The Shift

[Bench]

Interesting Crasnick article on The Shift from hitters' perspectives.

Basically, they say hitting a ground ball or bunting against the shift for an easy single both isn't easy and doesn't accomplish a whole lot. Their at bats are much better spent trying hit doubles or homers over the shift. 

Daniel Murphy made an interesting comment about a hitters' approach at the plate:  If I'm not mistaken, the level of production goes: strikeout, popup, ground ball, fly ball, line drive. The production comes mostly from fly balls and line drives, so that's what we want. I'm trying to hit a line drive first. And if I miss, I hit a fly ball. Ground balls, popups and strikeouts aren't going to give you anything. It's not necessarily rocket science.

[HudsonHawk]

Interesting Crasnick article on The Shift from hitters' perspectives.

Basically, they say hitting a ground ball or bunting against the shift for an easy single both isn't easy and doesn't accomplish a whole lot. Their at bats are much better spent trying hit doubles or homers over the shift. 

Daniel Murphy made an interesting comment about a hitters' approach at the plate:  If I'm not mistaken, the level of production goes: strikeout, popup, ground ball, fly ball, line drive. The production comes mostly from fly balls and line drives, so that's what we want. I'm trying to hit a line drive first. And if I miss, I hit a fly ball. Ground balls, popups and strikeouts aren't going to give you anything. It's not necessarily rocket science.

This is completely stupid. A ground ball single against the shift gives you more than a fly ball out. Period.
Crashick’s an idiot if he argues otherwise.

[JJxvi]

An extra base hit or a homerun is worth way more than a single, especially in shift situations (a defensive team is not going to shift to give up a single in a situation where a single is a big hit). 

The difference comes in our perception that its a guaranteed single, which it isnt. You can still strikeout (in which case youve struck out trying to hit a worthless single instead of striking out trying to get an extra base hit), or hit a tapper, or pop it up, or fail in your bunt or whatever. 

We think of the shift in terms of "Player X" always hits the ball to the right side, so lets shift to take that away.  But its not really that, its also math, that if Player X  tries and gets a meaningless single, we dont care, because it means he didnt hit a double or a homerun instead.  The defensive team doesnt care about giving up that single all that much.  The offensive team can do the same math too, and the reason they dont try for the single is because the conclusion after doing the analysis is the same one the defensive team came to. They dont care about getting that single just like the defensive team doesnt feel bad about giving it up.  Trying for that single means giving up the chance at a bigger hit.

[JJxvi]

dp

[MRaup]

An extra base hit or a homerun is worth way more than a single, especially in shift situations (a defensive team is not going to shift to give up a single in a situation where a single is a big hit). 

The difference comes in our perception that its a guaranteed single, which it isnt. You can still strikeout (in which case youve struck out trying to hit a worthless single instead of striking out trying to get an extra base hit), or hit a tapper, or pop it up, or fail in your bunt or whatever. 

We think of the shift in terms of "Player X" always hits the ball to the right side, so lets shift to take that away.  But its not really that, its also math, that if Player X  tries and gets a meaningless single, we dont care, because it means he didnt hit a double or a homerun instead.  The defensive team doesnt care about giving up that single all that much.  The offensive team can do the same math too, and the reason they dont try for the single is because the conclusion after doing the analysis is the same one the defensive team came to. They dont care about getting that single and giving up the chance at a bigger hit.

That's assuming you're just ignoring how hard it is to get on base in general. A "worthless" single leads to a baserunner, which is the only way to drive in more than one run at a time at the plate. So shitting on an against the shift single as worthless is just about as stupid as claiming that an unproductive flyball out is the same as a ground ball single.

[JJxvi]

Well, obviously its not really "worthless" or "meaningless" thats just for emphasis in comparison to how big an extra base hit is.  Obviously a basehit is almost always a good outcome.

The problem is that from a hitter's perspective, he does not know what the outcome is going to be before the fact.  He doesnt know he's gonna miss and hit a flyball instead of a homerun or a double.  Obviously if a hitter knew he was going to hit a flyball out guaranteed, he would change it up and try to hit a single. 

You say getting on base is hard. Do you think getting on base by hitting against the shift is easy?  I suspect thats its not very easy, and if someone could even hit .500 or .450 or something by doing it I suspect they would, but they cant so they dont and take their chances hitting the ball hard.

[MRaup]

Well, obviously its not really "worthless" or "meaningless" thats just for emphasis in comparison to how big an extra base hit is.  Obviously a basehit is almost always a good outcome.

