Scott Boras says extreme shift is “discriminatory"

grimshaw

Member
SoSH Member
May 16, 2007
4,220
Portland
These theoretical hits are not guarantees. They’d still likely get out at least half the time attempting to do this. Also, did you read the rest of the article?
I think this is what is being missed from the folks who say they should just make adjustments. Pitchers are actively trying to get hitters to ground the ball where the fielders are stationed by coming in at the hands and changing pitch selection. It's not like they are throwing breaking pitches away where the batter can just slap at it. Their reasoning in the article too is that pitchers throw so frigging hard that bunting becomes way more difficult.

I'm not saying players should never try bunting or beating it in other ways (maybe with a guy like Colon on the mound), but success is very much not guaranteed. They could just as easily pop up the pitch, drop it at the catchers feet or get it back to the pitcher.

Even the best bunters fail a lot.
 

AB in DC

OG Football Writing
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2002
13,616
Springfield, VA
As a general rule, left-handed pitchers tend to do better against left-handed hitters. So how would you feel about a rule that says left-handed pitchers are obligated to pitch from three-feet further back when they face left-handed batters? Seems arbitrary, right?
I think a better comparison here would be a rule that says lefty hitters only have to run 89 feet to first base, while righty hitters have to run 91 feet. That seems arbitrary too, doesn't it?
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
42,271
AZ
I think a better comparison here would be a rule that says lefty hitters only have to run 89 feet to first base, while righty hitters have to run 91 feet. That seems arbitrary too, doesn't it?
For whatever it's worth in this debate -- and I'm not going to keep repeating my own point -- this "problem" mostly takes care of itself. Right handed hitters actually appear to get infield hits more frequently than lefties, due to the fact that with or without a shift the throw to get a lefthander out is more often shorter than the throw to get a righthander out.

https://www.fangraphs.com/tht/the-advantage-of-batting-left-handed/

(Edit -- this also seems to confirm my supposition or implication above that not being eligible for four of eight positions also tends to lessen the platoon advantage.)
 

AB in DC

OG Football Writing
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2002
13,616
Springfield, VA
That article completely disregards the possibility that the extra two feet closer to first base could also produce more doubles or triples
 

BroodsSexton

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 4, 2006
12,630
guam
I think a better comparison here would be a rule that says lefty hitters only have to run 89 feet to first base, while righty hitters have to run 91 feet. That seems arbitrary too, doesn't it?
I don’t think that’s a better comparison. The shift is a defensive tactic selectively deployed against a certain class of players, to benefit the defense, against a uniform (if arbitrary) field defined by the rules. The inverse would be a tactic deployed selectively to benefit a certain class of offensive players, also against a uniform field, which is what I was trying to illustrate. What you’ve given is an example of how the layout of the field happens to benefit certain players (like the Green Monster, or right field at Yankee Stadium). I recognize my analogy wasn’t perfect because it was couched as a mandatory requirement. I guess you could say, let righties swing a bigger bat if they want. I just don’t see why it’s reasonable or fair.

You might say that the shift is just a form of defensive positioning—if it’s legal to play deep for a power hitter, and shade left for a righty who pulls the ball, why can’t you shift a player entirely to the opposite field? That’s a better route for questioning my reasoning, and a fair point. It’s a “slippery slope” analogy, i.e., if we ban the shift, what’s to prevent banning defensive positioning entirely? But what makes the shift different is its connection to the path of circumnavigating the bases, and the fact that it is a discriminatory strategy against an entire class of batters, whatever their strengths and weaknesses, that right-handers arbitrarily don’t have to face. It’s not that the shift is deployed against every lefty, but it’s a strategy that is only viable against lefties. I can’t think of any good reason for allowing defensive tactics that systematically disadvantage left-handed hitters simply as a result of the arbitrary path of running the bases.

It’s un-American I tell you.
 

uncannymanny

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 12, 2007
9,078
No, I'm asking players who get shifted on a lot to work on bunting, to practice it regularly and get decent at it, like pitchers in NL. And then to sometimes, when the situation calls for it, to bunt against the shift. When the other team is daring you to try to bunt for a hit, you sometimes try to take advantage of what they are giving you.

Bunting against the shift is taking control of the situation instead of letting the defense take hits away from you while you basically do nothing about it except ask for the rules of the game to change to help you out.

Bunting now is definitely harder than it used to be, as pitchers are all throwing at maximum velocity all the time, with great movement. But it's still being done successfully all the time, especially in the NL. It can be done. Hitters just don't want to do it.

And if they choose not to work on it and make it a consistent strategy against the shift, then that seems fine. You want to hit for power, you choose not to try to bunt against the shift, then fine. So why do the rules need to be changed again?

What problem would changing the rules even be trying to solve? LH hitters who are shifted against probably have lower batting averages than they would if there was no shift. So? They don't seem to care enough in general to try to take advantage of what the shift is offering them, so why should the game adjust for them? Run scoring is not down. There is plenty of offense. Bryce Harper will hit 40 HRs this year and get a huge contract. There is no problem that needs to be fixed by messing with the rules.

Major league baseball has always been about making adjustments. The pitcher or defense adjusts to try to stop you from succeeding, so you make your own adjustment to try to beat what they are doing now. Defenses are making adjustments to try to beat hitters. Hitters can try to adjust. Most choose to adjust by trying to hit the ball in the air more. As a result they hit more HRs. They also could choose to work on becoming better bunters and to bunt more against the shift to beat it that way. Almost none of them choose to.

Again, what's the problem?
Well, you’re asking players to learn something brand new 20 years (or more) into learning their craft in an environment that is increasingly difficult to succeed at what you’re asking them to learn. As a manager/GM, I’d rather my hitters be spending their limited practice time working on hitting mechanics, closing holes in their zones, and generally getting better at hitting. And I think that’s exactly what’s happening. I don’t want David Ortiz practicing bunting so he can get a few singles. And still, we’re ignoring the injury concern with this like it’s unrealistic or doesn’t matter. How much are these singles worth to you?

Second, none of the players sound like they are requesting rule changes. It seems to be Scott Boras and fans, like me, who find it miserable watching sluggers hit 110mph, 200’ groundouts.
 

