MLB to ban the shift

[moonslav59]

So it has to be a rule change to rate an asterisk?

 

I'm not saying it "has to be" anything. Those are your words, not mine.

 

LOL!

[Bellhorn04]

You really think the shift made no difference in his stats?

 

I don't see one. Do you?

[moonslav59]

I don't see one. Do you?

 

I saw many plays where Papi lined out to a third infielder on the right side and very few hits into the open hole on the left side of the IF.

 

You sincerely did not not notice any of that?

[Bellhorn04]

I saw many plays where Papi lined out to a third infielder on the right side and very few hits into the open hole on the left side of the IF.

 

You sincerely did not not notice any of that?

 

Not talking about individual plays, talking about yearly numbers.

[moonslav59]

Not talking about individual plays, talking about yearly numbers.

 

So, individual plays don't affect yearly numbers?

 

Would 10-25 more singles over a season make a yearly difference?

[notin]

Did they put an asterisk next to anyone who played counting a Sac Fly as a time at bat? Did they put an asterisk next to stats of players who took special vitamins, and set HR records? Did they put an asterisk next to stats when there were more games added to the schedule? I could go on, and on. Did you think about his, or are you just throwing out comments. I’m not criticizing, or anything, but just asking.

 

Yes. At least once, but it did garner a lot of attention…

[Old Red]

I'm not saying it "has to be" anything. Those are your words, not mine.

 

LOL!

 

I wasn’t saying it, but just asking it. I’m fine with asterisk, and there are many different instances I have mentioned. You was the one who brought up asterisk in the first place.

[moonslav59]

Not talking about individual plays, talking about yearly numbers.

 

Take his last season, where he hit .315 in 537 ABs and 626 PAs.

 

Add 10 hits and he's at .333

 

Add 20: .351

 

Add 26: .363

 

What would Ted Williams' BA career be?

 

Give him 40 hits over 19 seasons: he goes from .344 to .350.

 

Give him 80: .355

 

120: .360

Edited March 8, 2022 by moonslav59

[moonslav59]

I wasn’t saying it, but just asking it. I’m fine with asterisk, and there are many different instances I have mentioned. You was the one who brought up asterisk in the first place.

 

Yes, your words, not mine.

 

It's my opinion, there should be an asterisk. There probably should be one for other things, and I'm fine with talking about those, if you want.

[Old Red]

Yes, your words, not mine.

 

It's my opinion, there should be an asterisk. There probably should be one for other things, and I'm fine with talking about those, if you want.

 

I’m not disagreeing on asterisk, but how would you judge what would have happened with the shift. We can figure out what Ted would have hit without counting the Sac Fly as a time AB.

[Bellhorn04]

So, individual plays don't affect yearly numbers?

 

Would 10-25 more singles over a season make a yearly difference?

 

Of course, but what makes you think the shift only took hits away from him and didn't give any back?

 

I think there are actually stats on hitting against the shift.

[moonslav59]

Of course, but what makes you think the shift only took hits away from him and didn't give any back?

 

I think there are actually stats on hitting against the shift.

 

I’m certain it took more away than it gave, and I’m surprised you doubt that.

 

Sure, a debate might be on how many hits but I think it’s certain many more taken away than given.

 

How many times did we wonder why he didn’t just bunt down the 3B line.

[moonslav59]

I’m not disagreeing on asterisk, but how would you judge what would have happened with the shift. We can figure out what Ted would have hit without counting the Sac Fly as a time AB.

 

I’m not saying it has to be quantifiable to get the asterisk. If anything, the sac fly rule can be figured out, so to me, there is less need on that one.

[Bellhorn04]

I’m certain it took more away than it gave, and I’m surprised you doubt that.

 

Sure, a debate might be on how many hits but I think it’s certain many more taken away than given.

 

How many times did we wonder why he didn’t just bunt down the 3B line.

 

I was not one of those people wondering why he didn't bunt more.

 

He hit over .300 in 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2016.

 

Maybe we should look at his BABip.

[notin]

I’m not saying it has to be quantifiable to get the asterisk. If anything, the sac fly rule can be figured out, so to me, there is less need on that one.

 

The sac fly thing would be easy to figure out the impact. How many more hits Ty Cobb might have gotten on artificial turf is more troublesome…

[moonslav59]

The sac fly thing would be easy to figure out the impact. How many more hits Ty Cobb might have gotten on artificial turf is more troublesome…

 

I’m not denying many changes to the game have affected stats in the past- many by more than the shift.

 

There is no asterisk for 1968. I get it.

 

My position is that this is a major change that will affect some players a lot and others by maybe nothing. Telling a defender he can’t position himself where the chance is greatest to create an out is a major intrusion into the game and it’s history.

 

Will they outlaw the curveball, next?

[notin]

I’m not denying many changes to the game have affected stats in the past- many by more than the shift.

 

There is no asterisk for 1968. I get it.

 

My position is that this is a major change that will affect some players a lot and others by maybe nothing. Telling a defender he can’t position himself where the chance is greatest to create an out is a major intrusion into the game and it’s history.

 

Will they outlaw the curveball, next?

 

 

It’s a stupid change. What’s next? Circles on the field for areas where players are allowed to stand?

[notin]

MLB seems to like to outlaw strategies and not obvious flaws. At least they finally decided allowing all 40 players on the active roster for one month really caused more problems than it solved…

[mvp 78]

MLB seems to like to outlaw strategies and not obvious flaws. At least they finally decided allowing all 40 players on the active roster for one month really caused more problems than it solved…

 

I liked the big rosters. Just limit the amount of pitchers that can pitch in a 9 inning game.

[Bellhorn04]

I just want baseball back, flaws and all.

