Rules rules rules

[notin]

For sure. A wide majority of calls are right, and the vast majority of easy calls are correctly called balls or strikes. It's rare that a ball thrown right down the middle is called a ball, or a ball in the dirt is called a strike, but that does happen.

 

It's the borderline calls that are called incorrectly, too many times. Some umps continuously get the same calls wrong, every game, and teams are forced to adjust to him. Most umps can't even see the whole K zone 3-D prism and are forced to project where they think a ball thrown 95 mph went. It's an impossible thing to ask an ump to do correctly.

 

Give the guys a break. Make their jobs easier to do. They can then concentrate on other things they need to call- like did the batter swing or not, did the batter get HBP or is the runner safe or out at home.

 

 

The problem isn’t the calls they get right. It’s the fans and media belaboring the few they get wrong. It seems like it only takes one or two bad strike calls for someone to think the umpire odd bad, or worse, biased…

[moonslav59]

The problem isn’t the calls they get right. It’s the fans and media belaboring the few they get wrong. It seems like it only takes one or two bad strike calls for someone to think the umpire odd bad, or worse, biased…

 

IMO, the problem is that it is way more than one or two bad calls (per game,) and that is something we have tolerated, because there was never an easy solution. Now, there is.

[Bellhorn04]

The problem isn’t the calls they get right. It’s the fans and media belaboring the few they get wrong. It seems like it only takes one or two bad strike calls for someone to think the umpire odd bad, or worse, biased…

 

Unfortunately, one bad call can change the outcome of a game, or even the World Series, as it probably did in 1985.

[moonslav59]

Unfortunately, one bad call can change the outcome of a game, or even the World Series, as it probably did in 1985.

 

Many games have been decided by bad calls. We might not even know a bad call in the 2nd inning could have changed a L into a win.

[mvp 78]

The problem isn’t the calls they get right. It’s the fans and media belaboring the few they get wrong. It seems like it only takes one or two bad strike calls for someone to think the umpire odd bad, or worse, biased…

 

The reason we shouldn't have an accurate strike zone is us piggies don't deserve it?

[moonslav59]

The shift only affects infielders, right?

 

Will we see a LF'er line-up in just off the grass in RF vs some lefties?

 

Guys like Kike could move in from CF to 2B/RF and Dugo could slide to CF.

[illinoisredsox]

The shift only affects infielders, right?

 

Will we see a LF'er line-up in just off the grass in RF vs some lefties?

 

Guys like Kike could move in from CF to 2B/RF and Dugo could slide to CF.

 

That’s the way I’ve heard, 4 infielders and two must be on each side of second base when the pitch is made.

 

To prevent the inevitable shenanigans, MLB would be wise to place limits as to how big (deep) the infield dirt can extend. Right now there is no limit. So maybe it can be a max of say 120 feet (just tossing out a number) from home plate all around.

[Hugh2]

The shift only affects infielders, right?

 

Will we see a LF'er line-up in just off the grass in RF vs some lefties?

 

Guys like Kike could move in from CF to 2B/RF and Dugo could slide to CF.

 

This is correct. If a team has two great speedy outfielders I could see them do this against an extreme pull hitter. Don’t think we will see a ton of it though.

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

This is correct. If a team has two great speedy outfielders I could see them do this against an extreme pull hitter. Don’t think we will see a ton of it though.

 

Red Sox are stashing fast guys like Duran and Franchy in Woo right now, in anticipation of this industry adjustment.

 

Wait... when they shift in the outfield, do they just get in the way, or do they have to stop the ball, too?

[moonslav59]

This is correct. If a team has two great speedy outfielders I could see them do this against an extreme pull hitter. Don’t think we will see a ton of it though.

 

If they do, and the SS is just to the LF side of the line, there will be an even bigger "stack" than before.

[notin]

To me, I don’t like the shift but I don’t see the point in doing this. If you think starting next year, every play will start with the infielders lined up like the start of a pitch in Nintendo RBI Baseball, you very likely not only very wrong, the solutions teams implement might make fans miss the shift.

