Eliminating Defensive Shifts?

[logan82]

I'm so glad that it appears most people posting here agree that this is an awful idea. Seems like he just wants to appeal to the lowest common denominator that believe that offense is the only thing that makes sports appealing. What really bothers me is this quote I saw from him:

 

Manfred made it clear that examining the pace of the game is first on his list of priorities, but not far behind will be finding ways to "inject additional offense into the game."

 

 

This seems similar to some of the crazy golf ideas that have been thrown around (reduce courses to 13 holes and make the size of the cup bigger). Really? Is there where the collective attention span of American's is currently at?

If they want shorter games why would they want to increase offense? Faster outs, faster games. How about enforcing rules already in place.

[BuckyBrewer61]

This is just so ludicrous the more I think about it. Can 2B/SS not play at DP depth any more? Less DP's = more base runners = more points! Awesome! No more playing the outfield deep in the 9th to prevent extra bases = more walk offs! Yay! First baseman can't shift next to the bag with a man on first = more steals! Neato!

 

I also hate when announcers say something to the affect of "the defense would love if (fill in slugger who has no ability to go oppo) would just lay down a bunt or slap one the other way." I guarantee if David Ortiz was batting .800 with an OBP of .800+ and a slugging percentage of .800 by bunting every at bat, teams would stop shifting against him. Also, it would be an excellent strategy on his part - problem is these players never bother to learn to bunt or go oppo so they can't do it and teams, in some crazy scheme to win games, strategize for this. This is a strategy that is, and probably should be here to stay because it's smart and it works. Like a previous poster said, if you don't like it, find some players and managers that can adapt to it and beat it, don't ruin the integrity of the game.

[brewcrewdue80]

Bombers is on to a point when you think about it. A Left Handed batter with Pull power is defensed so much better with the bases empty simply because a 3b and SS could stand on 1b and cover 2b or 3b in more than enough time than the Batter can run to after making contact. You can't move a 1b with a Right Handed batter at the plate to 2b much less left of 2b since the batter stands more than a decent chance to beat that fielder to 1b after contact creating a hit.

 

Simple fix to the problem for Left handed hitters with bases empty. 1b is actually 3b and 3b is actually 1b when nobody is on base. Level batting field with Right handed hitters. Right? Wouldn't that solve the problem? Highly doubt the 3b plays SS and SS plays 2b with the 2b in shallow RF since somebody needs to cover 3b then, and that 2b fielding a ball hit in to shallow RF more than likely will never throw out the batter at 3b, unlike throwing the batter out at 1b.

 

Forget restricting defensive shifts. Just shift a Left handed Batter's route when the bases are empty. And when there's a runner on base, the regular route is used. Want to create more offense? How many errors are going to be committed throwing to 1b instead of 3b during that AB?

Foolish idea I'm sure, but to me a better suggestion than eliminating a defensive shift.

[jerichoholicninja]

I know he's not and never will but I'd like to see Manfred read this thread. It's like the Philadelphia fans totally crapping on last night's Royal Rumble.

[danzig6767]

Terrible idea. Probably not implementable either.

That was my first thought. How could this be implemented?

 

Draw boxes on the infield which defenders would have to play in, almost like a batters box? Would this also include what depth an infielder had to play? What about middle infielders trying to hold on a baserunner at 2nd base? Would that be an exception to leave their designated areas? Could corner infielders move around to either guard the line or play way off the line depending on various situations?

 

There are so many different scenarios and situations which infielders move around even when not in a typical shift that i can fathom how a rule could be implemented which wasn't so convoluted and stupid that it wouldn't be universally mocked both by players/managers in baseball and among most fans.

[Bombers]

Terrible idea. Probably not implementable either.

That was my first thought. How could this be implemented?

 

Draw boxes on the infield which defenders would have to play in, almost like a batters box? Would this also include what depth an infielder had to play? What about middle infielders trying to hold on a baserunner at 2nd base? Would that be an exception to leave their designated areas? Could corner infielders move around to either guard the line or play way off the line depending on various situations?

