Email From Manfred

[MFS62]

This showed up in my email today. I didn't even know that he knew me. Maybe he was one of the people who confused me with ex-Sen. John Mitchell.
[code:1359rdjy]
On the night of August 14, 2014, I left a Baltimore hotel after being elected Commissioner of Baseball. As I began to reply to the overwhelming number of congratulatory messages coming in, it hit me that I'd just been entrusted to protect the integrity of our National Pastime and to set a course that allows this great game to continue to flourish - now and in the years to come. Needless to say, I was deeply honored by the trust the owners placed in me.
Today is my first day as Commissioner, and I am incredibly excited to get to work. I am grateful to Commissioner Selig for his expertise and friendship. His leadership set a direction that led to historic success.
The mission before us is clear: To honor the game's history while welcoming new people to our great sport - people who will one day pass their love of baseball down through the generations. That is what our parents and grandparents did for us, and it is what we are doing for our own children. Baseball is a game firmly rooted in childhood experiences, and its vitality and growth rely heavily on giving young people from all backgrounds the opportunity to play and watch baseball.
This notion that baseball is the game of children is central to my core goals as Commissioner. Maybe that is because my own Little League experience in upstate Rome, New York was such an important part of my childhood. I will never forget my intense dedication to that club and to my teammates - each of whom I can still name to this day - and being part of a perfect game.
My top priority is to bring more people into our game - at all levels and from all communities. Specifically, I plan to make the game more accessible to those in underserved areas, especially in the urban areas where fields and infrastructure are harder to find. Giving more kids the opportunity to play will inspire a new generation to fall in love with baseball just as we did when we were kids. Expanding Little League, RBI and other youth baseball programs will also help sustain a steady and wide talent pool from which our clubs can draw great players and create lifelong fans.
As Commissioner, I will draw closer connections between youth baseball and MLB. I want to inspire children's interest in baseball and help parents and coaches foster that passion. In the coming years, MLB will work with college, high school, amateur and youth baseball programs to help grow our game and to ensure that the best players and talent have the opportunity to pursue their dreams. I call it "One Baseball" - a partnership between all professional and amateur groups involved in our game.
Our children can look at MLB today and find a wave of new stars worthy of emulating both on and off the field. Players like Andrew McCutchen, Buster Posey, Giancarlo Stanton and Mike Trout and aces Madison Bumgarner, Felix Hernandez and Clayton Kershaw have powerful stories to tell - and MLB will tell them across every platform. We will continue to internationalize our game and to celebrate the fact that we have the most diverse rosters in the world. Our mission is to build upon this recent success by creating opportunities for the next wave of baseball talent. We also must continue to nurture inclusive environments for all the contributors to our game and our loyal fans.
Another priority for me is to continue to modernize the game without interfering with its history and traditions. Last season's expanded instant replay improved the game's quality and addressed concerns shared by fans and players. We made a dramatic change without altering the game's fundamentals. I look forward to tapping into the power of technology to consider additional advancements that will continue to heighten the excitement of the game, improve the pace of play and attract more young people to the game.
The Major League Clubs have bestowed an extraordinary opportunity upon me. My pledge is to work every single day to honor their faith in me and your love of this game.
Robert D. Manfred, Jr. [/code:1359rdjy]
I wonder how he got my email address.

Later

[Gwreck]

Got a return address for him? I've got a few thoughts for him already about how stupid changes that he's in favor of (like pitch clocks or banning defensive shifts) will ruin baseball.

[Benjamin Grimm]

Banning defensive shifts? I'm not familiar with that one.

[Benjamin Grimm]

I found this: http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/eye-on-baseball/24992568/rob-manfred-says-hes-open-to-banning-extreme-defensive-shifts

What a stupid idea!

[nymr83]

Incredibly stupid. Maybe he just wants them to play homerun derby every night? I am glad we are getting away from the steroid fueled offensive era and into a re b aissance for pitching and defense.

[Centerfield]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: I found this: http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/eye-on-baseball/24992568/rob-manfred-says-hes-open-to-banning-extreme-defensive-shifts What a stupid idea!

I'm not sure if I'm missing sarcasm here, but why is this a terrible idea? I've always thought this hurt LH hitters more than RH hitters.

I'm not necessarily endorsing the idea, but I don't see any reason for a strong objection.

[Zvon]

I got one of these too. I guess that means Im an MLB Insider.

I found this: http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/eye-on-baseball/24992568/rob-manfred-says-hes-open-to-banning-extreme-defensive-shifts What a stupid idea!

