2021 Collective Bargaining Agreement Discussion Thread

[glory]

[BTS]

So MLB has agreed to banning shifts? Both sides of this negotiation are ruining baseball.

[connorp]

So MLB has agreed to banning shifts? Both sides of this negotiation are ruining baseball.

 

Clearly neither side is worried of enraging sabr nerds lol

[connorp]

Look at the bright side, it will make UZR a little more meaningful, no?

[Olerud363]

So MLB has agreed to banning shifts? Both sides of this negotiation are ruining baseball.

 

Yup. Shifts have been around forever. Interestingly Marcus Semien pull hitter with high k rate has a higher wOBA then Michael Brantley last year. Cavan Biggio with a .230 average can beat Adam Frazier with a .280.

 

Seems the shifts really just reflect the strategy the hitters are using, as much as shifts themselves. I've heard they shifted on Ted Williams, and I think I remember them shifting on Rob Deer or Harold Baines or someone, but until the last 10 or 15 years they never thought of shifting on everyone.

 

However is that because they just thought of it 15 years ago? Or because everyone decided to become a lower average swing for the fences type (which means more pulled ground balls) ? This may have have happened because of sabermetrics, when they found out .250 with power is better than .280 without.

 

Banning the shift may return to the video game numbers of the late 90s... Then they may have to deaden the ball to get it to some kind of normal historical level.

[Laika]

"banning the shift" could mean a spectrum of things

 

some of them would be gross

 

some of the lighter versions might not be so bad

 

like if the rule was "must have 3 and only 3 outfielders at all times and two infielders on each side of second base" would it really be that bad? say outfield = starts the play on outfield grass. teams could still basically shift the infield if you imagine the SS lining up right behind 2B; it would just kill that deep shift against lefties where the infielders starts in shallow RF

[Olerud363]

"banning the shift" could mean a spectrum of things

 

some of them would be gross

 

some of the lighter versions might not be so bad

 

like if the rule was "must have 3 and only 3 outfielders at all times and two infielders on each side of second base" would it really be that bad? say outfield = starts the play on outfield grass. teams could still basically shift the infield if you imagine the SS lining up right behind 2B; it would just kill that deep shift against lefties where the infielders starts in shallow RF

 

There are probably a lot of edge cases that would end up screwy. Like bottom of the 9th, less than 2 out, runner on 3rd. Sometimes they want 5 infielders. Is that still allowed? Is it exactly 3 outfielders? Or just not more than 3 ?

 

How do you enforce this? Umpires judgement or are there lines on the field? Of course an infielder is allowed to cross the line once a ball is in play but then is there some kind of infield 'balk' or something? Like an infielder starts moving passed the shift line before the pitch is thrown you call an 'infield balk' ?.

[Brownie19]

There are probably a lot of edge cases that would end up screwy. Like bottom of the 9th, less than 2 out, runner on 3rd. Sometimes they want 5 infielders. Is that still allowed? Is it exactly 3 outfielders? Or just not more than 3 ?

 

How do you enforce this? Umpires judgement or are there lines on the field? Of course an infielder is allowed to cross the line once a ball is in play but then is there some kind of infield 'balk' or something? Like an infielder starts moving passed the shift line before the pitch is thrown you call an 'infield balk' ?.

 

I don't think we need to get caught up in something that happens like once or twice a year.

[Brownie19]

Yup. Shifts have been around forever. Interestingly Marcus Semien pull hitter with high k rate has a higher wOBA then Michael Brantley last year. Cavan Biggio with a .230 average can beat Adam Frazier with a .280.

 

Seems the shifts really just reflect the strategy the hitters are using, as much as shifts themselves. I've heard they shifted on Ted Williams, and I think I remember them shifting on Rob Deer or Harold Baines or someone, but until the last 10 or 15 years they never thought of shifting on everyone.

 

However is that because they just thought of it 15 years ago? Or because everyone decided to become a lower average swing for the fences type (which means more pulled ground balls) ? This may have have happened because of sabermetrics, when they found out .250 with power is better than .280 without.

 

Banning the shift may return to the video game numbers of the late 90s... Then they may have to deaden the ball to get it to some kind of normal historical level.

