General Baseball Chit-Chat Thread

[Cubswin11]

Moving the mound back certainly strikes me as less objectionable than banning shifts and all the other inane rule changes or proposals of the last couple of years.

The shift sucks too and should be banned, or at least curtailed. 3B/SS need to stay on 3B side of 2B, 2B/1B need to stay on 1B side of 2B and OF can’t come in past a point to avoid still doing a 3 infielder thing. It’s not that hard to legislate and would lead to more hits/action.

I hate not allowing shifts. Unrelated to the main reason that I hate banning the shift, heavy shifting should incentivize batters to just put the ball in play by altering their approach. That should also reduce true outcomes.

If it was that easy “to just put the ball in play” I think we’d see it more. It’s just not that easy. Some guy would go hit .380 if it was that easy to flip the ball the other way when 3 guys or on the other side of the IF.

 

And in my scenario you still could shift. It’s just with 2 infielders per side and not 3-4.

[JudasIscariotTheBird]

The shift sucks too and should be banned, or at least curtailed. 3B/SS need to stay on 3B side of 2B, 2B/1B need to stay on 1B side of 2B and OF can’t come in past a point to avoid still doing a 3 infielder thing. It’s not that hard to legislate and would lead to more hits/action.

I hate not allowing shifts. Unrelated to the main reason that I hate banning the shift, heavy shifting should incentivize batters to just put the ball in play by altering their approach. That should also reduce true outcomes.

If it was that easy “to just put the ball in play” I think we’d see it more. It’s just not that easy. Some guy would go hit .380 if it was that easy to flip the ball the other way when 3 guys or on the other side of the IF.

 

And in my scenario you still could shift. It’s just with 2 infielders per side and not 3-4.

I agree its easier said than done, but the shift certainly isn't causing more true outcomes, is my point. The players that get the shift applied on them are the hitters that are unlikely to alter their approach...and those are the hitters that tend to be the true-outcome-heavy batters. There are reasons to want to get rid of heavy shifts, but this aversion to true outcomes shouldn't be one of them.

[Bertz]

The shift sucks too and should be banned, or at least curtailed. 3B/SS need to stay on 3B side of 2B, 2B/1B need to stay on 1B side of 2B and OF can’t come in past a point to avoid still doing a 3 infielder thing. It’s not that hard to legislate and would lead to more hits/action.

I hate not allowing shifts. Unrelated to the main reason that I hate banning the shift, heavy shifting should incentivize batters to just put the ball in play by altering their approach. That should also reduce true outcomes.

If it was that easy “to just put the ball in play” I think we’d see it more. It’s just not that easy. Some guy would go hit .380 if it was that easy to flip the ball the other way when 3 guys or on the other side of the IF.

 

And in my scenario you still could shift. It’s just with 2 infielders per side and not 3-4.

 

Totally agree. My backing of banning the shift is VERY dependent on what it specifically looks like. Something subtle like 4 guys in the dirt or two guys on each side of the bag? Sounds good. Designated "zones" or something over-engineered like that? Horsfeathers off.

[Cubswin11]

I hate not allowing shifts. Unrelated to the main reason that I hate banning the shift, heavy shifting should incentivize batters to just put the ball in play by altering their approach. That should also reduce true outcomes.

If it was that easy “to just put the ball in play” I think we’d see it more. It’s just not that easy. Some guy would go hit .380 if it was that easy to flip the ball the other way when 3 guys or on the other side of the IF.

 

And in my scenario you still could shift. It’s just with 2 infielders per side and not 3-4.

I agree its easier said than done, but the shift certainly isn't causing more true outcomes, is my point. The players that get the shift applied on them are the hitters that are unlikely to alter their approach...and those are the hitters that tend to be the true-outcome-heavy batters. There are reasons to want to get rid of heavy shifts, but this aversion to true outcomes shouldn't be one of them.

It would lessen the 3 outcomes though. How many times have we seen Schwarbs and Rizzo hit in to some crazy shift on the right side? Certainly if teams weren’t allowed 3-4 infielders over there some of those ground balls and line drives go through for hits. That lessens the HR-BB-K outcomes.

