Talk:Infield shift

'Implementing the shift': clarified and removed original research
This paragraph refers specifically to implementation against left-handed hitters, so I have clarified this in the first sentence.

The last two sentences of the paragraph were original research where the only citation was raw data on FanGraphs. (In addition to being unsupported, it's probably not true. Most hitters pull ground balls and hit fly balls to the opposite field: there are no citations showing that Joe Mauer in an outlier in this regard.)

Also edited the "Ortiz Shift" section to bring the subject of the section ("left-handed designated hitter David Ortiz") from the middle of the second paragraph to the beginning of the first paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.208.20.29 (talk) 17:19, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Ortiz Shift content merge suggestion
Raising suggestion that Ortiz Shift be merged into infield shift, as a subsection. There is very little that links to the Ortiz Shift, and Ortiz is now retired. It should be an easy merge without loss of info/insight. Comment welcome. Dmoore5556 (talk) 04:50, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose There is sufficient unique material to leave the two separate. Indeed, it would be a violation of WP:UNDUE to merge them as then it would put too much WP:WEIGHT on Ortiz rather than the shift as a whole. The fact he may be retired, is irrelevant.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 07:55, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for commenting. With Ortiz being retired the term, and bespoke defensive alignment, are no longer in common use. The shift used against Williams and the shift used against Ortiz are relevant aspects of the history of the shift; distributing that info is not particularly beneficial. Weight in discussing Ortiz shift would be on par with discussion of the Boudreau shift used with Williams, which is covered in the article without issue. Let's see what other editors may say. Dmoore5556 (talk) 21:25, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Just because it may be out of use, that doesn't mean it can't be included (such as the field goal in rugby). The difference is that the Ortiz shift has more sources covering it which makes it of sufficient length to have its own page, the Williams one never had it's own.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 13:32, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm all for covering the Ortiz shift, just not by splitting it away from the discussion of infield shifts. The Williams shift was just as notable back in the day; that the Ortiz shift may appear to have more coverage (and there aren't really that many citations on the page) is WP:RECENT. Dmoore5556 (talk) 21:26, 18 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Support The "Ortiz shift" is an infield shift. There's no particular reason to have two articles for them. I hardly see it referred to as the "Ortiz shift" anywhere. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:50, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support and include much of the detail in the merge. Keep the redirect as well. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:52, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Update — I have entered this merge proposal at Wikipedia:Proposed mergers and have added a notification at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball. Dmoore5556 (talk) 05:09, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - to me, Ortiz Shift is the most redundant article I can recall. There's absolutely no reason to have it separate from infield shift. All content should be merged into this article. If the argument for keeping is that the Ortiz Shift employs an outfield shift in addition to the infield one, then perhaps we need to discuss renaming this article to "shift" to cover both infield and outfield. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 11:28, 26 June 2019 (UTC)