SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
The shift and other potential rule changes
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Nov 8, 2018 13:14:42 GMT -5
Should be interesting. Manfred can implement the pitch clock if he wants to now.
|
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Nov 8, 2018 14:35:50 GMT -5
Should be interesting. Manfred can implement the pitch clock if he wants to now. Why the hell wouldn't a team be able to use an opener or a shift? Absurd. |
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Nov 8, 2018 14:37:36 GMT -5
Should be interesting. Manfred can implement the pitch clock if he wants to now. Why the hell wouldn't a team be able to use an opener or a shift? Absurd. To increase offense in shifts and speed up the pace of games in openers. I'm not advocating it, just stating why it's being brought up. |
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Nov 11, 2018 22:54:10 GMT -5
Should be interesting. Manfred can implement the pitch clock if he wants to now. Why the hell wouldn't a team be able to use an opener or a shift? Absurd. Honestly, I don't think it'd be crazy to limit shifting if they have a certain goal in mind. Wouldn't be much different than, say, the NBA limiting the use of zone defense, the NFL mandating how many players have to be on the line of scrimmage at the snap, etc. Put a line in the middle of the field behind second and say no more than two players on the infield on one side of the bag at the time of the pitch. I don't see the problem with that. That said, if they do that, that'd be completely counterproductive on the "pace of play" nonsense. I don't get whether there's anything to do about the "opener." The one thing I can think of is if they make teams planning on using the opener report who will be following or something. But I'm sure that's not what they'll be talking about. |
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Nov 12, 2018 0:06:45 GMT -5
Why the hell wouldn't a team be able to use an opener or a shift? Absurd. Honestly, I don't think it'd be crazy to limit shifting if they have a certain goal in mind. Wouldn't be much different than, say, the NBA limiting the use of zone defense, the NFL mandating how many players have to be on the line of scrimmage at the snap, etc. Put a line in the middle of the field behind second and say no more than two players on the infield on one side of the bag at the time of the pitch. I don't see the problem with that. That said, if they do that, that'd be completely counterproductive on the "pace of play" nonsense. I don't get whether there's anything to do about the "opener." The one thing I can think of is if they make teams planning on using the opener report who will be following or something. But I'm sure that's not what they'll be talking about. I want to see the game adapt. I want to see lefties learn to go the other way and put down bunts. “A leader is best When people barely know he exists Of a good leader, who talks little, When his work is done, his aim fulfilled, They will say, “We did this ourselves.” “If you try to change it, you will ruin it. Try to hold it, and you will lose it.” - Tao Te Ching I'd bet you anything that Lao Tzu woulda known how to bunt against the shift. |
|
mobaz
Veteran
Posts: 2,753
|
Post by mobaz on Nov 12, 2018 8:06:45 GMT -5
In theory I get the pitch clock, and for 162 games it makes sense, but let me tell you, hanging on every pitch, every extra long stare into the catcher, every hitter getting jittery and stepping out during the playoffs this year INCREASED my tension and interest, even though it made the games longer. Now, how many games did I watch all 4 hours of? Not many.
|
|
gerry
Veteran
Enter your message here...