[moonslav59]

It’s a stupid change. What’s next? Circles on the field for areas where players are allowed to stand?

 

It's beyond stupid, but when you have a clown in charge, these things happen.

 

It won't ruin the game, but it's a needless change, when so many clear changes are needed.

 

[moonslav59]

I just want baseball back, flaws and all.

 

True nuff!

[Old Red]

It's beyond stupid, but when you have a clown in charge, these things happen.

 

It won't ruin the game, but it's a needless change, when so many clear changes are needed.

 

 

What might seem like a stupid clown, and a needless change to you does not mean it is so, and many others see it a different way. I know banning the shift on here is not the favorable position, but on other forums, and sites it is. I know it is hard to imagine, but like I said more than once that the opinions on here are just a very small sample of what’s thought out there in Red Sox Nation, or the Sports World in general. I think banning the shift, and a pitch clock are much needed changes, and obviously the powers at MLB think so as well. Bye Bye Felicia.

[moonslav59]

What might seem like a stupid clown, and a needless change to you does not mean it is so, and many others see it a different way. I know banning the shift on here is not the favorable position, but on other forums, and sites it is. I know it is hard to imagine, but like I said more than once that the opinions on here are just a very small sample of what’s thought out there in Red Sox Nation, or the Sports World in general. I think banning the shift, and a pitch clock are much needed changes, and obviously the powers at MLB think so as well. Bye Bye Felicia.

 

I know my opinion is just my opinion. I think Manfred is a stupid clown. Yes, that's an opinion. I know what I say does not make it so.

 

You keep reminding me, like I need to be reminded.

[Old Red]

I know my opinion is just my opinion. I think Manfred is a stupid clown. Yes, that's an opinion. I know what I say does not make it so.

 

You keep reminding me, like I need to be reminded.

 

Do you realize there is a whole big world out there that doesn’t agree with your opinion on the shift? Now I don’t think to much of Manfred myself, but I’m not going to call him a stupid clown.

[moonslav59]

Do you realize there is a whole big world out there that doesn’t agree with your opinion on the shift? Now I don’t think to much of Manfred myself, but I’m not going to call him a stupid clown.

 

Of course I realize there are a lot of people who disagree with me. Why do you act like I don't know that?

 

I've already heard from quite a few right here.

 

I actually called him a lying clown, and I expect many disagree on that term, too.

 

You keep making the point that there are many different opinions out there, but you act like I am presenting my opinions as fact. Newsflash: I'm not. I'm just stating my opinions, and some may be unique or even near stand-alone in this whole big world.

 

[Old Red]

Of course I realize there are a lot of people who disagree with me. Why do you act like I don't know that?

 

I've already heard from quite a few right here.

 

I actually called him a lying clown, and I expect many disagree on that term, too.

 

You keep making the point that there are many different opinions out there, but you act like I am presenting my opinions as fact. Newsflash: I'm not. I'm just stating my opinions, and some may be unique or even near stand-alone in this whole big world.

 

 

I keep making the point that there are many different opinions out there in Red Sox Nation, because there are, and no other reason, and no I know the difference between opinions, and facts. I’ve even agreed with some of your opinions. Yes it was a lying clown who makes needless changes that’s beyond stupid like the shift would be. Once again needless to you, but not to others.

[notin]

What might seem like a stupid clown, and a needless change to you does not mean it is so, and many others see it a different way. I know banning the shift on here is not the favorable position, but on other forums, and sites it is. I know it is hard to imagine, but like I said more than once that the opinions on here are just a very small sample of what’s thought out there in Red Sox Nation, or the Sports World in general. I think banning the shift, and a pitch clock are much needed changes, and obviously the powers at MLB think so as well. Bye Bye Felicia.

 

Pitch clock, yes. It’s been in the rule book for decades. Why not just enforce it?

 

The shift is unpopular, but it’s just a defensive alignment. It’s a strategy. Are we going to keep banning strategies? Maybe baseball should ban the hit and run play as well?

 

How about MLB also bans having corner infielders guard the lines late in games, too? And infielders “cheating” up the middle for double play depth? These players are also out of position! Ban those strategies!! Why end with just the shift?

[Old Red]

Pitch clock, yes. It’s been in the rule book for decades. Why not just enforce it?

 

The shift is unpopular, but it’s just a defensive alignment. It’s a strategy. Are we going to keep banning strategies? Maybe baseball should ban the hit and run play as well?

 

How about MLB also bans having corner infielders guard the lines late in games, too? And infielders “cheating” up the middle for double play depth? These players are also out of position! Ban those strategies!! Why end with just the shift?

 

Infielders guarding the lines, or cheating up the middle is a defensive strategy yes just like the shift, but to me is not even close as what the shift is. Now if you take the 3B over to guard the 1B line, or the 1B over to guard the 3B line that would be like the shift. The fact that the shift went up over 50,000 times in a 10 year period to me is just an results driven change in the analytics revolution , and went way over the top in doing it. Obviously the powers at MLB have heard feedback from fans like me, and I applaud them for making the change. Being against the change is a lot more on here than all the other venues I visit, and there is nothing wrong with that, but like I said MLB must get enough feedback not liking the shift to make the change.

[Bellhorn04]

Pitch clock, yes. It’s been in the rule book for decades. Why not just enforce it?

 

The shift is unpopular, but it’s just a defensive alignment. It’s a strategy. Are we going to keep banning strategies? Maybe baseball should ban the hit and run play as well?

 

How about MLB also bans having corner infielders guard the lines late in games, too? And infielders “cheating” up the middle for double play depth? These players are also out of position! Ban those strategies!! Why end with just the shift?

 

There already are a whole lot of arbitrary rules in the game though.

 

The pitcher has to throw the ball from 60' 6" away. That's pretty arbitrary.