Rob Manfred "open" to banning the shift

[charlieoscar]

 
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

 
Doesn't the bottom of the zone depend on the location of the batter's knees, i.e. it's not fixed?
 
In addition to some parallax error introduced to the home plate umpire by the difference in a batter's positioning in the batter's box/batter's stance/height of the batter's knees, there may be some uncertainty introduced by batter's who wear baggy pants and who stand nearly upright.
 
And further compounding the problems in calling balls and strikes is that a 90-mph pitch travels 132 feet per second, which is 1584 inches per second. Home plate is 17 inches front to back, so the ball is over the plate for about 10 milliseconds (maybe 12 milliseconds since the ball decelerates on the way to the plate).
 
As for having automated pitch calling systems, it's not quite as easy as one thinks. The strike zone is three-dimensional and the rules say that "if any part of the ball passes through any part of the strike zone" it is a strike, so if the pitch is high by a millimeter when it enters the zone (front of the plate) but due to forces acting against the ball drops low enough to intersect the top of the zone before it passes the back edge of the plate, it is a strike. Your automated system needs to detect that.
 
I think the most you can rate an umpire on is consistency and in the pre-high-tech days that is what players asked for. If an umpire had a low or wide, high or low strike zone, they knew it and adapted. Measure the consistency of today's umpires and get rid of the inconsistent ones (if they can). Once they have a corps of consistent umpires, then they can start working on tightening their zones.

 

[Spacemans Bong]

I don't think you quite understand how much bigger the zone has got in the past five years.
 
I linked to this earlier, but here it is in picture form:
 

 

The strike zone is about 40 square inches bigger than it was in 2010. All of this is at the knees, and all of baseball's offensive decline is due to rising strikeouts.

 

[Harry Hooper]

 
Doesn't the bottom of the zone depend on the location of the batter's knees, i.e. it's not fixed?
 
In addition to some parallax error introduced to the home plate umpire by the difference in a batter's positioning in the batter's box/batter's stance/height of the batter's knees, there may be some uncertainty introduced by batter's who wear baggy pants and who stand nearly upright.
 
And further compounding the problems in calling balls and strikes is that a 90-mph pitch travels 132 feet per second, which is 1584 inches per second. Home plate is 17 inches front to back, so the ball is over the plate for about 10 milliseconds (maybe 12 milliseconds since the ball decelerates on the way to the plate).
 
As for having automated pitch calling systems, it's not quite as easy as one thinks. The strike zone is three-dimensional and the rules say that "if any part of the ball passes through any part of the strike zone" it is a strike, so if the pitch is high by a millimeter when it enters the zone (front of the plate) but due to forces acting against the ball drops low enough to intersect the top of the zone before it passes the back edge of the plate, it is a strike. Your automated system needs to detect that.
 
I think the most you can rate an umpire on is consistency and in the pre-high-tech days that is what players asked for. If an umpire had a low or wide, high or low strike zone, they knew it and adapted. Measure the consistency of today's umpires and get rid of the inconsistent ones (if they can). Once they have a corps of consistent umpires, then they can start working on tightening their zones.

 
 
You use the exact same system they are using now. You just have the "virtual" bottom of the zone imposed for ump evaluation raised a bit.

 

[The Gray Eagle]

I don't think you quite understand how much bigger the zone has got in the past five years.
 
I linked to this earlier, but here it is in picture form:
 

 

The strike zone is about 40 square inches bigger than it was in 2010. All of this is at the knees, and all of baseball's offensive decline is due to rising strikeouts.

So according to that, the strike zone is being called much more accurately now. This is good. It's up to the hitters to adjust. They will, they always have. That is part if big league baseball. You don't need to start adding dumb rules just because scoring went down a lot in one year.  
 
Hitters can stop swinging for the fences on every single pitch, and hit more like they used to before the mid-90s. That would cut down on the effectiveness of shifts and reduce strikeouts. There would be more base hits but fewer home runs. That is not a crisis, it's just baseball.

 

[snowmanny]

It's also interesting that last year there was some advantage in batting left-handed, since the strike zone was a bit (~20 square inches) smaller for left-handed hitters. 

 

[Toe Nash]

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.

I think Ortiz bunting every so often is pretty cool. A lot more interesting than early-00s baseball where there were a million walks and HRs and no one did anything else.
 
