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 Guidas on Nov 15, 2018 8:41:00 GMT -5
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. Exactly. And if teams want to beat the shift, either bunt or slap hit out of it until the other team adjust. The point of the game is to score runs, which means either hitting jacks or getting men on base and moving the line.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Nov 15, 2018 8:58:23 GMT -5
But there's also significant evidence that he changed his approach some, which almost certainly gave him more hits the other way. So if he lost hits on balls he pulled, but pulled the ball less frequently resulting in other, different hits, you can't just count the minus. It was very likely a net loss--my very rough count was 40, which would line up pretty well - if he lost 66 to the shift but gained 26 to the opposite field, that would make sense). But that's the point, right? David Ortiz could make adjustments and still succeed because he was a great and disciplined hitter. A hitter who hits the ball in specific lanes, and isn't capable of (or willing to) make an adjustment? Then you should be able to put a defensive player where he keeps hitting the ball.
The analogy with basketball is inappropriate, because there are corresponding rules regulating offense. They implemented defensive three seconds with the zone back when they allowed zone defenses at the start of the 2001-02 season, but it was to mirror the long-standing offensive three seconds rule. It would be pretty dumb to say that a defender can't stay in the lane but the offensive player could camp out there, right? Well, limiting defensive positioning techniques in baseball would be doing exactly that: you can continue to hit the ball wherever on the field you choose to, but the other team isn't able to put a defensive player there.
The outcome of the shifts is going to be that second tier players who use the whole field are going to be more valuable than ones who hit the ball into specific lanes. If Bryce Harper is going to lose 20 points on his batting average, he's still a top hitter, even if he can't make an adjustment. But if a .240/.320/.420 hitter wants to use a deal pull swing to maximize power and can't/won't make an adjustment, he'll get replaced. Limiting shifts won't result in more balls in play - it incentivizes the approach to swing for power rather than use the whole field, because a slight miss of the barrel more likely to end up as a hit. It will accidentally lead to an increase in the three true outcomes, because those second-tier players are going to keep swinging for the fences.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Nov 15, 2018 8:58:51 GMT -5
Literally nobody wants to see a team's best hitter bunt to beat the shift. I'm sorry. Bunting to beat the shift is a win for the defense for many players.
And also "just hit the ball the other way" is a gross oversimplification of hitting. If players can just hit the ball wherever the hell they want to, why is the shift ever successful? Add that most times, a pitcher will pitch to his shift - in other words, you're not throwing a lefty fastballs outside when the infield is shifted to pull, you're pitching him so that he hits the ball into the shift if he hits it.
As for the penalty, it's a balk. Simple. With no runners on base, no pitch and you call it a ball. Same as the old intentional walk/catcher's box rule. Agreed that awarding the hitter bases is insane.
Calling it is easy. You have three freaking base umpires. It would not be difficult at all for the 2B ump to check at the time of the pitch that the middle infielders aren't past the bag.
