Baseball is one of those sports where many suggested rule changes seem like radical ideas in a traditional game where the rules have remained relatively unchanged for the 150-plus years it’s been around. There’s the DH, with many suggesting the National League should adopt it. There was the suggestion from a few months ago about letting any batter hit in the ninth inning if your team is trailing. And in the last couple of years, there’s been the argument that shifts should be outlawed.
Recently, baseball super-agent Scott Boras, who represents some of the game’s best players, told Jon Heyman of Fancred Sports that he believes the shift is “discriminatory” to left-handed hitters. Boras told Heyman that current shifts are unfair to lefties and that the MLB should consider implemented a rule so righties and lefties are treated “equally.”
Nationals star Bryce Harper, who is in the final year of his contract and set to hit free agency this winter, is having a subpar season average wise, as he’s hitting just .216 and has been well below .250 for much of the season to this point. Harper happens to be one of Boras’ clients, so it’s not surprising that he’s unhappy that this low average could be costing them tens of millions of dollars.
Before the season, there was some thought that Harper could potentially command up to a whopping $750 million when he becomes an unrestricted free agent. While there isn’t any question he’s a star player, no team is going to pay about half the value for the average MLB franchise for a player that isn’t hitting above .250.
With the shifts certainly contributing to the subpar average for Harper, the frustration and pressure is probably mounting. However, the suggestion that shifts should be outlawed is ludicrous.
One argument for taking away shift is that it will lead to more hits for the powerful left-handed hitters, which will lead to more runners on base, more action, and a more exciting game. It a pretty good argument, but I don’t think it’ll be the difference in getting large numbers of people to watch more games.
A main argument against the shift seems to be that it makes things biased against left-handed batters. To me, this is a terrible argument. Even if you believe the shift is very discriminatory against lefties, it’d still probably make the advantages for righties and lefties even out. This argument about discrimination against lefties is actually news to me and an argument I had never heard.
Traditionally, lefties are thought to have a major advantage over righties. They get out of the box quicker for a couple of reasons: their swing naturally takes them to first base, and they are already closer to first base than righties. Also, when a runner is on first base, lefties have a huge hole between the first baseman and second baseman because the first baseman is holding the runner on. And most hitters are more successful against the opposite-handed pitcher; with the majority of MLB pitchers being right-handed, the lefties have that advantage more than righties. The shift feels like a small disadvantage compared to the numerous advantages they get.
The thought that it’s “unfair” to shade a batter where they are going to hit it is not a good argument. Maybe instead of pulling the ball and trying to crush home runs all the time, professional baseball players should learn to hit the ball the opposite way. Defenses should be able to play wherever they want. If teams want two infielders and five outfielders, they should be able to do that.
In general, starting at the lower levels of baseball, people probably need to just teach young hitters to hit the ball to all fields. The game is trending toward lower averages and more home runs, so defenses should naturally be able to combat that with positioning. It’s then on the hitters to adjust their swings.
Baseball can be chess-like with some of the moves made, and shifts are key part of it. To take that away that freedom is a radical change that should not ever happen.
Agree.