MLB May 2014

[DSafetyGuy]

From Klawchat today:

I forget what media outlet published this ridiculous article about how the MLB needs to make a rule change and ban shifts while enforcing the "standard" fielding positions as the new and only option. This all because it is hurting offense.My reaction....hitters are stubborn. Adjust or suffer the consequences. Yours?

Klaw (1:15 PM) - Verducci. Just an awful, atavistic suggestion. Evolve or die, mofos.

[howard]

I would say 'word'. Cause I think I agree, but I don't know what 'atavistic' means.

(But such a rule change to prevent defensive shifts is incredibly fucking stupid.)

[Gunpowder]

I would say 'word'. Cause I think I agree, but I don't know what 'atavistic' means.

(But such a rule change to prevent defensive shifts is incredibly fucking stupid.)

relating to or characterized by reversion to something ancient or ancestral.

Cool new word I just learned!

Anyway, all other sports have defensive rules. I don't see why some restraints would be the death of the game as we know it. I'm not saying it's my opinion that they should or shouldn't, but people overreact to every single rule change in every sport.

[mister d]

I'm not sure I understand the end-game of pulling the LUDDITES!!! card when good of the game trumps allowing any and all optimal strategy. You can't simply "adapt" to losing a pull-centric approach, it necessarily decreases power output in a game that uses power as a major selling point. Its not like everyone is Wade Boggs just choosing not to utilize 67% of the field; there's an entire player type affected and that player type is a seemingly very important one.

I made a potentially bad analogy elsewhere earlier but here it goes ... what if some players were able to develop the ability to basically foul pitches off at will. Just contact heavy dumping balls over the opposite dugout over and over until eventually they get called out or miss one, but they can average 12+ per PA. Is MLB and/or Law really going to applaud "advancement" when there's a tangible downside that can be mitigated?

[mister d]

Anyway, all other sports have defensive rules. I don't see why some restraints would be the death of the game as we know it. I'm not saying it's my opinion that they should or shouldn't, but people overreact to every single rule change in every sport.

Right, and sports are meant to be entertaining. You can respect the strategy while still admitting increasing groundouts to a 2B standing in RF decreases entertainment value.

[Rex]

I guess my opinion is that if I were listing over-managey things that are ruining the enjoyment of the game, this would fall well behind one out guys and pitch counts for me.

[DC47]

Anyway, all other sports have defensive rules. I don't see why some restraints would be the death of the game as we know it. I'm not saying it's my opinion that they should or shouldn't, but people overreact to every single rule change in every sport.

Right, and sports are meant to be entertaining. You can respect the strategy while still admitting increasing groundouts to a 2B standing in RF decreases entertainment value.

That is happening a lot more, and it is less entertaining than a single to RF. But what if the move to shifts -- overdue by about 30 years -- causes teams to make a corresponding change in their approach at the plate? A small amount of this would be due to major league players trying a bit more to go the other way. But realistically, the old dogs are not going to learn new tricks. Teams can realistically draft and develop with a greater priority on using the whole field. In ten years there could be teams that have made a significant move in this direction, and it might be a competitive advantage.

I think this would be interesting baseball. Yes, fewer home runs. But more baserunners, and fewer strikeouts. Hence a secondary implication of more advantage to speed. And a greater difference between teams that make a big move to the whole-field hitting approach, versus those who still emphasize pull-hitting power, perhaps because their home field is built for it (e.g., Yankees, Red Sox, Rangers, Phillies). I like both potential long-term outcomes of the defensive shifts.

[DC47]

I would say 'word'. Cause I think I agree, but I don't know what 'atavistic' means.

(But such a rule change to prevent defensive shifts is incredibly fucking stupid.)

relating to or characterized by reversion to something ancient or ancestral.

Cool new word I just learned!

Anyway, all other sports have defensive rules. I don't see why some restraints would be the death of the game as we know it. I'm not saying it's my opinion that they should or shouldn't, but people overreact to every single rule change in every sport.

Every sport has some basic rules about defense, particularly to reduce the hazards of aggressive physical contact. Even hurling presumably rules out eye-gouging. But not every one has rules about defensive positioning. The most popular game in the world has no rule of this type that I can think of, apart from relatively minor, common-sense rules like standing 10 yards from the ball on a free kick.

[DC47]

I guess my opinion is that if I were listing over-managey things that are ruining the enjoyment of the game, this would fall well behind one out guys and pitch counts for me.

I'd be glad to see rules that favored hitting in baseball. Lowering the mound comes to mind, if there's reasonable evidence that this would help hitters. I'd be glad to see a rule reducing the time between pitches. Though in this case, I'd also like to see a rule that reduces the time that hitters are outside the batters box. Perhaps a clock like the shot clock in basketball that requires the batter to be ready and the ball to be delivered to home plate or a base.

[mister d]

Speaking of lowering the mound, there's a school of thought (I have no idea how scientific, if at all) that it would create a more natural motion and make it tougher for pitchers to injure themselves as frequently. No idea if this is true or if its completely backwards, but its interesting.

