Ding dong, the shift is dead. Long live the pitch clock.

[brewcrewdue80]

Couldn't you make bases larger while not actually decreasing the length between bases?.   You'd only increase the 2 sides that don't give a runner a gained advantage.  

[RightFieldCoder]

They wanted to give a runner a slight advantage. They wanted to increase attempted steals (and to a lesser extent taking an extra base). Players are told to not steal as much because of the chance of an out is too high. So they are lowering the chance of an out.

[JosephC]

Big prediction time.

The people who don't like baseball now and find it boring will still not like baseball and find it boring even after all of these rule changes.

[nate82]

36 minutes ago, JosephC said:

Big prediction time.

The people who don't like baseball now and find it boring will still not like baseball and find it boring even after all of these rule changes.

Obviously but for the ones who find baseball interesting these are some must needed changes.  

[UpandIn]

On 9/9/2022 at 2:31 PM, Hopper said:

So let me get this straight.  The players wanted to keep the option of shifts, even though it goes against them as hitters?

Interesting.

I thought they would be against the shift so they could provide more offense and boost their stats, hence allowing them to make more millions than they already do.

But...it won't make them millions more. GMs aren't stupid. There is still a hierarchy offensively...the top players are paid accordingly. Guys who hit for 15 points higher on their BA...if the rest of the league is doing so, it's not going to fundamentally change. If the leagues collective batting average goes back up to ~.265 that won't devalue pitchers and increase the value on hitters.

It'll re-allocate how/where resources are spent perhaps. You're not gonna be able to get away with Travis Shaw at 2B. You'll want more athletes all around the IF, particularly up the middle(which has always been a goal, but less of one with the shift). 

Speed and base running will be a greater priority. But I don't think you'll see salaries shooting up as a result of this shift/rule change. 

 

[Neazy32]

love it...speed the game up and make it more exciting...nothing to complain about for me

[UpandIn]

On 9/9/2022 at 12:22 PM, OldSchoolSnapper said:

I'm in favor it all. It's just gotten too hard to hit MLB pitching. The shift rules are liberal enough that the shift isn't really "dead." The clocks, I'm in total support of. Almost anything that gets the game time down is good. I'd love to see 7 inning games, personally, but that's radical. 

Yeah...that's pretty radical. Now you're fundamentally changing the game of baseball. 

Imagine the value SPers like Burnes/Woodruff and then closers like Hader(yeah, still including him) or Clase. The Dodgers would just spend about 160M on 3 starters...like deGrom, Verlander and...IDK, maybe trade for Burnes) to go with Buhler, Kershaw, May Urias and the other 9 home grown guys they've got(just so they're covered) and then trade the other half of their system for Clase and win about 154 games.

7 innings never felt quite right even in AAU or HS. I'm not sure I could ever get used to that one. 

[BuckyBrewer61]

For the loud and ever-present "just hit the ball the other way" crowd, I'm reminded of the famous quote:

 

In theory, theory and practice are the same.  In practice, they are not.

 

We have seen the shift, in practice, for years.  And we now know, in practice, how everyone in baseball - front offices, analytics experts, players, managers - have all determined the best way to attack the shift: keep pulling the ball and swinging for the fences.  Bemoan it all you want, but they have done the math - based not only on theory but also years of real life data on the field - and determined that pulling the ball remains the optimal strategy to score runs, and therefore to win baseball games.  And until that math changes, no one is going to just hit the ball the other way on a regular basis.

 

That's why baseball had to do something.  I'm glad that they have...in theory.  We'll see how it actually plays out in practice.

[jerichoholicninja]

Until they can figure out some way that prevents pitchers from throwing 100 MPH fast balls not much will change about how the game is played. That is the biggest reason MLB games are a snorefest now.

[jerichoholicninja]

If we're going to severely limit the shift are we now going to see an increase in PT for crappy hitting middle infielders who have range? Any gains in offense could be negated by these types of players getting more PA's.