Posts: 1,656 
|
Post by gerry on Nov 13, 2018 5:05:53 GMT -5
In theory I get the pitch clock, and for 162 games it makes sense, but let me tell you, hanging on every pitch, every extra long stare into the catcher, every hitter getting jittery and stepping out during the playoffs this year INCREASED my tension and interest, even though it made the games longer. Now, how many games did I watch all 4 hours of? Not many. I watched all of most of them. The pitch clock, if for nothing else than to keep me awake during some of these staring contests, sounds great. I personally am more concerned about pace of play than long games. IMO Pace of play can be an important tool for a team like the Sox, sort of a more consistent/aggressive version of Brady’s no huddle offense. Pace of play can throw off hitters and help catchers shut down running games. This while the Sox aggressive running game throws off their defense. Effective. |
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Nov 13, 2018 14:04:55 GMT -5
Why the hell wouldn't a team be able to use an opener or a shift? Absurd. Honestly, I don't think it'd be crazy to limit shifting if they have a certain goal in mind. Wouldn't be much different than, say, the NBA limiting the use of zone defense, the NFL mandating how many players have to be on the line of scrimmage at the snap, etc. Put a line in the middle of the field behind second and say no more than two players on the infield on one side of the bag at the time of the pitch. I don't see the problem with that. That said, if they do that, that'd be completely counterproductive on the "pace of play" nonsense. I don't get whether there's anything to do about the "opener." The one thing I can think of is if they make teams planning on using the opener report who will be following or something. But I'm sure that's not what they'll be talking about. This is my concern... |
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Nov 13, 2018 15:33:14 GMT -5
Honestly, I don't think it'd be crazy to limit shifting if they have a certain goal in mind. Wouldn't be much different than, say, the NBA limiting the use of zone defense, the NFL mandating how many players have to be on the line of scrimmage at the snap, etc. Put a line in the middle of the field behind second and say no more than two players on the infield on one side of the bag at the time of the pitch. I don't see the problem with that. That said, if they do that, that'd be completely counterproductive on the "pace of play" nonsense. I don't get whether there's anything to do about the "opener." The one thing I can think of is if they make teams planning on using the opener report who will be following or something. But I'm sure that's not what they'll be talking about. This is my concern... Yeah, just think of what horrors could come out of enforcing it. Baseball isn't the NBA. Any single play in baseball could completely change the outcome of a game, unlike in basketball. I mean if they call illegal defense on a play where someone caught a line drive with the bases loaded in the bottom of the 9th of a tie game, what's the punishment? Anything they come up with will be worse than the shootout in hockey. I pray they don't touch it and just let the game evolve. It always does. |
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Nov 14, 2018 0:45:06 GMT -5
Yeah, just think of what horrors could come out of enforcing it. Baseball isn't the NBA. Any single play in baseball could completely change the outcome of a game, unlike in basketball. I mean if they call illegal defense on a play where someone caught a line drive with the bases loaded in the bottom of the 9th of a tie game, what's the punishment? Anything they come up with will be worse than the shootout in hockey. I pray they don't touch it and just let the game evolve. It always does. You are way underestimating how the rules changed the NBA game. In a way its not the same game. Look at adding the DH, made the game way better. Change can be good. Crazy shifts are like watching pitchers hit, it sucks and isn't fun to watch. Guys hitting lasers that are outs. If they change the rules it just won't happen, the shifts are called in from the bench and are rather new. Something simple like one or two bases and it will almost never be called. |
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Nov 14, 2018 10:25:26 GMT -5
Yeah, just think of what horrors could come out of enforcing it. Baseball isn't the NBA. Any single play in baseball could completely change the outcome of a game, unlike in basketball. I mean if they call illegal defense on a play where someone caught a line drive with the bases loaded in the bottom of the 9th of a tie game, what's the punishment? Anything they come up with will be worse than the shootout in hockey. I pray they don't touch it and just let the game evolve. It always does. You are way underestimating how the rules changed the NBA game. In a way its not the same game. Look at adding the DH, made the game way better. Change can be good. Crazy shifts are like watching pitchers hit, it sucks and isn't fun to watch. Guys hitting lasers that are outs. If they change the rules it just won't happen, the shifts are called in from the bench and are rather new. Something simple like one or two bases and it will almost never be called. If they enacted shifting rules, teams would shift as much as possible without breaking the rule. They would not just go back to not shifting at all. And still, what is the punishment for breaking the rule? How can umpires possibly enforce it when they're looking at the plate? Would they have separate defense positioning umpires? How do they interrupt the game? When do they interrupt the game? Before or after a pitch? Do you want these umpires deciding the outcomes of games? Because that absolutely would happen. |