(As for other sports regulating defensive positioning, basketball has the defensive 3 seconds rule which seems sort of like this. And, like I said before, the NHL actively shut down a really good defensive strategy just because it was too effective.)

[DC47]

I've heard the same about injuries and mound height. But apparently experts are on both sides in terms of biomechanics.

I wasn't arguing that rules governing defensive positioning are rare. Only that they are not present in every sport. My argument against this in baseball is that you should strongly err on the side of avoiding fundamental rules changes, and that the sport may actually improve -- in the long-term -- due to shifts as this will change the mix of skills at the plate to advance contact hitting and speed, as well as creating more diversity between teams.

If even with ten years to move in this direction it is still the case that shifts are making a big difference in runs scored, I'd look for other ways to enhance offense. Actually, I'm for lowering the mound and limiting time between pitches right now. I'd also be fore shrinking the strike zone if those things don't work. And by this I mean shrinking how it is called in practice, not just in theory. No free ride for experienced umps who won't adjust or those who just want to "do it their way as long as it's consistent." There are probably other pro-offense tweaks that could be seriously considered that would not change the game, or reduce tactical diversity, nearly as much as eliminating shifts.

[mister d]

Strike zone changes would probably be more drastic (and tougher to enforce) than shift rules.

[DC47]

I made a potentially bad analogy elsewhere earlier but here it goes ... what if some players were able to develop the ability to basically foul pitches off at will. Just contact heavy dumping balls over the opposite dugout over and over until eventually they get called out or miss one, but they can average 12+ per PA. Is MLB and/or Law really going to applaud "advancement" when there's a tangible downside that can be mitigated?

This scenario plus some serious romance was worked out long ago in this classic novel:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0007D ... s&v=glance

[DC47]

Strike zone changes would probably be more drastic (and tougher to enforce) than shift rules.

Nothing would be easier to enforce than a rule against dramatic shifts. But shrinking the strike zone a few inches doesn't seem drastic. I think there's more variance between many pairs of umps than this.

It would, of course, depend on changing umpire behavior. MLB is said to have a means of evaluating the accuracy of their ball-strike calls. Would there be major impediments to using it to move the effective strike zone? It seems to me that this could be done by giving the umps ratings with some teeth in them, or even using it in real time, as is done in tennis and will be done before long in soccer to call the plane in front of the goal.

[bapo!]

I was reading thru this discussion earlier, saw D's basketball reference, then saw DSafe's post and knew immediately that he was going to point out that zone defenses are now legal in the NBA. There's something comforting about that. Swamp is gonna Swamp.

A number of years ago, Richard Ford's 'Independence Day' won the Pulitzer Prize. I decided to read it, but first I wanted to read 'The Sports Writer,' because that was the first book about that character. Early in the book, there's a mention of watching an NBA game and seeing a team slip into a zone defense. The book was written before the rule change, and that fact bugged me so much that it took me out of the book, and I never finished it. I'm an asshole sometimes.

I used to complain about Clint Hurdle a lot, but he was an early-adopter of defensive shifts, so I have to give him credit for that. The Pirates' defensive shifts saved a lot of runs last year. I'm kind of disappointed, but not surprised, to see the rest of the league using them more.

[DSafetyGuy]

I would expect that, after the season is complete, someone much smarter than I will do the math to try to put numbers on how much shifting hurt offensive totals on the season, including using hit charts and league average run expectancy to figure out how many more runs would have been scored had shifts not been used.

Now, the bigger question is how rules would limit "shifting". Some teams haven't used a full-on shift against Alex Avila, a lead-footed (he just thanked me for being so complimentary) left-handed batter, but have placed the second baseman about 6-8 steps onto the outfield grass in some situations (two outs comes to mind, as he has ended a couple innings being thrown out by a second baseman making an otherwise routine play well on the outfield grass). Would a team be permitted to do this or would the second baseman have to stay on the dirt?

Even if shifting is outlawed to the point where, say, a shortstop has to be aligned on his "normal" side of the bag, is he allowed to move as soon as the pitch is thrown? Does he have to wait to move until the batter starts to swing to or until contact is made? (In this last case, is it only middle infielders who have to remain stationary, thereby allowing corner infielders to charge in anticipation of a bunt or a first baseman to come off the bag before the pitch if holding on a runner?) If he's allowed to move when the pitch is thrown, the second baseman could already be aligned in his "shifted" position and the shortstop moves over to the other side of the bag to be in "shifted" position before the ball, if hit, reaches him. The third baseman could also move at this time. It would take away the familiarity of having your double play combo being around the bag by not permitting the third baseman to be in right field, but if no runner is on, the double play is obviously not a concern.

[mister d]

I don't think you can check where the ball went and determine if the shift caught since pitchers are throwing into the shift, you just have to look at the raw numbers. And right now, the raw power numbers are really diving as shifts climb. I forget the exact numbers, but there was something like 4,500 shifts in 2012 and this year they're on pace for over 14K. And that's with some teams still not adopting except for obvious hitters like Ortiz or Teixeira.

