Quote:
Originally Posted by JMDurron
Well, two reasons
..
To expand on #2, if IF shifting really is as powerful as it appears to be IRL, then OOTP should model that impact. If OOTP models that impact, then for the sake of realism, it would also have to model the fact that current and historical managers have not been using IF shifting as often as is optimal, and have appropriate strategy settings for the AI that reflect that.
|
There are downsides to the shift. The pitcher often has to pitch differently with a shift. Lucas Harrell was a bit outspoken on this earlier this season as Bo Porter has adopted a more TB style. Hence, the article "Bo don't know shifts".
This is actually pretty good writing for the Houston Press. It is usually just spouting off with little research. This seems to be an exception.
Bo Don't Know Shifts: Astros Manager's Defensive Shifts Rankle Pitcher - Houston - News - Hair Balls
Like the article points out a good part of the reason we are seeing more shifts is technology and interest in SABR. A manager in the 1950's didn't have a computer screen showing him the breakdown of where someone hits. It was done by feel rather than analyzing hard statistics. Today you have press box guys pulling up the data in seconds and using all kinds of new stats to suggest a shift.
I don't think the shift is any more powerful than it every was. We just see it more because the data is easy to obtain and clubs hire people to pull data to give to the manager to make decisions. This isn't Aarron is up and I think he usually pulls so lets shift. It is this guy hits the ball here x% of the time. The information age is impacting baseball like everything else. Hence, the "debate" of scouts vs. stats guys raging now.
It is not the shift works better now. It is that managers in previous eras just didn't have quick access to the data to fully exploit the shift. It was more guess work than exploiting probabilities in by gone eras.