[JudasIscariotTheBird]

If it was that easy “to just put the ball in play” I think we’d see it more. It’s just not that easy. Some guy would go hit .380 if it was that easy to flip the ball the other way when 3 guys or on the other side of the IF.

 

And in my scenario you still could shift. It’s just with 2 infielders per side and not 3-4.

I agree its easier said than done, but the shift certainly isn't causing more true outcomes, is my point. The players that get the shift applied on them are the hitters that are unlikely to alter their approach...and those are the hitters that tend to be the true-outcome-heavy batters. There are reasons to want to get rid of heavy shifts, but this aversion to true outcomes shouldn't be one of them.

It would lessen the 3 outcomes though. How many times have we seen Schwarbs and Rizzo hit in to some crazy shift on the right side? Certainly if teams weren’t allowed 3-4 infielders over there some of those ground balls and line drives go through for hits. That lessens the HR-BB-K outcomes.

...how? The alternative to a hit thought a normal shift is an out into a heavy shift. In both cases, the HR-BB-K totals remain the same.

[Bertz]

I agree its easier said than done, but the shift certainly isn't causing more true outcomes, is my point. The players that get the shift applied on them are the hitters that are unlikely to alter their approach...and those are the hitters that tend to be the true-outcome-heavy batters. There are reasons to want to get rid of heavy shifts, but this aversion to true outcomes shouldn't be one of them.

It would lessen the 3 outcomes though. How many times have we seen Schwarbs and Rizzo hit in to some crazy shift on the right side? Certainly if teams weren’t allowed 3-4 infielders over there some of those ground balls and line drives go through for hits. That lessens the HR-BB-K outcomes.

...how? The alternative to a hit thought a normal shift is an out into a heavy shift. In both cases, the HR-BB-K totals remain the same.

 

Incentives. More and more guys have responded to the shift with trying to hit OVER the shift. That's more uppercut swings, with more Ks, BBs, and dongs. Raise the value of a single, and you see more changed approaches. But unlike hitting it the other way, this is a change that guys have shown more ability to actually implement.

[Cubswin11]

I agree its easier said than done, but the shift certainly isn't causing more true outcomes, is my point. The players that get the shift applied on them are the hitters that are unlikely to alter their approach...and those are the hitters that tend to be the true-outcome-heavy batters. There are reasons to want to get rid of heavy shifts, but this aversion to true outcomes shouldn't be one of them.

It would lessen the 3 outcomes though. How many times have we seen Schwarbs and Rizzo hit in to some crazy shift on the right side? Certainly if teams weren’t allowed 3-4 infielders over there some of those ground balls and line drives go through for hits. That lessens the HR-BB-K outcomes.

...how? The alternative to a hit thought a normal shift is an out into a heavy shift. In both cases, the HR-BB-K totals remain the same.

No they wouldn’t. If you couldn’t put the 3B in short RF, and the 2B and SS on the right side of 2B a guy like Rizzo is surely going to end up with more hits since his approach is pull heavy (at least when he hits GB/LD) there’s fewer defenders over there to field the GB/LD.

[Cubswin11]

I agree its easier said than done, but the shift certainly isn't causing more true outcomes, is my point. The players that get the shift applied on them are the hitters that are unlikely to alter their approach...and those are the hitters that tend to be the true-outcome-heavy batters. There are reasons to want to get rid of heavy shifts, but this aversion to true outcomes shouldn't be one of them.

It would lessen the 3 outcomes though. How many times have we seen Schwarbs and Rizzo hit in to some crazy shift on the right side? Certainly if teams weren’t allowed 3-4 infielders over there some of those ground balls and line drives go through for hits. That lessens the HR-BB-K outcomes.

...how? The alternative to a hit thought a normal shift is an out into a heavy shift. In both cases, the HR-BB-K totals remain the same.

