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.
MLB to test new rules in minors in 2021
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Mar 11, 2021 19:10:06 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by orion09 on Mar 11, 2021 20:49:58 GMT -5
I was prepared to dislike this but... it’s not stupidly done. It’s set up like a nice experiment and the changes are rational ones.
I could get behind the pickoff and shift changes especially... bringing back small ball would go a long way to make things more interesting and watchable.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,936
|
Post by ericmvan on Mar 12, 2021 4:41:41 GMT -5
I love the pickoff-limit rule, which I've wanted for years. Limiting infielders to the actual infield is not nearly as phony as outlawing the shift, but I'm still somewhat dubious. The larger bases seem like a solid idea and a shorter pitch clock and robot umps are always welcome.
I do wish they'd use the catcher's glove movement to resolve pitches that are too close to call with a reasonable level of certainty by the tech. That would keep some framing skill in the game, in a way that's completely legit. But more importantly, a borderline strike / ball that goes right to the catcher's glove should be a strike, but a ball if the catcher was set up on the other side of the plate.
|
|
|
Post by johnsilver52 on Mar 12, 2021 4:49:28 GMT -5
That robot ump idea has been a tremendous idea and probably could have been put into practice 30+ years ago. Remember reading about it being tested in Ron Luciano's book many years ago.
Not only would it make every K zone the same, but do away with umpires who cannot really judge constantly balls and strikes.. Hernandez, west and the newer ones who surely will come along into the lifetime job.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Mar 12, 2021 10:12:10 GMT -5
I love the pickoff-limit rule, which I've wanted for years. Limiting infielders to the actual infield is not nearly as phony as outlawing the shift, but I'm still somewhat dubious. The larger bases seem like a solid idea and a shorter pitch clock and robot umps are always welcome.
I do wish they'd use the catcher's glove movement to resolve pitches that are too close to call with a reasonable level of certainty by the tech. That would keep some framing skill in the game, in a way that's completely legit. But more importantly, a borderline strike / ball that goes right to the catcher's glove should be a strike, but a ball if the catcher was set up on the other side of the plate.
Yeah, this soft limit on the shift is something I could live with it. I still wouldn't want them to do the two-guys-on-each-side-of-second-base thing. Fewer pickoff throws and more stolen bases also make the game better.
Robo umps though... boy I don't know. I think there are gonna be some unintended consequences with that. But it's good they're testing it out for that reason.
|
|
|
Post by greenmonster on Mar 12, 2021 12:04:35 GMT -5
I get they are trying to increase the chances of successfully stealing bases which seems like the true intent. But, how are larger bases going to reduce injuries? Is are runner less likely to jam a finger or twist an ankle on a larger base? If it increases the running game then fine.... I am onboard.
I am also onboard with some form of limit on defensive shifting. Not sure what is the best way to reasonably control it, but if it decreases the focus of constantly trying to hit a homerun over the shift that would be ideal. The game needs more action other than strike out or homerun.
Robo umps...not so much. IMO, the game needs to be less like a video game not more.
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Mar 12, 2021 13:26:53 GMT -5
I love the pickoff-limit rule, which I've wanted for years. Limiting infielders to the actual infield is not nearly as phony as outlawing the shift, but I'm still somewhat dubious. The larger bases seem like a solid idea and a shorter pitch clock and robot umps are always welcome.
I do wish they'd use the catcher's glove movement to resolve pitches that are too close to call with a reasonable level of certainty by the tech. That would keep some framing skill in the game, in a way that's completely legit. But more importantly, a borderline strike / ball that goes right to the catcher's glove should be a strike, but a ball if the catcher was set up on the other side of the plate.
Yeah, this soft limit on the shift is something I could live with it. I still wouldn't want them to do the two-guys-on-each-side-of-second-base thing. Fewer pickoff throws and more stolen bases also make the game better.
Robo umps though... boy I don't know. I think there are gonna be some unintended consequences with that. But it's good they're testing it out for that reason.
