Ted Williams kept pulling the ball, no matter what shifts they employed.

Stan Musial hit the ball to all fields.

Great hitters make it work. Weak hitters aren't worth shifting for. The shift makes the game more interesting, but has anyone compiled stats on whether it works?

It's being suggested that the "data savvy" young managers will make the shift more effective.    What happened in the 40s is irrelevant.  What happened last year is irrelevant if the premise is that it will be more effective in the future.

It's too bad ML hitters are so proud. Guys like Ortiz and Luke Scott have dropped down the occasional bunt and it's a gimme single. I'd bunt every single time the shift was used until they stop using it. Who cares if they're all singles? Helps your team and gives you a very, very nice BA. I guarantee the shift will stop pretty quickly.

My original point with this question wasn't that the shift is useless or ineffective, but I do think it's pointless/extreme micromanaging to try and use it on every hitter for every at bat. And I'm not talking about every fielder taking 4-5 steps to their left when a lefty is up. I'm talking unorthodox alignments that, with some hitters, seem to be used just for the sake of using them, as if the manager is just trying to say "see, I did some research! I'm managing!"

You assume guys like Ortiz know how to bunt. There are CF with ++ speed who don't know how to bunt. Easier said than done..

I find it difficult to believe that they can't be taught to bunt.    But, as I said earlier, managers don't want to do that.

Why would you want Ortiz to bunt?  Asking him to bunt likely turns one of your best offensive players into an automatic out even with the shift on.

So you're saying he can't be taught to bunt when the shift is on?

No. I'm saying that Ortiz bunting likely results in an out even if the shift is on. You just took the bat out of the hands of one of your best hitters.

I know when Prince Fielder is up, facing the shift, I don't want him bunting. 

Looks like TB is using the shift on almost every batter. 

Posted by jrd_x on 4/22/2012 11:49:00 AM (view original):
No. I'm saying that Ortiz bunting likely results in an out even if the shift is on. You just took the bat out of the hands of one of your best hitters.

You obviously have not seen guys like Ortiz or Scott bunt against the shift. If it's a good bunt, halfway up the third baseline, not even Benji Molina would be thrown out at first if the 3B is playing at SS.

Posted by Jtpsops on 5/9/2012 8:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 4/22/2012 11:49:00 AM (view original):
No. I'm saying that Ortiz bunting likely results in an out even if the shift is on. You just took the bat out of the hands of one of your best hitters.

You obviously have not seen guys like Ortiz or Scott bunt against the shift. If it's a good bunt, halfway up the third baseline, not even Benji Molina would be thrown out at first if the 3B is playing at SS.

So just a good bunt halfway up the third baseline?  I'm sure that's not hard to do.  And hey, worst case scenario, one of your best hitters gets thrown out by thirty feet at first.

Definitely worth giving up any shot at an extra base hit so that Ortiz can try for a bunt single.

My point was, you said it would be a guaranteed out. Ortiz has bunted for base hits against the shift - which you obviously didn't bother to look into before your comment. In baseball, the goal is to get guys on base. Would I have Ortiz bunt when he's hitting near .400? Probably not. But throughout the season, absolutely. A sure-fire single if he gets it down, vs. a 70% chance he gets out. I like the first option better.

Posted by Jtpsops on 5/9/2012 9:53:00 PM (view original):
My point was, you said it would be a guaranteed out. Ortiz has bunted for base hits against the shift - which you obviously didn't bother to look into before your comment. In baseball, the goal is to get guys on base. Would I have Ortiz bunt when he's hitting near .400? Probably not. But throughout the season, absolutely. A sure-fire single if he gets it down, vs. a 70% chance he gets out. I like the first option better.

I never said guaranteed out.  I said "Ortiz bunting likely results in an out."  Which I still think is true.

Yes the goal is to get on base but Ortiz's most valuable skill is his power.  Completely taking that away, even just occasionally, for the small benefit of a possible bunt single is probably not the smartest move.

But, hey, maybe Ortiz is a very good bunter.  In that case, I'd be wrong.

For reference, Ortiz has laid down 10 (non-sac) bunts in his career and 5 resulted in hits. SSS aside for a moment,  I don't know if those odds are good enough to completely take the bat out of his hands.  You're giving up a lot to gain a little over his career .379 OBP.