Turn Off Ads?
Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 78

Thread: Banning the Shift: not if, but how

  1. #46
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    1,998

    Re: Banning the Shift: not if, but how

    Quote Originally Posted by *BaseClogger* View Post
    I'm more concerned with increasing the amount of balls-in-play than where defenders position themselves. Is an infield shift ban going to increase the rate batters make contact?
    I think this is the big key. My harebrained thought to limit shifting, increase balls in play, and speed up the game is to enlarge the size of the strike zone a bit. In my head at least, this forces batters to swing more for contact instead of trying to jack everything out, forces batters to shoot the ball the other way more often, and might entice managers to put runners in motion with hit and runs and other plays that are more exciting than walks and strikeouts.
    "In our sundown perambulations of late, through the outer parts of Brooklyn, we have observed several parties of youngsters playing 'base', a certain game of ball. Let us go forth awhile, and get better air in our lungs. Let us leave our close rooms, the game of ball is glorious"
    -Walt Whitman

  2. Likes:

    Phoenix2 (04-21-2021)


  3. Turn Off Ads?
  4. #47
    he/him *BaseClogger*'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    7,795

    Re: Banning the Shift: not if, but how

    Quote Originally Posted by Reds Freak View Post
    I think this is the big key. My harebrained thought to limit shifting, increase balls in play, and speed up the game is to enlarge the size of the strike zone a bit. In my head at least, this forces batters to swing more for contact instead of trying to jack everything out, forces batters to shoot the ball the other way more often, and might entice managers to put runners in motion with hit and runs and other plays that are more exciting than walks and strikeouts.
    I like where your head is at, but I think this would decrease contact and increase strikeouts :/

  5. Likes:

    OGB (04-21-2021),pahster (04-23-2021)

  6. #48
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    1,998

    Re: Banning the Shift: not if, but how

    Quote Originally Posted by *BaseClogger* View Post
    I like where your head is at, but I think this would decrease contact and increase strikeouts :/
    For the hitters who don't care to make an adjustment, yes.

    Anecdotally, when I watch older games from the 70s and 80s and even the 90s, the one big difference I notice is anything that sniffed the plate was a strike. And back then there were more balls in play, less shifts, and shorter games.
    Last edited by Reds Freak; 04-20-2021 at 09:23 PM.
    "In our sundown perambulations of late, through the outer parts of Brooklyn, we have observed several parties of youngsters playing 'base', a certain game of ball. Let us go forth awhile, and get better air in our lungs. Let us leave our close rooms, the game of ball is glorious"
    -Walt Whitman

  7. #49
    Member SirFelixCat's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    6,315

    Re: Banning the Shift: not if, but how

    I am curious to see what happens in the league where the mound is 12” further from home plate.

  8. #50
    Eight bosses? Bob Sheed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Eight, Bob.
    Posts
    3,340

    Re: Banning the Shift: not if, but how

    I think I figured out a way to beat the shift as a left handed batter.

    Learn how to pop the ball down the 3rd base line instead of swinging out of your shoes every time.

    Nah... too much effort. Let's make some more rules instead.
    "Lemonade requires a significant amount of sugar. Otherwise, you've just made lemon juice."

  9. Likes:

    HUHUH (04-27-2021),Joey Blotto (04-21-2021)

  10. #51
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    283

    Re: Banning the Shift: not if, but how

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Sheed View Post
    I think I figured out a way to beat the shift as a left handed batter.

    Learn how to pop the ball down the 3rd base line instead of swinging out of your shoes every time.

    Nah... too much effort. Let's make some more rules instead.
    This.

    Hitting to all fields is a skill. It's valuable in part because it makes a hitter less predictable to defend against. I don't see why it's wrong for these hitters to gain an advantage versus hitters who are only able to hit the ball to one side of the field.

  11. Likes:

    Phoenix2 (04-21-2021)

  12. #52
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    3,758

    Re: Banning the Shift: not if, but how

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Sheed View Post
    I think I figured out a way to beat the shift as a left handed batter.

    Learn how to pop the ball down the 3rd base line instead of swinging out of your shoes every time.

    Nah... too much effort. Let's make some more rules instead.
    The argument characterizing left handed batters as lazy for not beating the shift is, well... kind of lazy

    1. Left handed hitters are disproportionately impacted by the shift. You can't just move your 1B into short left center.

    2. Coaches and pitchers get paid too. They know what pitches hitters do and can hit the other way. A 93 MPH cutter on the hands? Good luck.

    3. Players are beating the shift right now by walking and driving the ball out of the ballpark.

    4. Let's say Cody Bellinger decided to get off his lazy butt and decided to start beating the shift by popping the ball down the 3rd base line. Maybe he hits .400 instead of his career .273 but with no power. Teams aren't going to just stop shifting against him so he can swing freely. They'll take that trade off

  13. Likes:

    Chip R (04-21-2021),Joeyjection19 (04-21-2021),OGB (04-21-2021),Wonderful Monds (04-21-2021)

  14. #53
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    283

    Re: Banning the Shift: not if, but how

    Quote Originally Posted by MoneyInTheBank View Post
    1. Left handed hitters are disproportionately impacted by the shift. You can't just move your 1B into short left center.
    To be sure, the counter-clockwise arrangement of the bases itself is somewhat of a detriment to left-handed hitters (and even more so left-handed throwing fielders.)

