Who is excited for the shift to maybe, possibly come to an end?

[Balta1701]

1 minute ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

But in hockey, you can't position your players wherever you want.

In football, you can't position your players wherever you want

In basketball, you can't position your players wherever you want.

In soccer, you can't position your players wherever you want.

I Don't get why people think baseball should be different. There are rules in all other sports preventing some form of exploitative defensive/offensive practices related to positioning. I don't see why baseball should be any different.

I have no problem with "3 outfielders and 4 infielders should exist on every play". 

The idea of "drawing an invisible line at 2b and saying a defender can't cross it until a pitch is thrown so that the SS is always starting off moving to his left and the 2b is shifting as well" seems like it's going to just make things extra annoying to me and is more of a complication than I want to deal with. Plus, as noted above, I think in the long term it actually slows the game down more and increases the "3 true outcome" hitter abundance at the expense of more balanced guys.

[Look at Ray Ray Run]

1 hour ago, Harold's Leg Lift said:

I think banning the shift is ridiculous.  They're professional hitters.  Make an adjustment and if you can't they'll find someone who can.  I don't remember seeing it written anywhere that Joey Gallo has to be a major league baseball player.  If he can't get a hit with half the field open then maybe he's just a bad hitter.  The player adjusts to the game the game doesn't adjust to the player.  

In 2000, the average MLB batting average was 276.
In 2022, the average MLB batting average is 237.

In 2000, MLB teams averaged 5.14 runs per game.
In 2022, it's 4.3. 

2000 AVG OPS: 782
2022 avg OPS: 699

They're having a hard time finding "someone who can" and it's hurting the game. That's the problem, and positioning plays into it; obviously strike outs are up as well which doesn't help.

Edited June 8, 2022 by Look at Ray Ray Run

[Look at Ray Ray Run]

1 minute ago, Balta1701 said:

I have no problem with "3 outfielders and 4 infielders should exist on every play". 

The idea of "drawing an invisible line at 2b and saying a defender can't cross it until a pitch is thrown so that the SS is always starting off moving to his left and the 2b is shifting as well" seems like it's going to just make things extra annoying to me and is more of a complication than I want to deal with. Plus, as noted above, I think in the long term it actually slows the game down more and increases the "3 true outcome" hitter abundance at the expense of more balanced guys.

I said it earlier so don't wanna keep repeating, but playing the 2B in the OF and cutting off hits for lefties is unfair. Righties who pull the ball are not punished in a similar manner because you can't play in the outfield in left and make the throw to get the runner. 

I think it's fine that there's a left and right side of the infield with a set amount of players.

[Balta1701]

19 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

In 2000, the average MLB batting average was 276.
In 2022, the average MLB batting average is 237.

In 2000, MLB teams averaged 5.14 runs per game.
In 2022, it's 4.3. 

2000 AVG OPS: 782
2022 avg OPS: 699

They're having a hard time finding "someone who can" and it's hurting the game. That's the problem, and positioning plays into it; obviously strike outs are up as well which doesn't help.

What is the average fastball velocity in those 2 years, and what is the percentage of offspeed pitches thrown in those two years? What are the strikeout rates?

There's a reason why runs are down and it's not just the shifts. It's that the pitching is vastly tougher and the hitters physically cannot respond. The ones who used to be slap hittters who strike out 3% of the time now strike out 15% of the time - and those guys are now barely big leaguers compared to guys with moderate powr.
 

Edit: Oh, and 2000 also had one other fairly significant factor affecting offense that I forgot. It often involved needles.

[Paulie4Pres]

4 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

In 2000, the average MLB batting average was 276.
In 2022, the average MLB batting average is 237.

In 2000, MLB teams averaged 5.14 runs per game.
In 2022, it's 4.3. 

2000 AVG OPS: 782
2022 avg OPS: 699

They're having a hard time finding "someone who can" and it's hurting the game. That's the problem, and positioning plays into it; obviously strike outs are up as well which doesn't help.

