Manfred: Eliminate Shifts

[Hallas]

Since we're on the topic of offense, if we have decided that strikeouts are the problem and not the shift, then how about adjusting the strike zone instead of zeroing in on 5% of hitters. I realize this will make things harder for umpires, but how about requiring that at least 50% of the baseball must be inside the strike zone for a pitch to be called a strike. That will have the effect of reducing the strike zone by about 3 inches.

The shift works because of line drive and ground ball tendencies. Chris Davis, for example, actually sprays the ball to all fields very well when he makes contact. The problem is that ground balls in particular go to the right side. This is normal and expected, because it's not easy to hit a ground ball hard to the left side of the infield.

[AdamK]

Thanks for posting your perspective here.

As a former player, I hate the shift how it's designed today. IMO, i think the shift needs to be modified, not eliminated. The way i'd suggest it is, Infields can shift, but they have to stay in the circumference of the infield. The short fielder is the problem, not he shift. If defenses want to play with a short fielder they will have to use an OF'er. That way, there is a trade off for teams implementing this type of strategy. Others will argue that there is already an opening in defenses when they play the shift, you're right. But as the shifts are played right now it gives the defense an advantage by moving a player between OF and the INF. Majority of the players can't hit an inside fastball to the opposite field, few can do it. Secondly, this type of defensive alignment is going to start taking away the power numbers in the game. I'm sure most of everyone here would agree, you don't come to the park to watch a bunch of slap hitters and bunts. The power element is a big part of what draws fans to the game. Nobody wants to go to the park to watch Miguel Cabrera bunt or hit to RF all game long. Plus, why designate players positions anymore if shifts are more common place? What would you call Schoop? RCF Rover and sometimes a 2B? That would be a helluva position title to type up on a Topps baseball card :laughlol:

In conclusion, I don't think the shifts should be eliminated just modified, keeping the infielders in the infield and outfielders in the outfield. I think that is a common ground that baseball can meet in the middle on.

I think its a reasonable compromise to allowing a shift, and I suggested something very similar in #66.

I don't really want to see shifts gone, but...

What if the compromise was that infielders stay in the infield and can not overlap. Outfielders stay in the outfield and can't overlap.

Overlapping would be a 3rd baseman anywhere other than to the right of the SS. Same for other fielders. From left to right, order of infielders must be 3rd baseman, SS, 2nd baseman, 1st baseman.

The infield is defined as the area we all think of (up to the edge of dirt/outfield grass).

No more roamers in short right field.

But, you could definitely over-shift your players to the right side of the field.

While I hear what harp6 is saying about designating areas on the field and all that, I just do not believe this to be a problem that can't be tackled without an elegant solution that requires no new lines on the playing field. Umpires are supposed to watch out for things on the field all the time, using judgement, so I am not opposed to allowing the second base umpire (or whomever) to glance at where these guys are lined up. I don't really want to argue this point, I just basically think that some modification can be made to shifts that does not abandon them completely.

I don't dislike the shifts either, I just figure if some effort is going to be made by baseball that it should require as little rule expansion as possible. (Fat chance, I know)

[DrungoHazewood]

Since we're on the topic of offense, if we have decided that strikeouts are the problem and not the shift, then how about adjusting the strike zone instead of zeroing in on 5% of hitters. I realize this will make things harder for umpires, but how about requiring that at least 50% of the baseball must be inside the strike zone for a pitch to be called a strike. That will have the effect of reducing the strike zone by about 3 inches.

The shift works because of line drive and ground ball tendencies. Chris Davis, for example, actually sprays the ball to all fields very well when he makes contact. The problem is that ground balls in particular go to the right side. This is normal and expected, because it's not easy to hit a ground ball hard to the left side of the infield.

Two very simple things that would reduce strikeouts, maybe dramatically: 1) Small strike zone redefinition, such as making the top of the zone explicitly the belt. 2) Minimum dimensions and weights for bats. Basically, make them heavier and fatter forcing more players to become more contact-oriented. Most players just can't go for max bat speed on every pitch when their bat weighs 38 ounces. Bonus: fewer shiftable batters, because I'd bet there would be far fewer extreme pull hitters with heavier bats.

[Can_of_corn]

Two very simple things that would reduce strikeouts, maybe dramatically: 1) Small strike zone redefinition, such as making the top of the zone explicitly the belt. 2) Minimum dimensions and weights for bats. Basically, make them heavier and fatter forcing more players to become more contact-oriented. Most players just can't go for max bat speed on every pitch when their bat weighs 38 ounces. Bonus: fewer shiftable batters, because I'd bet there would be far fewer extreme pull hitters with heavier bats.

And they can even spin the heavier bats as a safety measure to reduce shards.

[weams]

Tom Verducci says we are headed in the direction of 1968. With longer games.

[Can_of_corn]

Tom Verducci says we are headed in the direction of 1968. With longer games.

