Friends will tell you that I've railed against the proposed shift ban since its proposal - perhaps annoyingly so. I never believed that the shift had a material impact on offense once you segment down to the applicable use cases (only some left-handed hitters, not when men were on base, in an era of strikeouts and fly balls via launch angle etc.). You're left with an edge case at best.
If you stared out at the concept of the shift ban for any length of time, you could easily convince yourself that it was a solution in search of a problem. That, when a real solution - bunting for a free base - was obvious, staring everyone right in the face and the sort of small ball that baseball said it wanted back. So, this is perhaps the least surprising result I've seen in some time.
What is surprising - perhaps shocking - is how MLB ignored its own data years back that indicated it wouldn't work as planned. While you heard nonstop talk in the media of the use of pitch clocks in the minor leagues, you heard very little to none about the shift ban experimentation in the minors. What did those efforts say?
As Baseball America's headline revealed in 2022, "Banning Shifts Had Almost No Effect on Batted Ball Outcomes in the Minors." Here is what they concluded, "...it is notable that the other rules changes MLB implemented—namely the pitch clock and larger bases—made measurable differences during testing in the minor leagues. Banning the shift, so far, has not."
So why did MLB move forward with an ineffective rule that their own data told them wouldn't work as planned? That's perhaps a more interesting story that will have to wait for another day.
Two concluding remarks. First, shifting always struck me as more of an outfield strategy than an infield one. Specifically, teams were able to get an additional outfielder in short right field to catch line drives and other balls in the air - not just ground balls. Those would also be captured by BABIP, but I wonder whether teams are now shifting their outfielders positioning to some degree to capture some of this value and that is muting the outcome.
Finally, a suggestion for your drawing board to bring offense back - that some have called "crazy" while others have more politely referred to as "interesting." Specifically, baseball needs to lower the base on ball number to 3 - to match the strikeout number. The number 4 is purely arbitrary and a vestige of the past. Why should pitchers be given an extra bad throw to the disadvantage of the hitter? That feels unfair at a high level.
At a more granular level, affording pitchers an extra pitch before consequences allows them freedom reach back and chase velocity - the malady that everyone is trying to fix. One stat I would be interested in knowing is whether pitch selection and velocity are different based on count today e.g. when the count is full or with two balls on the hitter? If velocity declines with higher ball counts, your problem is further along to being solved.
My assumption is that 4 BB could be reflective of a time when offense was dominant, so pitchers needed a boost to balance the game. A different time. In addition, that number for a base on balls has been lowered in baseball history before, so there is precedent. This also feels less disruptive than moving the mound back which is something that is a discussion point today. So, it's not as crazy as it might seem given the other proposals on the board.
It's time to level the playing field and discourage pitchers from raring back due to an extra windfall pitch before consequences. This move will also make command of pitches more valuable versus only velo.
We have a choice. We can either be bold or wait for MLB to roll out more ineffective carnival-esque ideas like larger bases and shift bans that don't work.
Friends will tell you that I've railed against the proposed shift ban since its proposal - perhaps annoyingly so. I never believed that the shift had a material impact on offense once you segment down to the applicable use cases (only some left-handed hitters, not when men were on base, in an era of strikeouts and fly balls via launch angle etc.). You're left with an edge case at best.
If you stared out at the concept of the shift ban for any length of time, you could easily convince yourself that it was a solution in search of a problem. That, when a real solution - bunting for a free base - was obvious, staring everyone right in the face and the sort of small ball that baseball said it wanted back. So, this is perhaps the least surprising result I've seen in some time.
What is surprising - perhaps shocking - is how MLB ignored its own data years back that indicated it wouldn't work as planned. While you heard nonstop talk in the media of the use of pitch clocks in the minor leagues, you heard very little to none about the shift ban experimentation in the minors. What did those efforts say?
As Baseball America's headline revealed in 2022, "Banning Shifts Had Almost No Effect on Batted Ball Outcomes in the Minors." Here is what they concluded, "...it is notable that the other rules changes MLB implemented—namely the pitch clock and larger bases—made measurable differences during testing in the minor leagues. Banning the shift, so far, has not."
So why did MLB move forward with an ineffective rule that their own data told them wouldn't work as planned? That's perhaps a more interesting story that will have to wait for another day.
Two concluding remarks. First, shifting always struck me as more of an outfield strategy than an infield one. Specifically, teams were able to get an additional outfielder in short right field to catch line drives and other balls in the air - not just ground balls. Those would also be captured by BABIP, but I wonder whether teams are now shifting their outfielders positioning to some degree to capture some of this value and that is muting the outcome.
Finally, a suggestion for your drawing board to bring offense back - that some have called "crazy" while others have more politely referred to as "interesting." Specifically, baseball needs to lower the base on ball number to 3 - to match the strikeout number. The number 4 is purely arbitrary and a vestige of the past. Why should pitchers be given an extra bad throw to the disadvantage of the hitter? That feels unfair at a high level.
At a more granular level, affording pitchers an extra pitch before consequences allows them freedom reach back and chase velocity - the malady that everyone is trying to fix. One stat I would be interested in knowing is whether pitch selection and velocity are different based on count today e.g. when the count is full or with two balls on the hitter? If velocity declines with higher ball counts, your problem is further along to being solved.
My assumption is that 4 BB could be reflective of a time when offense was dominant, so pitchers needed a boost to balance the game. A different time. In addition, that number for a base on balls has been lowered in baseball history before, so there is precedent. This also feels less disruptive than moving the mound back which is something that is a discussion point today. So, it's not as crazy as it might seem given the other proposals on the board.
It's time to level the playing field and discourage pitchers from raring back due to an extra windfall pitch before consequences. This move will also make command of pitches more valuable versus only velo.
We have a choice. We can either be bold or wait for MLB to roll out more ineffective carnival-esque ideas like larger bases and shift bans that don't work.