 

Obviously many teams will just push the limits. It’s a shift if my SS is to the right of 2b? Ok he’ll start the play 6 inches to the left of 2b. Perfectly legal.

 

But my fear is some teams will push the limit and execute a “moving shift”. Everyone starts out in a legal position, but once the pitcher goes into his windup, the infielders run into Shift Positions. This would be far, far worse than just having a shift. And you can’t implement a “no moving during the windup” rule as infielders need to on stolen base attempts…

[Bellhorn04]

To me, I don’t like the shift but I don’t see the point in doing this. If you think starting next year, every play will start with the infielders lined up like the start of a pitch in Nintendo RBI Baseball, you very likely not only very wrong, the solutions teams implement might make fans miss the shift.

 

Obviously many teams will just push the limits. It’s a shift if my SS is to the right of 2b? Ok he’ll start the play 6 inches to the left of 2b. Perfectly legal.

 

But my fear is some teams will push the limit and execute a “moving shift”. Everyone starts out in a legal position, but once the pitcher goes into his windup, the infielders run into Shift Positions. This would be far, far worse than just having a shift. And you can’t implement a “no moving during the windup” rule as infielders need to on stolen base attempts…

 

No worries, Manfred will fix what needs to be fixed.

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

 

But my fear is some teams will push the limit and execute a “moving shift”. Everyone starts out in a legal position, but once the pitcher goes into his windup, the infielders run into Shift Positions. This would be far, far worse than just having a shift. And you can’t implement a “no moving during the windup” rule as infielders need to on stolen base attempts…

 

You just cracked Bloom's Da Grinchy Code! Now we know why he's been recruiting and stockpiling all those speed demons down on the farm. Your new strategy in effect eliminates the modern conversion of big load corner infielders into second baseman stationed in short right field for half of every game. Shaw and Moustakas may never turn one again.

 

MLB has a Need for Speed. Trevor Story might be the AL MVP next year. Runner-up could be Jarren Duran, not for stealing first, but for creating a new metric: blurring the concentration of batters' eyes by flashing back and forth behind pitchers' release points. Imagine Duran and Franchy, criss-crossing and doing calisthenics on the grass behind the keystone sack every pitch...

[mvp 78]

To me, I don’t like the shift but I don’t see the point in doing this. If you think starting next year, every play will start with the infielders lined up like the start of a pitch in Nintendo RBI Baseball, you very likely not only very wrong, the solutions teams implement might make fans miss the shift.

 

Obviously many teams will just push the limits. It’s a shift if my SS is to the right of 2b? Ok he’ll start the play 6 inches to the left of 2b. Perfectly legal.

 

But my fear is some teams will push the limit and execute a “moving shift”. Everyone starts out in a legal position, but once the pitcher goes into his windup, the infielders run into Shift Positions. This would be far, far worse than just having a shift. And you can’t implement a “no moving during the windup” rule as infielders need to on stolen base attempts…

 

SS's will now be running like pre-snap Arena League WR's.

[mvp 78]

Red Sox are stashing fast guys like Duran and Franchy in Woo right now, in anticipation of this industry adjustment.

 

Wait... when they shift in the outfield, do they just get in the way, or do they have to stop the ball, too?

 

Duran can't catch a ball 15 ft away from him, what is his speed going to do?

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

Duran can't catch a ball 15 ft away from him, what is his speed going to do?

 

Distract/disrupt/deny/project/research -- allatonce!

[Old Red]

Duran can't catch a ball 15 ft away from him, what is his speed going to do?

 

They used to say Homer Jones the old WR of the New York Giants was like a guy on a motorcycle with a butterfly net catching footballs. Duran playing the OF is like he trying to catch butterflies without a net. Duran Duran the butterfly man.

[notin]

That’s the way I’ve heard, 4 infielders and two must be on each side of second base when the pitch is made.

 

To prevent the inevitable shenanigans, MLB would be wise to place limits as to how big (deep) the infield dirt can extend. Right now there is no limit. So maybe it can be a max of say 120 feet (just tossing out a number) from home plate all around.

