Do you support rules limiting defensive shifts?

[jamalshw]

3 hours 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. 

 

I'm generally against such rules because of how difficult it would be to truly legislate. For instance, the rules you state about a 1B and 3B being on the outside of their respective middle infielder is tough. Could a manager just then say "He's the 2B for this play" to move him on the other side? Likewise, a SS cannot be any further right than the 2B bag? Okay, he's an extra OF and we're going 3 INF. To combat that, you need a rule limiting the INF and OF to the standard 4/3 split. And such rules have trickle effects to cover all eventualities. Even saying no more than two infielders on either side gets into that outfield issue. After all, on most shifts the 2B (or 3B depending on who a team plays it) is essentially a RFer when its all said and done.

I'm not opposed to the idea of limiting shifts, but the practice of it just because I've yet to see a true proposal that would feasibly work without it being too overbearing.

[Orsulak4Prez]

1 hour ago, Frobby said:

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.”

My bad. I thought you meant something like "you get 3 shifts per game". I'm very conflicted on this topic. I personally don't like the shift, but it does allow another strategic element, so I can see the argument for it. I could get behind some limitation.

[Satyr3206]

4 hours ago, Frobby said:

 

 

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.    

I always laugh when I see players that never choke up, never hit up the middle, or adjust their stance. And as a hitter it is actually easier to hit in a certain direction than hit for power because you have more bat control. My thoughts and outlook on hitting is derived from the Rogers Hornsby, Ted Williams approach. Which includes strike zone awareness and the ability to hit the ball where it is pitched at times. Although Hornsby did that more than Williams.

And yes when I played guys threw 90+ and had curves, sliders, and changes. They even had splitters, aka a forkball, screwballs, knucklers, etc. Back then there were no analytics per say. They were called stats then. We even had cars to get to games, lol.

[Pheasants]

I'm only in favor of a simple rule:  Must be two infielders on either side of the second base bag.  (If we state it as two, then you can't call a shifted player a 4th outfielder.) You can play the SS one foot over from right behind the bag and put the 3B in the SS spot; it's still quite a shift.

[NCRaven]

I would not ban shifts.  But, I would ban the use of any on field aids like notes or even a digital device by players during the game.  Having coaches position players is okay with me but I don’t like seeing players pull notes out of their pockets between and even during at bats.

[Hallas]

50 minutes ago, Satyr3206 said:

I always laugh when I see players that never choke up, never hit up the middle, or adjust their stance. And as a hitter it is actually easier to hit in a certain direction than hit for power because you have more bat control. My thoughts and outlook on hitting is derived from the Rogers Hornsby, Ted Williams approach. Which includes strike zone awareness and the ability to hit the ball where it is pitched at times. Although Hornsby did that more than Williams.

And yes when I played guys threw 90+ and had curves, sliders, and changes. They even had splitters, aka a forkball, screwballs, knucklers, etc. Back then there were no analytics per say. They were called stats then. We even had cars to get to games, lol.

There's a (pretty convincing, in my opinion) argument to be made that choking up doesn't really do anything that changing your bat couldn't do.  Given the ease of acquiring new equipment at the pro level, I would imagine that most players would opt for getting a new bat.  If you need to choke up on a 29 or 30 ounce bat, either you've got arms longer than an NBA center, or maybe you just need to hit the weight room, or maybe you don't belong in MLB.

Also, I'd probably argue that when the players themselves have honed their skills to play a particular way over thousands of hours of practice, it's kind of hard for them (especially for players over 25-28) to suddenly change their hitting mechanics without having some negative effects on their performance.  Sure, given enough time it's possible, but baseball at the Major League level isn't exactly a sport/league that gives players a lot of time to figure things out.  (okay, maybe unless you signed a 7 year 150+ million dollar contract despite being a TTO first baseman with terrible aging comparables...)

edit to add:  I am against changing the rules to ban shifts.  Even if that screws players in the current era over, players will adapt.  The "meta" will force incoming players to adapt and adjust, or be left behind.  We will likely see younger batters being taught how to use the whole field (a skill that was scoffed at during 90s and early 2000s era Moneyball) which will neutralize the shift.  And this will likely bring down HR and SO numbers as well.  Let the game evolve on its own.  I don't think the NFL's constant tinkering with the rules is a service to the sport, and I don't think that MLB should follow their example for quick fixes to a problem that doesn't involve player safety, and will solve itself given enough time.

[Camden_yardbird]

Ted William's could do it.

Rod Carew could do it.

Roger Hornsby could do it.

Tony Gwynn could do it.

Any MLB average or above average player should able to go the other way.

Who else sees the flaw in this logic?

[LookinUp]

Premise: Defensive shifts are suppressing runs and changing the game, therefore we should make a rule banning them.

Flawed response: Hold on. Maybe we can make a moderate rule to limit the number of shifts.

Better response: Tough S**t. Rules stink, we shouldn't make more. Be smarter when you build a team. 

Before I could support any changes, I'd first have to know there's a problem. Runs scored have been lower than the aughts, but aren't in crisis mode IMO. Moreover, i haven't seen data showing that the shift prevents a massive number of runs. It surely prevents some runs, I just don't know the scale. If MLB really believes it has a run scoring crisis, it should consider other changes first. Lower the mound again. Hell, move it back 6-12 inches for all I care. However, telling a team that they're not allowed to be smarter than other teams is the wrong way to go.

[joelala]

59 minutes ago, Hallas said:

There's a (pretty convincing, in my opinion) argument to be made that choking up doesn't really do anything that changing your bat couldn't do.  Given the ease of acquiring new equipment at the pro level, I would imagine that most players would opt for getting a new bat.  If you need to choke up on a 29 or 30 ounce bat, either you've got arms longer than an NBA center, or maybe you just need to hit the weight room, or maybe you don't belong in MLB.