 

I have to think the increased velocity is playing a big role in this change. You hear a lot how when a pitcher is throwing 95+ that hitters physically can't cover both sides of the plate. They have to eliminate zones and pitches if they are going to square one up. It was a lot easier to effectively hit the ball to all fields when starters threw 89-92, you still faced s***** 3rd and 4th starters 3 times a game, bullpen arms generally sucked balls (remember when the strategy was to be really patient to get the starter out of the game early so you could pound the middle relief?) and closers threw 94.

 

I also believe shifts should have been implemented 20-30 years ago, but people were scared of the change and upsetting tradition. I wonder if anyone has gone back to analysis spray charts from the 1995 (maybe those don't even exist) to see what the impact may have been.

[connorp]

"banning the shift" could mean a spectrum of things

 

some of them would be gross

 

some of the lighter versions might not be so bad

 

like if the rule was "must have 3 and only 3 outfielders at all times and two infielders on each side of second base" would it really be that bad? say outfield = starts the play on outfield grass. teams could still basically shift the infield if you imagine the SS lining up right behind 2B; it would just kill that deep shift against lefties where the infielders starts in shallow RF

 

That’s what I’d assume. Split IF at 2b and require 2 IF on each side. 3 OF all times etc

[Laika]

That’s what I’d assume. Split IF at 2b and require 2 IF on each side. 3 OF all times etc

 

Defensive skills (range) would also matter more because teams could no longer cover so much with positioning.

 

The days of a 2B needing to be a good infielder may be back

 

No more Mike Moustakas etc. as a 2B...

[Olerud363]

I have to think the increased velocity is playing a big role in this change. You hear a lot how when a pitcher is throwing 95+ that hitters physically can't cover both sides of the plate. They have to eliminate zones and pitches if they are going to square one up. It was a lot easier to effectively hit the ball to all fields when starters threw 89-92, you still faced s***** 3rd and 4th starters 3 times a game, bullpen arms generally sucked balls (remember when the strategy was to be really patient to get the starter out of the game early so you could pound the middle relief?) and closers threw 94.

 

I also believe shifts should have been implemented 20-30 years ago, but people were scared of the change and upsetting tradition. I wonder if anyone has gone back to analysis spray charts from the 1995 (maybe those don't even exist) to see what the impact may have been.

 

You might be right, and I've heard players saying this. However I have also heard the opposite. That they could be .280 hitters with 5 home runs if they wanted, but it's better to be a .250 hitter with 20 home runs.

 

Take Jose Ramirez and Franciso Lindor for example. In 2016 they were .300 hitters with like 12 homer power... and they've matured into .270 hitters with 30 homer power.

 

Do you think that is because of the pitching? Or because they (and their teams) know .270 with 30 homers is better than .310 with 12 homers?

 

Maybe I'm cherry picking a bit to fit a narrative. Ramirez did have a great season in 2017 with both average and power but on the average it seems to me, that these guys that maybe would have tried be .300 hitters in a previous generation would rather be 30 homer guys now.

[Olerud363]

Banning the shift will probably lead to more Ks and walks. Dead pull mashers will be more viable and pitchers will want to give up even less contact so they will hunt Ks.

 

But you will also introduce crazy s*** like the Rays starting their SS in motion so he's in the hole when the pitch is thrown.

 

Yeah... year one you'll see stuff like this if they don't have a rule against it. Then maybe there is like an infield movement rule or something. No movement before the pitch or it's the equivalent of a balk or something. It could get weird.

[Stangstag]

Why are they rejecting robo umps? I'd love that change.

 

I would assume its all the pitchers that don’t want robo umps because they want to continue getting BS framed calls off the plate

[Olerud363]

Banning the shift will probably lead to more Ks and walks. Dead pull mashers will be more viable and pitchers will want to give up even less contact so they will hunt Ks.

 

But you will also introduce crazy s*** like the Rays starting their SS in motion so he's in the hole when the pitch is thrown.

 

Not totally sure what would happen, but more baserunners, more ground ball singles could be a return to Manny Ramirez Cleveland like numbers, guys hit like .350 with 160 rbis...

 

What would Vlad have hit last year without shifts? How many extra ground ball singles?

 

Or then the pitchers, like you say, refuse to give any contact, and they all go 2 innings trying to strike out the side and things are worse.

[Brownie19]

You might be right, and I've heard players saying this. However I have also heard the opposite. That they could be .280 hitters with 5 home runs if they wanted, but it's better to be a .250 hitter with 20 home runs.