I am all for this. I want to see 2 players on either side of 2nd base. i would not even be against putting line (much like the baseline) showing that clearly defines the closest to 2nd the player can play. i know that would look strange, but i am for it. Even if this rule was only in play for a portion of the game. I don't like the shift. In the aggregate, it has been bad for baseball. The other stuff is interesting. I am glad they are reviewing all of this.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Mar 12, 2021 13:38:23 GMT -5
Yeah, this soft limit on the shift is something I could live with it. I still wouldn't want them to do the two-guys-on-each-side-of-second-base thing. Fewer pickoff throws and more stolen bases also make the game better.
Robo umps though... boy I don't know. I think there are gonna be some unintended consequences with that. But it's good they're testing it out for that reason.
I am all for this. I want to see 2 players on either side of 2nd base. i would not even be against putting line (much like the baseline) showing that clearly defines the closest to 2nd the player can play. i know that would look strange, but i am for it. Even if this rule was only in play for a portion of the game. I don't like the shift. In the aggregate, it has been bad for baseball. The other stuff is interesting. I am glad they are reviewing all of this. I agree the shift has been bad, but a huge part of my frustration is that hitters don’t beat it on their own. I guess I feel like a line lets guys off the hook. Bunt! Go the opposite way! *Make* them stop shifting on you. I guess I sort of see it as the near equivalent of saying “this guy can’t hit a slider, so you can’t throw it to him.” But I agree... it is painful.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Mar 12, 2021 15:36:20 GMT -5
I get they are trying to increase the chances of successfully stealing bases which seems like the true intent. But, how are larger bases going to reduce injuries? Is are runner less likely to jam a finger or twist an ankle on a larger base? If it increases the running game then fine.... I am onboard. I think it's more collision-type stuff. Same reason they use that double first base in youth baseball sometimes. Give fielder and runner more real estate.
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Mar 12, 2021 16:24:10 GMT -5
I am all for this. I want to see 2 players on either side of 2nd base. i would not even be against putting line (much like the baseline) showing that clearly defines the closest to 2nd the player can play. i know that would look strange, but i am for it. Even if this rule was only in play for a portion of the game. I don't like the shift. In the aggregate, it has been bad for baseball. The other stuff is interesting. I am glad they are reviewing all of this. I agree the shift has been bad, but a huge part of my frustration is that hitters don’t beat it on their own. I guess I feel like a line lets guys off the hook. Bunt! Go the opposite way! *Make* them stop shifting on you. I guess I sort of see it as the near equivalent of saying “this guy can’t hit a slider, so you can’t throw it to him.” But I agree... it is painful. i wonder how much of it their reluctance. it does seem a lost art (which is kind of the genesis of these rules changes), but also are they not taught it anymore ? Then pitchers throw harder, bust em inside. Could be a lot of factors why guys don't try to find those holes.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Mar 12, 2021 19:01:39 GMT -5
I don't understand and have never understood the "why don't they just hit the ball the other way?" thing. If it's so easy, why don't they hit it where the fielders aren't when they're not shifted? It's not like guys are up at the plate trying to pull the ball 70% of the time or something.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Mar 12, 2021 19:59:11 GMT -5
I don't understand and have never understood the "why don't they just hit the ball the other way?" thing. If it's so easy, why don't they hit it where the fielders aren't when they're not shifted? It's not like guys are up at the plate trying to pull the ball 70% of the time or something. That is a bit different from “hittin’-where-they-ain’t” — Boggs inside-outed his whole career. Hell, when I was in high school we were taught how to go the other way. I think professional hitters can be coached to be justslightly less pull crazy to keep fielders honest. And there is also bunting. A couple bunts would also keep people honest, I think. I guess the point is that the guys who get shifted are shifted because they do pull overwhelmingly. Or they’d shift everyone.