Also, I'd probably argue that when the players themselves have honed their skills to play a particular way over thousands of hours of practice, it's kind of hard for them (especially for players over 25-28) to suddenly change their hitting mechanics without having some negative effects on their performance.  Sure, given enough time it's possible, but baseball at the Major League level isn't exactly a sport/league that gives players a lot of time to figure things out.  (okay, maybe unless you signed a 7 year 150+ million dollar contract despite being a TTO first baseman with terrible aging comparables...)

edit to add:  I am against changing the rules to ban shifts.  Even if that screws players in the current era over, players will adapt.  The "meta" will force incoming players to adapt and adjust, or be left behind.  We will likely see younger batters being taught how to use the whole field (a skill that was scoffed at during 90s and early 2000s era Moneyball) which will neutralize the shift.  And this will likely bring down HR and SO numbers as well.  Let the game evolve on its own.  I don't think the NFL's constant tinkering with the rules is a service to the sport, and I don't think that MLB should follow their example for quick fixes to a problem that doesn't involve player safety, and will solve itself given enough time.

This is a great point and has changed my mind on the subject.

[Number5]

27 minutes ago, Camden_yardbird said:

Ted William's could do it.

Rod Carew could do it.

Roger Hornsby could do it.

Tony Gwynn could do it.

Any MLB average or above average player should able to go the other way.

Who else sees the flaw in this logic?

Ted Williams was a dead-pull hitter for whom the first shift was devised by Lou Boudreau.  He refused to change his swing and continued to pull shots to right successfully.

[SteveA]

So you draw a line and say a guy has to be on one side of it or the other, basically.   That's what all these proposals come down to in their most basic form.   The differences are where you put the lines and what restrictions you put.  

I assume they have to start on one side of it.   When the ball is hit, the guy can cross the line to field it, obviously.  

So there's really an element of time involved in it.   What about a fielder going in motion as soon as the pitch is released in anticipation oft he ball being hit there.   When can he cross the line?  After the pitch is released?   So it's not just a matter of a guy and a line.   It's a guy and a line and a time element.

So now you will have to have a replay determination of whether he crossed the line before the pitch was released.  Similar to a play I saw in football this weekend, where a 12th man was running off the field and they had a replay to determine if he had left the field of play before the ball was snapped.   When you think about it, isn't that kind of silly.   The guy knew he wasn't supposed to be in the play.   And whether it's a penalty or not is based on when he crossed the sideline with his back to the play.   You have to get to that level of silliness because you have defined a rule.  

And what does crossing the line mean?   Is it any part of his body?   Like a football crossing the plane of the goal?   Or is it all of his body (like an entire soccer ball having to be in the goal for the goal to count, saw one a couple weeks ago where about 1/8 of an inch of the edge of the ball hadn't crossed the plane of the front of the goal and it was NOT a goal).   So you have to define that too.   If his toe is on the other side of 2nd base, is he in violation?

So you have to define all this stuff, and then have to adjudicate it in close calls on replay challenges.

To me the shift is just defensive positioning on steroids.   It's a logical consequence of trying to optimize defensive positioning.   What's next?   Not allowing the outfielders to play too deep or too shallow?     I was at a game once where the O's had the bases loaded in extra innings with less than two outs.   The Angels brought in an outfielder to play infield to cut down on the gaps in the infield.    Mike Young hit it through for a walkoff single anyway.   But it was creative for the Angels to try that.    Shifts are just creative experiments in defensive positioning.

To me, if the main concern is that there isn't enough offense, why not just lower the mound an inch?   Why play with lines on the field and bring up a hornets' nest of questions as to whether a guy crossed the line fully before the pitch was released or was his foot an inch short of the line, or was all of his body across the line or just part of it.   Or did part of his body cross the line because he was running to cover 2nd on a steal attempt?     Because that's what you are going to get.   Modern technology and high definition cameras mean that you can get down practically to the atomic level these days.   It used to be that a first base ump determined  a play by watching the guy cross first and hearing the sound of the ball hit the back of the glove.   Now we can see exactly when the ball entered the sphere of the glove which is actually an infintesimal split second before it hits the back of the glove.   And I'm not sure it's a better game because of that.   Putting lines on the field and legislating defensive positioning seems absurd to me.

[Ohfan67]

They should explore a plethora of options. My suggestion: Every at bat a defender must lie on his belly until the ball is hit. For the first seven innings the defense picks the defender. After seventh inning the offense picks. 

[VaBird1]

1 hour ago, Camden_yardbird said:

Ted William's could do it.

Rod Carew could do it.

Roger Hornsby could do it.

Tony Gwynn could do it.

Any MLB average or above average player should able to go the other way.

Who else sees the flaw in this logic?

Bill Ripken could do it too 

[VaBird1]

2 hours ago, NCRaven said:

I would not ban shifts.  But, I would ban the use of any on field aids like notes or even a digital device by players during the game.  Having coaches position players is okay with me but I don’t like seeing players pull notes out of their pockets between and even during at bats.

I agree that takes away from the game.  

[drjohnnyfeva]

I voted to not change the rules.  I think the game and players adapt.  Plus, I'm fearful of detrimental changes to such a pure game.   I'm increasing shocked each year when the shift is on that batters don't "adapt" by taking what is given. 

 

Moreover, this is the same argument I have about pitchers who throw under 95...  Movement and placement is more valuable than velocity, imo.  Where is the next Greg Maddux?  Sitting on a bench someplace while the heaters are on the mound or maybe he's vacationing with his family at Walt Disney World after his HS coach told him 10 years ago, "Sorry kid, the bigs are interested in speed."

Things always turn around...