Do you support rules limiting defensive shifts?

[scOtt]

3 hours ago, Moose Milligan said:

 

Yes.  

It's funny that Manfred makes me long for the days of Selig.

Ain't that the truth! Be careful what you wish for.

 

Evolve or die. Besides, extreme shifts probably won't last more than several years anyways. Smart teams will draft players who can use the whole field to combat it. What goes around comes around.

[El Gordo]

Keep the shift. I look forward to the offensive advances the shift induces. It's a continuous cycle.

[bird watcher]

I voted yes because it is incredibly annoying watching when you know a player is incapable of not hitting into the shift. 

If it is really possible that a new wave of players can adapt their skills to hit the other way enough to stop the shift then I might change my mind. 

I do doubt that there will be a glut of players that can hit the other way against the shift AND hit with any kind of authority. That I believe is a rare player. 

[sportsfan8703]

These guys have been playing baseball their whole life. If they can’t hit against a shift that’s them. Didn’t teams like used to hit and run where players could routinely hit the ball through a created hole?  So why can’t they hit the ball through a created hole, without the whole runner stealing?

Dont ruin the game like the NFL. 

[bannanawho]

13 hours ago, Frobby said:

MLB is considering adopting rules limiting defensive shifts.    What say you?

Hitters should adapt to shifts and over time defenses will adapt. Considering rules limiting defensive shifts is simply a move to protect players with big contracts, like Chris Davis.

[Jagwar]

Would the ban include bringing an outfielder into the infield to prevent a runner on third from scoring on a grounder?

[Roll Tide]

I’d like to see rules that prevented heavy shifts.

ie.... SS can be no further right than the 2B bag and visa-versa for the 2B. Regardless of positioning the 3B and 1B cant be on the 2B side of their middle infielder. 

 

[wildbillhiccup]

5 minutes ago, Roll Tide said:

I’d like to see rules that prevented heavy shifts.

ie.... SS can be no further right than the 2B bag and visa-versa for the 2B. Regardless of positioning the 3B and 1B cant be on the 2B side of their middle infielder. 

 

This seems like a fair compromise to me. 

[Frobby]

10 hours ago, Satyr3206 said:

If a hitter doesn't like the shift they can always hit it somewhere else. If they understand the least little thing about their craft.

 

10 hours ago, Satyr3206 said:

Back when I played if they shifted like that my reaction would be, thanks for the free hit morons.

 

10 hours ago, Satyr3206 said:

All the talk about analytics and professional hitters can't figure out how to go the other way.

You know, with all due respect to your baseball abilities and experience, which no doubt were greater than mine, I always laugh when I see comments like these.    Were you facing pitchers who threw 92-96 mph (maybe higher) and had 1-2 nasty breaking pitches and a changeup, and could actually throw to spots in the strike zone?    Were you facing pitchers who had analytical data on your strengths and weaknesses?    Did the fielders on the teams you were facing have detailed spray charts of where you tended to hit the ball?

It is very, very difficult to be a major league hitter.    It’s getting harder all the time.   It’s hard enough to hit the ball with authority at all, much less control the exact direction the ball goes.   Some guys get to the majors because they have supernatural contact abilities and ability to hit to all fields.    Other guys get there because when they make contact they are good at hitting the ball really hard and far and sometimes over the fence, but directing the baseball is not really in their skill set.    To me, it’s a fantasy that most Adam Dunn types can simply choose to hit like Ichiro if they put their mind to it.

I do think baseball teams will adjust to shifting by looking for players who don’t hit into the shift as much.    And maybe some players will be able to adjust their approach to deal with the shift.    But a lot won’t be able to do it, or it will compromise their ability to hit the ball with authority.    It’s simply not that easy.    

[Plutarch]

49 minutes ago, Roll Tide said:

I’d like to see rules that prevented heavy shifts.

ie.... SS can be no further right than the 2B bag and visa-versa for the 2B. Regardless of positioning the 3B and 1B cant be on the 2B side of their middle infielder. 

