1. Another baseball ethics dispute! This is an exciting time of changes in the traditional wisdom of how to play Major League Baseball, all sparked by that new ethics bugaboo, Big Data. Now that so many aspects of the game can be measured and analyzed, tradition and assumptions rarely challenged are now under fire. One massive shift is, ironically, in the matter of shifts, radical defensive alignments in which players are not fielding their normal positions, but rather are places where computer spray charts for each batter suggest that the likelihood of fielding a ball is highest. This can mean anything from one lonely fielder on the left side of the infield, or four outfielders.
Shifts are not new, but they used to be used on a handful of super-sluggers with dead-pull propensities, notably Ted Williams, who famously refused to bunt for easy hits to the unoccupied side of the field, and instead usually tried to hit through or over the shift. It has been estimated that the Williams Shift, combined with the player’s infamous stubbornness, cost him many points off of his lifetime batting average, especially since Williams defeating the shift by bunting might have discouraged its use.
But he was Ted Williams, the second greatest hitter of all time. The question of whether lesser batters should bunt against shifts, for now many teams shift against everyone, has an easy answer: Of course they should.
In yesterday’s Twins-Orioles game, Twins starter Jose Berrios had a one-hit shutout in the ninth inning. leading with one out and no runners on base. O’s rookie catcher Chance Sisco came to the plate—he has my favorite baseball name this season–and the Twins put on a shift like the one Ted Williams despised:
So, knowing he wasn’t Ted Williams and also knowing that in baseball even seven run leads aren’t a sure thing, Chance dropped down a bunt to the left side for a single. Berrios then walked two batter Davis and Manny Machado to load the bases, but finished his shutout by getting the next two outs without further disruptions.
After the game, the Twins players questioned the ethics of Sisco’s hit. Berrios said, “I just know it’s not good for baseball [to bunt] in that situation. That’s it.” Twins outfielder Eddie Rosario said, “Nobody liked that. No, no, no. That’s not a good play.” Second baseman Brian Dozier added, “Obviously, we’re not a fan of it. He’s a young kid. I could’ve said something at second base but they have tremendous veteran leadership over there. I’m sure they’ll address that. It’s all about learning. You learn up here.”
When do you “learn” not to try to win the game and get on base? For Sisco, a rookie, sending the message that shifting against him is a bad risk also is a wise career move. There is a long-standing, and stupid, unwritten rule in baseball that it is “bush league” to try to break up a no-hitter with a bunt, but extending that dubious logic to a mere shutout breaks the Stupid Meter.
2. Coffee is good for you, but be worried when you drink it. Continuing its rapid devolution into Bizarro World, just as increasing scientific evidence suggest that coffee is good for you, California is demanding that it carry a tobacco-like warning label. Last week a judge ruled that Starbucks and other coffee companies in California must carry a cancer warning label because of a chemical produced while beans roast has been shown to cause cancer in high doses. California’s Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act requires companies with more than 10 employees to warn their customers about the presence of carcinogenic and toxic chemicals in their products, even in tiny amounts. Acrylamide, a chemical compound that is produced naturally during the roasting of coffee beans, is on the state’s list of chemicals known to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity. The judge ruled that the coffee company had the burden of proof to show that acrylamide posed no significant health risk to coffee drinkers, even though there is no evidence that coffee does pose a risk.
Indeed, there is growing consensus that coffee is good for you, including providing protection against type 2 diabetes, Parkinson’s disease, liver disease, liver cancer, and promoting a healthy heart. But in Nanny State California, regulations are more important than the purpose of the regulations. California law mandates warning against a food that is, on balance, healthy.
The ethics verdict: Irresponsible, an abuse of power, and incompetent.
3. From the “Polls are untrustworthy unless you like what they say” Department. Rasmussen, the polling service that always shows conservative views stronger than its more left-leaning competitors, has a new poll showing President Trump’s approval rating at 50%, with disapproval at 49%. Let’s see if anyone but Fox News and conservative pundits highlights this. I assure you that the left-leaning polls showing the President in the 42%-38% range are cited constantly, in part because they make journalists feel that their unrestrained sabotage is working.
For the record, all “approval polls” are contrived garbage. Hard right conservatives disapprove that Trump hasn’t built a wall and signed a compromise budget; progressives disapprove of his existence, but they are lumped together in the same box. The only significance of the Rasmussen poll is that it suggests that the news media has effectively undermined its credibility, and its relentless attacks on the President only have an effect on those who hated him to begin with. This means that the news media can no longer be a watchdog on this administration. A watchdog that attacks without provocation is a liability, not a benefit.
In case you wonder, and you shouldn’t, I would never tell a pollster that I approve of Trump’s Presidency. His leadership style, rhetoric, management habits and personal character in office are destructive and divisive, as we knew they would be.
4. Wait: I thought “Nobody was calling for the repeal of the Second Amendment”! Karen Carter Peterson, Chairwoman of the Democrat Party of Louisiana, and a Vice-Chair of the national party, has called for the repeal of the Second Amendment.
Good for her: at least she’s honest. Apparently she was persuaded to out herself and her party by John Paul Stevens’ op ed, which is rather amazing. A reiteration of an old and losing minority dissent on a major Supreme Court ruling would normally be regarded as pathetic, futile, and irrelevant, because it is pathetic, futile, and irrelevant. Then again, I suppose it shouldn’t be surprisng that a party that is currently appealing to the authority of teenagers would also appeal to the authority of a retired ninety-year old judge.