Scott Boras says extreme shift is “discriminatory"

simplyeric

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 14, 2006
14,037
Richmond, VA
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.
But that’s not really what’s going to happen, is it?
All a player had to do is show a little bit more proficiency at hitting anything to opposite field, and then they won’t shift, or won’t shift as much. And those heavy-pull hitters probably wouldn’t suffer much from the mild shift needed to cover the opposite field contingency.

Or at least, that’s a pretty plausible theory I’ve heard.

And yknow what? I’d like to see if it works out that way. I don’t know...I find the positional mandate to be boring, and it’s not nearly as specific or extreme as allowing full zone D or goaltending.
 

simplyeric

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 14, 2006
14,037
Richmond, VA
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 a stupid suggestion.

Obviously the answer is to eliminate he pitching mound altogether and make them throw from flat ground. Too much advantage to the pitcher! Sad!

The only reason to not make the pitcher throw from a depression in the field is that it would limit grounders up the middle.
 

Deathofthebambino

Drive Carefully
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2005
41,948
What would be the equivalent of eliminating goaltending in MLB? Eliminating catcher's interference? Batters would have to dodge the catcher's glove while swinging? That might be interesting.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,069
Hingham, MA
What would be the equivalent of eliminating goaltending in MLB? Eliminating catcher's interference? Batters would have to dodge the catcher's glove while swinging? That might be interesting.
I think it would be that if a fielder fields a ball cleanly, even if a ground ball to the outfield, it would be an out. The only way to reach base would be by walk, HBP, booting a grounder, hitting a ball that reaches the wall, or hitting it out of the park.
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
What would be the equivalent of eliminating goaltending in MLB? Eliminating catcher's interference? Batters would have to dodge the catcher's glove while swinging? That might be interesting.
If you think that’s too severe, explain the difference between the shift in baseball and a zone defense in basketball. Or offsides in soccer—another rule that people who want to have fun think should be eliminated and “purists” fight to the death to protect.

As I said, it’s a preference to watch elite athletes show off their most valuable talents. If you prefer watching people hit ground balls to the opposite field, that’s your preference. Agree to disagree.
 

HowBoutDemSox

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 12, 2009
10,104
ESPN with what is more of an aggregation of sources on shift data than any original resources, but quoting Russell Carleton of Baseball Prospectus for the conclusion that shifting, while effective at turning singles into outs, is still a net positive for offense:

Even though the shift is good at gobbling up ground balls and line drives, it has the secondary effect of making pitchers throw more pitches out of the strike zone. They don't appear to be pitching to the shift -- by throwing more pitches on the inner part of the plate, for instance -- but merely pitching away from contact, nibbling more and throwing fewer fastballs. This all means more balls. More balls mean more walks, and they also mean more hitter's counts, which means more doubles, more triples, more home runs and fewer strikeouts.

"It's a subtle, marginal effect that produces an extra ball every few dozen pitches or so," Carleton wrote. "By focusing on BABIP, we missed the fact that the battle was already lost. The extra ball means that the count could have been 1-2, but instead it was 2-1."

Carleton first suggested this possibility in 2016, but the data was too limited to draw conclusions from. Shift data at the time included only balls in play, so if the defense was shifting when a batter struck out, walked or homered, the shift was treated as if it never happened. But Petriello, using Statcast's data -- which includes all pitches -- found the same effect this spring:

"Now that we have pitch-level data on positioning, we can look at what happens when the ball is not put into play. Here, it's pretty clear. Our group of 201 players walked 9.8 percent of the time against the shift and 9 percent of the time without the shift. Eight-tenths of a percent doesn't sound like much, does it? As it happens, that's almost exactly the jump we've seen overall in the Majors from 2015 to 2017. On that scale, that was almost 1,800 more walks. It's hard to say why, for certain, but it's happening."

