MLB Lockout Thread

[btdart20]

The goal vs. outcome of banning the shift:  More hits but worse hitters.  More stats but less skill.  More runs but worse defense.

"Mickey Mantle adjusted." 

[Sports Guy]

1 hour ago, btdart20 said:

The goal vs. outcome of banning the shift:  More hits but worse hitters.  More stats but less skill.  More runs but worse defense.

"Mickey Mantle adjusted." 

There is some evidence that banning the shift is better for the sport.  I’m not sure if it makes much of a difference but in studying some stuff recently, evidence suggests it could be a good idea.

Im against the idea but I see more of a reason for it than before.

[Sports Guy]

Nightengale seems to think a deal is getting done.

 

[bleed orange and Black]

2 hours ago, btdart20 said:

The goal vs. outcome of banning the shift:  More hits but worse hitters.  More stats but less skill.  More runs but worse defense.

"Mickey Mantle adjusted." 

OK but what are they referring to by banning the shift? Is that going to include moving your 1st and 3rd basemen in on a bunt? How far are you going to be able to " shift " your outfield around depending on whether you want to cut the power alley down? Are they going to put a 6ft circle on the field at each position and all the players have to be in that Circle before every pitch?

[Moshagge3]

58 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

Nightengale seems to think a deal is getting done.

 

After last week, I'm just waiting for the tweet from an MLB source saying that MLBPA has all of a sudden changed its mind and is somehow refusing to take MLB's "amazing" offer.

[SteveA]

54 minutes ago, bleed orange and Black said:

OK but what are they referring to by banning the shift? Is that going to include moving your 1st and 3rd basemen in on a bunt? How far are you going to be able to " shift " your outfield around depending on whether you want to cut the power alley down? Are they going to put a 6ft circle on the field at each position and all the players have to be in that Circle before every pitch?

Most proposals I have heard require 2 infielders on each side of second base.

[jabba72]

8 minutes ago, SteveA said:

Most proposals I have heard require 2 infielders on each side of second base.

I think thats appropriate.

[forphase1]

13 minutes ago, SteveA said:

Most proposals I have heard require 2 infielders on each side of second base.

And that's pretty simple to judge and enforce.  Certainly don't want to get into how deep in the outfield or infield grass they can go or anything else.  I'm not sure I like outlawing the shift really, but if they do I hope it's in as simple a way as possible.

[waroriole]

 

[Can_of_corn]

2 minutes ago, forphase1 said:

And that's pretty simple to judge and enforce.  Certainly don't want to get into how deep in the outfield or infield grass they can go or anything else.  I'm not sure I like outlawing the shift really, but if they do I hope it's in as simple a way as possible.

To me it's stifling innovation.  I also enjoy when the shift fails in spectacular fashion because..baseball.

[waroriole]

6 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

To me it's stifling innovation.  I also enjoy when the shift fails in spectacular fashion because..baseball.

I hate regulating this kind of thing. I’ve held out hope for years that hitters would adapt and learn to go the other way or drop down bunts. But the game is boring with all the “innovation.”  It’s strikeouts galore and swinging for the fences. Maybe guys will stop trying to hit everything over the shift and we can get some sort of return to normalcy. 

[forphase1]

2 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

To me it's stifling innovation.  I also enjoy when the shift fails in spectacular fashion because..baseball.

Yeah, like I said I'm not sure I like outlawing the shift.  On the one hand, I certainly want to see more hits and baserunners and few things are more frustrating than seeing a completely empty left side of the infield and the batter still hits it right at someone on the right.  I can't say how many times I was yelling at a Chris Davis or whoever to just lay down a bunt to slap a weak grounder up the left/middle where no one could get to it.  I mainly lean on the side of demanding the hitters to adjust to the shift, but I think it's been made pretty clear over the past few years that hitters are not going to change their approach, even when they should.  So I'm really torn on the issue and see both sides of it.  

[Can_of_corn]

5 minutes ago, waroriole said:

I hate regulating this kind of thing. I’ve held out hope for years that hitters would adapt and learn to go the other way or drop down bunts. But the game is boring with all the “innovation.”  It’s strikeouts galore and swinging for the fences. Maybe guys will stop trying to hit everything over the shift and we can get some sort of return to normalcy. 

Deaden the ball so that guys without real power don't get optimal results from using a TTO strategy.

Seems better than getting rid of something that's been in the game for a century.

[waroriole]

 

[forphase1]

6 minutes ago, waroriole said:

 

That's movement in the players direction, but I'm guessing that $40M pool is still a bit low.  Should probably be in the $70Mish area, but I think the player pool it's given to is smaller also in the owners proposal, so I'm not sure.  Just get it done.