They could just go back to using the juiced ball... That seemed to work fine. My concern with "banning the shift" is in how badly the MLB is going to fuck this up. I mean, how do you even begin to regulate where players can, and cannot be? If it's just getting rid of the extreme shifts that are an abomination, I'm all for it. But who knows what they are going to do.

Also, it's interesting you chose the year 2000, which was almost a total outlier.

[Look at Ray Ray Run]

20 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

What is the average fastball velocity in those 2 years, and what is the percentage of offspeed pitches thrown in those two years? What are the strikeout rates?

There's a reason why runs are down and it's not just the shifts. It's that the pitching is vastly tougher and the hitters physically cannot respond. The ones who used to be slap hittters who strike out 3% of the time now strike out 15% of the time - and those guys are now barely big leaguers compared to guys with moderate powr.
 

Edit: Oh, and 2000 also had one other fairly significant factor affecting offense that I forgot. It often involved needles.

You can't make people throw softer, or fewer off-speed pitches. I mentioned strikeout rates already.

You can change the way defense has been exploited. No one said it was just shifts; shifts are just one area that the rules of the game can actually adjust to.

[chitownsportsfan]

32 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

I said it earlier so don't wanna keep repeating, but playing the 2B in the OF and cutting off hits for lefties is unfair. Righties who pull the ball are not punished in a similar manner because you can't play in the outfield in left and make the throw to get the runner. 

I think it's fine that there's a left and right side of the infield with a set amount of players.

So, it's not fair to RHB that they have to run an extra 5 feet to 1st base. It's not fair to LHB that they have to throw right handed if they want to play anywhere other than 1B in the infield.

"Fairness" arguments don't hold any water as "fairness" as a goal is silly. Now, if you want to talk about aesthetic reasons I'm open. There is an argument that advanced shifting, based on data that simply wasn't available even 15 years ago, makes the game worse for viewing.

Edited June 8, 2022 by chitownsportsfan

[Look at Ray Ray Run]

8 minutes ago, Paulie4Pres said:

They could just go back to using the juiced ball... That seemed to work fine. My concern with "banning the shift" is in how badly the MLB is going to fuck this up. I mean, how do you even begin to regulate where players can, and cannot be? If it's just getting rid of the extreme shifts that are an abomination, I'm all for it. But who knows what they are going to do.

Also, it's interesting you chose the year 2000, which was almost a total outlier.

The rule has been pretty well laid out. You can only have two guys on one side of the second base bag. That doesn't mean you can't suddenly play up the middle. It prevents 2B from lining up 30 feet into the outfield and snagging missiles to throw the runner out at 2B. 

[Balta1701]

1 minute ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

You can't make people throw softer, or fewer off-speed pitches. I mentioned strikeout rates already.

You can change the way defense has been exploited. No one said it was just shifts; shifts are just one area that the rules of the game can actually adjust to.

But it's totally, completely, and utterly unfair and misleading to say "hmm offense has gone down, let's ban shifts to help offense" when strikeout rates have done that.

[Paulie4Pres]

1 minute ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

The rule has been pretty well laid out. You can only have two guys on one side of the second base bag. That doesn't mean you can't suddenly play up the middle. It prevents 2B from lining up 30 feet into the outfield and snagging missiles to throw the runner out at 2B. 

Do you have a link to details on this? I haven't seen it yet.

[Balta1701]

1 minute ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

The rule has been pretty well laid out. You can only have two guys on one side of the second base bag. That doesn't mean you can't suddenly play up the middle. It prevents 2B from lining up 30 feet into the outfield and snagging missiles to throw the runner out at 2B. 

At what point exactly can they start moving? Because if you have a bunch of 2b and SS running around behind the batter to move as the ball is being struck, you have an excellent distraction for the batter.