We're talking about fairly small effects, but, as Carleton puts it, "they are literally all pointing in the wrong direction other than the singles." And even if it were a complete wash, it would still counter the premise that shifts are stifling offense. It's not the league that should be eliminating shifts, Carleton suggests, but teams themselves:

"The threshold for when a shift should be used should be very high. It should be practiced only on those hitters with the most extreme pull tendencies. There should probably be a few thousand shifts per year, league wide, and they should all be against the same 20 or so guys. And those guys should be bunting against The Shift anyway."
http://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/24265798/mlb-myth-buster-shift-curbing-runs-creating-them
 

Deathofthebambino

Drive Carefully
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2005
41,948
If you think that’s too severe, explain the difference between the shift in baseball and a zone defense in basketball. Or offsides in soccer—another rule that people who want to have fun think should be eliminated and “purists” fight to the death to protect.

As I said, it’s a preference to watch elite athletes show off their most valuable talents. If you prefer watching people hit ground balls to the opposite field, that’s your preference. Agree to disagree.
I'm not sure I understand the question. Zone defense isn't illegal in basketball. Are you talking about defensive three seconds? I have no problem with zone defenses in basketball, and I have no problem with the shift in baseball. I could care less about soccer, but as far as hockey goes, I was happy when they eliminated the rule against two line passes to open the game up a bit, but I don't see them eliminating offsides in its current form any time soon (they may tweak it a bit so it's not determining whether or not a goal occurred 10 minutes after a play ends).

That said, do you not see the difference here? Unlike offsides, which is a rule you want eliminated, you want baseball to implement a new rule outlawing the shift.

I don't "prefer" to watch people hit ground balls to the opposite field. But I'm more than capable of appreciating the fact that guys that can do it are really fucking good, and I also understand that if more guys could do it, then there wouldn't be a shift. I don't care if Joey Gallo or Mike Moustakos can't adjust and are making outs more often than they would have 20 years ago. I don't want to create a new rule to make things easier for them. That's the bottom line. I don't want to artificially make things easier for hitters. If I did, I'd advocate getting rid of the ban on PED's. That'll have a much more dramatic effect on guys hitting homers than eliminating the shift will.

If a guy is only capable of pulling a baseball, and as a result, he can't break the Mendoza line, then he doesn't belong in the major leagues. If you can't adjust your swing to "hit it where they ain't," then you simply aren't an "elite athlete," but someone else will come along who can. The game evolves, and the players do too. Right now, the analytics are ahead, but they won't be for long. For over 100 years, we haven't had a rule dictating where fielders need to play their position, and I don't think we need one now. Give it a few years, and the shift will probably be a rarely used relic of the past, like the bunt.
 

simplyeric

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 14, 2006
14,037
Richmond, VA
If you think that’s too severe, explain the difference between the shift in baseball and a zone defense in basketball. Or offsides in soccer—another rule that people who want to have fun think should be eliminated and “purists” fight to the death to protect.

As I said, it’s a preference to watch elite athletes show off their most valuable talents. If you prefer watching people hit ground balls to the opposite field, that’s your preference. Agree to disagree.
You can only score in basketball and soccer in one location.
The equivalent would be allowing goaltending or elimination offsides...but having another basket/goal dozens of feet to the left.

‘Showing off their most valuable talents’ is the afiremoe ruined home run derby, or slam dunk contest or 3-pt shooting contest.

A basketball player who only can work under the basket, or only shoot threes, or only pass is not a good basketball player.

Edit: the shift is probably more like double-team defense in basketball. You want to see Lebron or whoever at their best? Eliminate the double team. Double team on D limits the effective of the prime star, but leaves someone else open.
 
Last edited:

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
Or being able to shove a player off the basepath around a base (not just at home plate but first base as well).

Which could be super entertaining...but not ‘baseball’.
Or being able to slap the baseball out of the defenders glove.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,243
Perhaps instead of those protective "oven mitts," baserunners should be allowed to wear: