Beating the Shift

[Trov]

I just saw a great play by Rizzo from the other night.  He bunted a pitch that was up third for an easy single.  It was a terrible "bunt" if you were trying to sacrifice or bunt for a hit outside the shift.  It was actually landed fair in the air past third base.  Meaning in a traditional defense he would have been very easy pop out.  However, with the shift no one had a chance to get it.  

I personally do not know why more left hand hitters in particular do not practice to bunt against the shift.  It is not like you need to have the perfect bunt down the line and beat anything out.  You need to bunt it hard past the pitcher anywhere within 10 feet of the third base line.  Assuming the one fielder on that side is playing well off and deep.  Sometimes teams will play that guy in and closer to the line to help prevent some of these bunts.  

However, I have seen Kepler many times come up with no one near third base.  I do not know why he has not worked on just bunting past the pitcher toward third.  You do not need to be great at it, just get it past them.  Even when pitch is up and in, if you know what you are doing you can bunt it in that direction.  I know they do not practice this often anymore, but I think every lefty should work on this.  I would even say do it with 2 strikes some times. Again, you do not need to make it perfect down the line, you can plan to try to have it be fair by 10 feet, if it is hard enough past the pitcher no way do they throw you out.

Now this is very game specific situations.  2 outs never do it, unless you know you will steal second.  Down 1 run and power hit, do not do it.  But there is plenty of times to do it, and we never do. 

[Trov]

Forgot to share link. 

 

[Byrdman]

I don't care if you hit 90 HRs a year.  If they are sifted this much.  Bunt that ball and get on base.  Eventually they will adjust the shift on the batter.  I only helps the batter in every way possible.  More people on base equals more possible runs scored. I love a good bunt for a base hit,

[Otto von Ballpark]

I wonder if we are overrating the potential success rate? I mean, pitchers are still throwing very hard, with movement. You'll get some bunts down, but others you will miss or hit foul and just waste the pitch, or pop up to the pitcher or catcher, or not hit it far enough away from the pitcher or catcher.

For example, Rizzo here -- was it some level of bunting skill that allowed him to hit it there? It seems more like a stroke of luck to me -- he stopped at home plate to watch it.

[baul0010]

4 minutes ago, Otto von Ballpark said:

I wonder if we are overrating the potential success rate? I mean, pitchers are still throwing very hard, with movement. You'll get some bunts down, but others you will miss or hit foul and just waste the pitch, or pop up to the pitcher or catcher, or not hit it far enough away from the pitcher or catcher.

For example, Rizzo here -- was it some level of bunting skill that allowed him to hit it there? It seems more like a stroke of luck to me -- he stopped at home plate to watch it.

I would think bunting for someone with the skill level of an MLB player could be accomplished with a little practice.  It sounds like bunting is now thought of as an afterthought. 

With the progression of analytics, I am surprised that there is not more talked about bunting when an extreme shift is in place.  

[Brock Beauchamp]

I agree the bunt should be a tool more often utilized against the shift but people drastically underrate just how damned hard it is to hit a 92mph slider.

Still, given Max's speed and athleticism, he should spend an entire offseason practicing how to bunt against the shift, even if he only uses it a few times a season.

But ultimately, I'd just rather see the shift banned because it brings so little to the game and certainly doesn't make it more fun to watch. Baseball has enough working against it right now, it's time to start removing the least spectator-friendly elements that can be removed. We can't stop batters from refusing to swing or pursuing three true outcomes but we can make pitchers throw with more frequency and fielders to stand in certain places on the field so let's start there.

And before anyone comes in and says "you can't ban the shift, it's un-basebally" or whatever, I will simply respond with:

Baseball is a spectator sport, meant to entertain. If, after a play, you have said "that was an awesome shift" even once in your life, feel free to argue with me about banning that defensive alignment. If you, like every other human being on the planet, have never uttered that sentence, don't choose this hill to die on.

