There’s a new sheriff in town. The Rob Manfred era in Major League Baseball is yet in its infancy, and already the new commissioner is proposing changes to the national pastime. Change can be a good thing, especially for an institution as old as Major League Baseball, and some of Manfred’s proposals seem like good ideas. A pitch clock, for example, should help to speed up the game, which the league has been seeking to do for years now, without having too much of an effect, if any at all, on the quality of pitching that the fans get to see.
Some of his ideas, however, may not have as positive an effect on the game, if adopted, as that. Specifically, Manfred has proposed making defensive shifts against the rules. The idea behind the shift is to take away the strengths of opposing hitters by moving the fielders out of their normal positions on the field to better cover the portion of the field that the hitters tend to hit to. While this does leave other portions of the field dangerously unprotected, the shift is normally employed against hitters who have a strong tendency to hit to one side of the field, thus making it more likely than not that the defenders will be in better positions to make a play on a hit ball than they would be if they had remained in their regular spots.
The first question that comes to mind centers on how expansive this rule would be. Would it include any shifting by fielders, including, for example, third basemen cheating up to play a hitter who intends to bunt? Or would it be limited to shifting the entire defense over to one side of the field or the other? The answer to this question would go a long way in determining the effect such a rule would have on the game.
It is that effect that is the focus of the second question. Put differently, why would the league want to institute such a rule? What effect do they want it to have on the game? There are certainly a few that it could have, but are those effects desirable? A rule eliminating shifts would not have an effect on player safety, game time, or umpire accountability, the three ares of focus of the majority of the changes to the game over the last few years (outlawing home plate collisions, a potential pitch clock, the addition of a replay system). What it would do, primarily, is handicap the defense by eliminating one of its best weapons. This would lead to more offense throughout the league, as balls put in play that could have been defended by a shift suddenly start finding their way through gaps in the defense.
Does baseball really want to take this page in particular out of the National Football League’s book? The majority of the recent rule changes in football, while spurred ostensibly by the noble goal of increasing player safety and preventing concussions, have also had the effect of increasing offensive production by handicapping the defense. Defenders are allowed to hit opposing ball carriers in an increasingly narrow window on the body, and it might as well be a penalty to look at quarterbacks these days. Overall however, while offense is up, not all of the effects of the new rules have been positive. The increased amount of penalties called in games slows down the action, and that aggravates fans. Its also not clear that the health benefits are being realized. Concussions may or may not be down, but the amount of ACL tears is certainly up as defenders are forced to aim lower on the body. Mostly however, it just feels like defenses aren’t allowed to play real football anymore.
Shifting does not have the impact on player safety that hitting in football has. But handicapping the defense to increase offense just feels… like it wouldn’t be right. It wouldn’t be baseball. I say, let the kids play. Yes, we would see more hits and more runs, which would increase the games popularity with more casual fans. But that, to me, is not worth it. This isn’t football. This is baseball, and baseball has always been a game of the small things, tiny things like obscure statistics and a small shift in where a fielder plays, depending on the hitter.
Handicapping the defense would be a detriment to the game and unfair to baseball’s fans, who watch for good defense as much as they do for long bombs. Why not just teach hitters to use more of the field, instead of hitting to one side primarily, as a way inject more offense into the game? Increasing the overall skill level of hitters would increase the excitement of the game at least as much as a rule eliminating shifts would. Sure, not all hitters can make the necessary changes to their approaches, but it is possible.
After the 2009 season, the baseball community wondered if long-time Boston Red Sox designated hitter David Ortiz had anything left in the tank. He finished that season with a .238 average and a slugging percentage of just .462. Many thought he should have retired. However, his 2010 season was one of the finest of his career. How did Ortiz revitalize his bat? He learned to beat the shift, and that is why he is still in the league six years later and was named World Series MVP just two seasons ago. Teaching players to beat the shift makes hitters that are already great even better, and therefore more exciting to watch. Eliminating shifts just dumbs down the game. There is a right way to generate offense, and then there’s the NFL’s way. Mr. Manfred, I implore you, do not follow the NFL’s example.
Thank you for reading. Please take a moment to follow me on Twitter – @LastWordJBerg. Support LWOS by following us on Twitter – @LastWordOnSport and @LWOSworld – and “liking” our Facebook page.
Have you tuned into Last Word On Sports Radio? LWOS is pleased to bring you 24/7 sports radio to your PC, laptop, tablet or smartphone. What are you waiting for?
Photo Credit: Apardavila Via Photpin CC
