*2014-15 Hot Stove Thread: The Padres won it I guess (1 Viewer)

[pantagrapher]

For the defensive shift thing, I could see a simple rule that the 3B and SS must be left of the imaginary line between the second base bag and home plate; the 2B and 1B must be to the right. Not sure what the penalty would be.

Just spitballin here.

For how long do they need to stay on one side? Before the wind up? Until contact? Through the whole play? What about a run down? The rule could never be simple.

A run down would obviously not be covered by the rule. I'm thinking purely of positions while the pitcher is on the rubber. Heck, that can be the rule right there. [Position player] must be on [whatever side] of second base while pitcher is on the rubber.

 

[pantagrapher]

I'm not a fan of it, but I could see it being fine. Super easy to enforce, and really doesn't alter the game that much aside from a handful of pull-happy lefties.

I admit I'm doing a bit of a 180 on this issue. Was totally against it 36 hours ago, but the more I think about it, the more OK I am with it, as long as the rule is drafted carefully and is easy to enforce.

 

[RnR]

You could even make the rule as simple as "No more than 4 players on one side of second base prior to the pitch."

That way, you could still shift SS to 1st base side against a LH hitter, but you'd have to position CF on 3rd base side as compensation.

 

[Annyong]

Still pointless

 

[pantagrapher]

Still pointless

The point would be to prevent these shifts.

 

[Annyong]

Still pointless

The point would be to prevent these shifts.

NOW I GET IT!

 

[Captain Hook]

Still pointless

The point would be to prevent these shifts.

WHY??

Teams should be able to position their fielders as they see fit - if/when they do they may be playing odds on where ball "is normally" hit by that batter but they are leaving something else open. Up to the batters to take advantage of it .... there should be a LOt more base hits against extreme shifts

 

[RnR]

Still pointless

The point would be to prevent these shifts.

WHY??

Teams should be able to position their fielders as they see fit - if/when they do they may be playing odds on where ball "is normally" hit by that batter but they are leaving something else open. Up to the batters to take advantage of it .... there should be a LOt more base hits against extreme shifts

To answer your question: Because it is starting to look like beer league softball strategy.

 

[pantagrapher]

Still pointless

The point would be to prevent these shifts.

WHY??

Teams should be able to position their fielders as they see fit - if/when they do they may be playing odds on where ball "is normally" hit by that batter but they are leaving something else open. Up to the batters to take advantage of it .... there should be a LOt more base hits against extreme shifts

I get both sides. I do. But there are already rules about where fielders can field. They must start in fair territory (except the catcher). They cannot position with the intent to distract the batter. Curtailing shifts would be a pretty minor change, especially since it's a relatively new thing and it's still not all that pervasive. I'd be OK with a rule as long as it's minimally restrictive and easy to enforce. I'd also be fine with shifts continuing.

 

[Good Posting Judge]

Still pointless

The point would be to prevent these shifts.

WHY??

Teams should be able to position their fielders as they see fit - if/when they do they may be playing odds on where ball "is normally" hit by that batter but they are leaving something else open. Up to the batters to take advantage of it .... there should be a LOt more base hits against extreme shifts

I get both sides. I do. But there are already rules about where fielders can field. They must start in fair territory (except the catcher). They cannot position with the intent to distract the batter. Curtailing shifts would be a pretty minor change, especially since it's a relatively new thing and it's still not all that pervasive. I'd be OK with a rule as long as it's minimally restrictive and easy to enforce. I'd also be fine with shifts continuing.

To what end? Cameron (and Lindbergh on Grantland) have both had articles detailing the minimal impact shifts have on decreasing runs. It seems like actually enforcing the actual strike zone is a much better way of "injecting offense" into the game.

 

[pantagrapher]

Still pointless

The point would be to prevent these shifts.

WHY??