I agree Grimm. Shifts are part of the game. Sometimes they help, sometimes they burn ya.

Don't players today have the ability to just poke it the other way?

[Edgy MD]

I would say it's a terrible idea because, by limiting the liberty which players have had to move around and play where they will, since baseball was born � and the manager's liberty to position them � you're changing the very nature of the game, all for the sake of fixing something that isn't broken.

Historically, defense makes an adjustment, offense either plows ahead with the standard strategy, or responds with an adjustment of their own. Offense makes an adjustment, and defense responds. That's part of the intrigue, and that's part of the game. Let Lucas Duda bunt once or twice a month to keep the defense more honest. Kingman did.

[Frayed Knot]

This idea was floated by, and endorsed by, several writers last summer.
But I entirely disagree with the whole idea. If teams can figure out a way to limit the damage caused by the more one-dimensional, pull-hitting, LH, slow-footed types (Papi and his brethren) then it's either up to those hitters to figure out a way to beat the shift, or it puts a premium on clubs to find more contact-oriented, all-fields hitters (hello Brandon Nimmo?).

[Edgy MD]

*Like*

[ashie62]

It won't happen.

[Zvon]

Edgy MD wrote: .. you're changing the very nature of the game, all for the sake of fixing something that isn't broken.

This^

[Guest d'Kong76]

No way this will ever happen; all seven fielders can
(and will always be able to) stand wherever the hell
they want.

[Frayed Knot]

And how would you describe and enforce such a rule?
- Would a fielder moving ten feet to one side be legal but 20 feet not?
- Or are circles going to be drawn on the field where everyone has to stand as the pitch is thrown?
- Are outfielders going to be prohibited from moving too or just infielders?
- Maybe they'll allow infielders to shift left or right but just not set up on the OF grass?



And in fairness, this is not something that Manfred is putting on the top of his to-do list; sounds more like he was just answering a question as to whether he'd be open to it.
I think there's probably also a degree of wanting to differentiate himself from Selig so he's using this first day on the job platform to cast himself as the more proactive guy in contrast to Bud's reactive and consensus driven approach.

[Centerfield]

By the nature of the way the bases are set up, shifts hurt LH hitters more than they hurt RH hitters. This is obviously not a huge issue facing the game, but does it warrant no action?

[nymr83]

Centerfield wrote: By the nature of the way the bases are set up, shifts hurt LH hitters more than they hurt RH hitters. This is obviously not a huge issue facing the game, but does it warrant no action?

By nature of being born left-handed those left handed bats have a higher chance of making the majors because the percentage of left handed hitters will always be higher than the percentage of lefties in the general population, a result of their increased effectiveness against predominantly right handed pitching, maybe we should have a rule that each righty is entitled to face the same percentage of left handed pitchers that a lefty gets to face of right handers?

the whole idea is absurd.

[Frayed Knot]

Centerfield wrote: By the nature of the way the bases are set up, shifts hurt LH hitters more than they hurt RH hitters. This is obviously not a huge issue facing the game, but does it warrant no action?

The way the bases are set up also helps LH batters to the extent that they're closer to 1B. I don't think this warrants action either.

A so-called extreme shifts only 'hurts' (if you want to use that word, I'd opt maybe for 'challenges' instead) those LHBs who pull almost exclusively and are slow-footed - a fairly small percentage I'd say. You wouldn't pull that shift on Reyes or Ichiro even if they were dead-pull guys because they'd out-run a grounder hit to a 2B positioning himself in short RF.
What those LH hitters can do is pull less, or bunt occasionally like Edgy says, and the shifts would disappear overnight. And even as it is, any manager employing a shift is engaging in a risk/reward that's going to cost him outs on occasion too. It then becomes up to him whether he thinks he's stealing more outs than he's losing.

Edited January 25, 2015 by Guest

[Ceetar]

Also lefties have the platoon advantage as batters more often.

[Edgy MD]

Manfred also mentioned a possible return to Montreal.

I hope that's higher on the priority list than corralling the defense.

[Benjamin Grimm]

Would that mean expansion? Or relocation? I suppose that right now the teams most likely to relocate are the Rays and the Athletics. I think that if I were in charge of either of those teams there would be at least a few places I'd choose over Montreal.

[Frayed Knot]

In the laundry list of topics that he touched on, Manfred listed expansion as NOT something on the near-term agenda.

[Benjamin Grimm]

That doesn't surprise me at all.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

Specifically, I plan to make the game more accessible to those in underserved areas, especially in the urban areas where fields and infrastructure are harder to find.

