Geez, by that dumb logic, the players ought to be lobbying for fewer defensive players on the field at all. I mean, how many doubles and triples might they have if there was no such thing as a left fielder anymore?
The Mainboard MLB Lockout Thread
- Thread starter OCD SS
- Start date
- Status
They will be able to shift but it will be within limits so can’t overload (can’t be on wrong side of second base from your position).
Some discussion about when players could start moving - supposedly you could sprint out of position when the pitcher starts his motion.
Some discussion about when players could start moving - supposedly you could sprint out of position when the pitcher starts his motion.
I think that's a fair compromise. Sports evolve over time to adjust to new realities. Having a line from home plate, to the mound, second base, and maybe even all the way to straightaway center, and saying the defense has to have at least X number of players on each side at the time of the pitch is reasonable IMO.
That's.... Not the way that works.
I'm on board with shift limitations. They used them in AA last year, and studies showed that while ground balls turned into hits at about the same rate as with shifting, the hit percentage on line drives went up significantly. I think players who make good contact should be rewarded for it.
Every other sport has rules for what the defense can and can't do, why shouldn't baseball?
I’m trying to think through the other major sports and can’t really come up with any equivalent limitations on the ability for an opposing defense to adjust how it approaches a specific player…
NFL defenses can drop as many guys as they want into coverage against Patrick Mahomes and use safety help on Tyreke Hill… do we say “run the ball or throw to the uncovered guy” or “you must line up one safety on the each side of the field and they can’t go more than 15 yards from the line of scrimmage”?
NBA teams could opt to send more guys at Joel Embiid and I think most of us would say “learn how to pass out of the double team.”
If an MLB batter can only hit the ball hard to one side of the field and not both, why shouldn’t a defense be able to respond in the the same way an NBA defense will sag off Rondo when he’s behind the 3 point line or an NFL defense stacks the box against a Pats team lacking deep threats? A more limited hitter should have a harder time than a more well rounded one.
There is still an illegal defense rule in the NBA although it's rarely called, "a defensive player will not be permitted to stay in the lane for more than three seconds if he is more than an arm's length away from his man." I don't think it's an equivalent though, hard to compare different sports.
Perhaps the NHL rules changes that dropped the 2 line pass basically eliminated an entire defensive strategy (the old Left Wing Lock). Didn't really tell the defense not to do something but incentivized the offense by giving a free way to break it.
In the NBA, like Jon said, there’s the illegal defence rule and also hand-checking was not allowed. This favoured offense. In the NFL the ever-stricter penalties called on defensive players have favoured offended. Baseball needs to do the same, it’s time to tilt the game towards the things that people want to see (like Theo said: double, triples and steals).
OK, so they're going to ban outfield shifts? What else? No playing the infield in or guarding the lines? I guess I don't love the "aesthetics" of the infielder playing short right field but it's just strategy, as with any other defensive positioning.
I’ll concede the 3-second violation, but I don’t really agree with the others. Player positioning is inherently a strategy decision that strengthens one area of the defense at the expense of another and the opposing offense has a way to exploit that decision (e.g. throw the ball against an 8 man box, hit the ball the other way against the shift). An offensive player has no real recourse or counter to a hand check in basketball or to a DB being allowed to mug receivers in football. Those are apples and oranges to me.
Feels like with the expanded playoffs the Yankees, Red Sox and Dodgers are never going to miss the playoffs. Ever.
Maybe that’s the point of it.
Maybe that’s the point of it.
Isn't a significant difference the fact that in basketball and football, the offense is putting the ball into play *and* has a much greater degree of control over it? It is already inherently difficult to hit a baseball, and even more so when the pitcher and catcher are conspiring to locate it in a spot which inhibits the hitters ability to 'defeat' a shift by hitting it the other way.
And arguably wouldn't have to spend as much on salary in pursuit of a playoff spot either. Not saying they won't spend, but the urgency of acquiring that one last piece either in the offseason or at the deadline is likely to be just a bit less if the threshold for making the playoffs is 85 wins instead of 90.
The other big difference is that a left handed batter has to run to his pull side. You can put a second basemen in short right and he can still easily make a throw to first on a smoked line drive. It's unfair to lefties (although lefties do have a one step advantage in running out of the batter's box). I'd be okay with just requiring that infielders are not on the outfield grass. I know that messes up some strategy late in the game with a fourth outfielder, but that's a small price to pay to make sure a well hit ball getting rewarded for hitters on both sides of the plate.
That assumes that teams treat the playoffs as a crapshoot, though, and I don’t think that’s the case. Look at the last deadline and what the Dodgers gave up for Scherzer, even though they were a 100+ win team. If teams think players improve their already excellent teams, I think they’ll still make moves.
