2021 Around MLB: Return of the Dead Ball Era

[CDAV45]

The shift is here to stay.

And it should be.

Why? I'd like to here your explanation.

 

[Criznit]

Why? I'd like to here your explanation.

I think it "levels" the playing field a bit., and should force players to make adjustments. I like the added wrinkle.

 

[Out of the Rafters at the Q]

At what spot is 2B no longer 2B? Does standing in left center qualify as 2B or LCF? There's a lot of area to a position, but there is also an area outside of that position as well. Fuck it! why even call them positions at all. Just tell everyone to stand on one side of the diamond or the other. It's more than just putting players where the ball gets hit. They are playing them out of position to take away what has been historically a base hit. The response has been to elevate the ball more and hit it over the fielders' heads because just putting the ball in play isn't as effective as it used to be.

Moving the fences back is not the answer either. That will only make the problem worse IMO.

How do you think "positions" came about?

They certainly weren't outlined in the rules of the game.

The guys playing at bases used to actually play on top of the bases. Heck, the number of players in the field used to fluctuate. "Short stop" used to be in the outfield and was basically just a cut-off man for the outfielders. They moved the shortstop to the area we know it today because they saw where balls were being hit.


You can call the players whatever you want--it's just for the viewer's convenience and our understanding. Positions aren't official.

 

[xmasbuck]

How do you think "positions" came about?


"Experimentation"?

 

[WhoAzcue]

The last thing I want to see are small circles scattered around a beautiful baseball field where fielders are to stand until the ball is pitched or hit (god knows which) and a bunch of electronic sensors telling us whether players moved too quickly or not. Imagine outfielders who have to stand in one place, not move in on weak hitters or back on strong hitters. Where "no doubles" defense is outlawed in favor of 'more doubles offense." Where infielders can't guard the lines late in games or play in for a possible bunt. Where managers are prevented from pulling an outfielder into the infield to try and cut off the winning run from scoring. Listen, I'm an old fogey; I hate specialization in the game or rules designed to change the very nature of the sport. Yes, I admit it, I hate the DH too. But this nonsense with "banning" shifts is a slippery slope that leads nowhere good. And while you're at it, get off my lawn.

Oh, and I'll add another guy I never want to see up with the bases loaded two outs and runner on third. Nick Madrigal. Dude just gets wood on the ball, and in certain situations, it's scarier than a guy who can hit it 480 feet. But that's what I like...lots of different skills in the game. Including figuring out how to set up defenses. Time for offenses to learn to battle back. It's a new inefficiency to exploit...somebody's going to figure it out.

 

[CDAV45]

How do you think "positions" came about?

They certainly weren't outlined in the rules of the game.

The guys playing at bases used to actually play on top of the bases. Heck, the number of players in the field used to fluctuate. "Short stop" used to be in the outfield and was basically just a cut-off man for the outfielders. They moved the shortstop to the area we know it today because they saw where balls were being hit.


You can call the players whatever you want--it's just for the viewer's convenience and our understanding. Positions aren't official.

So baseball positions are fiction? Well I guess let them play wherever then as it seems to be what's best for baseball.

 

[NEOLeo]

As a self-proclaimed baseball purist, I agree in spirit with those who think the shift should be allowed to stay. However, I do think the game of baseball needs an injection of action to save it. Adding or changing some rules may have to be accepted by us traditionalist for the good of the long-term health of the game. Limiting the shift would be akin to the NBA outlawing zone defenses and then putting in “illegal defense” rules which keeps defensive players out of certain areas depending on where the offense is set up. There are countless other examples of the NBA and NFL drastically altering their traditional rules to open up offenses, and those two sports are much more popular than baseball.