I'm not necessarily advocating for this. I just would be fine with it.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Nov 15, 2018 9:02:06 GMT -5
Literally nobody wants to see a team's best hitter bunt to beat the shift. I'm sorry. Bunting to beat the shift is a win for the defense for many players. You're right - nobody wants their best hitter to bunt or shorten up to beat the shift. But you might want Jackie Bradley or Sandy Leon to do it. Limiting defenses would encourage a mediocre hitter to swing harder, (or teams to employ second-tier hitters who go dead pull rather than use the whole field) resulting in more homers and more strikeouts. Doing that because MLB wants to turn eight Bryce Harper groundouts a year into singles is self-defeating.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Nov 15, 2018 9:12:57 GMT -5
Literally nobody wants to see a team's best hitter bunt to beat the shift. I'm sorry. Bunting to beat the shift is a win for the defense for many players. And also "just hit the ball the other way" is a gross oversimplification of hitting. If players can just hit the ball wherever the hell they want to, why is the shift ever successful? Add that most times, a pitcher will pitch to his shift - in other words, you're not throwing a lefty fastballs outside when the infield is shifted to pull, you're pitching him so that he hits the ball into the shift if he hits it. As for the penalty, it's a balk. Simple. With no runners on base, dead ball and you call a ball. Same as the old intentional walk/catcher's box rule. Agreed that awarding the hitter bases is insane. Calling it is easy. You have three freaking base umpires. It would not be difficult at all for the 2B ump to check at the time of the pitch that the middle infielders aren't past the bag. I'm not necessarily advocating for this. I just would be fine with it. I agree no one wants to see the team's best hitter bunt. However, shifting has gotten so sophisticated that often 6-9 hitters are facing it, too. No reason those guys shouldn't look to leverage the situation if it presents itself. If players adjust and start getting on, the shifting teams will adjust, as well. As for going the other way, like any hitting it's a skill, as is a bunt for a base hit. Then again, lefties in particular have been told for years to go with the outside pitch and pepper the wall at Fenway. Pitches on the outer third of the plate and some off-speed pitches that drift that way are easier to hit to the opposite field, but hitters can also pick-up bad habits chasing those, so there are consequences - that's why bunting for a base hit may be the best option, especially in situations where it's a 7-9 hitter, no outs or one out and the team is down a run. It's an option that shouldn't be ignored. That said, I don't want to see Mookie, Benintendi or JD Martinez bunt to beat the shift. But JBJ on occasion, or Holt or Nuñez, sure, especially with 0 or 1 out and a man on first.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Nov 15, 2018 10:13:20 GMT -5
And also "just hit the ball the other way" is a gross oversimplification of hitting. If players can just hit the ball wherever the hell they want to, why is the shift ever successful? I remember watching a documentary about Ted Williams and he was talking about when they started shifting on him. He didn't change his swing back then either. It's one of the reasons why he started to hate the fans and media. He didn't want to listen to them talk about stuff like this, when they had no clue. We as fans haven't learned though. It's not that easy to go against the shift.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Nov 15, 2018 10:22:33 GMT -5
Honestly, I don't think the shift makes a huge difference either way. I'm opposed to banning it just because it makes the rulebook weirder and more convoluted for no real reason. I don't ever want to see the result of a play overturned because a fielder was shown to have his toe over some imaginary line. For that matter, if you're trying to make the game appealing to non-diehards, longwinded explanations of what constitutes an illegal defense are the kind of thing you'd really like to avoid. I also like that it's a way for baseball to get away from being such a strategically homogenous league. It adds a little bit of interest to the game when you have teams using noticeably different approaches on defense.
Really, the thing that bothers me so much about the "ban the shift" conversation is how reactive is, instead of proactive. What I want to see is baseball drawing up an informed blueprint of how the game should ideally look, and then basing whatever rule changes it makes off that. But no, they just wait for the game to evolve in whatever direction, then they freak out and start talking about how they need to ban whatever new thing teams are doing. For instance, if baseball decided the most important thing for the popularity of the game was a high level of offense, then the decision of what to do with the shift becomes easy. I'm not saying that would be right, but it would be a better process than simply waiting for shifting to get super common, and then deciding if it's a good or a bad thing, for any reasons anyone can come up with at the time.
|
|
|
Post by Canseco on Nov 15, 2018 10:40:20 GMT -5
And still, what is the punishment for breaking the rule? Killing the shortstop. This almost made me spit out my coffee. Well done.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Nov 15, 2018 11:12:41 GMT -5
Fun fact for those that think David Ortiz went the other way more often as shifts increased and learned to beat them. From 1997 to 2007 he was hitting .776 balls towards the shifts per game, from 2008 to 2014 that increased to .926 per game. There was no he stopped hitting into the shifts and started using the green monster more. The great David Ortiz professional hitter couldn't adjust.
