Do you support rules limiting defensive shifts?

[Roll Tide]

8 hours ago, jamalshw said:

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.

He would be whatever position that he's listed at on his line up card. If  he was  replaced the  inserted player becomes that guy.. same on a double switch. It's not that hard. In what scenario would you want your 1B or 3B playing in the spot of the SS or 2B. You wouldn't if you were required to have two guys on each side of second. 

IMO ...the rule would ge easy to inforce by the home plate umpire and could be subject to a challenge in the instance of a player moving before contact with the ball.

[thezeroes]

52 minutes ago, Roll Tide said:

He would be whatever position that he's listed at on his line up card.

So a Manager list two players as outfielders, one player as catcher , one player as first baseman and the other five as UTILITY PLAYERS.  Problem solved.

[Number5]

1 hour ago, Roll Tide said:

He would be whatever position that he's listed at on his line up card. If  he was  replaced the  inserted player becomes that guy.. same on a double switch. It's not that hard. In what scenario would you want your 1B or 3B playing in the spot of the SS or 2B. You wouldn't if you were required to have two guys on each side of second. 

IMO ...the rule would ge easy to inforce by the home plate umpire and could be subject to a challenge in the instance of a player moving before contact with the ball.

The lineup card is about the batting order, not the position in the field, with the exception of the pitcher and designated hitter being identified in any league playing under American League rules.  Otherwise, players can play anywhere in the field.  Whoever is pitching must do so from the pitchers plate and whoever is catching must be in the catchers box.  The other seven players must be in fair territory.  Those are the rules of baseball concerning defensive alignment.  Simple rules.  Let's keep it that way.

[BarclaySouthway]

6 hours ago, SteveA said:

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.

 

I guess we have to give the umps flags to throw on the field, too?  And if a guy flies out to the right field corner, but the SS was across the second base median, do they call it back?   And if the guys hits a homerun, I guess they just decline the penalty?  And the replays, oh Lord, the replays.  Yeah, that's what baseball needs more of --stoppage of play and replays:  the two worst things about football.

[Hallas]

12 hours 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'm not sure I follow - asking someone  to make a layup with Mutumbo in the paint is more like trying to hit into the shift and beat it anyway.  You beat players like Shaq/Mutumbo by chucking 3s, which is why true centers aren't as valued in today's game as stretch 4s and three point sharpshooters, and why Dirk Nowitzki still might have a job at age 40.  When a team has to defend 4 guys that can hit a 3, having Shaq (the 370 lb version that couldn't outrun Grandma) is a liability.  The same applies for hitters hitting it the other way.  I don't believe pitchers have a ton of directional control regarding balls in play - that's mostly on the hitter.  Otherwise shifts wouldn't occur on a hitter-to-hitter basis.  I'm fully aware that some current players may be screwed in the transition, but that's the way things shake sometimes.   The NBA took a long time to come up with a new scheme to counteract the influence of big men.  I'm almost certain that baseball will take less time than that.  Baseball has always found a way to adapt, either through new talent or through player adjustments,

[Roll Tide]

8 hours ago, Number5 said:

The lineup card is about the batting order, not the position in the field, with the exception of the pitcher and designated hitter being identified in any league playing under American League rules.  Otherwise, players can play anywhere in the field.  Whoever is pitching must do so from the pitchers plate and whoever is catching must be in the catchers box.  The other seven players must be in fair territory.  Those are the rules of baseball concerning defensive alignment.  Simple rules.  Let's keep it that way.

http://thaymanhinhhtcvn.com/43807-mlb-lineup-card/

 

Notice in the photo to the right of the players name is a column for position. Unless you've never seen a Lineup card I'd say your being argumentative???

Either way a manager would report changes to the home plate umpire as needed.

i know the rule ....I was just suggesting a possible change that was fairly simple. If you don't want to discuss it then just avoid the thread.

