Only one month, but offensive numbers were down across the league

[True Blue Brew Crew]

Everything starts with the shifts and the adjustments made to combat them. All of the adjustments have worsened the game. It's time to ban shifts. Do that and you'll see the ball put in play, a reduction in 3TO, more action on the basepaths, and few pitches taken. It won't solve everything but it will make the biggest dent.

[ctmyers]

In regards to speeding up the game, I've never understood why during each transition from offense to defense a team needs 4-5 minutes to toss a ball around. If a pitcher needs to warm up, go in the dugout and throw. Cut out 10 of the 17-18 breaks, cut 30 minutes from each game. Also, relievers coming in don't need warm up tosses on the mound. Expand rosters to 30 players, mandatory minimum number of designated relievers for each game, whereby allowing/requiring managers to get up enough guys early in the game and not risk burn out.

[wntrtxn21]

In regards to speeding up the game, I've never understood why during each transition from offense to defense a team needs 4-5 minutes to toss a ball around. If a pitcher needs to warm up, go in the dugout and throw. Cut out 10 of the 17-18 breaks, cut 30 minutes from each game. Also, relievers coming in don't need warm up tosses on the mound. Expand rosters to 30 players, mandatory minimum number of designated relievers for each game, whereby allowing/requiring managers to get up enough guys early in the game and not risk burn out.

 

Relief pitchers need to warm-up from the actual mound. Anybody who has ever pitched in the minors or majors will tell you the pen mounds are different, sometimes very much so, from the field mound. MLB cut the time between innings to 2 minutes in 2019.

[Fear The Chorizo]

The biggest way to speed up the game is for it to be played without all the emphasis being on striking guys out or hitting home runs/racking up pitch counts. Leaning so hard on strikeouts is what's made the gameplay incredibly long more than anything. You don't have to go back very far at all, even during the HR's heyday of the steroid era, to find examples of pitchers who preferred to 'pitch to contact' who were famous for shrinking gametimes. Greg Maddux won 355 games by essentially pounding the strike zone with incredible command of his stuff. With today's shifting and defensive positioning evolution, I bet he would have been even more effective.

 

I love baseball, but the current onfield product is borderline unwatchable because it's all-or-nothing, all of the time. People point to shifting as a reason why hitters take more of a 3TO approach - if organizations had more players who weren't just power hitting prospects for their positions, shifting wouldn't be as big of a standard practice throughout the league. Tough to compare sports, but in a way it's alot like if NFL games were nothing but shot plays where the quarterback dropped back and launched bombs on streak routes - resulting in nothing but TDs, incompletions, a few INTs and sacks, and a whole bunch of 3 and outs that never ran any time off the clock.

[stoutdude04]

The biggest way to speed up the game is for it to be played without all the emphasis being on striking guys out or hitting home runs/racking up pitch counts. Leaning so hard on strikeouts is what's made the gameplay incredibly long more than anything. You don't have to go back very far at all, even during the HR's heyday of the steroid era, to find examples of pitchers who preferred to 'pitch to contact' who were famous for shrinking gametimes. Greg Maddux won 355 games by essentially pounding the strike zone with incredible command of his stuff. With today's shifting and defensive positioning evolution, I bet he would have been even more effective.

I love baseball, but the current onfield product is borderline unwatchable because it's all-or-nothing, all of the time. People point to shifting as a reason why hitters take more of a 3TO approach - if organizations had more players who weren't just power hitting prospects for their positions, shifting wouldn't be as big of a standard practice throughout the league. Tough to compare sports, but in a way it's alot like if NFL games were nothing but shot plays where the quarterback dropped back and launched bombs on streak routes - resulting in nothing but TDs, incompletions, a few INTs and sacks, and a whole bunch of 3 and outs that never ran any time off the clock.

 

I cannot say for a fact, but I recall strike zones being huge. I saw someone mention shrinking the strike zone to speed up games, but I actually think the opposite might be true. If the zone is bigger you will require guys to swing more often AND they will have to make adjustments to their swings because they wont be able to try and pull everything.

[Fear The Chorizo]

The biggest way to speed up the game is for it to be played without all the emphasis being on striking guys out or hitting home runs/racking up pitch counts. Leaning so hard on strikeouts is what's made the gameplay incredibly long more than anything. You don't have to go back very far at all, even during the HR's heyday of the steroid era, to find examples of pitchers who preferred to 'pitch to contact' who were famous for shrinking gametimes. Greg Maddux won 355 games by essentially pounding the strike zone with incredible command of his stuff. With today's shifting and defensive positioning evolution, I bet he would have been even more effective.