[Doctor Gast]

Love it ! That's what baseball is all about, adjusting. That's what the Twins needs to encourage and train especially lefties that the defenses focuses on (Kepler). IMO Banning the shift is a cop out.

[In My La Z boy]

Freddie Freeman put on a clinic in how to beat the shift. I have been waiting for Kepler to make the adjustment for 3 years. He somehow cannot do it. Grip it and rip it to right nearly every time. Why wouldn't you shift on him? 

[chpettit19]

Kepler was up the other night with guys on 2nd and 3rd and 2 outs and they went extreme shift on him (maybe just after he had 2 strikes?) and I was begging for him to just lay 1 down anywhere on the left side to score possibly 2 runs on an infield bunt, but certainly score 1 run. But he grounded into the shift instead. End of inning. 

But I'm on board with banning the shift. It's the missiles up the middle that get caught that actually frustrate me the most so I'm actually coming to terms with the idea of having specific areas infielders can stand. Celestino hit one about 105 off the bat right past the pitcher's head the other day and the 2nd baseman was just standing there for an easy 3rd out. Going back up the middle is how hitters are taught to do things from the second they pick up a bat.

As @Brock Beauchamp says, it's a spectator sport. On TV I don't know where the fielders are playing so when the ball comes off the bat and is a scorcher back up the middle (someone hit one right past Kershaw the other day, too that was a groundout but should've been a hit) I am excited for that split second because for the first 30+ years of my life that was a single, but then the camera flips and a guy is standing there for an easy out. Pitchers are getting too good. Throwing too hard with too much movement. Hitters could maybe adjust over time, but it's by no means as easy as some make it sound to "just go the other way" on the ground.

Put the infielders back where they "belong" and get back to the game that we all grew up playing. The game looks far too different than the ones kids play on little league fields everywhere. The kids know the ball back up the middle should be a hit, but then they're disappointed that a ball that's a hit at any other level is now an out. Hard to build new, young fans when they don't even know what to be cheering for. Weak grounder the other way? My coach has never taught me to do that so why is my favorite player doing that? And no kid wants to tune in to watch their favorite lefty hitters lay down bunts or hit a liner into short right that's caught by the "second baseman" playing rover in right. I'm fully on board with banning the shift. Put the infielders back where they belong.

[Brock Beauchamp]

3 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

On TV I don't know where the fielders are playing so when the ball comes off the bat and is a scorcher back up the middle (someone hit one right past Kershaw the other day, too that was a groundout but should've been a hit) I am excited for that split second because for the first 30+ years of my life that was a single, but then the camera flips and a guy is standing there for an easy out.

Hey, I finally found another person who gets it. This is 90% of why I believe the shift should be banned. It's a terrible aesthetic on television for exactly the reasons you just pointed out. Someone will absolutely smash a ball either up the middle or between first and second, only to be revealed that - SURPRISE - a fielder is standing in its path. It takes a half second of excitement and turns it into literally the most boring play imaginable.

So just get rid of it. Why are people married to something as utterly, completely boring as the shift? If something makes the game worse and eliminating it really doesn't matter because no one enjoys it, GET RID OF IT. Why is this so controversial?

I understand pushback on drastically changing the game by moving or changing the mound but baseball fans need to get the **** over themselves already. Stop protesting any change and constantly hiding behind "tradition". Baseball is really bad right now, it's time to start making it better. Don't stand in the way of that happening or your sport is going to become an afterthought, if it isn't already.

[Otto von Ballpark]

27 minutes ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

But ultimately, I'd just rather see the shift banned because it brings so little to the game and certainly doesn't make it more fun to watch. Baseball has enough working against it right now, it's time to start removing the least spectator-friendly elements that can be removed. We can't stop batters from refusing to swing or pursuing three true outcomes but we can make pitchers throw with more frequency and fielders to stand in certain places on the field so let's start there.

I get this, but I'd stagger these changes.

