Ask Bimbo

[Urban]

Jose won't be affected from the left side because his wOBA is about the same whether they shift or not.

This would not be my takeaway. It's hard to imagine Jose being a significantly better hitter and is quite frankly unrealistic. But he should definitely benefit since he has been one most shifted on players in baseball over the last 3 seasons (as a LHH)

There is a reason why in 2018 opponents were only shifting on Jose 53% of the time, to then 72% in 2019, to now 91%, 96%, and 92% over the past 3 seasons.

The non-shift sample sizes from 2020-2022 are very small, so it's hard to take much away from them, but there is a much bigger difference between the wOBA in 2020 and 2021 than 2022

 

[BimboColesHair]

Everyone's touching on the offensive side of things, but I think the best thing Cleveland has done over the last few seasons is shift less and less and less defensively.

Right now, in 2022, they shift the 2nd fewest times in baseball. Only shift on 20% of their PAs against them. They don't rely on positioning as much as other teams to cover holes defensively. Shifting/positioning is how teams like the Dodgers (who shift the 2nd most in baseball, 52.2% of the time) are able to play Max Muncy at 2B and get away with it to keep his bat in their lineup.

Teams like the Dodgers, Blue Jays, Astros, Twins, White Sox, etc who prefer the offensive input and have middle infielders who mostly play for their hit tool and rely on shifting and positioning to justify them in their lineup and to not cost them as much defensively as they contribute offensively are going to be in some tough positions on how they go about building their team starting next year.

But Cleveland has gone from shifting 27% of the time in 2020 to 23% in 2021 to now 20.6% in 2022.

Which is another reason I don't like Amed's fit moving forward. In non-shift situations he is still positioned to help hide some of his range deficiencies. Gimenez moves ever so slightly depending on the handedness of the hitter, but he goes from the mid-point between 1st and 2nd vs LHH to slightly shading towards 2B vs RHH. Amed goes from in the hole between 3B and 2B vs RHH to almost right behind 2B vs LHH in non-shift situations.

There is still no clarification on what will be banned, how much a player can move from their "zone", if there are different rules depending on the handedness of the hitter, etc. But teams that rely less and less on the shift and positioning and have built their roster that way are going to have a leg up on the teams shifting during 40-50% of their PAs against them with 2 middle infielders with no range who are in the lineup strictly for their bats.

It's also going to highlight the farm systems that have actually been developing players who can play their position vs systems that have been developing their players to be positioned where someone tells them to be.

 

[DCTribefan]

Does the shift really work, though?​

Is MLB banning the defensive shift really going to make a difference in baseball?

Does baseball really need this?

ftw.usatoday.com

When you have a defense playing in an extreme shift, it also means you’re leaving a lot of open field for a player to take advantage of. These are professional hitters who are capable of beating shifts, and it happens probably more often than many people think.
According to the Washington Post, banning the defensive shift would probably result in a minimal increase of runs scored. For nearly as often as that would-be base hit up the middle gets robbed by the shift, you have a shift-busting hit into open field.
Via WaPo:

Baseball Info Solutions reports shifting caused 213 would-be hits to be turned into outs in last year’s shortened 60-game season, which translates to 575 hits-to-outs over a normal, 162-game season. Turning those outs back into hits would result in an increase of less than 1.5 percent in a typical season. That doesn’t feel like a sea change.

MLB teams and MLB owners know this. It’s probably why the players union agreed to banning the shift in the first place. The actual impact will be marginal at best, but aesthetically, the game could improve. You’ll no longer need access to an advanced scouting report to know why the Dodgers are playing with two right fielders against Freddie Freeman.
It potentially makes the game more approachable to the casual fan — even if other sports (like, um, the NFL) have unique alignments for given situations.

 

[BimboColesHair]

Yeah, no.

The shift ban, depending on what it bans, is going to change not just the MLB level, but the minors and developmental plans. It's going to be a colossal change for some organizations from top to bottom.

I know for an absolute fact there are multiple organizations that don't work on infielders range and tinker their developmental plans with that in mind to maximize everything else because they know they'll just be able to tell a guy "play here" at every level and get away with it.

Also, it is nearly impossible to create a constant variable for the range of MLB middle infielders and what "would be a hit" without a shift vs what wouldn't using the data given in the current MLB.

Biggest reason is because for the last 10+ years since the stats were created we've been judging players range, statistically, based on where a coach is positioning them from hitter to hitter and it's impossible to create a realistic standard starting point to base a players range to create an out that is actually accurate. You can use player positioning heatmaps, sure, but even that data is miniscule in the grand scheme of statistical reliability because it's only been tracked since the end of the 2016 season.

And for me it still comes down to how the rule will be enforced. If you just aren't allowed to put an IFer in the grass, then yes, it won't change much.

But if zones are designated and you can only go a certain amount of space left/right front/back from that zone, it will be a big change.

 

[Scrote Squad]

Yeah, no.

The shift ban, depending on what it bans, is going to change not just the MLB level, but the minors and developmental plans. It's going to be a colossal change for some organizations from top to bottom.

I know for an absolute fact there are multiple organizations that don't work on infielders range and tinker their developmental plans with that in mind to maximize everything else because they know they'll just be able to tell a guy "play here" at every level and get away with it.

