The Shift

jtur88 · 10-14-2007, 10:31 AM

The purpose of this question is not to evaluate the utility of the shift, but rath to discuss whom to put where when the shift is employed,

In Game 2, Cleveland used the shift against Ortiz, and Ortiz obligingly hit a double-play ball. But Cleveland had followed conventional wisdom by moving all three infielders out of position to the right, leaving 3B Casey Blake as the only available pivot man---not a natural play for a third-baseman--- and they failed to turn the DP, reducing to the game-tying homer on the next at-bat, ultimately costing them a 9-inning win.

For years I have wondered about this. Why not just put 3B in short right, and leave everybody else at their natural position? I have just illustrated the disadvantage not doing so. Can anybody tell me a counterbalancing disadvantage of having the 3B in short right, instad of the 2B, and everybody else at their accustomed position?

I have noticed that if I get up and change seats, it takes me several plays ro reaccustom myself to the game as seen from a new vantage point, and I have difficulty, among other things, following the ball off the bat. Would not an infielder also suffer a certain amount of, umm, 'parallax-lag' when changing position? For example, on Ortiz' ball, Blake might have had to consciously ask himself "Where the hell is second base, and am I supposed to cover?", while the normal shortstop could have found it at a sprint blindfolded.

nanwynnfan · 10-15-2007, 12:59 AM

I've always had misgivings about the shift; but somehow the rigidity of my idol, Ted Williams, seemed to lend it some credibility. TSW always said he wanted to do nothing to upset either his timing or his stroke, so he challenged the shift Yet there was that one crucial inside-the-park homer against Cleveland in a 1-0 Bosox win. [That would have been a lined single to left-center].

Your idea of the 3B in short right isn't bad. In fact, I'd play him deeper and toward right so the RF could better guard the deep alley. The SS I'd have patrol his regular position on the grass, with the LF about 50-100' behind him, and shaded a bit toward the line. The CF could then play the hitter slightly to pull,
giving you complete OF coverage with 4 OF.

That setup would have enough presence on the left side to give a dead pull hitter second thought about screwing himself up trying to go the other way. Also, your IF, since they're back have an added 5-7' of lateral range to get hard-hit grounders or low liners.

sfcoach08 · 01-31-2008, 09:54 AM

I like your idea of putting 3B in right. 3B is not accustomed to turning DBL plays like SS or 2B. Your idea will give you your DBL play guys that are used to turning them your best chance at getting it and getting out of the inning.

10-14-2007, 10:31 AM	#1 (permalink)
jtur88 Hall of Famer Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: South Texas Posts: 7,847	The Shift The purpose of this question is not to evaluate the utility of the shift, but rath to discuss whom to put where when the shift is employed, In Game 2, Cleveland used the shift against Ortiz, and Ortiz obligingly hit a double-play ball. But Cleveland had followed conventional wisdom by moving all three infielders out of position to the right, leaving 3B Casey Blake as the only available pivot man---not a natural play for a third-baseman--- and they failed to turn the DP, reducing to the game-tying homer on the next at-bat, ultimately costing them a 9-inning win. For years I have wondered about this. Why not just put 3B in short right, and leave everybody else at their natural position? I have just illustrated the disadvantage not doing so. Can anybody tell me a counterbalancing disadvantage of having the 3B in short right, instad of the 2B, and everybody else at their accustomed position? I have noticed that if I get up and change seats, it takes me several plays ro reaccustom myself to the game as seen from a new vantage point, and I have difficulty, among other things, following the ball off the bat. Would not an infielder also suffer a certain amount of, umm, 'parallax-lag' when changing position? For example, on Ortiz' ball, Blake might have had to consciously ask himself "Where the hell is second base, and am I supposed to cover?", while the normal shortstop could have found it at a sprint blindfolded. __________________ ------------------ When people ask what I hope to see before I die, I answer that I've already seen too much.

01-31-2008, 09:54 AM	#3 (permalink)
sfcoach08 Rookie Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Louisiana Posts: 5	I like your idea of putting 3B in right. 3B is not accustomed to turning DBL plays like SS or 2B. Your idea will give you your DBL play guys that are used to turning them your best chance at getting it and getting out of the inning. __________________ Coach Beau Warrior Baseball

10-15-2007, 12:59 AM	#2 (permalink)
nanwynnfan Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 2,579	I've always had misgivings about the shift; but somehow the rigidity of my idol, Ted Williams, seemed to lend it some credibility. TSW always said he wanted to do nothing to upset either his timing or his stroke, so he challenged the shift Yet there was that one crucial inside-the-park homer against Cleveland in a 1-0 Bosox win. [That would have been a lined single to left-center]. Your idea of the 3B in short right isn't bad. In fact, I'd play him deeper and toward right so the RF could better guard the deep alley. The SS I'd have patrol his regular position on the grass, with the LF about 50-100' behind him, and shaded a bit toward the line. The CF could then play the hitter slightly to pull, giving you complete OF coverage with 4 OF. That setup would have enough presence on the left side to give a dead pull hitter second thought about screwing himself up trying to go the other way. Also, your IF, since they're back have an added 5-7' of lateral range to get hard-hit grounders or low liners.