New MLB Commish suggests ban on shifts

[Buehrlesque]

I'm not a fan of the idea . . . but something to think about

 

This is like telling pitchers they don't have to hit and hire someone to hit for them who doesn't have to play the field.

 

Well now that we sound like a bunch of NL fans . . . I like a commissioner that will consider anything, it doesn't mean it will actually make the rules book.

 

Parallels I see are we have off-sides in hockey and soccer. My guess the idea springs from a desire to see more scoring, the same tree that brought us the fruit of the DH. For the same reason we like the DH others would like the no shift rule.

 

How about no intentional walks? Four consecutive pitches outside the strike zone results in a two base walk.

This is the way I look at it too. I am against the ban (I'm not that worried about it ever being implemented anyway), but I don't see any harm in it being brought up. It is somewhat like offsides in soccer/hockey, which is illegal, or goaltending in basketball, also illegal, or zone defense in basketball, which was illegal at one point in the NBA. Taking a different look at the concept isn't hurting anyone, though ultimately I am certain they'll leave it as is.

[flavum]

I was more disappointed to hear him say he likes the All Star Game determining homefield advantage in the World Series.

 

On the DH thing...could you imagine that being first brought up these days with social media around?

[ptatc]

I agree. Shifts also open up a huge portion of the field that guys making millions should be able to exploit. They do that a few times, shifts go away.

 

Banning them would be stupid. Would every fielder have to play straight up? I don't think many realize the "shift" a middle infielder goes through with a runner on 1B. Would that be eliminated, therefore making DPs obsolete?

Yes, because it is so easy to hit the ball where the other team isn't. Batting averages should be at least .500.

[shysocks]

League batting average on balls in play: .299. Into shift: .296. These are not the offensive problems you're look for. H/t @jeffwzimmerman

While I can appreciate that the people whose job it is to improve the game are trying to do their jobs, this ain't the way to do it. Shifts are a gamble based on a guess of what the offense might do, no different than any other defensive scheme in literally every sport.

[witesoxfan]

Dave Cameron weighs in: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-problem...em-with-shifts/

 

I like his take in basically saying that the biggest issue right now is not guys hitting the ball to other defenders but that they are striking out at an absurd rate. Guys striking out is not a big deal on a micro level, but at a macro level, it's getting out of hand, and that's the biggest reason why we're seeing the numbers fall. That's not to say that there may not be background factors working towards an increasing strikeout percentage - namely steroids - but that the surface reasoning is that shifts have much less to deal with repressed run scoring and a lack of contact has more to do with it.

[ptatc]

Dave Cameron weighs in: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-problem...em-with-shifts/

 

I like his take in basically saying that the biggest issue right now is not guys hitting the ball to other defenders but that they are striking out at an absurd rate. Guys striking out is not a big deal on a micro level, but at a macro level, it's getting out of hand, and that's the biggest reason why we're seeing the numbers fall. That's not to say that there may not be background factors working towards an increasing strikeout percentage - namely steroids - but that the surface reasoning is that shifts have much less to deal with repressed run scoring and a lack of contact has more to do with it.

This is all true. However, the league cannot force players to make contact. They can change factors in the game to make contact more effective. I'm not saying I agree with them but the league is going to try to make the game more appealing to the masses. The two variables that seem to generate the most interest in the game are the time of the game and offense.

 

This is just like when they lowered the mound to make increase the hitters ability to make contact.

 

This is just like all of the rule changes in football to make it tougher for the defensive players thus to create more offense.

[LittleHurt05]

Dave Cameron weighs in: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-problem...em-with-shifts/

 

I like his take in basically saying that the biggest issue right now is not guys hitting the ball to other defenders but that they are striking out at an absurd rate. Guys striking out is not a big deal on a micro level, but at a macro level, it's getting out of hand, and that's the biggest reason why we're seeing the numbers fall. That's not to say that there may not be background factors working towards an increasing strikeout percentage - namely steroids - but that the surface reasoning is that shifts have much less to deal with repressed run scoring and a lack of contact has more to do with it.

 

An interesting idea thrown out there was forcing relievers to face a minimum of two hitters per appearance. First of all, that would speed the game up some, instead of having a pitching change every batter. Secondly, that could help decrease strikeouts. With all these specialists whose only job is to face one batter, they have become very good at striking that batter out. If a LOOGY also had to face a RHB when you brought him in, that would change a lot.

[Texsox]

I am such a purist I would like to see a platoon system like in football. Have a defense lineup and a offense lineup. DH everyone. I would also expand the rosters to 30 which would meet with a lot of objections from the accountants.

[Buehrlesque]

An interesting idea thrown out there was forcing relievers to face a minimum of two hitters per appearance. First of all, that would speed the game up some, instead of having a pitching change every batter. Secondly, that could help decrease strikeouts. With all these specialists whose only job is to face one batter, they have become very good at striking that batter out. If a LOOGY also had to face a RHB when you brought him in, that would change a lot.

I heard this idea before and I actually like it a lot. Much better than banning the shift or lowering the mound or any of that.

[ptatc]

An interesting idea thrown out there was forcing relievers to face a minimum of two hitters per appearance. First of all, that would speed the game up some, instead of having a pitching change every batter. Secondly, that could help decrease strikeouts. With all these specialists whose only job is to face one batter, they have become very good at striking that batter out. If a LOOGY also had to face a RHB when you brought him in, that would change a lot.

