MLB to Test Larger Bases, Defensive Positioning Restrictions in Minors in 2021

Wallball Tingle

union soap
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
2,518
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!
 

cromulence

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 25, 2009
6,699
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!
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.

In general, I like that they're trying stuff. Some of this stuff, like the pitch clock and maybe the automated strike zone, needs to happen. I don't like the pickoff rule one bit, but overall I'd rather see them trying stuff instead of resisting any kind of change.
 
Last edited:

EddieYost

is not associated in any way with GHoff
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
10,742
NH
While multiple pickoffs are boring, having a limit seems like it gives an unfair advantage to the runner. I guess maybe it will mostly eliminate the ones where the pitcher just lobs it over.
 

cornwalls@6

Less observant than others
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
6,247
from the wilds of western ma
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 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.
 
Last edited:

Lose Remerswaal

Experiencing Furry Panic
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
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.
If only there were a way to beat the shift so you didn't have to legislate against it!
 

Fishercat

Svelte and sexy!
SoSH Member
May 18, 2007
8,264
Manchester, N.H.
Generally I like when any organization is willing to try out new ideas and see what works, what doesn't, etc. in a real life situation. I can't say I trust the Manfred led league to make the right calls using it but trying isn't so much an issue to me. My initial gut reactions

Larger Bases. Fine, a double base probably makes more sense but this is fine.
Infielder Requirements: This is a tougher one. I honestly don't hate it - I get that some of the beauty of baseball is the ability to configure the defensive alignment to whatever works, but this alone really doesn't change a TON (you can still play three people to the right of second for instance), it just makes it riskier to cover a shift since you'll have to mess with outfielders if you want someone in short RF and likely means the heavy pull hitters can still power through it more often.
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.
Automatic Strike Zone: Yes please.
On-Field Timer: I really don't mind this but it feels like the step-off rules are overkill in that case. Why not just have a slightly longer timer that includes pickoffs instead if you really want that (or a regular timer that pauses for pickoffs, or a continuous timer that adds x seconds for a pickoff attempt that's the rough equivalent of the time to pickoff and return the ball)

In a larger sense, a lot of this seems to be dedicated to getting a faster overall pace of play, more run scoring (so games may not be longer but may be more exciting), and incentivizing players who are really good at one or two things to be more relevant by removing blockades to their success. The value in the third part is definitely iffy IMO, but I kind of get the ideas even if I don't love them all. The step-off stuff is just garbage through and through but the rest I'd be interested to see results on. I'm glad they're at least trying it. More stolen base artists and heavy pull power hitters being successful isn't necessarily bad for the game.
 

allmanbro

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
362
Portland, Maine
The bigger bases idea is an interesting one. I like the idea of encouraging more aggressive baserunning, and if this works, it's the kind of subtle, clever change that they should be looking for. So, with each base edge 1.5 inches closer, the baserunners have 3 inches less to run. Is there reason to believe that will make a noticeable difference? How many attempted steals or extra bases are lost by 3 inches or less? I could be convinced that the number here is bigger than I expect, but intuitively, it's hard to see it making a real difference.
 

geoduck no quahog

not particularly consistent
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Nov 8, 2002
13,024
Seattle, WA
If only there were a way to beat the shift so you didn't have to legislate against 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.

Anyway, the league caught up to the discrepancy and started moving infielders around to the right side as a regular thing against LHH. I also assume this meant pitchers would now pitch inside to them due to the huge hole on the left. Is that the case? In short, it's easy to say "hit the ball the other way" but harder to do if the pitches are all inside.

So my question is: Does the defense have an unusual advantage with shifts mostly because good pitchers can influence where the ball is hit? Or are batters the ones at fault because they should just learn how to hit away from the shift...
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
70,713
Eliminating shifts will lead to even more three true outcomes, guys will sell out going for HRs even more.
 

Kliq

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 31, 2013
22,667
I 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.

I like the larger bases and perhaps the pick-off rules. I'd love to see somebody steal 100 bags again.
 

Sad Sam Jones

Member
SoSH Member
May 5, 2017
2,494
I'm about two Manfred innovations shy of sitting in the corner and humming "Memories" while I cuddle a framed photo of Bud Selig.
 

Max Power

thai good. you like shirt?
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
7,877
Boston, MA
Outlawing pickoffs is kind of crazy. Rickey Henderson's stolen base records looked to be as safe was Cy Young's career wins, but that rule change could put them in striking distance for a young fast runner.

There may be some interesting downstream effects from it. Will hitters not try to go all out on every swing since you can easily turn a single into a double? Will pitchouts come back into style? Will pitchers work quicker as a means of holding runners close to a base? I don't think they should implement it at the major league level any time soon, but it will be interesting to see how it plays out in the minors.
 

allmanbro

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
362
Portland, Maine
Eliminating shifts will lead to even more three true outcomes, guys will sell out going for HRs even more.
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.
 