AB in DC

OG Football Writing
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2002
13,616
Springfield, VA
I don’t think that’s a better comparison. The shift is a defensive tactic selectively deployed against a certain class of players, to benefit the defense, against a uniform (if arbitrary) field defined by the rules. The inverse would be a tactic deployed selectively to benefit a certain class of offensive players, also against a uniform field, which is what I was trying to illustrate. What you’ve given is an example of how the layout of the field happens to benefit certain players (like the Green Monster, or right field at Yankee Stadium).
I just don't think that's much of a distinction. The rules of the game arbitrarily advantage certain types of players over other types of players. The fact that defenses have been slow in making best use of one kind of advantage doesn't seem too meaningful to me.
 

The Gray Eagle

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2001
16,721
Well, you’re asking players to learn something brand new 20 years (or more) into learning their craft in an environment that is increasingly difficult to succeed at what you’re asking them to learn. As a manager/GM, I’d rather my hitters be spending their limited practice time working on hitting mechanics, closing holes in their zones, and generally getting better at hitting. And I think that’s exactly what’s happening. I don’t want David Ortiz practicing bunting so he can get a few singles. And still, we’re ignoring the injury concern with this like it’s unrealistic or doesn’t matter. How much are these singles worth to you?

Second, none of the players sound like they are requesting rule changes. It seems to be Scott Boras and fans, like me, who find it miserable watching sluggers hit 110mph, 200’ groundouts.
Bunting is something brand-new to LH hitters? Seriously? I don't think that's true. You could say that they don't want to practice bunting, and never bothered practicing bunting while growing up, because they were always the best hitter and never needed to bunt. Good news though, there are pitchers who are absolutely terrible hitters who manage to learn to bunt while in the major leagues. If they're in the NL, they have to spend a just little bit of time on it and try to become decent at it, and most of them are able to drop down a sacrifice bunt when they need to, even with pitchers throwing harder than ever and with more movement. Bunting for a hit against the shift would be a bit different, but the concept is the same.

Practicing bunting would do nothing to stop hitters from working on the rest of their game. Unless you think the time NL pitchers practice bunting makes them worse pitchers? Any evidence to support that at all?

And you're worried about injuries from bunting? Yes, one guy got hurt. Maybe he should have practiced bunting more. Or maybe sometimes players get hurt fouling balls off their feet when swinging away, or when running the bases, or fielding, or sleeping wrong, or from holding their infant children the wrong way. Players are going to get hurt whether they bunt or not.

There are a couple of viable options for LH hitters to attack the shift, bunting being the simplest one, but the hitters aren't even trying them. That's their choice, and they need to live with their choices, and baseball doesn't need to change the rules to help them out.

If the players aren't requesting rule changes, great. They shouldn't. There's no problem to be solved here and no rule change is needed. Sorry you're miserable watching hard-hit grounders turned into outs, but it sounds like you'd prefer that over watching guys get bunt singles. You have every right to prefer that, but that is no reason to change any rules.
If run-scoring craters, or if left-handed hitters become a dying breed, or if a bunch of LH hitters get hurt while trying to bunt, then we can talk about rule changes. But none of that is happening.
 

shaggydog2000

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 5, 2007
11,482
Bunting is something brand-new to LH hitters? Seriously? I don't think that's true. You could say that they don't want to practice bunting, and never bothered practicing bunting while growing up, because they were always the best hitter and never needed to bunt. Good news though, there are pitchers who are absolutely terrible hitters who manage to learn to bunt while in the major leagues. If they're in the NL, they have to spend a just little bit of time on it and try to become decent at it, and most of them are able to drop down a sacrifice bunt when they need to, even with pitchers throwing harder than ever and with more movement. Bunting for a hit against the shift would be a bit different, but the concept is the same.

Practicing bunting would do nothing to stop hitters from working on the rest of their game. Unless you think the time NL pitchers practice bunting makes them worse pitchers? Any evidence to support that at all?

And you're worried about injuries from bunting? Yes, one guy got hurt. Maybe he should have practiced bunting more. Or maybe sometimes players get hurt fouling balls off their feet when swinging away, or when running the bases, or fielding, or sleeping wrong, or from holding their infant children the wrong way. Players are going to get hurt whether they bunt or not.

There are a couple of viable options for LH hitters to attack the shift, bunting being the simplest one, but the hitters aren't even trying them. That's their choice, and they need to live with their choices, and baseball doesn't need to change the rules to help them out.

If the players aren't requesting rule changes, great. They shouldn't. There's no problem to be solved here and no rule change is needed. Sorry you're miserable watching hard-hit grounders turned into outs, but it sounds like you'd prefer that over watching guys get bunt singles. You have every right to prefer that, but that is no reason to change any rules.
If run-scoring craters, or if left-handed hitters become a dying breed, or if a bunch of LH hitters get hurt while trying to bunt, then we can talk about rule changes. But none of that is happening.

This might shock you, but pitchers aren't any better at getting a bunt down than anyone else, and frequent bunters are only marginally better than players who almost never bunt:

https://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-truth-about-bunting/

So maybe it's not a practice thing. Maybe bunting is just a shitty and mostly random way of hitting.
 

VORP Speed

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
6,633
Ground Zero
Bryce Harper is right-handed. He chose (or his dad chose for him) to become a lefty batter. To gain an advantage. Funny how life works out sometimes.
 

uncannymanny

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 12, 2007
9,078
Bunting is something brand-new to LH hitters? Seriously? I don't think that's true. You could say that they don't want to practice bunting, and never bothered practicing bunting while growing up, because they were always the best hitter and never needed to bunt. Good news though, there are pitchers who are absolutely terrible hitters who manage to learn to bunt while in the major leagues. If they're in the NL, they have to spend a just little bit of time on it and try to become decent at it, and most of them are able to drop down a sacrifice bunt when they need to, even with pitchers throwing harder than ever and with more movement. Bunting for a hit against the shift would be a bit different, but the concept is the same. Practicing bunting would do nothing to stop hitters from working on the rest of their game. Unless you think the time NL pitchers practice bunting makes them worse pitchers? Any evidence to support that at all?
Many pitchers are probably only practicing bunting. That’s a poor comparison.

How long do they need to get good at it? It’s not zero, and unless baseball players live in a different space time than me, there’s 24 hours in a day.

I don’t want JD Martinez working on bunting, no. Not at all. What about young players like Devers? Do you want him working on becoming a good hitter or spend less time on that and more on bunting?