The Great Ted Williams didn't adjust for years and in the end only made slight adjustments because he didn't want to mess with his swing and approach. Which is true for all hitters. You let the defense have an even bigger impact if you change your approach that made you great to try and beat it.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Nov 15, 2018 11:38:26 GMT -5
Fun fact for those that think David Ortiz went the other way more often as shifts increased and learned to beat them. From 1997 to 2007 he was hitting .776 balls towards the shifts per game, from 2008 to 2014 that increased to .926 per game. There was no he stopped hitting into the shifts and started using the green monster more. The great David Ortiz professional hitter couldn't adjust. Or.... there were more shifts which caused the increase. There wasn't much of a change in his BABIP. In fact, in 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2016, he had BABIP's higher than his career average. There is no clear decline in his BABIP due to shifting.
|
|
redsox04071318champs
Veteran
Always hoping to make my handle even longer...
Posts: 15,642
Member is Online
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Nov 15, 2018 12:29:20 GMT -5
Fun fact for those that think David Ortiz went the other way more often as shifts increased and learned to beat them. From 1997 to 2007 he was hitting .776 balls towards the shifts per game, from 2008 to 2014 that increased to .926 per game. There was no he stopped hitting into the shifts and started using the green monster more. The great David Ortiz professional hitter couldn't adjust. The Great Ted Williams didn't adjust for years and in the end only made slight adjustments because he didn't want to mess with his swing and approach. Which is true for all hitters. You let the defense have an even bigger impact if you change your approach that made you great to try and beat it. I'd be more interested in those numbers from 2008 - 2010 as a grouping and from 2011 - 2016. Just curious if there was an Adrian Gonzalez effect with the school of thought being that Gonzalez arrived in 2011 and encouraged Big Papi to use LF more often at Fenway. I know his BA shot back up into the .300s for the period of 2011 - 2013 and one last time in .2016. He was dealing with a bad hand in 2008 that spilled into 2009 and I'm sure contributed to his .238 BA and he struggled in 2010 for a month or so before picking it back up and wound up at .270. Just curious what the impact of the shift was during those two time periods. Was there any sort of dividing line? Or does his hand issues which caused him to have a loop in his swing kind of invalidate the numbers from 2008 - 2010?
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Nov 15, 2018 12:40:57 GMT -5
Literally nobody wants to see a team's best hitter bunt to beat the shift. I'm sorry. Bunting to beat the shift is a win for the defense for many players. You're right - nobody wants their best hitter to bunt or shorten up to beat the shift. But you might want Jackie Bradley or Sandy Leon to do it. Limiting defenses would encourage a mediocre hitter to swing harder, (or teams to employ second-tier hitters who go dead pull rather than use the whole field) resulting in more homers and more strikeouts. Doing that because MLB wants to turn eight Bryce Harper groundouts a year into singles is self-defeating. Didn't Moreland get a bunt double at some point last year? It may have been spring training, IDK. But regardless, I'll always take that.
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 3,966
|
Post by jimoh on Nov 15, 2018 12:43:29 GMT -5
“When the ball leaves the pitcher’s hand there must be two infielders on either side of second base. If a pitch is thrown with fielders out of place, it is called a ball.”
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Nov 16, 2018 13:44:26 GMT -5
Fun fact for those that think David Ortiz went the other way more often as shifts increased and learned to beat them. From 1997 to 2007 he was hitting .776 balls towards the shifts per game, from 2008 to 2014 that increased to .926 per game. There was no he stopped hitting into the shifts and started using the green monster more. The great David Ortiz professional hitter couldn't adjust. Or.... there were more shifts which caused the increase. There wasn't much of a change in his BABIP. In fact, in 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2016, he had BABIP's higher than his career average. There is no clear decline in his BABIP due to shifting. You should read the article. I guess I didn't explain it well. It didn't look at the number of shifts, just two periods. One before Madden went crazy and the league followed suit and the period before. It looked at the amount of balls hit towards right field where the crazy shifts where being applied. Ortiz hit more balls towards right field even has the amount of shifts increased and his BABIP tanked as the shifts increased. They were measuring the amount of balls hit towards right field, not the amount of shifts or just balls hit into the shifts. It shows Ortiz didn't change his approach.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Nov 16, 2018 13:49:07 GMT -5
