Is the defensive shift bad for baseball

Had a discussion with a couple of neighbors last night, and an interesting point was brought up, so I thought I'd get everyone's opinion on here.

The discussion revolved around how "boring" baseball has gotten, with each at bat seemingly ending with either a walk, strikeout, or home run. The Reds game from earlier in the afternoon featured 8 hits...total. Granted, it was a great pitching performance by both pitching staffs, but is there something else to it?

When the first defensive shifts first started to appear, it was for the dead-red left-handed pull hitters. Bring your shortstop over to the other side of second, and put your second baseman into short, right field. (How many balls did we see Jay Bruce hit to THAT guy?) The argument was always...don't pull the ball all the time, hit it up the middle, go the other way with it, and even, drop a bunt down the 3rd base line and you can walk to first. It was an argument that I subscribed to.

However, my neighbor asked me last night...how many balls have I seen that have been hard hit, right up the middle, and been fielded on a one-hop by a guy that's been positioned right behind the bag? I had to admit, quite a few. He said, what do we teach our kids when they're growing up? Don't try to pull the ball...hit it up the middle. But now, what would've been considered a solid base hit, are now becoming outs.

He said if baseball wants to add something more than just the walk, strikeout and home run scenario they have now, it's in their best interest to prohibit the over-shift. He said maybe more guys are swinging for the fences now, simply because they feel that's their only chance to "beat the shift". And you can say, "That's dumb. They're stupid for doing that." But, you can't deny that's become an accepted norm.

He said, do the math...if the shift stops just one hit a week from a typical .300 batter, he'd be hitting only .250 at the end of the season.

I don't know if I'm fully persuaded yet or not. But he's given me food for thought. Would baseball be "better" if it simply required two players to both the left and right of second base?

Eh, I'm still of the theory to be an all around player. Look to go inside out to take balls the other way, and lay down more bunts and they shift a bit less.

I'd like to see quite a few more players go ahead and lay a bunt down to beat the shift consistently. I love when a player lays a good bunt down against the shift. Sure it isn't sexy but I'd like to see it a whole lot more often.

I don't think I'd be in favor of a rule that doesn't allow the overshift. Beat it.

It was two great pitching performances in that Reds game, but as was posted in that thread, the home plate ump apparently missed 25% of the ball/strike calls he made. That's atrocious and had to affect the number of hits too.

Eh, I'm still of the theory to be an all around player. Look to go inside out to take balls the other way, and lay down more bunts and they shift a bit less.

I will also add that doing that on a ball that's 90+ and cutting into the hands is difficult, but how many times do we see hitters take a first pitch that's not in on the hands only to get jammed and hit into the shift later?

Approach is part of the problem. The infield single the other way isn't as attractive as the scalded double into the gap, so they look for that pitch on the inner half they can drive. If baseball (and I have no idea how you do this) changed that approach and they took more of those hitable first pitches the other way you have less of the 6-7 pitch at bats that have become the norm thus speeding up the game and providing more action. 2 birds with one stone.

I'd like to see quite a few more players go ahead and lay a bunt down to beat the shift consistently. I love when a player lays a good bunt down against the shift. Sure it isn't sexy but I'd like to see it a whole lot more often.

 

I don't think I'd be in favor of a rule that doesn't allow the overshift. Beat it.

Another concern I'd have is how do you put a rule in effect to eliminate the shift? Unless you put specific markings on the field for positions, teams will find a way around it.

I've heard "shortstop has to be no further than 2B when the pitch is delivered" Okay, teams will move the SS on the pitch and stand the 3B next to him. Or move the 3B to that side, or move the CF in that position and move the SS out to center.

Too many ways around it to try to police it, IMO.

Ehh, I think eliminating it is unnecessary. If you watch the superstars, they typically don’t get shifted on because they can deliver to all fields. More players need to learn to hit the ball the other way IMO.

All of this is interesting, but the bottom line is...is baseball better off having players that hit 30 HR's, but only bat .230? My neighbor's contention is that it's a "no". It has already become an accepted policy by the teams, and is leading to what people are considering "boring baseball". That's why he says it's in baseball's best interest to ban it.

All of this is interesting, but the bottom line is...is baseball better off having players that hit 30 HR's, but only bat .230? My neighbor's contention is that it's a "no". It has already become an accepted policy by the teams, and is leading to what people are considering "boring baseball". That's why he says it's in baseball's best interest to ban it.

I hear what you're saying. There's no denying that balls in play are what makes baseball interesting. Every at-bat is more intriguing when there's another guy already on base.

I worry that the cure might be worse than the disease.

