OT: MLB 2020 Season Proposal

[RUScrew85]

The shift can disappear altogether if batters just hit or bunt the other way. It's an easy base. But everyone wants to hit the homer.

Power hitters don't get paid to bunt to the opposite side of the IF. It's a professional league so there is no incentive. Plus they did the math. It's better for the paycheck and possibly the team to just try to hit it our and fail mostly then to bunt to the opposite side.

It's a bad incentive to the game.

 

[NickRU714]

You're really knocking your straw men out of the park today.

Perhaps you'll understand the subtleties of our arguments sometime in the future. I'm not betting on it.

I'm all ears.

What exactly is the difference between employing an infield shift and:
SS/2nd standing at double play depth,
Outfielders playing deep "no doubles",
Outfields playing in "no scoring from 2nd on a single",
Infielders playing in to guard against a bunt,
Infielders playing closer to the line to prevent a double down the line

I must be missing the subtleties of "Moving defenders around is okay in all these ways but not this new way".

 

[NickRU714]

Power hitters don't get paid to bunt to the opposite side of the IF. It's a professional league so there is no incentive. Plus they did the math. It's better for the paycheck and possibly the team to just try to hit it our and fail mostly then to bunt to the opposite side.

It's a bad incentive to the game.

Last sentence is a key concern.

Incentive to MLB (attracting fans) vs incentive to the team (winning).

For example, the Devils rode the neutral zone trap to multiple Stanley Cups despite casual fans hating it.
NHL went so far as to ban goalies getting the puck out of the corner.

Many people don’t like how the Houston Rockets play taking 100 3-pointers a game but they win with it.

Going to see it with Rutgers football this year.
The math says playing faster leads to more winning.
Fans are already complaining about “3 and out in under a minute”.
OC SG has said he wants to play very fast.

 

[Doctor Worm]

If I may take this thread back to topic:

CBS Sports (quoting Ken Rosenthal of the Athletic) is confirming that the owners are backing off from their Revenue Sharing proposal. They want a 50 game season and the MLBPA has offered 114. The reason for the disparity is obvious. More games means more income for the players. More games does NOT mean more income for the owners. Not this year.

I view this as a positive. When negotiations are taking place on the same metric scale, a deal can be made. I want 20X, you're offering 10X. There's a deal to be done at 15X. But when I want X and you want Y (which is where we were, but no longer) it's a LOT tougher.

Coincidentally (or maybe it's not a coincidence at all) the exact midpoint of the two proposals is the 82 game season that the owners had approved, but WITH revenue sharing. Maybe they wind up there WITHOUT revenue sharing.

IMHO that 82 game figure, half a normal season plus one, is an important psychological threshold for fans. (Well this fan anyway.) That to me is the minimum number of games needed to endow legitimacy to the season.
https://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/...-stand-as-owners-reject-mlbpas-114-game-plan/

 

[NickRU714]

If I may take this thread back to topic:

Coincidentally (or maybe it's not a coincidence at all) the exact midpoint of the two proposals is the 82 game season that the owners had approved, but WITH revenue sharing. Maybe they wind up there WITHOUT revenue sharing.

IMHO that 82 game figure, half a normal season plus one, is an important psychological threshold for fans. (Well this fan anyway.) That to me is the minimum number of games needed to endow legitimacy to the season.
https://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/...-stand-as-owners-reject-mlbpas-114-game-plan/

If I may take this thread back off topic:

You must not be a NY Rangers fan.
According to those expert hockey fans, anything less than a full season is tainted and doesn't count as a championship, such as the Devils in 94-95.
(I'm not talking about the other TWO Stanley Cups that the Devils have won since then.)

If the Yankees win the championship, I wonder if the same "it doesn't count" arguments would be made.

 

[tico brown]

Exactly, only two guys on one side of 2B on the IF. For this rule P and C don't count. Heck only two on one side in the OF too.

The IF shift is a major driver of the hitters only trying to hit a HR driving launch angle and exit velo. No one hits for hits anymore. Get rid of the IF shift and this boring swing for the fences will diminish and I'd expect we get back to guys hitting up the middle and in the gaps. (I hope)

Or how about stop being predictable and start hitting the ball the other way?