 

There are so many different scenarios and situations which infielders move around even when not in a typical shift that i can fathom how a rule could be implemented which wasn't so convoluted and stupid that it wouldn't be universally mocked both by players/managers in baseball and among most fans.

The only alignment that I think should be removed is when a lefty is batting and you place 3 infielders on the 2nd base side of the infield. Leaving only 1 fielder on the 3rd base side. There is no possible way you can do this against a RH batter. (Place 3 infielders on the 3rd base side)

 

So I do agree with the argument and that alignment has caused a negative impact to the LH hitter. And I am just not on board with well "take it the opposite way" or "lay down a bunt" because anyone who has played the game, actually knows that isn't always so easy. I am also not saying you can't have defensive alignments. Align your fielders wherever you want, but require 2 infielders on each side of 2nd base.

[reillymcshane]

Terrible idea. Probably not implementable either.

That was my first thought. How could this be implemented?

 

 

Players will wear collars with electrodes in them. The field will be blocked out in zones, with an invisible fence marking each territory. If a player reaches the border of their territory before the pitch is delivered, he will get shocked. For each violation, the shock will increased exponentially until he is incapacitated.

 

If a player is able to break through their designated territory, a large wild animal will be unleashed upon them.

 

http://i.minus.com/i7hZoMmF2TbI2.gif

[stoutdude04]

The only alignment that I think should be removed is when a lefty is batting and you place 3 infielders on the 2nd base side of the infield. Leaving only 1 fielder on the 3rd base side. There is no possible way you can do this against a RH batter. (Place 3 infielders on the 3rd base side)

 

 

I have seen the Brewers do this before.

 

I disagree with you and I am on board with the group that wants hitters to learn to be more of a complete hitter. For example, Ortiz is a huge dude that runs poorly...so yes, I would like to take away any advantage he has.

[RobertR]

I suppose you could make a rule that you have to have 2 infielders on each side of second base, but honestly if the SS starts 1 inch on his side of 2nd, isn't that still a shift?

 

And can you imagine the complaining when a big market team, say the Yankees, loses a game because of this arbitrary rule?

 

Fortunately, everyone seems to realize that this trial balloon is really dumb.

 

Also, for the record, I don't have a real problem with shifts affecting left-handed hitters more than right-handed hitters. They have a natural advantage in the first place by being one step closer to first base. If that evens things up some, then no big deal.

[Bombers]

That's a good point Robert. (They do have the benefit of being 1 step closer) ... I am just making the devils advocate argument. I get it and can see why the new commissioner may target it. The argument is there

[pete]

 

Players will wear collars with electrodes in them. The field will be blocked out in zones, with an invisible fence marking each territory. If a player reaches the border of their territory before the pitch is delivered, he will get shocked. For each violation, the shock will increased exponentially until he is incapacitated.

 

If a player is able to break through their designated territory, a large wild animal will be unleashed upon them.

 

 

Sounds like a Schwarzenegger movie.

[RobDeer 45]

I agree with the idea that the or 3b must start left of 2nd base. I guess that still lets you shift a bit and isn't a terrible rule. I think I way overreacted. I was thinking you had to start in a little box type deal at the start of pitch, like it would be very restricted. I do agree lefties do face a disadvantage, but I also think they should learn to hit to all fields. That would take care of a shift.

[torts]

little do we know... Manfred said this just to troll literally everyone.

[fleehaw]

At first, I thought the same thing, well this seems stupid. But the question asker in me said, ok - what is the argument for this? So I did some looking into last year and started to realize, well maybe there is an argument. Ultimately the argument is, has defensive shifting suppressed not just hitting in general but specifically left handed hitters? The answer is clearly yes. Advanced statistics have hurt all hitters (IMO) as defenses can align themselves to spots on the field you are prone to hitting to. That part, I can get past as those same advanced stats can provide a benefit to smart hitters to know how pitchers work. However, with lefties, the defense can pull a player way away from his normal spot (left side of infield) and provide an advantage to the defense whereas they rarely do that shift vs righties. Say what you want but their is proof to this as SI reported last year:

http://www.si.com/mlb/2014/07/22/shifts-rule-change-lefthanded-batters-david-ortiz

 

I believe MLBTR linked an article that referenced two researchers that concluded that offense is down due to a decrease in walks and an increase in strikeouts. And that, defensive shifts did not significantly impact the decrease in offense.