[Look at Ray Ray Run]

1 minute ago, chitownsportsfan said:

So, it's not fair to RHB that they have to run an extra 5 feet to 1st base. It's not fair to LHB that they have to throw right handed if they want to play anywhere other than 1B in the infield.

"Fairness" arguments don't hold any water as "fairness" as a goal is silly. Now, if you want to talk about aesthetic reasons I'm open. There is an argument that advanced shifting, based on data that simply wasn't available even 15 years ago, makes the game worse for viewing.

I get your points, but at the same time I think where the batters box is and the hand one throws with is unrelated to strategic implementation of other teams. Defense is a control that can be dictated. The batters box isn't. 

[Look at Ray Ray Run]

4 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

 But it's totally, completely, and utterly unfair and misleading to say "hmm offense has gone down, let's ban shifts to help offense" when strikeout rates have done that.

How is it unfair to point to one area that has affected the overall degradation of offense that was laid out in my post? At no point did I imply that it was only because of shifts that those numbers have regressed. There are obviously other areas that have led to it; probably with a much larger impact. 

Just like the elongation of games has been driven by multiple components - max effort, pitching changes, slow pitch pace, and beyond, but the pitch clock has had a positive affect in the minor leagues. Should we not implement a pitch clock because we didn't resolve the other issues? Of course not.

Edited June 8, 2022 by Look at Ray Ray Run

[Look at Ray Ray Run]

8 minutes ago, Paulie4Pres said:

Do you have a link to details on this? I haven't seen it yet.

"• A ban on infield shifts. Beginning in 2023, teams no longer will be allowed to have more than two infielders on one side of second base. Opening the field puts a premium on athleticism and incentivizes hitters to put the ball in play."

baseball is even discussing an outfield line to prevent OF'ers from playing super deep to cut off doubles and triples:

• A maximum depth for outfielders. Still in the planning stage, it may be tried in extended spring games this year, perhaps defined by a green arc painted in the grass. Initial research by MLB shows that for every 10 feet outfielders play shallower, the rate of doubles and triples increases by 2%. With analytics pushing outfielders deeper, the rate of doubles and triples has fallen 12% in 20 years.

https://www.si.com/mlb/2022/04/12/baseball-radical-changes-coming#:~:text=A ban on infield shifts,put the ball in play.&text=A maximum depth for outfielders.

 

[Look at Ray Ray Run]

9 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

At what point exactly can they start moving? Because if you have a bunch of 2b and SS running around behind the batter to move as the ball is being struck, you have an excellent distraction for the batter.

I'm not too worried about infielders sprinting to another side of the base during the pitch (pretty sure that would be squashed, for one, and I greatly doubt the effectiveness of that strategy). Defense is reactionary, if you're moving before the ball is hit, you're never going to be in a very good defensive or reactionary position. 

[Tony]

37 minutes ago, Paulie4Pres said:

They could just go back to using the juiced ball... That seemed to work fine. My concern with "banning the shift" is in how badly the MLB is going to fuck this up. I mean, how do you even begin to regulate where players can, and cannot be? If it's just getting rid of the extreme shifts that are an abomination, I'm all for it. But who knows what they are going to do.

Also, it's interesting you chose the year 2000, which was almost a total outlier.

As Ray Ray mentioned previously, every sport has these rules in place, baseball doesn't have to be any different. And as meatball as this take may be...I don't hate a rule that gets baseball back to how it was designed to be played. There have obviously been incredible advancements in both technology and athlete makeup from when the sport was created, but at its core, baseball is still played on a diamond with specific positions designated for where a "shortstop" plays compared to a "second baseman" and I don't hate the game trying to get back to that original design. 

