In the game of baseball there is a pleasing symmetry in that every player who plays in the field takes his place in the batter's box when his turn comes around. Pitchers, because they spend most of their time working on their pitchers are usually weak hitters, and some fans thought this was a flaw in the game, an at bat where nothing was likely nothing to happen, and they wanted to install a designated hitter, generally a player whose fielding was not so hot but was still pretty handy with the bat who would come to the plate in the pitcher's stead.
Most fans of baseball like to follow the strategy, one of the most important elements of which is when to put in another pitcher. Generally this happens when his abilities flag and this is a pretty commonsense decision, but sometimes it arises late in the game, with the pitcher doing well, but with the score close that the pitcher's team has put a man or two on base with one or two outs and up to the plate steps the pitcher, or maybe not, maybe the manager has decided the smarter move is to put in a good hitter and yank the pitcher. and take his chances with a new pitcher. Many decisions lie herein. How good a hitter is the pitcher anyway? How good a hitter is the prospective pinch hitter? Does the pitcher still have an unflagging arm? How good is this prospective relief pitcher? This all adds to the depth of the game.
In the game of baseball there are two different leagues, the National and the American, In 1973 the American League put into play the designated hitter rule by which the pitcher never bats. Myself I don't like the rule, but I can see why others might see it otherwise, I don't like it because I think it reduces the complexity of the game OR do I dislike it because I am a Cub fan, and the Cubs are in the National League?
In the city of Chicago there are two different major league baseball teams, the Cubs of the National League and the White Sox of the American League. Though more Cub fans are from the north side and more Sox fans are from the south side overall one would expect that they were pretty similar and thus it is surprising that Cub fans, almost to a man hate the designated hitter rule while almost all White Sox fans are just fine with it, And furthermore, across this great land major league teams are strewn randomly, but if you take a survey you will find that most all fans in National League towns dislike the designated hitter, and most all fans in American League towns like the rule.
I find a similar situation with the corona, or more particularly in the issue of opening up or locking down.. There are facts on both sides, and the facts are relatively neutral, and like a a tall addition problem, no make that a long division problem with two large numbers because it is pretty complicated, one would think both sides would come up with a similar number, but in fact almost all dems want to continue the lockdown while only about half of the reps want to.
So are we backing the logical conclusion or are we backing the tribe? It is something I wonder about often. What I often do to try to keep my aim true is imagine the shoe on the other foot. What if Hilary had won and she was for opening up while the reps were urging for a lockdown? What if Gutsy Gretchen had lost but the dems had taken both houses, and the rep gov was all for locking down while the dem house was all for opening up, would Beagles feel the same way about the intricacies of the law?
I didn't mean to accuse Beagles of going conspiracist. I just wanted to point out that when people say that something is fishy, but they have no other explanation the next step is likely a conspiracy theory.
No comments:
Post a Comment