I also think teams using data to try to use innovative shifts to gain an advantage is cool. Just like it was cool when the A's realized that OBP was undervalued.
 
I suspect I'm not alone. 

 

[Lose Remerswaal]

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.

 
I answered that in the post you quoted.  They Will Stop Shifting If He Bunts for a Base Hit Every Time.
 

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

 
Ortiz had 4 steals in 2013.  Mo Vaughn had 11 in 1995

 

[Spacemans Bong]

So according to that, the strike zone is being called much more accurately now. This is good. It's up to the hitters to adjust. They will, they always have. That is part if big league baseball. You don't need to start adding dumb rules just because scoring went down a lot in one year.  
 
Hitters can stop swinging for the fences on every single pitch, and hit more like they used to before the mid-90s. That would cut down on the effectiveness of shifts and reduce strikeouts. There would be more base hits but fewer home runs. That is not a crisis, it's just baseball.

 
I would be delighted if that happened but if this goes on for another four years I don't think I can take it. Even Joe Sheehan, Mr. Sabermetrics Is Right About Everything, will say that contact hitters are undervalued, but teams don't really seem to be investing in them, other than the Royals.
 
I can deal with high strikeouts if we have runs and dingerz, and I can deal with less runs and dingerz if we have low strikeouts. The latter is called 80s baseball, and I like to watch it on YouTube.
 
But high strikeouts and comparatively low offense sucks to watch. Plus, you can change the strikezone. We did it in the late 60s, and it worked pretty well. It's certainly a better idea than banning shifts, which would only improve offense a little bit, or lowering the mound, which I would hate because it wouldn't reduce K's by much and it would all but kill the curveball.

 

[Minneapolis Millers]

I realize the commissioner has lots to worry about, including maximizing revenue, but I don't think he's going to start fundamentally changing the rules of the game just to satisfy the fans who will pout cuz the defense isn't being fair to their favorite player. 
 
And for all the doubles that you won't get to see because Papi chose to lay one down the line and take an easy base, you might just get to see a Papi triple or inside the parker because he laces one into the LF corner 100 feet from the nearest fielder.  Lose is right.  The defense isn't going to consider it a win if Papi's batting .400+ against them (and walking a decent amount of the time while the pitcher tries to avoid 2/3 of the plate).  And speaking of walks, if they didn't ban the IBB after 2004, which is arguably more frustrating to watch than your guy bunting to an open left side, I don't think they'll ban defensive shifts.
 
Also, re: Ichiro, I'd be STUNNED if he couldn't bunt for a single well over half the time if they used a Papi-like shift on him. 

 

[mauf]

Bud Selig's PR was worse than his performance. Selig got off to a bad start -- he came to office directly from the ownership ranks as part of a power play, then soon presided over the disastrous 1994-95 strike. After that, however, he was probably the best commissioner from a fan's perspective among the four major team sports, and second only to Tagliabue/Goodell from an owner's perspective.
 
There was always a risk that Selig's successor would be worse for the fans. That risk looms larger now than it did before Manfred opened his mouth.

 

[keninten]

Ortiz had 4 steals in 2013.  Mo Vaughn had 11 in 1995
 
I was talking about an oddity of the game such as Cecil`s steal. I`m not sure if Papi ever bunted before which would take a little more skill than stealing a base which you can see in the clip he may not have actually stolen.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRlzXOr7bhc

 

[Lars The Wanderer]

"Stop standing where I want to hit the ball". Yeah, that is a dumb idea.

 

[Rice4HOF]

I remember Ortiz attempting a bunt several times. Once he missed and hit a HR on the next pitch. I think he's been successful a few times. Here's video of a bunt to Jeter http://m.mlb.com/video/?content_id=12724859

 

[timlinin8th]

So according to that, the strike zone is being called much more accurately now. This is good. It's up to the hitters to adjust. They will, they always have. That is part if big league baseball. You don't need to start adding dumb rules just because scoring went down a lot in one year.  

This is anecdotal to be sure, but in watching games this past season balls that were extremely low were getting called strikes, as in, if any part of the top of the ball crossed at the extreme bottom of knee level it was a strike. I'm all for calling things according to the rules but that seems a bit extreme. This ain't golfing and not everyone's Vlad Guerrero.

