MLB Commissioner Rob Manfred would consider eliminating the shift

Inclined to agree but not slam-dunk. Just my opinion.

I would like to see them eliminate that style of play. Looks like crappy baseball to me.  Borderlines cheating.

DEF Shifts is not the primary issue. The strike zone has been expanding ever since the pitchF/x was introduced. I believe Dave Cammeron from Fangraphs has it right.

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs...problem-with-shifts/

I forget the show I watched the other day, but it was something on the old days of baseball.  Not sure if it was one of the Ken Burns "Baseball" series or something on Ted Williams specifically, but they did this shift for Ted back in the day.  Apparently, it's been around for a while.  

Since when is it the Commissioner's business to regulate what is, essentially, one of a Manager's many tactical options?

Agree with the article. If your goal is to increase the amount of offense, change something more fundamental like the strike zone or the mound height.

My personal inclination would be to leave well enough alone.

How about we teach hitters to hit again, or better yet bust the shift.  As a Yankee fan, I had to watch freaking .150 hitting Stephen Drew get up every time and try to hit home runs over the shift.  To me that is pride to the point of stupidity.  Freaking .150!!!  3 HR in 140 AB's, what a great HR percentage... vs an almost guaranteed single/double.

Better athletes pitching, better analytics of hitters, better athletes playing defense with monster gloves on their hands.  More consistent strike zone than ever before.  And no steroids for hitters thereby knocking down HR totals by 1,000 from 2000 to 2013.

Big surprise scoring is down.  Shift or no shift it was inevitable.  Hitters will have to adjust to new tactics just like they adjust to new pitches like the splitter or slider when they came along.

Or we can undo that crazy 1877 rule change and go back to batters dictating where the pitcher has to throw the ball in order for it to be a strike. 

1876 Rules -

The batsman, on taking his position, must call for a 'high,' 'low,' or 'fair' pitch, and the umpire shall notify the pitcher to deliver the ball as required; such a call cannot be changed after the first pitch is delivered.

High - pitches over the plate between the batter's waist and shoulders

Low - pitches over the plate between the batter's waist and at least one foot from the ground.

Fair - pitches over the plate between the batter's shoulders and at least one foot from the ground.

That'll liven things up some.  Probably a lot less strikeouts too, the ball will be in play more.  Lot's of merit for it.

I hate the shift; however, it is within the rules and I don't like rules being changed.  I like the history of the game. Batters just need to adjust.

 (And I don't like the DH either).

The Strike Zone Expansion Is Out Of Control

http://www.hardballtimes.com/t...n-is-out-of-control/

The Red Sox said part of going after Ramirez and Sandoval is they're low ball hitters. They also went after available, affordable pitchers who keep the ball down and induce grounders.

+1.

The lower part of the zone is especially getting longer. K's are trending up. BB trending down. Hitters are becoming more cognizant of it. Hence why you see the success of Pitchers going hard up in the zone with much success.

The total number of runs scored in 2013 exceeded that of every single year in the history of baseball up to 1992 (per Baseball Almanac), and excluding the steroid bubble of 1998-2001, it was within 10% of every year since.  What problem is he trying to solve?

http://www.baseball-almanac.com/hitting/hiruns4.shtml

Smitty, you are comparing apples to oranges when you consider that in the vast number of those previous seasons, there were less teams, hence less runs scored.

That's a fair point, but the runs per game is in the same historical range as it was in the decades leading up to the 90s up until the steroid era.  It seems he'd like to return closer to the scoring we saw during that era.  If so, he'll have to do more than address the shift.  I agree with RedFish, the batters need to adjust if they can't score off the shift.

Outlawing the shifts will not solve the main problems with today's hitters. The MLB network had Pete Rose on and he pointed out that he NEVER saw shifts against himself, Henry Aaron, Willie Mays or Roberto Clemente or numerous other hitters of the past because they not only could hit the ball the other way but they also were able to put the ball in play with far fewer strikeouts.

