Why is this even part of a CBA in the first place?
Not that I know much about.....first place!
2022 CBA
Moderators: SammyKhalifa, Doc, Bobster
2022 CBA
Has anyone heard/read exactly what MLB means by banning a shift? Is that like the old NBA rule to prevent double teaming, and so many guys had to be on the same side of the court as the ball?
Yeah, it sounds just as dumb as the NBA rule was, and equally unenforceable in a consistent manner.
And for every action, there will always be an equal and opposite reaction.
I guess MLB will say there can only be so many guys on one side of a boundary of sorts. But here's the kicker. They can only dictate that prior to the pitch.
What I foresee is guys at the boundary, and as the pitcher goes to deliver the ball, they simply sprint over into a shift. Now, granted all that movement could prove to be quite beneficial to the batter, but at times, where a hit would have beat the shift by a smidge, now it isn't because the defender hasn't got completely to his spot.
If the shift looks odd now, wait until guys are running all over the place. It's going to look like a fire drill.
And you know, to give those guys running all over a breather on an extended AB, you can bet your bottom that there will be more delays.
It will make the game longer.
My prediction.
Yeah, it sounds just as dumb as the NBA rule was, and equally unenforceable in a consistent manner.
And for every action, there will always be an equal and opposite reaction.
I guess MLB will say there can only be so many guys on one side of a boundary of sorts. But here's the kicker. They can only dictate that prior to the pitch.
What I foresee is guys at the boundary, and as the pitcher goes to deliver the ball, they simply sprint over into a shift. Now, granted all that movement could prove to be quite beneficial to the batter, but at times, where a hit would have beat the shift by a smidge, now it isn't because the defender hasn't got completely to his spot.
If the shift looks odd now, wait until guys are running all over the place. It's going to look like a fire drill.
And you know, to give those guys running all over a breather on an extended AB, you can bet your bottom that there will be more delays.
It will make the game longer.
My prediction.
2022 CBA
My guess is that any rules changes need to be bargained by both sides. And, this impacts salaries. Lots of hits being taken away by shifted fielders. I imagine the pitchers want it to stay, hitters want it to go. But the solution is pretty simple...teach, or draft, guys to go the opposite way. Problem is, "Chicks dig the long ball." And owners pay for it. And if you're a good enough ball player to make it to MLB (even the worst guy on the bench of the worst team in the league is one of the best baseball players in the world), chances are you weren't going the opposite way in Little League and high school ball. Or bunting.
2022 CBA
5D7B7C69606C7B6D650E0 wrote: Has anyone heard/read exactly what MLB means by banning a shift? Is that like the old NBA rule to prevent double teaming, and so many guys had to be on the same side of the court as the ball?
Yeah, it sounds just as dumb as the NBA rule was, and equally unenforceable in a consistent manner.
And for every action, there will always be an equal and opposite reaction.
I guess MLB will say there can only be so many guys on one side of a boundary of sorts. But here's the kicker. They can only dictate that prior to the pitch.
What I foresee is guys at the boundary, and as the pitcher goes to deliver the ball, they simply sprint over into a shift. Now, granted all that movement could prove to be quite beneficial to the batter, but at times, where a hit would have beat the shift by a smidge, now it isn't because the defender hasn't got completely to his spot.
If the shift looks odd now, wait until guys are running all over the place. It's going to look like a fire drill.
And you know, to give those guys running all over a breather on an extended AB, you can bet your bottom that there will be more delays.
It will make the game longer.
My prediction.
All good points. What I've seen is two proposals. One says that all infielders have to be in contact with the dirt at the pitch (taking away the shallow right-centerfield rover). But in this scenario, what's to keep a manager from bringing the left fielder over to short right? CF can shade a bit towards the LCF gap. RF plays normal.
The other says that there must be two infielders on either side of second base at the pitch. Which leads to your scenario.
I get it...the game's changed. Fine. But then let it change back. Eventually, someone will find value in a bunch of slap-hitting speedsters that get on base, steal bases, and play solid defense. They'll pay for that, and things will revert back.
They talk about the "three outcome" game of a walk, HR, or K. That's because teams pay for the HR. Start paying for OBP, and things will change. But chicks don't dig walks.
Yeah, it sounds just as dumb as the NBA rule was, and equally unenforceable in a consistent manner.
And for every action, there will always be an equal and opposite reaction.