All the Umps need to do is to stop letting batters leave the box and stop allowing pitchers to wander around in circles on the mound.

[weams]

All the Umps need to do is to stop letting batters leave the box and stop allowing pitchers to wander around in circles on the mound.

And cut down one commercial each inning.

[Can_of_corn]

And cut down one commercial each inning.

Sure that as well.

[UpstateNYfan]

And cut down one commercial each inning.

Bingo, and stop catchers from looking over to bench for the next sign to put down. Either the catcher calls the game ( I believe he and the pitcher can read the batter better) or give an earplug so the coach can just say it to him.

[spiritof66]

The real issue with bats, IMO, is the extreme narrowness of the handle portion. That's the reason for many of the shattered bats.

Bill James has been writing about this for several years. As I recall, he has mentioned two features of thin-handled bats that make them appealing to today's players. The first, and obvious one, is that they increase bat speed while maintaining the heft in the barrel bat, creating a whip-like action and velocity. Second, the thin handle reduces the likelihood of contact with the handle -- that is, hitters would rather swing and miss than hit the ball off the handle.

Requiring a minimum width of bat handles would reduce the number of strikeouts and speed up the game.

[DrungoHazewood]

The real issue with bats, IMO, is the extreme narrowness of the handle portion. That's the reason for many of the shattered bats.

Bill James has been writing about this for several years. As I recall, he has mentioned two features of thin-handled bats that make them appealing to today's players. The first, and obvious one, is that they increase bat speed while maintaining the heft in the barrel bat, creating a whip-like action and velocity. Second, the thin handle reduces the likelihood of contact with the handle -- that is, hitters would rather swing and miss than hit the ball off the handle.

Requiring a minimum width of bat handles would reduce the number of strikeouts and speed up the game.

This brings up another point... if you want to have more control of the outcomes of the game, you could just make like five standard bats and everyone has to use one of them. If you want more contact in the game you make all of the standard bats heavier and larger than today's typical bats. Players would certainly object, and bat manufacturers would howl. But it is a little weird that baseball not only lets players all pick a custom-made bat that nobody really inspects (I think... unless it explodes and cork flies out), but the only regulations are minimal.

Here's the entire bat section of the official rules:

The bat shall be a smooth, round stick not more than 23/4 inches in diameter at the thickest part and not more than 42 inches in length. The bat shall be one piece of solid wood.

NOTE: No laminated or experimental bats shall be used in a professional game (either championship season or exhibition games) until the manufacturer has secured approval from the Rules Committee of his design and methods of manufacture.

(b) Cupped Bats. An indentation in the end of the bat up to one inch in depth is permitted and may be no wider than two inches and no less than one inch in diameter. The indentation must be curved with no foreign substance added.

© The bat handle, for not more than 18 inches from its end, may be covered or treated with any material or substance to improve the grip. Any such material or substance, which extends past the 18 inch limitation, shall cause the bat to be removed from the game.

NOTE: If the umpire discovers that the bat does not conform to © above until a time during or after which the bat has been used in play, it shall not be grounds for declaring the batter out, or ejected from the game.

(d) No colored bat may be used in a professional game unless approved by the Rules Committee.

For a league that now has it's commish up in arms about shifts that might take away tenths of a run a game, it seems strange to me that the bat, which has a gigantic impact on offense, is largely unregulated. You could argue that one of the biggest differences between 1920s baseball and today's is thick-handled 45 oz hickory bats vs. whip-thin 26 oz maples.

[BergerKing]

Just go opposite field base hit all day!

[Il BuonO]

This brings up another point... if you want to have more control of the outcomes of the game, you could just make like five standard bats and everyone has to use one of them. If you want more contact in the game you make all of the standard bats heavier and larger than today's typical bats. Players would certainly object, and bat manufacturers would howl. But it is a little weird that baseball not only lets players all pick a custom-made bat that nobody really inspects (I think... unless it explodes and cork flies out), but the only regulations are minimal.

Here's the entire bat section of the official rules:

For a league that now has it's commish up in arms about shifts that might take away tenths of a run a game, it seems strange to me that the bat, which has a gigantic impact on offense, is largely unregulated. You could argue that one of the biggest differences between 1920s baseball and today's is thick-handled 45 oz hickory bats vs. whip-thin 26 oz maples.

The bat shall be a smooth, round stick not more than 23/4 inches in diameter at the thickest part and not more than 42 inches in length. The bat shall be one piece of solid wood.

I wonder if there is anyone out there using anything close to 42 inches. A 35" or 36" bat is the longest I can remember hearing about.

[OFFNY]

o

Every time that I see the new commissioner's name in print, I always think of "Do Wah Diddy Diddy" from 1964, and "Blinded By the Light" from 1976.

[Number5]

o

Every time that I see the new commissioner's name in print, I always think of "Do Wah Diddy Diddy" from 1964, and "Blinded By the Light" from 1976.

Or...

The Wonder Dog