Teams should be able to position their fielders as they see fit - if/when they do they may be playing odds on where ball "is normally" hit by that batter but they are leaving something else open. Up to the batters to take advantage of it .... there should be a LOt more base hits against extreme shifts

I get both sides. I do. But there are already rules about where fielders can field. They must start in fair territory (except the catcher). They cannot position with the intent to distract the batter. Curtailing shifts would be a pretty minor change, especially since it's a relatively new thing and it's still not all that pervasive. I'd be OK with a rule as long as it's minimally restrictive and easy to enforce. I'd also be fine with shifts continuing.

To what end? Cameron (and Lindbergh on Grantland) have both had articles detailing the minimal impact shifts have on decreasing runs. It seems like actually enforcing the actual strike zone is a much better way of "injecting offense" into the game.

Yeah, the injecting offense argument is not a strong one at this time. And I don't think that's an argument the commish should have any interest in. If offense is down due to natural factors, let it be down. That pendulum swings both ways. I think the argument for the rule should be more: is this a loophole that is not in the spirit of the game or should shifts be allowed to continue?

 

[larch]

Maybe if lefties would go the other way with more frequency.

Leave it alone, it is defensive strategy. The NFL has already messed up defenses in their league, no need to mess up MLB.

 

[Good Posting Judge]

Still pointless

The point would be to prevent these shifts.

WHY??

Teams should be able to position their fielders as they see fit - if/when they do they may be playing odds on where ball "is normally" hit by that batter but they are leaving something else open. Up to the batters to take advantage of it .... there should be a LOt more base hits against extreme shifts

I get both sides. I do. But there are already rules about where fielders can field. They must start in fair territory (except the catcher). They cannot position with the intent to distract the batter. Curtailing shifts would be a pretty minor change, especially since it's a relatively new thing and it's still not all that pervasive. I'd be OK with a rule as long as it's minimally restrictive and easy to enforce. I'd also be fine with shifts continuing.

To what end? Cameron (and Lindbergh on Grantland) have both had articles detailing the minimal impact shifts have on decreasing runs. It seems like actually enforcing the actual strike zone is a much better way of "injecting offense" into the game.

Yeah, the injecting offense argument is not a strong one at this time. And I don't think that's an argument the commish should have any interest in. If offense is down due to natural factors, let it be down. That pendulum swings both ways. I think the argument for the rule should be more: is this a loophole that is not in the spirit of the game or should shifts be allowed to continue?

OF's have shifted based on the hitter since before any of us were born, isn't this just the logical next step?

And again, you can always bunt. If Ryan Howard can start bunting half-decently into the void down the 3B line, the shifts against him will go away.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Still pointless

The point would be to prevent these shifts.

WHY??

Teams should be able to position their fielders as they see fit - if/when they do they may be playing odds on where ball "is normally" hit by that batter but they are leaving something else open. Up to the batters to take advantage of it .... there should be a LOt more base hits against extreme shifts

I get both sides. I do. But there are already rules about where fielders can field. They must start in fair territory (except the catcher). They cannot position with the intent to distract the batter. Curtailing shifts would be a pretty minor change, especially since it's a relatively new thing and it's still not all that pervasive. I'd be OK with a rule as long as it's minimally restrictive and easy to enforce. I'd also be fine with shifts continuing.

To what end? Cameron (and Lindbergh on Grantland) have both had articles detailing the minimal impact shifts have on decreasing runs. It seems like actually enforcing the actual strike zone is a much better way of "injecting offense" into the game.

Yeah, the injecting offense argument is not a strong one at this time. And I don't think that's an argument the commish should have any interest in. If offense is down due to natural factors, let it be down. That pendulum swings both ways. I think the argument for the rule should be more: is this a loophole that is not in the spirit of the game or should shifts be allowed to continue?

OF's have shifted based on the hitter since before any of us were born, isn't this just the logical next step?

And again, you can always bunt. If Ryan Howard can start bunting half-decently into the void down the 3B line, the shifts against him will go away.

