The shifting rule, at least at first, is that all infielders must have both feet in the infield. I'm actually open to that - I can see an argument that they're called infielders and they should play in the infield.It would take a lot to make me completely drop baseball, but banning 3-man/5-man infields and potentially limiting it to two fielders on either side of second might just do the trick!
If only there were a way to beat the shift so you didn't have to legislate against it!The shift restrictions intrigue me. Anything that might lead to more batted balls in play, more base runners, more action, is, IMO, worth looking into. More exciting games are as much of a needed thing as shorter games are. And I hope they continue to be move aggressively in the other areas to shorten length of game, like pitch clocks, truly enforcing batters staying in the box, limiting pitching changes, etc. I think the game really is at a critical juncture as far as it's popularity and place in the culture going forward. They should be exploring all avenues to improve it.
My view on shifts is pretty basic. It starts with me wondering why shifting wasn't SOP since day 1 of the sport. FIrst base is a unique infield fielding position because the first baseman is so often anchored to a specific area. I guess that gave LHH's an advantage because they could pull through the 1B-2B gap more eaily than going the other way through the tighter 3B-SS gap. I would have thought that meant pitchers would typically pitch LHH away to help force them to the left side of the infield. I don't know.If only there were a way to beat the shift so you didn't have to legislate against it!
It won’t work that way. Too many guys are in the taught habit of trying to power over the shift.If only there were a way to beat the shift so you didn't have to legislate against it!
Re-education camps (taught by Fred McGriff?) could fix that. Success goes to whoever learns to "beat" the shift.It won’t work that way. Too many guys are in the taught habit of trying to power over the shift.
I'm interested to know why you think this. The reasoning I have heard, which makes sense to me, is the opposite: that by banning the shift you make base hits easier to get so there's less reason to go three true outcomes.Eliminating shifts will lead to even more three true outcomes, guys will sell out going for HRs even more.
Why would you not go all in on trying to pull the ball with as much power as possible when if you miss you get tons of open space because the defense isn't allowed to defend where you hit it most of the time?I'm interested to know why you think this. The reasoning I have heard, which makes sense to me, is the opposite: that by banning the shift you make base hits easier to get so there's less reason to go three true outcomes.
I can see this. But there was a very intentional "fly ball revolution" over the last few years with players changing swing planes to loft the ball more. This was a big part of what lead to the HR rates in 2019. If line drives become more valuable because they are more likely to fall in, that trend could reverse. The bet would be that loft matters for HRs more than just trying to pull the ball hard. Fewer HRS seems more likely to me as the outcome to this move, but I guess it could go either way.Why would you not go all in on trying to pull the ball with as much power as possible when if you miss you get tons of open space because the defense isn't allowed to defend where you hit it most of the time?
The problem with testing this at the minor league level is teams aren't going to stack their lineups with pull hitters like they will if banning the shift hits the majors. So how it plays won't be representative.
Yeah I don't think it's a line drive/fly ball dichotomy, I think that you are changing the risk/reward of pulling the ball as CL said. The 'fly ball revolution' has happened despite shifts making it a lower percentage play, not because of them. If guys were happy to take a single, there would be a lot more bunting against the shift.I can see this. But there was a very intentional "fly ball revolution" over the last few years with players changing swing planes to loft the ball more. This was a big part of what lead to the HR rates in 2019. If line drives become more valuable because they are more likely to fall in, that trend could reverse. The bet would be that loft matters for HRs more than just trying to pull the ball hard. Fewer HRS seems more likely to me as the outcome to this move, but I guess it could go either way.
A bunt against the shift has a single as the best-case outcome, and is not trivial to pull off. A hard line drive into a shiftless RF could be a single, double, or even triple or HR if it bounces right or carries. Lowering your launch angle is not the same as just taking a single. The question is about the net value of all the possible outcomes. Fly balls avoid the shift by going over it, and I am not aware of any decline in pull hitting by lefties in response to increased shifts, but would be interested to hear if there s evidence of it.Yeah I don't think it's a line drive/fly ball dichotomy, I think that you are changing the risk/reward of pulling the ball as CL said. The 'fly ball revolution' has happened despite shifts making it a lower percentage play, not because of them. If guys were happy to take a single, there would be a lot more bunting against the shift.
