Carfado: GM's Actually Took Vote On Shift Ban

[Es4M11]

I wonder how many other dead pull left handed hitters Boras represents? No doubt defensive shifts have put a cramp on Boras' bank account. I'm sure Boras was banking on a mega contract for Chris Davis, now Boras will have to settle for less.

Guys, we need to feel sorry for Scott! /s

[DrungoHazewood]

I think that if baseball wants to grow the game, which I assume is the end goal of this (quicker games, more offense), then twisting and altering the game constantly is the worst thing to do. Baseball is great largely because of it's tradition, strategy, etc. Trying to make baseball all things to all people is a recipe for failure IMO.

While I agree there is some value in a long history of same/similar rules, baseball won't make proactive changes even to keep the game within historic norms. Baseball will actually allow the game to morph into something new rather than change the rules (see: home run explosion of the '90s, strikeout levels today, completely different bats today vs. 50 years ago, explosion in use of relievers). So in their quest to respect tradition they allow the game to turn into something very different.

And I'm very much against rules that outlaw the shift. If you don't want to be adversely effected by the shift there's an easy solution - don't hit into it. There's much more rational, IMO, to change the rules about relievers. There's no strategic counter to having to face a guy who comes in and throws 103mph for an inning.

[Hallas]

While I agree there is some value in a long history of same/similar rules, baseball won't make proactive changes even to keep the game within historic norms. Baseball will actually allow the game to morph into something new rather than change the rules (see: home run explosion of the '90s, strikeout levels today, completely different bats today vs. 50 years ago, explosion in use of relievers). So in their quest to respect tradition they allow the game to turn into something very different.

And I'm very much against rules that outlaw the shift. If you don't want to be adversely effected by the shift there's an easy solution - don't hit into it. There's much more rational, IMO, to change the rules about relievers. There's no strategic counter to having to face a guy who comes in and throws 103mph for an inning.

What rule would you impose? That a pitcher must face at least 3 batters or pitch till the end of the inning before being removed?

I feel like this would increase scoring drastically. Which is okay - scoring is a bit low right now.

[Rene88]

Only real baseball fans like the Hangouters know that limiting defensive positioning would be the dumbest idea ever, Batters need to adapt and go the other way.

Someone really needs to tell Chris Davis that.

[DrungoHazewood]

What rule would you impose? That a pitcher must face at least 3 batters or pitch till the end of the inning before being removed?

I feel like this would increase scoring drastically. Which is okay - scoring is a bit low right now.

I'm not quite sure which approach I favor, there's several (many?) ways to go about this. One would be to just require a minimum number of batters faced in a game (say, six). And you enforce it by making a rule that if you're taken out for injury before facing six batters you can't pitch for, say, 15 calendar days.

Another would be to designate 10 roster spots to pitchers and have some kind of penalty for using a non-designated pitcher on the mound (or just forbid it).

Or you could incentivize against this by starting off the first batter after all pitching changes up 2-0 in the count. Lots of ways to skin a cat, some more palatable to fans than others.

[CA-ORIOLE]

I see specialty relievers and shifts as two ways that lower cost teams (who can't afford 40 HR LH power hitters) can compete with their higher payroll rivals. If they want to speed up the game then stick with the plan of making pitchers throw and hitters stay in the batters box. I'm gonna guess that most of the pitchers and hitters that do this this nonsense are generally the higher paid ones. If they want more offense maybe teams can look more at guys that can hit to all fields and run instead of 40 HR LH power hitters that pull the ball. The again, I guess I'm one of the neanderthal's that finds pitching, speed, defense and close games exciting.

[OriolesMagic83]

If teams have scored 1 run or fewer by the 7th inning, the strike zone becomes "belt high and middle of the plate." That makes just as much sense.

[CA-ORIOLE]

If teams have scored 1 run or fewer by the 7th inning, the strike zone becomes "belt high and middle of the plate." That makes just as much sense.

Since we're so concerned about hard throwing relievers why not throttle them down to 92 and below and give them speeding tickets for violations.

[Aristotelian]

If teams have scored 1 run or fewer by the 7th inning, the strike zone becomes "belt high and middle of the plate." That makes just as much sense.

Also eliminate positioning for double plays or infield-in situations. Paint a big X at each position and fielders are not allow to stray from the big X.

Might as well move the fences in to about 320 in center while we are at it.

[Can_of_corn]

Also eliminate positioning for double plays or infield-in situations. Paint a big X at each position and fielders are not allow to stray from the big X.

Might as well move the fences in to about 320 in center while we are at it.

Won't that be discriminating against pull hitters?

[crawjo]

Limiting the use of specialty relievers is next. I'm serious.

I would be for this. I like the idea that a pitcher has to face at least two batters, unless it is the end of an inning. There is no question that the games are too long and I think this is a rule change that could be made without disrupting the essential aspects of baseball (unlike a pitch clock, which I am against.)

[Can_of_corn]

I would be for this. I like the idea that a pitcher has to face at least two batters, unless it is the end of an inning. There is no question that the games are too long and I think this is a rule change that could be made without disrupting the essential aspects of baseball (unlike a pitch clock, which I am against.)

They going to make it so you can't use a pinch hitter (specialty offensive player) unless he plays an inning in the field? Pinch hitters slow the game up some right?

[weams]

I would be for this. I like the idea that a pitcher has to face at least two batters, unless it is the end of an inning. There is no question that the games are too long and I think this is a rule change that could be made without disrupting the essential aspects of baseball (unlike a pitch clock, which I am against.)

Just lower the roster to 22. The games would be much faster. Boom.

[Can_of_corn]

Just lower the roster to 22. The games would be much faster. Boom.

Make the hitters stay in the box.

Boom.

[Il BuonO]

I see specialty relievers and shifts as two ways that lower cost teams (who can't afford 40 HR LH power hitters) can compete with their higher payroll rivals. If they want to speed up the game then stick with the plan of making pitchers throw and hitters stay in the batters box. I'm gonna guess that most of the pitchers and hitters that do this this nonsense are generally the higher paid ones. If they want more offense maybe teams can look more at guys that can hit to all fields and run instead of 40 HR LH power hitters that pull the ball. The again, I guess I'm one of the neanderthal's that finds pitching, speed, defense and close games exciting.

Give me a minute and I'll join you. I just discovered fire.