Fun fact for those that think David Ortiz went the other way more often as shifts increased and learned to beat them. From 1997 to 2007 he was hitting .776 balls towards the shifts per game, from 2008 to 2014 that increased to .926 per game. There was no he stopped hitting into the shifts and started using the green monster more. The great David Ortiz professional hitter couldn't adjust. The Great Ted Williams didn't adjust for years and in the end only made slight adjustments because he didn't want to mess with his swing and approach. Which is true for all hitters. You let the defense have an even bigger impact if you change your approach that made you great to try and beat it. I'd be more interested in those numbers from 2008 - 2010 as a grouping and from 2011 - 2016. Just curious if there was an Adrian Gonzalez effect with the school of thought being that Gonzalez arrived in 2011 and encouraged Big Papi to use LF more often at Fenway. I know his BA shot back up into the .300s for the period of 2011 - 2013 and one last time in .2016. He was dealing with a bad hand in 2008 that spilled into 2009 and I'm sure contributed to his .238 BA and he struggled in 2010 for a month or so before picking it back up and wound up at .270. Just curious what the impact of the shift was during those two time periods. Was there any sort of dividing line? Or does his hand issues which caused him to have a loop in his swing kind of invalidate the numbers from 2008 - 2010? I have no clue, going off a sport illustrated article that had the numbers. The site I use for shift infomation doesn't come close to going back that far or even break it down into groups of ball hit to left, right, and center and give BABIP. I have no idea where to get that type of information, none of the sites I use give that much detail.
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Nov 16, 2018 14:20:25 GMT -5
Ban the shift. It is un-American. Only geeks who never played the game instituted it. We deserve baseball the way the game was meant to be played
|
|
|
Post by klostrophobic on Nov 16, 2018 15:03:01 GMT -5
Literally nobody wants to see a team's best hitter bunt to beat the shift. I'm sorry. Bunting to beat the shift is a win for the defense for many players. And also "just hit the ball the other way" is a gross oversimplification of hitting. If players can just hit the ball wherever the hell they want to, why is the shift ever successful? Add that most times, a pitcher will pitch to his shift - in other words, you're not throwing a lefty fastballs outside when the infield is shifted to pull, you're pitching him so that he hits the ball into the shift if he hits it. As for the penalty, it's a balk. Simple. With no runners on base, no pitch and you call it a ball. Same as the old intentional walk/catcher's box rule. Agreed that awarding the hitter bases is insane. Calling it is easy. You have three freaking base umpires. It would not be difficult at all for the 2B ump to check at the time of the pitch that the middle infielders aren't past the bag. I'm not necessarily advocating for this. I just would be fine with it. I literally want my best hitter to bunt to get on if my best hitter is such an obvious pull hitter that you can just not even put a defender on one side of the field. I can't think of anything more obnoxious than a pull hitter who can't get down a bunt hit when he has like one third of the infield to work with. This didn't work for the NBA when they banned zone defense and it would be just as bad here.
|
|
|
Post by klostrophobic on Nov 16, 2018 15:07:38 GMT -5
Ban the shift. It is un-American. Only geeks who never played the game instituted it. We deserve baseball the way the game was meant to be played Get rid of the DH and relievers and black people too, just the way it was meant to be played. Ground rule doubles are now home runs, you can catch fly balls off one bounce, too.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Nov 20, 2018 23:55:02 GMT -5
Honestly, I don't think the shift makes a huge difference either way. I'm opposed to banning it just because it makes the rulebook weirder and more convoluted for no real reason. I don't ever want to see the result of a play overturned because a fielder was shown to have his toe over some imaginary line. For that matter, if you're trying to make the game appealing to non-diehards, longwinded explanations of what constitutes an illegal defense are the kind of thing you'd really like to avoid. I also like that it's a way for baseball to get away from being such a strategically homogenous league. It adds a little bit of interest to the game when you have teams using noticeably different approaches on defense. Really, the thing that bothers me so much about the "ban the shift" conversation is how reactive is, instead of proactive. What I want to see is baseball drawing up an informed blueprint of how the game should ideally look, and then basing whatever rule changes it makes off that. But no, they just wait for the game to evolve in whatever direction, then they freak out and start talking about how they need to ban whatever new thing teams are doing. For instance, if baseball decided the most important thing for the popularity of the game was a high level of offense, then the decision of what to do with the shift becomes easy. I'm not saying that would be right, but it would be a better process than simply waiting for shifting to get super common, and then deciding if it's a good or a bad thing, for any reasons anyone can come up with at the time. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Vigorous co-sign.