Also, it is nearly impossible to create a constant variable for the range of MLB middle infielders and what "would be a hit" without a shift vs what wouldn't using the data given in the current MLB.

Biggest reason is because for the last 10+ years since the stats were created we've been judging players range, statistically, based on where a coach is positioning them from hitter to hitter and it's impossible to create a realistic standard starting point to base a players range to create an out that is actually accurate. You can use player positioning heatmaps, sure, but even that data is miniscule in the grand scheme of statistical reliability because it's only been tracked since the end of the 2016 season.

And for me it still comes down to how the rule will be enforced. If you just aren't allowed to put an IFer in the grass, then yes, it won't change much.

But if zones are designated and you can only go a certain amount of space left/right front/back from that zone, it will be a big change.

Wouldn't two guys on the right side of the infield and two guys on the left side of the infield make the most sense? If teams want to put their second baseman in shallow right when Jose is up, so be it, as long as their shortstop is to the left of second.

 

[BimboColesHair]

Wouldn't two guys on the right side of the infield and two guys on the left side of the infield make the most sense? If teams want to put their second baseman in shallow right when Jose is up, so be it, as long as their shortstop is to the left of second.

I think that's what ends up happening.

SS's can't go to the 1st base side of 2nd base, 2B's can't go on the 3rd base side of 2nd base.

Personally though, I would love to make a discernable circumference around the standard starting point for IFs and have players stay within it. If the MLB wants more hits, more balls in play, more flashy plays, etc. that is the way to make it happen. It would also throw a huge monkey wrench at specific teams.

 

[Wham with the Right Hand]

We will still see semi-shifts, IMO. Instead of three players on the first base side against a guy like Naylor, the shortstop will play right up the middle, a step to the third base side of second. He'll just have to move 10-15 feet from where he was this year. With the second baseman still in short right field the result will be two players fully shifted and the third three-quarters shifted. It might not be that dramatic a difference.

It's not like shortstops will have to play halfway between second and third when Naylor comes up.

Are they going to allow four outfielders like we saw against Jose last week?

I like how Andres Gimenez has been beating the shift with occasional drag bunts. The second baseman is playing back on the outfield grass so if Gimenez can get the bunt past the pitcher and right at the second baseman he has a hit every time, especially since he is already moving when the bat contacts the ball. It's especially effective against lefties, which are tougher for him to hit anyway.

The drag bunt - another lost art.

 

[Lee]

I think that's what ends up happening.

SS's can't go to the 1st base side of 2nd base, 2B's can't go on the 3rd base side of 2nd base.

Personally though, I would love to make a discernable circumference around the standard starting point for IFs and have players stay within it. If the MLB wants more hits, more balls in play, more flashy plays, etc. that is the way to make it happen. It would also throw a huge monkey wrench at specific teams.

I personally dont mind the shift, its how they want to defend, its up to the batter to beat it. But I also see why some purists dont like it.

 

[Lee]

The drag bunt - another lost art.

I always found it interesting that some baseball players would put on women's clothes just to bunt.

 

[LL3]

I always found it interesting that some baseball players would put on women's clothes just to bunt.

Dedication to their craft…love of the game.

 

[xmasbuck]

The drag bunt - another lost art.
-
Van Gogh was great at bunting

 

[BigJ0526]

Personally though, I would love to make a discernable circumference around the standard starting point for IFs and have players stay within it. If the MLB wants more hits, more balls in play, more flashy plays, etc. that is the way to make it happen. It would also throw a huge monkey wrench at specific teams.

i would favor that as well.

Depending on the wording, this could still be within the letter of the law, if it simply says 2 infielders left of 2nd base, two infielders right of 2nd base.

PS sorry for the quite shi77y drawing

 

[sportscoach]

i would favor that as well.

Depending on the wording, this could still be within the letter of the law, if it simply says 2 infielders left of 2nd base, two infielders right of 2nd base.

PS sorry for the quite shi77y drawing
View attachment 11560

My guess is the shifting will focus on the INF and pretty much state, you have to have two players on each side of 2B and no INF can be on the OF grass type of thing. Or they will zone the positions, where the players have to be within a certain distance/area.

 

[Wham with the Right Hand]

Zoning the positions would involve putting lines on the field which IMO would look ridiculous. You would have to lime the infield dirt which would get kicked up during a game. All that needs to be done is to stipuate that two infielders have to be on either side of second base and not moving when the ball is released.

Most shifts involve one infielder close to second base anyway so it would not be much different. Against left-handed pull hitters it would just mean the SS is a step to the left of second base instead of three steps to the right. The 1B and 2B would not be affected.

 

[sportscoach]

Zoning the positions would involve putting lines on the field which IMO would look ridiculous. You would have to lime the infield dirt which would get kicked up during a game. All that needs to be done is to stipuate that two infielders have to be on either side of second base and not moving when the ball is released.

Most shifts involve one infielder close to second base anyway so it would not be much different. Against left-handed pull hitters it would just mean the SS is a step to the left of second base instead of three steps to the right. The 1B and 2B would not be affected.

It wouldn't be that difficult to zone, you wouldn't even have to put stuff down. Guys would honestly know where they are at... players always move/get ready to move when the ball is relased...