Look, I'm not sure that the shift limitations are perfect but when your counter-argument consists of "lets remove all the fielders," you're not really making an argument.
There is a problem, varied offensive output is down and unlikely to return because of shifts. That problem won't likely solve itself, even if players evolve a bit. The second part of the problem is that the type of offense that resulted from shift evolution is less fun and worse for audiences. I think shift restrictions help.
There is a problem, varied offensive output is down and unlikely to return because of shifts. That problem won't likely solve itself, even if players evolve a bit. The second part of the problem is that the type of offense that resulted from shift evolution is less fun and worse for audiences. I think shift restrictions help.
There's already an MLB rule that non-catchers have to be set in fair territory when the ball is pitched (often used to ensure first basemen aren't standing in foul territory when holding a runner on first). It's simply setting an initial condition for play to begin, the defense doesn't get to do whatever it wants to do even now.
Last edited:
Me too. If one of the issues is pace of play, why not combine manager challenges with shifts? Put something in place like 3 total shifts/challenges. You want to fuck around with your defense? Fine... it'll come at the cost of a challenge. You want to challenge multiple calls and waste time? Fine, don't fuck around with your defense. Might help encourage no shifting/challenging early in the game and subsequently let the game breathe a little.
Oh... and add a pitch clock and don't let batters step out/call timeout.
Well, while we're throwing traditional baseball concepts away (universal DH, more teams in postseason) and purists are being told to shut up and accept it, I'll throw out there that I don't buy tickets to see Mike Trout or Pete Alonso trying to slap balls the other way, either. The shift sucks just as much, if not more, than watching pitchers hit.
I agree with this. Shifts may be analytically sound/good strategy, but they make the game less entertaining .Every other sport makes rule changes for the expressed purpose of making their game more exciting. MLB needs to get off their stodgy rear ends, and do the same. I'm not sure an outright ban is the way to go, but some of the tweaks that have been proposed here and there should be investigated. And Loumer's comments are dumb. Hitting a fucking baseball in general is a hard to thing to do. Whining about how hard it is to go the other way, at least with some bunts, just sounds silly.
Of course they are. I was responding to a comment about “every other sport” having rules about what a defense is allowed to do, hence the comparisons to other sports.
Hell, even when the Sox are in a shift and the opposing batter smashes a 150 foot rocket straight into a glove for an out, my first thought after "phew" is "well that sucks."
For me the problem is how to enforce this.
I understand that the shift is not ideal, but exactly how do we do this?
Big Papi is in the batter's box, he hits a ball to the right, is he given a single if the SS is there? Is the team warned? What is the radius that any one guy can move within his position? This may yet work but simply saying the shift is outlawed does not cut it.
I expect if they do this there will be lines drawn in the sand. Both literally and figuratively.
I am very much against this, but it's pretty easy to enforce with rules about how many players can start each play on each side of the second base bag, and/or how many can be positioned on the outfield grass.
Having a defender in foul territory when a pitch is delivered counts as a balk. This would probably be enforced the same way, although I'm not sure what the penalty would be with the bases empty.
This is exactly what Olney is reporting. At 6 teams per league though it'd be the weakest division winner and the 3 WCs.
View: https://twitter.com/Buster_ESPN/status/1498700776146939904
Pat Ragazzo, beat reporter for the Mets for SI, and blue checkmarked, reporting the lockout could be over by tomorrow.
View: https://twitter.com/ragazzoreport/status/1498690914318958594
Sources: MLB and MLBPA are hopeful that they will agree on a new CBA by tonight or tomorrow by the latest They’ve made significant progress but there are still some details to hammer out
View: https://twitter.com/ragazzoreport/status/1498690914318958594
Sources: MLB and MLBPA are hopeful that they will agree on a new CBA by tonight or tomorrow by the latest They’ve made significant progress but there are still some details to hammer out
I hate all of this but a 14 team system where all 3 division winners make it to the divisional round and WC teams need to win two do or die games in a row seems like a better approach to maintain the importance and integrity of the regular season. This format doesn't do enough to support division winner number 3 over the WC teams.
You're actually wrong here. This isn't saying "top two division leaders" it's saying top two teams, which could be in the same division. Which solves the problem for the AL east anyway where we're always stacked with crazy good teams. It basically attacks the concept of a division and I think I'm okay with it. Winning a division doesn't get you much but winning a lot of games does.
I am the voice of dissent, here: expanded playoffs would be fun. Reduce the regular season by 50-60 games while you’re at it.
Defense rules in limited-overs cricket seem to be a close match, and, as I understand it, they were driven by similar concerns to shifting in baseball. I don't think there were issues with positioning customized to individual batsmen, though.