This is part of the reason I hate this idea. Defensive innovations come along, offenses adjust. That's how all sports work. If someone comes up with an innovation for which there's no response, then maybe you tweak things. But I don't see why we have to make a fundamental rules change just to accommodate one small subset of baseball players- slow power hitting lefties who can't hit a ground ball to the left side of the infield. We should be discouraging those kind of one-dimensional players, not protecting them.

 

[pantagrapher]

Still pointless

The point would be to prevent these shifts.

WHY??

Teams should be able to position their fielders as they see fit - if/when they do they may be playing odds on where ball "is normally" hit by that batter but they are leaving something else open. Up to the batters to take advantage of it .... there should be a LOt more base hits against extreme shifts

I get both sides. I do. But there are already rules about where fielders can field. They must start in fair territory (except the catcher). They cannot position with the intent to distract the batter. Curtailing shifts would be a pretty minor change, especially since it's a relatively new thing and it's still not all that pervasive. I'd be OK with a rule as long as it's minimally restrictive and easy to enforce. I'd also be fine with shifts continuing.

To what end? Cameron (and Lindbergh on Grantland) have both had articles detailing the minimal impact shifts have on decreasing runs. It seems like actually enforcing the actual strike zone is a much better way of "injecting offense" into the game.

Yeah, the injecting offense argument is not a strong one at this time. And I don't think that's an argument the commish should have any interest in. If offense is down due to natural factors, let it be down. That pendulum swings both ways. I think the argument for the rule should be more: is this a loophole that is not in the spirit of the game or should shifts be allowed to continue?

OF's have shifted based on the hitter since before any of us were born, isn't this just the logical next step?

And again, you can always bunt. If Ryan Howard can start bunting half-decently into the void down the 3B line, the shifts against him will go away.

This is part of the reason I hate this idea. Defensive innovations come along, offenses adjust. That's how all sports work. If someone comes up with an innovation for which there's no response, then maybe you tweak things. But I don't see why we have to make a fundamental rules change just to accommodate one small subset of baseball players- slow power hitting lefties who can't hit a ground ball to the left side of the infield. We should be discouraging those kind of one-dimensional players, not protecting them.

Good point. Can we get rid of the DH while we're at it?

 

[shadyridr]

They should also not allow defenses to play no doubles defense and guard the lines with a one run lead late in a game. They should also prevent the 3B from playing closer to the batter to guard against the bunt.

How are those two any different?

 

[pantagrapher]

They should also not allow defenses to play no doubles defense and guard the lines with a one run lead late in a game. They should also prevent the 3B from playing closer to the batter to guard against the bunt.

How are those two any different?

They're obviously different. The 3B is still playing 3B, the right fielder is still playing right field, etc.

 

[pantagrapher]

Should the stated position of a player have to have any relationship to where they play on the field? Why not do away with the notion of 3B and SS altogether, if where they play defense is technically undefined.

 

[Grahamburn]

Can I bring the infield in? Can I pinch the corners in a bunting situation? What happens when I want to bring an outfielder into the infield to cut down the winning/tying run?

Limiting where defensive players can play is ridiculous.

MLB, don't #### with your game like the NFL has. Leave it alone. You nailed replay. Quit while you're ahead.

 

[pantagrapher]

Can I bring the infield in? Can I pinch the corners in a bunting situation? What happens when I want to bring an outfielder into the infield to cut down the winning/tying run?

Limiting where defensive players can play is ridiculous.

MLB, don't #### with your game like the NFL has. Leave it alone. You nailed replay. Quit while you're ahead.

To be fair. It wasn't the MLB that started tampering with defensive players, if was managers. The MLB is basically just weighing whether or not to respond. Also, these analogies are all poor ones—playing the lines to prevent doubles, playing in for bunts, letting outfielders play shallow. None of those is similar to having a player completely abandon his position for the other side of the field.

