Rob Manfred "open" to banning the shift

[nattysez]

Oh good, I hate the new Commissioner after less than 1 day on the job.
 
 

New baseball commissioner Rob Manfred has been in office a little more than 12 hours and he's already making some interesting waves. In an interview that aired on ESPN on Sunday morning, Manfred made it clear that examining the pace of the game is first on his list of priorities, but not far behind will be finding ways to "inject additional offense into the game."
Without being prompted for an example, Manfred specifically mentioned he'd be open to pursuing the elimination of defensive shifts, which he says give the defensive team a competitive advantage.
 

 
Edit:  This would be hard to enforce, create weird new rules (a "zone" in which certain fielders have to stay, maybe?), and punishes teams who've developed something based on intelligent thinking.  The only thing I could maybe, possibly, get behind is barring infielders from being stationed more than a step or two in the OF before a pitch.
 
Also, more offense makes games longer, while he claims to want to shorten games.  Ugh.

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

He's off to a raucous start.  Can we bring back Bud?
 
As to his desire to inject offense, has he considered juicing the balls and roiding up the hitters?  Worked for his predecessor.

 

[Spacemans Bong]

If you want more offense in games, narrow the strike zone (particularly the shin high pitches getting called strikes) and do something about the parade of OOGYs. The latter would even shorten games!

 

[Comfortably Lomb]

If his goal was to make people think he is an idiot on Day 1, mission accomplished.

 

[nvalvo]

Sounds like a trial balloon to gauge opinion and position himself as pragmatic, so I'm not worried. 
 
He has to understand that the desire to shorten games and increase offense are incompatible... right?

 

[findguapo]

It would be easy to enforce. Just say the 4 infielders need to stay on the clay (or the lined infield area for stadiums without clay infields), and the 3 outfielders need to stay in the outfield grass. I actually think it is a good idea, but I am probably in a minority.

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

It would be easy to enforce. Just say the 4 infielders need to stay on the clay (or the lined infield area for stadiums without clay infields), and the 3 outfielders need to stay in the outfield grass. I actually think it is a good idea, but I am probably in a minority.

 
So no bringing the infield in onto the grass to protect against bunts or to try to cut down a run at the plate? (after all, that's not staying on the "clay")
 
No fifth infielder in a bases-loaded, walk-off situation?  (outfielder on the clay)
 
It's a fucked idea, is what it is.  It would fundamentally change the way the game has been played for over a century. 

 

[kartvelo]

I say we ban baseball gloves as well, since wearing them gives the defense a competitive advantage.

 

[SumnerH]

And move the shortstop back to a roving ball retriever--allowing teams to have him camp out between 2nd and 3rd and then shade their 2nd baseman over toward 1st is a defensive repositioning that gives the team a competitive advantage.

 

[mauidano]

The first order of business was to take time for a ten minute one on one personal meeting with and requested by Alex Rodriguez.  
 
Alex: "So we're all good?"
 
Rob: "Yep."

 

[Pilgrim]

Isn't it basically an open secret that the strike zone was embiggened in order to make steroid testing look effective? Just... Reverse that.

 

[FelixMantilla]

Not a great start for the new Commissioner. 
 
How is this supposed to work? That fielders only have certain "zones" they can play in. Let's see anyone try to  enforce that bit of stupidity.

 

[B H Kim]

I think this is incredibly dumb, but really not that hard to enforce. Just prohibit a defensive alignment with three infielders on either side of second.

 

[Harry Hooper]

 
 
How is this supposed to work? That fielders only have certain "zones" they can play in. Let's see anyone try to  enforce that bit of stupidity.

 
 
Just like old time girls basketball!
 
As Spaceman said above, just crank up the bottom of the strike zone. You can start with a 3/8 of an inch rise, and then ratchet up as needed.

 

[LogansDad]

Isn't it basically an open secret that the strike zone was embiggened in order to make steroid testing look effective? Just... Reverse that.

Wait... what?  Is this true.
 
To add to thread, I hate this idea, and I don't look at it as a good start to his dictat-errr, tenure as commissioner.  I am also of the midset that the game neither needs to be sped up, nor needs more offense, so my opinion is likely shaded by that.  
 
With that said, the quote says he is "open to pursuing" it, and not "actively pursuing" it, so hopefully it turns out to be nothing.

 

[Spacemans Bong]

I don't know about its relation to steroid testing, but the strike zone absolutely got embiggened in 2010 or so.