'Where is my place in this bright future?' I heard him say.

cj3jn309hAc

How did we survive?

[Guest Mets Guy in Michigan]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Would that mean expansion? Or relocation? I suppose that right now the teams most likely to relocate are the Rays and the Athletics. I think that if I were in charge of either of those teams there would be at least a few places I'd choose over Montreal.

I think he's obligated to dangle destinations out there so teams demanding new stadiums have leverage -- though the number of teams not having new stadiums is pretty small at this point.

[nymr83]

Mets Guy in Michigan wrote: Would that mean expansion? Or relocation? I suppose that right now the teams most likely to relocate are the Rays and the Athletics. I think that if I were in charge of either of those teams there would be at least a few places I'd choose over Montreal. I think he's obligated to dangle destinations out there so teams demanding new stadiums have leverage -- though the number of teams not having new stadiums is pretty small at this point.

The Rogers center in Toronto is 25 years old, only the following are older: Fenway Park (1912 and not going anywhere), Wrigley Field (1914, they are re-modelling the bleachers but the team isnt leaving the park), Dodger Stadium (1962), Angel Stadium (1966), Oakland Coliseum (1966), Kaufman Stadium (1973 - a 250 million renovation was done 5 years ago).

Oakland seem like the only conceivable team who could demand a stadium from this group.

Tampa is the only other team I could see moving.

[Centerfield]

Frayed Knot wrote: Centerfield wrote: By the nature of the way the bases are set up, shifts hurt LH hitters more than they hurt RH hitters. This is obviously not a huge issue facing the game, but does it warrant no action? The way the bases are set up also helps LH batters to the extent that they're closer to 1B. I don't think this warrants action either. A so-called extreme shifts only 'hurts' (if you want to use that word, I'd opt maybe for 'challenges' instead) those LHBs who pull almost exclusively and are slow-footed - a fairly small percentage I'd say. You wouldn't pull that shift on Reyes or Ichiro even if they were dead-pull guys because they'd out-run a grounder hit to a 2B positioning himself in short RF. What those LH hitters can do is pull less, or bunt occasionally like Edgy says, and the shifts would disappear overnight. And even as it is, any manager employing a shift is engaging in a risk/reward that's going to cost him outs on occasion too. It then becomes up to him whether he thinks he's stealing more outs than he's losing.

Fair points. Interestingly the ones proposing the rule were also arguing "integrity of the game". Meaning baseball has been played forever with two infielders on each side of second base, and now these new defensive shifts are changing the way the game is played.

If I had to make a call, I'd probably vote against banning shifts, but I am surprised to see such uniformity from everyone on this board. We never agree about anything.

[seawolf17]

Banning shifts is idiotic.

[Guest d'Kong76]

Centerfield wrote: We never agree about anything.

Well, I'd have to disagree with that.

[Guest Mets Guy in Michigan]

Nymr83 wrote: Would that mean expansion? Or relocation? I suppose that right now the teams most likely to relocate are the Rays and the Athletics. I think that if I were in charge of either of those teams there would be at least a few places I'd choose over Montreal. I think he's obligated to dangle destinations out there so teams demanding new stadiums have leverage -- though the number of teams not having new stadiums is pretty small at this point. The Rogers center in Toronto is 25 years old, only the following are older: Fenway Park (1912 and not going anywhere), Wrigley Field (1914, they are re-modelling the bleachers but the team isnt leaving the park), Dodger Stadium (1962), Angel Stadium (1966), Oakland Coliseum (1966), Kaufman Stadium (1973 - a 250 million renovation was done 5 years ago). Oakland seem like the only conceivable team who could demand a stadium from this group. Tampa is the only other team I could see moving.

Yup! And I think Tampa has on iron-clad lease for something like the next 30 years.

Now, I didn't imagine that the Braves would be abandoning 20-year-old Turner Field, either. But I think throwing Montreal out there as a potential destination gives the Athletics some leverage.

[Edgy MD]

Centerfield wrote: Fair points. Interestingly the ones proposing the rule were also arguing "integrity of the game". Meaning baseball has been played forever with two infielders on each side of second base, and now these new defensive shifts are changing the way the game is played.

The alignment Ted Williams tended to see:

[fimg=600]http://sports.mearsonlineauctions.com/ItemImages/000036/dcaa027c-92ad-400a-acb6-9717355bd97d_lg.jpeg[/fimg]

The Bad News Bears also deployed an extreme defensive shift against Carl Paranski.