 

Take Jose Ramirez and Franciso Lindor for example. In 2016 they were .300 hitters with like 12 homer power... and they've matured into .270 hitters with 30 homer power.

 

Do you think that is because of the pitching? Or because they (and their teams) know .270 with 30 homers is better than .310 with 12 homers?

 

Maybe I'm cherry picking a bit to fit a narrative. Ramirez did have a great season in 2017 with both average and power but on the average it seems to me, that these guys that maybe would have tried be .300 hitters in a previous generation would rather be 30 homer guys now.

 

I think there's probably some validity in that. But I also think they realized it was getting increasingly difficult to be a .310 hitter as we saw a huge increase shifting and a year by year increase in velocity. There's definitely some chicken and egg thing happening here.

 

I'd love to hear what Votto says about this, as he's the guy I think of who's changed his approach at the plate several times during his career. He seemingly sacrificed average/contact/K% for power last year and it lead to a resurgence in his career (which might push him into the HOF)

[Brownie19]

Banning the shift will probably lead to more Ks and walks. Dead pull mashers will be more viable and pitchers will want to give up even less contact so they will hunt Ks.

 

But you will also introduce crazy s*** like the Rays starting their SS in motion so he's in the hole when the pitch is thrown.

 

I'm not sure I agree with this (not that I - or any of us really have any idea). My gut says that right now, facing high velocity and a shift - players know they can't just "take it the other way" with much success....but also know that if they are going to beat the shift, they have to crush it. If the shift is restricted and more balls put in play go for hits, they may not feel they have to hit a HR or have a 100 MPH+ exit velocity to get a hit. If there are more holes, then contact will be more effective than it's been the past 4-5 years.

 

You may be correct about pitchers wanting to limit contact - but honestly - almost everyone is already trying to limit it - not sure they can try any harder. If limiting the shift puts more emphasis to better defense, then that might help counter the pitchers fear of hitters putting the ball in play.

 

We don't even know what's proposed, so no need to worry about what TB will do, but I have to think fielders won't be able to cross the 'line' until the ball is released from the pitcher (or maybe even until it crosses home plate). Either way, neither give you any time at all to actually move very far....you can't have fielders running when the ball is put in play.

[Brownie19]

I would assume its all the pitchers that don’t want robo umps because they want to continue getting BS framed calls off the plate

 

I fully expect there's still too many bugs in the system for both pitchers and batters to fully support this. Instead of being rung up by Joe West because he's brutal, they'll get rung up on a curve ball in the dirt because there are limitations to the accuracy of the computer. Even if humans f*** up more than the computer (which I'm sure they do) - the computer is going to have to be substantially better than humans before it gains support.

[John_Havok]

Why are they rejecting robo umps? I'd love that change.

 

They arent rejecting it outright, just for until at least the end of 2023 season. The MLB wants to change the unilateral process from a 1 year notification time to 45 days... which is basically them saying as soon as the World Series ends, they want the ability to say "next season, here's the changes"

 

So the PA is saying that's okay for cerrtain things, but they want more time to look at the robo ump thing

[John_Havok]

I would assume its all the pitchers that don’t want robo umps because they want to continue getting BS framed calls off the plate

 

I think from the Union POV it's more about how changing to RObo umps would affect the player's valuations, specifically catchers.

 

If framing #'s no longer matter to defensive value, then a catcher's valuations go down. I guess maybe the same for pitchers if robo umps call alot more balls.

[InsideThePark]

I think from the Union POV it's more about how changing to RObo umps would affect the player's valuations, specifically catchers.

 

If framing #'s no longer matter to defensive value, then a catcher's valuations go down. I guess maybe the same for pitchers if robo umps call alot more balls.

 

It's all a zero sum game though. If catcher value goes down then everyone else goes up very slightly as teams will spend less on catchers. If there are more balls called then yeah some pitcher values go down, but some pitchers value will go up because they're more accurate.

 

I suspect it\s more pitchers hate it, hitters are probably split. Leads to more players hating it overall

[Olerud363]

I don't think we need to get caught up in something that happens like once or twice a year.

 

But to some people that is the tradition of the game... it's just 9 guys and you can do whatever the f*** you want with them. For 100 years they are were positioned where they were because that is what people thought was optimal.