|
|
|
Post by patford on Mar 12, 2021 20:06:46 GMT -5
I hate a lot of the new rules but love not allowing extreme infield shifts and the electronic strike zone. The shift rule should have been implemented when the game was created. The primary reason is dislike extreme shifts so much is they can only be used against left handed batters. And no, I'm not left handed. In any case football has several rules concerning where players must line up and basketball introduced the three second violation. The electronic strike zone I want to see because it is so obvious balls and strikes calls in MLB are a huge part of the game. This can't be overstated and there's way to many cases where things get fishy looking. It's just crazy that a pitcher who pals around with the umpires gets a better strike zone than a guy who gives the umpire a stink eye.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Mar 12, 2021 20:29:45 GMT -5
I don't understand and have never understood the "why don't they just hit the ball the other way?" thing. If it's so easy, why don't they hit it where the fielders aren't when they're not shifted? It's not like guys are up at the plate trying to pull the ball 70% of the time or something. That is a bit different from “hittin’-where-they-ain’t” — Boggs inside-outed his whole career. Hell, when I was in high school we were taught how to go the other way. I think professional hitters can be coached to be justslightly less pull crazy to keep fielders honest. And there is also bunting. A couple bunts would also keep people honest, I think. I guess the point is that the guys who get shifted are shifted because they do pull overwhelmingly. Or they’d shift everyone. You do recognize that "going the other way" isn't quite as simple against MLB-quality pitching? And that players who don't bunt regularly (which is everyone now, really) can't just up and drop one with any sort of skill?
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Mar 12, 2021 20:52:09 GMT -5
That is a bit different from “hittin’-where-they-ain’t” — Boggs inside-outed his whole career. Hell, when I was in high school we were taught how to go the other way. I think professional hitters can be coached to be justslightly less pull crazy to keep fielders honest. And there is also bunting. A couple bunts would also keep people honest, I think. I guess the point is that the guys who get shifted are shifted because they do pull overwhelmingly. Or they’d shift everyone. You do recognize that "going the other way" isn't quite as simple against MLB-quality pitching? And that players who don't bunt regularly (which is everyone now, really) can't just up and drop one with any sort of skill? Yes, right. Which is why I am wondering why these are not longer term projects. I am not saying David Ortiz or whoever should suddenly pull bunts out of his butt. I am saying these are both skills that can be *taught* — maybe long term! — but taught to erode the use of the shift. (There has been a fly ball revolution... there is no reason there can’t be a spray revolution). Or they can just ban the shift. But that seems, as I said, like it lets guys off the hook for not making adjustments.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Mar 12, 2021 21:22:56 GMT -5
This seems like the wrong problem under discussion. If lefties are so completely boned by the shifts then they can just be removed from the lineups and replaced with righties; if bunting confers an advantage as a way to beat the shift then bunters become more valuable and players will be selected for bunting ability. But if, for whatever reason, teams have decided that the status quo (trying to go "over the shift," etc.) is the optimal approach, then we're back to the real problem: the conditions of the game are such that they produce a less fun and exciting style of play.
I think those issues can be addressed without banning the shift. I.e., monkey with the physical properties of th ball, as discussed in the other thread. I suspect that with the current ball the "over the shift" approach is optimal. With a deader/re-weighted ball different sorts of hitters would be selected for - bunters! Teahens! - which would neutralize the effects of the shift.
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Mar 12, 2021 21:33:08 GMT -5
would MLB be getting into the theatre of the absurd if they allowed a mgr to employ a shift tactically. Say like 2 shifts a game. Is that just too silly ? I am gonna expect this is gonna get ridiculed.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Mar 12, 2021 22:28:24 GMT -5
Robot umps would be a huge boost to Conner Wong's future. He's extremely athletic behind the plate but I'm sure all the movement has to be a disadvantage with human umps calling it.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,936
|
Post by ericmvan on Mar 13, 2021 4:33:45 GMT -5
would MLB be getting into the theatre of the absurd if they allowed a mgr to employ a shift tactically. Say like 2 shifts a game. Is that just too silly ? I am gonna expect this is gonna get ridiculed. I've actually seen that proposal elsewhere. It's infinitely better than an outright ban. One shift allowed per inning would be really interesting. Or how about one shift allowed per pitcher per inning, so that bringing in a LHR to face a L-R-L sequence would reset the shift counter, and thus have some downside? The more you allow it, the less you're imposing on the natural development of the game. But the biggest argument against doing anything with the shift is that BABIP has not been declining. Last year was the first of the post-steroid era where it was lower than normal. In fact, the BABIP in 2019 was higher than in 2003 through 2005. This is non-pitchers only:
Year BABIP 2003 .296 2004 .299 2005 .297 2006 .304 2007 .305 2008 .302 2009 .301 2010 .299 2011 .297 2012 .299 2013 .299 2014 .301 2015 .301 2016 .302 2017 .301 2018 .297 2019 .299 2020 .292
Here's a brief history of changes in the game in this era:
2007: Strikeouts start rising, and go up 23% in a span of eight years. 2011: Walks start falling, and by 2014-15 are down 10%. 2015: Strikeouts stay the same!