The problem is that from a hitter's perspective, he does not know what the outcome is going to be before the fact.  He doesnt know he's gonna miss and hit a flyball instead of a homerun or a double.  Obviously if a hitter knew he was going to hit a flyball out guaranteed, he would change it up and try to hit a single. 

You say getting on base is hard. Do you think getting on base by hitting against the shift is easy?  I suspect its not very easy, if someone could hit .500 or .450 or something by doing it I suspect they would, but they cant so they dont and take their chances hitting the ball hard.

Do you honestly think it's easier to take your normal swing against 7 guys clumped up on the side of the field you usually hit vs. just trying to drag your hands through the zone and go the other way on purpose? Or even easier, drop a bunt?

There is an argument to be made that a guy like Joey Gallo has more value taking his regular swings than laying down a bunt, sure. But if a slap hitter anyway that pulls has a chance to drop a bunt or punch one down the line, it is borderline insanity not to shoot for the wide open infield side rather than try to poke one through the entire defense. Also, as the Astros have proven repeatedly, despite knowing the shift is on behind them, Astros pitchers continue to use the entire zone and purposely shoot for the outside part of the plate for strikes/outs, despite there not being any infielder to make the routine play those swings generate typically. So, why not go up there, especially if you're down in the count, looking to go the other way (not exclusively, but lean that way). Not taking what the fielders give you is playing right in to the whole point of the shift.

Here is an interesting article about Gallo and the shift: https://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2018/5/27/17398824/rangers-texas-gallo-joey-mlb-bunting-shift-statcast

[JJxvi]

I suspect that major league baseball clubs know almost exactly how much easier it is and even have a number on it and act accordingly and have for several seasons now.

[JJxvi]

Do you honestly think it's easier to take your normal swing against 7 guys clumped up on the side of the field you usually hit vs. just trying to drag your hands through the zone and go the other way on purpose? Or even easier, drop a bunt?

To answer your question. Maybe.   It makes sense to me that it would be easier to get a single doing that than it would be to get a single hitting into the teeth of the shift.  But the total value of my plate appearance? I think that obviously its worth more when measured in runs for a player to swing hard into the shift than it is to try and take the given up single.  If it wasn't players wouldn't be almost universally doing it.  It's a league where we got one team that starting middle relievers, if there was even a hint that it might be better trying to get singles against the shift there would be some team doing it and either they would fail miserably or it would work and teams would have to stop shifting against them altogether.

[Bench]

This is completely stupid. A ground ball single against the shift gives you more than a fly ball out. Period.
Crashick’s an idiot if he argues otherwise.

You're changing the argument.  Obviously a hit is better than an out.  They are talking about the potential upside of a fly ball over a ground ball, putting aside whether it's a hit or an out. 

[Jacksonian]

Do you honestly think it's easier to take your normal swing against 7 guys clumped up on the side of the field you usually hit vs. just trying to drag your hands through the zone and go the other way on purpose? Or even easier, drop a bunt?

There is an argument to be made that a guy like Joey Gallo has more value taking his regular swings than laying down a bunt, sure. But if a slap hitter anyway that pulls has a chance to drop a bunt or punch one down the line, it is borderline insanity not to shoot for the wide open infield side rather than try to poke one through the entire defense. Also, as the Astros have proven repeatedly, despite knowing the shift is on behind them, Astros pitchers continue to use the entire zone and purposely shoot for the outside part of the plate for strikes/outs, despite there not being any infielder to make the routine play those swings generate typically. So, why not go up there, especially if you're down in the count, looking to go the other way (not exclusively, but lean that way). Not taking what the fielders give you is playing right in to the whole point of the shift.

Here is an interesting article about Gallo and the shift: https://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2018/5/27/17398824/rangers-texas-gallo-joey-mlb-bunting-shift-statcast

In other words, being situationally aware is important.  I think there are a lot of hitters who are so into slugging they are unwilling to adapt to the situation.

[MRaup]

In other words, being situationally aware is important.  I think there are a lot of hitters who are so into slugging they are unwilling to adapt to the situation.

Bravo, sir. This exactly.

[subnuclear]

In other words, being situationally aware is important.  I think there are a lot of hitters who are so into slugging they are unwilling to adapt to the situation.

If you can hit a grounder through the shift at .320 avg and you can hit a line drive over the shift at .250 avg, do you change your approach? If its .400 and .150 obviously you change. If it's .280 and .270 then its clear you go for the line-drive. The hitters in the article tended to think it was bit of coin flip.

