Has anyone see specifics on what exactly this will look like, I haven't found much online. Thoughts on what a 'ban' should look like?

I'm all for this change on the surface...putting 6 guys on one side of the field isn't baseball (and spare me the lay down a bunt or go oppo argument).

Will they make teams have a certain amount of players on each side of 2nd base? Are they going to require so many fielders have their feet in the dirt/infield prior to the pitch?

The ban is happening, so no need to argue against it for this thread...

If it means that infielders can not be on the outfield grass or an outfielder pulled in as additional infielder when needed than it needs to be modified quickly. Both of those positionings are not at all recent.

Hitters have adapted to the shift, they just say eff it and swing for the fences. Advanced metrics show it's the most effective way to generate offense. No team is advocating for a hitter to give up on power to slap balls the other way hoping they can string 3 singles together. That's the real reason MLB is looking at banning it. Without the shift, players might still be pull happy but more likely to focus on hard contact rather than trying to hit cranks or striking out.

MaxPower said:

---

Hitters have adapted to the shift, they just say eff it and swing for the fences. Advanced metrics show it's the most effective way to generate offense. No team is advocating for a hitter to give up on power to slap balls the other way hoping they can string 3 singles together. That's the real reason MLB is looking at banning it. Without the shift, players might still be pull happy but more likely to focus on hard contact rather than trying to hit cranks or striking out.

---

Exactly this. Teams/analytics don't want their highly paid power hitter bunting or slapping singles the other way. He's most likely only coming to the plate 4x. Any of the weak opposite field AB's are a win for the defense and you are giving it to them

MaxPower said:

---

Hitters have adapted to the shift, they just say eff it and swing for the fences. Advanced metrics show it's the most effective way to generate offense. No team is advocating for a hitter to give up on power to slap balls the other way hoping they can string 3 singles together. That's the real reason MLB is looking at banning it. Without the shift, players might still be pull happy but more likely to focus on hard contact rather than trying to hit cranks or striking out.

---

That strategy still applies regardless of where the defense is standing.

Perhaps, we won't know until any new rules come into place. It's much harder to make consistent hard contact when purposely hitting the ball the other way. I could definitely see a case for players going with a more hard line drive approach knowing there are more holes to the pull side. They can still hit HRs that way but gives them more leeway if they get under it a little, which is often the case with the popular 4 seam approach pitchers are using.

What will be interesting is to see if they do anything with the OF. Requiring 2 IF on each side of 2B or all 4 on the dirt is pointless if you can shift your entire OF over.

If the SS/2B can still stand, basically up the middle the shift is not really being banned but rather modified. I'm hoping that this "shift" ban is more of just a ban on using what amounts to a rover in short RF. We could debate all day on how the hitters should adjust, but that rover positioning is taking away balls with a 100% hit probability. I don't really care if hitters lose seeing eye ground ball singles to the shift, but when the hitter definitively wins the battle against the pitcher with a frozen rope and doesn't reach base, that's a problem.

100+ MPH exit velocities with line drive launch angles should be hits. There is obviously luck involved with hitting it where they aren't, but for the first 125 years of MLB, hitting a line drive was a pretty good guarantee of getting a hit.

This won't, and hopefully doesn't end the strategy of defensive positioning, but rather should just take away the most egregious problem that it is causing. Also for the record, I think the whole "the shift is ruining baseball" whiners have overstated the actual effect. As mentioned by a previous poster, the proliferation of 100 MPH flame throwers is causing (IMO) the increase in weak contact/low BAs along with skyrocketing strikeouts. I played baseball growing up all through high school, and those first few times you face someone throwing 90 MPH it's an experience you never forget. I can't imagine facing 100 with movement. Your reaction time is basically down to zero. Additionally, the (extreme) shift (likely to be banned) discriminates mostly against LHBs, which only make up about 20-30% of the hitters in MLB. It's hard for me to buy an argument that says that RHBs have lower BAs and higher K rates because of the shift.

The Hack-a-Shaq analogy isn't really apples to apples because there are several deterrents to employing the strategy. If your team isn't in the penalty, you pretty much can't use it because no one would intentionally put their team into the penalty early in a quarter, and in the last 2 minutes of a quarter you can't use it because it becomes 2 free throws and the ball. It's a real niche strategy that can only be used in certain situations. The shift on the other hand can be used every pitch (currently) with no adverse effects.

