Epstein talks possible rules changes
The late Nick Cafardo and I had a long-running debate about shifts. Nick thought they should be banned to encourage more offense and I didn’t think the league should beinthebusinessoftellingteams how to position their players.
I’ve since come around to the idea because infield defense has become a test of which team’s analytics department is employing the better algorithm, and that’s not what the game should be about.
Infielders move like robots, going to precise spots on the field against certain hitters then shifting again in certain counts. Is that the best version of baseball?
Most of the proposed rules changes have common-sense appeal and would seem easy to implement. But banning shifts is a live wire with good arguments for and against it.
MLB expanded its experiment with limiting shifts this season. Teams in Single A and Double A must have four infielders on the dirt, two on either side of second base, when the pitcher delivers the ball.
The penalty for a violation is an automatic ball. But if the hitter reaches, the offensive team can take that result.
MLB consultant Theo Epstein, who is coordinating this effort, acknowledges he likely would have fought such a rule when he worked for the Red Sox and Cubs.
“There is the argument — based both on historical precedent and on competitive philosophy — that teams should have the right to position their fielders wherever they like,” he told the Globe.
But there’s now a greater good at stake: improving a game that in recent years has become less interesting to watch as it becomes harder for teams to score. The question is how best to do that.
“The best rule changes are ones that provide the most benefit to the style of play with the least amount of intrusion on competition or disruption to the game we love,” Epstein said.
MLB’s new joint competition committee will make the final determination on shifts. Epstein believes the benefits are numerous.
“First, an anti-shift rule would restore a traditional aesthetic and make the game more familiar and relatable for fans who grew up knowing intuitively where the shortstop and second baseman play and what a sure base hit looks like off the bat,” he said.
“Second, an anti-shift rule would restore the premium on range and athleticism for infielders, especially second basemen.”
The results were evident on the field last season when MLB used Double A and the Arizona Fall League as a laboratory.
“Infielders loved playing with more freedom and room to roam,” Epstein said. “We saw lots of athletic, rangy plays that you don’t see quite as often in a shift-heavy league with infielders bunched up.”
A new rule also would put the game back in the hands of the players, as opposed to the analysts. That appeals to fans and players alike.
Data will help drive this decision. MLB will look at batting average on balls in play, strikeout and walk rates, and the quality of contact. It will be difficult to get a true gauge because minor league teams aren’t as precise with their shifting as major league teams are.
Hulking lefthanded sluggers may pick up a few more hits, but they won’t suddenly become contact hitters with fewer strikeouts. The proposed rules changes are designed to create more action, not benefit one subset of players. The idea is to make the game better for everybody.
The trends MLB are trying to reverse “are caused primarily by the unfettered rise and dominance of modern power pitching,” Epstein said.
By that he means the high-end velocity and stuff, weaponizing of data and technology, the focus on swing and miss, five-inning starts, nine-man bullpens, one-inning relievers, and openers.
The pitch clock, automated strike zone, and roster limits may be better methods to combat those issues.
But banning shifts “does present the opportunity for several important positive impacts on the game,” Epstein said.