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Nov 14, 2018 10:39:36 GMT -5
You are way underestimating how the rules changed the NBA game. In a way its not the same game. Look at adding the DH, made the game way better. Change can be good. Crazy shifts are like watching pitchers hit, it sucks and isn't fun to watch. Guys hitting lasers that are outs. If they change the rules it just won't happen, the shifts are called in from the bench and are rather new. Something simple like one or two bases and it will almost never be called. If they enacted shifting rules, teams would shift as much as possible without breaking the rule. They would not just go back to not shifting at all. And still, what is the punishment for breaking the rule? How can umpires possibly enforce it when they're looking at the plate? Would they have separate defense positioning umpires? How do they interrupt the game? When do they interrupt the game? Before or after a pitch? Do you want these umpires deciding the outcomes of games? Because that absolutely would happen. If they really wanted to speed up games they would eliminate mound visits except for an injury or changing the pitcher, making players remain in the box, replace the ball-strike calling done by plate umpires with machines and put the DH in both leagues. This other stuff is just arranging deck chairs. Superficial BS. |
|
|
|
Post by Don Caballero on Nov 14, 2018 11:14:55 GMT -5
And still, what is the punishment for breaking the rule? Killing the shortstop. |
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Nov 14, 2018 11:30:35 GMT -5
If they enacted shifting rules, teams would shift as much as possible without breaking the rule. They would not just go back to not shifting at all. And still, what is the punishment for breaking the rule? How can umpires possibly enforce it when they're looking at the plate? Would they have separate defense positioning umpires? How do they interrupt the game? When do they interrupt the game? Before or after a pitch? Do you want these umpires deciding the outcomes of games? Because that absolutely would happen. If they really wanted to speed up games they would eliminate mound visits except for an injury or changing the pitcher, making players remain in the box, replace the ball-strike calling done by plate umpires with machines and put the DH in both leagues. This other stuff is just arranging deck chairs. Superficial BS. Shifting rules would be put in place to increase offense, not speed games up. Ironically, the games would be longer with more offense. |
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Nov 14, 2018 12:18:13 GMT -5
You are way underestimating how the rules changed the NBA game. In a way its not the same game. Look at adding the DH, made the game way better. Change can be good. Crazy shifts are like watching pitchers hit, it sucks and isn't fun to watch. Guys hitting lasers that are outs. If they change the rules it just won't happen, the shifts are called in from the bench and are rather new. Something simple like one or two bases and it will almost never be called. If they enacted shifting rules, teams would shift as much as possible without breaking the rule. They would not just go back to not shifting at all. And still, what is the punishment for breaking the rule? How can umpires possibly enforce it when they're looking at the plate? Would they have separate defense positioning umpires? How do they interrupt the game? When do they interrupt the game? Before or after a pitch? Do you want these umpires deciding the outcomes of games? Because that absolutely would happen. Not if they did a simple rule, that would be to ban infield shifting as we know it. Split the bases in half two defenders on each side and you have to be a certain distance from the bag so the guy from third isn't at second till the ball is in play. Also no infielder can play in the outfield One to two bases for the hitter that was out! I would lean towards two. I wouldn't worry about the umps, give the coaches like three challenges for it per game, if successful it doesn't count against the three. It can be done rather simply and wouldn't be designed to catch a guy a few inches or heck even a foot over the lines. It would be to stop the crazies shifts that limit hits. I would envision a rule that is hardly enforced, maybe a few times a year after after an adjustment period. I just don't see an issue like you do, because it would have to so extreme to break the rule it would be crazy obvious and I don't see teams doing that when it will give the hitter a double. I see a system more like if it happens the coach talks to the Ump and warns the other team type thing. We see you inching closer. After a short period it just goes away and when its called most casual fans won't even know the rule. Yet you envision a rule that will impact games in a massive way. If the rule is the SS can't cross second and the 3B can't be more than halfway to second base, do you really think teams are going to teach their players to try and break the rule? When if you did the guy gets a double? It seems rather simple and easy to fix. Players just go back to the way they normally play, before coaches had them take crazy positions to limit hits. Its not like players do this on their own, its called in from the coaches. |
