Article: MLB Has No Plans For Killing The Shift

[Parker Hageman]

On Thursday against the Red Sox, Minnesota Twins’ third baseman Trevor Plouffe was station on the right side of second base. This is certainly a not uncommon alignment to use against David Ortiz but also becoming increasingly common in an era that has seen a massive proliferation in the use of the strategy overall.

 

The Twins were late adaptors but they have almost gone all-in on the defense, deploying the shift more liberally with most of the credit given to now-manager Paul Molitor. The organization went from 66 shifts in 2013 to over 500 instances in 2014. Like seeing someone take a selfie, baseball’s defensive shifts went from being a weird practice to commonplace.There is precedent to embrace the shift. For example, according to Baseball Info Solutions, shifting has been rewarding to the teams who move their players around the most, those having “saved” an average of 8 runs per season or a rough translation of about one win per season. Data-driven teams saw this edge and were aggressive in placing their players in a position to maximize their odds of converting a batted ball into an out. However at the beginning of the year new commissioner Rob Manfred seemingly placed the shift on the endangered species list.

 

Would he really kill the shift?

 

In his tour around spring training facilities, the commissioner made a whistle-stop at the Lee County Sports Complex camp to discuss the state of Major League Baseball and the game’s future with the team’s ownership as well as providing face time with the players.

 

Manfred fielded questions from the media that ranged from the early feedback on the new pace-of-game initiatives (“really been positive”) to a childhood memory of a Twins-Yankees series in 1968 (“everybody remembers the first time they went to a major league game”) to Scott Boras’ comments about the Cubs’ decision to send client Kris Bryant to the minors (“that really isn’t any of Scott Boras’ business”). When prompted to elaborate his stance regarding banning defensive shifts, Manfred had to laugh.

 

“I’m so tired of this topic,” Manfred told the media scrum with a chuckle and then humored the internet writer with an explanation behind the charge he made on ESPN in January that a ban on defensive shifts was under consideration by his office.

 

“My comment on defensive shifts came after a series of questions so without repeating them all, we are looking at the issue of offense in the game. We wouldn’t be doing our jobs if we’re not because there is a lot of conversation in the game about the fact that offense is down. Where we are on that issue analytically is we haven’t even decided whether we have an aberration or a trend that may require a remedy. I went through all that before I got to defensive shifts. As a follow, somebody said ‘If and when you decide you have a problem what might you talk about, what might you be willing to consider?’ In that context I mentioned defensive shifts. Nothing more serious than that.”

 

There is no grand plan to build a fence between short and second or tethering the third baseman to the base. What Manfred made clear is that there is no imminent danger to the shift lifestyle and that all the blowback has him reconsidering that option.

 

“Frankly, given the feedback that I’ve gotten since I made that comment I’m not even certain that I would even consider it anymore.”

 

So defensive enthusiasts can rest easy knowing that there will be no restrictions placed on fielders in the foreseeable future. The Twins can continue to rearrange their infielders as they see fit to try to minimize the damage from their pitching staff.

 

Click here to view the article

[ashbury]

At least Manfred didn't call the internet writer a p-word or anything.

[twinsfaninsaudi]

Probably time enough to get over Torri's press conference.

[ashbury]

 

Probably time enough to get over Torri's press conference.

You're being kind of a... nah, you're right.

[USAFChief]

I agree with everything Manfred said in this article.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

"... there is a lot of conversation in the game about the fact that offense is down... we haven’t even decided whether we have an aberration or a trend that may require a remedy."

 

Is the commissioner familiar with the steroid era?

 

Perhaps batting averages are below their historical pre-1990s averages (.260 or so), but I don't know if offense overall is down. His top issue should be replay reform I would think?

[Seth Stohs]

I can't imagine that any real time or energy was given to this idea. I enjoyed listening to his reaction to your question, Parker.

[Parker Hageman]

I can't imagine that any real time or energy was given to this idea. I enjoyed listening to his reaction to your question, Parker.

 

 

That's clearly what happened. As he explained, in the ESPN interview he rattled off eliminating defensive shifts as a possibility to solve for offensive struggles but there was no research or in-depth study was performed on either the offensive struggles or the effects of defensive shifts. Created quite a tizzy. 

 

[jimmer]

 

Is the commissioner familiar with the steroid era?

Perhaps batting averages are below their historical pre-1990s averages (.260 or so), but I don't know if offense overall is down. His top issue should be replay reform I would think?

It's not just the leaving of the steroid era.  The strike zone that the umpires call has grown steadily larger over the last 5 years.  That helps the pitchers greatly.

Edited March 29, 2015 by jimmer

[biggentleben]

 

It's not just the leaving of the steroid era.  The strike zone that the umpires call has grown steadily larger over the last 5 years.  That helps the pitchers greatly.

