Agreed. Don't want no short people 'round here.Um, how did you get a membership here?
Agreed. Don't want no short people 'round here.Um, how did you get a membership here?
That is a spectacular misunderstanding of the point, which is three-fold:Well, if Ted Williams could do it, anyone can.
I don't even agree that it's notably reduced offense in the first place.
I'm not sure when extreme shifts began, but it's worth noting that the average runs per game was at low ebb 2011-2015 and has already rebounded quite a bit. So what's the problem?
Also the livelier ball.Im opposed to shift-rules, But off the top of my head, the rebound may be due to teams' focus on launch angle and HRs -- a reasonable way to defeat shifts, but a way that leads to the increase in three true outcome plays, and a game with less "action."
Apparently Statcast has some data on shifting.There's no question it's bad for baseball IF we all agree that more offense is good for baseball. So far the shift has prevented an estimated 1,000 hits this year (per MLB Network, I can't find the source). Personally, I don't see any reason why fans should feel strongly that dramatic shifts need to be allowed.
Teams still sac bunt!!!It's an incomplete thought. If it isn't working, I think that you can make a fair assumption that usage wouldn't be increasing.
I'm no baseball scholar, but IMO this whole launch angle trend is hurting the game more than the shift. Sure we see some mammoth HRs, but the K rate is way up these past couple of seasons and batting averages seem way down. I also think a few players are now getting wrapped up in exit velocity as well. I can't prove that it's hurt the game, but it's a stat that is often quoted after a home run. I think that if most players concentrate on making good solid contact the game might be better for it.Im opposed to shift-rules, But off the top of my head, the rebound may be due to teams' focus on launch angle and HRs -- a reasonable way to defeat shifts, but a way that leads to the increase in three true outcome plays, and a game with less "action."
Is this true? If it were so easy, they'd be doing it a lot more often and the shift would go away. The fact that they're not says that they're either too stubborn to take a free single over the chance for an extra base hit, or they just can't do it consistently enough. Pitchers work toward the side of the plate that is going to result in someone hitting into the shift, and poking an inside pitch the other way is really hard to do.Plenty of incredibly mediocre ballplayers know how to hit the other way. Literally any major leaguer should be able to beat the shift. And if they are seeing the shift every at bat, they'd be stupid not to do so.
We've had this discussion before. The numbers are out there including the 8(?) bunt singles David Ortiz had in a couple of years before he decided he just wanted to overpower the shift.Is this true? If it were so easy, they'd be doing it a lot more often and the shift would go away. The fact that they're not says that they're either too stubborn to take a free single over the chance for an extra base hit, or they just can't do it consistently enough. Pitchers work toward the side of the plate that is going to result in someone hitting into the shift, and poking an inside pitch the other way is really hard to do.
The assumption that a bunt should have a 100% success rate if the batter just knew how to do it is simply wrong as well. Changing your swing path is not easy. A lot of guys have swings that are built to pull because that is how they can generate power. Easy opposite field power is really rare.Is this true? If it were so easy, they'd be doing it a lot more often and the shift would go away. The fact that they're not says that they're either too stubborn to take a free single over the chance for an extra base hit, or they just can't do it consistently enough. Pitchers work toward the side of the plate that is going to result in someone hitting into the shift, and poking an inside pitch the other way is really hard to do.
Obviously there should be a rule regulating launch angle.I'm no baseball scholar, but IMO this whole launch angle trend is hurting the game more than the shift. Sure we see some mammoth HRs, but the K rate is way up these past couple of seasons and batting averages seem way down. I also think a few players are now getting wrapped up in exit velocity as well. I can't prove that it's hurt the game, but it's a stat that is often quoted after a home run. I think that if most players concentrate on making good solid contact the game might be better for it.
Never advocated for a rule against it, just saying that with all the commotion about shifts and the idea of regulating them (which I disagree with) there are other elements that IMO are affecting the game in a more adverse way.Obviously there should be a rule regulating launch angle.
Major league hitters can absolutely adjust and hit the other way. The reason they don't is that they are incredibly stubborn, which is unsurprising.Is this true? If it were so easy, they'd be doing it a lot more often and the shift would go away. The fact that they're not says that they're either too stubborn to take a free single over the chance for an extra base hit, or they just can't do it consistently enough. Pitchers work toward the side of the plate that is going to result in someone hitting into the shift, and poking an inside pitch the other way is really hard to do.
Maybe only the best hitters could do it. The average major leaguers have a hard enough time being average.Major league hitters can absolutely adjust and hit the other way. The reason they don't is that they are incredibly stubborn, which is unsurprising.
What I mean is that they have beaten tremendous odds to get to the big leagues. And, for the most part, they've beaten the odds by sticking with what works for them. And it's incredibly hard for them to wrap their heads around the notion that they should change the approach that made them successful just because of a defensive alignment.