Pitch clock should come first. Dawdling between pitches has no real strategic motivation, it's just pulling the pace of the modern pro game out of line with the established standards of the sport.

Shifting on the other hand, as well as a "three true outcomes" approach, both have some basis in strategy. And as much as we complain about them, I think we're all able to tolerate them. Maybe their presence will be even more tolerable in a faster paced game?

In fact, I'd also vote to implement an automated strike zone too, before trying to regulate the shift. It's inevitable, and depending on how its implementation affects the batter/pitcher confrontation, it could naturally affect strategies such as "three true outcomes" and shifting.

[Brock Beauchamp]

2 minutes ago, Otto von Ballpark said:

I get this, but I'd stagger these changes.

Pitch clock should come first. Dawdling between pitches has no real strategic motivation, it's just pulling the pace of the modern pro game out of line with the established standards of the sport.

Shifting on the other hand, as well as a "three true outcomes" approach, both have some basis in strategy. And as much as we complain about them, I think we're all able to tolerate them. Maybe their presence will be even more tolerable in a faster paced game?

In fact, I'd also vote to implement an automated strike zone too, before trying to regulate the shift. It's inevitable, and depending on how its implementation affects the batter/pitcher confrontation, it could naturally affect strategies such as "three true outcomes" and shifting.

And that's fair. I think we can all agree that the pitch clock is a far more pressing issue.

[Brock Beauchamp]

One aspect about the shift too few people talk about is what it has done to second base. Second base used to be populated by athletic not-shortstop-arms like Jorge Polanco. In the past, Polanco would have been an elite second baseman because he's both a capable fielder and has a potent bat.

Today? The position is manned by garbage fielders with big bats because defense barely matters there anymore. Why use an athletic guy with a weak bat when he spends 50% of his time standing in short right field, just waiting for a ball to be hit to him?

Get rid of the ****ing shift already. It's bad for the game and baseball already has too many bad things about it. The toothpaste is never going to be put back into the tube so just ban the practice if it makes the sport worse, and the shift definitely makes baseball worse.

[4twinsJA]

To me, it is up to the batters to make the adjustment. I have never understood a batter eliminating 1/3 to 1/2 of the field and just being a pull hitter. I dislike the shift, maybe some minor adjustments like having to have at least one foot on the dirt and 2 infielders on each side of second base. I hate a weak ground ball hit where infielders would be in if in regular alignment going for a hit. If you are going to use the shift, then you have to pitch to the shift, leaving ball on outer part of plate to slap into the area vacated by the shift should not happen.

[wsnydes]

2 hours ago, Otto von Ballpark said:

I wonder if we are overrating the potential success rate? I mean, pitchers are still throwing very hard, with movement. You'll get some bunts down, but others you will miss or hit foul and just waste the pitch, or pop up to the pitcher or catcher, or not hit it far enough away from the pitcher or catcher.

For example, Rizzo here -- was it some level of bunting skill that allowed him to hit it there? It seems more like a stroke of luck to me -- he stopped at home plate to watch it.

Luck is what it looks like to me as well.  

Like you mention, bunting seems easy to do in theory, but quite another thing to actually accomplish given how hard these guys throw.  

[Original_JB]

First off, I'll say that I hate the idea of changing the game with these 'micro' rules changes (no shift, guy on 2nd to start the 10th, etc.). I compare it to the 'travelling' call in the NBA. IMO, the 'creep' of adjusting the rule over the last 30 years has made the game unwatchable for me.  That said, I can see where the game of baseball has changed to where something has to be done.  When there have been too many HRs, they 'deaden' the ball; when pitchers are getting too good, they 'tighten the stitching' or reduce/eliminate grip enhancers, etc. OK, so our main issues are 1. pitchers are better, so it is harder to hit; 2. hitters are better too, so a lot of HRs 3. lack of 'balls in play'. Seems to me they need to adjust the ball. We need to 'deaden' it for both the pitchers and the batters. Keeping all other things the same (size, 'hardness', seam heights, etc.), what if they lightened the ball a titch (or some other physical alteration)? Obviously, it would take some experimentation, but if the pitchers kept the same 'control' they have now, but now the ball slows down by say 5mph more from when it leaves the pitcher's hand until it reaches the plate, and there is a 5-10mph decrease in 'exit velocity' when it is hit, batters will be more capably able to put the ball in play, but not necessarily be able to 'put it out' as easily.

