Email From Manfred

[nymr83]

wow the Williams shift is more extreme than anything you see these days

[Edgy MD]

I have to be honest. I don't know how typical that alignment really was. Leaving only one guy on the left side instead of one in the infield and one in the outfield is totally EXXXTREME!!11!

[Frayed Knot]

I have to be honest. I don't know how typical that alignment really was. Leaving only one guy on the left side instead of one in the infield and one in the outfield is totally EXXXTREME!!11!

Cleveland player/manager Lou Boudreau (he might be player #2 in that picture) is the one credited for coming up with that one vs Teddy Ballgame, but it was hardly the first or only time that type of thing was used prior to just the last year or two.
Olbermann did a piece on this not long ago which included him reading newspaper accounts from 19th century games which described defenses drastically overloading one side against certain hitters.



I guess I just don't understand the big itch to do something about this.
There are only a few rules in existence about positioning: the catcher has to be in his box; the pitcher needs to be on the rubber*; and the other seven need only to be in fair territory.
If teams want to put all seven of them in a pile on the 2nd base bag, or have them in a circle holding hands in CF then they're free to do so.





* unless you're Jordan Walden

[Edgy MD]

[youtube:2jsd74fd]YrjJFNDQJbM[/youtube:2jsd74fd]

[Frayed Knot]

Various insiders discuss the shifting trend - or the trends in shifting.

http://m.mlb.com/news/article/107573504/players-coaches-discuss-impact-of-the-infield-shift

[Zvon]

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

This is such an awesome photo.

[Benjamin Grimm]

At first glance, I thought the numbers represented the fielders' positions, but that would mean that the third baseman was playing against the center field wall and the center fielder was pitching. I doubt that that happened very often! My guess is that it's something like this:

1 - first base
2 - shortstop
3 - third base
4 - left field (not pictured)
5 - center field
6 - right field
7 - second base
8 - pitcher

[Guest Mets � Willets Point]

At first glance, I thought the numbers represented the fielders' positions, but that would mean that the third baseman was playing against the center field wall and the center fielder was pitching. I doubt that that happened very often! My guess is that it's something like this:

I had that same impression and thought "Damn that Boudreau was extreme!" I can't imagine what those numbers are supposed to signify since they're obviously not the fielding positions, at least not on any scorecard I've ever seen.

[Frayed Knot]

I suspect it was just some newspaper editor -- one perhaps not familiar with standard scorecard notation -- trying to illustrate how many of the fielders were on the one side of the infield (Mr. catcher is probably #4 but got cropped). That still doesn't answer the question of why he went in the particular order he did, but it's likely nothing other than just random.

[Guest Mets Guy in Michigan]

I don't think the defense shifts are much of a drag on time. There are other things. I do think the batters walking out of the batter's box after every pitch to adjust their gloves and so on does slow things down. I think making three pitching changes in the seventh and eighth innings does slow things down, especially if they are allowed to take warm-up pitches after warming up in the bullpen. And each pitching changes means a break for ads, which leads to:

There's the stuff the league won't touch -- nationally televised games are longer because of all the ads between innings. .

[Frayed Knot]

I don't think anyone's trying to link shifts and game time. Shifts and reduced offense maybe, but not time of game.
And again, I think much of what Manfred is trying to say here -- in response to various 'first day on the job' questions -- is send a signal as to how his approach might differ from Selig's (proactive rather than reactive) by indicating that he's willing to at least look such radical topics such as pace of play (already begun) and the idea of restricting defensive shifts.

[Guest Mets Guy in Michigan]

Frayed Knot wrote: I don't think anyone's trying to link shifts and game time. Shifts and reduced offense maybe, but not time of game. And again, I think much of what Manfred is trying to say here -- in response to various 'first day on the job' questions -- is send a signal as to how his approach might differ from Selig's (proactive rather than reactive) by indicating that he's willing to at least look such radical topics such as pace of play (already begun) and the idea of restricting defensive shifts.

Ah! Now it makes sense.

[Guest Mets � Willets Point]

[Gwreck]

Manfred clarifies his comments in an interview with Ken Rosenthal:

"Let me go back and put the comment I made in context. I was asked about long term, radical thoughts and what I said was that I was I prepared to have a conversation about shifts. Look, we have a lot of conversations in this building about a lot of things, so I don�t think it would be a good idea to read too much into that comment."

Full interview
http://www.foxsports.com/mlb/story/rob-manfred-mlb-baseball-commissioner-talks-pace-players-and-plans-012815

(Spoiler: he also gives a predictably inane answer suggesting he'll do nothing about the Mets' ownership).

