2021-2022 Off Season Thread

[RoyWilliams]

I think they should at least have to play on the dirt. The guys playing 2b from the outfield is wrong. If they want to shift make them have to play in. The game has changed so much that guys in the HOF would not be there if the rules of today were around. Even watching a guy Gallo try and bunt his way on is boring. People want to see them swing the bat not try and bunt the other way against the shift. And the teams do not care because then that person is not hitting a HR. Let them shift but make them play in not on the grass in the OF.

[Yogi-8]

I say keep it simple - two infielders on each side of 2nd base as deep or as shallow as they want - first violation a warning, 2nd and you are ejected.

[matt2351]

The NHL recognized that neutral zone trap was killing offense and sucking the life out of the game so they eliminated the ban on the 2 line pass. The NBA bans zone defense for similar reasons. It’s not unprecedented. I completely understand the philosophical arguments against banning the shift but I think it’s time to be pragmatic. The shift takes away hits and suppresses offense. We can sit around and wait for hitters to adjust and go the other way (spoiler alert: it’s not going to happen) but every year we wait we lose more fans.

I can definitely appreciate both of sides of this debate, however, I think I have evolved into a ban the shift person. I think we could see the game adjust if the ball was slightly deadened and the mound was adjusted, but it is going to take time and I don't see how those adjustments are fundamentally less altering to the fabric of the game than banning the shift. IMO, banning the shift restores the game to a previous state more than deadening the ball and lowering and moving the mound.

Something must be done because the game has become painful to watch. Although I fundamentally disagree with most of the conclusions of the writer of the Claremont piece (mainly because I think their political orientation is informing their analysis far too much), I do agree that there is a major entertainment factor issue at play. I do not agree that it is an attention span issue. IMO, watching the NFL is like watching paint dry and there is no action, but millions of people disagree with me and have the attention span to sit through those games every week. The folks watching NFL games are not just olds.

I grew up with video games and computers (although the internet wasn't a huge thing until I was at the tail end of college) and I still loved baseball games in my 20s. I would guess if we looked at the erosion of the baseball fanbase, it would be happening across the demographic spectrum. Older folks might be sticking with it more because a larger percentage of their lives were when the game was still entertaining and the game therefore holds a different place in their consciousness. I would be shocked if we polled people 50+ and asked about the state of baseball that these people (the core of baseball's audience) would say it is just fine the way it is.

[primetime714]

I get it, it's a healthy debate we've had here forever. I don't see your comp as analogous. The example I usually think of are having a big near the rim to goaltend in the NBA or even more applicable is defensive offsides in the NFL. You could deploy a defender to do the most good in the NFL by lining him up on the opposite side of the offensive linemen, but that would make for rather boring play. The excitement is in a balanced offensive and defensive alignment, in which you have elite athletes using athleticism to make things happen on both sides of the ball.

I personally think the only thing that kills the shift is the commissioner. Hitters will never adjust. For every one LH power hitter that comes up through HS and college and mL and successfully learns to go the other way, there will be dozens that don't want to or fail to alter their swing. I suppose even analytics say that shouldn't happen, since you probably could generate an xBA of like .999 if you could bunt past the pitcher on the 3B side, yet these guys rarely if ever do it (even though most times I've seen it attempted it seems to work).

Yes, this. And baseball is different in the sense that arguably if not definitely the most exciting plays are the ones (non-HR base hits) that have the lowest and decreasing probabilities of scoring success, so its not just balanced offensive and defensive alignment its also offensive diversification. And I'd say even beyond just killing the shift only the commissioner can curb the continued trend towards 3 outcome baseball. Hitters have shown that they're not going to adjust they're just going to prioritize 3 outcome baseball in response as are GMs in team construction. Even as teams start using 5 OFs more often players aren't going to start hitting more ground balls just like they didn't adjust to the shift by hitting the other way more. The analytics still say 3 outcome baseball is your best bet rather than adjusting your approach. And the analytics will just change as the player changes as will how teams shift them so unless you can become a complete hitter (which is really hard) your best bet is to sellout to hit it where no one can get it (HR) or hard enough (exit velo) that the chances of making a defensive play regardless of alignment is harder.

