No Shifts & No Robo-Umps

For two sides that can't seem to agree on anything that will actually end this dumb lockout, the MLB owners and players sure are talking about a lot of stuff that doesn't matter.  Actually, it's not fair to say it's stuff that "doesn't matter."  These issues are important.  They're just not gonna move the needle in CBA negotiations and aren't the things they should be talking about right now.

With that being said, however, it shouldn't be a surprise that pitch clocks, banning shifts and robo-umps were all discussed.  They've all been on MLB's radar for a while as ideas that can either speed up the game or improve the product (or both), and they've experimented with each of them in the Minor Leagues over the past few years.  So, you would've figured that they'd make their way into the new CBA, whenever it's completed.

I have no opinion about the bigger bases.  I don't really have enough info to be informed enough to feel strongly one way or another.  And, frankly, I don't really know how much of a difference they'll actually make, either.  So, if MLB wants to do it, I say go for it.  I'm not gonna get bent out of shape about it.

Likewise, I'm not gonna get bent out of shape about the pitch clock.  This is something we've all seen coming for a while now.  They've already adopted a pitch clock at the lower levels and the players seem to have adjusted fine.  That was the big concern before it was first implemented, but everyone seems OK with it now.  Or, at least, they've gotten used to it.

You knew the pitch clock was coming simply because it's one of their "pace of play" initiatives.  Rob Manfred has been obsessed with pace of play for a while, and he thinks a pitch clock will help make games quicker.  Of course, there are a lot of other ways to make games go quicker and/or improve the pace, but if they want to have a pitch clock, I won't freak out about that either.  (And, frankly, there are some pitchers who take entirely too long, so the pitch clock might actually be a good thing.)

One thing the players did reject (somewhat surprisingly) was robot umpires.  Now, just to clarify, the robot umpire would not "replace" the human umpire.  You'd still need a home plate umpire to manage the game, rule on check swings and plays at the plate, etc.  All the robot umpire would do is call balls & strikes, and even then the human ump would have the ability to overrule (on a ball that bounced, but ended up in the strike zone, for example).

So, instead of a "robo ump," we really should call it an "automated strike zone."  And, once they started experimenting with it in the Minors and the Atlantic League, the automated strike zone seemed to be just as inevitably headed to the Majors as the pitch clock.  But the players don't want it.  They'd rather keep it as-is and have the home plate umpire calling balls & strikes.

Of course, it's harder to argue with an automated system.  Just ask tennis players, who no longer have challenges now that linespeople have been replaced by an automated system at pretty much every major tournament.  And MLB still has replay on everything else, so I guess that's the trade-off.  The automated strike zone would, theoretically, be more consistent.  Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing would probably depend on who you ask, though.

Then there's the shift.  The shift has been a topic of conversation ever since the Rays started doing it few years ago.  And it's only become more and more prominent since then.  It went from a few teams doing it to everybody doing it.  And only against left-handed hitters, who saw their batting averages drop dramatically as a result.

Some people have absolutely no issue with the shift.  It's a strategy element.  Just like bringing the infield in or bunting.  If the lefties don't like it, they can learn to hit the other way.  And if they started doing that consistently, maybe teams wouldn't shift on them!

The other group had the completely opposite mindset.  The shift is part of what's killing baseball.  The game's boring because nobody gets on base...and guys aren't getting on base because line drives that should be easy hits are outs because there's somebody standing in shallow right field!  So they try to hit over the shift instead, which leads to more strikeouts.

My issue with the shift is all of the defensive maneuvering teams do on every pitch.  Talk about something that adds a ton of unnecessary time to games!  You've got the second baseman playing shallow right field and the third baseman playing second, then switching spots with the shortstop with two strikes.  I don't know how the players didn't get confused!  And not to mention the fact that you've got guys out of position trying to turn a double play or take the throw from the catcher on a stolen base.

While I don't think a full-blown ban on the shift is the answer, I'd definitely be in favor of regulating it in some way.  There are two ways I think that can be done.  The first would be requiring all four infielders to have both feet on the dirt when the pitch is thrown.  That would prevent the second baseman from lining up in short right field.  The other would be mandating that two fielders must be on either side of second base.  No putting three guys on the first base side and leaving the shortstop or third baseman all alone on the other side.

That, to me, is the most intriguing thing about banning the shift.  How exactly will it be "banned," and how will that ban be enforced?  I do think it's a good thing that they're doing something about it, though.  Both the players and owners identified it as a problem, and they both wanted to solve it.  Now if they could only do that with the bigger issues in the new CBA.