A fun little reference on the history of the strike zone:
http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/official_info/umpires/strike_zone.jsp

 

[Rice4HOF]

...if any part of the top of the ball crossed at the extreme bottom of knee level it was a strike. I'm all for calling things according to the rules ....

You realize that is EXACTLY the rule? In fact it applies over any part of the plate. So if it's at the bottom of the knee at the front of the plate, and drops lower as it crosses where the batter is standing it is a strike and umpires are taught to call it that way.
Maybe the rule book definition of a strike is what needs to change.
(And maybe we're both saying the same thing, I'm just defending the umpires for calling it the way the rules define it)

 

[Lose Remerswaal]

I remember Ortiz attempting a bunt several times. Once he missed and hit a HR on the next pitch. I think he's been successful a few times. Here's video of a bunt to Jeter http://m.mlb.com/video/?content_id=12724859

Someone looked this up last year. I think he was something like 8 for 14 over the prior few seasons when trying to bunt.

Practice it a bit more often in BP and see now well he can do.

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

It's up to the hitters to adjust. They will, they always have.

 
Well, no, they haven't necessarily. What has often happened instead (as timlinin8th's link nicely demonstrates) is that MLB stepped in and tweaked the rules, whether about strike zone, mound height, whatever it took. I'm old enough to remember 1968, when Jose Cardenal was a league-average hitter with a line of .257/.305/.353. It was a deadly game to watch, and the league knew it and did something about it.
 
I wouldn't say we've reached that stage yet, but we're headed there. Banning the shift is probably not the answer this time around (though I'm not as certain about this as some of you). But something needs to be. Watching a great pitcher shut down a lineup is fun to watch--as long as it's hard to do. As it becomes routine, the fun dissipates. The same goes for hitting home runs. It's all about the balance.

 

[Harry Hooper]

Raise the bottom a smidge and step up enforcement against pitchers loading up the balls with sunscreen or whatever.

 

[timlinin8th]

You realize that is EXACTLY the rule? In fact it applies over any part of the plate. So if it's at the bottom of the knee at the front of the plate, and drops lower as it crosses where the batter is standing it is a strike and umpires are taught to call it that way.
Maybe the rule book definition of a strike is what needs to change.
(And maybe we're both saying the same thing, I'm just defending the umpires for calling it the way the rules define it)

I do realize that. I guess my point was that as it's defined currently places the ball extremely low and I don't really like that being a strike and would support changing it so that the entirety of the ball must be above that lower level. Sorry for the lack of clarity.

 

[Frank Fenway]

Can the league be open to banning Rob Manfred?

 

[Rice4HOF]

I do realize that. I guess my point was that as it's defined currently places the ball extremely low and I don't really like that being a strike and would support changing it so that the entirety of the ball must be above that lower level. Sorry for the lack of clarity.

Good, we're on the same page, then.

 

[charlieoscar]

Someone looked this up last year. I think he was something like 8 for 14 over the prior few seasons when trying to bunt.

Practice it a bit more often in BP and see now well he can do.

 
Using Retrosheet Event Files I found Ortiz going 4 for 11 when trying to bunt for a hit, plus he had 2 sacrifice bunts.
 
2001 - SH
2005 - 1/2
2006 - 1/4
2007 - 0/1 (reached on FC with Youkilis out trying to go from 1st to 3rd)
2008 - SH
2010 - 1/2
2012 - 1/1
2013 - 0/1

 

[Plympton91]

 
Using Retrosheet Event Files I found Ortiz going 4 for 11 when trying to bunt for a hit, plus he had 2 sacrifice bunts.
 
2001 - SH
2005 - 1/2
2006 - 1/4
2007 - 0/1 (reached on FC with Youkilis out trying to go from 1st to 3rd)
2008 - SH
2010 - 1/2
2012 - 1/1
2013 - 0/1

Great research work. However, as I noted upthread, it is only part of the story. In order to fully account for the effect of "Ortiz bunting" you need to also include the outcomes of any at bat in which he attempted a bunt and missed or fouled it off, thus putting himself in a worse position vis-a-vis the count. That is also part of the benefit for the defense if the shift takes him out of his game.