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Nov 14, 2018 12:32:16 GMT -5
If they enacted shifting rules, teams would shift as much as possible without breaking the rule. They would not just go back to not shifting at all. And still, what is the punishment for breaking the rule? How can umpires possibly enforce it when they're looking at the plate? Would they have separate defense positioning umpires? How do they interrupt the game? When do they interrupt the game? Before or after a pitch? Do you want these umpires deciding the outcomes of games? Because that absolutely would happen. Not if they did a simple rule, that would be to ban infield shifting as we know it. Split the bases in half two defenders on each side and you have to be a certain distance from the bag so the guy from third isn't at second till the ball is in play. Also no infielder can play in the outfield One to two bases for the hitter that was out! I would lean towards two. I wouldn't worry about the umps, give the coaches like three challenges for it per game, if successful it doesn't count against the three. It can be done rather simply and wouldn't be designed to catch a guy a few inches or heck even a foot over the lines. It would be to stop the crazies shifts that limit hits. I would envision a rule that is hardly enforced, maybe a few times a year after after an adjustment period. I just don't see an issue like you do, because it would have to so extreme to break the rule it would be crazy obvious and I don't see teams doing that when it will give the hitter a double. I see a system more like if it happens the coach talks to the Ump and warns the other team type thing. We see you inching closer. After a short period it just goes away and when its called most casual fans won't even know the rule. Yet you envision a rule that will impact games in a massive way. If the rule is the SS can't cross second and the 3B can't be more than halfway to second base, do you really think teams are going to teach their players to try and break the rule? When if you did the guy gets a double? It seems rather simple and easy to fix. Players just go back to the way they normally play, before coaches had them take crazy positions to limit hits. Its not like players do this on their own, its called in from the coaches. You've seen the extent that baseball managers are now going to give them every single possible minute advantage on every single aspect of baseball, right? What I would expect with shifting rules are players being placed directly on the line of what is legal and possibly even moving before the ball is in play, pushing the limit of what is legal on each and every pitch. To not do that, would be to not be trying. And awarding a double to a player who got an out is an insanely harsh penalty that easily could decide games. No thanks. And anyway, I like shifting. Players who hate it should learn to beat it. That's what good baseball players do. |
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Nov 14, 2018 12:57:36 GMT -5
Not if they did a simple rule, that would be to ban infield shifting as we know it. Split the bases in half two defenders on each side and you have to be a certain distance from the bag so the guy from third isn't at second till the ball is in play. Also no infielder can play in the outfield One to two bases for the hitter that was out! I would lean towards two. I wouldn't worry about the umps, give the coaches like three challenges for it per game, if successful it doesn't count against the three. It can be done rather simply and wouldn't be designed to catch a guy a few inches or heck even a foot over the lines. It would be to stop the crazies shifts that limit hits. I would envision a rule that is hardly enforced, maybe a few times a year after after an adjustment period. I just don't see an issue like you do, because it would have to so extreme to break the rule it would be crazy obvious and I don't see teams doing that when it will give the hitter a double. I see a system more like if it happens the coach talks to the Ump and warns the other team type thing. We see you inching closer. After a short period it just goes away and when its called most casual fans won't even know the rule. Yet you envision a rule that will impact games in a massive way. If the rule is the SS can't cross second and the 3B can't be more than halfway to second base, do you really think teams are going to teach their players to try and break the rule? When if you did the guy gets a double? It seems rather simple and easy to fix. Players just go back to the way they normally play, before coaches had them take crazy positions to limit hits. Its not like players