    But on the other hand, they have the advantage of a shorter trip to first base, as well as the majority of pitchers being right-handed. In fact, historically, they have slightly but not-insignificantly higher batting averages than right-handed batters. So I find it hard to say that they're grossly disadvantaged by the current rules.

  15. #54
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    3,758

    Re: Banning the Shift: not if, but how

    Quote Originally Posted by Joey Blotto View Post
    To be sure, the counter-clockwise arrangement of the bases itself is somewhat of a detriment to left-handed hitters (and even more so left-handed throwing fielders.)

    But on the other hand, they have the advantage of a shorter trip to first base, as well as the majority of pitchers being right-handed. In fact, historically, they have slightly but not-insignificantly higher batting averages than right-handed batters. So I find it hard to say that they're grossly disadvantaged by the current rules.
    I'm talking about the shift itself, not "current rules"

    The shorter trip to first is negated by a majority of their batted balls going to the right side of the infield (I know, just stop being lazy and learn how to hit the other way)

    Maybe the right handers should learn how to hit right handed pitching better, amirite?

  16. #55
    rest in power, king Wonderful Monds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    11,460

    Re: Banning the Shift: not if, but how

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Sheed View Post
    I think I figured out a way to beat the shift as a left handed batter.

    Learn how to pop the ball down the 3rd base line instead of swinging out of your shoes every time.

    Nah... too much effort. Let's make some more rules instead.
    This concept has been suggested countless times in this thread and others like it, as if people haven’t already pointed out that’s not realistic to be able to take upper 90s fastballs on the inside of the plate the other way.

  17. Likes:

    joshua (04-21-2021)

  18. #56
    Member cumberlandreds's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Mid Atlantic, USA
    Posts
    16,160

    Re: Banning the Shift: not if, but how

    Quote Originally Posted by Roy Tucker View Post
    Once the genie is out of the bottle, it’s awfully hard to get him (or her) back in.

    I don’t like the shifts and all that, but legislating against it is a real can of worms. But it does make me wonder what the evolution was to come up with the positioning of the 7 non-pitcher-catcher positions was. At some point, the manager told the players to go out and stand on the field and they all said “where?”.
    Which brought up the age old question, "Who's on First?".
    Reds Fan Since 1971

  19. #57
    he/him *BaseClogger*'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    7,795

    Re: Banning the Shift: not if, but how

    Quote Originally Posted by Reds Freak View Post
    For the hitters who don't care to make an adjustment, yes.

    Anecdotally, when I watch older games from the 70s and 80s and even the 90s, the one big difference I notice is anything that sniffed the plate was a strike. And back then there were more balls in play, less shifts, and shorter games.
    I think that's correlation, not causation, and there was more contact because of the difference in quality of pitching between then and now, not the strike zone...

  20. Likes:

    OGB (04-21-2021),pahster (04-23-2021)

  21. #58
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    283

    Re: Banning the Shift: not if, but how

    Quote Originally Posted by *BaseClogger* View Post
    I think that's correlation, not causation, and there was more contact because of the difference in quality of pitching between then and now, not the strike zone...
    I feel like the high strike in particular is now called way less often than it was 30+ years ago.

  22. #59
    Backup First Baseman OGB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    3,467

    Re: Banning the Shift: not if, but how

    Quote Originally Posted by HUHUH View Post
    According to FanGraphs, in 2018 there were 1320 pitches thrown at 100 mph or greater. There are 2430 games in an MLB season, which gives an average of about one 100 mph pitch thrown every two games. Is this what you mean by "constantly pound the inside of the plate with triple digit heat"?
    Now do the same for pitches 97 mph or faster in 2018. Then do pitches thrown over 97 mph back in 1993.
    (Referring to Jack Hannahan signing with a Korean team)
    Since there are no teams on the moon, I guess South Korea's far enough from Cincinnati to satisfy me.
    -RichRed

  23. #60
    Backup First Baseman OGB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    3,467

    Re: Banning the Shift: not if, but how

    Quote Originally Posted by Joey Blotto View Post
    It's interesting in the same way that it's interesting when a football defense plays nickel defense against a QB who regularly makes deep throws.

    They shouldn't be forced to stay in a 4-3 because some people think offense sells tickets. At least in my opinion.
    A nickel defense is when the defense subs in an extra cornerback for a linebacker because the offense subbed in a third wide receiver, not because a QB makes deep throws.
    It's not a strategic move, it's a personnel decision.
    A strategic move would be to match personnel packages and then blitz your nickel corner.

    So no, your comparison stinks.
    Last edited by OGB; 04-21-2021 at 05:38 PM.
    (Referring to Jack Hannahan signing with a Korean team)
    Since there are no teams on the moon, I guess South Korea's far enough from Cincinnati to satisfy me.
    -RichRed


Turn Off Ads?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please.

Thank you, and most importantly, enjoy yourselves!


RedsZone.com is a privately owned website and is not affiliated with the Cincinnati Reds or Major League Baseball


Contact us: Boss | Gallen5862 | Plus Plus | Powel Crosley | RedlegJake | The Operator