Chicks dig the long ball...and so to the players themselves because of the contractual money they can get for hitting them. It's much more difficult in today's age to find that "all around team player" who is talented enough to beat shifts and wants to sacrifice himself and his stats for the sake of the team. They are there, just harder to find. Managers with all their "Moneyball" statistics can win by shutting down the rest of the opposing team that don't fall in this category. Love it or leave it...that's what baseball has become.

I keep hearing that batters should just try to beat the shift with bunts and forcing the ball the other way. In theory, that makes sense. In reality, it's not so easy to do, or necessarily the right thing to do. First, when the shift is on, the batter won't see pitches that will be easy to hit the other way. Major league pitchers have no problem pitching in on batters, and balls on the inside corner are not easy to take the other way. Second, opposing teams are perfectly ok with the other teams big hitters dropping bunts, because it means they aren't driving balls into the gap, or over fence. Sure hitters might get a few extra hits by bunting, but the defensive team is still winning in that exchange, and it like won't do anything to force the defensive team out of the shift. Remember, Ted Williams saw the shift a lot, and even he didn't do much to change his approach, even in an era where ballplayer are thought of being less "selfish".

There's no easy answer, although I don't believe outlawing the shift is even close to being the solution. Baseball tends to be cyclical, and I think over time players will make adjustments.

I'm in the camp of if you want to beat the shift, take advantage of where they are not.

The discussion revolved around how "boring" baseball has gotten, with each at bat seemingly ending with either a walk, strikeout, or home run. The Reds game from earlier in the afternoon featured 8 hits...total. Granted, it was a great pitching performance by both pitching staffs, but is there something else to it?

 

When the first defensive shifts first started to appear, it was for the dead-red left-handed pull hitters. Bring your shortstop over to the other side of second, and put your second baseman into short, right field. (How many balls did we see Jay Bruce hit to THAT guy?) The argument was always...don't pull the ball all the time, hit it up the middle, go the other way with it, and even, drop a bunt down the 3rd base line and you can walk to first. It was an argument that I subscribed to.

 

However, my neighbor asked me last night...how many balls have I seen that have been hard hit, right up the middle, and been fielded on a one-hop by a guy that's been positioned right behind the bag? I had to admit, quite a few. He said, what do we teach our kids when they're growing up? Don't try to pull the ball...hit it up the middle. But now, what would've been considered a solid base hit, are now becoming outs.

 

He said if baseball wants to add something more than just the walk, strikeout and home run scenario they have now, it's in their best interest to prohibit the over-shift. He said maybe more guys are swinging for the fences now, simply because they feel that's their only chance to "beat the shift". And you can say, "That's dumb. They're stupid for doing that." But, you can't deny that's become an accepted norm.

 

He said, do the math...if the shift stops just one hit a week from a typical .300 batter, he'd be hitting only .250 at the end of the season.

 

I don't know if I'm fully persuaded yet or not. But he's given me food for thought. Would baseball be "better" if it simply required two players to both the left and right of second base?

Two points.

1. The baseball is boring discussion is almost humorous to me. Soccer grows in popularity with 1-0, 2-1 games being almost the norm but baseball is boring. Any time someone makes the baseball is boring comment, ask them what their feelings are on soccer. Granted, many of the people may say they don't like soccer either and are comparing baseball to football or basketball. Nevertheless, the question remains, why is baseball boring and soccer growing in popularity? I contend a lot of it is in the packaging of the event. It really isn't about the game itself. It is about all the stuff surrounding the game. Baseball needs to keep making improvements in their packaging of their games to overcome the "baseball is boring" label.

2. On the shifts, it is a chicken versus egg discussion. I contend the shifts came about because of the pull the ball, hit a HR approach. So if playing straight up defense led to the HR/pull mentality, how would going back to straight up defense change that approach? Maybe it isn't about changing the approach, but about putting more scoring back into games. If that is the reason to change the rules to stop shifts, then I can see the point. Personally, for me, the intrigue of baseball is the chess match. I see a chess match in every pitch thrown and that is why I like baseball. Shifts are another move in the chess match and the hitters need to make their move now to adapt. I am good with shifts. I want to see better more well rounded hitters. I want to see the ongoing evolution in the chess match that is baseball.

"Personally, for me, the intrigue of baseball is the chess match. I see a chess match in every pitch thrown and that is why I like baseball. Shifts are another move in the chess match and the hitters need to make their move now to adapt. I am good with shifts. I want to see better more well rounded hitters. I want to see the ongoing evolution in the chess match that is baseball."

:thumb:

Baseball has ALWAYS been about taking what the opposition gives you. Still is. Also about taking away what the opposition does best. Still is. Someone said earlier, Baseball is a cyclical game. Absolutely. This will cycle out when a better strategy or a different approach comes along and becomes successful. Here, here, VoR, a chess match it is and hopefully always will be. That's why it's the greatest game.