[wntrtxn21]

4 minutes ago, jerichoholicninja said:

If we're going to severely limit the shift are we now going to see an increase in PT for crappy hitting middle infielders who have range? Any gains in offense could be negated by these types of players getting more PA's.

The old saying, "the bat plays" will still be true. Offense for most teams, is still the priority unless that player is terrible defensively.  If both guys are crappy hitters, then yes the guy with range would play. The good hitting, mediocre defense middle infielder would probably be switched out in the later innings.

[owbc]

23 hours ago, jerichoholicninja said:

Until they can figure out some way that prevents pitchers from throwing 100 MPH fast balls not much will change about how the game is played. That is the biggest reason MLB games are a snorefest now.

That's part of the appeal of the pitch clock, which should cause the most problems for the power relievers. I could see some of them purposely putting a runner on base in order to get the extra 5 seconds of recovery time. 

---

The way that Theo Epstein is attacking the rule changes is really, really great. It's hard for me to criticize anything that they are doing. These changes have been thoroughly vetted. When I see comments like "reduce games to 7 innings" (which is a common suggestion not only on this forum but elsewhere) it suggests a misrepresentation of the problem that baseball is trying to solve. Time of game is not the problem. Pace is the problem. 

These are not one-time fixes either. The rule changing will become a permanent part of baseball as it has in all of the other major sports. If the current changes do not achieve the intended effect, they will almost certainly look to more drastic changes such as moving back or lowering the pitchers mound. 

 

[Playing Catch]

My theory is that with all of the "newer" parks as well as modified parks, MLB just doesn't have enough grass. Not only does it make it easier to hit HRs and fouling it into the stands, but it ALSO makes it easier to defend the open space as there is so much less of it. We've seen with our own team how Front Offices put a premium on defense therefore lowering batting averages, and making it extremely difficult on LH hitters compared to past seasons. The only reasonable thing lefties could do was "hit 'em where they a'int," which is over the fence. (I would love to see batters butcher boy the shift to death, too, but clearly that is a special skill).

If my hypothesis is correct (it may not be), deadening the baseball would simply lower batting averages further, which in a way, is what we've seen this season with a slightly "deader" ball.

Other than, perhaps, the pitch clock (which I believe is just as much a nuisance for hitters), ALL of the rule changes were "anti-defense" rules... Not anti-pitching, not anti-hitting. I think that this will make hitting for average and stealing bases much more valuable so perhaps players will get paid to be fast and hit the ball on the ground (this bodes very well for the Brewers with their Nashville 5, as well as for their albatross contract).

My last point is that while a team can shift an OF into short RF, that opens up A LOT of room for opposite field pop ups, which are almost always outs.

I, even as a baseball purist, support the changes.

[wiguy94]

4 minutes ago, Playing Catch said:

My theory is that with all of the "newer" parks as well as modified parks, MLB just doesn't have enough grass. Not only does it make it easier to hit HRs and fouling it into the stands, but it ALSO makes it easier to defend the open space as there is so much less of it.

I don't think this is true of all parks, but this is very true for AmFam. AmFam has a pretty small outfield which makes the HR ball that much more important here. Statcast oark factors 3 year rolling average has AmFam as a below average park for singles, doubles, and triples but one of the most favorable for HR. Baseball-Reference park factors has AmFam as a pitchers park. If you aren't hitting HR at AmFam it will be difficult to consistently put together a good offense.

[Playing Catch]

19 minutes ago, wiguy94 said:

I don't think this is true of all parks, but this is very true for AmFam. AmFam has a pretty small outfield which makes the HR ball that much more important here. Statcast oark factors 3 year rolling average has AmFam as a below average park for singles, doubles, and triples but one of the most favorable for HR. Baseball-Reference park factors has AmFam as a pitchers park. If you aren't hitting HR at AmFam it will be difficult to consistently put together a good offense.

Conversely, one of the reasons (along with how it affects pitching), that the Rockies stadium has often had the highest batting averages is because of the amount of ground their OF need to cover.