 

[CDAV45]

The last thing I want to see are small circles scattered around a beautiful baseball field where fielders are to stand until the ball is pitched or hit (god knows which) and a bunch of electronic sensors telling us whether players moved too quickly or not. Imagine outfielders who have to stand in one place, not move in on weak hitters or back on strong hitters. Where "no doubles" defense is outlawed in favor of 'more doubles offense." Where infielders can't guard the lines late in games or play in for a possible bunt. Where managers are prevented from pulling an outfielder into the infield to try and cut off the winning run from scoring. Listen, I'm an old fogey; I hate specialization in the game or rules designed to change the very nature of the sport. Yes, I admit it, I hate the DH too. But this nonsense with "banning" shifts is a slippery slope that leads nowhere good. And while you're at it, get off my lawn.

Oh, and I'll add another guy I never want to see up with the bases loaded two outs and runner on third. Nick Madrigal. Dude just gets wood on the ball, and in certain situations, it's scarier than a guy who can hit it 480 feet. But that's what I like...lots of different skills in the game. Including figuring out how to set up defenses. Time for offenses to learn to battle back. It's a new inefficiency to exploit...somebody's going to figure it out.

It doesn't have to be that drastic. It can be as simple as saying you can't have 4 fucking OFers and you must have 2 IFers on each side of 2B. How you can claim to be "an old fogey" or a traditionalist and be okay with no determined positions is a bit confusing to me. Shifting is more prevalent than it's been in the history of the game. Much of that is probably due to modern technology and a better ability to predict outcomes. I find it ironic as hell that you would mention Madrigal as being more scary than a power hitter. Well, when the book is out on Madrigal and the shift is made then he'll be in the same boat as all the others and the power hitter will still be more effective. Then we'll hear how Madrigal is adding loft to his swing by adjusting his launch angle.

......and why anyone would want to watch pitchers hit is mind boggling. Kinda like watching fielders pitch when the game is out of hand. It's almost comical because they suck at it so bad. I want to watch athletes compete using their honed skills that separate them from the common man. If strategy were the reason I watched baseball then chess might be better suited for me.

How are offenses to "battle back"? Can they use corked bats? Maybe they can ignore the batter's box? I know! They can just hit it where the defenders aren't no matter where they shift. It's should be that easy right? Maybe it's as simple as forgetting about hitting the ball where it's pitched. I'll tell you like I told CATS. The shift didn't spurn from launch angles and the all or nothing approach, it created the mess. So if you want things to remain the same then do nothing. If you want to correct an issue then you might have to be a little more proactive. Changes to the game have been made through the history of it, should that stop now too?

 

[Out of the Rafters at the Q]

So baseball positions are fiction? Well I guess let them play wherever then as it seems to be what's best for baseball.

I feel like this is sarcasm, but it's correct.

I feel like any NL fan would understand this immediately. It's how the spot in the order the pitcher is hitting can move around--the "position" isn't a thing. You can sub someone in for your left fielder and have them pitch, thereby moving the pitcher's batting spot in the order.

 

[CDAV45]

I feel like this is sarcasm, but it's correct.

I feel like any NL fan would understand this immediately. It's how the spot in the order the pitcher is hitting can move around--the "position" isn't a thing. You can sub someone in for your left fielder and have them pitch, thereby moving the pitcher's batting spot in the order.

Pitchers hitting is becoming less and less popular. It's doing so because pitchers can't hit and baseball is a means of entertainment. I'd go as far to say that the fans of the game are changing as quickly as the game itself. What gives? I don't have the answers. All I know is that watching pitchers hit is about as exciting as watching grass grow, but I'm an AL team fan so my view is slanted. I know that shifting has become way more prevalent in recent years and that it has put a large dent in base hits. I know that the most effective way to beat the shift is to hit it over the fielders' heads. I know that as a LHH I can't hit the ball to LF if the pitcher is pounding the ball on the inner half of the plate because everyone is playing on the right side of the ball field. So either we're going to continue to watch more "3 true outcome" hitters or the "shift" will be reeled in a bit.

Edited to add that as a fan of the DH I hate interleague games played in NL parks. With that in mind, should they go back to a schedule where AL and NL teams do not play each other during the regular season? Do we raise the mound back to the original height? Originally there were no parameters for bats as there are now. Where is the line drawn for originalism?

