Dunkirk NY – My son is very good with sabermetrics. Whenever we discuss baseball together, eventually it gets down to him pulling out some new metric that I hadn’t heard of yet to make his case. Two days ago it was the Pythagorean W-L record, which is a measure of how well or poorly a team is doing based on statistical expectations (how much luck a team is having, good or bad). I’d never heard of it, but there it was. It turns out that the Yankees had enough luck going for them in 2019 that, statistically, they should have been the 4th-best team in baseball, when they were actually the third-best team; they won four extra games due to good luck. So he does not like the idea I am about to propose, sabermetrically speaking. I got this idea from watching cricket, and while I think it’s an interesting idea, it certainly would shape the flavor of the modern game a bit.
The greatest visible change in baseball today is the defensive shift. While first introduced as a defense against Ted Williams (although it was employed against one Cy Williams in the 1920s), it became more popularized when Joe Maddon began to employ it first against David Ortiz, and then later against lefty pull hitters in general. It became controversial, and remains so today, although it’s more accepted now than it was in 2015, when there was talk about banning the practice. It did have the result of lowering batting averages and reducing hits, but of course not home runs, for which there is no defense. Pitchers were and remain uncomfortable with the left side of the infield being exposed, but sabermetrics reveal that many pitchers still do not take full advantage of the shift by pitching into it, i.e. pitching inside more.
Cricket is slightly different in its approach. In what is called “white ball cricket,” there are rules in place throughout the match concerning where players may be positioned defensively in the field. “White ball cricket” is a term used to describe limited-overs cricket, of which there are two types. The first is Twenty20 (T20) cricket, in which each side gets one at-bat (innings), and the innings is limited to 20 overs (120 delivered balls). The first six overs are called the “power play,” and during those first six overs, of the 9 fielders (bowler and wicketkeeper are not counted), there can be no more than 2 fielders outside the 30-yard circle. During the remaining overs there can be no more than five fielders outside the 30-yard circle. T20 cricket usually takes about three hours to play and is the popular form of professional cricket, although national sides do play international T20 matches when on tour.
ODI (One Day International) cricket is a bit more complicated. An ODI match has 50 overs per side in the one innings, and usually takes one day to play. In the first 10 overs, only 2 fielders can play outside the 30-yard circle. In overs 11-40, only 4 fielders can play outside the circle, and in overs 41-50, only 5 fielders. All these limitations are designed to produce more offense and runs. None of these limitations apply in test cricket, the longest form of the game.
Defensive shifts in baseball are designed to cut down hits, and subsequently cut down runs. So my modest proposal is this: set limits on when teams can employ the defensive shift. For example, let’s say that in innings 1-3, teams must always have 2 infielders to the left and right of second base, and they must stand at least 10 yards away from the actual base. Or perhaps it can be innings 1,2 and 9. Or perhaps it could be innings 4-6, when the game is a little more competitive. In short, 1/3 of the game would be played with what we know as the “traditional” defensive alignment; the other 2/3 of the game would allow defensive alignment in whatever fashion a team wished. Outfielders would also have some restrictions placed on their positioning as well, so you couldn’t put two outfielders, say, in right field, and leave left field empty. This would be a bit harder to do, as where an outfielder must stand could be very arbitrary. In cricket, the 30-yard circle is marked by little cutout circles placed on the field. Perhaps outfield positions could be similarly marked and then either ignored or removed after three innings.
I don’t have it all completely worked out, but in theory this would have the advantage of being a compromise solution to those who hate the shift and those who don’t mind it. Not employing the shift in the first three innings would give hitters the opportunity to hit into a standard defensive alignment at least once and potentially more, and might produce more runs and slightly higher batting averages. It could also evoke a bit more strategy in terms of lineups and how a team might approach a game if three of the innings had limited defensive ability (which is its effect in white ball cricket). Yet it would not take away a team’s ability to employ the shift at all, leaving the majority of the game open to whatever defensive posture a team may choose.
Change is hard in baseball, and always comes with a cost. We are still operating in a situation where one league has a DH and one does not, a very evident sign of how hard it is to make changes in the game. This is a change that could alter the game significantly, but it could be for the better. There are several changes coming in the game anyway that are not changes in the rules, but rather changes in approach. We are fast approaching the time when computers will make lineups and robots will call balls and strikes. Making a rule change like this might possibly be an antidote to some of these changes and keep the game more interesting. If you’re reading this, Rob Manfred, give it some thought. It’s a much better idea to consider than wasting time on improving pace of play and struggling to shave a minute or two off game times. -twl