Putting that aside, I have no question that the average major leaguer could change their approach and begin hitting the other way. Eventually, they'll do just that and shifts will go back to being an outlier. But for now, stubbornness rules and Scott Boras whines because his clients are not putting up gaudy numbers.
I, an incredibly below-average (IE: bad) lifetime baseball player, learned, at age 30, how to hit the other way after a few days in a cage and some on-field BP after getting incredibly pissed-off at a half-season of pulled groundouts. Not with any kind of power or finesse mind you, but enough to ugly an outside pitch over the right side for a single here and there.Major league hitters can absolutely adjust and hit the other way. The reason they don't is that they are incredibly stubborn, which is unsurprising.
What I mean is that they have beaten tremendous odds to get to the big leagues. And, for the most part, they've beaten the odds by sticking with what works for them. And it's incredibly hard for them to wrap their heads around the notion that they should change the approach that made them successful just because of a defensive alignment.
Putting that aside, I have no question that the average major leaguer could change their approach and begin hitting the other way. Eventually, they'll do just that and shifts will go back to being an outlier. But for now, stubbornness rules and Scott Boras whines because his clients are not putting up gaudy numbers.
No I loved that team. But really it was more of a realization that basketball is all offense no defense. A "good" defensive player does almost nothing to disrupt scoring. I want zone or a 5 man team with one guy that HAS to stay behind the half court line and can't be on offense.Outside of the late 80s and 90's, players have always scored ridiculous amounts. The 90's was also where basketball was its ugliest despite Jordan. Did you really like Bad Boy basketball? The Pistons ruined basketball for like 10 years.
I guess it depends on the game situation and all, but if Papi has an 90% chance of getting a bunt single, is that better or worse than the 6% chance of hitting a homer (+ the chance of getting a single/double/triple/walk) trying to hit into a shift)...and if that 90% chance starts to go down later in the career due to decreased running speed, what's the cutoff?We've had this discussion before. The numbers are out there including the 8(?) bunt singles David Ortiz had in a couple of years before he decided he just wanted to overpower the shift.
And truly , if David Ortiz can hit a HR against the shift you might not want him bunting. But you should want your non sluggers to do so.
That's an unrealistically high expectation. MLB batters only manage to even put the ball in play in fair territory on just under half of their bunt attempts (and infrequent bunters are a bit worse). Plus, about 5% of bunt attempts (many of them from the fair bunt proportion) result in a pop-out; many others result in a ground out.I guess it depends on the game situation and all, but if Papi has an 90% chance of getting a bunt single,
Is being down 0-1 better than being shifted on 0-0? I know it's not that simple.You don't have to get the bunt down. If you try it and fail on the first try, the fact that you tried will swing the defense around. If you succeed, even better.
Only if the defense thinks they'd rather have you swinging at the non-shift than bunting at the shift. That's both unclear and is a separate point from what I was responding to.You don't have to get the bunt down. If you try it and fail on the first try, the fact that you tried will swing the defense around.
Not just in this at bat. Next time you come up in 0-0 and they remember you tried the bunt last time and will have to account for that. And the next at bat and the next game, and if you give up a strike once a week you might make enough difference in the shift to make it easier to get hits the old fashioned wayIs being down 0-1 better than being shifted on 0-0? I know it's not that simple.
True, if you totally can't get the bunt down then they'll give that to you. But if bunting is a learned task that's going to become moot at some point.Only if the defense thinks they'd rather have you swinging at the non-shift than bunting at the shift. That's both unclear and is a separate point from what I was responding to.
A batter can be opportunistic in bunting against the shift, no? If you sometimes bunt in a 0-0 count and sometimes in a 2-0 count, pitchers wouldn't be able to anticipate when you might do it. It's also something that you wouldn't have to do every at bat to be an effective deterent (in theory)Not just in this at bat. Next time you come up in 0-0 and they remember you tried the bunt last time and will have to account for that. And the next at bat and the next game, and if you give up a strike once a week you might make enough difference in the shift to make it easier to get hits the old fashioned way
True, if you totally can't get the bunt down then they'll give that to you. But if bunting is a learned task that's going to become moot at some point.
1. No one was arguing thisThat is a spectacular misunderstanding of the point, which is three-fold:
- These sorts of extreme shifts have been around for 70 years. Pretending this is a new phenomenon is disingenuous.
- What is new is the widespread adoption of shifts. Which means that players are now incentivized to hit the other way. (Williams was famously stubborn about not giving in to the shift, because a relatively small number of clubs employed it. The picture is a notable exception.)
- Plenty of incredibly mediocre ballplayers know how to hit the other way. Literally any major leaguer should be able to beat the shift. And if they are seeing the shift every at bat, they'd be stupid not to do so.
