Be a belieber
- Dec 6, 2007
- Reaction score
Rob -- What would limiting the shifts look like for you? How do you see that working?We got these ridiculous home run numbers because they juiced the baseballs. Hopefully this will just a strike a better balance. Next change they need is limiting the shifts a bit.
I do not really agree with a rule of that sort (I am ok with deploying your defense as you will), but I appreciate your answer as to how it would be managed, etc. That would be simple and straight forward...relatively easy to enforce.At the pitch you must have 2 IFs on each side of 2B.
I'm not aware of any negative issues caused by innovative defensive positioning.
It doesn't cause an inflation of HR or strikeouts.
It doesn't slow play or lengthen game times, in fact does the opposite.
I'm not sure why it's controversial, having already been in practice for about a century.
Rewarding good choices and out-of-the-box thinking... That's "good", isn't it?
Agree fully that data is so good now that this is the result. But the sport could flounder even more with new fans if batting .250 becomes average. If we retrain a generation of hitters they might learn to spray the ball routinely, but just as the attempt to bunt seems more likely to break the fingers of the bunter than result in a sacrifice, it will take a long time to fix and by that time they will change the rules again.Irregular defensive positioning opens larger portions of the field, exposing a greater area and opportunity for safeties.
The increase in the "shift" is a result of hitters grooving their swing and refusing to "hit 'em where they ain't".
Forbidding defensive shifts will immediately result in more baserunners, more offense, more frequent pitching changes, and slower games.
Defensive shifts are an Effect, not a Cause of the contemporary emphasis on pull-hitting.
(Not to sound overly dramatic, but you may as well try to ban "analytics".)