|
|
iii
Rookie
Posts: 46
|
Post by iii on Nov 21, 2018 0:26:45 GMT -5
I am in favor of a 20 second pitch clock, eliminating shifts and playing only 3 men in the outfield. I don't care much for the "openers" but i don't think there is much that could be done there. Mound visits for injuries or replacing the pitcher only, keep the batter in the box, call the strike zone.
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan2 on Nov 23, 2018 12:37:18 GMT -5
Changes I would love to see: Pitch clock No shifts (I'm sorry, I just like offense) Ear piece for catcher and pitcher (eliminates sign stealing BS) Minimal of 3 batters per pitcher (unless injury)
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Nov 23, 2018 13:36:20 GMT -5
I really do think they should eliminate the mid-inning reliever warmup routine. I've made jokey references to this in the past (see Hatfield's sig), but it harkens to a time when those were rare. The most tense part of a baseball game is a rally in the late innings, but the multiple stop-and-go of swapping out the pitcher--complete with multiple commercial breaks--makes it tedious instead of exciting. A seventh-inning, three-hit, two-run rally is guaranteed to take a half hour. Instead of minimizing pitching changes, just make the pitcher come in, throw one warm-up to get his footing, and go. No other sport gives a guy a three-minute get-ready period during gameplay, for good reason.
If pace of play is supposed to be this major issue, limiting the shift and opener are obviously not addressing that at all.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Nov 23, 2018 14:09:52 GMT -5
The main change I would like to see is a restriction on how many pitchers a team is allowed to substitute over a 9 inning game. After the limit is reached, any additional pitching changes would have to come from in-game players, regardless of the reason for the change. This would increase the strategy in baseball and could lead to some interesting usage of position players as pitchers in blowouts or injury situations. I'm sure the MLBPA would have concerns, but it would make the game far more fun to watch (I'm also for the 1 pitch warm up suggested above). This would increase offense and speed up the game. More info on it in the Buster Olney piece below: www.espn.com/blog/buster-olney/post/_/id/18605/olney-limiting-calls-to-bullpen-a-change-that-should-be-made
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Nov 23, 2018 14:41:56 GMT -5
While I get wanting to increase the pace, that's not easy. I want no shifts because it will make the game more enjoyable to watch.
I 100% agree they give relievers way too much time, isn't that what they should be doing while warming up? They should only be getting major time if a pitcher gets injured and thus no one was warmed up and ready.
I don't see how ear pieces work for catcher and pitcher. They would need to communicate, like talk to each other and the batter would be able to hear them. I guess in a way you could give them those and stop catchers and coaches going to the mound for visits
Anyone have data on the strike zone? Like are the Umps more likely to miss strikes or call balls a strike? While in a way I hate the idea of an automated strikezone. I just really hate being able to watch where balls where located and watch them called something else. Every Ump is different and it really messes with the pitchers and hitters game to game. That could be something that could really speed up games. Not having to feel out for the Umps zone that night. A balk is a ball, a strike is a strike, game in and game out. Without the data I can't really say it would speed up the game, because the Umps are all over the place. An ump that calls close pitches usually means a quicker game though, and umps that won't call those usually means a much longer game though. Heck even if they got a device and only used it for close pitches. It shouldn't take but a second for him to look at his wrist to see what it truly was. Just something or get rid of the strikezone location tools, it makes the game maddening to watch when you can clearly see umps missing calls.
|
|
|
Post by patford on Nov 23, 2018 23:30:14 GMT -5
My objection to the shift is it is gimmicky. Baseball has identifiable positions. Fielders should have to have some semblance of positioning in line with those positions. This should have always been true just as the NFL has rules as to where players must begin a play. The idea that Ted Williams should have just bunted against the shift is disgusting.
|
|
|