I love baseball, but the current onfield product is borderline unwatchable because it's all-or-nothing, all of the time. People point to shifting as a reason why hitters take more of a 3TO approach - if organizations had more players who weren't just power hitting prospects for their positions, shifting wouldn't be as big of a standard practice throughout the league. Tough to compare sports, but in a way it's alot like if NFL games were nothing but shot plays where the quarterback dropped back and launched bombs on streak routes - resulting in nothing but TDs, incompletions, a few INTs and sacks, and a whole bunch of 3 and outs that never ran any time off the clock.

 

I cannot say for a fact, but I recall strike zones being huge. I saw someone mention shrinking the strike zone to speed up games, but I actually think the opposite might be true. If the zone is bigger you will require guys to swing more often AND they will have to make adjustments to their swings because they wont be able to try and pull everything.

 

definitely - increasing the zone would force hitters to not only adjust their swings, but likely also change their equipment to increase the amount of contact they make. People will point to pitchers having better stuff and more velocity now than they ever have as a reason why hitters focusing on making contact wouldn't work - but that premise fails to see how hitters could drastically alter their approach at the plate to improve their chances. If a hitter isn't trying hit a HR or at least lift and separate on every swing, a much quieter approach focused on making the pitch's velocity supply the power would look markedly different in the batter's box.

 

One other thing on shifting, it essentially came about well after the 3TO approach started getting widely incorporated into major league offenses. If hitters weren't hellbent on swinging for the downs on everything, they don't become so pull-heavy on balls hit on the ground, their swing paths don't evolve into being mostly beer league softball clones, and spray charts don't skew nearly as much to the point where shifting players from their traditional positions across the board provides a statistical advantage to run prevention.

[brooks_quichenick]

In regards to speeding up the game, I've never understood why during each transition from offense to defense a team needs 4-5 minutes to toss a ball around. If a pitcher needs to warm up, go in the dugout and throw. Cut out 10 of the 17-18 breaks, cut 30 minutes from each game.

 

Where would all of the TV advertisements go? That's the main reason for the long mid-inning breaks sadly.

[pacopete4]

Cutting out players warming up is a bad idea. That is how a player stays loose throughout the game.

[owbc]

I cannot say for a fact, but I recall strike zones being huge. I saw someone mention shrinking the strike zone to speed up games, but I actually think the opposite might be true. If the zone is bigger you will require guys to swing more often AND they will have to make adjustments to their swings because they wont be able to try and pull everything.

 

definitely - increasing the zone would force hitters to not only adjust their swings, but likely also change their equipment to increase the amount of contact they make. People will point to pitchers having better stuff and more velocity now than they ever have as a reason why hitters focusing on making contact wouldn't work - but that premise fails to see how hitters could drastically alter their approach at the plate to improve their chances. If a hitter isn't trying hit a HR or at least lift and separate on every swing, a much quieter approach focused on making the pitch's velocity supply the power would look markedly different in the batter's box.

 

One other thing on shifting, it essentially came about well after the 3TO approach started getting widely incorporated into major league offenses. If hitters weren't hellbent on swinging for the downs on everything, they don't become so pull-heavy on balls hit on the ground, their swing paths don't evolve into being mostly beer league softball clones, and spray charts don't skew nearly as much to the point where shifting players from their traditional positions across the board provides a statistical advantage to run prevention.

 

I've seen a tendency on this forum and others to blame hitters for a bad approach when in reality they are doing exactly what they should be doing given how pitching and defense has adapted. MLB offenses are absurdly efficient at scoring without getting hits. Imagine how low offensive numbers would be if hitters did not adapt!!!

 

(1) Both the shifting and the added movement on pitches favor hitters to prefer a 3TO approach. Hitters have almost no control over where the ball goes off the bat. One interesting result is that foul balls have increased.

 

(2) The relationship between exit velocity and xBA is strong. Trading exit velocity for bat control doesn't work. A guy like Eric Sogard with an elite eye at the plate and elite contact rate ends up being below replacement level.

 

(3) Shrinking the strike zone would lead to more hitters taking the Max Muncy / Yasmani Grandal approach. Both hitters are no longer trying to hit, their only goal at the plate is to draw walks. Check out this reddit post on 'Muncyball':

[Fear The Chorizo]

Hitters have almost no control over where the ball goes off the bat.