And you're worried about injuries from bunting? Yes, one guy got hurt. Maybe he should have practiced bunting more. Or maybe sometimes players get hurt fouling balls off their feet when swinging away, or when running the bases, or fielding, or sleeping wrong, or from holding their infant children the wrong way. Players are going to get hurt whether they bunt or not.

There are a couple of viable options for LH hitters to attack the shift, bunting being the simplest one, but the hitters aren't even trying them. That's their choice, and they need to live with their choices, and baseball doesn't need to change the rules to help them out.
Again, what is the actual value of bunting here? Is it worth the risk that a player who is not used to doing it hurts himself? These players are generally some of your best, most valuable hitters. Would David Ortiz breaking his hand in 2004 and not winning that WS be worth a handful of singles earlier in the season?

If the players aren't requesting rule changes, great. They shouldn't. There's no problem to be solved here and no rule change is needed. Sorry you're miserable watching hard-hit grounders turned into outs, but it sounds like you'd prefer that over watching guys get bunt singles. You have every right to prefer that, but that is no reason to change any rules.
If run-scoring craters, or if left-handed hitters become a dying breed, or if a bunch of LH hitters get hurt while trying to bunt, then we can talk about rule changes. But none of that is happening.
I’m not demanding changes either, certainly not removing specific defensive positioning on a player, but thanks for the guidelines on when we’re allowed to talk about rule changes. I know baseball is absolutely booming in the under 40 crowd, but I still think eliminating some things that are just bad entertainment is wise.

It’s a bit ridiculous to act like baseball’s rules are written on stone tablets stored in Fort Knox. Why did they lower the pitching mound? Why didn’t those hitters just get better? Why do any rules ever get created?

My proposal would be pretty simple: your LF/RF must be inside (towards the CF) their respective corner infielder. Teams can shift to their heart’s content, but in doing so they’re forced to give up that area of the outfield too. You might not even see much difference in shifting percentage, but the value proposition of doing so is a little less one sided and those players can learn to *hit* the other way which is something reasonable to ask and not shitty to watch.
 

charlieoscar

Member
Sep 28, 2014
1,339
Again, what is the actual value of bunting here? Is it worth the risk that a player who is not used to doing it hurts himself? These players are generally some of your best, most valuable hitters. Would David Ortiz breaking his hand in 2004 and not winning that WS be worth a handful of singles earlier in the season?
Most players don't know how to bunt. If you haven't seen that yourself, just listen to Jerry Remy. And in addition to poor technique, there are a lot of batters who think they can get a base hit when they are supposed to be sacrificing; they try to hide the bunt attempt until the last moment. If you know how to bunt, as a left-hander you can beat the shift and doing that enough times will change how they shift on you. And singles aren't outs.

Hitting the other way might not be quite as simple as you think: a 100-mph fastball is traveling at 146.6667 fps, which means it is in the strike zone approximately 9.7 microseconds.
 

The Gray Eagle

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2001
16,721
This might shock you, but pitchers aren't any better at getting a bunt down than anyone else, and frequent bunters are only marginally better than players who almost never bunt:

https://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-truth-about-bunting/

So maybe it's not a practice thing. Maybe bunting is just a shitty and mostly random way of hitting.
That link shows that pitchers, who are the very worst hitters in the game, can bunt just as well as the professional hitters. That to me seems to show that basically almost anyone, even a pitcher who can't hit .150, can become an average bunter with practice.

Many pitchers are probably only practicing bunting. That’s a poor comparison.
Wait, you think pitchers only practice bunting, that they don't spend practice time working on their pitching? I mean obviously that can't be what you mean, but I honestly don't know what you are trying to say here. Pitchers spend almost all of their practice time on pitching. And NL pitchers spend a tiny percentage of their time on bunting practice. That is the point.

I don’t want JD Martinez working on bunting, no. Not at all. What about young players like Devers? Do you want him working on becoming a good hitter or spend less time on that and more on bunting?
If any Red Sox hitter is being troubled by the shift, then I would be fine with them taking extra time to work on bunting to attack the shift. Any of them. The idea is that they would be working on a tactic to have more success against something that teams are using to get them out. They would be making adjustments to try to beat how the other team is playing them. That's a big part of what major leaguers do.

Again, what is the actual value of bunting here? Is it worth the risk that a player who is not used to doing it hurts himself? These players are generally some of your best, most valuable hitters. Would David Ortiz breaking his hand in 2004 and not winning that WS be worth a handful of singles earlier in the season?
The point of them practicing and then doing it more often in games is that they would no longer be not used to it.
Why do you seem to think that bunting is so dangerous, and more dangerous than all the other things that baseball players do? JD has fouled a ball off his foot like 5 times in the past few games. Players are going to get hurt, period, whether it's swinging the bat, getting hit by pitches, fouling a ball off themselves, or bunting, or running the bases, etc.

I’m not demanding changes either, certainly not removing specific defensive positioning on a player, but thanks for the guidelines on when we’re allowed to talk about rule changes.
Oh come on. I am giving my opinion on this, just like you are.

I know baseball is absolutely booming in the under 40 crowd, but I still think eliminating some things that are just bad entertainment is wise.
Now maybe we are getting somewhere-- is shifting an actual problem that affects baseball negatively, as in are people under 40 watching less baseball because of shifting? I think it's much, much more due to other factors, and not because of shifting, but if there's evidence that fans are watching less baseball because of the shift, that would be a possible reason for looking at changing the rules.

It’s a bit ridiculous to act like baseball’s rules are written on stone tablets stored in Fort Knox. Why did they lower the pitching mound? Why didn’t those hitters just get better? Why do any rules ever get created?
I agree, that's why I am not saying that.
I am just fine with rule changes that are reasonable, well-thought-out attempts to solve actual problems. I'm not seeing an actual baseball problem here that changing the rules would fix. If people are turning away from baseball because of the shift, that would be a problem that might be worth tweaking the rules for. Your last post is the only one I've seen that even hints at that though, and I haven't seen any evidence that that is a big reason for people turning away form baseball.
 

shaggydog2000

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 5, 2007
11,482
That link shows that pitchers, who are the very worst hitters in the game, can bunt just as well as the professional hitters. That to me seems to show that basically almost anyone, even a pitcher who can't hit .150, can become an average bunter with practice.
Ok. How about the guys who bunt a lot being compared to those who don't? Those numbers suggest there is a tiny difference in ability to bunt between those two groups. That would mean professional hitters who do it on a regular basis (and one would assume also practice to do it) are marginally better at it. Do you really think it is that much of a learned skill if practicing and executing it live in game relatively frequently makes almost no difference in your results?
 

uncannymanny

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 12, 2007
9,078
Most players don't know how to bunt. If you haven't seen that yourself, just listen to Jerry Remy. And in addition to poor technique, there are a lot of batters who think they can get a base hit when they are supposed to be sacrificing; they try to hide the bunt attempt until the last moment. If you know how to bunt, as a left-hander you can beat the shift and doing that enough times will change how they shift on you. And singles aren't outs.

