Manfred: Eliminate Shifts

[Il BuonO]

There really doesn't need to be anything "done". As Cameron points out today it usually takes care of itself over time.

Historically, we haven’t really seen the game take long slow declines into very low levels of offense; instead, we’ve seen the bottom drop out all at once, with corrections coming not long after. The game is cyclical, and doesn’t always require human intervention to find an equilibrium. And realistically, we’re not that far away from the normal as it is, and we’re only five years removed from the last season that matched the historical average run environment.

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/does-mlb-need-more-offense-in-the-modern-game/

[Three Run Homer]

It is strange that they're contemplating messing with the defensive positioning rules that have been unchanged for over a century for a fraction of a run a game, but it was all happy good times when runs went from 4.0/game in the 80s to over 5.0/game in the 90s.

If you are in the business of selling tickets and encouraging viewership, it makes sense to tweak or selectively enforce the rules to encourage offense. The average fan would rather see a slugfest than a pitchers duel, and is more excited about someone hitting 50 home runs than someone compiling an ERA under 2.00.

I'm totally in favor of automating balls and strikes, but only if the strike zone is made smaller than under the current rules. The de facto strike zone has expanded in recent years because Questec has forced umpires to call balls and strikes more according to the rule book. Going totally automated under the current strike zone would result in a further dramatic expansion of the strike zone, which would further reduce offense.

[MurphDogg]

If you are in the business of selling tickets and encouraging viewership, it makes sense to tweak or selectively enforce the rules to encourage offense. The average fan would rather see a slugfest than a pitchers duel, and is more excited about someone hitting 50 home runs than someone compiling an ERA under 2.00.

Citation needed.

[OFFNY]

P.S. If the commissioner is so concerned about offense, perhaps he could ban fastballs over 99 M.P.H., and outlaw the knuckleball, too.

1) No defensive shifts.

2) No knuckleballs.

3) No really fast fastballs.

4) And perhaps put a limit on the number of inches that a curveball can break, too.

*********************************

Oh, and one more thing. Make pitchers formally apologize to any batter that he strikes out 3 times in the same game.

We can't be having the batters emotionally demoralized by a dominant pitcher. The fans want to see offense.

Although, now that I think about it, I think that speeding up the game (another of Manfred's top priorities) is more important than increasing offense.

"Pitcher hits the batter, the batter's out.

You hit 27 batters, you've got yourself a perfect game."

George Carlin, 1986

o

[DrungoHazewood]

If you are in the business of selling tickets and encouraging viewership, it makes sense to tweak or selectively enforce the rules to encourage offense. The average fan would rather see a slugfest than a pitchers duel, and is more excited about someone hitting 50 home runs than someone compiling an ERA under 2.00.

I'm totally in favor of automating balls and strikes, but only if the strike zone is made smaller than under the current rules. The de facto strike zone has expanded in recent years because Questec has forced umpires to call balls and strikes more according to the rule book. Going totally automated under the current strike zone would result in a further dramatic expansion of the strike zone, which would further reduce offense.

But there has to be a limit. I think the typical fan wants an exciting game within some fairly loose bounds of what seems like baseball. I think some people were eventually turned off from 5-6 run baseball with 50-homer players becoming almost commonplace. Just a feeling, but I'd bet fans would react positively to 4-run baseball with lots of balls in play and action on the basepaths, with 2:30 gametimes.

[O's_first]

But there has to be a limit. I think the typical fan wants an exciting game within some fairly loose bounds of what seems like baseball. I think some people were eventually turned off from 5-6 run baseball with 50-homer players becoming almost commonplace. Just a feeling, but I'd bet fans would react positively to 4-run baseball with lots of balls in play and action on the basepaths, with 2:30 gametimes.

Completely agree. 2.5 hours would be the perfect amount of time. I enjoy watching baseball as much as anyone, but it doesn't need to consume the entire night. As far as the defensive shifts, I would be happy to see the shift be outlawed. Make a general rule over where the players need to be on defense and stop the second baseman from being a 4th outfielder.

