Friday, February 20, 2015

Eliminate Defensive Shifts in Baseball? New Commissioner Manfred's Idiotic Suggestion Deserves Ridicule and Scorn

He's only been in the job for a short time, but new Major League Baseball Commissioner Rob Manfred has already stepped into it, making the ridiculous suggestion that  perhaps teams should be barred from employing defensive shifts, the type used against players like Red Sox slugger and pull-hitter David Ortiz.  Manfred's suggestion comes as part of an attempt to inject more offense into baseball which has seen run production fall in recent years.

Baseball fans have to be concerned about a Commissioner who is so out of touch with the game and its fans.  One of baseball's few drawbacks is a lack of obvious strategy in the game.  When to pull a starting pitcher for a pinch-hitter is a major strategic move, eliminated in the American League with the adoption of the designated hitter.  Now Commissioner Manfred wants to eliminate another strategic move, repositioning players on the field to stop certain hitters.   If those players can't hit the other way when faced with a defensive shift, that's a deficiency in their game that deserves to be exploited.

As a new baseball season dawns, baseball is not without problems. The games last too long, caused in no small part by an endless parade of pitchers at the end of the games whose only role is to get one or two batters out.  The season last too long. Baseball played in the cold weather of middle to late October, even November, is a horrible experience for players and fans. 

There are a number of suggestions out there which could improve the game of baseball, without destroying the integrity of the sport.  Manfred's idea of eliminating defensive shifts is not one of them.


TableTopJoe said...

Spot On!

Anonymous said...


Here's my response to Masson's silly response to your presentation of caselaw.

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

“Paul, be that as it may, that doesn’t answer my question which is to ask why, as a matter of public policy, religious beliefs should enjoy a privilege not extended to other sorts of sincerely held beliefs?”

Oh, Doug, you know the answer. Religion is a government that precedes the secular government, is superior to the secular government, and the secular government wouldn’t be erected or consented to if it conflicted with the religious government.

The freedom to worship is a natural right that well antecedes any secular government. The secular government is attempting to refrain from denying that natural right.