 

The catcher better throw the ball to the side of the bag where the infielder in motion is on stolen base attempts…

[cp176]

So here is my question about any new rule regarding teams shifting. If you are a diehard when it comes to an analytical approach to baseball and the use of advanced stats and metrics is your game, why do so many people have a problem with where teams choose to place their players on the field? To me it seems that is simply a team taking advantage of available data to give them a legal edge over their opponents. Personally I could care less where a team chooses to put their players.

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

Don't forget, bigger bases next year means the distance between bases will no longer be 90 feet. The new distance between first and second, and second and third, will now be 89 feet, 7 1/2 inches. Pitchers will also be limited to two pick-off attempts per batter; a third attempt is allowed, but a balk is called if the baserunner isn't picked off (so call it two... but mainly it will be one -- since a second failed pick will be basically giving the runner a free base).

 

Smart organizations are probably already schooling speedsters to taunt and tempt pitchers to throw over with huge leads, cocky clapping, and jangling jewelry. Base-stealing -- and I'm coining this right now, base-taking -- will once again be at a premium.

 

Bloom acquired a lot of prospects with speed in the past year. With that big, high green wall in the way of dead ball batters -- not to mention ghost runners who always seem to spook our extra-inning hitters from even touching the ball -- get ready for a new style of Red Sox run production!

[mvp 78]

Distract/disrupt/deny/project/research -- allatonce!

 

He is a horrible fielder. His speed doesn't matter. It certainly won't help him with whatever shifting nonsense we're talking about now.

 

As of 10:22 AM on 9/16/22, he's a below average LFer. How would that get better in 2023?

[mvp 78]

The catcher better throw the ball to the side of the bag where the infielder in motion is on stolen base attempts…

 

More wiggle room with that too as the bases are now bigger.

[mvp 78]

So here is my question about any new rule regarding teams shifting. If you are a diehard when it comes to an analytical approach to baseball and the use of advanced stats and metrics is your game, why do so many people have a problem with where teams choose to place their players on the field? To me it seems that is simply a team taking advantage of available data to give them a legal edge over their opponents. Personally I could care less where a team chooses to put their players.

 

I don't think many analytical people care about shifting. If they do, it's purely for aesthetic reasons I guess?

[cp176]

I don't think many analytical people care about shifting. If they do, it's purely for aesthetic reasons I guess?

 

Aren't they using analytics to help determine where they place their players?

[moonslav59]

I don't think many analytical people care about shifting. If they do, it's purely for aesthetic reasons I guess?

 

To me, it has nothing to do with analytics, except for the fact that more data and more teams using it has created many more shifts. I just don't see why making this rule to limit "smarts" in baseball is needed.

[cp176]

To me, it has nothing to do with analytics, except for the fact that more data and more teams using it has created many more shifts. I just don't see why making this rule to limit "smarts" in baseball is needed.

 

So I hear you saying that you are opposed to a new rule limiting shifts?

[moonslav59]

So I hear you saying that you are opposed to a new rule limiting shifts?

 

I'm not passionately against the rule. I'm kind of in the middle but leaning against it.

[sk7326]

The pitch clock is fine ... the anti-shift rule is stupid and goes against the spirit of baseball. Automated strike zone is a natural - though clearly from the Arizona Fall League experiemt, there is work to be done there.

 

Now - if you really were concerned about the shift, I'd have taken inspiration from cricket. In cricket - for limited overs matches - for certain parts of the game, the fielding positions are restricted (to help facilitate scoring). Instead of banning shifts, you could say that for the first 3 innings (or whatever), the defense must have four players on the infield. (two feet on the dirt) Either way, it's silly.

[cp176]

I'm not passionately against the rule. I'm kind of in the middle but leaning against it.

 

Doesn't it seem a tad hypocritical for the people who take their analytics or data or whatever seriously to be opposed to any new rule such as this?

[mvp 78]

Aren't they using analytics to help determine where they place their players?

 

In "care" I mean "want to get rid of." I don't think analytical people are bothered by shifting and understand why it happens.