I wrote most of this post back in October when Commissioner Rob Manfred said a thing about shifts, and I didn’t have a chance to publish it before the news of the day carried me away. But then Marlins manager Don Mattingly said something similar today, which brought me back to the draft, and now I’m gonna publish it.
First, the things that were said. Here’s Mattingly, today:
Don Mattingly echoes what Theo Epstein and many others have said: the game needs more action, etc. Mattingly said the playoffs were tough to watch after his team was eliminated. Said its time to even consider regulating the shift.
— Jesse Rogers (@JesseRogersESPN) December 17, 2020
Note that Theo Epstein didn’t necessarily decry the shift, specifically, but he was speaking about the need to pull back the reins on the three-true-outcome style of baseball (walk, strikeouts, homers, and nothing else). Limiting the shift is a part of that conversation.
Now for what Manfred said in October on the Dan Patrick Show:
“I think the competition committee is having conversations about a variety of rule changes and I know one that has received an extensive amount of attention is the shift. A lot of people feel that the extreme shifting that you’re talking about has changed the game in ways that are not positive and it remains a really hot topic in terms of conversation within that committee.”
So. The extreme shift. That’s what we’re talking about here.
A few years ago, Manfred raised the idea of limiting the shift, and boy did I hate that suggestion, mostly because I completely misunderstood what the change would really be aimed at accomplishing. It isn’t about killing the shift because the shift is gobbling up hits (who cares about that? that’s just smart baseball). It’s about killing the shift because it has played a role in transforming the pitcher-batter dynamic in ways that just flat-out don’t make for enjoyable baseball. I see that now.
Like I’ve said about any of the rules that are designed to alter the game in some way: I’m not categorically opposed to too many ideas, but you have to make sure you FIRST think about player INCENTIVES, and then work backwards from there to craft rules.
In this case, what we want to see is more action in the field. That’s really what all this is about – it’s not really about more scoring or fewer strikeouts or shorter counts or whatever (although those all might be byproducts, and you might find them desirable byproducts). It’s about more balls in play, because that means more defense, more base-running, more action. That, to me, is a very desirable goal for the sport going forward.
Accepting that, then you ask: does limiting shifts create the right INCENTIVES that will PRODUCE the desired outcome? In other words, the question doesn’t stop at whether limiting shifts creates more hits (it probably does). The question has to go to this: does limiting shifts change the way batters and pitchers behave?
My gut says that, because it makes balls in play slightly more likely to become hits, it could de-incentivize a batter’s desire to trade off strikeout risks for home runs (especially in two-strike counts). Right now, the best way to beat a shift is to hit the ball over it. Thus, limiting shifts could mean more balls in play. In turn, though, that could make strikeouts all the more desirable for pitchers, but I tend to think strikeouts are already heavily incentivized for pitchers, so I doubt there’s much change there.
So, for now, when I have this conversation with folks, I land on, sure, I’d be OK with limiting over-shifting. If the answer were as simple as “just hit it somewhere else,” the players would’ve killed the shift by now on their own. Instead, shifting becomes more and more pronounced, guys swing more and more for the fences, three-true-outcomes increase, and action on the field gets less and less. That isn’t going to change organically at this point, in my view, and a rule change is the way to go if you want to increase action on the field.
Of course, limiting the shift can accomplish only so much. It should be just one prong in a multi-pronged approach to increasing action on the field in the years ahead. If you want my unfiltered opinion on how you increase action on the field to a much greater degree, then you’ve gotta do more extreme stuff that I don’t think the sport is really ready to entertain: five balls for a walk, second home run in an inning ends the inning, etc. Teams and batters figured out that balls in play just aren’t valuable enough in the current setup to give away chances at dingers instead (especially when your whiffs might wind up netting you a walk over a long plate appearance anyway).
I’m not necessarily advocating for that whacky stuff just yet, but I am definitely advocating that we start by limiting the extreme shift, and then see what’s what over the next few years.
As for the actual rule, itself? Eh, propose what you like. Two defenders on each side of second base? Specific zones for each defender? Set number of defenders inside the outfield grass? I’m open to hearing thoughts on what would work best from a practical standpoint. For now, though, I just wanted to have the more abstract theoretical discussion.