- This topic has 875 replies, 44 voices, and was last updated 3 years, 4 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Well, I disagree, Willie. In fact, it’s been used for a little over 100 years, but really didn’t come into prominence until the 40’s. However, I entirely agree that it’s become very fashionable in the last 10 years or so. My belief is that’s only the case because teams don’t place enough focus on simply countering with a simple strategy to defeat it. If they would have, I believe it would have quickly fell out of fashion.
I hear you Willie and understand your view. I think if the purpose is to stop the other team from scoring then you should be able to put you defense where you think it will be more effective. It will be the goal of the offense to counter attack that. I want my offense to make the shift less effective.
I don’t think the slight changes to the bases will make any difference one way or another, but if the big bosses really wanted to mandate a rule that would genuinely contribute not only to player safety but also to fair play, they’d outlaw these special camo uniforms. It’s not only in the best interest of avoiding collisions in the OF, but it ain’t fair to the other team to not be able to see these guys…
Well Itough, I never saw it in the 7, 80, or 90, I can’t vouch for before since wasn’t watching. I have watched a lot of old games on replay though and never saw it so I would be interested in information otherwise. I’m not talking about moving a guy three feet left or right, or an outfielder in, I’m talking about totally vacating a position. As far as offenses countering it,other than bunting when the third baseman isn’t there, I don’t think they can effectively do it. Against what would be considered below average speed nowadays, they might be able to but against 95 or better, I’m not seeing it. Guys of yesteryear couldn’t routinely do it either but like I said, those guys didn’t have to face the shift either.
Well, it wasn’t as common, Willie, but I’ve seen it used against both Jack Clark and Darryl Porter. There were many others from other teams, but those are the first two players that come to mind.
Haha!…Ain’t the internet great? A direct quote from a UPI article dated August 25, 1987…”Ozzie Smith blooped a double to right to lead off the 5th and Jack Clark, batting against a shift that had 3 fielders on the left side, lined a double into the left field corner for his 100th RBI.” I’m reasonably sure I either watched or listened to that Cardinal game as I almost never missed one.
We know the hard core analytics teams are furiously developing an algo and data set to tell them when to shift an outfielder into the position that the shifted infielder has been occupying back on the grass. Calculate the outcomes probability distribution for each batter in various game situations. We will certainly see PAs with no left fielder and an outfielder back on the grass between 1st and 2nd. It will be interesting to see which teams do what and when, and how things evolve as the season goes along. I wonder if/how they can feed the positioning info based on current game situation to the manager in real time.
I’m guessing that most of those PA’s will be in extras after the make believe runner has been pushed over to 3B with 1 out. Should be quite a few.
Well finding me some isolated instances doesn’t change my thoughts. I already knew it has happened occasionally. Like taking a outfielder and putting them there. Big difference between that and it basically being routine on every hitter.
Yeah, it certainly got to be a routine thing, Willie. I’m not entirely sure that it would have if routine steps were taken to mitigate it’s use. I’ll use an example of the SB, which at one time was relatively routine until teams began placing a lot more emphasis on checking on the baserunner and speeding up delivery times to HP. As a result, it didn’t take too very long to not only reduce the number of SB’s, but to also decrease the pct. of successful attempts. Pretty soon, the SB fell out of fashion.
My personal view is that just so long as the original rule applies equally to everyone involved, that the rule shouldn’t be changed simply because a strategy or tactic seems to be too successful. I always thought that lowering the mound was a sudden attempt to swing an advantage towards the hitter. Why is that deemed fair? If your average hitter from the left side all of a sudden begins to routinely be timed to 1B in under 4 seconds, do they increase the distance by a couple of ft. to put him at a disadvantage like they did to pitchers? Or how about this…A guy gets rich by selling pancakes on Sunday morning and all of a sudden the Govt. mandates you can only sell them on weekdays? Guy can’t catch a break with all these regulatory changes…
Well I’m the last person that wants to change the game. I don’t think they should have lowered the mound. But as far as this rule, I don’t think it is a change, I think it’s a way of getting back to what once was. If they had thought that players should be spread anywhere,they wouldn’t have given them specific position names, just have the names of the players. In fact, you could just move the guy from behind the plate to another spot in the field. The umpire would stop most of the baseballs, the pitcher would just have to run and get the ball real fast if it wasn’t hit.
Well, maybe they’ll one day mandate that a pitcher can’t cover 1B on a GB hit to right side because he’s way out of position. And what about a catcher backing up 1B on a bases empty GB or a GIDP?
Difference with those is the player started out in their positions and only did those things out of necessity much like when NBA still had positions and a forward may have to guard a center because of a switch.
Regarding outlawing the infield shift:
Did they just essentially say that the SS and 2B have to stay on their respective ‘sides’ of second base or is it more restrictive than that?
A typical shift against a lh batter would have the 3B at SS and then the SS, 2B, and 1B evenly spaced between second base and first base.
How much different will the new rule really be? Can the SS play just ‘his side’ (one step) off second base bag with 3B way off the line and 2B moved towards 1B?
Lots of difference between putting an extra player in a normal hole than moving guys a couple steps over. The one totally vacates an established position on the field.
I have no problem with banning the infield shift. If Abner Doubleday had wanted five guys to the right of second base he would have put them there.
So goes Flaherty…. so go the Cardinals.
Pretty much no matter what happens in spring training…. Matz will be in the rotation. Cads like to get the most out of players with large contracts. And he’ll get plenty of leash.I’m sure glad the team didn’t spend on another Outfielder.
The $$ should be saved for a close to premier starter. Almost every story about the ’23 Cards states that the rotation will be their Achilles heal. We know it and the FO knows it.
I still think mandating where to position players is wrong. As a matter of strategy the manager should dictate the defense alignment that prevents scoring.
If the bosses are going to mandate anything concerning the positioning of the IF’ers, it should be that none of them are permitted to be positioned in on the grass with the bases jammed, 1 out, and a 1 run lead in the visitor half of the 9th…
Somewhere there is a better thread for this. Basically, I’ve been saying it the whole time, against very confident push back. From today’s article on stltoday
By tracing the executives who led the Astros back to their baseball beginnings with the Cardinals, Drellich also offers revelations and confirmations on the hacking scandal that binds the two teams and gets confirmation from Astros’ employees of proprietary Cardinals’ information that they used internally, right down to the randomly generated ID tags for players.
Who said they believed that Luhnow’s gang did not take intellectual property with them? I don’t know how anyone could SUSPECT not. It didn’t have to be papers or programs. It could be what was in their heads. After all, the same people developed the systems while Cardinals employees.
However, trying to PROVE it and seek penalties would be a whole different matter that would have been very, very messy for MLB, which is probably why BDW Jr. said he did not want to pursue it.
That doesn’t acquit Chris Correa for becoming a self-motivated vigilante, who decided revenge was the best response.
From court testimony on January 8, 2016.
Under oath, Correa states he told “colleagues” with the Cardinals that he had found Cardinals information in the Astros’ system. No specific time frame is mentioned. Outside of court, Astros attorney Giles Kibbe makes a similar statement, saying that Correa had reported his findings to the Cardinals, who chose not to pursue the matter. That other Cardinals employees had been told by Correa that he believed Cardinals information was being used by the Astros is later corroborated by DeWitt Jr. in a radio interview in January 2017. These “colleagues” were never identified publicly and no one (other than Correa) on either club was charged with any crime.
For those who want to go back and revisit the whole story, I have documented it extensively here.
The Comprehensive Cardinals Correa Chronicle on Houston Hacking
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.