[Benjamin Grimm]

Regarding this shift thing: It is, and always has been, the responsibility of the hitter to hit 'em where they ain't. The fielders shouldn't be required to stand in a place where the batter is less likely to hit the ball.

[Edgy MD]

Manfred has since walked back his shift comments.

I knew I would like this guy the moment I read this fan comment on Adam Rubin's Facebook page:

The Comissioner is an idiot or a FREIND THE THE MET OWNERS.

[Gwreck]

I'm not clear what the relevance is of a facebook comment of an incoherent idiot.

[Edgy MD]

I feel a compulsion to be where the incoherent idiots aren't.

[Ceetar]

Edgy MD wrote: I feel a compulsion to be where the incoherent idiots aren't.

I tried that. got lonely.

[Edgy MD]

Edgy to co-worker/former MLB employee: So, you know Rob Manfred?

Co-Worker: Know him? Not really, but I've certainly sat in on a few meetings with him.

Edgy: Yeah, I guess marketing and labor relations wouldn't frequently have cause to meet.

Co-Worker: No, not really. But I can tell you that he's kind of... he's kind of... a huge dick.

[Guest sharpie]

Couldn't find a general rule changes thread so putting it here. Better idea than outlawing defensive shifts. Would make it tougher for LOOGIEs to get jobs

http://espn.go.com/blog/sweetspot/post/_/id/54831/should-relievers-have-to-face-two-batters

[batmagadanleadoff]

sharpie wrote: Couldn't find a general rule changes thread so putting it here. Better idea than outlawing defensive shifts. Would make it tougher for LOOGIEs to get jobs http://espn.go.com/blog/sweetspot/post/_/id/54831/should-relievers-have-to-face-two-batters

Whaddya do if a reliever gets injured, or experiences discomfort before the first at bat is resolved? Sounds like a rule that would be better suite to Strat-O-Matic or some other board game.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

I'd sooner advocate they reduce the size of the rosters by 1 or 2 slots, that'd teach them to make so many pitching changes. Of course the new commish wouldn't want that kind of fight on his hands right away.

[Benjamin Grimm]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Whaddya do if a reliever gets injured, or experiences discomfort before the first at bat is resolved? Sounds like a rule that would be better suite to Strat-O-Matic or some other board game.

Obviously there would have to be an exception. Just like there's the exception to the must-face-one-batter rule.

[Frayed Knot]

There'd be a significant increase in "injuries" to pitchers following their first batter faced if there was suddenly a two-batter minimum rule.
But I predict recovery time for said injuries would be fairly rapid.

[Guest sharpie]

That article deals with the injury issue in the last graph:

So let's add a rule that a reliever has to face at least two batters (I'd even be in favor of three), unless the inning ends. For those worried about a pitcher faking an injury: Fine, if a pitcher leaves with an injury, he's ineligible for the next three games and you can't replace him on the roster.

[Ceetar]

sharpie wrote: That article deals with the injury issue in the last graph: So let's add a rule that a reliever has to face at least two batters (I'd even be in favor of three), unless the inning ends. For those worried about a pitcher faking an injury: Fine, if a pitcher leaves with an injury, he's ineligible for the next three games and you can't replace him on the roster.

Exactly why it'll never happen. Because this means pitchers, and perhaps some managers, will be more likely to let the pitcher just 'pitch through it' risking injury if there really is something wrong.

"It just felt like soreness, I didn't want to be unavailable for three games." Said Mejia while trainers put his arm in an ice bucket for transportation to the hospital to be reattached.

[Frayed Knot]

I'm in favor of trying everything else first with the hope of avoiding things like rule changes, roster restrictions, or pitch clocks.

If they can simply enforce the things they've talked about and which seem easy to do (maybe not by Game #1, but soon enough):
1) batter & pitcher both ready to go [u:1a5s5i73]before[/u:1a5s5i73] the half-inning break is complete - so the 2:05 breaks don't morph into 2:30
2) limit stepping-out and stepping-off
and then I'll throw in 3) incoming relievers get their warm-ups in the pen
that should be 15 minutes right there. Hell, [u:1a5s5i73]two seconds saved per pitch[/u:1a5s5i73] gets you more than halfway there!

[Edgy MD]

Yeah, there's a lot of places to go before enforcing multi-batter minimums, which again, really changes the nature of the game. How about limiting warmup pitches for a guy who just left the pen is an easy place to start.