Hitting the other way might not be quite as simple as you think: a 100-mph fastball is traveling at 146.6667 fps, which means it is in the strike zone approximately 9.7 microseconds.
Singles aren’t outs, of course, and I don’t mean to give the impression that hitting the other way is easy (especially if pitched to avoid that outcome). That said, no player is going to bunt successfully 100% of the time. Probably not even half the time and people are arguing from the perspective that it’s easy to do (they’re just stubborn!). I don’t think it’s easy to hit the other way, at all, but at least I’m watching someone hit and the player is broadening their actual hitting skills.

That link shows that pitchers, who are the very worst hitters in the game, can bunt just as well as the professional hitters. That to me seems to show that basically almost anyone, even a pitcher who can't hit .150, can become an average bunter with practice.



Wait, you think pitchers only practice bunting, that they don't spend practice time working on their pitching? I mean obviously that can't be what you mean, but I honestly don't know what you are trying to say here. Pitchers spend almost all of their practice time on pitching. And NL pitchers spend a tiny percentage of their time on bunting practice. That is the point.


If any Red Sox hitter is being troubled by the shift, then I would be fine with them taking extra time to work on bunting to attack the shift. Any of them. The idea is that they would be working on a tactic to have more success against something that teams are using to get them out. They would be making adjustments to try to beat how the other team is playing them. That's a big part of what major leaguers do.


The point of them practicing and then doing it more often in games is that they would no longer be not used to it.
Why do you seem to think that bunting is so dangerous, and more dangerous than all the other things that baseball players do? JD has fouled a ball off his foot like 5 times in the past few games. Players are going to get hurt, period, whether it's swinging the bat, getting hit by pitches, fouling a ball off themselves, or bunting, or running the bases, etc.


Oh come on. I am giving my opinion on this, just like you are.



Now maybe we are getting somewhere-- is shifting an actual problem that affects baseball negatively, as in are people under 40 watching less baseball because of shifting? I think it's much, much more due to other factors, and not because of shifting, but if there's evidence that fans are watching less baseball because of the shift, that would be a possible reason for looking at changing the rules.


I agree, that's why I am not saying that.
I am just fine with rule changes that are reasonable, well-thought-out attempts to solve actual problems. I'm not seeing an actual baseball problem here that changing the rules would fix. If people are turning away from baseball because of the shift, that would be a problem that might be worth tweaking the rules for. Your last post is the only one I've seen that even hints at that though, and I haven't seen any evidence that that is a big reason for people turning away form baseball.
I don’t think pitchers only practice bunting overall, poor wording. Just as far as their hitting goes they are likely to practice a lot of bunting and little swinging away. That’s what’s asked of them because they aren’t hitters, don’t have the practice time to be, and it’s how they can most easily and cheaply provide value at the plate.

I want my position players working on real hitting skills, at least my non-bench guys. Time lost to bunting is time that can’t be spent working on that up and in hole or laying off the slider away. Practice time is finite. You’re also ignoring the player quotes about bunting when pitchers are throwing for the shift and making it out to be far easier than it seems to be (I’ve never tried to bunt a 92mph inside cutter myself).

WRT past injury, let me present this surely awful analogy (my specialty): if you had a driving age child who had never, ever been in an accident, and not having car insurance was legal, would you advise your child to not have insurance? I’d assume you wouldn’t advise eschewing coverage because of the risk, and that previous outcomes wouldn’t be predictive for you. Are you willing to risk one of your best player’s seasons because few previous players have been injured doing it? Injuries happen, of course, but those you listed are applicable to all players, not just ones who are forced to do something they’re not used to doing and players can and do wear armor for like 90% of the injuries you listed. People went ballistic on this board over a pitcher injuring himself running the bases and a catcher and 1B getting injured playing the outfield and we’re supposed to be smarter than the average fans.

Those are my baseball reasons, but tbh the entertainment issue is the one that is more important to me as a fan.

I’m not sure it’s a *major* reason young people are turning away from the game, but they are. Baseball needs to nurture entertainment value aggressively wherever it can and shifts are not entertaining. It’s not great defense or wowing athleticism. I love baseball, it’s still my top sport. I’ve been watching for all but a few of my 40 years. I *hate* watching the constant, extreme shifting, why would someone just getting exposed to the game want to? If it was still being used with the frequency of Ted’s days no one would be talking about it.

I think someone said it upthread, the shift is an opportunistic flexing of a non-rule. These get closed up all the time in sports. My point about rule creation was exactly that, they very often come from results that weren’t initially anticipated.

Also, I should’ve done a winky thing on the discussing the rules.

Wink.
 

The Gray Eagle

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2001
16,721
Yes, I think it's mostly a learned skill that can be improved with practice.
Pitchers who can't learn to hit at all can learn to bunt at an average big league level, against major league pitchers.
If it was similar to batting, where you need to have a level of excellence that only a tiny percentage of athletes can attain, then most pitchers would be far, far below average at bunting. But they aren't.
 

shaggydog2000

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 5, 2007
11,482
Yes, I think it's mostly a learned skill that can be improved with practice.
Pitchers who can't learn to hit at all can learn to bunt at an average big league level, against major league pitchers.
If it was similar to batting, where you need to have a level of excellence that only a tiny percentage of athletes can attain, then most pitchers would be far, far below average at bunting. But they aren't.
But if it were mostly random, wouldn't it look like the actual numbers look? Where pitchers who practice and execute it regularly are just as effective as hitters who don't practice, who are almost the same as hitters who actually practice it? If everybody is within a few percent of each other in getting a bunt down, doesn't that mean it's random for the most part? And who wants to watch random chance pan out when you could be watching some of the most skilled people on the planet demonstrating those skills?
 

uncannymanny

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 12, 2007
9,078
And who wants to watch random chance pan out when you could be watching some of the most skilled people on the planet demonstrating those skills?
This is really what my distaste for it comes down to. I can go to the local park and watch guys get bunts down. I'll also push back on the assumption that some bunts will cause teams to stop shifting. There's a reason why everyone says "they're giving it to you." See the players' quotes from the ESPN article. Mouse traps are just giving the mouse cheese too (more terrible analogies!).
 