 

[Ananti]

Let's just ban defenders altogether.   Let's just award bases based on where the bat is hit have 9 DH types on every team, that will improve the offense and speed up the game.

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

Wait... what?  Is this true.
 
To add to thread, I hate this idea, and I don't look at it as a good start to his dictat-errr, tenure as commissioner.  I am also of the midset that the game neither needs to be sped up, nor needs more offense, so my opinion is likely shaded by that.  
 
With that said, the quote says he is "open to pursuing" it, and not "actively pursuing" it, so hopefully it turns out to be nothing.

 
I hope so too.  The more concerning thing is that even addressing it at this point means it's on somebody's mind who has his ear.  Not necessarily in an influential way, that remains to be seen, but it's someone (or a group of someones) and I fear that it's some segment of owners or team executives that are truly pushing the idea.
 
My big fear is that by bringing it up on day one, he's giving credence to the crotchety old man voices in the wild (Cafardo and his ilk) who until this point were limited to the odd throwaway tweet or line in a column that gets forgotten seconds after it's read.  Whether it ever becomes a reality or not, now we're going to hear about it incessantly.

 

[Corsi]

Told ya.
 

 

[Mugsy's Jock]

it would be perfectly easy to enforce.
 
When the pitch is released, all infielders need to be inside the line dividing the outfield and the field (the clay lip, where dirt infields are in play), and all outfielders need to start outside that line.
 
Two infielders need to be on each side of second base.  One outfielder needs to be on each side of a line from home plate through second base.  [The center fielder could pick either side.]
 
That's not to say it's a good idea -- it's not -- but it wouldn't be hard to do.

 

[hbk72777]

I'm torn on the issue. I hate new rules, as they always seem to have unintended effects that no one foresees (see every NFL rule), but last year was brutal.
 
I love a low scoring game once in a while, but almost every Yankees game was 0-0 going into the 6 th, 7th, 8th inning.
 
They're going to lose the casual fans if they don't do something. The shot clock was invented for this same reason. I'm sure there were basketball purists who flipped out about it, but it was needed.

 

[keninten]

I actually like the defensive shifts. I`ve always watched how the defense is setup anyways, especially when I played. It just adds another element while waiting for the pitch. Plus the discussion it brings up such as "if they hadn`t shifted" or "if he could learn to hit the other way to avoid the shift". Baseball needs lots of discussion during the game.

 

[Mighty Joe Young]

Just an incredibly dumb idea .. I agree it's probably just a trial balloon .. Makes him look like he's open and progressive to casual fans. They'll stike a committee to study the idea and, after a suitably politically correct interval, will come to the conclusion that, while a good idea , it's unenforcable.

 

[bosockboy]

While the shift is annoying it's a legit piece of strategy. We need more of that, not less.

 

[Buck Showalter]

I can't believe this idea was communicated beyond his kitchen table after he drank a bottle of wine.
 
Just incredibly dumb.

 

[MakMan44]

I can't believe this idea was communicated beyond his kitchen table after he drank a bottle of wine.
 
Just incredibly dumb.

It is but he trying to please the casual fans, not people like us. Banning shifts seems like a quick and dirty way to increase offense. 

 

[Tito's Pullover]

This was brought up in the "how to increase offense" earlier this offseason, and I apologize for not remember the exact poster, but he/she brought up a good point.
 
The standard positioning of the infielders is technically a "shift".  If you outlaw shifts, does the second baseman cover the bag at the start of every pitch?  As it stands now he "shifts" toward first base on most plays.

 

[Spacemans Bong]

It is but he trying to please the casual fans, not people like us. Banning shifts seems like a quick and dirty way to increase offense. 

Fixing the strike zone is even easier. Look, offensive levels are about the same as they were in the 80s and early 90s, and nobody then thought baseball was dullsville. But teams strike out 33% more now due to OOGYs and the huge strike zone. You might not be able to do something about relievers just yet, but you can sure stop getting cutters at the shins called a strike.

 

[jacklamabe65]

The anti-Manfred: Bring back the mound height to the pre-1969 level.

 

[Pozo the Clown]

Here's an interesting article on what was perhaps the first extreme shift employed in baseball: http://joeposnanski.com/joeblogs/the-boudreau-shift/
 

 

[YTF]

The man has had 5 1/2 months to prepare for this day and this is what he's brought to the table? I can only imagine what the Pats-Ravens game from a few weeks back must have done to him.

