MLB Rule Changes

[thehef]

Originally Posted by Déjà Bru

Pitch clock — you know what? I have better things to do than watch the pitcher walk around the mound, pawing at his mouth...

If nothing else, there will be less time available for the camera to zoom in way too close on the pitcher's face

[Déjà Bru]

Originally Posted by Syd Thrift

The infield shift has/had a largely negligible effect on the game anyway. People keep talking about it introducing some kind of big fundamental change like the 10 whole points of BABIP that it took off the game in recent years is a massive game-changer or something.

That's pretty much what the article that I was reading said, that only the really persistent pull-hitters will experience nirvana. And among those, only the ones that consistently hit the ball sharply. Still, I think we will see some across the board improvement in batting averages.

[monkeyman576]

Originally Posted by Déjà Bru

That's pretty much what the article that I was reading said, that only the really persistent pull-hitters will experience nirvana. And among those, only the ones that consistently hit the ball sharply. Still, I think we will see some across the board improvement in batting averages.

I just don't think it's fair to the players that actually are able to have greater control over where they hit the ball. Also I don't think dramatic changes to the game are fair to the existing record holders.

[Syd Thrift]

If this was in fact a dramatic change in the game I might care a bit more...

[kq76]

I don't really see banning the shift as a change for hitters, but more for defense to shine. If you've got 4 infielders on the right, someone better make an easy play on a groundball, no matter how hard hit it is. With only 2 players on a side, the best defenders are still going to make plays, and they're going to make more jaw-dropping plays, while the lesser defenders simply won't. You ask people what is the most exciting play in baseball and many will list a great defensive play either at the very top or close to it, and this will result in more of them.

[dsvitak]

Originally Posted by Déjà Bru

That's pretty much what the article that I was reading said, that only the really persistent pull-hitters will experience nirvana. And among those, only the ones that consistently hit the ball sharply. Still, I think we will see some across the board improvement in batting averages.

I thought that the reason we were back to deadball era batting averages was the shift.

I no longer ascribe that that theory. I think it was the 3000 spin rates, and the batter's not able to hit pitches that looked like wiffle balls coming up to the plate.

Averages the last half of the season were up above .250.

Now...because the Cards made good contact, and over-achieved, and the Astros had the highest strikeout differential in the majors between what they did, and what their pitchers achieved, maybe...MAYBE putting the ball in play, and drawing the occasional walk will come back in style.

[Déjà Bru]

Originally Posted by kq76

I don't really see banning the shift as a change for hitters, but more for defense to shine. If you've got 4 infielders on the right, someone better make an easy play on a groundball, no matter how hard hit it is. With only 2 players on a side, the best defenders are still going to make plays, and they're going to make more jaw-dropping plays, while the lesser defenders simply won't. You ask people what is the most exciting play in baseball and many will list a great defensive play either at the very top or close to it, and this will result in more of them.

I agree with this as another positive aspect of the shift ban, and I am looking forward to it.

Originally Posted by dsvitak

I thought that the reason we were back to deadball era batting averages was the shift.

I no longer ascribe that that theory. I think it was the 3000 spin rates, and the batter's not able to hit pitches that looked like wiffle balls coming up to the plate.

Averages the last half of the season were up above .250.

Now...because the Cards made good contact, and over-achieved, and the Astros had the highest strikeout differential in the majors between what they did, and what their pitchers achieved, maybe...MAYBE putting the ball in play, and drawing the occasional walk will come back in style.

You mean ... baseball the way it is supposed to be played?

[andyhdz]

Originally Posted by pilight

The length of the game wouldn't matter as much if they started earlier. College football games take forever. Four hour games are common and there is lots of downtime. But they mostly start in the afternoon so nobody complains.

Because of that ridiculous stop the clock when someone makes a first down rule. The NFL did a great service by keeping the clock running even when someone goes out of bounds except in the last 5 minutes of a half or game. Of course all those tv timeouts make up for it.