 

With the vast majority of hitters' current approaches, I agree. A 3TO approach prioritizes generating bat speed at the expense of bat control. I'm not saying well-executed pitches aren't extremely difficult to 'hit em where they aint', but spray charts would look much different if hitters would adjust how much load and launch angle their swings require. With current swing mechanics and equipment it's very difficult to hit an offspeed pitch on the outer half of the plate with any authority the opposite way - so defenses flat out ignore that side of the field (particularly on the ground/infield). I'm not advocating for hitters to suddenly find a way to position batted balls against defensive shifts no matter what the pitch type and location is - what they definitely can do is improve making solid contact for more hittable pitches across a larger hitting zone and in turn become less selective and less predictable in terms of batted ball outcomes.

 

A guy like Eric Sogard with an elite eye at the plate and elite contact rate ends up being below replacement level.

 

Sogard would be much lower than below replacement level if more of the players who are much better hitters adjusted their approach in favor of pursuing more contact and less power. I'd argue the only reason he's had a MLB career at all in this era is because his offensive approach makes him unique, even for a utility infielder.

[owbc]

Hitters have almost no control over where the ball goes off the bat.

 

With the vast majority of hitters' current approaches, I agree. A 3TO approach prioritizes generating bat speed at the expense of bat control. I'm not saying well-executed pitches aren't extremely difficult to 'hit em where they aint', but spray charts would look much different if hitters would adjust how much load and launch angle their swings require. With current swing mechanics and equipment it's very difficult to hit an offspeed pitch on the outer half of the plate with any authority the opposite way - so defenses flat out ignore that side of the field (particularly on the ground/infield). I'm not advocating for hitters to suddenly find a way to position batted balls against defensive shifts no matter what the pitch type and location is - what they definitely can do is improve making solid contact for more hittable pitches across a larger hitting zone and in turn become less selective and less predictable in terms of batted ball outcomes.

 

A guy like Eric Sogard with an elite eye at the plate and elite contact rate ends up being below replacement level.

 

Sogard would be much lower than below replacement level if more of the players who are much better hitters adjusted their approach in favor of pursuing more contact and less power. I'd argue the only reason he's had a MLB career at all in this era is because his offensive approach makes him unique, even for a utility infielder.

 

I'm not a professional hitter, but from what I've seen I think that some MLB hitters are trying but not succeeding to consistently drive the ball to the opposite field. Even Yelich failed at hitting the ball the other way enough that everyone started shifting him--and he has the perfect swing and approach for it. Vogelbach is another guy who tries to shorten his swing all the time but largely fails at it--all his value is derived from doubles and HR.

 

Even if you succeed at hitting the ball the other way, there's still an infielder and an outfielder over there who are perfectly positioned to gobble up a large number of opposite field hits. And if they miss it, the best you do is hit a single or rarely a double. You're much better off trying to draw a walk. You need an exit velocity of 95 mph or higher for your xBA to be above league average. Almost everything less than that results in a single. Around 98-99 mph xSLG increases rapidly. I don't know how often balls are hit above 98 mph the opposite way but I don't think it happens often.

 

Could hitters adjust their approach to do it more frequently? Maybe. But would it even matter? Probably not. I assume the pitchers would change their approach, the defensive positions might move around, and at the end of the day it would still come down to exit velocity.

[RollieTime]

Everything starts with the shifts and the adjustments made to combat them. All of the adjustments have worsened the game. It's time to ban shifts. Do that and you'll see the ball put in play, a reduction in 3TO, more action on the basepaths, and few pitches taken. It won't solve everything but it will make the biggest dent.

 

I am with you on that. But the issue is how is it enforced and when/if are teams allowed to shift? Does this completely 100% eliminate the shift or in only certain situations can it be implemented? What if the winning run is on third and the guy is a ground ball hitter. Are you not allowed to pull in an outfielder as a 5th infielder? That’s considered a shift.

 

Is it two players on the right and left side of second base at the pitch? If the shortstop is one inch to the side of second base, is that considered legal? What about if the second baseman playing in a rover position in almost shallow right center/slightly right field area? Is that allowed or do both feet need to be on the dirt?

 

There’s so much that would need to be ironed out for this. And if they were to implement no shifting, then I imagine a team can’t put a 5th infielder on the infield regardless of circumstance. Otherwise the opposition would always say the game is on the line and they need to use the shift in this spot. But now can you place the left fielder one foot off the dirt on the outfield grass and that’s considered legal because he’s in the outfield? Thus finding a hole in the rule?

 

This is something you know every team is going to push more and more and try to find some loophole to use to their advantage.