do this on their own, its called in from the coaches. You've seen the extent that baseball managers are now going to give them every single possible minute advantage on every single aspect of baseball, right? What I would expect with shifting rules are players being placed directly on the line of what is legal and possibly even moving before the ball is in play, pushing the limit of what is legal on each and every pitch. To not do that, would be to not be trying. And awarding a double to a player who got an out is an insanely harsh penalty that easily could decide games. No thanks. And anyway, I like shifting. Players who hate it should learn to beat it. That's what good baseball players do. So your saying coaches will teach players to cheat? I don't buy that. You have to make it harsh, that's what will stop it. Managers watching one team trying to bend the rules and it blowing up in there faces will end the practices which is the point. They do shifts because certain players can't beat it. So I don't buy that one bit. You act like its easy, but clearly it isn't or this wouldn't even be an issue. Its like in Basketball when they cleared the paint to allow more scoring. Same exact thing. I watched Ortiz for years do crazy things, the guys was a HOF hitter, a true beast and overall he couldn't beat the shift. If guys like him professional hitters, going to the HOF based just on his bat, a true student of the game can't beat it, then that says it all. Sure he got slightly better, but it never went away and he could never beat it. So I just don't get the learn to beat it slogan, which implies it can actually be done and it can't. Which is why a rule change is being talked about. It worked so well on elite hitters that they imply it on everyone now. If you can take away what felt like hundreds of hits from a guy like Ortiz, what can you do to a Bradley for his Career? Well we're see him it rockets right to four guys all the time. Did you enjoy the low scoring slugfest that was Basketball before the rule change? Let me guess you were against the DH change? Hitting is crazy hard in Baseball, the best hitters get out 7 out of 10 times. Anything that makes that way harder than it is, should be fixed. I want to see hits, that's a big part of what makes Baseball fun. Getting guys on base, not watching Bradley keep hitting the ball to four guys while half the diamond is wide open. |
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Nov 14, 2018 13:24:46 GMT -5
You've seen the extent that baseball managers are now going to give them every single possible minute advantage on every single aspect of baseball, right? What I would expect with shifting rules are players being placed directly on the line of what is legal and possibly even moving before the ball is in play, pushing the limit of what is legal on each and every pitch. To not do that, would be to not be trying. And awarding a double to a player who got an out is an insanely harsh penalty that easily could decide games. No thanks. And anyway, I like shifting. Players who hate it should learn to beat it. That's what good baseball players do. So your saying coaches will teach players to cheat? I don't buy that. You have to make it harsh, that's what will stop it. Managers watching one team trying to bend the rules and it blowing up in there faces will end the practices which is the point. They do shifts because certain players can't beat it. So I don't buy that one bit. You act like its easy, but clearly it isn't or this wouldn't even be an issue. Its like in Basketball when they cleared the paint to allow more scoring. Same exact thing. I watched Ortiz for years do crazy things, the guys was a HOF hitter, a true beast and overall he couldn't beat the shift. If guys like him professional hitters, going to the HOF based just on his bat, a true student of the game can't beat it, then that says it all. Sure he got slightly better, but it never went away and he could never beat it. So I just don't get the learn to beat it slogan, which implies it can actually be done and it can't. Which is why a rule change is being talked about. It worked so well on elite hitters that they imply it on everyone now. If you can take away what felt like hundreds of hits from a guy like Ortiz, what can you do to a Bradley for his Career? Well we're see him it rockets right to four guys all the time. Did you enjoy the low scoring slugfest that was Basketball before the rule change? Let me guess you were against the DH change? Hitting is crazy hard in Baseball, the best hitters get out 7 out of 10 times. Anything that makes that way harder than it is, should be fixed. I want to see hits, that's a big part of what makes Baseball fun. Getting guys on base, not watching Bradley keep hitting the ball to four guys while half the diamond is wide open. Are you joking about Papi? He used the Monster all the time. He adapted to the ball park he was hitting in, just like players can adapt to shifts. Benintendi had more opposite field hits than just about anyone this year because he was focused on beating the shifts. JBJ started hitting the other way to beat shifts just this year. That's a big part of how he turned his season around. If you can hit over the shifts like Ted Williams and Papi, maybe they don't need