In terms of solutions the only other things you can do are:
1) bigger stadiums- no chance, plus only works for fly balls unless they expand the field of play
2) adjust the ball (deaden or juice it)- both do nothing to increase in-field action because a dead ball increases weakly hit base hits, but decreases hard contact hits and a juiced ball favors the long ball.
3) add difficulty for pitchers (adjust mound, etc.)- again doesn't increase in-field action as this still favors 3 outcome baseball, harder to throw a strike (more walks), easier to hit a HR.

When you look at it in this lens putting limitations on the shift is the most logical solution unless 3 outcome baseball is what you want. They can do it gradually and in ways that don't curb strategy. In fact it could be interesting to see players on the move as the pitch is thrown sort of like putting a man in motion in football. The regulation of it is the biggest potential negative so hopefully they get that right as we REALLY don't need flags on the field in baseball or players being awarded free bases or free balls thus favoring OBP over AVG.

[False1]

Yes, this. And baseball is different in the sense that arguably if not definitely the most exciting plays are the ones (non-HR base hits) that have the lowest and decreasing probabilities of scoring success, so its not just balanced offensive and defensive alignment its also offensive diversification. And I'd say even beyond just killing the shift only the commissioner can curb the continued trend towards 3 outcome baseball. Hitters have shown that they're not going to adjust they're just going to prioritize 3 outcome baseball in response as are GMs in team construction. Even as teams start using 5 OFs more often players aren't going to start hitting more ground balls just like they didn't adjust to the shift by hitting the other way more. The analytics still say 3 outcome baseball is your best bet rather than adjusting your approach. And the analytics will just change as the player changes as will how teams shift them so unless you can become a complete hitter (which is really hard) your best bet is to sellout to hit it where no one can get it (HR) or hard enough (exit velo) that the chances of making a defensive play regardless of alignment is harder.

In terms of solutions the only other things you can do are:
1) bigger stadiums- no chance, plus only works for fly balls unless they expand the field of play
2) adjust the ball (deaden or juice it)- both do nothing to increase in-field action because a dead ball increases weakly hit base hits, but decreases hard contact hits and a juiced ball favors the long ball.
3) add difficulty for pitchers (adjust mound, etc.)- again doesn't increase in-field action as this still favors 3 outcome baseball, harder to throw a strike (more walks), easier to hit a HR.

When you look at it in this lens putting limitations on the shift is the most logical solution unless 3 outcome baseball is what you want. They can do it gradually and in ways that don't curb strategy. In fact it could be interesting to see players on the move as the pitch is thrown sort of like putting a man in motion in football. The regulation of it is the biggest potential negative so hopefully they get that right as we REALLY don't need flags on the field in baseball or players being awarded free bases or free balls thus favoring OBP over AVG.

Seems like we have a pretty similar POV on this. I thought about the "motion" option too, where a player has to start in a "zone" but can begin to range as the pitch is thrown, but I'm a little leery about giving umpires something else to officiate and what the penalty would be for moving too much / too soon (unless they start to use tech to aid with this stuff). I have also proposed possibly a stricter enforcement, player has to be in a "zone" and can only move after the pitch has been delivered... but like mound visits perhaps you allow a manager to signal two exceptions per game or something like that. So at least it's strategically deployed that way, and you have to decide if you use it early in a big spot and not have it late or vice versa.

[ThePinStripes]

Everyone wants to improve offense. Offense is exciting. Heck even F1 added DRS, but it's equally controversial. (It reduces drag for the person immediately behind, trying to pass, making it easier to pass, but gives the chaser an unfair advantage because the guy in front can't drop his wing).
Baseball in unique in that it has the build up of offense and the suspense of higher stakes with a runner on. In the NFL, a touchdown is a touchdown- 1 yard run or 100 yard punt return. A goal is a goal no matter where you kick/slap/whatever it from. Basketball has 3s, but that's not really a big deal or as situational.

They need to get back to having runners on base and runners stealing bases to make it more exciting.

[Strategerie]

Once again let me explain that for the Yankees' roster, I am defining a TOR starter as a #1, 2 or 3 - one that can be penciled in to throw 150+ effective innings.

I certainly acknowledge that Scherzer is not only a TOR starter - he's an ACE. But I didn't ever think the Yanks would pay his price, which IMO is astronomical.

I think guys like Carlos Rodon, Sean Manaea and German Marquez could or should fill the Yankees need. Any of these three would make the Yankee rotation very formidable (on paper) IMO.