I guess MLB will say there can only be so many guys on one side of a boundary of sorts. But here's the kicker. They can only dictate that prior to the pitch.
What I foresee is guys at the boundary, and as the pitcher goes to deliver the ball, they simply sprint over into a shift. Now, granted all that movement could prove to be quite beneficial to the batter, but at times, where a hit would have beat the shift by a smidge, now it isn't because the defender hasn't got completely to his spot.
If the shift looks odd now, wait until guys are running all over the place. It's going to look like a fire drill.
And you know, to give those guys running all over a breather on an extended AB, you can bet your bottom that there will be more delays.
It will make the game longer.
My prediction.
All good points. What I've seen is two proposals. One says that all infielders have to be in contact with the dirt at the pitch (taking away the shallow right-centerfield rover). But in this scenario, what's to keep a manager from bringing the left fielder over to short right? CF can shade a bit towards the LCF gap. RF plays normal.
The other says that there must be two infielders on either side of second base at the pitch. Which leads to your scenario.
I get it...the game's changed. Fine. But then let it change back. Eventually, someone will find value in a bunch of slap-hitting speedsters that get on base, steal bases, and play solid defense. They'll pay for that, and things will revert back.
They talk about the "three outcome" game of a walk, HR, or K. That's because teams pay for the HR. Start paying for OBP, and things will change. But chicks don't dig walks.
2022 CBA
6A6D7B737D6A2D21587F75797174367B7775180 wrote: Any evidence to suggest the shift has contributed to the home run being all the rage in the current landscape?
I think it's the other way around. guys have become so pull-happy, trying to hit the long ball (cause that's what gets them paid), that lefties disproportionately hit balls to right field, and rights to left field.
I think it's the other way around. guys have become so pull-happy, trying to hit the long ball (cause that's what gets them paid), that lefties disproportionately hit balls to right field, and rights to left field.
-
rucker59@gmail.com
2022 CBA
5D5556617752757A140 wrote: Any evidence to suggest the shift has contributed to the home run being all the rage in the current landscape?
I think it's the other way around. guys have become so pull-happy, trying to hit the long ball (cause that's what gets them paid), that lefties disproportionately hit balls to right field, and rights to left field.
Interesting. I can see this both ways.
Whatever the cause, the home run mentality is hurting the game IMHO. For example, I hate watching a game in Cinnci at the Pretty Crappy Park where HRs are intentionally cheap.
I think it's the other way around. guys have become so pull-happy, trying to hit the long ball (cause that's what gets them paid), that lefties disproportionately hit balls to right field, and rights to left field.
Interesting. I can see this both ways.
Whatever the cause, the home run mentality is hurting the game IMHO. For example, I hate watching a game in Cinnci at the Pretty Crappy Park where HRs are intentionally cheap.
-
steve49
2022 CBA
161E1D2A3C193E315F0 wrote: Has anyone heard/read exactly what MLB means by banning a shift? Is that like the old NBA rule to prevent double teaming, and so many guys had to be on the same side of the court as the ball?
Yeah, it sounds just as dumb as the NBA rule was, and equally unenforceable in a consistent manner.
And for every action, there will always be an equal and opposite reaction.
I guess MLB will say there can only be so many guys on one side of a boundary of sorts. But here's the kicker. They can only dictate that prior to the pitch.
What I foresee is guys at the boundary, and as the pitcher goes to deliver the ball, they simply sprint over into a shift. Now, granted all that movement could prove to be quite beneficial to the batter, but at times, where a hit would have beat the shift by a smidge, now it isn't because the defender hasn't got completely to his spot.
If the shift looks odd now, wait until guys are running all over the place. It's going to look like a fire drill.
And you know, to give those guys running all over a breather on an extended AB, you can bet your bottom that there will be more delays.
It will make the game longer.
My prediction.
All good points. What I've seen is two proposals. One says that all infielders have to be in contact with the dirt at the pitch (taking away the shallow right-centerfield rover). But in this scenario, what's to keep a manager from bringing the left fielder over to short right? CF can shade a bit towards the LCF gap. RF plays normal.
The other says that there must be two infielders on either side of second base at the pitch. Which leads to your scenario.
I get it...the game's changed. Fine. But then let it change back. Eventually, someone will find value in a bunch of slap-hitting speedsters that get on base, steal bases, and play solid defense. They'll pay for that, and things will revert back.