Do you have any quotes on this from current players? I can’t recall hearing many batters talk about the shift.Major league hitters can absolutely adjust and hit the other way. The reason they don't is that they are incredibly stubborn, which is unsurprising.
Here are some quotes from Mark Teixeira in 2015, it's more nuanced than requested but interesting:Do you have any quotes on this from current players? I can’t recall hearing many batters talk about the shift.
There are two people to read about when it comes to launch angle:I'm no baseball scholar, but IMO this whole launch angle trend is hurting the game more than the shift. Sure we see some mammoth HRs, but the K rate is way up these past couple of seasons and batting averages seem way down. I also think a few players are now getting wrapped up in exit velocity as well. I can't prove that it's hurt the game, but it's a stat that is often quoted after a home run. I think that if most players concentrate on making good solid contact the game might be better for it.
https://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/split.cgi?t=b&lg=MLB&year=2018Is there a way to find the ML average BABIP for both left-handed and right-handed hitters? And how they compare now to 10 years ago?
It's really difficult to get three hits in one inning. If you hit three singles, it's one run. If you get a walk and a double, you might get one run. If you get a double and a single, you might get one run. So my goal is to touch second base every single time I step to home plate. If I'm not mistaken, somewhere in the neighborhood of 7 percent of ground balls go for extra-base hits. If I want to touch second base, I'm not going to be able to hit the ball on the ground. Pulled ground balls are not really base hits in this league anymore.
I haven't really stolen bases for five or six years. If I drop a bunt down, what am I gonna do? I'm stuck at first base, so what I've done is ask our ballclub to get two more singles, or I've asked someone else to hit a double. If 7 percent of balls on the ground go for extra bases, someone is probably going to have to hit one in the air to score me from first. So what I've tried to do is hit a double every single time because it's really difficult to get three hits.
If I'm not mistaken, the level of production goes: strikeout, popup, ground ball, fly ball, line drive. The production comes mostly from fly balls and line drives, so that's what we want. I'm trying to hit a line drive first. And if I miss, I hit a fly ball. Ground balls, popups and strikeouts aren't going to give you anything. It's not necessarily rocket science.
I didn't read the whole piece, but this quoted part sounds insane. So Murphy (I think it was him) would rather make an out than get a hit? The fuck?I haven't really stolen bases for five or six years. If I drop a bunt down, what am I gonna do? I'm stuck at first base, so what I've done is ask our ballclub to get two more singles, or I've asked someone else to hit a double. If 7 percent of balls on the ground go for extra bases, someone is probably going to have to hit one in the air to score me from first. So what I've tried to do is hit a double every single time because it's really difficult to get three hits.
There are a handful of posts that I'm writing in response to, but I liked this one best. I've gone from vehemently against no-shift rules to slightly pro. My response to the "adapt" crowd is pretty much in two categories.Personally I am much more interested in seeing the hitters try to adapt to the shifts than I am in legislation against it. If a team plays six guys on the right side of the field against a hitter like the pic below and can somehow get away with it, that to me is an awesome feature, not a bug. Gallo grounded right to Correa in the heart of this insane shift, so good job defensive positioning.
https://www.mlb.com/cut4/astros-put-on-extreme-infield-shift-for-joey-gallo/c-276323524
I mean, if Gallo can push the ball anywhere to the left of the pitcher, he would have an easy 'double'. I think the calculus that would allow Hinch to decide to give that up and have it work is fascinating, I get that that is not universal.
This feels different to me. This feels like telling lefties that they get different foul lines.But baseball is filled with incongruities, the two leagues don't even play by the same damn rules for starters.
Like the guy mentioned in the ESPN article who had his fingers broken doing it? This board would fucking explode if that happened to JD while trying to bunt.I hate the shift, but I hate stupid hitters that don’t bunt to the open side of the field more
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 didn't read the whole piece, but this quoted part sounds insane. So Murphy (I think it was him) would rather make an out than get a hit? The fuck?
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.First, I think it's much harder to adapt than people suggest. MLB is not the NBA. For everyone but once in a generation players it takes thousands and thousands of repetitions, day after day, to be good enough for MLB. And slapping and bunting your way to a good on base percentage, and deliberately not cultivating your power in the service of getting on base, is not the path to MLB. It's certainly not the path for international players who maybe don't get more than a handful of opportunities -- if that -- to ever be watched. You put yourself in position to play major league baseball by hitting very hard line drives on a very consistent basis. All the metrics that being able to beat the shift would help support and might help keep a marginal player who is the majors stay there aren't the things that will get him there.
So, you're asking MLB players to change while they are in the MLB. I just don't think this is nearly as easy as many in this thread suggest and is not merely about being stubborn. Could Ted Williams or Ichiro put the ball where they want on a fairly consistent basis? Yeah. But most guys are trying to just make solid contact.