to adjust, but that's still their decision. You can't cry about the shift if you're completely unwilling to adjust to them. It's a choice. In fact, it would make baseball way more interesting if more players tried to beat shifts and moved the game away from the three true outcome game it has become. I don't hate the DH, I think it should be in both leagues. I'm not against all change. I'm against changes that don't consider the unintended consequences. If a player gets a double for an out and 2 runs score, are those runs earned for the pitcher? I hate that crap. It's as dumb as starting extra innings with a runner on 2nd. How do you even compare those extra inning stats for pitchers to innings pitched without a runner starting on 2nd? I haven't really follow the NBA since the 90s when it turned from a team game into watching a superstar going one on one with the other 4 players standing around on the other side of the court and he'd get "fouled" on every single drive. |
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Nov 14, 2018 13:49:38 GMT -5
So your saying coaches will teach players to cheat? I don't buy that. You have to make it harsh, that's what will stop it. Managers watching one team trying to bend the rules and it blowing up in there faces will end the practices which is the point. They do shifts because certain players can't beat it. So I don't buy that one bit. You act like its easy, but clearly it isn't or this wouldn't even be an issue. Its like in Basketball when they cleared the paint to allow more scoring. Same exact thing. I watched Ortiz for years do crazy things, the guys was a HOF hitter, a true beast and overall he couldn't beat the shift. If guys like him professional hitters, going to the HOF based just on his bat, a true student of the game can't beat it, then that says it all. Sure he got slightly better, but it never went away and he could never beat it. So I just don't get the learn to beat it slogan, which implies it can actually be done and it can't. Which is why a rule change is being talked about. It worked so well on elite hitters that they imply it on everyone now. If you can take away what felt like hundreds of hits from a guy like Ortiz, what can you do to a Bradley for his Career? Well we're see him it rockets right to four guys all the time. Did you enjoy the low scoring slugfest that was Basketball before the rule change? Let me guess you were against the DH change? Hitting is crazy hard in Baseball, the best hitters get out 7 out of 10 times. Anything that makes that way harder than it is, should be fixed. I want to see hits, that's a big part of what makes Baseball fun. Getting guys on base, not watching Bradley keep hitting the ball to four guys while half the diamond is wide open. Are you joking about Papi? He used the Monster all the time. He adapted to the ball park he was hitting in, just like players can adapt to shifts. Benintendi had more opposite field hits than just about anyone this year because he was focused on beating the shifts. JBJ started hitting the other way to beat shifts just this year. That's a big part of how he turned his season around. If you can hit over the shifts like Ted Williams and Papi, maybe they don't need to adjust, but that's still their decision. You can't cry about the shift if you're completely unwilling to adjust to them. It's a choice. In fact, it would make baseball way more interesting if more players tried to beat shifts and moved the game away from the three true outcome game it has become. I don't hate the DH, I think it should be in both leagues. I'm not against all change. I'm against changes that don't consider the unintended consequences. If a player gets a double for an out and 2 runs score, are those runs earned for the pitcher? I hate that crap. It's as dumb as starting extra innings with a runner on 2nd. How do you even compare those extra inning stats for pitchers to innings pitched without a runner starting on 2nd? I haven't really follow the NBA since the 90s when it turned from a team game into watching a superstar going one on one with the other 4 players standing around on the other side of the court and he'd get "fouled" on every single drive. I guess you don't really get the shifts if you think Ortiz using the green monster is an example of beating it. That sounds like the worst example ever. Hitters to beat the shift, stop hitting balls like normal and just try to get everything into the OF. Ortiz is the perfect example because it basically all started with him. The shifts are about more ground balls turning into outs. Ortiz used the green monster long before shifts ever even happended to him. There are a crap load of articles talking about how the shift hurt Ortiz and its all about how the percentage of his ground balls turning into hits went way down or line drives. www.si.com/mlb/2014/07/22/shifts-rule-change-lefthanded-batters-david-ortizHis BABIP tanked the minute the shifts started. The numbers are glaring, he wasn't able to beat it. www.si.com/mlb/2014/07/22/shifts-rule-change-lefthanded-batters-david-ortizOrtiz thinks they took away 500 hits from him. |
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Nov 14, 2018 14:04:46 GMT -5
Ted Williams was shifted on all the time. It didn't start with Papi.