[se7799]

Unfortunately I have seen next to 0 time spent on practicing bunting in spring training over the past 5 years. Doesn't seem to be a skill taught any longer amongst the minors or major league players.  7 to 8 years ago I would consistently see guys from all levels on the back fields having clinics on it.  Just not a skill taught anymore.

[Muppet]

Not bunting on the shift is probably because of ... something... something... unwritten rules of baseball. ...

If we can change the game to have ghost runners on second because it is too hard to get hits to move things along, then can't we just ban the shift? To me ghost runners are as ridiculous as having batters hit off the tee, or only allowing 6 fielders in extra innings. How is banning the shift so controversial? 

[KirbyDome89]

34 minutes ago, wsnydes said:

Luck is what it looks like to me as well.  

Like you mention, bunting seems easy to do in theory, but quite another thing to actually accomplish given how hard these guys throw.  

In this once instance, maybe. 

Major league hitters also barrel these hard pitches with movement and send them over the fence, a feat that certainly takes quite a bit more skill. There's a reason pitchers (used to) bunt with some success but looked overmatched when asked to swing. I don't think the argument is that it's easy, or an automatic ticket to get on base, but a major league caliber hitter should be able to fairly consistently bunt a ball into an extreme shift. Hell, even showing a willingness to do so might be enough to at least stretch the IF so that a ground ball up the middle actually gets through.

[Trov]

3 hours ago, Otto von Ballpark said:

I wonder if we are overrating the potential success rate? I mean, pitchers are still throwing very hard, with movement. You'll get some bunts down, but others you will miss or hit foul and just waste the pitch, or pop up to the pitcher or catcher, or not hit it far enough away from the pitcher or catcher.

For example, Rizzo here -- was it some level of bunting skill that allowed him to hit it there? It seems more like a stroke of luck to me -- he stopped at home plate to watch it.

First the players will have to actually practice doing it, else I would agree they will fail.  If they work on it they will not waste pitches fouling it off.  Again, you do not need to be even close to a perfect bunt, Rizzo showed that, but you just need to have it past the pitcher and fair.  Yes, there will be times it goes foul, or you get out, but how is that any different than swinging away for a foul or an out being pulled on the ground?  

Guys used to actually practice bunting for hits, it is nothing new, but after it was decided bunting was a bad tactic to bunt for outs advancing runners, guys stopped even learning how to do it.  Most the MLB players never bunted in high school or college because they were too good of hitters to bunt for hits or sacrifice, but at MLB level sometimes you need to take what you can get. 

If I was running a team I would make all left handed hitters learn to bunt hard to third for beating the shift, or learn how to inside out down the line to third, which is much harder to do in my opinion.  I believe if you can catch the 90 plus pitch, you can bunt it.  We are not asking for a perfect bunt, not even close to one, just get it 90 feet within 10 feet of the third base line.  It can even be in the air for most of that time. 

[wsnydes]

2 minutes ago, KirbyDome89 said:

In this once instance, maybe. 

Major league hitters also barrel these hard pitches with movement and send them over the fence, a feat that certainly takes quite a bit more skill. There's a reason pitchers (used to) bunt with some success but looked overmatched when asked to swing. I don't think the argument is that it's easy, or an automatic ticket to get on base, but a major league caliber hitter should be able to fairly consistently bunt a ball into an extreme shift. Hell, even showing a willingness to do so might be enough to at least stretch the IF so that a ground ball up the middle actually gets through.