 

Up and down, absolutely, but side to side, not so much.  Now you can have one game anomalies, but the zone umpires are graded on when they're reviewed has gotten taller (by expanding up and down, not just one direction) and leaner in the last decade.  Heck, Maddux and Glavine joked with Smoltz at their HOF induction about how with the current strike zone, he'd have been the much better pitcher because of his ability to pitch above the belt.

[jimmer]

 

Up and down, absolutely, but side to side, not so much.  Now you can have one game anomalies, but the zone umpires are graded on when they're reviewed has gotten taller (by expanding up and down, not just one direction) and leaner in the last decade.  Heck, Maddux and Glavine joked with Smoltz at their HOF induction about how with the current strike zone, he'd have been the much better pitcher because of his ability to pitch above the belt.

The point was, with the strike zone being called larger and larger, it gives the pitchers a larger area in which to do their work.  It hurts the offense.

[biggentleben]

 

The point was, with the strike zone being called larger and larger, it gives the pitchers a larger area in which to do their work.  It hurts the offense.

 

It all depends on your perspective.  Frank Thomas overheard that conversation with Smoltz and the other Braves starters, and when he sat down with Smoltz, he talked about how if the zone was taller while he played, his home run number would have had a 6 in front of it because he loved when a guy attempted to go up the ladder.  He also talked about how Tony Gwynn would have been a multiple time .400 hitter with a more narrow zone and added high zone.  I think one major issue that has been missed recently is how much the swing and miss hitter has really made pitchers better.  Baseball's growing acceptance of the strikeout has certainly allowed for a lot more pitching success.

 

Imagine the context - runner on second, bottom of the ninth, tie score.

 

Dennis Eckersly facing one of the top ten hitters of the early- to mid-90s.  Eck could reach back for everything he has, and he would have one hitter with a 15+% strikeout rate - Shane Mack, oddly enough, who is #10 in batting average from 1990-1994 among qualified hitters.  One other hitter is above 13%, and four guys had higher walk rates than strikeout rates.

 

Craig Kimbrell or Aroldis Chapman facing hitters 20 years later.  One guy has over a 20% strikeout rate, 3 are over 15%, and 7 are above 13%.  The only guy who walks more than he strikes out is Victor Martinez, and it's by 0.1%.

 

I'd put the odds at at least twice as high that the pitcher would be able to strike out a top ten hitter in that situation currently as 20 years ago, and I think a big part of it has nothing to do with an expanded strike zone - it's hitters swinging and missing a LOT more.

[jimmer]

You got to ask yourself WHY they are swinging more.

 

Baseball has studied this and they are looking into adjusting (shortening) the strike zone because they believe it has affected offense.

 

'Since 2009, the average size of the called strike zone has jumped from 435 square inches to 475 square inches, according to Roegele’s research. The results: Pitchers are throwing more in the lower part of the zone, and hitters are swinging at an increased rate, knowing the tough-to-drive pitches will be called strikes.'

 

'This was always the most simple and logical solution to increasing offense, so it’s encouraging to hear that MLB is at least looking into it. And good on folks like Jon Roegele and Brian Mills for putting the numbers out there for everyone to see. See, analytics aren’t so bad.'

 

http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/02/12/report-mlb-could-change-strike-zone-to-boost-offense/comment-page-1/

 

'Roegele’s study estimated 31 percent of the offensive drought could be attributed to the strike zone while Mills estimated it’s between 24 percent and 41 percent. After seeing a strong correlation among the size of the strike zone, all-time-high strikeout rates and historically low walk rates, members of the committee now are fairly certain the relationship is causative, too, and seem primed to do something about it.'

 

'Most agreed that raising the strike zone almost certainly would spark offense. The potential issue: More offense equals longer games, and with pace of play one of new commissioner Rob Manfred’s priorities, balancing the two remains a difficult proposition.'

 

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/sources--mlb-could-alter-strike-zone-as-response-to-declining-offense-232940947.html

Edited March 29, 2015 by jimmer

[biggentleben]

So then where does the fact that one out of the top ten list of the last 5 years had a walk rate above 11%, and only one in the group 20 years ago sported the same thing?

 

Pitches per at bat are significantly down, strikeouts are up, while swinging strikes out of the zone were up in 2014 and 2013 after coming down briefly in 2012 on a league-wide basis. Players are sitting back for the best pitch of the at bat anymore instead of going after the first good pitch they see.  That's not an incorrect approach at its base, but it does often lead to more strikeouts when a batter gets two strikes in on pitches that weren't right for him and all of the sudden needs to protect the zone rather than search for a good pitch.

[diehardtwinsfan]

Not sure they are widening it as much as calling it by the rules. During the offensive explosion, they made it much smaller, which in my opinion is ridiculous. Personally, I wanted an automated zone. That could solve a lot of those types of issues in general.