The Gray Eagle

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2001
16,721
But if it were mostly random, wouldn't it look like the actual numbers look? Where pitchers who practice and execute it regularly are just as effective as hitters who don't practice, who are almost the same as hitters who actually practice it? If everybody is within a few percent of each other in getting a bunt down, doesn't that mean it's random for the most part?
No, because pitchers are so incredibly worse than actual hitters. If it's a talent issue, then the talented players would be way better at it-- some players would be far better than others. Instead, the really talented hitters and the utterly clueless hitters are basically the same.
And if a professional hitter is bad at bunting right now, then he probably should be able to improve to average at it, since so many absolutely terrible hitters can do that.

And who wants to watch random chance pan out when you could be watching some of the most skilled people on the planet demonstrating those skills?
The only reason we're even talking about bunting at all is the idea of using it as a tactic to attack the shift. The complaint against the shift is that the most skilled people on the planet are having their rightful hits taken away by the shift. I'm saying hitters should attack the shift to take advantage of it, not that I want every batter to bunt all the time.

This is really what my distaste for it comes down to. I can go to the local park and watch guys get bunts down. I'll also push back on the assumption that some bunts will cause teams to stop shifting. There's a reason why everyone says "they're giving it to you." See the players' quotes from the ESPN article. Mouse traps are just giving the mouse cheese too (more terrible analogies!).
So guys at the local park can get bunts down, but major league hitters can't? :)

I don't understand why some people think bunting for a hit is boring, to me it's pretty exciting, way more interesting than yet another walk or K or popup. And we're talking about players bunting for hits only when the situation is right for them, when the team really needs a baserunner and the defense is giving them a huge chunk of the infield, not every single at-bat or anything like that.

We're just going around in circles here. Hitters aren't bunting against the shift. Seems like you guys believe the Murphys of the world, that it just won't work because they say so, that it's better to not try to attack the shift, that even if you get a hit you're just going to be stuck at first base or whatever. I don't believe that at all. So not much point in arguing about it anymore.

I'm happy to listen to actual problems that are troubling MLB that banning the shift might solve, but haven't read any yet. And I personally am going to be against any rule changes on shifting until someone can show that changing the rules would be the most reasonable way to solve a real problem that is hurting baseball.
 

charlieoscar

Member
Sep 28, 2014
1,339
Yes, I think it's mostly a learned skill that can be improved with practice.
From 1951 through 1959 Mantle had 63 bunt singles (56 batting left). He slowed down a little from 1960 through 1968 with only 24 bunt singles (all but one left handed). Admittedly his great speed and running from the first base side of the plate helped a lot but when he retired, he ranked third on the all-time career home run list. If those 79 drag bunt singles from the left side were outs instead, his lifetime batting average would have dropped ten points.
 

uncannymanny

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 12, 2007
9,078
So guys at the local park can get bunts down, but major league hitters can't? :)

I don't understand why some people think bunting for a hit is boring, to me it's pretty exciting, way more interesting than yet another walk or K or popup. And we're talking about players bunting for hits only when the situation is right for them, when the team really needs a baserunner and the defense is giving them a huge chunk of the infield, not every single at-bat or anything like that.

We're just going around in circles here. Hitters aren't bunting against the shift. Seems like you guys believe the Murphys of the world, that it just won't work because they say so, that it's better to not try to attack the shift, that even if you get a hit you're just going to be stuck at first base or whatever. I don't believe that at all. So not much point in arguing about it anymore.

I'm happy to listen to actual problems that are troubling MLB that banning the shift might solve, but haven't read any yet. And I personally am going to be against any rule changes on shifting until someone can show that changing the rules would be the most reasonable way to solve a real problem that is hurting baseball.
Well it’s softball, but well played.

If you enjoy bunting, at all, then I can see where we might have some basic differences in perception. I don’t like watching pitchers hitting for similar reasons. I want to watch the best hitters in the world swinging their bats.

I’m far more inclined to trust Murphy and the others over anyone not playing in MLB, yeah. I hadn’t thought of this earlier, but it would be interesting to know if the author had gotten some opposing views on this and chose not to print them.

I’d say it’s a perception and entertainment problem, but will definitely agree that it’s not the case for everyone. I’d like them to make some changes, not banning shifts, but I’d much prefer if it was a difficult decision for the defensive team (like say pulling the goalie in hockey), even if it might make it easier for the team to the south that tends to employ left handed, power, pull hitters.
 

Cuzittt

Bouncing with Anger
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Nov 20, 2001
20,301
Sinister Funkhouse #17
It should be noted that while it is not as ubiquitous as shifts against left-handed batters... teams HAVE employed shifts against right-handed batters.



 

Clears Cleaver

Lil' Bill
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2001
11,370
There’s a bigger picture play here. Boras used to have a data and quant advantage over his peers and in many cases the front offices he’d negotiate with. That’s largely gone. Statistical analysis is 95% a commodity now. What Boras is doing is taking the next step in trying to negate what perhaps he sees in his data: that Harper is easy to defend because his spray chart is defined. So then he can argue next year that against normal defensive alignments Harper is materially better and a 6-9 Win player or whatever.

It seems desperate. And might suggest Harper look for shorter money or an opt-out after two years as Boras looks to lobby for rule changes.

He’s creative at a time when it’s harder and harder to have an information edge over your consumer.

Agents fees should trend down l would think.
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
8,093
There’s a bigger picture play here. Boras used to have a data and quant advantage over his peers and in many cases the front offices he’d negotiate with. That’s largely gone. Statistical analysis is 95% a commodity now. What Boras is doing is taking the next step in trying to negate what perhaps he sees in his data: that Harper is easy to defend because his spray chart is defined. So then he can argue next year that against normal defensive alignments Harper is materially better and a 6-9 Win player or whatever.

It seems desperate. And might suggest Harper look for shorter money or an opt-out after two years as Boras looks to lobby for rule changes.

He’s creative at a time when it’s harder and harder to have an information edge over your consumer.

Agents fees should trend down l would think.
How would Boras' pitcher clients feel about him lobbying for rule changes? Or his right handed hitters?
 