2016: Major changes. Homers per contact go up by 23% compared to baseline (average through 2018). Walks go back to their pre-2011 level. Strikeouts start rising again, and will go up a further 12% over the previously established level in the next four years, which means 38% relative to to 2003-2006.
2019: Homers spike again, and in 2019-2020 are up 44% compared to baseline. 2020: Strikeouts and walks reach new highs. Strikeouts are now up ... 44%.
From 2003 to 2007, 74.7% of PA ended with contact rather than a walk or strikeout. Last year that figure was 66.3%, a decline of 11%.
That doesn't seem like a lot -- just 4.3 fewer balls in play per game -- but the run value of those, back before this started, was 1.8 runs per game, of which 1.6 was on hits in play (figures excluding ROE and GDP). We've replaced about 35% of runs scoring on hits in play to the defense with runs scored by homer trotters.
|
|
|
Post by patford on Mar 13, 2021 8:05:40 GMT -5
There wouldn't be an outright ban on shifting. At least I have not seen that proposed. Right now the pitcher has to pitch from the rubber but the 3B can position himself to the right of 2B. So players could still shift. They could still player deeper or closer to the plate of have a wide range of position from their left to their right but a 3B and SS would have to remain on the left side of the infield until a pitch was thrown. Not that it would ever happen because of the danger but wouldn't the current rules allow for all eight players other than the pitcher go up and form a circle around the batter leaving only enough room for a pitch to reach the catcher ?
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Mar 13, 2021 8:39:28 GMT -5
would MLB be getting into the theatre of the absurd if they allowed a mgr to employ a shift tactically. Say like 2 shifts a game. Is that just too silly ? I am gonna expect this is gonna get ridiculed. I've actually seen that proposal elsewhere. It's infinitely better than an outright ban. One shift allowed per inning would be really interesting. Or how about one shift allowed per pitcher per inning, so that bringing in a LHR to face a L-R-L sequence would reset the shift counter, and thus have some downside? The more you allow it, the less you're imposing on the natural development of the game. But the biggest argument against doing anything with the shift is that BABIP has not been declining. Last year was the first of the post-steroid era where it was lower than normal. In fact, the BABIP in 2019 was higher than in 2003 through 2005. This is non-pitchers only:
Year BABIP 2003 .296 2004 .299 2005 .297 2006 .304 2007 .305 2008 .302 2009 .301 2010 .299 2011 .297 2012 .299 2013 .299 2014 .301 2015 .301 2016 .302 2017 .301 2018 .297 2019 .299 2020 .292
Well shoot, that seems relevant to the discussion! But now I'm wondering why BABIP hasn't gone down with all the shifts. Are they just not all that effective? Is there some countervailing trend that has canceled out their effect?
|
|
|
Post by patford on Mar 13, 2021 8:56:25 GMT -5
Well shoot, that seems relevant to the discussion! But now I'm wondering why BABIP hasn't gone down with all the shifts. Are they just not all that effective? Is there some countervailing trend that has canceled out their effect? The shift apparently didn't work too well against Ted Williams. Or would he have hit .500 without it?
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Mar 13, 2021 9:10:23 GMT -5
The shift apparently didn't work too well against Ted Williams. Or would he have hit .500 without it? I don't know, maybe he would have done even better without it? Why not? But it might be a little unfair to take its effects on, uh, Ted Williams as especially representative.
|
|
|
Post by foreverred9 on Mar 13, 2021 9:41:05 GMT -5
Maybe the BABIP has stayed the same because the denominator has gone down. As in the raw level of hits has gone down (perhaps because of the shift), but because of so many more HRs and Ks the BABIP has stayed at a similar level.
