But that’s not really what’s going to happen, is it?Hello Strawman.
That’s not the argument nor the point of this thread, so I’ll leave it there.
There’s a reason why we focus on home runs, strikeouts, walks, and ground ball percentage. That’s what a pitcher can control and the way pitchers limit offense.
If the modern analytics result in defensive positioning that makes it optimal for all players to hit ground balls to the opposite field, then baseball will be worse off for it, even if Bryce Harper adjusts to it and becomes as productive of a singles and walks machine as Wade Boggs was. And at least it doesn’t take a home run to score Harper from first base.
All a player had to do is show a little bit more proficiency at hitting anything to opposite field, and then they won’t shift, or won’t shift as much. And those heavy-pull hitters probably wouldn’t suffer much from the mild shift needed to cover the opposite field contingency.
Or at least, that’s a pretty plausible theory I’ve heard.
And yknow what? I’d like to see if it works out that way. I don’t know...I find the positional mandate to be boring, and it’s not nearly as specific or extreme as allowing full zone D or goaltending.