To a point you made in an earlier post, sometimes maybe we should appreciate what we have. Marquez pitched to a 6+ ERA in the second half in the NL (even normalizing for Colorado, that's bad). Manaea pitched to over a 5 ERA in the second half and has iffy velocity (worse than Cortes', I believe). Rodon is a huge injury risk and was barely able to pitch in the second half - I agree that he is a reasonably clear upgrade if healthy but, with the health risk, I don't think he's a huge upgrade to what we have. Nonetheless, I see the appeal to Rodon or even Marquez if the price is right (which I find unlikely but possible). I'm more skeptical on Manaea (and would much prefer Bassitt from the A's rotation).

Our 2 to 5 is Sevy, Monty, Cortes, and Taillon (in that order, for me at least). I wouldn't boot any of those guys from the rotation for the guys you mention (and certainly don't think the upgrade from those guys is worth the cost required). We have strong depth with German, Gil, Medina, Clarke Schmidt, Deivi, Wesneski, Waldichuk, Sears, ... (and its important to give our young players a shot on a consistent basis).

[ThePinStripes]

They're not getting any true ace or solid, reliable, #2 pitcher. This will be another year where they view the game as purely a game of luck, and they will be "unlucky" once again.

"Success is simply a matter of luck. Just ask any failure." - Earl Wilson

[False1]

Everyone wants to improve offense. Offense is exciting. Heck even F1 added DRS, but it's equally controversial. (It reduces drag for the person immediately behind, trying to pass, making it easier to pass, but gives the chaser an unfair advantage because the guy in front can't drop his wing).
Baseball in unique in that it has the build up of offense and the suspense of higher stakes with a runner on. In the NFL, a touchdown is a touchdown- 1 yard run or 100 yard punt return. A goal is a goal no matter where you kick/slap/whatever it from. Basketball has 3s, but that's not really a big deal or as situational.

They need to get back to having runners on base and runners stealing bases to make it more exciting.

True, but to me it's about defense too. Again, on balls smashed to the right side of the infield, I want to be in suspense about whether a second baseman can range to knock it down before it gets into the outfield and make a spectacular play to secure an out. Not a SS/RF make a routine play.

Also, it puts a little more premium on defense since what are routine outs in the shift can only be defended by elite athleticism.

[Art Vanderlay]

I sure do disagree with a lot of the above post.

- Scherzer is absolutely a TOR starter. He's the Mets #2 starter and the best one of those in baseball by a wide, wide margin.
- Severino has NEVER proven to be an ace for a full season, and is a much larger health question mark based on his track record than even an "elderly" Scherzer
- in addition to the positions mentioned, there is a major defensive gap in CF. So with 1B, SS and C being also closer to "BAD" than "AVERAGE", it's only the 4 most critical positions on the field defensively
- A balanced lineup is critical to not allowing a pitcher to get comfortably in a zone
- Hicks has no track record to speak of. Urshela is a nice role player in a n otherwise dominant lineup. But overall an average player who is simply more likable than most of the duds on this roster. As a result, he's severely overrated. Voit is a DH and Sanchez is barely a major league caliber player, and definitely not a catcher. Cortez and Monty are admirable roster pieces if they are the #5 starter.

I agree.

[Art Vanderlay]

I agree with some of the suggestions in this thread and disagree with others. But here’s the bottom line, the Yankee have managed their roster so poorly in recent years they’ve painted themselves into a corner. They have a 220 million dollar payroll and are probably the 4th best team in their division. So there are three ways they might go;

1) Blow past the tax threshold to acquire 2-3 elite pieces and go for it
2) Tear it down and start the rebuild
3) make marginal changes and thread water

I believe they will chose option 3, especially if the number of playoff teams are expanded where 85-87 wins gets in.

[Yankyfan]

Voit for Cain? Yuk ...No thanks. Unless you can turn the clock back

[philleotardo]

Voit for Cain? Yuk ...No thanks. Unless you can turn the clock back

Straight up is absurd. Nice prospects from Milwaukee to get the Yankees to take his salary? Maybe.

[HelloNewman]

Wondering should we then ban "shading" by the outfielders? That's a subtle form of shifting and no doubt reduces the number of hits and spectacular catches too by deploying the outfielders toward the area where a batter is more likely to hit. It would be easy enough to draw three circles in straightaway left, center and right and make the outfielders stand in them until contact. More hits, more great catches, win win!

[Yankyfan]

Straight up is absurd. Nice prospects from Milwaukee to get the Yankees to take his salary? Maybe.

That would help. Sherman didn't say that though?