As those of you who read this blog regularly know, we're not fans of the Boston Red Sox. The reasons for this (and for our "anti-fandom" for certain other franchises) are well documented in posts here over the years, but...
 |
| So--we reversed the Sox logo to remind you that we're still in the "anti-fan" category... |
So what did the Red Sox do, anyway? They got around the infielder shift ban that promised to eliminate the defense's ability to turn hits into outs (as has been practiced in increasing numbers over the past half-decade). How did they do that? By simply moving an outfielder into the same location that was formerly occupied by the second baseman for purposes of picking off erstwhile hits from left-handed batters.
For, you see, there's nothing in the rules about where you must position your outfielders!
Of course, this constitutes a bigger gamble by teams, because they are leaving a much greater amount of outfield territory open by doing so. The now-banned shift formation kept three outfielders in their standard positions, opening up only the left side of the infield, which made defenses vulnerable to extra singles. This "loophole" implementation that moves an outfielder into short right leaves teams vulnerable to doubles (and possibly some triples) because of the extra ground in the outfield that will need to be covered should a hitter launch one into left field.
SO how does this play into the "crackpot" schemes that you may (dimly) remember being proposed here previously? Our guess is that the players will resist a rule that forces outfielders to be positioned as strictly as possible (though perhaps they could find something that they want in a labor-oriented negotiation in order to permit it). So the "loophole" will likely remain in place--and there's a way to take that "loophole" further in terms of strategy and entertainment value.
That's right, kiddies--we are again talking about our infamous 190-foot rule, discussed here just enough to alienate a few of our former colleagues (who, as a result, can no longer be bothered to stay in touch with us anymore after many decades of friendship).
The line on the field is where one of the team's outfielders must stand in front of during a single designated inning (so as to not distort the possible outcome of the game, we recommend nothing later than the sixth inning) to forcibly create extra distance between the remaining outfielders. That extra distance will create a significantly greater likelihood of triples during each of the two half-innings it structures how the outfield is to be configured, and it will apply for all hitters in those innings, not just the ones that were targeted by the now-banned "shift."
If you think about it for a minute, our 190-foot rule is de facto the same thing (or at least is highly similar) to what the Red Sox employed the other day.
So why not take this idea further, creating entire innings where the defense is stretched into a configuration that puts them at greater risk due to the increased possibility of extra base hits? A rule like this would incentivize hitters to look for the (larger) gaps in the outfield and try to take advantage of the defense (for one half-inning each, home team and visiting team) having--so to speak--one hand tied behind its back.
Now, "Saint Theo" (Theo Epstein, former GM wizard who's now the game's "rules change guru") is on record concerning the fans' desire to see more doubles and triples. We'd like Theo to take off his PR blazer for a moment and own up to the fact that triples are far more exciting than doubles and are about ten times as scarce--so if he really wants to do something significant, he should cast about for a way to dramatically increase the number of triples per game.
In support of that, we have the (admittedly not-scientific) results from Bill James in the form of a Twitter poll he ran a few years ago, which is reproduced at left. Sure, it's only 2300 votes, but those who follow James on Twitter are devoted fans with a deep sense of the current strengths and weaknesses of the game. Those percentages aren't close, folks--as Theo notes, fans want to see more on-field action. And there is nothing more action-packed than a triple--the hit that is the game's perfect combination of speed and power.
Now even assuming that some folks voted for triples simply because they are so scarce, it still behooves us to find a way to accede to that desire and implement some way of making it happen. Tripling the number of triples is not going to make them so common that folks will say "ho-hum"--and if it's done in the context of an inning where a defensive rule has been (temporarily) imposed to increase those chances, it's going to create anticipation and excitement in the game beyond just the fact that there are more triples.
One question that may remain in your mind is how to actually implement the rule. What governs its use? We see two choices: 1) a random assignment to each team prior to the game, where each is assigned a half-inning on defense (innings three through six) where their center fielder must play in front of the 190-foot line; 2) managers are allowed to choose their half-inning (again, innings three through six) where they force the opposition to align their outfield according to the 190-foot rule. In that way managers can look at who they have coming up to bat and decide when they think they have the best chance to exploit the advantage that the rule will afford them.
But, semi-conscientious (or is that semi-conscious...) objectors: baseball has already imposed a limitation on defense with their two infielders to a pair of pants--er, to each side of the diamond--rule. The door is now open for other, more creative--and most importantly, strictly limited in scope--additions to such limits in order to give baseball more variety, more unpredictability...
...And more excitement. We remain firmly convinced that this will be the most exciting and entertaining rule change in the history of the game. It will also change the shape of extra-base hits in an astonishing manner. The record for most triples in a season--36, by Owen "Chief" Wilson
back in 1912--will suddenly be in danger. The ghost of the Chief will probably visit us with vengeance on his mind, but we'll calmly inform his shrieking ectoplasm that records--even the record for triples, for Crissakes--are meant to be broken.
Let's implement this rule and let the fun begin.
