Shiftless

As part of their yearly overreaction to cycles in the game, the geniuses at MLB want to level the playing field by eliminating shifts on the infield.

 

The key word here is infield.

 

Clearly, the trend of stationing the second-baseman in shallow right field, and bringing the shortstop across to the first-base side of the second-base bag has been effective against almost all lefthanded hitters. The hard ground balls through the right-side hole that used to be hits have become outs.

 

The “hole” is gone.

 

As a former pitcher, I thought the shift was a gimmick – like having the infield playing back with a man on third, then charging in like blitzing linebackers as the pitchers starts his delivery. Tony La Russa started that tactic, as far as I know. I thought it would bother the hitters, but it didn’t seem to. That wasn’t so long ago, and it’s already an anachronism.

 

Another strategy that’s still used – or at least, was used with pitchers hitting – is the “wheel” play. That strategy was essentially eliminated when MLB decreed that the game was better with more sluggers and fewer bunters.

 

In the good old days, when the pitcher came up to hit with men on first and second with no outs, he would try to bunt the runners over to second and third. If the runner on second was a lumbering slugger, the wheel play was almost always used, to try to get the forceout at third base.

 

As the pitch was delivered, the corner infielders charged in to field the bunt while the shortstop covered third base. It was little ball, and it was exciting – like the squeeze play.

 

Before I venture into the recent discussion about shifts, I need to dispel the notion that lefthanded hitters should learn to hit to left field to defeat the shift; they can’t. Good pitchers can almost force lefties to pull the ball by throwing breaking balls down-and-in, and offspeed pitches; hitters would have to give up their power in the process.

 

As a pitcher, I didn’t like the shifts at first. But the more games I watched, the more I realized that the shifts would have been my friend. Shifts are relevant because they work.

 

So what would I do about it?

 

As I understand it, the new rule will require two infielders to play on each side of the second-base bag. Maintaining the advantage of the shift would be easy: I would put the second-baseman in short right field; I would station the shortstop a millimeter or so to the third-base side of the bag. As the pitcher started his delivery, the shortstop would move to the second-base side of the bag. That would force the hyperactive Rules Committee to require the shortstop to hold his position. It would eliminate charging in with a man on third, which is no big deal; but it would also eliminate the wheel play.

 

I wonder if the lawyers at MLB considered that?

 

In a way, that too is no big deal, because the pitcher is (was!) the only player who bunted in this Powerball phase of the sport.

 

 

Sadly, there is hardly any strategy in baseball now. The geniuses are more concerned with sign-stealing – which is no big deal, because it’s easy to counter by simply changing signs fairly often.

 

For me, strategy is way more important to the quality of a game than infield alignment; but these days, home runs are the only offensive strategy, and striking out the hefty-uppercutters with high-velocity fastballs is the primary defense.

 

Power hitting against power pitching means that relatively few balls are put in play these days. And it takes longer to play nine innings.

 

I’m opposed to eliminating shifts, but I understand why it seems important. Anyone can see the advantage. But I have another idea that would address the issue without violating the beauty of the sport. It’s so simple:

 

Require the infielders to stay on the infield.

 

It’s the infielder-in-the-outfield that is killing the left-handed hitters; the shortstop isn’t all that important. It makes me wonder if the people who make the rules have ever played the sport.

 

After the DH was implemented in the American League in 1973, baseball settled down for a couple of decades. But replacing the independent National and American Leagues with a homogenous “MLB” has brought an onslaught of new, unnecessary rules in reaction to trends that would likely dissipate on their own. More (rules) isn’t always better. Perhaps it’s just a way to justify getting a paycheck.

 

One by one, the nuances of baseball have been eliminated. There aren’t many dinosaurs left to slay.