I just used Hack-a-Shaq to compare to a strategy that everyone used, it worked, everyone hated it, a bunch of people wanted to change the rules for it, but it mostly went away when younger players came up that had adjusted. I think the shift could follow a similar path.

Put 7 circles on the field and make each position play in their designated circle. This would be stupid but where we are headed.To me, you should be able to play players wherever you want, even in foul territory.

Do some of you also believe pitchers should be aloud to stand and pitch from where ever they want?

Agree. Just limit IF to playing either in the infield or within a couple of feet of it and that solves a lot of it. I'm still amused by "just learn to hit against it". Power guys trying to slap the ball the other way for singles vs hitting screaming line drives is a win for the defense. The defense is basically begging them to "learn to hit against it"

MosesHallRAB04 said:

---

Shifts became popular to take away a hitters strengths. Hitters need to adjust and learn to beat the shift.

I'll say it again. If the **** is banned so should pitches over a designated mph and also breaking pitches that give greater than a designated distance. It's the same damn thing.

---

I'm not really for the banning of the shift. But this isn't the same thing at all.

MosesHallRAB04 said:

---

Shifts became popular to take away a hitters strengths. Hitters need to adjust and learn to beat the shift.

---

Easy to say - hard to do. Players who make big $$$ for hitting being asked to roll over and give up? Then watch the guy behind you weakly ground out such that it doesn't matter?

Not desirable and one of the reasons the MLBPA wanted the shift banned.

Hockey reduced the size of pads on the goalie to increase scoring.

Basketball instituted the 3 second violation to prevent offensive players from camping the lane.

Basketball added the shot clock to speed the game pace up.

Sports are always tweaking the rules to tweak what the game looks like and how it plays. This isn't really a conversation about telling sluggers to hit better and beat the shift. This is about improving the on field product. More hits = more action, and action brings eyeballs and money.

None of us are paying professional baseball players to try and bunt for a hit 3 times a game.

But as I said earlier, the rover is my problem, just add a rule that says IFs must be positioned in the IF. They can be placed anywhere including all on one side, and this still allows teams to bring in a 5th IF from the OF if needed. Minor change to see if this solves the problem.

Comparing baseball to football is like comparing an apple to a hotdog…

As a fan I don't want to see 6 fielders on one side of the field. I don't want to see Joey Gallo lay down a bunt or slap a weak ass grounder to the left side of the field.

It's easy to say ban the shift. What's hard is to define what you can do. Whatever the rule will be, teams will push the limits to the point umpires will be required to rule on player positioning like on a balk. May necessitate an umpire in the press box to oversee where players are positioning during each pitch.

I am in favor of the shift and the pitcher on the rubber, but with no one on, why not make the catcher an additional fielder to, let the ball hit the ump or roll to the backstop

Agreed, but that is why I stated above it would require a re-write of the rulebook. I just don't think MLB will EVER define positions or ban the shift as it opens a Pandora's Box of too many situations that could be addressed. We are not talking about scenarios just when Ty Cobb was playing...


Rays' 4-man outfield works out perfectly

Gotta love the now seemingly constant tweaking of a game that, until 1973, had been fundamentally played the same same way for over 100 years... decidedly different styles of baseball as equipment changed, ballparks changed, athletes changed, but the same rules.

All you need to know about the annual evaluation of and experimentation with the game's rules we are treated to these days is that it's all brought to you by the same geniuses who want to increase scoring, while also getting that pesky game-length whittled down.

Coog97 said:

---

Gotta love the now seemingly constant tweaking of a game that, until 1973, had been fundamentally played the same same way for over 100 years... decidedly different styles of baseball as equipment changed, ballparks changed, athletes changed, but the same rules.

All you need to know about the annual evaluation of and experimentation with the game's rules we are treated to these days is that it's all brought to you by the same geniuses who want to increase scoring, while also getting that pesky game-length whittled down.

---

Sure...
The mound was lowered and the strike zone was made smaller in 1969.
Baseball rules have had constant tweaking.
https://www.baseball-almanac.com/rulechng.shtml

Lol, the rules are always and have always been changing.

Now when it comes to the length of game argument, I'm with you there. MLB is risking alienating it's core viewers because millennials and zoomers don't watch baseball... I have a newsflash for MLB, those 2 generations don't like anything that doesn't give instant gratification. Literally nothing you can do to bring them in as fans. MLB should just embrace what it is instead of hoping to be the NBA or NFL.