 

[T2Kplus10]

If I may take this thread back off topic:

You must not be a NY Rangers fan.
According to those expert hockey fans, anything less than a full season is tainted and doesn't count as a championship, such as the Devils in 94-95.
(I'm not talking about the other TWO Stanley Cups that the Devils have won since then.)

If the Yankees win the championship, I wonder if the same "it doesn't count" arguments would be made.

Newark Devils - the proud owners of 2.5 cups

 

[RUDave_01]

Maybe a subtlety is that you are making the second baseman an outfielder, and we're not talking about a few steps onto the grass. You're changing the nature of his position, rather than moving him in the space that he is naturally defending.

 

[RUScrew85]

Or how about stop being predictable and start hitting the ball the other way?

They won't do that. The best move for the hitters in facing the IF shift according to the hitters is to maximize exit speed and launch angle. Some new school genius figured it out apparently. That's why the Switch has to be outlawed.

 

[RUScrew85]

I'm all ears.

What exactly is the difference between employing an infield shift and:
SS/2nd standing at double play depth,
Outfielders playing deep "no doubles",
Outfields playing in "no scoring from 2nd on a single",
Infielders playing in to guard against a bunt,
Infielders playing closer to the line to prevent a double down the line

I must be missing the subtleties of "Moving defenders around is okay in all these ways but not this new way".

It has no historic precedent. It has players playing radically out of position. It punishes hitters for hitting the ball where hits used to actually be hits.

You:

X 3

Maybe you should stick to the WWF.

 

[NickRU714]

It has no historic precedent. It has players playing radically out of position. It punishes hitters for hitting the ball where hits used to actually be hits.

You:

X 3

Maybe you should stick to the WWF.

1. Not sure what WEF has to do with anything. You must be thinking of someone else.

2. I get your point. It just makes no sense. I'm sure at one point "double play depth" had no historial precedent. It punishes hitters for hitting the ball up the middle that are normally hits.
It seems pretty arbitrary to ban certain defensive alignments but not others.
If a team wants to put 5 players in the OF - so be it. Let them take the chance.

This is like saying "football defenses" shouldn't be allowed to blitz a CB or S because it overwhelmes the OL.

3. Your claim of "no historical precedent" also appears to be completely false. Shifts were used against Ted Williams in the 40s. Really cool historical picture in this article.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/feature...r-old-strategy-designed-to-stop-ted-williams/

 

[mikebal9]

Teams should be allowed to put fielders wherever they want. It's still 9 guys. It just means there are holes elsewhere. Hitters should adjust.
Why didn't they shift against Tony Gwynn? Because he woulda hit .500 if they ever tried it. Take what the defense gives you.

 

[WhiteBus]

Power hitters don't get paid to bunt to the opposite side of the IF. It's a professional league so there is no incentive. Plus they did the math. It's better for the paycheck and possibly the team to just try to hit it our and fail mostly then to bunt to the opposite side.

It's a bad incentive to the game.

Actually the numbers do support bunting to remove them shifting on you all the time. Differences in BA with and without the shift greatly support that.

 

[RUScrew85]

Actually the numbers do support bunting to remove them shifting on you all the time. Differences in BA with and without the shift greatly support that.

I didn't calculate them and I don't like them but the hitters don't get paid for BA and don't agree with you. That's why no one tries to bunt or hit to the open space.

 

[mikebal9]

I didn't calculate them and I don't like them but the hitters don't get paid for BA and don't agree with you. That's why no one tries to bunt or hit to the open space.

I think this is the point. You don't win by having a higher batting average. You win by scoring runs. Unfortunately for fans, in depth studies show, while an individual hitter would have a higher average by bunting, that more runs are scored when hitters raise their launch angle and try to hit over the shift.

 

[tico brown]

They won't do that. The best move for the hitters in facing the IF shift according to the hitters is to maximize exit speed and launch angle. Some new school genius figured it out apparently. That's why the Switch has to be outlawed.

So making things easier for stubborn players who cant make adjustments is the answer? That's like banning zone defense and blitzes in football and only play man out of a 4-3 so that every game can have a 55-53 game every week. Or get rid of the goalie in hockey. Or must have a 3 foot halo around the shooter in basketball or it's a flagrant 2.

