From the articles linked above:By defensive shifts are banned, do they mean two infielders must be on either side of second or is it more in depth?
Under the proposed shift restrictions, a minimum of four players besides the pitcher and catcher would have both feet completely in front of the outer boundary of the infield dirt, and two fielders would need to be entirely on either side of second base.
I could be wrong (happens a lot) but the step off rule covers only when runners are on base.Pitcher has 15 seconds between pitches with bases empty but can step off the rubber twice per plate appearance. So you can give yourself another 30 seconds just by stepping off the rubber twice every at bat.
Totally. Rickey Henderson’s records are probably still safe, but I expect we’ll see a 100-steal season sometime in the next decade.Limiting pick off moves while increasing the size of the bases is going to increase the value of guys who can get on base and run significantly.
I might actually increase the value of guys who are very good defensively and can run a bit, but don't get on base that often, too.Limiting pick off moves while increasing the size of the bases is going to increase the value of guys who can get on base and run significantly.
Agreed. And catchers arms are going to be more important.I might actually increase the value of guys who are very good defensively and can run a bit, but don't get on base that often, too.
I’d like the game to feature more movement on the base paths. It allows for more different types of players to be successful, and more avenues for teams to build winning rosters.Limiting pick off moves while increasing the size of the bases is going to increase the value of guys who can get on base and run significantly.
I think this is Theo's number 1 goal, and I think all of these changes move us toward that in various shapes.I’d like the game to feature more movement on the base paths. It allows for more different types of players to be successful, and more avenues for teams to build winning rosters.
Absolutely love banning the shift. Having second baseman throw out batters from right field looks like something that you'd do in a computer baseball game instead of what a live game should look like.Absolutely despise banning the shift.
The onus should be on hitters imo to avoid this. To me it really is like banning a corner blitz or similar. Offense should be forced to adapt. YMMVAbsolutely love banning the shift. Having second baseman throw out batters from right field looks like something that you'd do in a computer baseball game instead of what a live game should look like.
The difference is that, in your analogy, the offense controls what it can do offensively to adapt to the defensive alignment. In baseball, though, the offensive play depends in great part in how the defense gives them the ball ... so adapting to the shift is not completely in the offensive player's hands.The onus should be on hitters imo to avoid this. To me it really is like banning a corner blitz or similar. Offense should be forced to adapt. YMMV
So you can't switch your 2B and SS? That seems a bit much. Not likely to affect much at all but a bit ridiculous to me.Teams have to designate the infielders who will stand on each side, and they can’t switch sides unless there’s a substitution.
If Carlos Quintana were to make a comeback (he is 57 now and he was slow as a regular) and try to steal 2nd 10 times on Plawecki, he'd likely get thrown out twice.So, from what I've read, the distance between first and second, or second and third, decreases from 4-5 inches. Plawecki will never throw out another runner
I agree, but if offenses aren't going to try, and it looks like they haven't tried, then this is all we have.The onus should be on hitters imo to avoid this. To me it really is like banning a corner blitz or similar. Offense should be forced to adapt. YMMV
Corner blitzes happen maybe once a game.The onus should be on hitters imo to avoid this. To me it really is like banning a corner blitz or similar. Offense should be forced to adapt. YMMV
It doesn't. It's a safety issue with a small effect on increasing stolen bases. The much larger effect is the limit on pitchers stepping off or making a pickoff move to two step-offs/moves. That's going to produce a lot of unintended consequences, a ton of stolen bases, and increase the number of late-count fastballs.How does increasing the size of bases help MLB return the game to its natural rhythm? Sincerely curious.
Much like the bullpen car, bring back the corner blitz!Corner blitzes happen maybe once a game.
It's more like banning three-man defensive fronts.Absolutely despite banning the shift. It's like if the NFL banned corner blitzes.
Agreed on all fronts. As referenced above, maybe you start having your RF play super-shallow and then have the other OF shift over to cover CF and RF. There will be guys bunting for doubles.Analytics departments are going to have a busy winter. The value of speed just went waaay up. Recalculating how to best position players defensively is going to take some work. I don't think we're automatically going back to traditional defensive positioning.
Wondering how this affects Bogaerts' value.Agreed on all fronts. As referenced above, maybe you start having your RF play super-shallow and then have the other OF shift over to cover CF and RF. There will be guys bunting for doubles.
Trea Turner's contract was already going to be insane, but now that speed is at a premium? Look out.