Another thought came to me while listening to the discussion this morning on MLB Radio. Many people have quoted the statistic that the BABIP when the shift is employed is equivalent to the overall league average BABIP, and used that to conclude that shifting has had little effect on offense. But, isn't that the wrong comparison? What you want to compare is the BABIP of the same players, with and without the shift. To do that you have to back out of the league average the statistics for all the players who are not faced with shifts on a regular basis. Given that shifting is generally employed against higher-quality hitters, and higher-quality hitters often have above-average BABIP (hitters can control it, pitchers, because they face on average an average hitter, can't), then the existing comparison actually suggests there is a big effect of shifting. It takes above average hitters and reduces them to league average BABIP.

 

[mauf]

P91 is right -- if BABIP against shifted defenses is the same as against non-shifted defenses, then it's likely that shifts are taking away a ton of hits. 
 
Seems like the no-brainer would be to limit pitching changes -- it's about the only change that would simultaneously increase scoring and shorten games. It would also be congruent with the game's history -- no one thinks we're going back to the days when CGs were the norm rather than the exception, but 7-man bullpens and OOGYs are a recent innovation, and one we could do without.

 

[Spacemans Bong]

John Dewan did the numbers, shifting saves about 250 runs a year...in all of baseball.

So not nothing, but changing the strike zone would easily surpass that.

 

[Plympton91]

P91 is right -- if BABIP against shifted defenses is the same as against non-shifted defenses, then it's likely that shifts are taking away a ton of hits. 
 
Seems like the no-brainer would be to limit pitching changes -- it's about the only change that would simultaneously increase scoring and shorten games. It would also be congruent with the game's history -- no one thinks we're going back to the days when CGs were the norm rather than the exception, but 7-man bullpens and OOGYs are a recent innovation, and one we could do without.

I agree. Bill James had a proposal for this, make a rule that a reliever has to stay in the game until a) he gives up a baserunner or b) he finishes an inning. So, if you bring in a loogy and he gets the lefty out, he has to stay in to pitch to the righthanded batter who's up next, unless it was the end of the inning.

John Dewan did the numbers, shifting saves about 250 runs a year...in all of baseball.

So not nothing, but changing the strike zone would easily surpass that.

Is that amount of benefit consistent with the investment teams are making in the analytical, hardware, software, and data collection capacity to exploit the advantages? If that's all it does, then it seems like it would be worth it to forego the investment and sign an extra draft pick instead. It would also suggest that the Board's hypothesis about the Red Sox stocking up on groundball pitchers because they can defensive shift their way to a competitive pitching staff through exploiting this market inefficiency is either way overblown or very misguided.

I'd tend to think that if all the smart ROI savvy teams are spending significant resources on it, then it must be making a material impact on their win probability. And that would suggest that Mr. Dewan's estimates are off by at least a factor of 4, which would be 1000 runs, or 3 wins per team on average. Or it could be right if only 1/4 of the teams are making effective use of shifts.

 

[CarolinaBeerGuy]

I agree. Bill James had a proposal for this, make a rule that a reliever has to stay in the game until a) he gives up a baserunner or b) he finishes an inning. So, if you bring in a loogy and he gets the lefty out, he has to stay in to pitch to the righthanded batter who's up next, unless it was the end of the inning.

I would support that wholeheartedly.

 

[Toe Nash]

Is that amount of benefit consistent with the investment teams are making in the analytical, hardware, software, and data collection capacity to exploit the advantages? If that's all it does, then it seems like it would be worth it to forego the investment and sign an extra draft pick instead. It would also suggest that the Board's hypothesis about the Red Sox stocking up on groundball pitchers because they can defensive shift their way to a competitive pitching staff through exploiting this market inefficiency is either way overblown or very misguided.

I'd tend to think that if all the smart ROI savvy teams are spending significant resources on it, then it must be making a material impact on their win probability. And that would suggest that Mr. Dewan's estimates are off by at least a factor of 4, which would be 1000 runs, or 3 wins per team on average. Or it could be right if only 1/4 of the teams are making effective use of shifts.