I think this really just goes back to your core thesis, the optimal strategy in the game under these current constraints is to swing for the fences and blast through the shift. All these minor tweaks don't address that core issue.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,936
|
Post by ericmvan on Mar 13, 2021 14:17:49 GMT -5
I've actually seen that proposal elsewhere. It's infinitely better than an outright ban. One shift allowed per inning would be really interesting. Or how about one shift allowed per pitcher per inning, so that bringing in a LHR to face a L-R-L sequence would reset the shift counter, and thus have some downside? The more you allow it, the less you're imposing on the natural development of the game. But the biggest argument against doing anything with the shift is that BABIP has not been declining. Last year was the first of the post-steroid era where it was lower than normal. In fact, the BABIP in 2019 was higher than in 2003 through 2005. This is non-pitchers only:
Year BABIP 2003 .296 2004 .299 2005 .297 2006 .304 2007 .305 2008 .302 2009 .301 2010 .299 2011 .297 2012 .299 2013 .299 2014 .301 2015 .301 2016 .302 2017 .301 2018 .297 2019 .299 2020 .292
Well shoot, that seems relevant to the discussion! But now I'm wondering why BABIP hasn't gone down with all the shifts. Are they just not all that effective? Is there some countervailing trend that has canceled out their effect? Maybe the BABIP has stayed the same because the denominator has gone down. As in the raw level of hits has gone down (perhaps because of the shift), but because of so many more HRs and Ks the BABIP has stayed at a similar level. I think this really just goes back to your core thesis, the optimal strategy in the game under these current constraints is to swing for the fences and blast through the shift. All these minor tweaks don't address that core issue. It took me five or ten minutes to get this, and it's simple and beautiful.
The shift is being used by smart teams, so it must be really reducing the BABIP of guys they are shifting against. The point of the shift is to turn more batted balls in play into outs. There's no math that can mess with that.
But the introduction of the shift introduces a selection bias that makes hitters who (all things being equal) cannot be shifted against, hitters who use the whole field, more valuable. The offsetting trend has to be more of these hitters. And I believe that the extra value of such players has been explicitly noted.
There remains a possibility that some hitters can learn using the whole field as a skill, and that's what JBJ did last year. It will be really interesting to see what he does this year.
I was about to say that I was not going to test this hypothesis because it seems like any such study would be gnarly in the extreme. But then I thought of a way of doing it.
Divide all contact into outs in play, singles, doubles / triples, and homers. The latter two will predict the ratio of the first two very, very significantly. The last two rates can measure both hardness of contact, and line / drive versus flyball tendencies, and together they'll predict the percentage of other balls that are hits.
Guys who are easy to defend against will have a lower 1B / (1B + Outs) than predicted. Guys who are relatively indefensible should have a higher rate that predicted. There should therefore be some year-to-year correlations for the error of the prediction. You'd ultimately want to look at each player's figures year-to-year to spot persistent changes in approach.
The introduction of the shift should make the defensible guys fall further below their projection. The compensating change to the player pool should show up as an increase in the number of indefensible hitters.
There are the usual difficulties. Where do you put the cutoff for number of times made contact? The thing you're trying to measure will change the predictiom model (the regression formula), so rather than using all of the years, you'd want to create a cutoff there, too, and use the pre-shift era metric to measure what happens in the shift era. I think you have to do the regression model year by year and see how the coefficients shift with time, and how predictive it is, but you might end up with a judgment call there as well, as to when the shift era begins.
ETA for this study being done? Could be a year. But it's very attractive. The whole idea of a defensibility metric is very tasty. And it just occurs to me to include both K and UBB rates in the model, as there is a chance that they are part of the picture.
EDIT: Beginning in 2018 there was a hugely significant drop in 1B / (1B + Outs in Play). From 2006 to 2017, it was .244 +/- .002. The last three years (weighting for the shortened 2020 season) it was .238 +/- .001. That has to be the shift. It was mostly offset in 2018 and 2019 by more 2B and 3B per contact, for which the only explanation I can think of is more guys hitting the ball hard to all fields.
|
|
|