The idea of banning the shift has always felt really intrusive to me, and I'm opposed to it sort of on principle. Still, even after just a month of data, it's impossible not to see the weirdness of baseball over the last couple of years (some of which may still be COVID-related). I'm probably more open to banning it than I have been in the past, even though I wish there were less intrusive ways to change the shape of the game. I think this is the real trouble with analytics. There's an entropy to them, a "heat-death," a move toward homogeneity. It's easy to see how to win in today's brand of baseball. You have to hit home runs and flyballs and stress exit velo and shifting defensively. To try anything else would be very unlikely to work and would be a massive risk. The culture of the game now is such that the analytics have replaced the "eye test" and the "Triple Crown" as instantiated knowledge. We've reached the other side of the pendulum arc. Basketball feels to me like it's in the same place. The NBA is all threes and dunks and backtaps, and college hoops is constantly trying to become more like the NBA. The analytics breed homogeneity, and that means there just isn't a lot of variance in how teams approach the game. And variance is what makes matchups interesting. So, what to do? I think it's a two-path option: 1) You alter the rules to promote more variance in team approaches. I think strike zone set ups might help here, pickoff limitations, slightly bigger bases (which would also have an injury rationale, in addition to increasing the running game), rules that shift the advantage to the baserunner when one's aboard. There's also moving the mound back or pitch clocks, or other things designed to help hitters. There are maybe some really weird, crazy-sounding things you could do about equipment (limiting glove size/padding for infielders, for example, to try and increase BABIP). The whole goal is to increase the value of hard contact irrespective of launch angle. 2) Some team is going to have to take a real risk offensively. Bunt against every shift you see for a week. Bunt more often generally. Acquire high AVG players. Stress AVG starting now and with the MLB club. The incentives are all lined up against this, of course. Doing this stuff messes with your whole philosophy, and it probably leads to losing for all kinds of reasons. But I think the fundamental lesson of the analytics era is that there is a reward to doing things the way no one else does. You just have to be willing to see it and try anything. I have a hunch the Brewers are onto this a bit in that they seem to me to be one of the more aggressive swinging teams in MLB. They want players making hard contact rather than waiting for walks and driving up pitch counts. I'll put it bluntly: I'd really like to see what happens when a team plays "old-style" baseball and just commits themselves to it. Honestly, I'd think it was fascinating if the Brewers did that, even if they ended up 20-142. I want the Crew to do well, of course, but I'm just genuinely more interested in baseball writ large, and I think it's worth recognizing that the fans provide some incentive for this, don't we? By valuing winning above all else? I'd just love to see the Brewers decide to bunt for a week. Because it would be fun. See what happens. The way teams in basketball try to pull teams out of zone by beating it down the floor. Maybe set some priors for when you won't do it (with the bases loaded or whatever). But given this offense's overall prospects for scoring, I don't think asking Pablo Reyes to bunt a bunch of times could be worse results-wise...