This is a really good point, and might be a much bigger factor to increased SB than shortening the base path by three inches.I'm fairly intrigued by the larger base size. Baseball has a long history of a runner being called out if the glove and ball are down ahead of the runner. In recent years, I'm guessing due to replay, the neighborhood play no longer applies, both on turning DPs as well as on tags. Runners these days try changing speeds, contorting themselves, and more in order to reach the base before being actually tagged. I have no idea how much of a factor this could become, but you get 3" more in every direction. An alert baserunner will have more lateral options when approaching a base. This should cut down on some sliding too far that we see, as well.
I agree with this. Making adjustments, exploiting weaknesses, changing strategy and approach, developing new skills - that IS baseball. Good hitters can beat the shift: https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/7933904/boston-red-sox-dh-david-ortiz-beating-shiftI don't like eliminating the shift at all, it removes strategy and encourages players to become more one-dimensional. If a player can't hit the ball to all fields that is a weakness that should be exploited. I feel the same way about Hack-a-Shaq; if a player has such a severe deficiency in their game that it makes sense to exploit that deficiency every time down the floor, than other teams should be encouraged to do that and the player with the deficiency should not be protected by the rules.
....
None of us know definitively, which is a main reason they test changes in the minors first, but FWIW Joe Sheehan agrees with me.A bunt against the shift has a single as the best-case outcome, and is not trivial to pull off. A hard line drive into a shiftless RF could be a single, double, or even triple or HR if it bounces right or carries. Lowering your launch angle is not the same as just taking a single. The question is about the net value of all the possible outcomes. Fly balls avoid the shift by going over it, and I am not aware of any decline in pull hitting by lefties in response to increased shifts, but would be interested to hear if there s evidence of it.
Ya, it will be interesting to see. Either way, hopefully the deadened ball will make a difference. That's by far this biggest issue.None of us know definitively, which is a main reason they test changes in the minors first, but FWIW Joe Sheehan agrees with me.
View: https://twitter.com/joe_sheehan/status/1370805008585822208?s=21
I agree with this. This was my initial reaction and so I was trying to figure out what the goal here is....I came away with images of Clay Buchholtz throwing to first with a Molina on first. This made me think, by essentially eliminating the throw over to first from being effective it might get the pitchers to speed up their pitches.Step Off Rule: Seems unnecessary, though if accompanied by nothing else probably does what they want.
Step Off Limitations: This is terrible. This functionally limits the pitcher to one pick off attempt per PA which is way too strong of an advantage to any competent baserunner. It feels like a short pitch timer could do this way more elegantly, and a balk is way too hard of a penalty for violating the rule.
Seriously, Manfred is out to kill the sport of Baseball.I'm about two Manfred innovations shy of sitting in the corner and humming "Memories" while I cuddle a framed photo of Bud Selig.
Shit - we all know that the Strike Zone is a 3-dimensional space. Ignoring where the ball travels independently of the front of home plate sounds unfair.Automated strike zones are the future: Among the experiments MLB will conduct in the minor leagues this year is a robotic strike zone, with plate umpires relaying what the computer sees...
The current test system uses a two-dimensional “plane” at the front of home plate as the strike zone. The size of the zone is based on the player’s height: 56 percent of height for top of zone, 28 percent for bottom of zone. Player height statistics provided by teams will be monitored closely.
I agree it would be preferable to get a 3-D automated strike zone but I would prefer a 2-D version to continuing to suffer through human umps calling balls and strikes.From today's Globe:
Shit - we all know that the Strike Zone is a 3-dimensional space. Ignoring where the ball travels independently of the front of home plate sounds unfair.
It does seem like it could be a problem for front and back-door sliders and 2-seamers. Or does the zone's depth only correspond with the hitter's thickness? OTOH-- 2D was fine when I played stickball in the Brooklyn schoolyard:From today's Globe:
Shit - we all know that the Strike Zone is a 3-dimensional space. Ignoring where the ball travels independently of the front of home plate sounds unfair.
And similarly restricting the batter stepping out/delaying things between pitches (which at least some studies have shown is responsible for more of the bloat in game times than pitcher delays).Manfred will literally do anything except enforce a pitch clock.