 

[MAC_32]

Knightro's twitter feed pretty much sums up why this is a waste of time and energy.

 

[RnR]

They should also not allow defenses to play no doubles defense and guard the lines with a one run lead late in a game. They should also prevent the 3B from playing closer to the batter to guard against the bunt.

How are those two any different?

Shady's hot takes are never a let down.

 

[Good Posting Judge]

Should the stated position of a player have to have any relationship to where they play on the field? Why not do away with the notion of 3B and SS altogether, if where they play defense is technically undefined.

I think the notions of 3B and SS are more defined by the different skillsets that they require. MLB, rightly IMO, is agnostic about what or where your 3B plays. So long as he's in fair territory and not in the hitter's line of sight distracting him.

There's a note in the MLB rules (10.03a) that states when a fielder is placed in a different spot for a particular batter, their position isn't changed officially. It seems that we're more or less at the end of the line in terms of innovations in terms of fielder positioning. This isn't really a slippery slope.

Again, most troubling is that the guy who is likely to be in charge of baseball for the next 20-some-odd years had not done any homework on this before bringing it up publicly. That's more worrisome than a shift-less MLB.

 

[Grahamburn]

Can I bring the infield in? Can I pinch the corners in a bunting situation? What happens when I want to bring an outfielder into the infield to cut down the winning/tying run?

Limiting where defensive players can play is ridiculous.

MLB, don't #### with your game like the NFL has. Leave it alone. You nailed replay. Quit while you're ahead.

To be fair. It wasn't the MLB that started tampering with defensive players, if was managers. The MLB is basically just weighing whether or not to respond. Also, these analogies are all poor ones—playing the lines to prevent doubles, playing in for bunts, letting outfielders play shallow. None of those is similar to having a player completely abandon his position for the other side of the field.

You call it tampering. I call it strategy.

All I'm saying is there isn't anything wrong with baseball so don't try to fix it.

 

[Good Posting Judge]

All I'm saying is there isn't anything wrong with baseball

Well, at least not in this instance.

 

[the moops]

Still pointless

The point would be to prevent these shifts.

WHY??Teams should be able to position their fielders as they see fit - if/when they do they may be playing odds on where ball "is normally" hit by that batter but they are leaving something else open. Up to the batters to take advantage of it .... there should be a LOt more base hits against extreme shifts

To answer your question: Because it is starting to look like beer league softball strategy.

beer league softball I have played requires 4 infielders be on the on the infield dirt and outfielders can only be a certain distance to the infield dirt.

 

[tommyGunZ]

Moncada now a FA.

Go get him AJ.

 

[tommyGunZ]

I'm anti-new-shift-rule. Like pant, I had to do a double take after initially being against it, then reading some interesting arguments in favor, but overall I think it's just not necessary and that the game will adjust. Recent data showing that it has little bearing on offense makes this seem more like a solution in search of a problem.

 

[Capella]

I don't care what they do until they cut the games down by 40-50 minutes.

 

[RnR]

I don't care what they do until they cut the games down by 40-50 minutes.

Tougher task. Ken Rosenthal was on MLB Network today saying that he expects there to be significant measures taken to speed things up in 2015, and perhaps even more to be implemented in 2016.

 

[the moops]

I don't care what they do until they cut the games down by 40-50 minutes.

If I can't drink beer after the 7th inning in this 2 hour long game I am gonna be angry

 

[Northern Voice]

I don't care what they do until they cut the games down by 40-50 minutes.

Jonah Keri was on Toronto radio today and said someone (not him) timed a few games and found they could trim 40 minutes just from players stepping out of the box between pitches. Forget about the pitch clock, require batters keep a foot in the box at all times and there you go, game is quicker.

 

[RnR]

I don't care what they do until they cut the games down by 40-50 minutes.