 

 

[Ohfan67]

So we will get four or five slow replay reviews per game to see if a violation occurred? If it’s reviewable then I would vote no. That will just slow things down. 

[Can_of_corn]

6 minutes ago, Ohfan67 said:

So we will get four or five slow replay reviews per game to see if a violation occurred? If it’s reviewable then I would vote no. That will just slow things down. 

Just wait until a team loses a game on a blown shift violation call.

[Number5]

4 hours ago, Roll Tide said:

http://thaymanhinhhtcvn.com/43807-mlb-lineup-card/

 

Notice in the photo to the right of the players name is a column for position. Unless you've never seen a Lineup card I'd say your being argumentative???

Either way a manager would report changes to the home plate umpire as needed.

i know the rule ....I was just suggesting a possible change that was fairly simple. If you don't want to discuss it then just avoid the thread.

 

 

The lineup card is about the batting order.  Changes in position that do not involve substitutions do not need to be reported to the umpire, with the exception of pitching change.  That is the rule.  Not being argumentative - stating fact.  I see lineup cards often, since I am an umpire.  It simply is not about the position.  I disagree with you.  Why  does that mean I can't post?  Discussion does not mean only agreeing with you.  You are welcome to your opinion.

EDIT to clarify:  Also, as an FYI, the 9 players listed on the lineup card ( 10 if there is a DH) must be the same players that start the game.  The player listed in position 1 must start as  the pitcher and remain there thru one completed at bat (unless he is injured).  A player listed as designated hitter may not play the  field.   There must be a properly equipped player in the catcher's box, although it doesn't necessarily have to be the player listed with position 2 on the lineup card.  The seven other players must be in fair territory, and none are required to stand any particular place, regardless of what position number is listed on  the lineup card.

[weams]

31 minutes ago, Ohfan67 said:

So we will get four or five slow replay reviews per game to see if a violation occurred? If it’s reviewable then I would vote no. That will just slow things down. 

I think any additional reviews need to be rejected. I am all for reviews to be limited more than they are now. 

[Can_of_corn]

2 minutes ago, weams said:

I think any additional reviews need to be rejected. I am all for reviews to be limited more than they are now. 

I think any additional rules need to be rejected.  I am all for rules to be limited more than they are now.

[mdbdotcom]

Limit the number of times a manager can move a fielder to the far side of 2B (based on the traditional view of the position) to two or three times per inning. That way a manager would have to pick his spots carefully. Give people more to gripe about their manager. Would encourage managers to build lineups with all their pull hitters stacked in a row.

Would be interesting to try for a week in spring training.

[Can_of_corn]

2 minutes ago, mdbdotcom said:

Limit the number of times a manager can move a fielder to the far side of 2B (based on the traditional view of the position) to two or three times per inning. That way a manager would have to pick his spots carefully. Give people more to gripe about their manager. Would encourage managers to build lineups with all their pull hitters stacked in a row.

Would be interesting to try for a week in spring training.

At bats or pitches?

[mdbdotcom]

8 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

At bats or pitches?

Shifts, no matter when they occur.

Also, you could let the manager buy more shifts (prior to the 8th inning) by giving up a strike for each additional shift. Example: in the 7th inning, a manager has used up free shifts, so he buys one for a strike and assigns that strike to a player due up in the next half inning.

[Can_of_corn]

2 minutes ago, mdbdotcom said:

Shifts, no matter when they occur.

Also, you could let the manager buy more shifts (prior to the 8th inning) by giving up a strike for each additional shift. Example: in the 7th inning, a manager has used up free shifts, so he buys one for a strike and assigns that strike to a player due up in the next half inning.

So if you had two left handed pull hitters in a row you could stay shifted and have it only count as one use of the shift?

If you are altering how you pitch a hitter and want to move your fielders to relect that you could use all three in one at bat?

This seems way more complicated than it needs to be (not that it needs to be at all).

And I think your buying shifts idea is an abomination.