Do you support rules limiting defensive shifts?

[mdbdotcom]

13 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

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.

Thanks for your continuing support! 

[Can_of_corn]

2 minutes ago, mdbdotcom said:

Thanks for your continuing support! 

One can be supportive by offering criticism.

 

[mdbdotcom]

4 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

One can be supportive by offering criticism.

 

Should I have added a smiley face?

[Can_of_corn]

3 minutes ago, mdbdotcom said:

Should I have added a smiley face?

No, I knew what you meant.

Should I have added a winking face?

[mdbdotcom]

6 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

No, I knew what you meant.

Should I have added a winking face?

That would have been lovely, and especially out of character.

[TonySoprano]

Jayson Stark wrote an excellent article on this.  It's a long piece; these are a few highlights.

Quote

But would banning The Shift actually produce more guys running around the bases? We asked the bright minds from Sports Info Solutions to delve into that.

They looked at all “full shifts” – situations in which a team played three infielders on one side of second base.

Then they examined what would have happened if those teams had been forced to play a “partial shift” – in which the second baseman or shortstop would play as close to the middle as possible without crossing over.

Finally, they broke down every play in which a ground ball or short line drive was hit into a “full shift” – over the last three seasons and then just in 2018.

Here is what they found:

YEAR(S)	BALLS INTO SHIFT	HITS*	WOULD HAVE BEEN HITS
2016-18	22,971	5,181	6,317
2018	9,096	2,034	2,551

They also broke down those results this way:

YEAR(S)	AVG. VS FULL SHIFT*	AVG. VS PARTIAL SHIFT**
2016-18	.226	.275
2018	.224	.280

(* – versus three infielders on one side of second base)
(** – if there had been two infielders on each side, with one up the middle)

Quote

So what is all that telling us? They’re onto something, that’s what. There would absolutely be more guys running around the bases if baseball were to limit The Shift. As in, about 500 more hits per season (most of them singles) – and a 50-point jump in batting average on ground balls and short liners.

Quote

We asked Sports Info Solutions to run that study above just on left-handed hitters. And, surprise! The left-handed numbers versus full and partial shifts weren’t much different than the overall numbers.

2016-2018
Grounders/short liners into full shifts: 16,190
Actual hits in those situations: 3,502 (.216 batting average)
Expected hits if partial shifts: 4,322 (.267 batting average)

2018 only
Grounders/short liners into full shifts: 6,185
Actual hits in those situations: 1,323 (.214 batting average)
Expected hits if partial shifts: 1,684 (.272 batting average

Quote

But now the bad news: The goal here would be to create more “action,” right? And 500 more ground-ball hits a year sounds like a lot. But guess what? That isn’t exactly going to turn baseball into an arcade game.

Remember, those 500 extra hits would be spread over about 2,400 games. So let’s do the math. That only comes to three extra hits, in the entire sport, per night. For the average team, it’s about 17 more hits a season. That’s not even three extra hits per team per month.

Also remember that almost all of those hits would be singles. 

His conclusion is basically make the change for the sake of showing baseball is open to change.   It's also possible that it will run against MLB's obsession with game times.

Quote

So maybe banning The Shift wouldn’t fix baseball. Maybe it wouldn’t have as dramatic an effect on offense as some people think. Maybe it would even make games longer, not shorter. But maybe it would also send a message that baseball needs to send: It’s time to change.

 

[mdbdotcom]

As long as we're going to change the game, why not add another base?

[Can_of_corn]

28 minutes ago, TonySoprano said:

Jayson Stark wrote an excellent article on this.  It's a long piece; these are a few highlights.

His conclusion is basically make the change for the sake of showing baseball is open to change.   It's also possible that it will run against MLB's obsession with game times.

 

So they should make a bad change just to prove that they can change?

[BarclaySouthway]

1 minute ago, Can_of_corn said:

So they should make a bad change just to prove that they can change?

It's a change that tries to change things back to the way they used to be.  A change to undo change.  Which is designed to show that the game is open to change.

I hope that clears things up a little.

[Can_of_corn]

2 minutes ago, BarclaySouthway said:

It's a change that tries to change things back to the way they used to be.  A change to undo change.  Which is designed to show that the game is open to change.

I hope that clears things up a little.

Didn't adding replay show that they were open to change?

 

I'm all for changing things if they need to be changed but no one has come close to proving to me that this is a problem that needs to be addressed.

How about they add an electronic strike zone instead?  That would be a change that could actually change a lot of things.

[Number5]

Require catchers to tell the hitter what pitch is coming.  Yeah, that's the ticket!

[Roll Tide]

6 hours ago, Number5 said:

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.

And I've been a certified NFHS high school softball official. So I think nderstand how to read a line up card. I understand MLB rules and I know that they want to make an adjustment....this the conversation.

No sense arguing that things should be left alone because. Change is likely coming. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing that a change needs to be made.

I suggested a rule change that seems simple and holds 2 infielders to ge on each side of second. It would be easy to police by umpires and MLB officials.

I said you could challenge...but all they really need is a box official or one per game in New York to watch such things and call a violation to. The crew chief if it's committed.

The cost to MLB is negligible and won't cause a long challenge. 

[SteveA]

1 hour ago, Roll Tide said:

And I've been a certified NFHS high school softball official. So I think nderstand how to read a line up card. I understand MLB rules and I know that they want to make an adjustment....this the conversation.

No sense arguing that things should be left alone because. Change is likely coming. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing that a change needs to be made.

I suggested a rule change that seems simple and holds 2 infielders to ge on each side of second. It would be easy to police by umpires and MLB officials.

I said you could challenge...but all they really need is a box official or one per game in New York to watch such things and call a violation to. The crew chief if it's committed.

The cost to MLB is negligible and won't cause a long challenge. 

So if there is a violation, is the play negated after the fact?   Pitch is thrown as an infielder is moving towards the line, a judgement call is that he went over the line or not.

Because even if infielders aren't allowed to be on the other side of 2nd base before the play, they certainly will be moving in that direction if that is where they should optimally be.

Is the result of the play negated only if the ball is put in play?  Can't just do that as a blanket rule, what if the hitting team likes the result?

Or does the hitting team have the right to decide whether they want the result of the play to stand?    So a manager has to decide if a flyout to RF with a runner advancing to 3rd is a good enough result to let stand or he asks that hte batter go back to the plate.   Down 3 in the 9th he might even negate a sac fly  and take the run off the board so the batter gets another chance to get on and bring the tie run to the plate.

If the ball isn't put in play what happens?  Automatic ball?  Or does it only matter if the pitch was put in play?

You say it's simple, I just don't think it's that simple.

[weams]

5 hours ago, Can_of_corn said:

Didn't adding replay show that they were open to change?

 

I'm all for changing things if they need to be changed but no one has come close to proving to me that this is a problem that needs to be addressed.

How about they add an electronic strike zone instead?  That would be a change that could actually change a lot of things.

I'd love an electronic strike zone, three throws to a base during an at bat, three mound visits without a pitching change or injury. I love a pitch clock and, since Ortiz is gone, ejection for stepping out without permission. 

[FanSince88]

On 12/6/2018 at 6:05 PM, Frobby said:

Jeff Sullivan’s view:  https://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/banning-the-shift-is-a-solution-in-search-of-a-problem/

TL;DR BABIP has stayed the same despite the increased shifts.  Overall balls in play are down but it that would seem to be a secondary outcome of the shifts if it even is related.  Lower balls in play probably more dictated by more strikeout-oriented pitchers and less pitch-to-contact guys.