BroodsSexton

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 4, 2006
12,630
guam
How would Boras' pitcher clients feel about him lobbying for rule changes? Or his right handed hitters?
That dovetails exactly with the position I was espousing: pitchers shouldn’t care, because any rule would affect them all equally. Right handed hitters might not like it, but it can be justified on the grounds that Boras is simply removing an impediment for lefties that doesn’t affect righties.
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
8,093
That dovetails exactly with the position I was espousing: pitchers shouldn’t care, because any rule would affect them all equally. Right handed hitters might not like it, but it can be justified on the grounds that Boras is simply removing an impediment for lefties that doesn’t affect righties.
Even if it affects them all equally, I'd say a lower run-scoring environment is something all pitchers would want. I doubt pitchers would support a switch to aluminum/composite bats (beyond the safety considerations).
 

Clears Cleaver

Lil' Bill
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2001
11,370
How would Boras' pitcher clients feel about him lobbying for rule changes? Or his right handed hitters?
When his biggest free agent client is a pitcher he can lobby for raising the mound!

Harper was going to set the market. He was looking at the largest contract in sports history perhaps. In Boras’ mind that might trump some of his other clients.
 

simplyeric

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 14, 2006
14,037
Richmond, VA
I initially thought that the discrimination argument was frivolous--but I've come around.
(Snip)
In any event, at the end of the day, my analysis is that the shift is simply un-American. Changes to the rule should be made to prohibit it.
So in that link you posted the lead lede is:
In the general public, about 10 percent of people are left-handed. In Major League Baseball, about 25 percent of players are lefties.
So, the basic setup of baseball tends to offer a structural advantage to ‘lefties’, an example of which is:
Bryce Harper is right-handed. He chose (or his dad chose for him) to become a lefty batter. To gain an advantage. Funny how life works out sometimes.
Somehow we can’t expect MLB ‘lefty’ players to adjust, but we can accept that there’s a built-in advatage for a right handed to just learn to bat left handed?

Also: wouldn’t the extreme shift tend to help righty pitchers v. lefties (who are disproportionately represented) and, further to ‘descrimination’ the shift should help lefty pitchers v. lefties too?

It’s just odd that lefties are in the MLB at ~250% of the general population, but we should change rules to continue to accommodate that structural anomaly.

Beat the shift, beat LA, squish the fish. The Yankees still suck, and their whole park is set up to benefit lefty pull hitters, no?
 

gedman211

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 6, 2016
2,844
This is a good discussion. I'm against the rule changes. In the same way that the NBA has evolved to benefit 6' 7" guys who can defend 4 positions, I'd like to see baseball groom a bunch of rod carew types who can spray the ball around. Small ball is more fun than solo homers. I think cricket has a bunch of opaque rules regarding defensive positioning in certain situations, but cricket is a bit tedious to begin with.
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
While we are on the topic, it's time for the nba to do something about their notorious bigotry against short people.
Goaltending.

No zone defense.

Both those rules are designed to lessen the incentive for teams to just have 3 7 footers encircle the. Asked and swat away shot attempts.

I find shifts to be obnoxious and boring like Boras does. I’d wholeheartedly endorse a “No zone defense” rule in baseball too. Must have all 4 infielders start with one foot one the dirt until the pitch is released, and must ha e 2 players start on the dirt on either side of second base.
 

charlieoscar

Member
Sep 28, 2014
1,339
Somehow we can’t expect MLB ‘lefty’ players to adjust, but we can accept that there’s a built-in advatage for a right handed to just learn to bat left handed?
I decided to try batting left-handed (slow-pitch softball) when I was about 12 and I found I had more power that way but I had much more control on where/how I hit the ball right-handed. While bat control was partly due to my having batted from the right side for many years before I tried switching, I also think which hand was leading in my swing played a part. I will note that after learning to hit left-handed, it helped me become less right-hand dominant in other things. I use whichever hand is...handy, except for writing.
 

simplyeric

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 14, 2006
14,037
Richmond, VA
Goaltending.

No zone defense.

Both those rules are designed to lessen the incentive for teams to just have 3 7 footers encircle the. Asked and swat away shot attempts.

I find shifts to be obnoxious and boring like Boras does. I’d wholeheartedly endorse a “No zone defense” rule in baseball too. Must have all 4 infielders start with one foot one the dirt until the pitch is released, and must ha e 2 players start on the dirt on either side of second base.
Yeah but this is the opposite.
Lefties are over-represented in baseball, just like tall people in basketball.
This is like tall people saying ‘the zone discriminates!’

Banning the shift is not equivalent to the zone.
Banning the shift is equivalent to mandating only zone. It benefits payers who are already benefitting.
 

Old Fart Tree

the maven of meat
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 10, 2001
14,025
Boulder, CO
I can’t believe we are talking about this. Because it is so dumb.

If you don’t like the shift, hit the ball the other way.

That is literally the end of the conversation.
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
I can’t believe we are talking about this. Because it is so dumb.

If you don’t like the shift, hit the ball the other way.

That is literally the end of the conversation.
Against a different pitcher every at bat half of whom are throwing a 96 mph cutter in on your hands, with a swing you’ve been grooving year round since your 8u travel team coach taught it to you, so you could pull the ball with power.

All that adds up to the quality of the game would be significantly lessened immediately if people took this approach all of a sudden. It would probably look like a return to the dead ball era offense levels. Instead of home rubbed and strikeouts, wed have singles and strikeouts. Baseball would become the snooze fest that soccer is.

Plus I don’t want to pay $250 in tickets for a family of 5 to watch Bryce Harper bunt or. hit ground balls through the vacated shortstop hole. We pay $250 to see if tonight is going to be the night he hits it clear out of the stadium in RCF.

Wade Boggs ain’t walkin’ through that dugout. Rod Carew ain’t walkin’ through that dugout. Pete Rose can’t walk through that dugout. And when they were, tickets were less than $10. And when they were, 92 mph was an elite fastball. And starters pitched complete games 1/3 of the time. And “closers” sometimes got 7 outs.

Go back to that, and then talk to me about how Bryce Harper should hit opposite field ground balls to beat the shift.
 

simplyeric

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 14, 2006
14,037
Richmond, VA
Against a different pitcher every at bat half of whom are throwing a 96 mph cutter in on your hands, with a swing you’ve been grooving year round since your 8u travel team coach taught it to you, so you could pull the ball with power.