 

[mikebal9]

So making things easier for stubborn players who cant make adjustments is the answer? That's like banning zone defense and blitzes in football and only play man out of a 4-3 so that every game can have a 55-53 game every week. Or get rid of the goalie in hockey. Or must have a 3 foot halo around the shooter in basketball or it's a flagrant 2.

To be fair, the NBA did outlaw zone defense for years. Always found that bizarre.

 

[sherrane]

IDK. I remember hearing that same argument 26 years ago, when the 1994 WS was cancelled due to a players strike. Baseball came back stronger than ever. Of course the steroid-enhanced performances of the likes of McGwire, Sosa, and later Bonds had something to do with that.

Is that accurate? In 1993 and 1994, the average attendance of a MLB game 30,964 and 31,256 respectively. It took 10 years for MLB to average more than 30,000 per game after the strike / lockout. 2006, 2007, and 2008 are the only seasons where the attendance average has surpassed 1994.

 

[RUScrew85]

So making things easier for stubborn players who cant make adjustments is the answer? That's like banning zone defense and blitzes in football and only play man out of a 4-3 so that every game can have a 55-53 game every week. Or get rid of the goalie in hockey. Or must have a 3 foot halo around the shooter in basketball or it's a flagrant 2.

It's not really like any of those. The ubiquitous IF shift usage is a NEW development. This new development is detrimental to the game as a whole but good for specific team defenses. The hitter response is to hit the ball over the fence. Not all that exciting considering 90+% of the time they do not hit a HR.

I get the "Right" fix is to be a better hitter and hit to the opposite field. However that's not what modern power hitters are paid to do and the modern usage of metrics indicates doing that would result in fewer wins anyway. Hence the modern batter is forced to pursue a strategy that is boring and hurts the game (HR or strike out with the occasional fly out or hit mixed in). Since both parties logically follow their best strategy - D Shift and Batter Launch Angle and Exit Speed - the only fix is to legislate the change.

We could force a batter to not target launch angle and exit speed but how would that be policed? The only other option is to force IF-ers back to their historic positions. They can still adjust position with the batter just not beyond 2B. They can play up or back but no 3B at second and no 2B in RF. Just like the game has been played for the last 100 years.

The NEW research has uncovered strategy that make the game less entertaining. The game should respond by outlawing that strategy.

Basketball outlawed the Zone and added the shot clock because the zone made the game less entertaining - to say nothing of the old Princeton games that barely ended in double digits without a shot clock and sometimes not even that.

Didn't Hockey outlaw the boring as **** Devils center ice strategy because it made the game boring as ****?

Football? Hell they change the rules every season. If the invention of the forward pass was something football didn't like the would have outlawed it - but that is the opposite case - it made the game more interesting to most folks.

All I'm saying is the modern strategy is making baseball more boring. That strategy should be restricted to return the game back to it's less boring roots.

 

[czxqa]

Didn't Hockey outlaw the boring as **** Devils center ice strategy because it made the game boring as ****?

No, they did not. As a matter of fact, the Rangers used the exact same trap under Tortorella for a number of years and were quite successful with it as well.

 

[NickRU714]

@RUScrew85 - for your arguments sake stop saying "the shift is NEW".
This is 100% wrong.
You invalidate your entire argument when you start with a false statement.

It's been around for literally almost 75 years since Ted Williams played.


https://fivethirtyeight.com/feature...r-old-strategy-designed-to-stop-ted-williams/

https://www.mlb.com/news/ted-williams-faced-defensive-shifts-in-1940s-c191605204

 

[RBS05]

No, they did not. As a matter of fact, the Rangers used the exact same trap under Tortorella for a number of years and were quite successful with it as well.

Aggressive forechecking and all out effort to block shots was definitely not "the exact same trap" the Devils used.

 

[RUScrew85]

No, they did not. As a matter of fact, the Rangers used the exact same trap under Tortorella for a number of years and were quite successful with it as well.

Well I guess it was either the players, their execution of it or everyone made adjustments because I'm not hearing all the complaining anymore.

 

[RUScrew85]

@RUScrew85 - for your arguments sake stop saying "the shift is NEW".
This is 100% wrong.
You invalidate your entire argument when you start with a false statement.