[MrTPlush]

On 9/10/2022 at 12:17 AM, rondoman said:

Yah, I have no idea why people think the shift is dead. Do people just read headlines without reading the rule and thinking about how it would work? Really all they were trying to do is outlaw infielders in the OF and three guys completely on one side. I think they were trying to send baseball back to the typical shift that just had infielders backed up and the 2B/SS basically standing behind 2B.

Of course a team could technically do the above and we probably will see it for a lot of guys that pull flyballs and ground balls both at crazy high rates. The above isn't perfect though because A) many guys pull grounders, but that doesn't necessarily mean they don't have a lot of oppo flyballs. No 3B is no big deal because worst case is a single...but forcing to use an OF as an infielder creates automatic doubles if it drops. B) it does force you to play your CF more true as you need to defend LF/RF in some capacity. No longer can you cram both the CF and the corner OF on the same side making it almost impossible to get a hit outside a line drive. Heck in that diagram the LF is playing true. C) You probably won't do this if guys are on base as anything into the dead OF space is clearing the bases.

[owbc]

26 minutes ago, MrTPlush said:

Yah, I have no idea why people think the shift is dead. Do people just read headlines without reading the rule and thinking about how it would work? Really all they were trying to do is outlaw infielders in the OF and three guys completely on one side. I think they were trying to send baseball back to the typical shift that just had infielders backed up and the 2B/SS basically standing behind 2B.

Of course a team could technically do the above and we probably will see it for a lot of guys that pull flyballs and ground balls both at crazy high rates. The above isn't perfect though because A) many guys pull grounders, but that doesn't necessarily mean they don't have a lot of oppo flyballs. No 3B is no big deal because worst case is a single...but forcing to use an OF as an infielder creates automatic doubles if it drops. B) it does force you to play your CF more true as you need to defend LF/RF in some capacity. No longer can you cram both the CF and the corner OF on the same side making it almost impossible to get a hit outside a line drive. Heck in that diagram the LF is playing true. C) You probably won't do this if guys are on base as anything into the dead OF space is clearing the bases.

I have no doubt we're going to see the 2-man outfield but the big question, for the reasons you note, is how often? 

It's really hard to bunt and hit line drives to the opposite field, but it's not that hard to hit opposite field popups. And the reward being higher is a big deal. It will be easier and more lucrative to exploit. 

There are so many fun nuances to playing an outfielder in the IF. Having thought about it a bit, what I would probably do is bring my LF in to the 3B/SS position and shift everyone else over. You would want your CF to still be in CF for speed and you would want your regular infielders on the right side where ground balls are most likely to go. Your outfielders are also going to be wearing outfielder gloves and they hopefully can make the longer throw over to 1B from the left side. 

Having the LF on the 3B side also helps with the pitch clock, since you might want to change up the shift mid-AB and you are only going to have 15 or 20 seconds to get everyone back in position. Gotta sprint back to LF if you decide to drop the shift with 2 strikes! 

As the picture above shows, you probably want your left-side infielder playing right on the grass so that they can cover as much of LF as possible. But that creates a new problem, since your LF probably isn't going to be very good at charging ground balls hit to the wide-open left side of the infield. There are a lot of slow MLB players who are good bunters who will have more opportunities for bunt singles. Carlos Santana recently got a bunt single on one of those extreme shifts -- he can't beat out the bunt if it is a regular shift, it has to be the extreme one with nobody to the left of the traditional SS position. 

Conclusion: play your utility IF/OF guy in LF if you want to shift, otherwise don't bother. 2-man outfields will probably be rare. Better to give up more singles than risk giving up more doubles. 

 

 

 

[jerichoholicninja]

I've been trying to see if this is addressed anywhere but I can't. From what MLB released the positioning of the fielders is determined at the time of the pitch. Now, what does that mean? Ball released from pitcher's hand or start of the pitcher's motion. If it's start of the pitcher's motion there's noting to stop a pitcher who's going out of the windup from making their first movement with their foot and then waiting until the fielder's move into their shifted spots before continuing with the pitch. If that's the case, I doubt many guys are going to do it but it would be fun to watch.