 

[Yelling At Clouds]

Forgive me for asking a possibly-dense question, but could he even unilaterally make this move if he wanted to? Wouldn't it be subject to approval by both owners and the MLBPA? 

 

[doc]

Let's just ban defenders altogether.   Let's just award bases based on where the bat is hit have 9 DH types on every team, that will improve the offense and speed up the game.

 

[Plympton91]

I don't see anything at all stupid or crazy about it, or why it would be difficult to enforce. I don't want a team to play a defensive alignment that makes it optimal for David Ortiz to bunt. That's boring and robs the paying customers of what they came to see---excellence in athletic competition---rather than which team had the best statistician with the fastest CPU. I hope they follow through with it.

 

[Toe Nash]

it would be perfectly easy to enforce.
 
When the pitch is released, all infielders need to be inside the line dividing the outfield and the field (the clay lip, where dirt infields are in play), and all outfielders need to start outside that line.
 
Two infielders need to be on each side of second base.  One outfielder needs to be on each side of a line from home plate through second base.  [The center fielder could pick either side.]
 
That's not to say it's a good idea -- it's not -- but it wouldn't be hard to do.

It's far from easy and your rules raise other issues.
Do you have to designate players as outfielders or infielders (Sure, easy enough)?
Can players run to the other side of second base as the pitch is released? Are there exceptions if someone is stealing a base?
Who is responsible for watching out for this? Do you have another umpire?
What is the penalty for violating the rule? Can you challenge it on replay?
 
Beyond the technical aspects, will it even increase offense? Strikeouts are at a historic high which is a big part of the drop in offense -- shifting may affect slugging but it hasn't affected BABIP.

 

[tims4wins]

Wouldn't the easiest way to increase offense be to lower the mound - wouldn't that be even easier than changing the strike zone?

 

[charlieoscar]

Here's an interesting article on what was perhaps the first extreme shift employed in baseball: http://joeposnanski.com/joeblogs/the-boudreau-shift/
 

 
This is not a great rendition of the photograph of Boudreau's shift against Ted Williams but I'm too lazy to find/photograph/post a copy of it from Life that I have.
 
Incidentally, Posnanski alluded to a shift being used against Cy Williams about 20 years prior to the Boudreau shift. Cy was a dead-pull, left-handed batter who played in the Baker Bowl as a Phillie. The Baker Bowl had a 280' RF line (300' in RCF) with a 60' high fence, so opposing teams began using an extreme outfield shift against him (I have not been able to find any information on whether there was an accompanying infield shift). However, something to think about is that the three coaches the Indians had in 1946 either played with a player, or two, who played with Cy, or in the case of Buster Mills, was a teammate of his with the Phillies in 1929. Talks among Boudreau and his three coaches may well have led to implementation of the (Ted) Williams Shift.
 

 

[Minneapolis Millers]

I didn't realize that Boudreau played the entire infield to the right of 2d.  Wow, was Williams stubborn.
 
Shifts are good.  Adding strategy to the game and rewarding creativity are generally good things.  Everyone might want Papi to homer, but most intelligent fans realize he's not going to do it most at bats.  And many fans would LOVE to see him beat the shift by pushing a bunt down to third.  Act and react is the essence of sport.
 
As for how "easy" it would be to enforce, fielding positions already differ depending on whether the field is turf or grass, since turf is a typically faster surface (Field turf being less so than the old Astroturf, but still...).  Most MIs are back of the line on turf fields, especially against slower runners.
 
You only get 8 defenders in fair territory.  Same amount of ground to cover regardless of where you deploy them.  If they play everyone in RF, then lay off the inside stuff and slap it to left. 

 

[Koufax]

I agree completely.  Hitters just have to learn to hit the ball where they ain't.  Ichiro would have no problem with a shift.  David Ortiz could do much better against it if he tried. He has the skill. 

 

[Pozo the Clown]

I'm not an ESPN Insider, so, I can't access the entire article, however, the title is indicative of how Buster Olney feels about the idea of banning shifts: http://insider.espn.go.com/blog/buster-olney/post?id=9260

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

I agree completely.  Hitters just have to learn to hit the ball where they ain't.  Ichiro would have no problem with a shift.  David Ortiz could do much better against it if he tried. He has the skill. 