Comfortably Lomb

Koko the Monkey
SoSH Member
Feb 22, 2004
12,958
The Paris of the 80s
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.
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.
 

Bertha

Member
SoSH Member
May 3, 2016
194
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.
 

LogansDad

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 15, 2006
29,049
Alamogordo
I don't love any of these changes, besides maybe the pitch clock, but I am interested in seeing the intended and unintended consequences of the step off limits. I do think it helps out the baserunners, but I could also see it leading to more pickoffs as the runners take sizable leads after the step offs are used up.

I think a balk is way to big of a punishment for it, but maybe a ball instead?
 

allmanbro

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
362
Portland, Maine
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.
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.
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
70,713
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.
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.
 

allmanbro

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
362
Portland, Maine
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.
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.


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.
This is a really good point, and might be a much bigger factor to increased SB than shortening the base path by three inches.
 

grimshaw

Member
SoSH Member
May 16, 2007
4,220
Portland
None of this stuff is written in stone, so I don't mind the fact they are experimenting. Theo Epstein's recent hiring and attributed quotes leads me to believe he had a strong voice in these changes as well, and I trust his judgement more than anyone's in that office.

I do believe that pitcher pick off attempts are a major pace of play issue that is finally being acknowledged. Live fans literally groan about how tedious they are.
 

Minneapolis Millers

Wants you to please think of the Twins fans!
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
4,753
Twin Cities
I 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.
....
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-shift

But as a general matter, I like the willingness to experiment, especially if they can shorten games without fundamentally changing them.
 

geoduck no quahog

not particularly consistent
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Nov 8, 2002
13,024
Seattle, WA
Well, isn't it a fact that the more hitters get paid for homeruns, the more hitters will swing that way?

Don't see any way of changing that.

(BTW, from a 538 article in 2019):

 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
70,713
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.
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
 

geoduck no quahog

not particularly consistent
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Nov 8, 2002
13,024
Seattle, WA
Hopefully a deadened ball won't just result in harder swings and more K's.

(Edit: In other words, will power hitters decide to go for line drive launch angles, or just keep doing what they do even if fly balls fall short of the walls)
 

Murby

New Member
Mar 16, 2006
1,790
Boston Metro
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.
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.

I also think baseball wants to get the action happening, so this likely forces the issue. More guys will run, more balls in play, more pressure on the pitcher.

I am still opposed to it conceptually....but, I am willing to see how this goes.
 

geoduck no quahog

not particularly consistent
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Nov 8, 2002
13,024
Seattle, WA
From today's Globe:

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.
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.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,233
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:
39603
 
Last edited:

SumnerH

Malt Liquor Picker
Dope
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
31,885
Alexandria, VA
Manfred will literally do anything except enforce a pitch clock.
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).

Those two changes are so simple and so obvious, and they don't mess with the fundamentals of the game at all. I'm fine testing the other stuff, but harvest the low-hanging fruit.
 

allmanbro

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
362
Portland, Maine
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?
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.
 

Tuff Ghost

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
652
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:
But 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.
https://theathletic.com/2443470/2021/03/11/mlb-minor-league-rule-change-experiments/?source=user_shared_article
 

allmanbro

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
362
Portland, Maine
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
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.

I still think a flat zone a couple inches back from the front of the plate better matches the 3d zone. But I guess if you just rewrite the rule, it doesn't make a difference beyond the immediate adjustment: everyone can move up or back a couple inches and get used to it.

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?
 

Heating up in the bullpen

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 24, 2007
1,082
Pittsboro NC
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?
Apples and Oranges.
Proposal to move the mound back would be to give hitters an extra tick to pick up the pitch.
 

Heating up in the bullpen

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 24, 2007
1,082
Pittsboro NC
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.
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.
 

Tuff Ghost

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
652
The thing that I find really interesting about the electronic strike zone is the ability to tweak the parameters from year-to-year. "If we contract the zone by x% in this direction, we can cut strikeout rates by y% and increase balls in play by z%. If we expand by a% in this direction, we can decrease HR/FB rates by b%."

It's all very quantifiable and adaptable. Some may see it as dystopian overreach of a simple past time, but I think it really has potential to improve the game. Most data usage in the game in recent years has been to improve players and outcomes, at the possible detriment to how enjoyable the game can be to watch (depending on how much you appreciate home runs and strikeouts). But this is an example where data usage could by used to actually improve the game-viewing experience. They could find ways to increase/decrease strikeouts, walks, and home runs if the three true outcome approach becomes overbearing (or if Bobby Dalbec breaks baseball this year when he hits 80 HRs and strikes out 300 times, heh).
 

allmanbro

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
362
Portland, Maine
Apples and Oranges.
Proposal to move the mound back would be to give hitters an extra tick to pick up the pitch.
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.
 

Max Power

thai good. you like shirt?
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
7,877
Boston, MA
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.
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?