 
Huh?
-This isn't 1970, computers are cheap. Teams also pay statistical analysts relatively little. I don't know how much they are spending but I doubt teams are really going broke here. Not to mention, the guys they hire and computer programs they build are doing more than just analyzing data to determine how to shift all day...I'd imagine they're working on other ideas.
-You can't just "sign an extra draft pick" with that money. There's a pool with a set amount of money you can spend on picks. Ditto the International amateur FA market.
-There are relatively few other places that you can really spend extra money on given the luxury tax and roster limits. I guess you could hire more scouts but teams are pretty full there and there are only so many places to scout, plus too many cooks and all that. So it makes sense to invest in proprietary data analysis stuff.
-Investing in data analysis lets you get the most out of the 25 players you have, so you add value to all of your other investments.
-Having a groundball-heavy pitching staff is valuable beyond shifting...especially with Fenway as a home park.

 

[Sampo Gida]

It's also interesting that last year there was some advantage in batting left-handed, since the strike zone was a bit (~20 square inches) smaller for left-handed hitters. 

 
Yes, its smaller for LHH, but its also shifted outside off the plate, so this may negate the advantage of the smaller overall zone
 
The fact its been trending larger since the inception of pitch f/x which is used to evaluate umpires, and that the strike zone has actually got more consistent, leads me to think the larger zone is what MLB wants, or at least has wanted in this period ( for reasons I can only speculate on).
 
Interesting article here on how the strike zone shifts with number of outs, counts, pitch speed, etc
 
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=21262

 

[Sampo Gida]

I agree. Bill James had a proposal for this, make a rule that a reliever has to stay in the game until a) he gives up a baserunner or b) he finishes an inning. So, if you bring in a loogy and he gets the lefty out, he has to stay in to pitch to the righthanded batter who's up next, unless it was the end of the inning.

Is that amount of benefit consistent with the investment teams are making in the analytical, hardware, software, and data collection capacity to exploit the advantages? If that's all it does, then it seems like it would be worth it to forego the investment and sign an extra draft pick instead. It would also suggest that the Board's hypothesis about the Red Sox stocking up on groundball pitchers because they can defensive shift their way to a competitive pitching staff through exploiting this market inefficiency is either way overblown or very misguided.

I'd tend to think that if all the smart ROI savvy teams are spending significant resources on it, then it must be making a material impact on their win probability. And that would suggest that Mr. Dewan's estimates are off by at least a factor of 4, which would be 1000 runs, or 3 wins per team on average. Or it could be right if only 1/4 of the teams are making effective use of shifts.

 
Thats about 8 runs a team, altough I thought it was closer to 6, but lets call it 8.  Not shifting would then cost you 0.8 Wins, which in todays free agent market is considered to be worth about 5 million.   Obviously, some teams may get better results shifting and the value is worth a bit more, maybe double or more.  Pretty sure teams are not spending 5 million a  year on the resources to shift, although thats just my opinion, and these resources may be put to other uses.  I seem to remember a MLB team last year was reported to have purchased a Cray Super Computer , having an estimated value of 500K.  The support team to program and run the computer likely costs quite a bit more, but like I said, it would not be limited to determining optimum positioning for shifts, so how much would be allocated to shifting I don't know.

 

[charlieoscar]

Great research work. However, as I noted upthread, it is only part of the story. In order to fully account for the effect of "Ortiz bunting" you need to also include the outcomes of any at bat in which he attempted a bunt and missed or fouled it off, thus putting himself in a worse position vis-a-vis the count. That is also part of the benefit for the defense if the shift takes him out of his game....
 
I can do foul bunts but I don't think there is any way to determine strikes called on missed bunt attempts. I'll need to look a little further.

 

[charlieoscar]

As a follow-up to Plympton91's comment regardingattempted bunts, et al:
 