 

[Out of the Rafters at the Q]

Pitchers hitting is becoming less and less popular. It's doing so because pitchers can't hit and baseball is a means of entertainment. I'd go as far to say that the fans of the game are changing as quickly as the game itself. What gives? I don't have the answers. All I know is that watching pitchers hit is about as exciting as watching grass grow, but I'm an AL team fan so my view is slanted. I know that shifting has become way more prevalent in recent years and that it has put a large dent in base hits. I know that the most effective way to beat the shift is to hit it over the fielders' heads. I know that as a LHH I can't hit the ball to LF if the pitcher is pounding the ball on the inner half of the plate because everyone is playing on the right side of the ball field. So either we're going to continue to watch more "3 true outcome" hitters or the "shift" will be reeled in a bit.

If your view is "we should do something about the decreased offensive output due to the way defenses use data to shift fielders and pitch to hitters" then that's a perfectly reasonable take that I don't think you'll get pushback about. A lot of people will agree with you, and even those who don't would just have a differing opinion.

If your view is something about the sanctity of positions, well, that's when you're going to get pushback because it's without basis in reality.

Enforcing positions, or requiring fielders to be in a certain part of the field, may even be the best solution to fulfill the desired outcome of the first viewpoint. I certainly don't have a better idea.

 

[Derek]

Players are constantly improving and making adjustments. It's a constant cycle of pitchers and hitters adapting to one another in an attempt to gain an advantage. We happen to be in a part of the cycle where the pitchers have an advantage.

I believe, in time, the hitters will adjust and we'll see an upswing in offensive output. For that reason, I don't think a rule change is necessary. I'm more interested in how hitters will evolve to meet the challenge, and instituting a rule to aid them now will just prevent us from seeing as much growth.

 

[CalBuckeyeRob]

You may want to force players to learn to hit better, but if a .230 major league average gradually kills fan interest and costs the players money, they will completely back a change. The shifts make sense based on the data points that got us here. But in the NFL, having DBs beat up WRs at the line of scrimmage made sense until the league decided that passing was good for the sport so rules changed. The shift rules will change by next year in some manner and the game won't be ruined.

 

[NEOLeo]

Players are constantly improving and making adjustments. It's a constant cycle of pitchers and hitters adapting to one another in an attempt to gain an advantage. We happen to be in a part of the cycle where the pitchers have an advantage.

I believe, in time, the hitters will adjust and we'll see an upswing in offensive output. For that reason, I don't think a rule change is necessary. I'm more interested in how hitters will evolve to meet the challenge, and instituting a rule to aid them now will just prevent us from seeing as much growth.

I hope you’re right. But what if it never happens? Baseball has always been a slower game that many people thought was boring. As the guy who always defended against that, and loves all the strategy and little things happening between the action, I now agree. The game is as boring as it’s ever been. Even when I’m watching (which is virtually every game), I’m barely watching. Just look up when someone hits it deep to see if it’s a home run or not.

Baseball has some major issues right now and I’m worried it’s going to continue to fade in popularity as the younger generation grows older (and we die off).

1. Games are way too long
2. There’s an incredible lack of action (boring)
3. Many people can’t watch via streaming right now
4. Pitchers hit in half the games (would the NFL ask AFC kickers to play QB in NFC stadiums?)

I’m as much of a traditionalist as there can be in baseball. But I think we have to be open to some significant and potentially even radical rule changes to address these major issues in order save and advance the game.

 

[NEOLeo]

You may want to force players to learn to hit better, but if a .230 major league average gradually kills fan interest and costs the players money, they will completely back a change. The shifts make sense based on the data points that got us here. But in the NFL, having DBs beat up WRs at the line of scrimmage made sense until the league decided that passing was good for the sport so rules changed. The shift rules will change by next year in some manner and the game won't be ruined.

The NFL rule change example is perfect. Same goes with the NBA changing zone defense/illegal defense rules and later hand-checking to open up offense. The 3-point line was a radical idea at one point too.