Photo

MASN: Revisiting Elias’ comments on Davis


  • Please log in to reply
49 replies to this topic

#21 bmore_ken

bmore_ken

    All Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,115 posts

Posted 06 December 2018 - 05:51 PM

I don't like the idea. I think the shift is an evolution of the game, just like the role the bull pen now plays, or even way back to when Candy Cummings first threw a curve ball. I'm not saying I like all the ways the game has evolved. It's boring to see 1/2 innings last 25 minutes because of all the throwing over to 1B and multiple pitching changes. But if you start removing strategy, in the name of reduced game times and increased offense (two frequent complaints about the game) is that really baseball? 

 

Perhaps the shift will lead to another evolution, but on the offensive side. Maybe Chris Davis types will fade away as teams draft and develop more complete hitters that offer multiple dimensions to their offensive game. Personally, I would love to see that kind of baseball return to prominence. 

As would I. I'll give up the one 40 homer .240 guy for three or four who can hit 20-25 with about 20 doubles with 60 or 70 walks.



#22 BSLMikeLowe

BSLMikeLowe

    CFB Analyst

  • Moderators
  • 12,854 posts
  • LocationPortland, Oregon

Posted 06 December 2018 - 07:57 PM

Perhaps the shift will lead to another evolution, but on the offensive side. Maybe Chris Davis types will fade away as teams draft and develop more complete hitters that offer multiple dimensions to their offensive game. Personally, I would love to see that kind of baseball return to prominence.   

 

The way to ban the shift is for hitters to learn to hit to all fields.


  • bmore_ken and Dystopia like this

#23 russsnyder

russsnyder

    All Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,236 posts

Posted 06 December 2018 - 08:14 PM


I don't see how it helps him. You don't go from 26 homers to 16 because of the shift. Maybe it helps him get above the Mendoza line, but Davis is only a career .238 hitter anyway. You can live with .240 when you accompany it with 35-40 homers and he hasn't been that guy in a few years.


It may help him a bit psychologically if the shift is indeed banned. However, you make a good point. Davis' power outage is alarming. Further, shift or no shift, I don't think he can hit major league pitching anymore. He certainly couldn't turn on an inside fastball last season. I think it would be a mistake to take steps to alter or to ban shifts. Hitters need to make adjustments to combat the shift. Taking steps to ban the shift is basically a panic move that I can see MLB making in the near future.

#24 CA-ORIOLE

CA-ORIOLE

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,323 posts
  • LocationSOCAL

Posted 06 December 2018 - 08:25 PM

The way to ban the shift is for hitters to learn to hit to all fields.

Except it's really hard to hit ground balls to the opposite field and when you try, and even if you can do it, you're typically giving up power. I think Weird-o is is right that you'll eventually see changes in strategy, skills evaluation and development at some point (assuming they don't implement a shift ban), but I don't see it happening any time soon ...at least not anything dramatic. 


  • sandiegosean likes this

#25 Dystopia

Dystopia
  • Members
  • 291 posts

Posted 06 December 2018 - 11:30 PM

MLB shouldn't ban the shift. These hitters have been gifted an entire side of the field almost to get hits and they aren't taking it. And the response is to get rid of the shift? Why shouldn't defenses take advantage of one-dimensional offenses? Silly. 



#26 weird-O

weird-O

    All Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,089 posts
  • LocationI'm here from downtown, I'm here from Mitch and Murray.

Posted 07 December 2018 - 07:41 AM

The way to ban the shift is for hitters to learn to hit to all fields.

Agreed


Good news! I saw a dog today.


#27 BSLSteveBirrer

BSLSteveBirrer

    Soccer Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,850 posts
  • LocationMS and ID

Posted 07 December 2018 - 09:08 AM

I have made this point before but it bears repeating in this discussion. Banning the shift is a terrible Idea. Just what defensive movement are you going to allow or ban?

 

Start with just this infield shift and say ok no more than 2 infielders can be on the same side of second base.

 

Ok then how about the outfield. No CF should be more than 15 degrees outside  of a cone lined up from home plate through second base.

 

Ok how about we draw little circles on the field and each fielder must have both feet inside that circle at the time the pitch is thrown.

 

Or how about the pitcher has to declare the pitch he is about to throw?

 

Frankly the entire discussion is silly. Learn to play baseball and not XBOX.