[thehef]

I would've liked to see a rule change to keep teams from putting an infielder in medium/shallow right field. Otherwise, I'd allow shifts. Things are cyclical and my thinking has been that it was just a matter of time before some team finds itself with a bunch of guys who make a lot of contact, have bunting skills, and speed, and has great success... that some other team copies... and so forth... and then shifts don't ever go away (I remember the Reds shifting on Boog Powell in the 1970 WS*), but they aren't used to such extremes as they are now...

*Watched on MLB Network or YouTube. I did not see it live; I was 6 at the time )

[Syd Thrift]

Teams, particularly Cleveland, used shifts on Ted Williams way back in the 1940s. It's not really even a new strategy although as noted it's used a lot more today (and, sorry to be a broken record on this, the actual effects of them are almost negligible leaguewide - a couple of dead pull hitters had their BABIPs plummet, everyone else is essentially unaffected. It sucks because one of those dead-pull guys who was ruined by the shift was my Mariners guy Kyle Seager but such is baseball).

[Amazin69]

As I noted, not only was "the Williams shift" in effect well before Ted Williams was even born, but he wasn't even the first "Williams" to be defensed in such a manner. NL managers of the 1920s used a similar shift against Fred "Cy" Williams, the four-time NL home run champion then playing for the Phillies.

(In 1927, when Babe Ruth hit his 60 homers, Cy Williams led the NL with 30, exactly half Ruth's total. And he was 39 at the time, which was probably the record for "oldest HR king" at least for a while.)

[Déjà Bru]

Originally Posted by Amazin69

As I noted, not only was "the Williams shift" in effect well before Ted Williams was even born, but he wasn't even the first "Williams" to be defensed in such a manner. NL managers of the 1920s used a similar shift against Fred "Cy" Williams, the four-time NL home run champion then playing for the Phillies.

(In 1927, when Babe Ruth hit his 60 homers, Cy Williams led the NL with 30, exactly half Ruth's total. And he was 39 at the time, which was probably the record for "oldest HR king" at least for a while.)

Hmm. Good thing he was eclipsed by Ruth, else we could have a "Cy Williams Batting Award" to go along with the "Cy Young Pitching Award." Rather confusing in that case.

[Syd Thrift]

I want to say that Williams, too, was one of those guys who grew up as a pitcher but then transitioned to the outfield in the minor leagues when they started swapping out baseballs every now and then and guys could actually hit a ball pretty far. "Cy" at the time was short for "Cyclone" and referred to a guy with a great arm.

ETA: Apparently he was called "Cy" because... he looked like the Big Train Walter Johnson and apparently "Cy" was a name given to players with "rural looking faces", whatever that means.

[Déjà Bru]

On the topic of players who are expected to benefit from the ban on infield shifts and who could expect better deals (or, a deal at all) in 2023 as a result:

[Westheim]

The Twinkies would have been right up there on my list of teams which could be dumb enough to still toss dosh at Gallo..... strikes out half the time, somehow hits 20 homers, while hitting for less of a batting average than most pitchers used to. Great.

That's not the word. *Grating*.

[Izz]

Originally Posted by Déjà Bru

On the topic of players who are expected to benefit from the ban on infield shifts and who could expect better deals (or, a deal at all) in 2023 as a result:

Have to hit the ball first to benefit from anything...

[Amazin69]

Why would a shift matter to Gallo? I presume that if he ever hits a ground ball, he simply collapses in the batters' box and cries.

[kq76]

Interesting interview with Morgan Sword and Raul Ibanez of the Rules Committee.

[monkeyman576]

Originally Posted by Amazin69

Why would a shift matter to Gallo? I presume that if he ever hits a ground ball, he simply collapses in the batters' box and cries.

Gallo strikes out 40% out the time, walks 14% of the time, hits fly balls 29% of the time, grounds to the shift side 8% of the time, grounds to center 7% of the time, and grounds to the non shift side 2% of the time. So yes, ground balls are indeed a rarity for him and I doubt the shift rules will have a great effect.