If Papi wanted to hit the ball the other way, he could have, just like every other good hitter. But they choose not to, because they love to hit HR.
Shifting is exactly why they focus on developing an all-fields approach with just about all prospects now. The game will evolve like it always has. It's just ridiculous to me that there might be rules that prevent a team from being as good as it can be defensively. It's as dumb as putting a cap on the speed a pitcher is allowed to pitch.
Maybe they shouldn't allow fielders to play in for bunts by pitchers too?
Just my opinion of course.
|
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Nov 14, 2018 14:36:54 GMT -5
Here is David Ortiz, in 2006, blaming defensive shifts for the drop in his batting average: www.baseball-reference.com/players/o/ortizda01-bat.shtmlBefore 2006, his BABIP was .306 From 2007 on, his career BABIP was .297. That's about 40 hits over 11 years, assuming the decline was 100% attributable to the shift. |
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Nov 14, 2018 16:26:36 GMT -5
Here is David Ortiz, in 2006, blaming defensive shifts for the drop in his batting average: www.baseball-reference.com/players/o/ortizda01-bat.shtmlBefore 2006, his BABIP was .306 From 2007 on, his career BABIP was .297. That's about 40 hits over 11 years, assuming the decline was 100% attributable to the shift. So that's more telling than just looking at balls hit into the shift? Even with the Minny data from 97 to 07 .355, shift happens its from 08 to 14 .263. That is a massive difference. |
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Nov 14, 2018 16:36:17 GMT -5
Huh? First off "shift happens from 08 to 14" is kind of nonsense, because they started shifting on him before that and continued shifting on him through the end of his career in 2016. And his BABIP from 2008 to 2014 was .294. From 2010 to 2013 it was .318, the best of any four-year stretch in his career.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Nov 14, 2018 16:42:53 GMT -5
Huh? First off "shift happens from 08 to 14" is kind of nonsense, because they started shifting on him before that and continued shifting on him through the end of his career in 2016. And his BABIP from 2008 to 2014 was .294. From 2010 to 2013 it was .318, the best of any four-year stretch in his career. And funny enough, that was around the time AGon coaxed him into peppering the wall more (every ball that hits the wall has a 1.000 BABIP). A lot of people thought he might be done after a terrible 2009. Good way to raise your batting average in the days of shifting. |
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Nov 15, 2018 0:29:13 GMT -5
Huh? First off "shift happens from 08 to 14" is kind of nonsense, because they started shifting on him before that and continued shifting on him through the end of his career in 2016. And his BABIP from 2008 to 2014 was .294. From 2010 to 2013 it was .318, the best of any four-year stretch in his career. The article I posted from SI is from 2014, hence the limited data. They used those numbers because 2007 is when shifts being used against Ortiz spiked due to Madden going crazy with them and the league following suit. I can't find the data to back that up, but its SI, not some chump so I believe it to be true. The whole point was Ortiz was outstanding even in his Twinns days going to the right with BABIP, he becomes an even better player and his numbers tank after a huge spike in shifts going to the right. No shift and his slightly above average BABIP would have been much higher and elite. SI estimates from 2008 to 2014 it cost him 66 hits. Enough hits to raise his career average from .285 to .294. |
|
|
