New MLB Commish suggests ban on shifts

[balfanman]

I think that you could definitely increase the speed of the game and probably increase the amount of offense at the same time by simply shortening the amount of time between pitches and enforcing it. The pitcher and catcher have too much time between pitches to determine how to best attack a hitter, thus advantage pitcher. If the pitchers worked much faster and thought about what to throw and where to throw it less, you would give the hitter more of an advantage.

 

More runs scored, less strike outs and much faster games.

[Southwest Sider]

It's been interesting to see how many are opposed to an idea such as this! Very enlightening for me. What I am grasping is that the rulebook says that position players can play anywhere on the field, regardless of "designated position". So, designated position is almost an arbitrary thing to have. To me, it would be just as meaningful to say to an umpire "hey, this is the order my guys are batting and this guy is my DH or pitcher, and the rest of them are out there playing whatever position. Primarily they will stick to what they are good at, but sometimes you might see them move around out of their designated area."

 

These are the rules as we know it... but don't they seem a little... odd? Lets be real, perfection is not always achieved on your first go around, or your second, third, etc...

 

Take a look at double switches. A legal substitution tactic because of one rule. That a player can play anywhere on the field. So you can actually replace the pitcher with a position player, replace a position player with a pitcher, and then just have them "trade" defensive roles without consequence, all the while allowing the team double switching to gain an advantage in their lineup.

 

To me, if this commissioner wants to abolish extreme shifts, you also have to abolish the double switch. And I assume that would meet even more criticism then this suggestion because eliminating the double switch would probably hinder offense as much as abolishing extreme shifts would help offense.

 

Honestly, I'm really surprised that 99.9% of people not only hate this idea, but call it stupid, dumb and idiotic. I appreciate those that appreciate that a subject like this can be discussed, because frankly, in my mind, it's a topic that merits discussion in the very least. I don't find it to be stupid. I find it to be an intelligent thing to discuss and throw out into the community. I think that those who so vehemently oppose and resort to insulting the commissioner for even suggesting should take a look in the mirror. You can never be afraid to change the rulebook. Our sports as we know them are constantly evolving and rules that were made decades or centuries ago deserve to be revisited, whether they need to be changed or not.

[caulfield12]

It's been interesting to see how many are opposed to an idea such as this! Very enlightening for me. What I am grasping is that the rulebook says that position players can play anywhere on the field, regardless of "designated position". So, designated position is almost an arbitrary thing to have. To me, it would be just as meaningful to say to an umpire "hey, this is the order my guys are batting and this guy is my DH or pitcher, and the rest of them are out there playing whatever position. Primarily they will stick to what they are good at, but sometimes you might see them move around out of their designated area."

 

These are the rules as we know it... but don't they seem a little... odd? Lets be real, perfection is not always achieved on your first go around, or your second, third, etc...

 

Take a look at double switches. A legal substitution tactic because of one rule. That a player can play anywhere on the field. So you can actually replace the pitcher with a position player, replace a position player with a pitcher, and then just have them "trade" defensive roles without consequence, all the while allowing the team double switching to gain an advantage in their lineup.

 

To me, if this commissioner wants to abolish extreme shifts, you also have to abolish the double switch. And I assume that would meet even more criticism then this suggestion because eliminating the double switch would probably hinder offense as much as abolishing extreme shifts would help offense.

 

Honestly, I'm really surprised that 99.9% of people not only hate this idea, but call it stupid, dumb and idiotic. I appreciate those that appreciate that a subject like this can be discussed, because frankly, in my mind, it's a topic that merits discussion in the very least. I don't find it to be stupid. I find it to be an intelligent thing to discuss and throw out into the community. I think that those who so vehemently oppose and resort to insulting the commissioner for even suggesting should take a look in the mirror. You can never be afraid to change the rulebook. Our sports as we know them are constantly evolving and rules that were made decades or centuries ago deserve to be revisited, whether they need to be changed or not.

 

 

Think of it this way.

