Cubs and Shifting

[David]

I remember there was some talk that the Cubs weren't shifting that much last year, which was sorta weird, given Maddon was big on it and we have such a data driven front office (also Sveum was doing it a lot).

 

Thought this was interesting...the data here (flawed in terms of sample, for sure) shows that, while the Pirates shifted over twice as much as the Cubs last year, the Cubs only saved one fewer run as a result of shifting last season.

 

http://wrigleyville.locals.baseballprospectus.com/2016/02/04/some-notes-on-the-cubs-use-of-infield-shifts/

 

Shift Runs Saved (SRS), a measure of team shift effectiveness, can be used to estimate this impact, charted in the table above. Over the last two seasons, the Cubs have shifted a total of 698 times, saving 13 runs. On the other hand, the Pirates have shifted 1,631 times, saving just 14 runs. It’s not difficult to see that the Cubs were much more efficient in their shifting in this time period, saving an extra run on every hundred shifts compared to the Pirates. Is this conclusive evidence that the Cubs are just better at shifting? Not necessarily, but the sheer disparity between each team’s shift efficiency is hard to ignore. Even park-adjusted defensive efficiency, which measures how many balls in play a team converts into outs, points to the Cubs as a much more sure-handed team than the Pirates in the last two seasons. While this isn’t definitive evidence, it seems likely that whatever internal models and metrics are used within the Cubs front office to optimize shift strategy have been more successful at targeting the right batters.

 

Again, not hard evidence, but the obvious implication would be that we may be better at picking our spots for shifts and that we MIGHT, therefore, be saving runs more often by not shifting in other spots, too, which is pretty cool to think about.

[Aaron_Kennelly]

I remember there was some talk that the Cubs weren't shifting that much last year, which was sorta weird, given Maddon was big on it and we have such a data driven front office (also Sveum was doing it a lot).

 

Thought this was interesting...the data here (flawed in terms of sample, for sure) shows that, while the Pirates shifted over twice as much as the Cubs last year, the Cubs only saved one fewer run as a result of shifting last season.

 

http://wrigleyville.locals.baseballprospectus.com/2016/02/04/some-notes-on-the-cubs-use-of-infield-shifts/

 

Shift Runs Saved (SRS), a measure of team shift effectiveness, can be used to estimate this impact, charted in the table above. Over the last two seasons, the Cubs have shifted a total of 698 times, saving 13 runs. On the other hand, the Pirates have shifted 1,631 times, saving just 14 runs. It’s not difficult to see that the Cubs were much more efficient in their shifting in this time period, saving an extra run on every hundred shifts compared to the Pirates. Is this conclusive evidence that the Cubs are just better at shifting? Not necessarily, but the sheer disparity between each team’s shift efficiency is hard to ignore. Even park-adjusted defensive efficiency, which measures how many balls in play a team converts into outs, points to the Cubs as a much more sure-handed team than the Pirates in the last two seasons. While this isn’t definitive evidence, it seems likely that whatever internal models and metrics are used within the Cubs front office to optimize shift strategy have been more successful at targeting the right batters.

 

Again, not hard evidence, but the obvious implication would be that we may be better at picking our spots for shifts and that we MIGHT, therefore, be saving runs more often by not shifting in other spots, too, which is pretty cool to think about.

 

Interesting article; thanks for sharing. I'm hesitant to take anything from it, because, as you said, there is no hard evidence. But, it sure would be pretty awesome if we were doing a better job at identifying when to shift.