That's not bad. Another one that I heard someone bring up is to have a vehicle bring in the reliever. This will speed up the slow walk from the outfield bullpens. I know it's not much but it's in this same line. The is a time saving element with every pitching switch.

[ChiSox_Sonix]

An interesting idea thrown out there was forcing relievers to face a minimum of two hitters per appearance. First of all, that would speed the game up some, instead of having a pitching change every batter. Secondly, that could help decrease strikeouts. With all these specialists whose only job is to face one batter, they have become very good at striking that batter out. If a LOOGY also had to face a RHB when you brought him in, that would change a lot.

 

I like that idea, except I would alter the rule to be two batters or the end of an inning, whatever comes first. If the pitcher comes on with 2 outs and gets his first batter out, then he can be replaced at the start of the next inning

[Jake]

I've seen several articles mention that this would be a less disruptive change than something like lowering the mound. I totally disagree with that. Especially from a fan's standpoint, you wouldn't have to know anything had changed if the mound was lowered. There would just be a little bit more offense.

 

That's not bad. Another one that I heard someone bring up is to have a vehicle bring in the reliever. This will speed up the slow walk from the outfield bullpens. I know it's not much but it's in this same line. The is a time saving element with every pitching switch.

 

I would say, though, that for a lot of guys the run to the mound is a meaningful part of the warmup process.

[Chisoxfn]

I've seen several articles mention that this would be a less disruptive change than something like lowering the mound. I totally disagree with that. Especially from a fan's standpoint, you wouldn't have to know anything had changed if the mound was lowered. There would just be a little bit more offense.

 

 

 

I would say, though, that for a lot of guys the run to the mound is a meaningful part of the warmup process.

Lowering the mound might impact player safety (specifically the pitcher). I don't think the league would want to do that in this legal environment. All of a sudden, more pitchers get hit, sustain serious injuries, and lawsuits follow.

[NorthSideSox72]

Banning shifting is impractical and idiotic.

 

That's all I have to add.

 

[clyons]

Rather than make up silly ass new rules, I'd prefer he'd decree that umpires enforce the ones already written and call the rule-book strike zone.

Edited January 26, 2015 by PlaySumFnJurny

[ptatc]

I've seen several articles mention that this would be a less disruptive change than something like lowering the mound. I totally disagree with that. Especially from a fan's standpoint, you wouldn't have to know anything had changed if the mound was lowered. There would just be a little bit more offense.

 

 

 

I would say, though, that for a lot of guys the run to the mound is a meaningful part of the warmup process.

It is. And they would be allowed to do it if they ran. It's the 2 minute stroll that they want to eliminate.

[ptatc]

Rather than make up silly ass new rules, I'd prefer he'd decree that umpires enforce the ones already written and call the rule-book strike zone.

The rule book strike zone would decrease the time of the game but would also decrease the offense. Right now every strike is a center cut pitch.

[caulfield12]

Dave Cameron weighs in: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-problem...em-with-shifts/

 

I like his take in basically saying that the biggest issue right now is not guys hitting the ball to other defenders but that they are striking out at an absurd rate. Guys striking out is not a big deal on a micro level, but at a macro level, it's getting out of hand, and that's the biggest reason why we're seeing the numbers fall. That's not to say that there may not be background factors working towards an increasing strikeout percentage - namely steroids - but that the surface reasoning is that shifts have much less to deal with repressed run scoring and a lack of contact has more to do with it.

 

 

So give 1st-3rd multimillion bonus checks to reestablish the historical significance of batting avg in the AL/NL and highest contact ratio/hardest to strike out performances, haha.

 

Maybe the "speed up the game committee" can reward AJ. Also, least number of pitches seen per plate appearance.

[southsider2k5]

I don't think anything here would need to be drastic. It could be accomplished by saying that you have to have two IF on each side of second base. Within that, there is still a lot of room to align defenders.

[caulfield12]

I don't think anything here would need to be drastic. It could be accomplished by saying that you have to have two IF on each side of second base. Within that, there is still a lot of room to align defenders.

 

 

What about depth?

 

That still doesn't preclude you from playing 2B in short RCF as is common against guys like Dunn.

 

Maybe not pulled so far towards right, if the SS has to stay on the left side of 2B.

[ptatc]

What about depth?

 

That still doesn't preclude you from playing 2B in short RCF as is common against guys like Dunn.

 

Maybe not pulled so far towards right, if the SS has to stay on the left side of 2B.

I really wouldn't define that as a shift then. For Dunn didn't teams move 3 players to the first base of second base just put one of them deeper in the OF?

[Jake]

Lowering the mound might impact player safety (specifically the pitcher). I don't think the league would want to do that in this legal environment. All of a sudden, more pitchers get hit, sustain serious injuries, and lawsuits follow.

 

Is that a player safety issue that has anything to do with lowering the mound, independent of more offense? I mean, I see how you could have some legal grievance there, but I have to think the likelihood of pitcher injury goes from miniscule to miniscule.

[Chisoxfn]

Is that a player safety issue that has anything to do with lowering the mound, independent of more offense? I mean, I see how you could have some legal grievance there, but I have to think the likelihood of pitcher injury goes from miniscule to miniscule.

Pitchers have often times argued that the mound is too low and they are in an extremely dangerous position. However, some argue a lower mound would reduce the risk of tommy john (interesting article below that I hadn't previously read).

 

http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/05/...ower-the-mound/

[WilliamTell]

Uhhh Noooo

[caulfield12]

Uhhh Noooo

 

 

Mr. Bill?