 

Would you like to see the baseball field with X's painted at seven positions on the field...with the fielders having to start each play in those positions?

 

Well, then you'd also have to outlaw the bunt, right? Because the suicide squeeze would work every time.

 

Just like in Little Leagues, you'd have faster teams who could take advantage of this setup to steal second base at will because the fielders wouldn't have quite enough time to cover.

 

The 1B woudln't be able to cover the bag to hold the runner, either. Middle infielders couldn't deke to the 2B bag because they'd have to remain in their positions.

 

Satchel Paige couldn't send his entire defense to the dugout with the exception of the catcher.

 

 

A new generation of hitters would be dunkers/dinkers like Boggs, Gwynn and Ichiro who time after time elude the infielders with their pinpoint placement of singles to the opposite field.

 

Outfielders wouldn't be able to cheat 5-10 steps in during the 9th inning to cut a potential runner down at the plate.

 

Pull hitters like Dunn and Ortiz could go back to playing their game, I suppose, and pick up 25-50 points on their batting averages.

 

Heck, you could go so far as to say the catcher couldn't set up on the inside or outside corner as he would have to start in the middle, directly behind the plate, yes? And he couldn't cheat up on a steal...etc.

 

Edited January 27, 2015 by caulfield12

[StrangeSox]

Banning shifting is impractical and idiotic.

 

That's all I have to add.

how would you even do it? have "zones" marked on the field where the different position players have to be in? or what? automatic walk?

[ptatc]

how would you even do it? have "zones" marked on the field where the different position players have to be in? or what? automatic walk?

Two infielders on each side of second base.

 

It's fairly simple. That eliminates overloading one side to take away a hitters tendencies. That is really what the shift is.

[Dick Allen]

how would you even do it? have "zones" marked on the field where the different position players have to be in? or what? automatic walk?

Invisible electric fences.

 

Seriously, how is this even a consideration? There have been shifts, not to the extreme they are now, all throughout baseball history. Ted Williams hit into a shift, and did pretty well. Infield in. That's a shift. Corners in close. That's a shift. CF shaded toward LF. That's a shift.

 

Strikeouts are what is killing offenses. For a while it was known as just like any other out, which is BS, and if you do put the ball in play, there are some odds it will become a hit. This is the generation where strikeouts didn't matter. Once this cycle is complete and an emphasis on making contact takes hold, the runs will return.

Edited January 27, 2015 by Dick Allen

[ptatc]

Invisible electric fences.

 

Seriously, how is this even a consideration? There have been shifts, not to the extreme they are now, all throughout baseball history. Ted Williams hit into a shift, and did pretty well. Infield in. That's a shift. Corners in close. That's a shift. CF shaded toward LF. That's a shift.

 

Strikeouts are what is killing offenses. For a while it was known as just like any other out, which is BS, and if you do put the ball in play, there are some odds it will become a hit. This is the generation where strikeouts didn't matter. Once this cycle is complete and an emphasis on making contact takes hold, the runs will return.

The shift in today's vernacular really refers to moving one player to the other side of the field not movement around inthe "usual" area.

 

So what your saying with the Ted Williams comparison is that since one of the gresatest hitters of all time can do it, all players can do it?

Edited January 27, 2015 by ptatc

[shysocks]

The suggestion someone brought up earlier of forcing relievers to face at least two hitters ( you could grant an exception if they get a GIDP to end an inning, for example) would be a better way to increase offense while actually making the game more interesting, not less interesting. It would also solve part of the time-of-game issue.

 

In some ways it's a rule change that is just as drastic but it would have more pleasant consequences than banning the shift.

[Dick Allen]

The shift in today's vernacular really refers to moving one player to the other side of the field not movement around inthe "usual" area.

 

So what your saying with the Ted Williams comparison is that since one of the gresatest hitters of all time can do it, all players can do it?