They are two different skillsets, in my view.  There's a reason that K rates are climbing, so clearly swinging and hitting a ball is becoming more difficult.  That's partly approach, but also largely on the velocity and movement that pitchers possess.  I'm not sure that gets any easier while bunting.  It's a completely different motion and setup.

I'm with you that there are probably many that would be able to do it with some practice, but I don't think all of them could.  And regardless, I do wish that they would at least try.  I'm onboard with that 100%.  I just don't think it's as easy as it's made out to be in today's game.

[Trov]

In regards to outlawing the shift, I am personally against it, but I get the point we want to see more hits, so if the hitters will not adjust then maybe we adjust the rules.  However, I would also agree the shifting that annoys me more is the rockets up the middle used to be base hits are now easy outs.  I do not see too often where a guy playing deep in outfield hole robbing hits it is the up the middle ones, so if they are going to put in a rule, I would go all the way and require the defender to start in a circle that they cannot leave until the pitch is contacted, unless there is a pick off, or runner is stealing. 

[TwinsDr2021]

3 minutes ago, wsnydes said:

They are two different skillsets, in my view.  There's a reason that K rates are climbing, so clearly swinging and hitting a ball is becoming more difficult.  That's partly approach, but also largely on the velocity and movement that pitchers possess.  I'm not sure that gets any easier while bunting.  It's a completely different motion and setup.

I'm with you that there are probably many that would be able to do it with some practice, but I don't think all of them could.  And regardless, I do wish that they would at least try.  I'm onboard with that 100%.  I just don't think it's as easy as it's made out to be in today's game.

100% agree it isn't on easy, but with some practice is it really harder than trying to take a full all out swing to hit (with 6 guys and a pitcher on the right side of the field)? IMO the hitters don't actually have to be that successful doing it, they just have to show the other team they are willing. In the Kepler scenario above the Twins scored zero runs, but if tried to bunt and failed they still score zero runs but the other team(s) have to take note he will try and if that brings over the fielders even a little bit, that should help when they are hitting away.

Kepler is 3 for 18 so his current approach hasn't worked, give it a try, Kirby used to bunt when he was in a slump to help him get out of it, I remember back in the day Hrbek trying the bunt down the third base line a couple of times a year.

I will add trying to inside out a pitch or go the other way is IMO way more difficult than bunting and I wouldn't want a batter trying without really practicing it.

[wsnydes]

2 minutes ago, TwinsDr2021 said:

100% agree it isn't on easy, but with some practice is it really harder than trying to take a full all out swing to hit (with 6 guys and a pitcher on the right side of the field)? IMO the hitters don't actually have to be that successful doing it, they just have to show the other team they are willing. In the Kepler scenario above the Twins scored zero runs, but if tried to bunt and failed they still score zero runs but the other team(s) have to take note he will try and if that brings over the fielders even a little bit, that should help when they are hitting away.

Kepler is 3 for 18 so his current approach hasn't worked, give it a try, Kirby used to bunt when he was in a slump to help him get out of it, I remember back in the day Hrbek trying the bunt down the third base line a couple of times a year.

I will add trying to inside out a pitch or go the other way is IMO way more difficult than bunting and I wouldn't want a batter trying without really practicing it.

All I'm saying is that it's a different skillset.  Just like with anything, some won't have any issues with it, some will.  I wish Buxton would employ the bunt for hit now and then.  I think that'd be a pretty good weapon for him.

I'll add that I hate the fact that more players don't bunt against the shift more.  It drives me nuts.  I just don't think it's as easy as many here make it out to be.  And to me, it doesn't even matter whether it's harder than a full swing or not.  

[KirbyDome89]

16 minutes ago, wsnydes said:

They are two different skillsets, in my view.  There's a reason that K rates are climbing, so clearly swinging and hitting a ball is becoming more difficult.  That's partly approach, but also largely on the velocity and movement that pitchers possess.  I'm not sure that gets any easier while bunting.  It's a completely different motion and setup.

