MLB to make defensive shifts illegal? Could be.

[Ironman92]

Ridiculous IMO.

How will they define where each position can play? Can fielders move in for bunts? Play deep for no doubles? Play the line?

[757690]

I imagine the rule will be similar to NBA anti zone rules. There will need to be at least 3 defenders (excluding pitcher and catcher) on each side of second base. This will allow for some shifting, but get rid of the extreme ones.

[George Anderson]

Part of the beauty of baseball is with very few exceptions, it is the exact same game that has been played since it was invented.
Why change what has worked so well for 140 some years?

[Kc61]

Part of the beauty of baseball is with very few exceptions, it is the exact same game that has been played since it was invented.
Why change what has worked so well for 140 some years?

Because it's not working so well now. I would be firmly in support of limiting the positioning of infielders to prevent these shifts.

Every time I see a second baseman playing in short right field and a shortstop on the "wrong side" to prevent a lefty from getting a hit, I think the game is being cheapened by tactics.

Baseball has to decide if it wants it's future to be guys going oppo all day to avoid shifts. This limits batters from pulling the ball, which is a natural way to hit. And the way that leads to most long balls.

A well crafted rule can make sure it doesn't impact bunt plays, and doesn't impact positioning to prevent doubles. Simply write a limited rule which makes clear when a shortstop or second baseman can and cannot position himself to his extreme right or left.

I really hope they follow through on this, because these shifts really make baseball far less interesting and less fun to watch IMO.

[lollipopcurve]

This occurred to me as a possible means of reversing the trend that has suppressed offense. Easily implemented at no cost to ownership.

Doug has argued that soon advanced metrics will aid offense just as they have aided defense, but I tend to doubt that wilkl happen in any significant way. There will have to be deus ex machina solutions, such as this one, moving fences in, restricting pitching changes, etc.

I tend to be a traditionalist (I hope the DH never comes to the NL), but this is a change I could stomach. I don't like seeing line drives fielded on one bounce by a guy in short rightfield who then throws the guy out at first. To me, that's always been a hit, and still should be.

Possible compromise would be to allow shifts (extra fielders on one side of 2nd base), but keep it to the infield -- no 4th guy in the OF.

[George Anderson]

Because it's not working so well now. I would be firmly in support of limiting the positioning of infielders to prevent these shifts.

Every time I see a second baseman playing in short right field and a shortstop on the "wrong side" to prevent a lefty from getting a hit, I think the game is being cheapened by tactics.

Baseball has to decide if it wants it's future to be guys going oppo all day to avoid shifts. This limits batters from pulling the ball, which is a natural way to hit. And the way that leads to most long balls.

Baseball isn't written in stone. Rules can be changed. And a well crafted rule can make sure it doesn't impact bunt plays, and doesn't impact positioning to prevent doubles. Simply write a limited rule which makes clear when a shortstop or second baseman can and cannot position himself to his extreme right or left.

I really hope they follow through on this, because these shifts really make baseball far less interesting and less fun to watch IMO.

I disagree, I love seeing these shifts and seeing how the batter reacts and if he is skilled enough to hit to the opposite field. At the very least it will motivate the hitter to become an opposite field hitter if he continues to see a shift.

[terminator]

Part of the beauty of baseball is with very few exceptions, it is the exact same game that has been played since it was invented.
Why change what has worked so well for 140 some years?

I guess everyone's definition of "exact same game" is different, but I'd argue it is a very different game.

140 years ago -- 1875 -- a base on balls (walk) was nine balls. My understanding is batters could still call for high and low pitches at that point. There are lots of these types of differences. Just Google "baseball rule changes" and you'll see very long lists of the changes since then.

Personally I wouldn't get rid of shifts. Let hitters work around it IMHO. But changing the rules to stop shifts wouldn't be abnormal historically.

[hebroncougar]

Because it's not working so well now. I would be firmly in support of limiting the positioning of infielders to prevent these shifts.

Every time I see a second baseman playing in short right field and a shortstop on the "wrong side" to prevent a lefty from getting a hit, I think the game is being cheapened by tactics.

Baseball has to decide if it wants it's future to be guys going oppo all day to avoid shifts. This limits batters from pulling the ball, which is a natural way to hit. And the way that leads to most long balls.

A well crafted rule can make sure it doesn't impact bunt plays, and doesn't impact positioning to prevent doubles. Simply write a limited rule which makes clear when a shortstop or second baseman can and cannot position himself to his extreme right or left.

I really hope they follow through on this, because these shifts really make baseball far less interesting and less fun to watch IMO.