That would be a huge departure to reward a wildcard over a division winner. I think you may be reading it too literally, especially since all the reports are at least second hand in terms of what's being discussed in the room.
And if they're going to reduce the importance of winning a division, they're going to have to balance the schedules at the same time which seems like an extremely complex thing to have to do on short notice to get this CBA across the finish line. Rewarding the second place team in the AL East or NL West because they got to beat up on the Orioles or the Dbacks or the Rockies more than teams outside their division seems sub-optimal.
Thanks. Hope it’s by record - so last year LA and SF get byes regardless of division winners. If it’s division winners drop into 2 divisions per league and get those two winners byes.
If a deal does get done today, how long until players report to spring training? Would this make the free agent market insane right away?
I think you are right (unfortunately) that the two top division winners will get the byes, but I think that your latter conclusion is mistaken. Quite often the division winner with the worst record of the three is not the third or even fourth best team in the league and by guaranteeing them a seed over all of the wild card teams, you are actually doubling down on the schedule advantage.
I don't disagree with that, but that wasn't really the argument I was making. Doing away with the unbalanced schedule would negate any arguments about a wildcard being better or worse than a division winner. If each of those teams played the same schedule, then sure, if the second place AL East team has more wins than the AL West winner, they deserve an advantage in the post-season.
What I wouldn't want is the 2021 Dodgers getting a bye over the 2021 Brewers because they got to play the DBacks and Rockies 38 times (29-9) vs the Brewers seeing them only 14 times (11-3). If the Dodgers and Brewers had played those two teams an equal number of times, then by all means reward the Dodgers for their 106 win season.
Feels weird that Nightingale is the guy with the good info on this story.
View: https://twitter.com/BNightengale/status/1498735102523854848?s=20&t=2rNVDfWTIpePA1BVH6oELg
View: https://twitter.com/BNightengale/status/1498735102523854848?s=20&t=2rNVDfWTIpePA1BVH6oELg
Not to keep harping on the shift, but you can't bemoan the players current approach at the plate and its end result (pull swing for the fences and you severely limit balls in play which is boring as hell) and then think that rules for a shift are a positive which in essence allows them to keep their same approach at the plate and removes the benefit of having a better product - which is putting more balls in play by making them pay for shifting you.
It's not impossible to hit to all fields, its just not worked on like it used to - and for some it’s probably not worked on at all.
Remember when gallo bunted against the shift last year? Great freaking play. The crowd loved it and went nuts. At some point if enough pull guys sprinkle that kind of stuff in - and it doesn’t have to be every at bat and it doesn’t have to be a bunt - shifts will lessen.
Guys are strong enough now to hit balls over the fence even if they are taking a good fundamental approach to all fields. I prefer more contact not less. It’s doable if the hitters WANT to do it.
they should focus on allowing trading of draft picks and locking down the international draft over a shift.
It's not impossible to hit to all fields, its just not worked on like it used to - and for some it’s probably not worked on at all.
Remember when gallo bunted against the shift last year? Great freaking play. The crowd loved it and went nuts. At some point if enough pull guys sprinkle that kind of stuff in - and it doesn’t have to be every at bat and it doesn’t have to be a bunt - shifts will lessen.
Guys are strong enough now to hit balls over the fence even if they are taking a good fundamental approach to all fields. I prefer more contact not less. It’s doable if the hitters WANT to do it.
they should focus on allowing trading of draft picks and locking down the international draft over a shift.
Right, but hitters don't want to do it. The hitters are happy doing what they're doing. The fielders are happy doing what they're doing. So either there needs to be outside intervention or we need to accept the status quo.
I don't know, players right now are limiting themselves to swinging for the fences trying to pull the ball, shift be damned. It's possible philosophy for dealing with the shift changes at some point, but I don't see the evidence for that right now. At least by eliminating or modifying the shift, you get more of those hard-hit ball that do stay in the ballpark turning into hits instead of outs.
And as has been mentioned earlier, it's pitching combined with the shift that leads to the current approach. It's not that hitters can't or won't hit the ball the opposite way, it's that trying to hit a slider breaking in on your hands the opposite way is not a smart decision. Ortiz used to talk about this all the time - give me a pitch I can drive the opposite way and I will, but when you're pitching exclusively inside, I have to go with the pitch.
So you're proposing a regular season that would be roughly 100-110 games? Lop off about 1/3 of the season? I'm not sure that's enough games to create separation. IMO, if you increase playoff teams and cut that many games out of the season you're more likely to have multiple teams clustered with identical records. You might wind up with 8-10 teams in a division with the top six W-L records.
- Status