[Ro Mueller]

The shift ban is a gift to pull hitters, while the larger bases are a gift to speedsters.

With more balls undoubtedly making it to outfielders next year, teams will need better outfield defense. I want to believe Stearns expected these changes, which is why we have Frelick, Mitchell, Ruiz and Wiemer all poised to contribute in 2023.

But I also assume this will force Yelich into the designated hitter role much more than previously. I can’t imagine his defense rates better than Mitchell, Taylor, Frelick or Ruiz, so those four can easily rotate in the left field and center field positions, while the strong-armed Wiemer sits in AAA as right field depth behind Renfroe.

[wntrtxn21]

6 hours ago, damuelle said:

The shift ban is a gift to pull hitters, while the larger bases are a gift to speedsters.

With more balls undoubtedly making it to outfielders next year, teams will need better outfield defense. I want to believe Stearns expected these changes, which is why we have Frelick, Mitchell, Ruiz and Wiemer all poised to contribute in 2023.

But I also assume this will force Yelich into the designated hitter role much more than previously. I can’t imagine his defense rates better than Mitchell, Taylor, Frelick or Ruiz, so those four can easily rotate in the left field and center field positions, while the strong-armed Wiemer sits in AAA as right field depth behind Renfroe.

It will all depend on how the young guys hit. Yelich can go get the ball with the best of them. His accurate but weak throwing arm can be a problem at times. However, the Brewers need offense and some power in LF if they were to make Yelich the DH. The Brewers have pretty good defense at 3B-CF-C, but the lack of offense at those positions has hurt them  severely this year. 

[SomewhereInTime]

Finally a rule change I am 100% on board with!  Though I'd be fine with them taking it further and just making it 10 runs up or down.  A position player pitching for your team once every few years in the most extreme circumstances is fine but 6+ times a year is nuts.  I don't want to waste time seeing little league pitching, especially in a game I paid to attend.

[Brock Beauchamp]

5 hours ago, SomewhereInTime said:

Finally a rule change I am 100% on board with!  Though I'd be fine with them taking it further and just making it 10 runs up or down.  A position player pitching for your team once every few years in the most extreme circumstances is fine but 6+ times a year is nuts.  I don't want to waste time seeing little league pitching, especially in a game I paid to attend.

I'm glad they did something to stop the trend of position players on the mound. I think there were a few courses of action they could have taken - such as declaring eligible pitchers before a game - and this solution is just fine.

[owbc]

5 hours ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

I'm glad they did something to stop the trend of position players on the mound. I think there were a few courses of action they could have taken - such as declaring eligible pitchers before a game - and this solution is just fine.

Agree, it sounds like this change would have applied to just over a third of position player pitching situations from 2022. So it should be a significant drop. There was some ridiculous stuff happening at the end of the season such as a position player pitching in a tie game and recording a win (Luis Torrens). 

Making the "Manfred runner" in extra innings permanent is perhaps a more controversial change to the rules. I've accepted the premise that we need to avoid long extra innings games, but I think it would be more fun to reduce the number of defenders in the field in order to speed up the conclusion of the game, plus it would encourage contact hitting and more creative strategies. 

[jerichoholicninja]

Why is position players pitching a problem? With how often real pitchers get hurt and the limits on how many times pitchers can go up and down in a season teams should be allowed to save real pitchers for whenever they want to use them.

[Brock Beauchamp]

35 minutes ago, jerichoholicninja said:

Why is position players pitching a problem? With how often real pitchers get hurt and the limits on how many times pitchers can go up and down in a season teams should be allowed to save real pitchers for whenever they want to use them.

Because from a spectating perspective it's awful, borderline making a farce of the game.

When it happened a couple of times a season, it was a novelty. Now that it's happening constantly, it's bad for the sport by intentionally fielding uncompetitive play after people paid money to watch the event.