No they wouldn’t. If you couldn’t put the 3B in short RF with the 2B and SS also on the right side of 2B a guy like Rizzo is surely going to end up with more hits since his approach is pull heavy (at least when he hits GB/LD) there’s fewer defenders over there to field the GB/LD.

 

I don’t see the three true outcome guys overly changing their approach but if you’re going to make it that you can’t put as many fielders on the spots of the field they hit it to the most it certainly will lead to more non-HR hits and thus more “action” which is what they seem to ultimately want here.

[squally1313]

It would lessen the 3 outcomes though. How many times have we seen Schwarbs and Rizzo hit in to some crazy shift on the right side? Certainly if teams weren’t allowed 3-4 infielders over there some of those ground balls and line drives go through for hits. That lessens the HR-BB-K outcomes.

...how? The alternative to a hit thought a normal shift is an out into a heavy shift. In both cases, the HR-BB-K totals remain the same.

No they wouldn’t. If you couldn’t put the 3B in short RF with the 2B and SS also on the right side of 2B a guy like Rizzo is surely going to end up with more hits since his approach is pull heavy (at least when he hits GB/LD) there’s fewer defenders over there to field the GB/LD.

 

I think you might be getting lost on the terminology a little bit. And Bertz is probably making the point you're trying to make. Whether Rizzo grounds out to short right or gets a single, he still isn't getting one of the Three True Outcomes (BB/K/Home Run). It's still just a number in the denominator of 'other plays' (the things theoretically all of us want). As Bertz mentioned, there's definitely an argument it leads to a different approach at the plate that leads to more TTO results. But once the ball is in play and not out of the park, there's no way for it to result in a TTO.

[Cubswin11]

...how? The alternative to a hit thought a normal shift is an out into a heavy shift. In both cases, the HR-BB-K totals remain the same.

No they wouldn’t. If you couldn’t put the 3B in short RF with the 2B and SS also on the right side of 2B a guy like Rizzo is surely going to end up with more hits since his approach is pull heavy (at least when he hits GB/LD) there’s fewer defenders over there to field the GB/LD.

 

I think you might be getting lost on the terminology a little bit. And Bertz is probably making the point you're trying to make. Whether Rizzo grounds out to short right or gets a single, he still isn't getting one of the Three True Outcomes (BB/K/Home Run). It's still just a number in the denominator of 'other plays' (the things theoretically all of us want). As Bertz mentioned, there's definitely an argument it leads to a different approach at the plate that leads to more TTO results. But once the ball is in play and not out of the park, there's no way for it to result in a TTO.

I thought that was the point I was making, banning/limiting shifts likely leads to more balls in play that find holes and go for hits giving us the ideal outcome of a non TTO result (a hit vs a GB/LD out in to shifts). They want ways to get more action and base runners, doing this with the shift would lead to that imo.

[Sammy Sofa]

The shift is fine, and only seems terrible because the Cubs are the biggest mark-ass shift suckers around.

[Cubswin11]

The shift is fine, and only seems terrible because the Cubs are the biggest mark-ass shift suckers around.

It’s a league wide thing. Fewer balls in play/batting averages falling over the last few years certainly is due to the TTO approach and pitchers having better stuff but it also correlates to the shift being used more than ever.

[Sammy Sofa]

Doesn't bother me. I feel like it's kind of the ultimate kick to the dick to Theo and co.'s terrible offensive approach, which is what I yearn for at all times now as I slowly and uselessly creep towards death.

[squally1313]

No they wouldn’t. If you couldn’t put the 3B in short RF with the 2B and SS also on the right side of 2B a guy like Rizzo is surely going to end up with more hits since his approach is pull heavy (at least when he hits GB/LD) there’s fewer defenders over there to field the GB/LD.

 

I think you might be getting lost on the terminology a little bit. And Bertz is probably making the point you're trying to make. Whether Rizzo grounds out to short right or gets a single, he still isn't getting one of the Three True Outcomes (BB/K/Home Run). It's still just a number in the denominator of 'other plays' (the things theoretically all of us want). As Bertz mentioned, there's definitely an argument it leads to a different approach at the plate that leads to more TTO results. But once the ball is in play and not out of the park, there's no way for it to result in a TTO.

