Skip to main content

What are your thoughts on the shift? Is it "cheating"? Or just a smart adjustment? Definitely taking away from the lefty advantage. Manfred even hinted banning it but now that offense is up due to hr it probably won't happen.

Would it be good for baseball if you forced a traditional alignment so that not certain types of hitters are at a disadvantage? Nba also used to forced teams to use certain types of defense so it is possible (like saying at least two infielders need to stay to the left of the imaginary home to second line).

 

Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Dominik85 posted:

What are your thoughts on the shift? Is it "cheating"? Or just a smart adjustment? Definitely taking away from the lefty advantage. Manfred even hinted banning it but now that offense is up due to hr it probably won't happen.

 Would it be good for baseball if you forced a traditional alignment so that not certain types of hitters are at a disadvantage? Nba also used to forced teams to use certain types of defense so it is possible (like saying at least two infielders need to stay to the left of the imaginary home to second line).

 The shift is nothing new and is nothing more than a defense making some kind of adjustment based on what they believe has a good chance of happening. There’s absolutely no difference in employing a shift than there is in throwing pitches a batter is known to not hit well. It’s a defense looking for an edge. The difference is, the chances a shift will cause a hitter problems is a lot better than a certain type of pitch will.

 There’s a very simple way to mitigate the advantage a shift gives the defense. Hit the ball the other way! If hitters weren’t so controlled by testosterone and had IQs higher than a rock, they’d take what was given to them and laugh all the way to 1st base.

 I don’t think it would be good for baseball at all to mandate more defensive alignments than are already in the rule book. All it would do is give a bunch of whiners who don’t have the skill or desire to improve the easy way out.

Problem is is that pulled balls are generally more productive and powerfull than opposite field hits. Now you can elevate over the shift but if you pull with an uppercut you will naturally be out front too much on a good number of balls and hit top spun grounders.

So the shift takes away pull field and a good part of the middle part of the field on grounders and also some on line drives (since the 2b is much deeper and can snag some out of the air).

To beat the shift the hitters would probably need to sacrifice some power.

It is not clear whether changing the approach is good if you are a strong power hitter. If you hit the other way you might gain a few obp points but you lose slugging points.

Do you want your first baseman to hit 18 hr instead of 30 for 15 OBP points?

Dominik85 posted:

Problem is is that pulled balls are generally more productive and powerfull than opposite field hits. Now you can elevate over the shift but if you pull with an uppercut you will naturally be out front too much on a good number of balls and hit top spun grounders.

More powerful perhaps, but more productive? I suppose it depends on how you define productive, but I wonder if a higher percentage of pulled balls are really more productive than the percentage of opposite field BIPs.

…To beat the shift the hitters would probably need to sacrifice some power.

So what? If it would produce more runs who would care? The team sure wouldn’t, but I suspect the individual player would.

It is not clear whether changing the approach is good if you are a strong power hitter. If you hit the other way you might gain a few obp points but you lose slugging points.

Do you want your first baseman to hit 18 hr instead of 30 for 15 OBP points?

If that was all there was to it I suppose you’d be correct. But is that all there is to it?

If it did not work in MLB they would not do it. Does a team get burned badly now and then and look stupid? You bet!

Anecdotally, my son was on a 14u team and ripping the ball in a DH. Hard, low LD up the middle single, LD double to right-center (bats LH), LD triple to RF. Next AB, hits a hard LD to right center, nd the CF was standing right there waiting for it; barely moved. My son looked like "you can't do that!" Hah.

Batty67 posted:

If it did not work in MLB they would not do it. Does a team get burned badly now and then and look stupid? You bet!

Anecdotally, my son was on a 14u team and ripping the ball in a DH. Hard, low LD up the middle single, LD double to right-center (bats LH), LD triple to RF. Next AB, hits a hard LD to right center, nd the CF was standing right there waiting for it; barely moved. My son looked like "you can't do that!" Hah.