Jonah Keri was on Toronto radio today and said someone (not him) timed a few games and found they could trim 40 minutes just from players stepping out of the box between pitches. Forget about the pitch clock, require batters keep a foot in the box at all times and there you go, game is quicker.

That's one of the things Rosenthal said was on the table for 2015. Would be amazing.

 

[Capella]

I don't care what they do until they cut the games down by 40-50 minutes.

Jonah Keri was on Toronto radio today and said someone (not him) timed a few games and found they could trim 40 minutes just from players stepping out of the box between pitches. Forget about the pitch clock, require batters keep a foot in the box at all times and there you go, game is quicker.

Sounds glorious.

I'm a big Rays fan and the sheer boredom has prevented me from going to but a handful of games and then having the remote on hand while at home. I just can't take it.

None of my friends...I mean nobody I even know, cares about baseball. They have to do something. I know they say the game is healthy and all but they have to see the trends.

 

[Annyong]

Staying in the batters box would be fantastic

 

[Daywalker]

I don't care what they do until they cut the games down by 40-50 minutes.

Jonah Keri was on Toronto radio today and said someone (not him) timed a few games and found they could trim 40 minutes just from players stepping out of the box between pitches. Forget about the pitch clock, require batters keep a foot in the box at all times and there you go, game is quicker.

Sounds glorious.

I'm a big Rays fan and the sheer boredom has prevented me from going to but a handful of games and then having the remote on hand while at home. I just can't take it.

None of my friends...I mean nobody I even know, cares about baseball. They have to do something. I know they say the game is healthy and all but they have to see the trends.

MLB has done a poor job in marketing their fantasy sports. It's tough because of so many different formats.

I will now prop up my league format.

My league is 12 teams Points league. We set lineups once a week. Deadline before Mondays' games. It's round-robin so you basically play everyone every week. If you have the top score for the week you go 11-0. You finish last you go 0-11. Every week is a boat-race.

It's the closest I've come to fantasy football but in this case it's all week. Baseball is slow enough and so many games that you can keep track playing everyone and watch the week unfold. Monday/Tuesday is exciting as you have your 2-start pitchers going and the weekend is a blast seeing how you finish.

Keeps up your interest nearly all week.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Still pointless

The point would be to prevent these shifts.

WHY??

Teams should be able to position their fielders as they see fit - if/when they do they may be playing odds on where ball "is normally" hit by that batter but they are leaving something else open. Up to the batters to take advantage of it .... there should be a LOt more base hits against extreme shifts

I get both sides. I do. But there are already rules about where fielders can field. They must start in fair territory (except the catcher). They cannot position with the intent to distract the batter. Curtailing shifts would be a pretty minor change, especially since it's a relatively new thing and it's still not all that pervasive. I'd be OK with a rule as long as it's minimally restrictive and easy to enforce. I'd also be fine with shifts continuing.

To what end? Cameron (and Lindbergh on Grantland) have both had articles detailing the minimal impact shifts have on decreasing runs. It seems like actually enforcing the actual strike zone is a much better way of "injecting offense" into the game.

Yeah, the injecting offense argument is not a strong one at this time. And I don't think that's an argument the commish should have any interest in. If offense is down due to natural factors, let it be down. That pendulum swings both ways. I think the argument for the rule should be more: is this a loophole that is not in the spirit of the game or should shifts be allowed to continue?

OF's have shifted based on the hitter since before any of us were born, isn't this just the logical next step?

And again, you can always bunt. If Ryan Howard can start bunting half-decently into the void down the 3B line, the shifts against him will go away.

This is part of the reason I hate this idea. Defensive innovations come along, offenses adjust. That's how all sports work. If someone comes up with an innovation for which there's no response, then maybe you tweak things. But I don't see why we have to make a fundamental rules change just to accommodate one small subset of baseball players- slow power hitting lefties who can't hit a ground ball to the left side of the infield. We should be discouraging those kind of one-dimensional players, not protecting them.

Good point. Can we get rid of the DH while we're at it?