[Balta1701]

36 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

"• A ban on infield shifts. Beginning in 2023, teams no longer will be allowed to have more than two infielders on one side of second base. Opening the field puts a premium on athleticism and incentivizes hitters to put the ball in play."

baseball is even discussing an outfield line to prevent OF'ers from playing super deep to cut off doubles and triples:

• A maximum depth for outfielders. Still in the planning stage, it may be tried in extended spring games this year, perhaps defined by a green arc painted in the grass. Initial research by MLB shows that for every 10 feet outfielders play shallower, the rate of doubles and triples increases by 2%. With analytics pushing outfielders deeper, the rate of doubles and triples has fallen 12% in 20 years.

https://www.si.com/mlb/2022/04/12/baseball-radical-changes-coming#:~:text=A ban on infield shifts,put the ball in play.&text=A maximum depth for outfielders.

 

We're literally painting arcs in grass now? Ugh.

[Texsox]

I'm for it. But to help out the defense I'd like to go full platoon. Like football, the most popular sport in America, put out an offense and a defense. There would be some two way players, but let's line up our best offense against your best defense and play ball. 

 

[Look at Ray Ray Run]

4 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

We're literally painting arcs in grass now? Ugh.

kind of like painting blue lines under ice, white lines on grass, and white lines on wood

[Eminor3rd]

14 hours ago, Chisoxfn said:

I just have to get it out there…I really hope MLB doesn’t mess this up. I can’t wait until the shift is gone and people have to play in the right spots and we can start awarding the best players for making plays and not the front office with the best algorithms. Let the players play. Bring back the advantage of defensive range in the middle infield. Make MLB greater again!!! 
 

PS: I can’t freaking wait. Like literally this will be amazing. Wish they could make it go into effect immediately vs they are playing this whole season with one final, majorly extreme version of the shift in the most pitching dominant season I have ever seen (and it isn’t really pitching dominant as it is great positioning robbing great hit after great hit. 
 

I also think this will help the Sox as there algorithms / inability to use the shift stinks. 

Obviously respect your opinion, but I think this is a weird argument. You could just as easily flip it and say the algorithms have led us to all-for-nothing power hitters who can only pull the ball, thus making the shift a good idea in the first place. The shift, if it really works as well as it’s supposed to, is the one thing that should incentivize players to need to be more complete hitters, more able to put the ball in play, more versatile, etc.

I’m heavily in favor of the shift, because it’s a strategic move that has just as many costs as benefits. There’s a very clear and obvious way to counter it — it only seems “unfair” when the player at the plate isn’t good enough to beat it. Rather than an unfair/overpowered tactic, I see it as a natural CHECK on an unfair/overpowered tactic, which is training hitters to be able to ignore half of the game. Banning the shift would be like telling an NBA team they can’t play man to man defense on a team that’s doing nothing but shooting threes. You’re tying one hand behind the back of the defense to allow a one-dimensional offense to shine. 

If one team is exploiting an advantage, the other team should be able to counter with a change in strategy. The ability to set an extreme shift to counter an extreme hitter is balance, to me.

[lostfan]

3 hours ago, chitownsportsfan said:

I think it's bullshit. Hit it where they ain't. The game evolves. For years a turnaround 15 foot post up jumper was a 'good shot" and now it's not. So what if "hitting it up the middle" worked for 100 years, you're paid to make adjustments as a pro.

 

Well if we're talking about basketball the NBA changed illegal defense rules (as others have brought up) and banned hand checking because the pace of play and scoring volume was too low and it was becoming a problem. That opened up perimeter play so that guys could drive to the basket more often and the versatile guys who could do that while still being good from long range started to shine more, and eventually coaches started to find better ways to score than the traditional ways.

Anyway my point here is that aesthetically, the discussion of banning the shift is basically the same thing, offenses are starting to get flat and dull, and they're trying to bring some life back into it. "The hitters need to adjust" isn't a real solution, if that was it, then guys would've done that already.

[Chisoxfn]

6 minutes ago, lostfan said:

Well if we're talking about basketball the NBA changed illegal defense rules (as others have brought up) and banned hand checking because the pace of play and scoring volume was too low and it was becoming a problem. That opened up perimeter play so that guys could drive to the basket more often and the versatile guys who could do that while still being good from long range started to shine more, and eventually coaches started to find better ways to score than the traditional ways.

