Banning the shift.........taking back baseball from the stat geeks and having a more entertaining game.

[Can_of_corn]

Just now, Lurker said:

I've no problem with that.

However, I'm still not certain what problem (potentially) shaving 15 or 20 minutes off a game is going to solve? More people in the park? More eyeballs on the TV? More opportunities to run commercials?

What problem is this solving for MLB?

I think for a lot of folks a game that is on average 15-20 minutes shorter is more appealing both to see in person and on television.

I get no enjoyment out of watching a pitcher circle the mound or a hitter adjust his gloves.

[Tony-OH]

2 hours ago, Can_of_corn said:

Yes nothing more fun than watching guys try to pull everything.

Too much strategy that's what is wrong with the game.

Also geek is a pejorative term.

Stttaahhhhhppppppp!

We don't do that offended over everything here and you know that. Stat geek has been a term used for years. I'm proud of being a statgeek! 

[Aristotelian]

1 hour ago, Can_of_corn said:

I say we take away the glove.

Cricket style

[Tony-OH]

1 hour ago, Lurker said:

I've never considered baseball to be boring, particularly if one understands and appreciates the nuances of the game.

Whether MLB changes the baseball year to year, or introduces rule changes (for whatever justification) is ultimately irrelevant to me as a fan.

The big question to me is:  What problem(s) (real or perceived) is MLB trying to solve by all of this tinkering?

Is it to reduce player injuries?

Is it control of player compensation? (IE: Using a live or dead ball for a given season affecting ERA or BA.)

Is it improving in person attendance at games?

Is it increasing TV revenue or advertising revenue?

I'm not clear what problems all of the recent tinkering is trying to fix?

What a novel approach. Solve for a problem rather than just change things for change. 

[Can_of_corn]

Just now, Aristotelian said:

Cricket style

I've seen some sweet cricket catches over the years.

If I could watch T20 matches for free I would.

[Gurgi]

1 hour ago, Lurker said:

I've no problem with that.

However, I'm still not certain what problem (potentially) shaving 15 or 20 minutes off a game is going to solve? More people in the park? More eyeballs on the TV? More opportunities to run commercials?

What problem is this solving for MLB?

It all has to do with money.  MLB has done studies and polls.  It seems the young people who grew up on video games and the internet have a fairly low attention span.  They have known for years many fans have been moaning about dead time and how long games take.   

I think if MLB didnt see the sport slowly losing revelance to the next generation they wouldnt make any changes at all.   Its why MLB is pushing all the young players so much in the media.  Trying to excite young people.  

[oriole]

What’s interesting about the shift is that it’s not an extra fielder out there. There is literally a wide open hole to the left for a hitter to smack a ball through or even *gasp* learn to bunt effectively. 
 

What would be more interesting to me is a change in approach by teams to find players that can consistently beat the shift rather than employ players who either strike out, homer, or hit into the shift. Changing the rules is a cop-out IMO. 
 

I have no doubt I’ll get used to it and won’t feel too much about it one way or the other. The first year they made the plate blocking rule, I hated it. Now I’m indifferent. It’s surprising what a person will get used to with some time if they’re powerless to stop it. 

Edited September 20, 2022 by oriole

[DrungoHazewood]

4 hours ago, Gurgi said:

Well at least I expect a league rise in batting averages next year.   At least ten points.....maybe fifteen.....twenty points would shock me but it would be welcomed my me.  

I lived my life expecting league average batting to be around .260-.264.   This year it is .245.  That is just horrible product for the consumer.  

90% of that is the strikeouts.  When the league strikes out once per team per inning it's almost impossible to hit .265.  Banning the shift will probably raise batting averages a few points.  But until they get strikeouts back to 5-6 per nine the league isn't going to hit like it's 1990.  To lower the strikeouts the pitching distance needs to be about 63' or 65'.

[DrungoHazewood]

3 hours ago, owknows said:

I'm sure we'd see averages jump quite a bit if we banned pitches that exceed 85 mph.

I wouldn't love that either.

Hopefully they move the pitching distance back, which will accomplish the same thing much more effectively.

[AnythingO's]

I for one don't care if averages improve somewhat or flawed players like Davis are somewhat less flawed by banning the shift. I think Lurker nailed it, "what problem are we trying to solve?". I do NOT think baseball is boring, this decade or ay decade in my 50+ years of fandom. I think soccer is but I am old and wasn't raised on it. My current lady friend and her son are German so I am trying to share their enthusiasm. Back to the point, I would support requiring 2 IF players on either side of 2B. Stand on the bag if you want. I would prefer for the Orioles to have 9 bats capable of going the other way, take what they give you. The rest can follow after we prove the concept.