They talk about the "three outcome" game of a walk, HR, or K. That's because teams pay for the HR. Start paying for OBP, and things will change. But chicks don't dig walks.
I have been thinking for a while that they might make it illegal for infielders to play in RF. I hate the idea of too many rules but I do think it's ridiculous that balls hit well into RF are being turned into outs. I can envision a line being drawn maybe 10 feet past the infield with all infielders mandated to position themselves inside that line.
Yeah, it sounds just as dumb as the NBA rule was, and equally unenforceable in a consistent manner.
And for every action, there will always be an equal and opposite reaction.
I guess MLB will say there can only be so many guys on one side of a boundary of sorts. But here's the kicker. They can only dictate that prior to the pitch.
What I foresee is guys at the boundary, and as the pitcher goes to deliver the ball, they simply sprint over into a shift. Now, granted all that movement could prove to be quite beneficial to the batter, but at times, where a hit would have beat the shift by a smidge, now it isn't because the defender hasn't got completely to his spot.
If the shift looks odd now, wait until guys are running all over the place. It's going to look like a fire drill.
And you know, to give those guys running all over a breather on an extended AB, you can bet your bottom that there will be more delays.
It will make the game longer.
My prediction.
All good points. What I've seen is two proposals. One says that all infielders have to be in contact with the dirt at the pitch (taking away the shallow right-centerfield rover). But in this scenario, what's to keep a manager from bringing the left fielder over to short right? CF can shade a bit towards the LCF gap. RF plays normal.
The other says that there must be two infielders on either side of second base at the pitch. Which leads to your scenario.
I get it...the game's changed. Fine. But then let it change back. Eventually, someone will find value in a bunch of slap-hitting speedsters that get on base, steal bases, and play solid defense. They'll pay for that, and things will revert back.
They talk about the "three outcome" game of a walk, HR, or K. That's because teams pay for the HR. Start paying for OBP, and things will change. But chicks don't dig walks.
I have been thinking for a while that they might make it illegal for infielders to play in RF. I hate the idea of too many rules but I do think it's ridiculous that balls hit well into RF are being turned into outs. I can envision a line being drawn maybe 10 feet past the infield with all infielders mandated to position themselves inside that line.
-
fjk090852-7
- Posts: 3488
- Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2016 2:52 pm
2022 CBA
I just saw a small snippet that the Union and Management met early this week and there was discussion about taxing teams that exceeded payroll limits, as well as a salary minimum. A salary minimum, or floor would be very beneficial for baseball. Teams could no longer spend on payroll at very small amounts. Teams like the Pirates would have to spend by either signing free agents, or better yet,retain the players that they have developed. The negotiations are probably at the beginning stages, but I hope that as they continue to negotiate some type of salary minimum remains on the table. In my opinion baseball needs some type of payroll minimum.
-
GreenWeenie
- Posts: 4012
- Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2020 3:47 pm
2022 CBA
4D41401B121B131E19061C2B0 wrote: I just saw a small snippet that the Union and Management met early this week and there was discussion about taxing teams that exceeded payroll limits, as well as a salary minimum. A salary minimum, or floor would be very beneficial for baseball. Teams could no longer spend on payroll at very small amounts. Teams like the Pirates would have to spend by either signing free agents, or better yet,retain the players that they have developed. The negotiations are probably at the beginning stages, but I hope that as they continue to negotiate some type of salary minimum remains on the table. In my opinion baseball needs some type of payroll minimum.
Technically, they do. Multiply 25 x the minimum, and that's the current floor.
I agree in principle that some form of a floor is needed, but I've got to wonder how they'd define one. There's so many variables to consider. Teams have different revenues and other expenses, so I can see this being very difficult to implement. The lawyers will have a field day coming up with the wording. And, teams will pay lawyers to find "legal" ways to find loopholes. The legal fees will be less than the money they'll save by having to pay the full amount.
Technically, they do. Multiply 25 x the minimum, and that's the current floor.
I agree in principle that some form of a floor is needed, but I've got to wonder how they'd define one. There's so many variables to consider. Teams have different revenues and other expenses, so I can see this being very difficult to implement. The lawyers will have a field day coming up with the wording. And, teams will pay lawyers to find "legal" ways to find loopholes. The legal fees will be less than the money they'll save by having to pay the full amount.