New baseball commissioner Rob Manfred open to defensive-shift ban

[scho63]

OH BROTHER!

Another asshole commissioner on his way to screwing up an entire sport! WTF is wrong with the morons? They are becoming worse than politicians.



============================================

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/mlb-bi...172529801.html

New baseball commissioner Rob Manfred has been in office a little more than 12 hours and he's already making some interesting waves. In an interview that aired on ESPN on Sunday morning, Manfred made it clear that examining the pace of the game is first on his list of priorities, but not far behind will be finding ways to "inject additional offense into the game."

Without being prompted for an example, Manfred specifically mentioned he'd be open to pursuing the elimination of defensive shifts, which he says give the defensive team a competitive advantage.

Defensive shifting is something we've seen implemented more and more in recent years as teams begin to shift — pun most certainly intended — to more sabermetric based research. It's more regularly reserved for strict pull hitters, which in most cases could be identified without a ton of research, but we're also seeing more creative — and even extreme — uses of defensive positioning that go beyond such tendencies. In some ways, it has become as important as pitch selection, which is sometimes influenced by positioning.

Now, this is a shift. pic.twitter.com/55I1lXERop
— Dylan Hernandez (@dylanohernandez) August 30, 2014

How Manfred would go about proposing the change and what his suggested guidelines would be are unclear. He'd almost have to create a specific zone that each defender has to stay within when each pitch is delivered. If that's the case, does that mean we'd see more lines drawn on the field, or is it up to umpire discretion? Can a defender creep in anticipating a bunt, or is that unfair? We'd be opening up a whole new can of worms here.

Those questions aside, Yahoo's Jeff Passan has learned that key figures within the game, including general managers who believe in sabermetrics, are actually open to such changes.

This is very telling: I ran Rob Manfred's idea to limit defensive shifts by two sabermetrically inclined GMs -- and both said they agree.

— Jeff Passan (@JeffPassan) January 25, 2015
Both essentially said same thing: The game is better when the casual fans gets the product they want. Big concern baseball isn't delivering.
— Jeff Passan (@JeffPassan) January 25, 2015
To paraphrase: Who do casual fans want to see compete, Clayton Kershaw and Mike Trout or Andrew Friedman and Jerry Dipoto?
— Jeff Passan (@JeffPassan) January 25, 2015

So perhaps the potential change has traction, but we're not entirely sure it's a change fans would get behind. Would more offense be great? Of course it would. Most would agree to that. But fans also enjoy the strategy that goes into the game, and eliminating something like the shift takes away one layer of discussion and second-guessing that we all like to engage in.

Which side of the argument are you on? Do you think the shift belongs in baseball, or would you like to see it banned?

[MMXcalibur]

Speed up the game and I might watch more than 1/2 an inning a season (seriously, that's all I watched last season).

[DaneMcCloud]

The only change I'd ever favor would be taking away the DH from the AL. I've always loved the "purity" of the NL and living in an NL city for 22 years has only reinforced it.

But that's it. Don't mess with the game in order to appeal to people that aren't intersted because it'll only piss off the true fan base.

[lewdog]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

The only change I'd ever favor would be taking away the DH from the AL. I've always loved the "purity" of the NL and living in an NL city for 22 years has only reinforced it.

But that's it. Don't mess with the game in order to appeal to people that aren't intersted because it'll only piss off the true fan base.

Your thing about the DH is just plain stupid so I'll address your other point.

It's very true. You can change multiple rules in baseball and the people that currently don't like it, will continue not to like it. It will still be a "slow" game to them. No amount of tweaks will change that. And in not gaining that many viewers with these changes, you will ruin a game that as it's laid out now, is almost perfect.

[BigRedChief]

Originally Posted by lewdog

Your thing about the DH is just plain stupid so I'll address your other point.

It's very true. You can change multiple rules in baseball and the people that currently don't like it, will continue not to like it. It will still be a "slow" game to them. No amount of tweaks will change that. And in not gaining that many viewers with these changes, you will ruin a game that as it's laid out now, is almost perfect.

THIS!

Baseball will not become popular outside of its existing fan base if you change a few rules.