[Jacksonian]

If you can hit a grounder through the shift at .320 avg and you can hit a line drive over the shift at .250 avg, do you change your approach? If its .400 and .150 obviously you change. If it's .280 and .270 then its clear you go for the line-drive. The hitters in the article tended to think it was bit of coin flip.

You have to account for who's pitching, inning, outs...  Too many players don't do any of that and it costs them chances of being on base.  For example, you are Gallo, and you are facing Verlander or Severino.  With 2 strikes you are more than likely going to strike out using your typical approach.  The likelihood of hitting for extra bases is less than minimal.  You lose nothing, but stand to gain much, if you bunt toward third base with 2 strikes.

[subnuclear]

That makes sense, but the shift is on in a lot of situations where it isn't as clear cut.

[JimR]

Yesterday was to my knowledge the first time an extreme OF shift hurt. Bases loaded, no out, 4-0 up—walking Lucroy was a killer—Morton desperately needed an out.  As he said post-game, he made a great pitch and got a fly ball to CF. What should have been a 4-1 game with one out became 4-2 with no out, and runners at second and third. Springer had no chance to get to the ball from his LCF position, and Reddick’s sprint from RCF was about 2-3 feet short.

I understand the Astros are committed to the shift according to what the charts say, but at least to me, sometimes outs are more important.

As for the discussion above, the idea a ball hit in the air is more valuable than a ground ball single into vacated territory is nuts. The As began Morton’s demise in the 5th with two balls hit the other way. TK said “It is almost like they were trying to hit to RF.”  Well, duh.

[Bench]

You have to account for who's pitching, inning, outs...  Too many players don't do any of that and it costs them chances of being on base.  For example, you are Gallo, and you are facing Verlander or Severino.  With 2 strikes you are more than likely going to strike out using your typical approach.  The likelihood of hitting for extra bases is less than minimal.  You lose nothing, but stand to gain much, if you bunt toward third base with 2 strikes.

I think that there's a considerable chance that Gallo bunts foul in that situation.

[Jacksonian]

I think that there's a considerable chance that Gallo bunts foul in that situation.

At least the bat's on the ball.  Over the 2017 season Gallo struck out 71% of the time when he got to 2 strikes.  In contrast Judge was at 59%.  If you learn enough to know you are in an extreme strike out situation with little or no hope of a hit much less a homer why not bunt and give yourself the best chance to move the order along?

I'm not saying do it all the time.  If you're facing a lesser pitcher, especially one gives up a lot of homers, perhaps you keep swinging for the fences.

[Bench]

At least the bat's on the ball.  Over the 2017 season Gallo struck out 71% of the time when he got to 2 strikes.  In contrast Judge was at 59%.  If you learn enough to know you are in an extreme strike out situation with little or no hope of a hit much less a homer why not bunt and give yourself the best chance to move the order along?

I'm not saying do it all the time.  If you're facing a lesser pitcher, especially one gives up a lot of homers, perhaps you keep swinging for the fences.

That certainly makes sense to me.  But the hitters (and organizations)' approach generally seems to be not to give up on the potential for extra bases.  I'm sure there are exceptions in specific situations. 

[MusicMan]

Astroball keeps coming back to the idea of “hitting on 16 against a 7” - in other words, making the choice with the best odds, regardless of your gut instinct.

The shift is the ultimate on field example of this. The odds indicate each defensive positioning for each hitter according to their history. If a hit falls in, that doesn’t make it a bad bet, just a bad outcome.

“Ground ball with eyes” is one of the oldest expressions in baseball. With the shift, those just go to different spots.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JimR]

Astroball keeps coming back to the idea of “hitting on 16 against a 7” - in other words, making the choice with the best odds, regardless of your gut instinct.

The shift is the ultimate on field example of this. The odds indicate each defensive positioning for each hitter according to their history. If a hit falls in, that doesn’t make it a bad bet, just a bad outcome.

“Ground ball with eyes” is one of the oldest expressions in baseball. With the shift, those just go to different spots.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No. A ground ball with eyes squeezes though one or more defenders who are positioned to field it. With the shift, the same ground ball goes through a completely vacated position.

[MusicMan]

No. A ground ball with eyes squeezes though one or more defenders who are positioned to field it. With the shift, the same ground ball goes through a completely vacated position.

The defenders are still positioned to field it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LonghornCDR]

No. A ground ball with eyes squeezes though one or more defenders who are positioned to field it. With the shift, the same ground ball goes through a completely vacated position.