 

I did not read the article, nor do I know the data they used for their conclusions. Just pointing out a conflicting point of view.

[TooLiveBrew]

I believe MLBTR linked an article that referenced two researchers that concluded that offense is down due to a decrease in walks and an increase in strikeouts. And that, defensive shifts did not significantly impact the decrease in offense.

 

I did not read the article, nor do I know the data they used for their conclusions. Just pointing out a conflicting point of view.

I wonder if or how extreme defensive shifts have contributed to the lower BB rates & higher K rates -- in that pitchers feel more comfortable pitching to specific 'weak spots' of batters knowing that they have an edge defensively.

[Dollarbill13]

 

Forget restricting defensive shifts. Just shift a Left handed Batter's route when the bases are empty. And when there's a runner on base, the regular route is used. Want to create more offense? How many errors are going to be committed throwing to 1b instead of 3b during that AB?

Foolish idea I'm sure, but to me a better suggestion than eliminating a defensive shift.

 

[danzig6767]

I believe MLBTR linked an article that referenced two researchers that concluded that offense is down due to a decrease in walks and an increase in strikeouts. And that, defensive shifts did not significantly impact the decrease in offense.

 

I did not read the article, nor do I know the data they used for their conclusions. Just pointing out a conflicting point of view.

I wonder if or how extreme defensive shifts have contributed to the lower BB rates & higher K rates -- in that pitchers feel more comfortable pitching to specific 'weak spots' of batters knowing that they have an edge defensively.

My guess as to one sizable reason for the increase in strikeouts is the specialization of bullpens today.

 

Teams across the league have gone about turning failed starters with good arms into highly productive one inning relief pitchers. Find multiple guys who have roughly 93-98mph fastballs and one quality secondary pitch, then let them air it out for one inning stints at a time vs keeping them as starters where their results were more mediocre.

 

Just look at the WHIP, K/9, K/BB ratios of so many relief pitchers in baseball today compared to a lot of starting pitchers. It used to be that teams tried taking a lot of pitches to get starters out of the game and then get to the weaker bullpens, but now in today's baseball, it can often be the case that getting to an opponents bullpen is a worse situation than a starter staying in the game. Out in the bullpen sits numerous guys who throw gas and either a nasty slider, curve, or changeup for one inning stints at a time.

[Eye Black]

I believe MLBTR linked an article that referenced two researchers that concluded that offense is down due to a decrease in walks and an increase in strikeouts. And that, defensive shifts did not significantly impact the decrease in offense.

 

I did not read the article, nor do I know the data they used for their conclusions. Just pointing out a conflicting point of view.

I am not sure if this is the exact article you are referring to, but Dave Cameron (Fangraphs) presented the argument that fixing the strike zone would have a much greater impact on offensive production in this article, The Problem With Rob Manfred's Problem With Shifts. He makes the point you mention, evidence suggests the increase of strikeouts and decrease of walks is the greatest impact on offense, and shifts have had only a marginal effect. He also paints a unique scenario where you would have players getting a running start toward the area they want to shift to if they are told they can't be in the shift prior to the pitch delivery. For those who find the first article interesting, Cameron also followed up today with an article that provided a closer look at the current run scoring averages as compared to historical averages, Does MLB Need More Offense in the Modern Game.

[topper09er]

I agree with the idea that the or 3b must start left of 2nd base. I guess that still lets you shift a bit and isn't a terrible rule. ... I do agree lefties do face a disadvantage, but I also think they should learn to hit to all fields.

 

I will have to disagree and say that it would be an arbitrary terrible rule that would unnecessarily complicate and prolong the game and make no impact on anything. What is the penalty, a do-over?