  • bmore_ken and russsnyder like this

#28 Mackus

Mackus

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 41,313 posts

Posted 07 December 2018 - 09:25 AM

I have made this point before but it bears repeating in this discussion. Banning the shift is a terrible Idea. Just what defensive movement are you going to allow or ban?

 

Start with just this infield shift and say ok no more than 2 infielders can be on the same side of second base.

 

Ok then how about the outfield. No CF should be more than 15 degrees outside  of a cone lined up from home plate through second base.

 

Ok how about we draw little circles on the field and each fielder must have both feet inside that circle at the time the pitch is thrown.

 

Or how about the pitcher has to declare the pitch he is about to throw?

 

Frankly the entire discussion is silly. Learn to play baseball and not XBOX.

 

I think banning the shift is stupid.  But I'm not worried at all about the slippery slope if they do. 



#29 BSLSteveBirrer

BSLSteveBirrer

    Soccer Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,850 posts
  • LocationMS and ID

Posted 07 December 2018 - 10:21 AM

I think banning the shift is stupid.  But I'm not worried at all about the slippery slope if they do. 

I hear you. But then I look at things in society today. If you would have told me 20 years ago that parents would be encouraged to let their children be gender neutral......or that a person could self identify with a certain sex.....or that a male could play sports as a woman against other women.....well here we are.



#30 Crouseman

Crouseman

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,752 posts

Posted 07 December 2018 - 10:33 AM

I think banning the shift is stupid.  But I'm not worried at all about the slippery slope if they do. 

Agree, but its really no different than the NBA banning zone defenses what 30 or 40 years ago because guys couldn't score going to the basket anymore.  NBA has since modified that rule with a defensive 3 seconds, but that still eliminates most of the zone defense you would normally see at other levels of basketball. 

 

The premise is the same though.  Help the offenses because the defense has gotten too good against certain types of players.



#31 Crouseman

Crouseman

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,752 posts

Posted 07 December 2018 - 10:57 AM

It may help him a bit psychologically if the shift is indeed banned. However, you make a good point. Davis' power outage is alarming. Further, shift or no shift, I don't think he can hit major league pitching anymore. He certainly couldn't turn on an inside fastball last season. I think it would be a mistake to take steps to alter or to ban shifts. Hitters need to make adjustments to combat the shift. Taking steps to ban the shift is basically a panic move that I can see MLB making in the near future.

Agree that Davis seems incapable of hitting the inside heat, which effectively means he is toast.   But It will still be a story line in spring training and early next season to watch what he does under a new manager and hitting coach along with input from the front office.  

Getting back to his 2016 numbers would be a huge win for the new regime -  .221 avg, 38HRs , 84rbis.   Back then we thought those numbers were lousy, LOL!!  Now, we would celebrate.


  • russsnyder likes this

#32 russsnyder

russsnyder

    All Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,236 posts

Posted 07 December 2018 - 11:43 AM

Agree that Davis seems incapable of hitting the inside heat, which effectively means he is toast. But It will still be a story line in spring training and early next season to watch what he does under a new manager and hitting coach along with input from the front office.
Getting back to his 2016 numbers would be a huge win for the new regime - .221 avg, 38HRs , 84rbis. Back then we thought those numbers were lousy, LOL!! Now, we would celebrate.


This is a case where I hope that I am wrong about him being finished. The Orioles have very little choice and little to lose by coming into ST with an open mind and a fresh approach. I agree, it would be a huge step if he could come close to the numbers you posted.

#33 Nigel Tufnel

Nigel Tufnel

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,345 posts

Posted 07 December 2018 - 11:50 AM

I hear you. But then I look at things in society today. If you would have told me 20 years ago that parents would be encouraged to let their children be gender neutral......or that a person could self identify with a certain sex.....or that a male could play sports as a woman against other women.....well here we are.

 


  • weird-O likes this

#34 russsnyder

russsnyder

    All Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,236 posts

Posted 07 December 2018 - 11:57 AM

I have made this point before but it bears repeating in this discussion. Banning the shift is a terrible Idea. Just what defensive movement are you going to allow or ban?

Start with just this infield shift and say ok no more than 2 infielders can be on the same side of second base.

Ok then how about the outfield. No CF should be more than 15 degrees outside of a cone lined up from home plate through second base.

Ok how about we draw little circles on the field and each fielder must have both feet inside that circle at the time the pitch is thrown.

Or how about the pitcher has to declare the pitch he is about to throw?

Frankly the entire discussion is silly. Learn to play baseball and not XBOX.

