metafour
Registered User
- Apr 6, 2008
- 1,836
- 689
I know where you're going with this based off of your response to Leafs1991. Yes, you are correct that the offsides rule in soccer is there to make the game more interesting (otherwise it descends into a game of back and forth long kicks down the field), and likewise the idea to ban shifts in baseball would be made under the same pretense, however, to me the main differentiator is that offsides MUST be banned because there is no clear drawback to choosing to play offsides (or cherry-picking). Why wouldn't you play offsides at all times? The forwards in soccer aren't tasked with defending anyway, so there is no schematic advantage to them staying on side versus offsides. The shift in baseball is very different from this because it has a CLEAR disadvantage - the team employing a shift essentially chooses to leave an entire half of the playing field undefended. We KNOW that this is a clear disadvantage, because it's used very selectively and against only specific players - because it can and WILL be punished otherwise. This makes it a very clear risk vs. reward positional alignment, no different than in soccer wherein a team can choose to run a formation with more forwards at the expense of leaving their defense more prone to counter-attacks. When a team shifts in baseball, there is a very clear and obvious "counter" that can be played by the batter: try to hit the ball to the undefended area of the playing field. Of course, this is easier said than done - but the fact that this is absolutely a counter makes this a valid risk/reward positional strategy as opposed to something that needs to be "regulated". MLB teams are perfectly free to counter shifts by employing a lineup that exclusively features hitters who can spray the ball from one foul pole to the other. Just like in football when the defense stacks the box, the opposing offense is free to audible to a play to throw the ball deep.
