on overall offensive production.

K%-BB% was 12.7% last year. Five years ago it was barely 9 percent. Ten years ago it was 8 percent. In 1993 (the last pre-strike season) it was 6.4 percent. The continued (and accelerating) increase in K%-BB% completely drowns out any BABIP changes. Trying to eliminating shifts in order to combat the decline in offense isn't just interventionist, it's also bringing a knife to a gun fight.
lgBABIP, lgK%-BB%, and lgERA, by year - ( New Window )

In comment 12110259 Dunedin81 said:

Quote:

it's about the game play. Great defense saves runs, but great defense is exciting in and of itself. People show up to see Ozzie Smith, people tune in for that. The shift is not about great defense, it's about great managing, and it'll be a cold day in hell before people show up to see Joe Maddon. Fans want to win, absolutely, but you need a product you can market. Yes adjusting the strike zone can help with that too, but a low strike is not as ugly to look at as a line out to the a third IF on the right side of the diamond.

If you want more exciting play without making significant changes to the way the game is played, the easiest and most fool-proof way to do that is to shrink the strike zone. Make the pitcher throw the ball over the plate, and you improve quality of contact - you get more home runs, you get more balls hit into the gap, you put more pressure on the defense to make difficult plays, etc. You also fewer strikeouts, more balls in play, more baserunners - all things people want to see. Those effects will apply for all batters and all plate appearances.

And for what the shift does take away in terms of "traditional" great defensive plays (for the small fraction of plays where an overshift actually applies, mind you), it also gives back by creating defensive situations you wouldn't otherwise see - you have different defenders covering different bases, you have infielders negotiating double-play opportunities from different angles, you have shortstops crossing second base in the opposite direction to field a ball before throwing across their body.

At the end of the day, the issue that's causing concern isn't the shift, it's the sharp overall decrease in offensive production. If teams were scoring 4.5 or 4.75 runs per game instead of the 4.08 they scored last year, we would not see Manfred openly pondering whether to eliminate the shift. Fix the strike zone (which isn't hard - grade the umpires on how closely they call the rulebook strikezone, give them financial incentives to call fewer strikes if you have to) and Manfred can add a half-run per team back to the game in a year if he wants to without touching any other rules.

you're absolutely right that there are better ways to add runs than to end the shift, starting with the strike zone. And that's something to contemplate too. But I think people underestimate the extent to which the shift, in addition to slowing the game down somewhat and limiting runs, simply LOOKS bad. Someone likened it to the Trap in hockey and that's a fair comparison; it's not just the result, it's the way it occurs. Just as nobody objects to a brilliant performance by a goaltender in a 1-0 game, nobody complains about Didi Gregorius doing something crazy with the glove or Jose Fernandez fanning 14 en route to a shutout. They do object, however, to watching a sniper neutralized not by a great glove save or even a physical game but by a system; ditto the line drive headed for the alley that ends anticlimactically five steps to the right of 2nd base in the shortstop's glove.

In comment 12110756 Dunedin81 said:

Quote:

you're absolutely right that there are better ways to add runs than to end the shift, starting with the strike zone. And that's something to contemplate too. But I think people underestimate the extent to which the shift, in addition to slowing the game down somewhat and limiting runs, simply LOOKS bad. Someone likened it to the Trap in hockey and that's a fair comparison; it's not just the result, it's the way it occurs. Just as nobody objects to a brilliant performance by a goaltender in a 1-0 game, nobody complains about Didi Gregorius doing something crazy with the glove or Jose Fernandez fanning 14 en route to a shutout. They do object, however, to watching a sniper neutralized not by a great glove save or even a physical game but by a system; ditto the line drive headed for the alley that ends anticlimactically five steps to the right of 2nd base in the shortstop's glove.

That's fair. I can't object to an aesthetic argument that people don't like the way the shift looks. I personally disagree - I like seeing teams make adjustments, I like seeing hitters try to adjust to the shift, etc. - but I can't say that someone's personal defensive preferences are objectively wrong.

At the same time, any rule change that restricts the positioning of a defensive player other than the pitcher and catcher is a huge change. Even if we start from the position that a rule is necessary (which I obviously disagree with), any rule you institute opens a completely new can of worms. If you say you can have no more than two infielders on each side of second base, how long do they need to stay there - until the ball reaches the plate? until the pitcher begins his motion? How far does a player have to go into the outfield before he is considered an outfielder instead of an infielder? Even if you try to make rules against the shift, teams are going to push up against the rules as far as will be allowed, probably in ways that will look even stranger than a regular overshift.

Fix the strike zone and give the shift a few years to settle in. You'll see fewer and fewer players who are completely incapable of hitting the ball to a particular side of the field, you'll see a greater variety of shifts (especially as teams incorporate StatCast data into their analysis) that will be interesting in and of themselves, you'll see greater fan acceptance of shifting as the media figures out how to present them, etc.

Post-script: I realize that we aren't going to completely agree on this issue since it's largely a matter of differing perspectives, but I appreciate the civil discourse.

The Hardball Times had a very good article a few months ago that clearly explains the changes in the strike zone the past few years as well as how those changes are the primary factor driving the decrease in runs scored per game. I've linked it below.
The Strike Zone Expansion is Out of Control - ( New Window )

Who says they only have to do one?

In comment 12111856 Greg from LI said:

Quote:

Who says they only have to do one?

They don't only have to do one - but the reason Manfred openly considered getting rid of the shift (something he's already walked back to a degree) is because of the decreased run environment. That was the exact context in which he volunteered the idea as a possible solution. And eliminating the shift does virtually nothing to accomplish that. The best estimates of the impact the shift has on run production is about 200 runs - six or seven runs per team per game. One run a month. Eliminating shifts does virtually nothing to accomplish the goal the suggestion specifically targets.

If MLB determines that there is significant opposition to shifting for aesthetic reasons and creates a sensible positioning rule (or rules, plural) on that basis, I think that's fine. I like the shift (because I like allowing teams to put defenders wherever the hell they want), but I watched baseball before shifting was a regular part of the game and I'll still watch baseball if shifts go away. But the Commissioner's statement implies that the shift is having a significant effect on offensive production, when the real driver of decreased offensive production is the increased strike zone, which is in turn driven by - wait for it - the league's own standard for grading umpires.

Given the goal, if the Commissioner really wants to accomplish his goal by attacking the shift, he's tilting at windmills - and if a rule is passed, I'm not confident in the league's ability to avoid unintended consequences (see: the last time the league tried to make a rule change: changing - and then un-changing - the section of rule 2.00 governing catches last season).

Guys that can't hit away from the shift are pathetic. Seriously, all that money and you can't figure out how to put the ball where they ain't? Its disgraceful.

I like the idea of an electronic strike zone. Seems silly in this day and age that balls and strikes are left to the whim and fancy of the umpire.

Don't let batters step out of the box for so long, maybe don't have unlimited checks on the runner at first, don't let the pitcher and catcher conference on the mound, lotta' other ideas to speed up the game. Baseball is a terrific game - but the games are too long.

And if they really want more runs, how about we go back to the juiced era?