All that adds up to the quality of the game would be significantly lessened immediately if people took this approach all of a sudden. It would probably look like a return to the dead ball era offense levels. Instead of home rubbed and strikeouts, wed have singles and strikeouts. Baseball would become the snooze fest that soccer is.

Plus I don’t want to pay $250 in tickets for a family of 5 to watch Bryce Harper bunt or. hit ground balls through the vacated shortstop hole. We pay $250 to see if tonight is going to be the night he hits it clear out of the stadium in RCF.

Wade Boggs ain’t walkin’ through that dugout. Rod Carew ain’t walkin’ through that dugout. Pete Rose can’t walk through that dugout. And when they were, tickets were less than $10. And when they were, 92 mph was an elite fastball. And starters pitched complete games 1/3 of the time. And “closers” sometimes got 7 outs.

Go back to that, and then talk to me about how Bryce Harper should hit opposite field ground balls to beat the shift.
Then also talk to me about how i should care.

The sox are crushing it, in the live ball, DH, extreme shift, post-steroids, 99mph era. Everything is wrong!

Baseball persists.

The shift is what it is.
 

Old Fart Tree

the maven of meat
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 10, 2001
14,025
Boulder, CO
Against a different pitcher every at bat half of whom are throwing a 96 mph cutter in on your hands, with a swing you’ve been grooving year round since your 8u travel team coach taught it to you, so you could pull the ball with power.

All that adds up to the quality of the game would be significantly lessened immediately if people took this approach all of a sudden. It would probably look like a return to the dead ball era offense levels. Instead of home rubbed and strikeouts, wed have singles and strikeouts. Baseball would become the snooze fest that soccer is.

Plus I don’t want to pay $250 in tickets for a family of 5 to watch Bryce Harper bunt or. hit ground balls through the vacated shortstop hole. We pay $250 to see if tonight is going to be the night he hits it clear out of the stadium in RCF.

Wade Boggs ain’t walkin’ through that dugout. Rod Carew ain’t walkin’ through that dugout. Pete Rose can’t walk through that dugout. And when they were, tickets were less than $10. And when they were, 92 mph was an elite fastball. And starters pitched complete games 1/3 of the time. And “closers” sometimes got 7 outs.

Go back to that, and then talk to me about how Bryce Harper should hit opposite field ground balls to beat the shift.
I didn’t say that. I didn’t say any of that. I didn’t claim it was easy to just hit it the other way, I didn’t opine on whether it’s more exciting to watch “Home Rubbed” heavy baseball or small ball (both are great!), and I certainly didn’t bring up the cost of tickets for a family of four (?), the evolution of the closer role, or any other number of (frankly really weird) non sequiturs.

I said if it bothers a hitter so much he should hit the ball he other way. If not? Keep sluggin, playboy. Your call.
 

Reverend

for king and country
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 20, 2007
64,026
I can’t believe we are talking about this. Because it is so dumb.

If you don’t like the shift, hit the ball the other way.

That is literally the end of the conversation.
Where do the rest of us get to complain about other practices being discriminatory? Like, say, the curve ball, throwing over 65 mph, etc.?
 

tonyarmasjr

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 12, 2010
1,120
Against a different pitcher every at bat half of whom are throwing a 96 mph cutter in on your hands, with a swing you’ve been grooving year round since your 8u travel team coach taught it to you, so you could pull the ball with power.

All that adds up to the quality of the game would be significantly lessened immediately if people took this approach all of a sudden. It would probably look like a return to the dead ball era offense levels. Instead of home rubbed and strikeouts, wed have singles and strikeouts. Baseball would become the snooze fest that soccer is.

Plus I don’t want to pay $250 in tickets for a family of 5 to watch Bryce Harper bunt or. hit ground balls through the vacated shortstop hole. We pay $250 to see if tonight is going to be the night he hits it clear out of the stadium in RCF.

Wade Boggs ain’t walkin’ through that dugout. Rod Carew ain’t walkin’ through that dugout. Pete Rose can’t walk through that dugout. And when they were, tickets were less than $10. And when they were, 92 mph was an elite fastball. And starters pitched complete games 1/3 of the time. And “closers” sometimes got 7 outs.

Go back to that, and then talk to me about how Bryce Harper should hit opposite field ground balls to beat the shift.
I disagree. Personally, I prefer the aesthetics of higher contact rates and small ball. Different styles have their charms for me, though I admit that the paying public prefers swing-and-miss home run derby. The K rates may be higher than the days of Boggs, Carew, and Rose. However, if players' swings weren't groomed since grade school for pull power, but, rather, to hit the ball to all fields I doubt they'd be nearly as high. I mean, to many around the world, soccer is the beautiful game...
If we want to move the fences back, I'd be all for that, too, though - which I'd venture places me in the minority.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
I disagree. Personally, I prefer the aesthetics of higher contact rates and small ball. Different styles have their charms for me, though I admit that the paying public prefers swing-and-miss home run derby. The K rates may be higher than the days of Boggs, Carew, and Rose. However, if players' swings weren't groomed since grade school for pull power, but, rather, to hit the ball to all fields I doubt they'd be nearly as high. I mean, to many around the world, soccer is the beautiful game...
If we want to move the fences back, I'd be all for that, too, though - which I'd venture places me in the minority.

Are they striking out more because the are swinging for the fences or because pitchers are throwing 98 instead of 92?

Or both.
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
I disagree. Personally, I prefer the aesthetics of higher contact rates and small ball. Different styles have their charms for me, though I admit that the paying public prefers swing-and-miss home run derby. The K rates may be higher than the days of Boggs, Carew, and Rose. However, if players' swings weren't groomed since grade school for pull power, but, rather, to hit the ball to all fields I doubt they'd be nearly as high. I mean, to many around the world, soccer is the beautiful game...
If we want to move the fences back, I'd be all for that, too, though - which I'd venture places me in the minority.
I like to see players doing what they do best. I want to see Jackie Bradley play CF. I want to see Billy Hamilton run. I want to see Bryce Harper hit the ball 500 feet. I want to see Aroldis Chapman throw 103 mph.

Baseball’s rules should be updated to ensure that happens as often as possible. I’d even endorse a 2 way split squad like football. Let the best defenders in the world play defense regardless of whether they can hit. Let the beat hitters in the world be in the lineup regardless of whether they can play defense. It’d be amazing. MYbe make it the way they do the all star game. That’s just an exhibition anyway.
 