It's been around for literally almost 75 years since Ted Williams played.


https://fivethirtyeight.com/feature...r-old-strategy-designed-to-stop-ted-williams/

https://www.mlb.com/news/ted-williams-faced-defensive-shifts-in-1940s-c191605204

I friggin know the shift has been used rarely and since the dawn of time. I've been an fan for 50 years and played until college. My point is it is used much more often lately as a product of the modern metrics of baseball. The occasional use - while it also still sucked to see folks like Stargell or Ryan Howard, etc... shifted on - was pretty rare and didn't affect the entire game. It was used on select pull hitting power hitters. Now it's used on virtually every pull hitter forcing many more folks to decide to either swing for the opposite field - no one pays for that - or hit it over (exit velo and launch angle) - my point has always been the Shift Strategy is effective and the modern Hitters solution is better than opposite field hitting and is BORING. There is no current strategy solution to fix the boringness the Shift has brought to baseball therefore it now needs to be outlawed - or remain BORING. Or maybe only use it a limited amount of times - something has to change or interest baseball will further decline as the Shift creates BORING baseball.

Have I fully addressed your lawyering over my less than precise language earlier?

The ubiquitous use of the shift is NEW. And the modern strategy to combat it is mostly very boring.

And I'm not interested in arguing over whether you agree the use of the shift has increased recently or that it is too much. Hell I'm not really interested in your hair splitting at all. The limited use of the shift sucked in the past but was overlooked because it was pretty rare. It's no longer rare and has crossed the threshold of adversely affecting the game.

 

[czxqa]

Aggressive forechecking and all out effort to block shots was definitely not "the exact same trap" the Devils used.

Blocking shots has nothing to do with the approach to attacking the opposing team bringing the puck out of their defensive zone, which is what the trap is for.

The purpose of the trap is to use the winger on the side the puck is being carried up to squeeze the player carrying the puck out of his zone against the boards, taking the ice away from him, while the center and opposite side winger skate back and towards that side to take away the passing lanes towards the middle. This way the puck carrier has two choices- pass the puck back into his defensive zone for the defenseman to try a pass across to bring it up the other side, or rush to get over the red line and dump the puck deep for the forwards to chase it. If he passes back, everyone skates forward and to the middle to reset the trap. If he goes forward, either he succeeds in dumping the puck or there is a turnover.

Teams have been doing this, or a variation on it, since the Maple Leafs started it in the 1920's. The reason the trap was so effective with the Devils was that if the puck carrier succeeded in dumping the puck in, Brodeur was such a great skater and puckhandler that he was, in effect, an extra defenseman. He would get to the corner, gather the puck and scoot it back out of the zone before the other team's players could get down to it. That's why the Brodeur rule was made. If the NFL was as myopic there would be a Lawrence Taylor rule today banning defensive players from hitting the QB's arm.

Finally, since you clearly find the thought that the Rangers would use a trap as an offensive comment, please read this article from the New York Times from 1997, where the Rangers were using the trap under Colin Campbell, well before Torts used it.

 

[goru1869]

Newark Devils - the proud owners of 2.5 cups

Ok, lets play your game. The Devils have still won more cups since 1994 then your rags, even if it is 2.5. HA HA my team won and as ALWAYS YOUR team LOST.

 

[NickRU714]

Ok, lets play your game. The Devils have still won more cups since 1994 then your rags, even if it is 2.5. HA HA my team won and as ALWAYS YOUR team LOST.

Despite being a Mets fan, I'm half hoping the Yankees win a short season MLB championship.

Just to see all the Ranger/Yankee fans reactions over winning a "half championship".

 

[T2Kplus10]

Despite being a Mets fan, I'm half hoping the Yankees win a short season MLB championship.

Just to see all the Ranger/Yankee fans reactions over winning a "half championship".

27.5 and counting!

 

[czxqa]

Interesting piece in today's Ledger. An interview with Fay Vincent, who blames the owners and believes there will be no season.
Granted, he's not exactly a neutral party with his term as commissioner ending as badly as it did, but he certainly knows how these folks think.