I find it the height of irony when a player of the talent of Mike Trout strikes out 184 times, has a season that is 25% less valuable to his team yet increases his HR's by by 6-9 over the last two years and increases the old reliable RBI total by 14 and is NOW the MVP when in truth he had his worst season of the last three years. I am focusing on Trout because he is the best of the best and I have been a staunch fan of his. Mike ought to be embarrassed that he is becoming the cookie cutter hitter that so many modern "big" guys are. Pull hitters who don't steal bases--his steals have declined at age 23 by 67%- who sell their baseball souls for a few more HRs and RBIs and strike out nearly 200 times. He is better than this and I feel he WAS embarrassed by those strikeouts and will go back to the approach he had before.

The pressure to be an HR guy is what leads guys who are already mediocre hitters like Stephen Drew to try to pull the ball even if it is into the teeth of a shift. To me, I would rather watch an Aultuve or an Ichiro in his prime all day over the usual 6'2' 230lb guy that is the ML standard for players when it is obvious that the ML is in a pitchers cycle and these guys are a bore when they are able to only hit 15-20 HRs and do little else. There are a lot of people that think a player like Cespedes is a GOOD hitter in these times and that is a joke in itself. He is 29 years old, has an OBP for the last three years of under .300 and all for the excitement of hitting less than 24 HRs a season. Yet this is the typical guy that people think is a good ML power hitter. We are not at the end of this low offense cycle either. Mass strikeouts, defensive shifts, studies of hitters tendencies and new emphasis on defensive placement in general, will hopefully run these guys who can't adjust using the whole field and who think 16 HRs makes them a great hitter right out of the game and we might see more 5'9 or 5'10 guys who can actually play baseball.

I just have a problem imagining how such a rule would be worded.

As I see it, MLB is getting closer and closer to having pitches not swung at called by technology. As good as the pitchers are, they’ll never be able to throw a ball with enough precision to not need the help of even the best umpire giving them the benefit of some additional room in the strike zone. And having a set strike zone for each player that doesn’t change from umpire to umpire will definitely benefit the hitters, or at least the ones who work had to learn what their strike zone is.

Unfortunately, while that would be the easiest thing to do to stem the tide of pitching being so dominant, it would also be the most unpopular with the traditionalists. Why? Because baseball traditionalists don’t want to stop the inequities brought about by human frailties. Think about it. No longer would a catcher be more valuable because he had the ability to trick an umpire the same way a magician tricks people into believing they say something they didn’t. Not only would that pi$$ off the traditionalists, it would fry the Sabers because it would completely do away with framing as a metric. J

The worst thing about doing that is it would only be practical at the MLB level. There won’t be many LL, HS, or even college leagues able to do it, but so what? Until the ML, everything’s only practice and development anyway, so it doesn’t have to change. It would however open up a new niche for private instructors who could train hitters to learn their strike zone. In fact, it may well be that having a high zone knowledge ability becomes even more important than a hitter’s physical stature. Shoot! It may even become the 6^th tool.

But no matter what anyone believes, it would do one thing. It would make the game much more consistent from day to day.

I don't think there's any rule requiring that players other than the pitcher and catcher be located in any particular locations.  The 7 traditional OF/IF positions developed just because they were pragmatic. 

Think about those occasional situations where someone moves an OF in to have a 5th infielder when the game is on the line in the bottom of the 9th and they need a DP because any fly to the OF would score the winner.

Eliminating shifts would be pretty complicated because to do that you'd have to specify limits to where each of the 7 would be posted as of the moment the pitcher delivers.  What are we gonna do, put chalk lines out there to make sure no one crosses out of their territory?

And it's likely any wording about where players can and cannot be when the pitch is delivered would have unintended consequences--such as inadvertantly outlawing certain bunt and steal coverages.

That's my worry. For example when they decided they wanted to ban the old "fake-to-third-pick-at-first" play it wasn't a matter of simply outlawing that move. They actually had to change rules that covered more than just that situation.

To three-bagger's point: We preach to young hitters to hit to all parts of the field -- especially power hitters who tend to pull the ball.