Anyway my point here is that aesthetically, the discussion of banning the shift is basically the same thing, offenses are starting to get flat and dull, and they're trying to bring some life back into it. "The hitters need to adjust" isn't a real solution, if that was it, then guys would've done that already.

This and what LRR has said. Plus - the analytics are really penalizing certain players, especially lefties and are complete inverse of how you develop and grow into hitting. I am sure after 10 years - with shifting occurring more aggressively at minor league levels and other levels - you might than see the league respond, but pretty difficult to do when you don't see extreme shifting until you get to the major league level.  And when you combine good pitching with extreme shifting and advanced analytics - you can really take the sails out of people who did what is extremely hard to do (crush the baseball).  Baseball always involves some luck -> but I want to see the best players play and I want to see the SS range up the hole and 2B do the same and make sick plays and I want to cheer when I immediately see off the TV a rip back up the middle (because on TV I didn't realize that there is a freaking 3rd infielder in the outfield grass behind 2B).  

I would also make stolen bases and hit and run metrics mandatory; If teams strike out 10 or more times in a single game - you lose an inning of offense. Okay - maybe not those last two items - but I would love to find ways to bring hit and runs, stolen bases and reduce strikeouts in the game as well (and I get it - some would argue that removal of the shift will lead to increase strikeouts but I don't see how that is the case -> with the shift people aren't changing their swing habits so I don't see why going the other way is going to do much - it isn't like strikeout numbers have been on the decline in the post "shift" era).  

[JoeC]

3 hours ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

But in hockey, you can't position your players wherever you want.

In football, you can't position your players wherever you want

In basketball, you can't position your players wherever you want.

In soccer, you can't position your players wherever you want.

I Don't get why people think baseball should be different. There are rules in all other sports preventing some form of exploitative defensive/offensive practices related to positioning. I don't see why baseball should be any different.

Can you give me the examples for hockey, football, and soccer, specifically for defense? As long as play is active, defensive players can go wherever they damn well please. There are restrictions on what they can or cannot do during said play, but there's nothing in the NHL rule book that theoretically prevents five defensive players to lay on top of each other and form a wall behind their goaltender.

Do I like the shift? No, but I think a movement to ban the shift (which goes back, albeit to a lesser degree, well beyond any of our lifetimes) seems like a shortsighted move without forcing teams / players to develop strategies and tactics to defeat them.

[Look at Ray Ray Run]

7 minutes ago, JoeC said:

Can you give me the examples for hockey, football, and soccer, specifically for defense? As long as play is active, defensive players can go wherever they damn well please. There are restrictions on what they can or cannot do during said play, but there's nothing in the NHL rule book that theoretically prevents five defensive players to lay on top of each other and form a wall behind their goaltender.

Do I like the shift? No, but I think a movement to ban the shift (which goes back, albeit to a lesser degree, well beyond any of our lifetimes) seems like a shortsighted move without forcing teams / players to develop strategies and tactics to defeat them.

Hockey you can't even enter a zone of the ice without the puck being there first. 

Soccer you can never be in front of the last line of defense as an offensive player and receive the ball.

Basketball you cannot stand in the lane without an offensive player around you for longer than 3 seconds.

In football, you cannot line up more than a certain amount of players on the line of scrimmage and only a certain kind of player is allowed to run past the line of scrimmage on pass plays.

As I noted in my post, other leagues enforce defensive/offensive positioning to limit exploitative practices. I don't really think there's much difference between doing it on offense or defense. You're just choosing to accept those sports restrictions on player locations or movements, while being critical of MLB's proposal and pretending they're not at all similar. I'd argue they're all predicated around the same thing.

Edited June 8, 2022 by Look at Ray Ray Run

[CentralChamps21]

Outside of the catcher and pitcher, I think the other seven guys should be allowed to line up anywhere in fair territory they want. It's up to the hitter to "hit it where they ain't"