 

However in odd outlier cases you could completely position them differently because there was no rule as to where the players should be.

 

Now we are changing 130 years of tradition just because it turned out it made sense to use weird configurations a lot more than we used to think it did.

[BigCecil]

I don't think we need to get caught up in something that happens like once or twice a year.

 

C'mon Olerud LOVEs getting us to wade into esoteric discussions on ancillary matters...the rabbit hole is his specialty. lol He is good at it.

[Ehjays]

But to some people that is the tradition of the game... it's just 9 guys and you can do whatever the f*** you want with them. For 100 years they are were positioned where they were because that is what people thought was optimal.

 

However in odd outlier cases you could completely position them differently because there was no rule as to where the players should be.

 

Now we are changing 130 years of tradition just because it turned out it made sense to use weird configurations a lot more than we used to think it did.

 

 

Fred Lynn chimed in with Gallos complaint.

[John_Havok]

 

Fred Lynn chimed in with Gallos complaint.

 

I'm really a fan of people who use arguments that basically boil down to "but this Hall of Fame player did that, so ... can't everyone?"

 

I don't think the shift should be banned either, but using this kind of argument is just ... sooooo... stupid.

 

The same assinine s*** gets tossed around for people talking about pitching "why do they need to throw 95 mph? Greg Maddux .... blah blah blah"... like if every pitcher suddenly realized that if they'd only throw just a little softer they too could have absolutely pinpoint command, enjoy a strike zone 6 -8 inches wider on each side of the plate and be a Hall of Famer.

 

If only...

[Ehjays]

I'm really a fan of people who use arguments that basically boil down to "but this Hall of Fame player did that, so ... can't everyone?"

 

I don't think the shift should be banned either, but using this kind of argument is just ... sooooo... stupid.

 

The same assinine s*** gets tossed around for people talking about pitching "why do they need to throw 95 mph? Greg Maddux .... blah blah blah"... like if every pitcher suddenly realized that if they'd only throw just a little softer they too could have absolutely pinpoint command and enjoy a strike zone 6 -8 inches wider on each side of the plate.

 

I agree I dont think it should be banned, I also agree its a bad argument, the only thing I would add is its bad on both sides. , but for Gallo, the shift is extreme and if he was able to place it anywhere on the left side of the diamond he would get at least 1 bag. This is how extreme it is for him, but he doesnt even try to adjust:

 

[Brownie19]

 

Fred Lynn chimed in with Gallos complaint.

 

I argue with a few people about this already. People argue that if they use the shift on you, it shows how poor of a hitter you really are (which is seemingly what Ehjays suggests)....but I mean, they shifted against Ted Williams - arguably the best hitter of all time. So shifts can be used against great hitters and s***** hitters. I don't think Ted sacrificed power to dribble a few extra balls the other way to 'beat' the shift.

[Ehjays]

I argue with a few people about this already. People argue that if they use the shift on you, it shows how poor of a hitter you really are (which is seemingly what Ehjays suggests)....but I mean, they shifted against Ted Williams - arguably the best hitter of all time. So shifts can be used against great hitters and s***** hitters. I don't think Ted sacrificed power to dribble a few extra balls the other way to 'beat' the shift.

 

Im not saying he is a poor hitter, Im saying he doesnt even attempt to go the other way to counter their plan on him. Which means they wont change it. If he even attempted to place it down 3rd and it goes foul, Im sure one of the IF's moves over the very next pitch.

[Brownie19]

Im not saying he is a poor hitter, Im saying he doesnt even attempt to go the other way to counter their plan on him. Which means they wont change it. If he even attempted to place it down 3rd and it goes foul, Im sure one of the IF's moves over the very next pitch.

 

That's not even remotely true. As of August 19th last year, Joey Gallo was tied for the league lead in bunt singles.

 

https://www.pinstripealley.com/2021/8/19/22629372/yankees-joey-gallo-strikeouts-home-runs-three-true-outcomes-bunts-run-values

[Ehjays]

That's not even remotely true. As of August 19th last year, Joey Gallo was tied for the league lead in bunt singles.

 

https://www.pinstripealley.com/2021/8/19/22629372/yankees-joey-gallo-strikeouts-home-runs-three-true-outcomes-bunts-run-values

 

Thats good to see, thats how you beat the shift.