When does that philosophy change to the point that a Major Leaguer can't go the other way? In the minors??

It will "never" happen!

However they will need "instant" replay situations which = extra ads.

Bob

It sure seems that the trend towards specialists is driving this change.  I can't imagine why a player would choose to become more narrowly skilled but I can see why a team would want to have a portfolio of specialists on the bench.

Manfred had another on camera interview in which Ken Rosenthal pressed him on his previous statement regarding taking a strong look at injecting offense into the game with consideration of eliminating DEF Shifts.

An update as provided by Dave Cameron at Fangraphs.

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs...-in-the-modern-game/

Manfred is back peddling a bit now..  Nothing wrong with floating ideas and spitballing it but you better clarify it as such to begin with.  

The author of this article states that strike outs have been increasing steadily over the years, but then shows a chart that includes Ks, BBs & HBP.  Maybe strike outs have been increasing by themselves, but why not show that metric?

Also, he states that the strike zone itself is getting bigger.  Is there any evidence of that?  I think it's pretty small myself.  Pitches over the belt are rarely called strikes, even though, I believe, the strike zone is supposed to be at a point midway between the belt and the armpits.  Isn't that right?  I'm not sure if I agree with his statement that the strike zone is getting larger and that is the reason for decreased run production.

Maybe the BBs have been increasing more than the Ks and that is why Ks + BBs + HBPs is going up?  I'm not sure.  Maybe someone has those numbers.

And maybe, if strike outs are increasing, the reason is because more pitchers are throwing harder than they used to.  Used to be the rare guy that could throw 95+.  Now it seems like every bullpen has at least two guys throwing 95+.  Add in pitching specialty - ie. starter, middle relief, 7th inning guy, 8th inning guy, closer - and it's making it more difficult on the hitters.  I'm not convinced it's because of the K zone or the shift.  

RJM provided a link via the Hard Ball times. There is data that suggests the zone is expanding.

http://www.hardballtimes.com/t...n-is-out-of-control/

From the Hard Ball Times article that RJM provided..

"The average strike zone size increased by 16 square inches in 2014 over 2013, growing the zone to a robust 40 square inches larger than just five seasons prior."

Sure more P's throwing 95+ will increase Strikeouts. But the issue of a growing Strike Zone- especially down gives the Pitcher an even better advantage. Hitter now has more ground to cover.

The author goes on to say:

"If you like low scoring pitching duels, you probably love this type of change to the strike zone. The sentiment that I get though is that most people would prefer more offense in the game. The simple way to do that would be to simply tighten the strike zone’s belt and pull its bottom back up toward where it was when the PITCHf/x era began just a few years ago."

Good article.  Looks like the lower strike is definitely getting called, although the outside pitch is not.  Wonder what happened to cause the umpires to start calling the lower strike?  Maybe more sinking pitches being thrown?  I don't know, but it sure does look to be a trend.  Maybe pitchers are better at throwing them down there.  But it is definitely getting called low and not high.  The high pitches are generally not being called any different.

Of course, I don't mind much as my son is a pitcher.

Watched a MLB game with my son last year, he was 11.  I won't EVER forget the look of sheer laughter and delight he gave when Brian McCann hit a ball cleanly next to third base and my son turned to me and said "Where is the third baseman?"  Then I had to explain the shift and he looked confused and said "Well that's just stupid, coach has us hit to the left, right and center all the time, why don't they all just do that, then everyone would get on base?"

Ah...the magical honesty of the young!

My guess is that prior to Pitch F/x, the lower strike was not called enough. Now with cameras ( and grades)  the HP umpire has to begin calling the lower strike. There human and will miss some, especially in the most difficult area for them to see.

What your son didn't see were the 15 times that Brian McCann hit directly into the shift.  

Agreed the principle is sound - just hit the other way.  But there is a reason the shift is put on in the first place.

And could that reason be that this generation of ballplayers have not focused on hitting the other way?

