Defensive shifts

This was on MLB.com. Thought it might be an interesting topic for conversation.

http://www.sportsonearth.com/article/107565342/mlb-commissioner-rob-manfred-defensive-shifting

Essence of the article is some fans are calling for an outlaw of shift defenses because they decrease offense. Apparently there has been some discussion of some sort of zone defense outlaw rule for baseball. The article does not mention any details. But I assume that would mean something like shortstop cannot take an initial position on the first base side of second. Maybe third baseman has to be within x feet of third base. Maybe limiting how deep a second baseman can position himself.

I do not care for the idea. I say if a shift reduces effectiveness of a hitter so be it. If the hitter cannot adjust they deserve to be making an out.

The article then refers to a second page I thought most here would enjoy reading.

http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2014/4/8/5561254/is-the-infield-shift-ruining-baseball

It discuss/defines what a pull hitter is and what a balanced hitter is. There is even a formuola.
(((Center Rate + Opposite Field Rate) ÷ 2) - Pull Rate) × 100

I thought it was interesting but lacks one important factor for analysis. I not only want to know what hitters tend to be excessive pull hitters and thus warrant being shifted against. I want to know which hitters can adjust their approach when presented with a shift. In other words I am not real concerned that a hitter tends to pull the ball a lot when standard defensive alignment is deployed. I also want to know once a shift is deployed against them which hitters stubbornly hit in to the strength of that defense and which ones can adjust and make the other team pay.

Several things I would like to know about the pull hitter who is shifted against.
First is the ability to lay a bunt down third base line to force more balanced and favorable defensive alignment.
Second is the ability to inside out a swing to server a ground ball single through the wide open hole on opposite side of infield.
Third is a variation of second. What hitters are adept at driving the ball hard on ground and collecting doubles on ground balls which would have been outs with a third baseman normally positioned.

It has always been my contention that if hitters demonstrated an ability to punish teams who shift and leave gaping holes in one portion of the field shifts would be irrelevant because the profit in using them would be gone. But I cannot remember the last time I saw a hitter who worked on opposite field hitting during batting practice. Maybe Jeter or Michael Young who was good at the inside out swing to serve singles to RF. But those were not done in response to a shift as much as taking advantage of pitch location.

I want to know which hitters can adjust their approach when presented with a shift. In other words I am not real concerned that a hitter tends to pull the ball a lot when standard defensive alignment is deployed. I also want to know once a shift is deployed against them which hitters stubbornly hit in to the strength of that defense and which ones can adjust and make the other team pay....It has always been my contention that if hitters demonstrated an ability to punish teams who shift and leave gaping holes in one portion of the field shifts would be irrelevant because the profit in using them would be gone.

Teams aren't generally stupid. They do their work on every hitter's tendencies. They're not going to put a defensive shift on a batter who is likely or able to punish them for that shift. They are going to put defensive shifts on batters who either cannot adjust to the shift or who would be significantly weakened by doing so. So Valen's "contention" is fairly irrelevant since defensive shifts aren't going to be used against batters who could feasibly punish teams for them. They are only going to be used against batters who can't feasibly and/or productively do so.

As to batters being "stubborn." Some hitters are just much better pull hitters than they are opposite field ones. So, many of those hitters are still better off hitting a well-hit ball--from their limited batting strength--into a shift than hitting a weakly hit ball from their weakness away from it.

Keep the shift defenses and let the players go back to juicing if they want offense. Heck, it didn't matter where you positioned fielders at the height of the Barry Bonds/Mark McGwire et al days.

More seriously, I have no problem with shifts. A team should be able to position their players on the playing field how they want without interfering with the swing of the hitters or movement of the runners. Hitters should "hit 'em where they ain't (hat tip Willie Keeler).

I say if a shift reduces effectiveness of a hitter so be it. If the hitter cannot adjust they deserve to be making an out.

agreed

Keep the shift defenses and let the players go back to juicing if they want offense..

I was thinking the same thing. I know of a substance that will improve things.

Let defensive shifts remain but shorten the break between innings.

Shift?

bring back the bunt!

worst idea since the DH

yeah ruin the game.

I had not even given any thought to whether shifts were a problem until I read that article. What surprised me the most was the comment he made that such things were being thought about. Hopefully that was just posturing and sounding like he is listening and not an indication there might be a silly rule created.

I also noted in another interview of the new commissioner a comment dropped and not followed up on. He seemed to indicate a willingness to investigate how technology might benefit the game.