Baseball has been played this way forever. You can ignore numbers and say it is the reason scoring is down, but it is not. Again, if you have 3 guys on one side of the infield, there is one covering a lot of ground on the other. Learn to hit the ball to the other side of the field. It doesn't have to be hit hard. You do it a few times, your shift is gone. There is a reason radical shifts aren't used with runners on base very often. But look at Ted Williams's numbers. He had 3 guys on one side of the infield, and still pulled everything. Adam Dunn got the shift most times he was at the plate. The thing is, most of the time, you would have had the same result for him had they all shifted to the bench in the dugout. Cut down on the strikeouts. It's not just another out, like the guys playing today were told. Your batting average when you strikeout is .000. Your batting average when you put the ball in play is around .300.

Edited January 27, 2015 by Dick Allen

[ptatc]

Baseball has been played this way forever. You can ignore numbers and say it is the reason scoring is down, but it is not. Again, if you have 3 guys on one side of the infield, there is one covering a lot of ground on the other. Learn to hit the ball to the other side of the field. It doesn't have to be hit hard. You do it a few times, your shift is gone. There is a reason radical shifts aren't used with runners on base very often. But look at Ted Williams's numbers. He had 3 guys on one side of the infield, and still pulled everything. Adam Dunn got the shift most times he was at the plate. The thing is, most of the time, you would have had the same result for him had they all shifted to the bench in the dugout. Cut down on the strikeouts. It's not just another out, like the guys playing today were told. Your batting average when you strikeout is .000. Your batting average when you put the ball in play is around .300.

I don't diagree with the thought that it isn't the reason that scoring is down, necessarily. However, if it doesn't decrease scoring why are so many teams doing it and stats show it's effective?

 

To the other point, it is not easy to hit the ball the other way with authority (in my Nuke Laloosh accent). If it was it wouldn't be such a valued skill. There is one player there and if you just hit it lightly odds are they will get to it. The other aspect is money. Players do not get the big contracts by lightly hitting the ball the other way. The Slugging and home runs get the big contracts that is what players will do. Some of this comes from the SABR group showing research that a strikeout is the same as any other out and that bunting is not an efficient tool.

 

Again, I'm not disagreeing with you personally, I'm just saying theseare the way players think and what they are encouraged to do.

 

The only disagreement is that it is easy to hit the ball against the shift especially when there is no incentive to it.

[LDF]

 

but in all, what is being discuss was strategy that was develop to make the game more exciting by implementing this different strategy. what real harm does it do???

[greg775]

Exactly what I was coming to post. They want to increase scoring, and this is far less drastic than lowering the mounds or changing the baseballs or bats. Although, those changes probably wouldn't even be noticed by the average fan either.

 

I don't really mind if they eliminate shifts. It will make the game more exciting for those casual fans who think games can be boring. Another positive would be it will help with defensive metrics because the thought now is that some shifts more hurt or help players unfairly in the defensive systems due to them being out of position.

 

Keep shifts or get rid of them, I won't really be affected either way.

 

I despise shifts but will defend a team's right to use them

[Texsox]

how would you even do it? have "zones" marked on the field where the different position players have to be in? or what? automatic walk?

 

Football players do not need zones marked on the field for them to line up correctly, why would baseball players?

[southsider2k5]

Football players do not need zones marked on the field for them to line up correctly, why would baseball players?

 

Uh, offsides?

[Balta1701]

Uh, offsides?

Catcher's interference.

[Kyyle23]

Im curious what the penalty would be if you were to enforce no shifts. Oh hey you are in the no shift zone, automatic ball/walk? I got an idea, lets review this in the booth and determine if he really was in the no shift zone so we can waste another 5 minutes

[Texsox]

Uh, offsides?

 

They do not lay down stripes every time there is a new line of scrimmage. (that's only for TV viewers) They wouldn't need to mark the field any differently.

[Texsox]

Im curious what the penalty would be if you were to enforce no shifts. Oh hey you are in the no shift zone, automatic ball/walk? I got an idea, lets review this in the booth and determine if he really was in the no shift zone so we can waste another 5 minutes

 

Limited the appeals or make it like balls and strikes. I can't believe it will be called more than once or twice a season per team, if at that.