While that might be true of some hitters(McCann and Ryan Howard for instance) it is not nearly that simple.  Look at Jeter,  Buster Posey or Pablo Sandoval, or the last couple of Giant's 2B, Scutaro and Panik.

Some of this is an organizational approach. Some of it is the opponents scouting both in terms of how they pitch each hitter and where they play their defense based on scouting information and tendencies. Some of it is you don't walk off the islands and some is how the agent/player/organization "value" stats.

If a guy like McCann is being busted inside and the defense plays him to pull, he is going to have a tough time hitting the other way, with his big swing. Pitchers will also set him up hard inside and then go soft away to have him roll the ball over and pull into the shift.  On the other hand, the Yankees' paid him a ton of $$$$ for that and agents and players certain recognize that.

A few years back a discussion topic included charting of Howard which showed he pulled to the infield and was straight away to opposite on balls hit to the outfield. Now he struggles with about any pitch.

Posey, on the other hand, has a swing everyone would want, in my opinion, and has the ability and strength to go inside out to right when he is being busted inside. Sandoval is an enigma when it comes to hitting. When a guy hits oppo HR's on balls in his eyes and balls which nearly bounce off the plate, the effort is usually to get him off balance and on his front foot. Even then you don't see a major shift.  Panik and Scutaro are additional evidence of guys who know their scouting reports, pitcher tendencies with the ability to usually hit the ball where it is pitched.

Shifts are not just MLB. They are Milb and especially the upper level of college baseball. The first I saw it at the college level was the CWS champion Oregon State teams when they played at Stanford.  They must have had incredible scouting information on hitters tendencies with pitch location and not only could they execute, their defensive team speed was really impressive.

My guess is Manfred will probably "forget" this topic pretty soon.

The next question is why... and the answer is incentive. The shift is mostly employed against power hitters. Take away their power (pull side) and what are they? In many cases, a slower guy on first who's clogging up the bases.

White Sox manager Robin Ventura: "I mean, you're not getting paid for singles..."

I think these guys will eventually figure out that they need to be able to go the other way in some situations. Not when leading off an inning, but when trying to move a runner. Time will tell.

I agree with infielddad.  It is much more complicated than that.  There are guys who are paid BIG bucks to hit HRs.  Pitchers are going to pitch to them in a way that the shift will work.  They are willing to give up the occasional single or double to the opposite side or the occasional HR for a MUCH higher percentage of outs with the batter hitting into that shift.  

Infielddad worded it well.  Bottom line is, a guy like McCann may only hit .270 or there abouts with 25 HRs, and he's still going to get paid millions to do it.  Shift or not.

Where's JH?  He'd love this tangent I think.  The HR is still the easiest way to score.  The shift is designed to try to get players to move away from that premium play for the offense. While it has become more prevalent my opinion is that it is still used against dead pull power hitters primarily.

By rotating the defense if hitters continue to pull it becomes more of an all or nothing proposition.  If the ball stays in the yard the defense starts taking away the singles and doubles and knocks down the offensive productivity.

If you can make players give up the power stroke and go the other way the math really starts working in your favor.  Limiting errors and walks makes scoring even one run  require multiple base hits in any given inning.  Since teams average 7 to 10 hits in a game they would have to put together as much as 1/3 to 1/2 of their offense in a single frame to plate 1 run.  It is playing the odds. 

Would teams make up the loss of HR's with higher base hit totals if they started going the other way against the shift?  I m sure there are plenty of stats to make the point one way or the other.  Since only 13 players hit 30 homeruns last year 2015 might be the year offensive players take what the defense gives in an effort to create more scoring opportunities.

As for Brian McCann - he gets $17MM per year because he is one of the relatively few players capable of hitting 25-30 HR's in a season anymore.  Stanton and his deal says all there is to say about the value of the HR in MLB. 

That's always been my take on it. It's used against power pull hitters. You can't take away their bread and butter, but you can be sure that if they miss they won't get a cheap hit because they got too far over it and pulled it through the hole or got too far under it and landed a duck snort into short right field.