Ortiz's bunt attempts
 
Year - Pitch Sequence, runners/score/inning/result for Ortiz's AB
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2005 - LX, runner on 2nd, trailing 0-1 in b1/later singles to right
2005 - LX, no runners, leading 6-4 in b7/later flies to center
2005 - LBBLBB, no runners, tied 0-0 in t1/walks
2006 - LBSS, no runners, trailing 3-5 in t8/later strikeout swinging
2006 - LBFS, no runners, leading 1-0 in t1/later strikeout swinging
2006 - LFX, no runners, tied 2-2 in t8/later doubles to left
2006 - CLBFBFBH, no runners, trailing 0-4 in b4/later hit by pitch
2006 - O1BF1BX, runner on 1st, leading 4-3 i b7/later grounds out to first
2007 - LX, no runners, tied 6-6 in t8/later flies to right
2008 - SMBX, no runners, tied 0-0 in b1/later grounds out short to first
2008 - LFBX, no runners, tied 2-2 in t13/later grounds out to first
2009 - L>BFBBFS, runners 2nd and 3rd, leading 2-1 in b6/later strikeout swinging
2010 - CBLFT, runner 3rd, tied 4-4 in b7/later strikeout on foul tip
2011 - SBMX, no runners, leading 5-2 in b 5/later singles to center
2014 - CBLFS, no runners, leading 1-0 in t8/later strikeout swinging
 
NOTES:
L = foul bunt
M = missed bunt attempt
O = foul tip on bunt
 
C = called strike
S = swinging strike
 
F = foul ball
T = foul tip
 
X = at bat (hit, generic out)
H = hit by pitch
 
> = runner going on pitch
1 = pitcher's throw to first
 
t or b = top of bottom of inning

 

[Harry Hooper]

Grantland has a study on the impact of growing strike zone on offense.

 

[Plympton91]

As a follow-up to Plympton91's comment regardingattempted bunts, et al:
 
Ortiz's bunt attempts
 
Year - Pitch Sequence, runners/score/inning/result for Ortiz's AB
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2005 - LX, runner on 2nd, trailing 0-1 in b1/later singles to right
2005 - LX, no runners, leading 6-4 in b7/later flies to center
2005 - LBBLBB, no runners, tied 0-0 in t1/walks
2006 - LBSS, no runners, trailing 3-5 in t8/later strikeout swinging
2006 - LBFS, no runners, leading 1-0 in t1/later strikeout swinging
2006 - LFX, no runners, tied 2-2 in t8/later doubles to left
2006 - CLBFBFBH, no runners, trailing 0-4 in b4/later hit by pitch
2006 - O1BF1BX, runner on 1st, leading 4-3 i b7/later grounds out to first
2007 - LX, no runners, tied 6-6 in t8/later flies to right
2008 - SMBX, no runners, tied 0-0 in b1/later grounds out short to first
2008 - LFBX, no runners, tied 2-2 in t13/later grounds out to first
2009 - L>BFBBFS, runners 2nd and 3rd, leading 2-1 in b6/later strikeout swinging
2010 - CBLFT, runner 3rd, tied 4-4 in b7/later strikeout on foul tip
2011 - SBMX, no runners, leading 5-2 in b 5/later singles to center
2014 - CBLFS, no runners, leading 1-0 in t8/later strikeout swinging
 
NOTES:
L = foul bunt
M = missed bunt attempt
O = foul tip on bunt
 
C = called strike
S = swinging strike
 
F = foul ball
T = foul tip
 
X = at bat (hit, generic out)
H = hit by pitch
 
> = runner going on pitch
1 = pitcher's throw to first
 
t or b = top of bottom of inning

Great work, thanks for doing it. Putting your two posts together, Ortiz is 7 for 26 with a double, a walk, and two sacrifices in 29 plate appearances in which he attempted a bunt against the shift. It is not something he should do more of, apparently.

 

[Lose Remerswaal]

Or he could practice it and become better than he currently is.
 
Or not.
 
But banning shifts isn't the answer.

 

[charlieoscar]

Great work, thanks for doing it. Putting your two posts together, Ortiz is 7 for 26 with a double, a walk, and two sacrifices in 29 plate appearances in which he attempted a bunt against the shift. It is not something he should do more of, apparently.

 
I look at it differently. My first post shows that he was 4 for 11 in bunting for a base hit with 2 successful sacrifices. However, the second post shows that he was unsuccessful 16 times trying to bunt (in one at bat he tried twice). Thirteen of those failures came when he fouled off the bunt attempt. I have no way of telling from my data whether the balls rolled foul or they were popped over the catcher's head or landed at his feet. If a majority of those attempts were the result of the ball rolling foul, then perhaps some practice is in order. There was one foul tip on a bunt attempt and two swinging, so to speak, strikes.

 

[TomRicardo]

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.

 
My guess is is the rule says you can only have two infielders on each side of second base.
 
It is stupid.