Will Major League Baseball Ban the Shift?

If "pace of play" refers to the frequency of balls in play, then broadening those offensive outcomes would be an improvement in that area too. More "action" in the same time of game.

This is a good point. “Pace” could mean the speed of a game, not its overall duration.

Regarding the line drive example, I simply mean I’d rather watch someone rip a ball between defenders and start running, rather than see the same ball go directly to the second baseman standing in shallow right field.

I agree strikeouts are a problem, but I wonder if they’ve increased at least partly by people trying to launch everything over the shift.

The idea that MLB is possibly even thinking of banning the shift is ludicrous. Next will come some other crazy idea. Remove enhancements like Ipads, electronics during the game, "scouting/trash cans", cards that indicate sequences/positions/analytics, and needless mound visits along with a dedication to the spirit of get in the box and on the rubber and pitch and hit. The players will adjust. The unintended consequence of expanded rosters, either 26 or 28, have proven to be a complete mistake. This did not prevent injury or increase the quality of play. Covid 2020 baseball was tough for the players and hopefully a return to health within our country and some sanity will allow for a more focused approach than wholesale changes to the game. A bigger issue might be how the owners and mlbpa navigate the next few months in the best interest of the game, both for owners and players. Different issue, separate blog.

I am intrigued! Although some pitchers don't mind taking their sweet time on the mound too, even without batting gloves to distract them.

 

Hence why I'm in favor a pitch clock. Sounds unnatural, but that's the pace of the sport at every other level, as well as the pace of MLB for most of its history -- the pace of modern MLB, with batters stepping out and pitchers circling the mound after every pitch, is really the aberration. I suspect that after a few growing pains in spring training, players would become re-accustomed to it (they've all played at this quicker pace before MLB) and no one would notice the clock.

I’m with you on your second paragraph. Eliminating batting gloves is never going to happen, obviously, but in watching the playoffs this year, I was just struck by how many guys were going all Nomar Garciaparra on EVERY SINGLE PITCH. 

NOOOOOOOO! MLB should not impose some rule to limit "shifting"  I say this for many reasons.  First, what would the rule look like?  I mean what we refer to as the "shift" is moving a middle infielder to the opposite of second base generally.  Some teams have gone to 4 man outfields as well.  But what about other shifting of players? 

I mean will the rule be there must not be more than 3 players in the outfield grass prior to pitch being thrown, and if there is then the result is either a ball or the result of the pitch, which ever the team chooses?  In addition, there must be 2 infielders on either side of second base prior to pitch being thrown, else same consequence?  Do the infielders need to be a certain distance away from second base?  What if the middle infielder is 1 foot from second base, making it very easy to run onto shifted side?  Will the players have to start each play within some circle on the field?  How big will that circle be, will the players get to move based on base runners?  Will the team be able to bring in an outfielder to add extra infielder in certain situations?  Will the corner infielders be able to play in if they think a bunt may be coming?  Basically, way to many situations that some rule cannot fix.

More importantly though, why should they outlaw it?  Hitters are crying they are getting less hits.  However, the same size of the field and same amount of defenders are on it.  The hitters just do not want to adjust and hit to the giant holes that are on the field.  Why should MLB cater to the hitters because they are either not good enough to hit to the very large hole, or not willing to try?  Overall, the shifts cut down more hits, else teams would not do it, but once hitters start to pepper the holes that are vacated teams will stop doing it.  

Remember back in the day when hit-and-run was a play that was ran?  It was designed to make a giant hole on the opposite side of the infield to let the hitter put the ball through it, but it had risk of losing the runner if the hitter missed the ball.  Now, teams will give hitters that hole without the risk of the runner going, yet no one tries to hit there. 

Over recent years hitter adjusted how they hit, by being pull heavy trying to more HR, because it was learned hitting ball in the air is best chance for extra base hits, and extra base hits are best way to maximize run scoring.  Well, teams also learned how to best defend against that, so why should defenses be handicapped now?  If I know 90% of your ground balls will be in a small area, why can I not stand there to stop them?  

I am very much against making some rule against the shift, because to me they are not "shifting" they are putting their 7 defenders where ever they feel will increase their chance of an out.  I mean the 1B will play in many different areas depending on situation.  No runner on, they will be deep and off the line, unless the hitter can bunt, then they will play closer in most likely, should either of those be outlawed?  Runner on the 1B will normally hold runner on, unless late in a game and team not worried about that runner, then they will play "normal depth" to increase chance of getting out.  Will a rule require they hold the runner on, because not doing it is a "shift."  

There is just no way to properly implement a rule in my opinion, and they also should not try to.  Let the hitters adjust to the defense, not the rules adjust to the hitters lack of ability or willingness to adjust. 

If you want more base hits and fewer walks/HR, deaden the ball and lower the mound. These specs have varied through the years anyway. The combination of the two stands a chance of keeping offense levels around the same, but batters will quickly wise up that fewer HRs come to them, and pitchers will be more willing to throw strikes but less able to catch only front or back corners of the three-dimensional strike zone. Win win. This has the advantage also of not changing any of the familiar ground rules of the game, just the effectiveness of strategies.
 

I'll expand a bit on what you say in your first sentence. I think the game would be improved with more batted balls put in play, fewer walks, fewer home runs, and fewer strikeouts. The two changes mentioned here would most likely accomplish three of those four objectives, but IMHO the walk rate may actually rise. A pitch delivered from a lower mound will be easier to hit so I think pitchers will be more likely to nibble, especially with runners on base, and give up more walks as a result.

I think the solution would be to increase the size of the strike zone along with the two changes you mention. Implementing this would be a tricky process that may require a few years to fine tune. At the risk of appearing to channel Bert Blyleven, we would have to find the balance point of the three variables. The strike zone has to be enlarged enough to keep the number of walks in check, but not by so much that the number of strikeouts gets too high. The mound has to be lowered enough to control the number of strikeouts, but not by so much that the number of batted balls gets too high. The ball has to be deadened enough to control the number of home runs, but not by so much that it causes a new dead ball era.

And by the way, fewer walks and fewer strikeouts means fewer pitches and a faster pace of play.

I also want to say that I apologize for contributing to the divergence of this tangent from the narrow topic of the thread, but in baseball it all ties together. The changes discussed here would affect how batters approach pitchers and defenses, which in turn affects how pitchers and defenses approach batters.

Edit: I see ash replied to my post as originally posted. This version was being edited while he replied.

 

 

The main reason pitchers risk walks is that the alternative is too costly
 

Yep. With the exception of a bases-empty single a hit is almost always more costly than a walk. So increasing the likelihood of a ball being put into play will increase the incentive to settle for a walk.