I'm with you that there are probably many that would be able to do it with some practice, but I don't think all of them could.  And regardless, I do wish that they would at least try.  I'm onboard with that 100%.  I just don't think it's as easy as it's made out to be in today's game.

Different yes, but I see one as exponentially more difficult than the other. I think the K rate hike has A LOT to do with approach and what modern FOs value. 

Easy, no, but possible, certainly. I'm right there with you, guys need to start making an attempt. It's odd that we're capable of coaching swings to maximize launch angle, but bunting a ball passed a pitcher into an entirely empty left side of the infield seems to be off the table for so many. 

[Otto von Ballpark]

What's the statistical case against the shift?

BABIP represents the rate at which balls in play turn into hits. It's down the last 2 years, but it's still above any pre-1993 marks.

[USAFChief]

1 hour ago, wsnydes said:

They are two different skillsets, in my view.  There's a reason that K rates are climbing, so clearly swinging and hitting a ball is becoming more difficult.  That's partly approach, but also largely on the velocity and movement that pitchers possess.  I'm not sure that gets any easier while bunting.  It's a completely different motion and setup.

I'm with you that there are probably many that would be able to do it with some practice, but I don't think all of them could.  And regardless, I do wish that they would at least try.  I'm onboard with that 100%.  I just don't think it's as easy as it's made out to be in today's game.

I strongly disagree that a person skilled enough to play professionally can't execute a hard bunt toward third.  It's orders of magnitude easier than hitting. As mentioned above, pitchers would do it routinely because it's easier, even for those not able to hit MLB pitching.

 

It's arrogance, coupled with teams switching their shift strategy with less than 2 strikes. Most teams now leave the 3rd baseman in place against LH hitting and vacate the SS spot, until there's 2 strikes.

 

[wsnydes]

1 minute ago, USAFChief said:

I strongly disagree that a person skilled enough to play professionally can't execute a hard bunt toward third.  It's orders of magnitude easier than hitting. As mentioned above, pitchers would do it routinely because it's easier, even for those not able to hit MLB pitching.

 

It's arrogance, coupled with teams switching their shift strategy with less than 2 strikes. Most teams now leave the 3rd baseman in place against LH hitting and vacate the SS spot, until there's 2 strikes.

 

I'll repeat this, I never said that it couldn't be done.  Only that it was more difficult than people around here make it.  That's it.

[ashbury]

5 hours ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

If, after a play, you have said "that was an awesome shift" even once in your life, feel free to argue with me about banning that defensive alignment. If you, like every other human being on the planet, have never uttered that sentence, don't choose this hill to die on.

I guess I have, sort of.  Haven't you?  Some opponent's stud hitter hits a screamer up the middle, two outs and a man on third, and our shortstop is positioned right behind second base for the easy assist, and I say "ha, perfectly positioned" non-ironically (for once in my bitter, bitter life).  I mean, it's somewhat after the fact, but then so is "huh, hung a curve" after a home run.

[tony&rodney]

5 hours ago, chpettit19 said:

Put the infielders back where they "belong" and get back to the game that we all grew up playing.

We used extreme shifts in the 1960s (even going to four outfielders or five infielders as the situation dictated) in all of grade school, VFW, high school, and legion ball. It is more common now but not new in any sense. 

I oppose banning the shift and unlike some others I do appreciate an out recorded on a hard hit ball just as broken bat hits are a part of the game. There are plenty of changes that can be made if people want changes to increase offense. Ball 3 is a walk and strike 4 and you are out. That would cause an increase in offense. If people want the game to have more tempo, allow the umpires to enforce the current rules that dictate a player needs to be ready to hit and the pitcher needs to pitch. Many of the changes just increase the time (challenges for example). I do think that electronic signals between pitcher and catcher speed up the game and is a positive change. It disrupts nothing.