[DrungoHazewood]

3 hours ago, Lurker said:

I've never considered baseball to be boring, particularly if one understands and appreciates the nuances of the game.

Whether MLB changes the baseball year to year, or introduces rule changes (for whatever justification) is ultimately irrelevant to me as a fan.

The big question to me is:  What problem(s) (real or perceived) is MLB trying to solve by all of this tinkering?

Is it to reduce player injuries?

Is it control of player compensation? (IE: Using a live or dead ball for a given season affecting ERA or BA.)

Is it improving in person attendance at games?

Is it increasing TV revenue or advertising revenue?

I'm not clear what problems all of the recent tinkering is trying to fix?

To make the game more interesting.  To reduce the amount of time where you have seven fielders drifting off to sleep because the ball's never in play.  To take it back to the way it was meant to be and as it was played for more than a century, as a sport that typically takes two hours or so. To allow my children, aged 15 and 14 to finally, for the first time in their lives, to have fighting chance to see a 9th inning of a weekday game before going to bed.

Any reasonable organization regularly looks at its weaknesses and proposes improvements.  For a long time baseball has looked at its weaknesses and proclaimed that they were really strengths and that the fans who were leaving didn't really understand baseball.  I'm not a fan of banning the shift, but I'm very happy that they've finally gotten out of their 100 year rut of proclaiming every bug to be a feature and hoping nobody notices they're full of it.

Edited September 20, 2022 by DrungoHazewood

[DrungoHazewood]

5 minutes ago, AnythingO's said:

I for one don't care if averages improve somewhat or flawed players like Davis are somewhat less flawed by banning the shift. I think Lurker nailed it, "what problem are we trying to solve?". I do NOT think baseball is boring, this decade or ay decade in my 50+ years of fandom. I think soccer is but I am old and wasn't raised on it. My current lady friend and her son are German so I am trying to share their enthusiasm. Back to the point, I would support requiring 2 IF players on either side of 2B. Stand on the bag if you want. I would prefer for the Orioles to have 9 bats capable of going the other way, take what they give you. The rest can follow after we prove the concept.

You're like the frog in the pot of water slowly brought to a boil and never noticed until it's too late.  If you've been watching baseball for 50 years you started on a game that took about 2:30 to finish and now they've stretched that to nearly 3:15 by adding dead time.  There's exactly the same amount of baseball now as in 1972, but it just takes 30% longer.

In 1920 a typical game was 2:00.  Same thing, no more baseball today, just 1:15 of standing around. Don't let anybody tell you it's better for it.

Edited September 20, 2022 by DrungoHazewood

[DrungoHazewood]

1 hour ago, Gurgi said:

It all has to do with money.  MLB has done studies and polls.  It seems the young people who grew up on video games and the internet have a fairly low attention span.  They have known for years many fans have been moaning about dead time and how long games take.   

I think if MLB didnt see the sport slowly losing revelance to the next generation they wouldnt make any changes at all.   Its why MLB is pushing all the young players so much in the media.  Trying to excite young people.  

It's funny that the old folks talk about the microscopic attention spans of the video game kids, but then expect everyone to sit through baseball games that average over an hour longer than they were when my grandfather was young.  I guess those whippersnappers from 1927 didn't know what they were missing when the pitcher just got the ball and pitched, and the batter actually stayed in the box and hit.

[AnythingO's]

Ribit, ribit, so Drungo, what is your point? I would like pitch clocks, restricted throws to 1B so potentially more steals, heck I would support moving the mound back some to reduce pitcher's strikeout advantage. There are a myriad of proposed ways to speed up the game. I for one love the tension of a pitchers duel and a runner on base that is a real threat. I loved the Roberts-Markakis ABs when Brian was on base and Nick was just waiting for something to put a bat on to move him more than 1 base. I loved the old Cardinals because speed kills.   

[Frobby]

2 hours ago, Gurgi said:

It all has to do with money.  MLB has done studies and polls.  It seems the young people who grew up on video games and the internet have a fairly low attention span.  They have known for years many fans have been moaning about dead time and how long games take.   

I think if MLB didnt see the sport slowly losing revelance to the next generation they wouldnt make any changes at all.   Its why MLB is pushing all the young players so much in the media.  Trying to excite young people.  

I’ve been watching baseball for nearly six decades.   There’s no question at all that the pace of play today is much, much slower than it was when baseball was more popular.   The time limits now being imposed by rule wouldn’t have impacted a game at all in the 1960’s and 70’s because pitchers and hitters didn’t dilly dally around the way they do today. So far as I’m concerned, these changes are long overdue.