[cosmo20002]

Baseball is kind of inherently "slow" and a few tweaks won't change that.
Winning gets people interested. Give more teams a fighting chance to contend more often: Real revenue sharing

Basically, teams like the Royals can't afford to make mistakes on draft picks and personnel moves. They can't afford star free agents to fill in the gaps and can't afford to keep their home-grown stars when they become free agents.

[Rain Man]

Originally Posted by digger

1) Move the fences in
2) get more home runs
3) profit

I don't actually think home runs are that exciting. The guy hits the ball and then everyone stands around while he jogs.

If you want to spice the game up, you make the fences notably taller and then you require all members of the defense to be in the infield when the ball is pitched. And they don't get gloves. And anyone reaching home can keep going to first to circle again. Those three minor rule changes would produce all sorts of running and scoring.

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by Rain Man

I don't actually think home runs are that exciting. The guy hits the ball and then everyone stands around while he jogs.

If you want to spice the game up, you make the fences notably taller and then you require all members of the defense to be in the infield when the ball is pitched. And they don't get gloves. And anyone reaching home can keep going to first to circle again. Those three minor rule changes would produce all sorts of running and scoring.

Get more runners on: Ball one--take your base

When we played baseball in my neighborhood cul-de-sac we played with a tennis ball. Since there weren't enough players to fill the all positions, we could get a runner out by pelting him with the ball (no head shots).
That could be exciting in the majors.

[Discuss Thrower]

My bullshit change to the rules of baseball would be that a batter can reach first on a pop fly, but the out is still recorded.

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by lewdog

Your thing about the DH is just plain stupid so I'll address your other point.

Why is it "plain stupid" that I prefer the NL game?

[Discuss Thrower]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

Why is it "plain stupid" that I prefer the NL game?

From my standpoint, the benefits of staying pure to the concept of baseball is outdated when you consider the amount of cash franchises are handing out to pitchers.

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by Discuss Thrower

From my standpoint, the benefits of staying pure to the concept of baseball is outdated when you consider the amount of cash franchises are handing out to pitchers.

From a "game" standpoint, everyone should hit.

[-King-]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

From a "game" standpoint, everyone should hit.

Why? I've never understood this.
Posted via Mobile Device

[WhawhaWhat]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

From a "game" standpoint, everyone should hit.

Well then everyone should be required to pitch.

[Rain Man]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

Get more runners on: Ball one--take your base

When we played baseball in my neighborhood cul-de-sac we played with a tennis ball. Since there weren't enough players to fill the all positions, we could get a runner out by pelting him with the ball (no head shots).
That could be exciting in the majors.

Dodgebaseball. I could go for that.

I still think it's dumb that a scoring player leaves the game. Move the fences back to 800 feet and let that fellow keep running. If he can get around the bases more than once, more power to him.

[scho63]

It never ends with these power hungry assholes!

=========================================

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/mlb-bi...013719129.html

If we've gleaned anything about Rob Manfred as he approaches two months in Bud Selig's commissioner's chair, it's that almost any idea is a possibility. He's wide open to change, it seems, whether that's the notion of banning defensive shifts that he brought up in January or shortening the MLB season.
Manfred addressed the latter Monday, saying it's certainly a possibility that MLB could shorten its season, but it's not a priority to him at the moment.

He told ESPN's Darren Rovell:

"I don't think length of season is a topic that can't ever be discussed," Manfred said. "I don't think it would be impossible to go back to 154 [games].
"We already have some of our record books which reflect a 154-game season and obviously some of it reflects a 162-game season," Manfred said. "So there's some natural flexibility there. But if anyone suggests to go to something like 110 games, then there's a real problem. That will throw all our numbers out of whack."

MLB moved from 154-game seasons to its current 162-game format in the early 1960s. Shortening the season might be beneficial to players, considering baseball's grueling schedule. But the more games a team plays, the more money it stands to make from tickets, concessions and advertising.

At least for the time being, Manfred's focus isn't the length of the season but the length of games. The league introduced a number of pace-of-play rule changes Friday in hopes of reducing the average length of a game, which crept above three hours for the first time in 2014.