Is it just me, or does this seem like a much more radical change than anything else we've discussed? I honestly didn't realize that this was part of the pitch clock proposal. I can't imagine a third pick-off throw unless the runner does something incredibly dumb, and it seems like an enormous benefit to the runner to know that pitchers are otherwise limited to two. Is there data somewhere on SB totals in leagues that tried this?https://www.mlb.com/news/mlb-2023-rule-changes-pitch-timer-larger-bases-shifts
- If a third pickoff attempt is made, the runner automatically advances one base if the pickoff attempt is not successful.
It's a very radical change. Much more radical than the shift ban.Is it just me, or does this seem like a much more radical change than anything else we've discussed? I honestly didn't realize that this was part of the pitch clock proposal. I can't imagine a third pick-off throw unless the runner does something incredibly dumb, and it seems like an enormous benefit to the runner to know that pitchers are otherwise limited to two. Is there data somewhere on SB totals in leagues that tried this?
I'm sure this has been discussed here ad nauseum - but given how long the shift has been around now / how prevalent it is, if it were reasonably possible to consistently beat the shift while remaining a dangerous power hitter, wouldn't many players have done it? (Maybe I'm missing obvious examples?) There's strong financial and team success incentives for any that do.The onus should be on hitters imo to avoid this. To me it really is like banning a corner blitz or similar. Offense should be forced to adapt. YMMV
Maybe this is a dumb question, and probably something I should already know, but is the cutout of the infield dirt standard? I don't suspect the difference is major from park to park, but I thought the specific measurements were determined by the individual aesthetic tastes of the architect/ grounds crew. Otherwise, this could be an opportunity for a little fuckery. Like cutting the grass taller when the home team bunts a lot.Under the proposed shift restrictions, a minimum of four players besides the pitcher and catcher would have both feet completely in front of the outer boundary of the infield dirt, and two fielders would need to be entirely on either side of second base.
I assume that there will be a memo going out to teams that will require them to standardize it across the league.Maybe this is a dumb question, and probably something I should already know, but is the cutout of the infield dirt standard? I don't suspect the difference is major from park to park, but I thought the specific measurements were determined by the individual aesthetic tastes of the architect/ grounds crew. Otherwise, this could be an opportunity for a little fuckery. Like cutting the grass taller when the home team bunts a lot.
Leaving the grass wet and long was SOP for Eddie Stanky and the running White Sox in the early 60’s if I remember correctly.Maybe this is a dumb question, and probably something I should already know, but is the cutout of the infield dirt standard? I don't suspect the difference is major from park to park, but I thought the specific measurements were determined by the individual aesthetic tastes of the architect/ grounds crew. Otherwise, this could be an opportunity for a little fuckery. Like cutting the grass taller when the home team bunts a lot.
Don't all sports put artificial boundaries around what teams can and cannot do in order to guide the game in a desired direction? That's what rules are in a nutshell. If you want to make the argument that limiting defensive schemes is somehow different, well, some sports have that too. NBA had illegal defense, which morphed into the defensive 3 second violation of today. NFL has illegal defensive formation on kicking plays. Etc. If you expand it to offense, then there are even more examples of illegal schemes across hockey, soccer, and football. I'm sure most if not all of those rules didn't exist at first, but leagues adjusted as they noticed trends they didn't like.Absolutely despite banning the shift. It's like if the NFL banned corner blitzes.
Currently it's non-standard:Maybe this is a dumb question, and probably something I should already know, but is the cutout of the infield dirt standard? I don't suspect the difference is major from park to park, but I thought the specific measurements were determined by the individual aesthetic tastes of the architect/ grounds crew. Otherwise, this could be an opportunity for a little fuckery. Like cutting the grass taller when the home team bunts a lot.
The grass lines and dimensions shown on the diagrams are those used in many fields, but they are not mandatory and each Club shall determine the size and shape of the grassed and bare areas of its playing field.
I've mentioned this before, defensive restrictions in limited-overs cricket seem like a very close analog to the rules MLB will enact to ban the shift (enacted for basically the same reason).Don't all sports put artificial boundaries around what teams can and cannot do in order to guide the game in a desired direction? That's what rules are in a nutshell. If you want to make the argument that limiting defensive schemes is somehow different, well, some sports have that too. NBA had illegal defense, which morphed into the defensive 3 second violation of today. NFL has illegal defensive formation on kicking plays. Etc. If you expand it to offense, then there are even more examples of illegal schemes across hockey, soccer, and football. I'm sure most if not all of those rules didn't exist at first, but leagues adjusted as they noticed trends they didn't like.