 

Lefties most certainly do not face a disadvantage, they are closer to first base and have the platoon advantage 70% of the time. Plus the great sluggers can overcome the shift anyways, last time I checked Ortiz was still putting up big numbers with 2 second basement and 2 right fielders every AB.

 

As other have pointed out the arbitrary-ness of an infield shift rule is asinine. Why can outfielders shift? Why can pitchers try to pitch on the corners? Why can you pitchout? Why can you hold runners, why can you bring in an extra IF with the winnings run on third...basically, why would this be the only defensive strategy that is somehow outlawed?

 

The only resolution to this I can see would be to implement mandatory man-to-man defense. The ball is put on a tee, and the 9 fielders have to stand next to the 9 hitters, whether near the plate, on base or in the dugout. Then we can would get lots more of those exciting obstruction and interference calls as a bonus!

[Point Beer Is Best]

In the interest of player safety, i think they should just implement the "Pitcher's Hand" rule like I used to play with my cousins. Of course we didn't have the added benefit of replay review so it led to a lot of "I got there before you caught the ball!" and "Nuh-uh!", so maybe that's a bad idea.

 

Teams would implement crazy shifts against Ted Williams. This isn't some new concept that must be crushed to preserve the heritage of the sport. We just have way more data available to coaches to more precisely implement these shifts and on which batters it is most effective.

 

Also, from what someone quoted earlier in the thread:

 

Manfred made it clear that examining the pace of the game is first on his list of priorities, but not far behind will be finding ways to "inject additional offense into the game."

 

Did Manfred actually use the word "inject" in reference to wanting to see an increase in offense? Because if so, that is a hilarious accident. Or was it?

[The stache]

Upon seeing this a few days ago, my first thought was "Major League Baseball now has its own Roger Goodell".

 

Please, God...no.

 

This is a stupid idea. There's no reason for it, and that the new commish is actually thinking about doing it scares me. What other completely unnecessary changes does he have in store?

 

This smacks of "hey, I'm the new guy, and I want to make a splash."

 

Be a ripple, Rob, and not a wave, at least until a wave is called for.

 

The game is pretty healthy right now. The perception is that steroids, while not eliminated from the game (they never will be), are at least under control for the most part. There are butts in the seats. MLB didn't set a new record last year, but it was one of the best seasons in MLB history for attendance.

 

If it ain't broken, don't fix it. You don't have to do things to justify your job. When something comes up requiring your consideration, baseball will let you know. Until then, be a good umpire. In other words, be invisible.

[RobDeer 45]

I agree with the idea that the or 3b must start left of 2nd base. I guess that still lets you shift a bit and isn't a terrible rule. ... I do agree lefties do face a disadvantage, but I also think they should learn to hit to all fields.

 

I will have to disagree and say that it would be an arbitrary terrible rule that would unnecessarily complicate and prolong the game and make no impact on anything. What is the penalty, a do-over?

 

Lefties most certainly do not face a disadvantage, they are closer to first base and have the platoon advantage 70% of the time. Plus the great sluggers can overcome the shift anyways, last time I checked Ortiz was still putting up big numbers with 2 second basement and 2 right fielders every AB.

 

As other have pointed out the arbitrary-ness of an infield shift rule is asinine. Why can outfielders shift? Why can pitchers try to pitch on the corners? Why can you pitchout? Why can you hold runners, why can you bring in an extra IF with the winnings run on third...basically, why would this be the only defensive strategy that is somehow outlawed?

 

Good points. My initial reaction was this is terrible. Then I thought, maybe it could have a simple rule, like two IFs per side of 2nd, but you are right, how do you enforce that? I think you are swaying me back to my original take, let the batters figure it out and they will stop doing it.

[3and2Fastball]

On the positive side of things Manfred has said he has no interest in bringing the DH to the National League

[RightFieldCoder]

Would this be enforced as much as the rule saying batters must be in the box?

[Oxy]

We should just go all Little League rules and eliminate defensive specialists altogether. There are 9 innings and 9 positions on the field. Everybody plays every position one inning. 5 tool players might actually gain some value then.