As for the rule, I think it would just be a simple "must have two IF on either side of 2B", however deep you want. No SS in motion or anything like that allowed, just established in place. (And even if an SS is in motion now, covering a steal or on a wheel, they don't naturally cross over. Its a pretty nice and simple demarcation line.)

DC: I would love umpires to be graded on their strike-zones and, more importantly, the consistency of their strike-zone in game. Missing 20 of 20 3" off is better than missing 10 of 20. But I don't want the zone shrunk just because smaller zone is going to tax pitchers even more and they're breaking enough as is.

Bapo: Speaking of shifts and saving runs, there's going to be some counter-articles written about how the Yankees are shifting a ton this year but their defensive metrics are down. See how many mention the downgrade from Cano to Roberts.

[Gunpowder]

Football is the only sport with definitive rules for where offensive players must stand - should they do away with that?

[DC47]

Yes. End football. It's gotten way out of hand. Or at least go to the seven man flag version.

[Rex]

Wouldn't the foul ball thing just be cricket?

[DC47]

DC: I would love umpires to be graded on their strike-zones and, more importantly, the consistency of their strike-zone in game. Missing 20 of 20 3" off is better than missing 10 of 20. But I don't want the zone shrunk just because smaller zone is going to tax pitchers even more and they're breaking enough as is.

I agree that it would be simple enough to have a rule that limits shifts. Two fielders in the infield must be on each side of second base at the moment the ball crosses the plate. That allows for covering bags on steal attempts, charging bunts, wheel plays, and the traditional plays where infielders shift during the pitch to the plate. But it means the biggest shift you can do from left to right is to move infielder #3 behind second base. Not ten feet to the "other" side of second base. Would teams still employ this shift, with either the SS or 2B right behind the pitcher? They would get better coverage to the pull field. But I think positioning behind the pitcher would mean that there's too much redundancy of coverage (pitchers cut balls off, if imperfectly). So I don't think you'd see it except against the deadest of the dead-pull hitters.

I don't think MLB has revealed exactly how they're evaluating ball-strike calls. But obviously they are publicly using a technique in all parks that is shown on their website in real time. That doesn't give a definitive ball-strike result, but it locates the pitch position. I suspect they do better in their private system. But who knows? If it is say 98% as good as the hawkeye system in tennis (which seems to be an easier sport to call), then it's probably better than all but the very best umpires and good enough to use to start enforcing a new strike zone. Or the old one. I think fans are pretty fed up with the erratic strike zones, at least of the most outrageous home plate umpires.

I'm not sure of what you mean by "tax" pitchers. Do you think that a slightly smaller (and more accurately called) strike zone is going to cause them to do something that causes more arm strain? Go to higher pitch counts?

I suppose it's possible. But I'm not sure it would be to a significant extent. One likely impact would be to slightly favor pitchers with better control over those with better velocity or movement. I think that might make for a better game too, and one that helps the offense. Add this to dropping the mound a bit and you might get the same kind of offensive bump that baseball saw post 1968.

The current trends are taking baseball back to those days. And as much as I like a lot about what baseball was about in 1968 (e.g., the World Series winner), I think it was bad for baseball to have such a historic imbalance favoring pitchers. Shifts are contributing to this. But I'd attack the pitching advantages rather than what seems to me to be a very reasonable, and long over-due, evolution of tactics in a game that is leery of change. I've long wondered why Billy Beane didn't lead the move to shifting. But I suppose his focus was on player evaluation.

[mister d]

But it means the biggest shift you can do from left to right is to move infielder #3 behind second base. Not ten feet to the "other" side of second base. Would teams still employ this shift, with either the SS or 2B right behind the pitcher?

I would think back to the straight up defense. Probably shaded, but not behind 2B.

I'm not sure of what you mean by "tax" pitchers. Do you think that a slightly smaller (and more accurately called) strike zone is going to cause them to do something that causes more arm strain? Go to higher pitch counts?

Pitch counts and even more breaking stuff. If the hitter is covering a smaller target, the pitcher is going to need more deception to get it in there but not rocked.

I've long wondered why Billy Beane didn't lead the move to shifting. But I suppose his focus was on player evaluation.

Beane's biggest success was being willing to listen to and implement other people's ideas, even when they seemed radical. So him not being on the forefront probably just means no one presented it to him or in a compelling enough way.

[Ryan]

Good stuff on the shift

http://grantland.com/features/mlb-2014- ... the-shift/

[Rex]

He obviously did that entire article just to make the "Cards were stacked" joke.

[mister d]

Anyone think its plausible that within the next 10 years or so, MLB will mandate or consider mandating each team have two IFs on each side of 2B? Lowest isoP since 1993, OPS since 1992 and OBP/AVG since 1972 and on a mostly downward trend.

Sooooooo ... looks like your boy Mister D was all over this one. And is on an island by himself relative to every baseball writer he reads and likes.

[tennbengal]

Context?

Baseball seriously considering it?

[brian]

Manfred is ruining baseball!

(Going to be hard to not instinctively type "Selig" there.)

((But I do agree. Such a rule would be really dumb.))

[mister d]

I'm going to ride the neutral zone trap analogy straight to hell on this one. Something can be both very smart and very bad for the sport.