Last edited:

Deathofthebambino

Drive Carefully
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2005
41,946
I like to see players doing what they do best. I want to see Jackie Bradley play CF. I want to see Billy Hamilton run. I want to see Bryce Harper hit the ball 500 feet. I want to see Aroldis Chapman throw 103 mph.

Baseball’s rules should be updated to ensure that happens as often as possible. I’d even endorse a 2 way split squad like football. Let the best defenders in the world play defense regardless of whether they can hit. Let the beat hitters in the world be in the lineup regardless of whether they can play defense. It’d be amazing. MYbe make it the way they do the all star game. That’s just an exhibition anyway.
How does the shift stop Bryce Harper from hitting a ball 500 feet? If that's what you want to see, then the shift shouldn't bother you. Bryce Harper sucking ass and not being able to hit home runs should bother you.

I'm with OFT here. I don't even understand the argument. OMG, defenses are moving based on where they think hitters are going to hit the ball. We do the same damn thing with my son's 10 year old little league team. If a lefty is up, we shade the kids to the right, if a righty is up, we shade to the left, if a cleanup hitter is up, we play deep, if it's the #9 hitter, we play shallow, and then all of that changes slightly depending on whether or not the kid pitching is liable to get late swings or early swings because of the speed he throws.

It's inconceivable that the same shit being done at the Little League level is being done at the Major League level, only in a much more scientific, and successful way. For a group of people and a message board devoted to high end analytics, talking about changing rules because teams are now using those analytics to improve the way they play defense seems completely mind-numbing to me.

I watched Wade Boggs stroke ball after ball after ball into left field and off the Monster for years at Fenway. There was nothing boring about watching him, just like there is nothing boring about watching JD Martinez spray balls all over the goddamed field. If you just want to see power hitters pull deep home runs, then go watch batting practice. Leave the game itself, alone.
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
There are people saying that to beat the shift players like Harper should bunt and hit the ball on the ground the opposite way more. That means fewer 500 foot homers ( I’m not endorsing Boras’ discrimination view here. )

Nobody is saying not to shift. They’re just saying that there should be limits on how much you can shift. To me, it’s akin to the NBAs restrictions on zone defense, or the offsides rule in soccer. But, maybe you think the NBA should legalize goaltending. If three-point shooters don’t like it, then They can just drive to the hoop instead, right?

I disagree about Boggs not being a boring player. He was great at what he did, but what he did was be a great one-dimensional complimentary piece. That’s why he didn’t win until he went to a loaded Yankee team that could exploit what he was great at. If he had speed or more power, he’d have been one of the all time greats.

A league full of Wade Boggs would likely play to half empty crowds like those that we saw at Fenway during much of Boggs’ Red Sox career.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
There are people saying that to beat the shift players like Harper should bunt and hit the ball on the ground the opposite way more. That means fewer 500 foot homers ( I’m not endorsing Boras’ discrimination view here. )

Nobody is saying not to shift. They’re just saying that there should be limits on how much you can shift. To me, it’s akin to the NBAs restrictions on zone defense, or the offsides rule in soccer. But, maybe you think the NBA should legalize goaltending. If three-point shooters don’t like it, then They can just drive to the hoop instead, right?

I disagree about Boggs not being a boring player. He was great at what he did, but what he did was be a great one-dimensional complimentary piece. That’s why he didn’t win until he went to a loaded Yankee team that could exploit what he was great at. If he had speed or more power, he’d have been one of the all time greats.

A league full of Wade Boggs would likely play to half empty crowds like those that we saw at Fenway during much of Boggs’ Red Sox career.
Yes. It is Wade Bogg's fault he didn't win a WS with the Redsox, just like it's Ted Williams fault he didnt either. Or Yaz. Or any other Redsox player prior to 2004. Is this a serious argument?
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
Yes. It is Wade Bogg's fault he didn't win a WS with the Redsox, just like it's Ted Williams fault he didnt either. Or Yaz. Or any other Redsox player prior to 2004. Is this a serious argument?
Hello Strawman.

That’s not the argument nor the point of this thread, so I’ll leave it there.

There’s a reason why we focus on home runs, strikeouts, walks, and ground ball percentage. That’s what a pitcher can control and the way pitchers limit offense.

If the modern analytics result in defensive positioning that makes it optimal for all players to hit ground balls to the opposite field, then baseball will be worse off for it, even if Bryce Harper adjusts to it and becomes as productive of a singles and walks machine as Wade Boggs was. And at least it doesn’t take a home run to score Harper from first base.
 

Deathofthebambino

Drive Carefully
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2005
41,946
I disagree about Boggs not being a boring player. He was great at what he did, but what he did was be a great one-dimensional complimentary piece. That’s why he didn’t win until he went to a loaded Yankee team that could exploit what he was great at. If he had speed or more power, he’d have been one of the all time greats.

A league full of Wade Boggs would likely play to half empty crowds like those that we saw at Fenway during much of Boggs’ Red Sox career.
Boggs isn't an all time great? What in the hell are you talking about? He was a first ballot hall of famer with over 90% of the vote. He won 5 batting titles, had a lifetime OPS+ of 131 and a lifetime BA of .328. The guy is the definition of an all-time great. Now, you're going to blame the '86 World Series on him? If he had come along 30 years later and social media got wind of him pounding 40 beers on cross country flights, he'd be a living legend right now.

How many championships did Barry Bonds win? Mike Trout must also be a complimentary piece. I mean, he's only getting what 65-70% of the stadium to fill up a night?

There’s a reason why we focus on home runs, strikeouts, walks, and ground ball percentage. That’s what a pitcher can control and the way pitchers limit offense.
Again, not a single one of these are affected by the shift. Not one. Your entire argument makes no sense. If you think the shift is the reason baseball is losing viewers, I got news for you, it's not. Baseball's fans have been getting older and dying off since long before the shift. What else do you want to change? Why should first baseman's and catchers be allowed to wear mitts instead of gloves? Why not make it against the rules to bring in lefties to face lefties? Let's just move the fences in 100 feet, and while we're at it, make every field in every stadium the exact same size?

This is ridiculous. I honestly can't even believe you're making this argument. We shouldn't allow fielders to play where the ball is going to be hit, because you don't want to have your favorite hitters adjust to it? What? Really? Like I said, go watch BP. Leave the game alone.