Especially because they are putting the plane at the front of the plate. We should have the pitchfx data to tell us how many pitches that would impact, so hopefully someone somewhere with those abilities wants to write that article. If you have to use a plane, I would guess that placing it at the middle of the square part of the plate (halfway between the front and where it angles in) would mean fewer missed pitches compared to the 3d box - or at least, those that are missed would likely seem less egregious.It does seem like it could be a problem for front and back-door sliders and 2-seamers. Or does the zone's depth only correspond with the hitter's thickness?
https://theathletic.com/2443470/2021/03/11/mlb-minor-league-rule-change-experiments/?source=user_shared_articleBut what baseball needs to study most closely is what definition of the strike zone needs to be plugged into the computer to produce a zone that resembles what current hitters and pitchers think of as a strike. When the Atlantic League used the rulebook strike zone in 2019, the robots called strikes on pitches that not a single human in the park thought was a strike. That has to change for this system to work in the big leagues.
So there is some thought that ultimately, baseball might need to shrink the top of the electronic zone significantly, bring the bottom of the zone up slightly and expand the corners microscopically. But those adjustments might also be used to produce more balls in play. So this is a highly significant work in progress.
Hidden wrinkle: One of the issues with the previous version of the ABS was sweeping breaking balls that were called strikes but didn’t look like strikes to anyone but the robots — because they barely nicked a corner of the strike zone as they crossed the back of the plate. Hitters rightly complained that those pitches were never hittable, even though they were technically rulebook strikes. To address that glitch, this version of the electronic zone will no longer be three-dimensional, theoretically eliminating those optical-illusion strikes.
Interesting that he calls them optical illusions - really it seems like the lesson is that actually sticking to the 3d zone gives pitchers too big of an advantage. That seems like a reasonable worry to me.Stark recently had a few brief thoughts on the implementation of the electronic strike zone in an article in The Athletic, mentioning the reasoning behind a 2D zone:
https://theathletic.com/2443470/2021/03/11/mlb-minor-league-rule-change-experiments/?source=user_shared_article
thanks for posting that.Stark recently had a few brief thoughts on the implementation of the electronic strike zone in an article in The Athletic, mentioning the reasoning behind a 2D zone:
https://theathletic.com/2443470/2021/03/11/mlb-minor-league-rule-change-experiments/?source=user_shared_article
Apples and Oranges.Here's a half-baked thought: There has been some discussion of moving the mound back a little. If you make the strike zone into a plane, does setting that plane at the "shoulder" of the plate (as opposed to the front) have the same effect as moving the mound back 8.5 inches without actually moving it?
What he calls a glitch/"optical illusion strike" I would call a perfect pitch. Some pitches that were never hittable should be strikes.Hidden wrinkle: One of the issues with the previous version of the ABS was sweeping breaking balls that were called strikes but didn’t look like strikes to anyone but the robots — because they barely nicked a corner of the strike zone as they crossed the back of the plate. Hitters rightly complained that those pitches were never hittable, even though they were technically rulebook strikes. To address that glitch, this version of the electronic zone will no longer be three-dimensional, theoretically eliminating those optical-illusion strikes.
So would moving back the strike plane: hitters can step back in the box and wait until the ball gets the the shoulder of the plate, rather than the front of the plate. If 8.5 inches makes a difference, it doesn't matter if it comes from the mound or the plate.Apples and Oranges.
Proposal to move the mound back would be to give hitters an extra tick to pick up the pitch.
I guess this gets at what the spirit of the strike zone is. I've always understood it as the area a hitter should be able to cover with regular effort. A hitter should be forced to swing at pitches in that area or suffer the penalty of a strike. If a pitch can't be hit, why should a batter be forced to swing at it?What he calls a glitch/"optical illusion strike" I would call a perfect pitch. Some pitches that were never hittable should be strikes.
When I played slow-pitch softball, the pitchers would try to drop the ball into a spot on the inside corner up around the back shoulder. Not a hittable pitch. But that was in the strike zone. Hats off to the softball pitchers who can hit that spot. And hats off to the baseball pitchers who can nick the back corner with Uncle Charlie.
Agreed.What he calls a glitch/"optical illusion strike" I would call a perfect pitch. Some pitches that were never hittable should be strikes.