 

[T2Kplus10]

Looks promising:

https://www.foxsports.com/midwest/story/ap-source-mlbpa-counter-owners-with-114-game-season-proposal-with-no-further-salary-cuts-053120

New proposal:

https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/29282308/source-new-mlb-proposal-union-76-games

Major League Baseball made an updated proposal to the MLB Players Association on Monday, moving to have a 76-game season with players getting 75% of their prorated salaries, a source familiar with the negotiations told ESPN's Karl Ravech.

 

[mikebal9]

And the players are already tweeting out their disapproval. So tone deaf.

 

[T2Kplus10]

And the players are already tweeting out their disapproval. So tone deaf.

The owners can unilaterally impose the other deal....50 games at full salary, normal playoffs. That's the alternative. Well, that and cancelling the entire season. The players messed up with Tony Clark. Clark got crushed in the last CBA negotiations. Not the owners fault. Players need to stop blaming them.

 

[Doctor Worm]

From a financial standpoint, there is very little incentive for the players to accept this offer. The owners are asking them to play 76 games and get paid for 57 (75% of 76). Or they can hold fast and have Manfred decree that they play 50 games and get paid for 50.

So at the margin, the owners are proposing that the players play an additional 26 games, and get paid for exactly seven of them.

If your boss offered you that deal, would you take it?

 

[T2Kplus10]

From a financial standpoint, there is very little incentive for the players to accept this offer. The owners are asking them to play 76 games and get paid for 57 (75% of 76). Or they can hold fast and have Manfred decree that they play 50 games and get paid for 50.

So at the margin, the owners are proposing that the players play an additional 26 games, and get paid for exactly seven of them.

If your boss offered you that deal, would you take it?

The boss also has an option to not open up until next year.

 

[e5fdny]

Is that accurate? In 1993 and 1994, the average attendance of a MLB game 30,964 and 31,256 respectively. It took 10 years for MLB to average more than 30,000 per game after the strike / lockout. 2006, 2007, and 2008 are the only seasons where the attendance average has surpassed 1994.

I'm one of those who kinda gave up on MLB after '94.

Only been to a MLB game 2x since then. One, to be a good father to make sure my boys saw a game in the real Yankee Stadium before it was torn down. And two, to be a good son to my Dad so he could see the Mets play a game at CitiField.

Other than that it's been all minor league games...SI Yanks, Trenton Thunder and the Lakewood BlueClaws.

If I move or winter in Florida when I retire I will probably go to some Spring Training games if there is a team close by.

 

[T2Kplus10]

I'm one of those who kinda gave up on MLB after '94.

Only been to MLB game 2x since then. One, to be a good father to make sure my boys saw a game in the real Yankee Stadium before it was torn down. And two, to be a good son to my Dad so he could see the Mets play a game at CitiField.

Other than that it's been all minor league games...SI Yanks, Trenton Thunder and the Lakewood BlueClaws.

If I move or winter in Florida when I retire I will probably go to some Spring Training games if there is a team close by.

MLB has inflicted a lot of pain on itself over the years. This is just another example!

 

[anon_ivydyf0amkzay]

So the 2020 Yankees and Mets threads will be to relive old glories?

 

[T2Kplus10]

So the 2020 Yankees and Mets threads will be to relive old glories?

Starting to sound like that. NBA is back, NHL is back, PGA is back, NASCAR is back, NFL looks to be on track.....

MLB = FUBAR

 

[Section124]

I'm one of those who kinda gave up on MLB after '94.

Only been to a MLB game 2x since then. One, to be a good father to make sure my boys saw a game in the real Yankee Stadium before it was torn down. And two, to be a good son to my Dad so he could see the Mets play a game at CitiField.

Other than that it's been all minor league games...SI Yanks, Trenton Thunder and the Lakewood BlueClaws.

If I move or winter in Florida when I retire I will probably go to some Spring Training games if there is a team close by.

This pretty much describes me. Yankees and Expos with the best records in each league. That Expos team was real good. If they won the series, potentially they would still be in Montreal.

 

[anon_ivydyf0amkzay]

Starting to sound like that. NBA is back, NHL is back, PGA is back, NASCAR is back, NFL looks to be on track.....

MLB = FUBAR

As long as college football is back, personally, is what I look forward to. My last baseball game was 2010...