Rob Manfred is apparently pushing that as a possible change in the next couple years. Presumably it would be a mandate that a team must have two IF on each side of 2B, though they could be more demanding.
I'm of two minds about this. The shift lengthens games, the specter of power hitters lining out to 2B is about as unexciting as baseball can be, and low-scoring games are not terribly marketable, even if great pitching can be. On the other hand, you're rewarding the Teixeiras of the world for being utterly incapable of changing their approach. Sooner or later hitters, or the teams in evaluating them, are going to be forced to adjust, and this is a poor way to try to cut down on the adjustment time.
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).
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?