I thought that was the point I was making, banning/limiting shifts likely leads to more balls in play that find holes and go for hits giving us the ideal outcome of a non TTO result (a hit vs a GB/LD out in to shifts). They want ways to get more action and base runners, doing this with the shift would lead to that imo.

The lowest BABIP league wide, between 2000 and 2019 was 2002 at .293, and the highest was 2007 at .303. Now, 2020 was .292 and 2021 so far is .287, but at most we're talking about one in a hundred balls in play going for an out vs a hit in an era where a third of your outs are coming via strikeout.

[JudasIscariotTheBird]

It would lessen the 3 outcomes though. How many times have we seen Schwarbs and Rizzo hit in to some crazy shift on the right side? Certainly if teams weren’t allowed 3-4 infielders over there some of those ground balls and line drives go through for hits. That lessens the HR-BB-K outcomes.

...how? The alternative to a hit thought a normal shift is an out into a heavy shift. In both cases, the HR-BB-K totals remain the same.

 

Incentives. More and more guys have responded to the shift with trying to hit OVER the shift. That's more uppercut swings, with more Ks, BBs, and dongs. Raise the value of a single, and you see more changed approaches. But unlike hitting it the other way, this is a change that guys have shown more ability to actually implement.

I mean, that makes sense, but I'm not convinced that the uppercut change versus opposite field change is based on an ABILITY to impliment as opposed to a WILLINGNESS to impliment.

 

And what were you hinting at with the "raise the value of a single" comment. I wasn't sure what you were referring to.

 

EDIT: I'd also argue that shifting is a responce to the launch angle revolution, and not the cause of it.

[Bertz]

...how? The alternative to a hit thought a normal shift is an out into a heavy shift. In both cases, the HR-BB-K totals remain the same.

 

Incentives. More and more guys have responded to the shift with trying to hit OVER the shift. That's more uppercut swings, with more Ks, BBs, and dongs. Raise the value of a single, and you see more changed approaches. But unlike hitting it the other way, this is a change that guys have shown more ability to actually implement.

I mean, that makes sense, but I'm not convinced that the uppercut change versus opposite field change is based on an ABILITY to impliment as opposed to a WILLINGNESS to impliment.

 

And what were you hinting at with the "raise the value of a single" comment. I wasn't sure what you were referring to.

 

I would think you're right, but like CW11 said if it was doable we'd probably have seen some guys do it by now, right? We have seen lots of guys raise/lower their launch angle, but not many fix their susceptibility to the shift. Maybe that's because velocities are so damn high, and so moving the mound back solves this issue too?

 

I missed a few words there, I meant raise the value of a "would-be single." So like if a 100 MPH ground ball to the right side becomes twice as likely to become a hit, that is likely enough incentive to change behavior.

[NonProfitCow]

Getting rid of the shift only means there will be more singles to right.

[NonProfitCow]

[cl smooth]

[Derwood]

Boston through 12 games: 72 runs

Cubs through 12 games: 32 runs

 

cool cool cool

[stitchface]

Boston through 12 games: 72 runs

Cubs through 12 games: 32 runs

 

cool cool cool

 

 

they have a DH

[jersey cubs fan]

Boston through 12 games: 72 runs

Cubs through 12 games: 32 runs

 

cool cool cool

 

 

they have a DH

The Cubs have a DH*

 

*DickHead**

 

**Eric Sogard

[stitchface]

Boston through 12 games: 72 runs

Cubs through 12 games: 32 runs

 

cool cool cool

 

 

they have a DH

The Cubs have a DH*

 

*DickHead**

 

**Eric Sogard

 

just remembered why I'm not watching games this year

[soccer10k]

Cubs have scored 32 runs in 12 games. The only teams with fewer runs are the Nationals (31) and the Mets (29) but they've only played 9 and 8 games, respectively.

[Bryants Disco Ball]

Has Rizzo been moved to leadoff yet?