[areacodes]

I think a reasonable option regarding the shift would be to require the infielders to have their feet on the dirt. That way you can still shift but I think it would reduce the effectiveness of it a bit - at least against lefties.

[wallus]

Do the first 6 innings in 3 inning offensive increments (clear the bases after 3 outs). Have advertisements scrolling on the bottom.

 

Lower the mound.

 

Do a pitch clock.

 

Profit.

[damuelle]

2020's widened strike zone (accepted in order to move games along more quickly) and 2021's deadened ball are compounding to make historical OPS less important as a predictor of performance, I'd imagine. The SLG guys aren't hitting as many homers, while the OBP guys aren't as valuable if they can't actually knock that runner in from 2nd or 3rd with 1-2 outs. As expected, this has greatly depressed current batting averages, in theory making AVG a more valuable attribute this year.

 

In the short-term, GMs should pay for AVG, which is somewhat tricky given the luck/BABIP factor. But it's their job to figure it out.

 

In the long-term, assuming the deadened ball stays, hitters need to go back to emphasising bat control over power, while hopefully the umps or robo-umps give us a narrower strike zone.

[Cool Hand Lucroy]

The idea of banning the shift has always felt really intrusive to me, and I'm opposed to it sort of on principle. Still, even after just a month of data, it's impossible not to see the weirdness of baseball over the last couple of years (some of which may still be COVID-related). I'm probably more open to banning it than I have been in the past, even though I wish there were less intrusive ways to change the shape of the game.

 

I think this is the real trouble with analytics. There's an entropy to them, a "heat-death," a move toward homogeneity. It's easy to see how to win in today's brand of baseball. You have to hit home runs and flyballs and stress exit velo and shifting defensively. To try anything else would be very unlikely to work and would be a massive risk. The culture of the game now is such that the analytics have replaced the "eye test" and the "Triple Crown" as instantiated knowledge. We've reached the other side of the pendulum arc. Basketball feels to me like it's in the same place. The NBA is all threes and dunks and backtaps, and college hoops is constantly trying to become more like the NBA. The analytics breed homogeneity, and that means there just isn't a lot of variance in how teams approach the game. And variance is what makes matchups interesting.

 

So, what to do? I think it's a two-path option:

 

1) You alter the rules to promote more variance in team approaches. I think strike zone set ups might help here, pickoff limitations, slightly bigger bases (which would also have an injury rationale, in addition to increasing the running game), rules that shift the advantage to the baserunner when one's aboard. There's also moving the mound back or pitch clocks, or other things designed to help hitters. There are maybe some really weird, crazy-sounding things you could do about equipment (limiting glove size/padding for infielders, for example, to try and increase BABIP). The whole goal is to increase the value of hard contact irrespective of launch angle.

 

2) Some team is going to have to take a real risk offensively. Bunt against every shift you see for a week. Bunt more often generally. Acquire high AVG players. Stress AVG starting now and with the MLB club. The incentives are all lined up against this, of course. Doing this stuff messes with your whole philosophy, and it probably leads to losing for all kinds of reasons. But I think the fundamental lesson of the analytics era is that there is a reward to doing things the way no one else does. You just have to be willing to see it and try anything. I have a hunch the Brewers are onto this a bit in that they seem to me to be one of the more aggressive swinging teams in MLB. They want players making hard contact rather than waiting for walks and driving up pitch counts.

 

I'll put it bluntly: I'd really like to see what happens when a team plays "old-style" baseball and just commits themselves to it. Honestly, I'd think it was fascinating if the Brewers did that, even if they ended up 20-142. I want the Crew to do well, of course, but I'm just genuinely more interested in baseball writ large, and I think it's worth recognizing that the fans provide some incentive for this, don't we? By valuing winning above all else?

 

I'd just love to see the Brewers decide to bunt for a week. Because it would be fun. See what happens. The way teams in basketball try to pull teams out of zone by beating it down the floor. Maybe set some priors for when you won't do it (with the bases loaded or whatever). But given this offense's overall prospects for scoring, I don't think asking Pablo Reyes to bunt a bunch of times could be worse results-wise...

[RightFieldCoder]

I agree that contact hitting the other way and bunting would help take away the shifts. The problem is that we can't expect a player to do that with regularity now that pitchers are all throwing harder. The best "quick fix" I've heard is to move the mound back 2 feet. That would increase the reaction time needed to hit the ball the other way to something closer to what it was in the 80s. We'll probably see a quick spike in HR and SB right away but it would allow some players to start focusing on being "contact" guys. It would also move pitchers back for defense to give them more time to protect from the come back hit.