Who says it's not working now? I think getting rid of the shift is one of the most idiotic considerations ever proposed. Hitters should/need to adjust. What's next, you can't play shallow on Billy Hamilton, or go no doubles defense with a 2 run lead and a guy on first in the 9th inning? This isn't baseball for dummies, it's baseball, which requires intelligence.

[Kc61]

I disagree, I love seeing these shifts and seeing how the batter reacts and if he is skilled enough to hit to the opposite field. At the very least it will motivate the hitter to become an opposite field hitter if he continues to see a shift.

Yeah, it's fine once in awhile. When managers used this as an occasional tactic, it presented an interesting choice for the hitter.

But now managers have concluded it's best to use the shift very, very frequently. So a good lefty batter is essentially faced with two right fielders almost every time up.

If this trend continues, pulling the ball will become far less common, hitting oppo will be heavily emphasized, power hitting will be reduced, and IMO even fewer runs will be scored. I'd prefer to put limits on this tactic.

[George Anderson]

I guess everyone's definition of "exact same game" is different, but I'd argue it is a very different game.

140 years ago -- 1875 -- a base on balls (walk) was nine balls. My understanding is batters could still call for high and low pitches at that point. There are lots of these types of differences. Just Google "baseball rule changes" and you'll see very long lists of the changes since then.

Personally I wouldn't get rid of shifts. Let hitters work around it IMHO. But changing the rules to stop shifts wouldn't be abnormal historically.

It is why I said with " very few exceptions", it is the exact same game. Yes, there have been a few changes but IMHO this would be one of the most radical.

I mean left handed batters all ready have an advantage with most pitchers being right handed. Should we change the rules where we only allow so many left handed hitters on the roster so that we are fair to the right handed pitchers?

[Kc61]

I don't find the "what's next?" line of argument very persuasive. I don't understand anyone to be contending that you can't play Hamilton shallow; or that the number of left handed hitters should be limited.

We're talking about one specific tactic that has the potential to change offense dramatically, and is doing so already.

IMO, a shortstop should be positioned to the left of second base; a second baseman to the right of second base. If all MLB does is to establish this basic proposition, I'd be happy. I think it would be an improvement.

[kaldaniels]

I don't like seeing line drives fielded on one bounce by a guy in short rightfield who then throws the guy out at first. To me, that's always been a hit, and still should be.

And the opposing view can easily say they don't like a sneak-attack bunt going for a base hit just because no one in the world expected a bunt to be laid down. There is nothing wrong or unfair (not that you are saying so) about a shift...it simply requires adjustments that some really don't want to see.

If one was to argue "I want more offense, ban the shift", I can disagree with that but can appreciate the viewpoint. To argue "have pity for the left-handers the shift is unfair" just doesn't resonate with me.

[Rijo's Ghost]

Even if you're a 40 HR guy, that accounts for around 7% of your AB's. The shift is killing mid level LH OBP these days. Just ask Mark Teixeira and Jay Bruce.

I'll be sure to ask Jay why it's the shift that's killing his OBP and not this:

2011: 23.8K% - 10.7BB%
2012: 24.5K% - 9.8BB%
2013: 26.5K% - 9.0BB%
2014: 27.3K% - 8.1BB%

[kaldaniels]

I don't find the "what's next?" line of argument very persuasive. I don't understand anyone to be contending that you can't play Hamilton shallow; or that the number of left handed hitters should be limited.

We're talking about one specific tactic that has the potential to change offense dramatically, and is doing so already.

IMO, a shortstop should be positioned to the left of second base; a second baseman to the right of second base. If all MLB does is to establish this basic proposition, I'd be happy. I think it would be an improvement.

So under no circumstances a SS can play to the second-base side of the bag? If that's what you want, fine...but me no likey.

- - - Updated - - -

I'll be sure to ask Jay why it's the shift that's killing his OBP and not this:

2011: 23.8K% - 10.7BB%
2012: 24.5K% - 9.8BB%
2013: 26.5K% - 9.0BB%
2014: 27.3K% - 8.1BB%

It's the shift I tell you! It's gotten in his head!

[757690]

I'll be sure to ask Jay why it's the shift that's killing his OBP and not this:

2011: 23.8K% - 10.7BB%
2012: 24.5K% - 9.8BB%
2013: 26.5K% - 9.0BB%
2014: 27.3K% - 8.1BB%

From 2011-2013, Bruce had a .330 OBP. In 2014, the year of the shift, it dropped to .280. Facts ain't on his side in this one.