You make some excellent points.

I do think that MLB will have a cluster on their hands if they do indeed try to limit defensive shifts.

One just has to look at instant replay to see how MLB can fall all over themselves trying to implement something that is not necessary. How many challenges take longer than the allotted 90 seconds or so?

IMO, the defensive shifts are part of the evolution of the game. It was brought about by spray charts, video, advanced scouting, etc. More importantly, it was developed to counter slow footed, pull happy,( primarily left handed) power hitters who lined singles over the infield. The offensive players need to either hit through the shifts or to adjust. ( Hit an outside pitch to the opposite field.) Baseball is a unique game where the defense controls putting the ball in play. The defense should continue to be allowed to set their alignment as well.

#35 DJ MC

DJ MC

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,027 posts
  • LocationBeautiful Bel Air, MD

Posted 08 December 2018 - 12:29 PM

Banning defensive shifts cannot work without entirely reworking the rules of the sport, because with the exception of pitcher and catcher (and DH, of course), the positions are not based on rules but on customs. Simply put, you can place your seven other defenders in whatever configuration you choose as long as they are in fair territory when the ball is pitched.

 

The idea of "first baseman", "right fielder", etc., all evolved over the first half-century of the sport as the most efficient places to place players to cover the field. When ballfields began to become enclosed in the 1860s, teams began moving one of their usual four outfielders forward to cover the gap between second and third base, and allow the "second baseman" to shift over. That shift evolved into the four-player infield and the "shortstop".

 

Unless positions are completely codified and the field is divided into zones, it is hard to think that this will work. Even something like "two infielders must be on each side of second base" would be hard to do because 1) you can simply place the shortstop JUST on the left side of the base and still have an effective shift and 2) you don't HAVE to have four players in the infield if you don't want to.


  • FFH and sandiegosean like this
@DJ_McCann

#36 Mackus

Mackus

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 41,313 posts

Posted 08 December 2018 - 12:51 PM

It's impossibly easy to see how they would change the rule.

You can criticize it as stupid, unnecessary,zone or major change from the past. But you cannot argue that it "wouldn't work".

"Must have two infielders on each side of 2B" is how the rule will be written if they change it. The number two and second base are pretty easy to understand. Infielders can be interpreted by the umpires at the time of the pitch, wouldn't necessarily have to be on the dirt. If the rule is broken, then it would be something similar to catcher's interference where the offense can choose the result of the play or a free base for the batter.

This would effectively prohibit playing 4 outfielders, but aside from if you count the shift as 4 outfielders, I can't recall that ever being used as a strategic option.

#37 JeremyStrain

JeremyStrain

    HOF

  • Moderators
  • 11,148 posts
  • LocationLanham, MD

Posted 08 December 2018 - 01:09 PM

A rule like that won't PREVENT the shift, it will just limit it from the extreme versions we've seen recently. They will just shift to a SS, and then 3 INF from the 2B bag to 1B (or vice versa), just someone playing AT the bag, and then the other two split on the other side.

 

Where it will be more interesting is if they include OF in the conversation. The next stop would be playing a CF straight up, or play the RF straight up and move the other 2 OF to shallow RF between players at the bag and middle between 1st and 2nd.

 

I don't see how they are going to be able to make a rule that doesn't get worked around.


@JeremyMStrain

#38 Mackus

Mackus

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 41,313 posts

Posted 08 December 2018 - 01:22 PM

The shift that is having a major impact is when they have an infielder playing "short field" way out in shallow RF.

That's what the rule will try to ban, if they go down that path. You can still play someone there, but it will be on of the two fielder's you are allowed in that side of the infield. So it wouldn't be used.

I think it would be insanely stupid to try to ban it, though. Let the hitters adjust, or find different hitters.

#39 BSLSteveBirrer

BSLSteveBirrer

    Soccer Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,850 posts
  • LocationMS and ID

Posted 08 December 2018 - 01:36 PM

Ok how about saying that an infielder must be on the dirt and not on the OF grass? It is certainly easy to write a rule. Its certainly easy to enforce such a rule. I just don't like sliding down this hill. And perhaps Mackus is correct and it doesn't lead us down the slippery slope.



#40 Mackus

Mackus

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 41,313 posts

Posted 08 December 2018 - 01:39 PM

"Infield dirt" is a worse rule, IMO. There are times you play on the grass, in front or behind the dirt, in a standard defensive alignment.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Partners