Absolutely, for this and many other reasons.

 

[Notorious T.R.E.]

I like the idea of implementing these changes in teh minors so they just carry over to the MLB. Don't make the vets do any of this weird #### and mess with the game I already love.

Do the pitch clock and foot-in-face box rule in the minors and the game will eventually just be faster over time.

 

[Annyong]

I like the idea of implementing these changes in teh minors so they just carry over to the MLB. Don't make the vets do any of this weird #### and mess with the game I already love.

Do the pitch clock and foot-in-face box rule in the minors and the game will eventually just be faster over time.

I think the Cubs will be fine, they have a lot of young players. We have nothing to worry about.

 

[Eephus]

I like the idea of implementing these changes in teh minors so they just carry over to the MLB. Don't make the vets do any of this weird #### and mess with the game I already love.

Do the pitch clock and foot-in-face box rule in the minors and the game will eventually just be faster over time.

I think the Cubs will be fine, they have a lot of young players. We have nothing to worry about.

They have to exorcise the ghost of Steve Trachsel

 

[Annyong]

Casey Jansen to the Nats for 5 mildo

 

[Good Posting Judge]

I like the idea of implementing these changes in teh minors so they just carry over to the MLB. Don't make the vets do any of this weird #### and mess with the game I already love.

Do the pitch clock and foot-in-face box rule in the minors and the game will eventually just be faster over time.

I think the Cubs will be fine, they have a lot of young players. We have nothing to worry about.

66 wins.

 

[Annyong]

I like the idea of implementing these changes in teh minors so they just carry over to the MLB. Don't make the vets do any of this weird #### and mess with the game I already love.

Do the pitch clock and foot-in-face box rule in the minors and the game will eventually just be faster over time.

I think the Cubs will be fine, they have a lot of young players. We have nothing to worry about.

66 wins.

86

 

[Notorious T.R.E.]

I like the idea of implementing these changes in teh minors so they just carry over to the MLB. Don't make the vets do any of this weird #### and mess with the game I already love.

Do the pitch clock and foot-in-face box rule in the minors and the game will eventually just be faster over time.

I think the Cubs will be fine, they have a lot of young players. We have nothing to worry about.

66 wins.

86

116

 

[Eephus]

I like the idea of implementing these changes in teh minors so they just carry over to the MLB. Don't make the vets do any of this weird #### and mess with the game I already love.

Do the pitch clock and foot-in-face box rule in the minors and the game will eventually just be faster over time.

I think the Cubs will be fine, they have a lot of young players. We have nothing to worry about.

66 wins.

86

116

156

/thread

 

[Captain Hook]

I like the idea of implementing these changes in teh minors so they just carry over to the MLB. Don't make the vets do any of this weird #### and mess with the game I already love.

Do the pitch clock and foot-in-face box rule in the minors and the game will eventually just be faster over time.

I think the Cubs will be fine, they have a lot of young players. We have nothing to worry about.

66 wins.

betting window is open

 

[MAC_32]

Interesting trade involving Travis Snider.

Post post post post...post hype sleeper?

Plenty of opportunity in Baltimore's outfield.

 

[Northern Voice]

Casey Jansen to the Nats for 5 mildo

I love Janssen but man he looked back in the last half of last season. He depends on pinpoint accuracy (not great stuff), if that's slipping, he could keep getting hit hard.

 

[Northern Voice]

Interesting trade involving Travis Snider.

Post post post post...post hype sleeper?

Plenty of opportunity in Baltimore's outfield.

Sucks that he's not on a team I can cheer for anymore. At least they Orioles proved they were capable of working out a deal. Pirates should have asked for Bundy and Gausman #Duquette.

 

[fdas2]

Interesting trade involving Travis Snider.

Post post post post...post hype sleeper?

Plenty of opportunity in Baltimore's outfield.

At some point you're no longer a sleeper, and you're just ####ty.