I think they work either way. Either they cost you obp if you pull the ball or they cost you slugging if you go the other way. 

At lower levels obp is king and power doesn't play a big role but in mlb both are equally as important because it is hard there to string together singles and walks with all the Ks that happen there. 

RJM posted:

Re: beating the shift

Teams would prefer a stud hitter drive four singles the other way versus possibly driving a ball or two over the fence. It's why they shift.

I believe RJM is spot on.  From what I have seen at college and professional level OPS is the key to offense.  If as a defense I can do something to make you think about lowering your slugging percentage I will take it.  Look at slugging percentage and I believe the correlation between it and scoring runs is extremely high.

Also think about who tends to get shifted on.  Most of those guys are average or below average runners.  Therefore they are not in scoring position at first base even on a ball in the gap.  As the hitter in that situation with one or two outs my job is to get on second base or hit one out so smoothing one to the other side is undesirable.  Big difference in runs scored from second base and one out vs. first base and one out.

Great topic to debate.  Like weighted balls, long toss, distance running, etc. it is what makes baseball the great sport it is to talk about.

Do you have a data source to support that statement Old School?

i would argue at the professional level where these shifts are employed you could vacate an entire side of the field and with strikeouts (which players that get shifted on likely strikeout at rate of 40-50%) and no one would hit .600. 

I think we can all agree that there is data to support what the shifting team does.  Intuitively it seems that there is data that also supports that most batters should not modify their approach or they would be forced to do it by the organization.  Both parties will do what gives them the best chance to win. 

One man's opinion. 

BackstopDad32 posted:

Do you have a data source to support that statement Old School?

i would argue at the professional level where these shifts are employed you could vacate an entire side of the field and with strikeouts (which players that get shifted on likely strikeout at rate of 40-50%) and no one would hit .600. 

I think we can all agree that there is data to support what the shifting team does.  Intuitively it seems that there is data that also supports that most batters should not modify their approach or they would be forced to do it by the organization.  Both parties will do what gives them the best chance to win. 

One man's opinion. 

what is the league leaders in slugging and OPS maybe .600 and 1.0 or 1.1 respectively. you would absolutely get higher values to both of those by learning ways to beat the shift. you reference K's and lack of power but what about walks and raised batting average?

if you notice they aren't shifting everyone, they are shifting guys who have proven to be one dimensional hitters, if those same one dimensional hitters realized they can break shift anytime they chose to...no wait common sense is coming back into the equation again.

Just keep doing the same old thing and expect different results.

For anyone who thinks it should be outlawed, please provide a very basic set of "Rules" as to what would be and what would not be allowed.  Do you simply not let the MIF cross a line running from HP to 2B?  And what about all those second basemen playing in the grass - might as well outlaw that also.  Oh yea, neither 1B nor 3B can come in on the grass when they are covering a bunt.  Still trying to work out all the rules and parameters - might need to resort to shock collars/invisible fence unless we want to start adding a bunch of extra chalk lines to the field.

I do think they should all be required to play within the baselines, but not a fan of dictating precisely where they wish to stand on the field.

BackstopDad32 posted:

…Intuitively it seems that there is data that also supports that most batters should not modify their approach or they would be forced to do it by the organization.   …

Either that or the organizations know how difficult it is for hitters to change whatever style a lifetime has created and don’t want to lose whatever it was they originally paid for while the change is taking place.

Stats4Gnats posted:

BackstopDad32 posted:

…Intuitively it seems that there is data that also supports that most batters should not modify their approach or they would be forced to do it by the organization.   …

Either that or the organizations know how difficult it is for hitters to change whatever style a lifetime has created and don’t want to lose whatever it was they originally paid for while the change is taking place.

Yep. Many baseball people I listen and talk to say changing to the approach that some suggest simply is not that easy. 

A team my son's team played this spring completely vacated RF for a series. The hitters knew no one was over there but factors such as location, count, etc all impact being able to go over there. 

Add Reply

×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×