 

Of course MLB could go to the ridiculous extreme and create 7 zones on the field (all with chalk outlines of course) and require that a defensive player by stationed in each zone during a pitch.  

Don't mess with the rules...just let the game evolve in it's own way.

[Aristotelian]

Absolutely not. Positioning is part of the game. It is up to the hitters to beat the defense.

I do not think the rules should be manipulated to increase offense. If you want offense, go back to the steroid era and stop testing. Or place a limit on how hard pitchers can throw. Where does it end?

[Camden_yardbird]

16 hours ago, kaj21206 said:

Learn how to hit the opposite way.

This is the biggest joke response to the shift.  Due to how pitchers pitch in a defensive shift it's like asking someone to make a lay up with Dikembe Mutumbo and Shaq standing under the basket.

Then again I am of the mind that the rules in any game must change.  Meta gaming a set of rules becomes prevalent, the absolute boundaries of performance are determined, and the game becomes unbalanced and more than that, as an entertainment product it becomes stale.

MLB needs to go hire someone who balances modern competitive video games, card games or mmos and understands this principle to make suggestions on game balance.

For me the statistics on RC, avg, and OBP show a slight effect and perhaps a slight competitive balance problem hitter to hitter.  But there are other statistics (attendance for instance) that show me baseball needs to consider not just field rule changes but systematic rule and business practice changes to succeed.

If a defensive alignment rule will start that ball rolling, then I am all for it.

[joelala]

13 minutes ago, Camden_yardbird said:

This is the biggest joke response to the shift.  Due to how pitchers pitch in a defensive shift it's like asking someone to make a lay up with Dikembe Mutumbo and Shaq standing under the basket.

Then again I am of the mind that the rules in any game must change.  Meta gaming a set of rules becomes prevalent, the absolute boundaries of performance are determined, and the game becomes unbalanced and more than that, as an entertainment product it becomes stale.

MLB needs to go hire someone who balances modern competitive video games, card games or mmos and understands this principle to make suggestions on game balance.

For me the statistics on RC, avg, and OBP show a slight effect and perhaps a slight competitive balance problem hitter to hitter.  But there are other statistics (attendance for instance) that show me baseball needs to consider not just field rule changes but systematic rule and business practice changes to succeed.

If a defensive alignment rule will start that ball rolling, then I am all for it.

I voted yes much for the same reason.  Pitchers are throwing harder than ever and advanced scouting  definitely seems to benefit pitching and defense much more than hitting, which has tilted the playing field.   It's been written about several times (I think espn.com did a piece during the season) that hitters are trying to beat the shift by putting the ball into the stands, but certainly someof the increased whiffs  have come as a result of hitters trying to go the opposite way as well.  I don't think there's anyway to deny this (or to confirm it

It's hard enough to hit see 97mph two seamer, an 87 mph slider, and an 83 mph changeup in a pitch sequence as it is, and the defensive shift has made it even harder because now a, a lot of the time, putting the bat on the ball and making hard contact is no longer enough.  

Limiting to one shift per inning (my idea, not sure if that's the proposed limit or not) seems reasonable, and could actually introduce new and interesting strategic elements into the game. 

The only question to me is: What would constitute a shift and what would be in the realm of regular defensive positioning?

[Orsulak4Prez]

I don't like the shift. I think it's cheap, but I think they should decide between allowing it or banning it. I think limiting is kinda dumb.

[Frobby]

1 minute ago, Orsulak4Prez said:

I don't like the shift. I think it's cheap, but I think they should decide between allowing it or banning it. I think limiting is kinda dumb.

By “limiting” I mean placing restrictions.     For example, nobody’s going to say the shortstop can’t move 10 feet to the right or left of straightaway.    But maybe they pass a rule saying neither the SS or 3B can play to the right of 2B.   That’s what I meant by “limiting.”