When Rob Manfred was named commissioner, it was said that he was mostly a continuation of Bud Selig, with similar approaches to the game. Under Selig, the game was constantly in favor of big market teams, and it seemed like every time a small market team found an advantage, it was taken away. It looks like the more things change, the more they stay the same, as Manfred is following that path.
This week marks the end of Selig’s reign as MLB’s commissioner. You’d think that would be a good thing, but Manfred immediately shows that things will either stay bad or get worse. He recently commented to ESPN about the growing trend of defensive shifts, and said that he would be open to eliminating shifts.
Shifts have helped smart teams like the Pittsburgh Pirates gain an edge over the competition. Over the last few years, the Pirates have focused heavily on defensive shifts, catcher pitch framing, and either finding ground ball pitchers, or adjusting pitchers to throw more ground balls. That is a big reason why they’ve transformed guys like A.J. Burnett, Francisco Liriano, Edinson Volquez, Mark Melancon, Vance Worley, and others from some of the worst statistical pitchers in the game, to having some of the best numbers in the game. And that process has allowed the Pirates to reach the playoffs in each of the last two years.
In the video linked above, Manfred offered the following comments in response to a question about how shifts might be killing the game.
“We have really smart people working in the game, and they’re going to figure out ways to get a competitive advantage,” Manfred said to ESPN. “I think it’s incumbent upon us in the commissioner’s office to look at the advantages that are produced, and say, ‘Is this what we want to happen?'”
If there is one thing MLB should not be doing, it is focusing on controlling how the game is played. It’s one thing to try and speed up the game with pitch clocks. But when you start to take away competitive advantages like defensive shifts, you start the game down a slippery slope. Where does it end?
What if a team decides to optimize its lineup by putting the best hitters at the top, rather than the middle of the order, so that the best hitters see more plate appearances during the season?
How about bunting? At one point in time, that wasn’t a part of the game. That was a long time ago, and baseball obviously is open to the process now. But how is that process for hitting any different than the process of shifts for fielding? The only difference here is that shifting is new, and hasn’t been a precise strategy for years. And if you want a fielding precedent, what about back in the time where fielders had to stand on the bag? Obviously baseball was fine moving away from that traditional method of fielding.
And how would MLB enforce shifting? Shifting isn’t always extreme. For the infielders, it could just mean putting the shortstop closer to the bag, rather than on the second base side. For outfielders, it could mean playing a player deep in center field. Shifting also includes moving the defense in to anticipate a bunt, or playing deep for double play depth. Teams have been doing that for years, and there’s never been an issue.
When Manfred talks about MLB questioning what they want to happen, it makes me wonder: what exactly does MLB want to happen?
On the surface, it seems that MLB wants to remove the advantages by the smart teams, and make things simple. To win, you just have to get the best players. The teams who can easily get the best players are teams in the biggest markets. Teams like the Pirates have turned to things like shifting because they can’t get the best players, and thus have to turn to the smartest strategies. When MLB says it doesn’t want the game being played this way, they are saying that they don’t want teams like the Pirates finding advantages.
Or there’s the player-specific approach to shifting. It used to be that you feared someone like David Ortiz or any big left-handed power hitter. Now you just play the second baseman in shallow right field, move the shortstop over to the second base side of the bag, move the third baseman to shortstop, pitch inside, and in the process, increase your chances of getting that player to ground out to the right side of the infield. Shifting has changed the game to the point where you take away an advantage that these dominant hitters once had.
These hitters have flaws, and there is an obvious way to attack those flaws and reduce the effects of their bat. So is MLB saying that they would rather have these hitters protected from teams attacking their flaws? Where does that end? Do we eliminate the LOOGY position and make it impossible for teams to bring in a lefty to face Pedro Alvarez in the late innings? Should teams be forced to pitch to Andrew McCutchen with first base open and runners in scoring position?
When Manfred was elected the new commissioner, I had a small amount of hope that he might bring a change, even though he was seen as the next Selig. In his first week, that hope was immediately destroyed. The best way to sum this up is by looking at a reaction by two General Managers, via Jeff Passan, to this news.
Both essentially said same thing: The game is better when the casual fans gets the product they want. Big concern baseball isn't delivering.
— Jeff Passan (@JeffPassan) January 25, 2015
You know what casual baseball fans want? Yankees vs Red Sox. Big market teams winning. They don’t care about the Pirates, Rays, Athletics, or any other small market team. The only way baseball can cater to the casual fan is to rig the game in favor of those big market teams, while taking away any advantage small market teams have.