 
The forgotten part of all of these over-shifts is that not only do the defenders play out of their "normal" position, but the pitcher is also pitching to the shift.  So for a hitter like Ortiz, they play him to pull and the pitcher then works on the inside half of the plate in order to induce Ortiz to pull the ball into the shift.  So if Ortiz alters his approach at the plate in order to go the other way, the best way to do that is to try to inside-out something a la Jeter.  By doing that, he's reducing his power potential.
 
So the defense still "wins" if he's choking up and trying to serve balls to left (or bunting down the 3B line).  Ortiz is a threat to find a gap or hit the ball over the wall more often than the average hitter.  The defense's goal is to reduce the frequency he does one of those things, and whether they are taking away singles to RF or cutting off balls in the gap or forcing him to go weakly the other way, it's all varying degrees of "win" to them.
 

 

[Lose Remerswaal]

 
The forgotten part of all of these over-shifts is that not only do the defenders play out of their "normal" position, but the pitcher is also pitching to the shift.  So for a hitter like Ortiz, they play him to pull and the pitcher then works on the inside half of the plate in order to induce Ortiz to pull the ball into the shift.  So if Ortiz alters his approach at the plate in order to go the other way, the best way to do that is to try to inside-out something a la Jeter.  By doing that, he's reducing his power potential.
 
So the defense still "wins" if he's choking up and trying to serve balls to left (or bunting down the 3B line).  Ortiz is a threat to find a gap or hit the ball over the wall more often than the average hitter.  The defense's goal is to reduce the frequency he does one of those things, and whether they are taking away singles to RF or cutting off balls in the gap or forcing him to go weakly the other way, it's all varying degrees of "win" to them.
 

 
This is true if his OPS is greater than 2.000 with the shift.  Because if they leave the third base line open and he can bunt for a single every time, then he is assured a 1.000 OBP and a 1.000 SLG by doing so.

 

[Plympton91]

 
This is true if his OPS is greater than 2.000 with the shift.  Because if they leave the third base line open and he can bunt for a single every time, then he is assured a 1.000 OBP and a 1.000 SLG by doing so.

But he doesn't bunt for a single every single time, that's part of the reason the shift works. He might foul off a bunt, putting himself in an 0-1 hole (defense wins, regardless of what BABIP says); he might pop the bunt up back to the pitcher (defense wins); The question is whether he can get the bunt single 45% of the time or more (a 900 OPS) and I bet even Ichiro isn't that efficient.

And, when I'm paying top dollar for a ticket, I wanna see Ortiz hit the Red Seat with a HR, not the third base line with a single. If the idea is to bring fans into the games, especially the casual "after work a couple times a year" fans or the "watch the playoffs when my team is in them" fans, then you want Ortiz swinging away too.

 

[charlieoscar]

I didn't realize that Boudreau played the entire infield to the right of 2d.  Wow, was Williams stubborn....

 
When Williams got older, he started hitting to left more often. But even better than that, on September 13, 1946, he hit an inside-the-park home run to left-center in the first inning against the Indians (and the shift) to produce the only run and clinch the pennant.

 

[Lose Remerswaal]

You proved my point.  If he bunted every time they'd stop shifting.
 
Problem solved without more rules.

 

[HriniakPosterChild]

Isn't saying "I'm open to it" usually a cordial way of saying "it's not gonna happen"?

 
Yes, if he were Japanese. 
 
"That is an interesting idea."

 

[Plympton91]

You proved my point.  If he bunted every time they'd stop shifting.
 
Problem solved without more rules.

How is the problem solved? There's no evidence that David Ortiz can manage a 900 plus OPS in at bats in which he attempts a bunt (not just in at bats when he gets a bunt down successfully). And, even if he can, there is still the problem of fans who paid hard earned money to watch David Ortiz hit having to watch him bunt until the defense is convinced he can maintain that level of success. The problem is always with us, as long as the defense is aligned in a way that makes it optimal for David Ortiz to try to bunt, the fans get robbed.

 

[Darnell's Son]

What about the other teams' fans? They would rather see Ortiz ground out to shallow right than be able to swing away with no shift. The problem is the strike zone and the ridiculous strike out rates, not the shift.

 

[keninten]

I remember seeing Cecil Fielder steal 2nd base. Papi legging out a bunt would be pretty cool unless he pulls a hammy.

 

[Harry Hooper]

Wouldn't the easiest way to increase offense be to lower the mound - wouldn't that be even easier than changing the strike zone?

 
I think changing a couple of lines of software code to raise the bottom of the zone for the systems that evaluate umpires is very easy