No - to the skill of the numerous batters that the shift was implemented against. There are plenty of hitters that can hit to all fields, but they’ve become more and more of a rarity, as evidenced by the exponentially increased use of the shift the last 15 years. The question always comes up of “why can’t they just hit it the other way?!”, as if it’s some “Eureka!” moment that no one ever thought of hittin’ it where they ain’t.
This part of my inquiry was not answered, Does the shift rule speed up the game? Does it give the batter an advantage that he did not have last year (thereby increasing the score of the game)?
The shift is generally thought to give an incentive to hitters to swing for the fences as often as they can, rather than hit for contact. This all-or-nothing approach resulted in a massive increase in strikeouts and a generally boring game. The shift rule is an attempt to incentivize hitting for contact, and not just power.
And by doing so, it was hoped to increase hits and thus run production.
From Forbes:
The batting average in 2023 was .248, a five-point increase from 2022. The average number of runs scored per game increased from 8.6 in 2022 to 9.2 in 2023.
Obviously it could be argued that other factors increased the BA and run production, but certainly the anti-shift rules played a part.
Theoretically, having more base runners (the aim of the shift rules) would lengthen the game duration.
I wonder if you could calculate how much even faster a game would be played under the pitch clock but without shift restrictions, if at all.
Good point, which also serves to underscore the effect of the pitch clock.
Best thing that MLB did in a long time.
I think the motivating factor was both the length of game and pitcher over usage. I disagree that a random game in June is not worth a win. I believe every team tries to win every game and indeed they should, especially in this age of expanded playoffs. Look at this year’s standings. There’s four teams that could have made it into the playoffs this year with just one more win, a win against a particular opponent. The Padres had they won one against the DBacks, or Cubs against the Marlins or DBacks, the Reds, the Mariners.
Everyone has to be prepared and have the mentality that once in a while, there will be 12-13+ inning games. If the league or anyone was really concerned about pitcher injuries, the playoffs would not have been extended.
Yes, but I wouldn’t be surprised to see someone swipe 80, 90 or even 100 bases before long. Corbin Carroll seems a good candidate to accomplish that.
The shift has nothing to do with speeding up the game. I don’t see how it does. Logically, there would be more hits. Increased batting averages throughout the league support that but it’s only one year and the increase is not so much out of what it was the previous season. More hits should have logically added to game time. No, the game time reduction was more because of not allowing hitters to straighten their jock straps after each pitch or pitchers going around the mound or unlimited throws to first, being ready to throw within the allotted time of 15 or 20 seconds.
The advantage to the hitter is of course that if he tends to hit the ball in a certain place, whereas before this year the opposing team may have had their fielders “out of position” where he is most likely to hit, this year he didn’t have to worry about that as much.
The average number of runs did go up this year by 0.34 but 2022 was down for some reason. This year was more or less the average from 2017 to 2021.
It should be pointed out that the primary purpose of the pitch clock wasn’t to shorten games, it was to quicken the pace of play. The secondary effect of that was shortening the game, but the rule wanted to eliminate as much of the non-action between pitches as possible.
The rules overall were put into place to make the game more watchable. Most had the effect of shortening the length of the game which was a goal. Some might have made the games a little longer but worth it for other reasons.
Right I was going to say the same. MLB looks to improve the game. They aren’t just looking at the length and pace.
Shift ban: to increase offense and make the game more exciting. Watching inning after inning of groundouts to the shortstop isn’t exciting. More offense increases the length of games.
Pitch clock: increases the pace which in turn decreases game time. It’s both the batter and pitcher affected. No more yank yank tug tug swing swing for batters between every pitch.
Bigger bases: mostly for safety. A base stealer may have a split second advantage. Probably not enough to notice.
Replay: decreases the pace. Increases length of games. Makes sure calls are right.
Ghost runner: decreases length of games. Does nothing for the pace. More to do with burning out pitchers in an era of increasing pitcher injuries.
Universal DH. More offense. No automatic outs. More offense should increase length of games.
The length of games is the most demonstrable change due to a new rule. They are looking at multiple issues not just length and pacing.
Agreed with all of the above, Loach - I had a couple of drafts trying to say the same but you nailed it.
The set of rules is about the overall product, which is improved. The game had become a tedious slog.
Forcing batters to stay in the box wouldn’t have worked, though I agree that in the absence of a pitch clock it would have been a great improvement. You also have to get the pitchers to pitch. How do you do that without a clock?
(When I coached little league half of the kids would get in the box and put their back hand up toward the umpire. I explained over and over that doing that meant nothing unless you were granted time out but they kept doing it because that’s what their idols did. I don’t coach anymore but I wonder if the kids have stopped doing it since the pros do it a lot less now).
The reason it absolutely would work is that it gives the pitchers a great advantage, forcing slow batters to bat before they’re fully comfortable in the box.
The reason it wasn’t accepted is almost certainly because the players’ union objected on the grounds that it wasn’t safe, but that’s how the game was played safely for a century before the batters started gaming the system by pretending they needed to step out of the box on every pitch.
Quick pitching is unsafe and I agree with the players that making it an acceptable practice would be a bad solution to the problem. There’s a reason batters get angry when they’re quick pitched, and it’s not because they wanted more time to dick around. It’s because if you’re not set in the box and the pitcher throws you won’t be ready to react if it’s going to hit you. I’ve seen batters get hit in the face when they were quick pitched.
How did it work then in the days before batters stepped out? I’ll tell you: batters had to prepare, mentally and physically, while the ball was going from the catchers’ hands to the pitchers’ gloves, and as the pitcher got the sign and went into his motion. We had under two-hour-long games routinely for over a hundred years under this setup, with one (count ‘em, one) batter fatality in all that time (which could have been prevented by the use of batting helmets.) It was as safe as mothers’ milk.
What’s unsafe about quick pitching is that the batter is unprepared, and you’re pitching quickly in order to catch the batter unprepared. When batters spend their entire career being afforded the opportunity to prepare between pitches, taking away that time, in secret, is unsafe and poor sportsmanship. There is no more unsafe moment than when players don’t know (or don’t agree) whether the ball (or puck) is live.
Attendance was WAY up this year. I can’t prove it was due to rules changes but it seems hard to believe it was a coincidence, and I think game length was the biggest factor.
I love, love the shorter games, and I am no casual fan. The improved pace is just tremendous.
I like more basestealing, too. Basestealing was up 40% or so.
How did they use the robot ump? I watch the St. Paul Saints, the Twins’ AAA club. I liked the pitch clock last year. The robot ump I’m not so sure about. The way they used it was the umpire called balls and strikes but the teams could challenge calls, and the robot ump would then rule.
I understand in some leagues the robot ump called every ball and strike, and the home plate umpire would relay the calls.