New MLB Commissioner Rob Manfred, on the job some 12 hours, made startling news on an otherwise quiet sports Sunday morning. The successor to Bud Selig would consider banning one of the most significant innovations in the recent history of the game.
This is an excerpt from Manfred’s interview on ESPN with Karl Ravech yesterday morning:
Rob Manfred: "For example, things like eliminating shifts -- I would be open to those sorts of ideas."
Karl Ravech: "The forward-thinking, sabermetric defensive shifts?"
RM: "That's what I'm talking about."
KR: "Let's eliminate that?"
RM: "Mmm-hmm."
KR: "So all of the work that the Cubs and/or Angels and/or whoever has done, you're willing to say, 'I appreciate that, good idea, but it's killing the game in a sense'?"
RM: "Yeah ... I mean, we have really smart people working in the game. And they're going to figure out way to get a competitive advantage. I think it's incumbent on us in the commissioner's office to look at the advantages that are produced and say, 'Is this what we want to happen in the game?'"
Ravech was a bit stunned by Manfred’s stance and understandably so. Why wouldn’t teams want to place players where the ball is being hit instead of employing near-mindless positioning that had been in vogue for more than 100 years?
What if football allowed only one defense? Teams still might be using the 5-3-3 that was in vogue some 50 years ago. Imagine what quarterbacks and wide receivers of the 21st century would do with a three-man secondary.
What is particularly astonishing is Manfred wants the commissioner’s office to work toward eliminating competitive advantages. If his goal is eliminating competitive advantages, he should consider a salary cap.
The Pirates have been among teams in the forefront of defensive shifting and it has helped them enormously. They had one of the best defensive teams in 2013 and it wasn’t strictly due to personnel. It had a lot to do with the extreme shifting that often, for example, put three infielders between first and second and none within 40 feet of third base.
Shifting is nothing new and if Manfred is serious he won’t just be changing modern-day strategy, he’ll be altering what has taken place for decades. Outfielders have shifted almost as long as the game has been played. Although radical infield shifting is new, for decades teams have significantly altered positioning for power hitters.
That it took baseball so long to begin altering positioning concepts that existed since the game was invented is amazing. That Manfred is considering banning the most revolutionary strategy in, at least, decades is all the more amazing. In effect, he wants to punish innovation. Heck of a way to run a sport.
If Manfred wants to eliminate shifts, he’ll have to rewrite the rules. All the rulebook states on positioning is that players on defense, with the exception of the catcher, must be in fair territory and that the pitcher must be in contact with the rubber when he throw the ball. Other than that, players can play wherever they want.
Not everyone is opposed to eliminating shifts. Yahoo.com baseall writer Jeff Passan tweeted the following: ''This is very telling: I ran Rob Manfred's idea to limit defensive shifts by two sabermetrically inclined GMs -- and both said they agree.
''Both essentially said same thing: The game is better when the casual fans gets the product they want. Big concern baseball isn't delivering.’’
Sorry, I’m not buying that. Football, the most popular sport, by far, in the country, implements all kinds of different positional philosophies and no one seems to mind. The game once was played with two ends (now wide receivers) lined up next to the tackles and three running backs lined up behind the quarterback. Teams found better ways to position offensive personnel and that strategy continues to evolve.
MLB would be foolish to curb innovation and the advantages that such thinking can bring to a team.
First Published: January 26, 2015, 10:30 a.m.