“Vacated position” is really a misnomer and solely based on traditional baseball positioning.  There is nothing in the rule book that defines where a player should stand on the field other than the pitcher and catcher.  Traditional positioning  exists only because people thought that a ball could be hit anywhere, anytime, so players are evenly distributed around the field.   

Now that there is a better ability to analyze data and make predictions on where the ball is likely to be hit, positions could and should be re-defined.  Outfield shifting has been a thing forever.  Infielders have been doing it to smaller degrees forever. 

In the modern game, the only time a position is “vacated” is if the data says a ball is likely to be hit somewhere and a manager ignores that and goes with his gut.  Like standing 16 against a 7. 

[JimR]

The defenders are still positioned to field it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Uh, no. They are positioned to field a ball where he hits it a high percentage of the time. A blind ball will go through a vacated position.

[Knoxbanedoodle]

It seems possible to me that by the time every team is shifting as much as the Astros do, whatever is considered a “traditional” shift at that time will be obsolete because the Astros minor leaguers have been developed to destroy it.

[subnuclear]

Yesterday was to my knowledge the first time an extreme OF shift hurt. Bases loaded, no out, 4-0 up—walking Lucroy was a killer—Morton desperately needed an out.  As he said post-game, he made a great pitch and got a fly ball to CF. What should have been a 4-1 game with one out became 4-2 with no out, and runners at second and third. Springer had no chance to get to the ball from his LCF position, and Reddick’s sprint from RCF was about 2-3 feet short.

Do you think the hitter intentionally directed the ball in that part of the OF?

[JimR]

Do you think the hitter intentionally directed the ball in that part of the OF?

Of course not. He was lucky to hit it at all.

[HudsonHawk]

You're changing the argument.  Obviously a hit is better than an out.  They are talking about the potential upside of a fly ball over a ground ball, putting aside whether it's a hit or an out.

A fly ball is very, very, very rarely better than a hit. So much so that it’s  also a dumb argument to make.

[Col. Sphinx Drummond]

A fly ball is very, very, very rarely better than a hit. So much so that it’s  also a dumb argument to make.

I think by stating "putting aside whether it's a hit or an out," he means is the outcome of a fly ball in play, on average, is greater than the outcome of a ground ball in play.

[HudsonHawk]

I think by stating "putting aside whether it's a hit or an out," he means is the outcome of a fly ball in play, on average, is greater than the outcome of a ground ball in play.

A placed bunt against the shift is very different than a random “ground ball”. It’s disingenuous to equate them.

[austro]

A placed bunt against the shift is very different than a random “ground ball”. It’s disingenuous to equate them.

But it's also unrealistic to assume that guys who never, ever bunt can suddenly start doing so effectively.

[HudsonHawk]

But it's also unrealistic to assume that guys who never, ever bunt can suddenly start doing so effectively.

I'm not saying it is.  Only countering the argument that it's generally better to hit a fly ball than to try bunt for a single.  Also, there's a difference between bunting against the shift and trying to bunt in a sacrifice situation.  You don't have to be fine in the former, and in fact, you want to bunt it in a way that you would not want in in a sacrifice situation.  The former is much, much easier. 

[HudsonHawk]

Yesterday was to my knowledge the first time an extreme OF shift hurt....

I remember numerous instances.  Balls that would have been caught, or extra bases because the fielder had to run so far.  I remember several where a runner scored from 1B on what should have been a routine single to RF. 

[JimR]

I remember numerous instances.  Balls that would have been caught, or extra bases because the fielder had to run so far.  I remember several where a runner scored from 1B on what should have been a routine single to RF.

Every team bunches the middle and gives the hitter the lines. I am not talking about that (think Gardner’s ball into the corner in the ALCS). Yesterday was a shift of the entire OF way around to the left, which turned a routine fly in the middle of the field into a double in the worst possible time.

[HudsonHawk]

Every team bunches the middle and gives the hitter the lines. I am not talking about that (think Gardner’s ball into the corner in the ALCS). Yesterday was a shift of the entire OF way around to the left, which turned a routine fly in the middle of the field into a double in the worst possible time.

Yes, I know what an outfield shift is.  It's burned them several times this year.  Perhaps it just sticks in my memory more. 

[JimR]

Yes, I know what an outfield shift is.  It's burned them several times this year.  Perhaps it just sticks in my memory more.

Of course I know you do. I was trying to explain myself.