[weams]

Completely agree. 2.5 hours would be the perfect amount of time. I enjoy watching baseball as much as anyone' date=' but it doesn't need to consume the entire night. As far as the defensive shifts, I would be happy to see the shift be outlawed. Make a general rule over where the players need to be on defense and stop the second baseman from being a 4th outfielder.[/quote']

If the game is too long, just dial back to 140 games. Then the three plus hour event will be welcomed.

[berettafan]

Perhaps announcers educating the audience about the game would help.

I know I've learned an awful lot about the game through my 10yr old who has been playing little league and travel ball for some time now and it has really increased my appreciation for the game.

There are just so many little nuances to be appreciated at every position on the field.

[Number5]

If the game is too long, just dial back to 140 games. Then the three plus hour event will be welcomed.

The reason the seaon is 162 games long is that when both leagues expanded in 1961 from 8 teams to 10 teams, they wanted to continue having a balanced schedule and went from having 22 games against each of the other 7 teams in the league to having 18 games against each of the other 9 teams. They now don't have balanced schedules, anyway, so there really is no reason to have a 162 game schedule. 160 would be fine, or any number, really. It would be nice to figure out a way to have a balanced schedule again, but that seems difficult, since contraction isn't likely.

[TouchemAll]

Although, now that I think about it, I think that speeding up the game (another of Manfred's top priorities) is more important than increasing offense.

"Pitcher hits the batter, the batter's out.

You hit 27 batters, you've got yourself a perfect game."

George Carlin, 1986

o

Don't laugh, but Carlin was on to something here I actually find that game interesting LOL TAKES CARE OF THE STRIKE ZONE ISSUE TOO WE DON'T NEED ONE ANY MORE :thumbsup1:

[DrungoHazewood]

Completely agree. 2.5 hours would be the perfect amount of time. I enjoy watching baseball as much as anyone' date=' but it doesn't need to consume the entire night. As far as the defensive shifts, I would be happy to see the shift be outlawed. Make a general rule over where the players need to be on defense and stop the second baseman from being a 4th outfielder.[/quote']

But why stifle innovation and interesting strategy when turning up the tensioner at the ball factory would increase offense even more? There are a million ways to increase offense without some kind of major rules change about where defensive players can stand. I thought it was a feature of baseball that, with a few minor exceptions like the pitcher's rubber and catcher's box, you can stand anywhere you darn well please.

[DrungoHazewood]

If the game is too long, just dial back to 140 games. Then the three plus hour event will be welcomed.

Personally, I don't think shortening the season by 10-15% makes long games with many irrational breaks in the action more palatable. I realize I don't speak for everyone.

[DrungoHazewood]

The reason the seaon is 162 games long is that when both leagues expanded in 1961 from 8 teams to 10 teams, they wanted to continue having a balanced schedule and went from having 22 games against each of the other 7 teams in the league to having 18 games against each of the other 9 teams. They now don't have balanced schedules, anyway, so there really is no reason to have a 162 game schedule. 160 would be fine, or any number, really. It would be nice to figure out a way to have a balanced schedule again, but that seems difficult, since contraction isn't likely.

With 30 teams you could have a balanced schedule of 174 games (or 145), playing each other team six (or five) times. With two 16-team leagues an no interleague you could have a balanced schedule of 150 or 165. Interleague is really the issue - if you want to balance the schedule and still play the Yanks and Sox a bunch of times you just can't do it with 30 teams. I'm in favor of geographical realignment into 3-4 regional leagues with limited or no interleague. Then a balanced schedule of any length between roughly 140-170 games would be pretty trivial. And travel costs and stresses would be minimized, which I really think is the reason there's no balanced schedule today. The players and owners will trade of bit of fairness for not having to make two more West Coast trips.

[FanSince88]

So, we have a commissioner that wants to restrict teams from playing defensive players where a hitter is most likely to hit the ball, unless the hitter happens to be most likely to hit the ball where the commissioner thinks defenders should play. Is that right?

Isn't the "standard" defensive alignment just a "shift" against batters who use the whole field? Maybe we should just get rid of those stupid fielders altogether!!! It can just be either strikeouts or home runs (ie, any ball in play)! In fact, why have those silly bases at all? Just make the game one big home run derby. That's the ticket!

[mdbdotcom]

Eliminate stats. If managers didn't know the details of what was going on, they wouldn't have the impudence to react to them.