THE WORLD READS WHITE PLAINS CITIZENETREPORTER — 8,324,077 VISITS IN ONE YEAR

WPCNR MILESTONES. By John F. Bailey. June 25, 2018 Reprinted from the WPCNR archive: One hundred forty-two years ago today in the midsummer sweltering heat of the Dakota Badlands, Major General George Armstrong Custer and 600 Cavalrymen of the U.S. Seventh Cavalry were converging to attack a contingent of 2,000 Sioux and Cheyenne Indians encamped on the Little Big Horn River. Custer’s troops were in the lead. Statue of Major General George Armstrong Custer in his hometown, Monroe, Michigan

 

Sighting the Enemy Custer, whose strength as a commander was willingness to engage the enemy by surprise has long been criticized by historians and military experts for disobeying the command of his superior General Alfred H. Terry, (commander of the Little Big Horn campaign), who warned Custer to wait until Terry’s forces arrived to join him before Custer launched any attack. At about 5 PM this afternoon  today  it was the waning afternoon, 139 years ago, 1876.  225 troopers, Custer, and Mark Kellogg, the Associated Press correspondent (one of the first “embedded correspondents”) lay dead across the ridges of the Little Big Horn Valley. The Indians had so much respect for Kellogg’s talent, they left his body alone. To the Sioux, Mr. Kellogg was known as “The Man who could make paper talk.” Mr. Kellogg’s foolscap (copy paper) littered the horror of the battlefield. Kellog was given a mule to ride by General Terry, and rode into battle with Custer. That afternoon, 139 years ago today,the superior Indian force had dealt the American military its most infamous defeat to date, which would be chronicled again and again. Custer’s accomplishments as a military commander though have suffered as a result of this alleged rash and ill-advised attack. However, the battle is instructive for all who command, (no matter what position of command they hold), to pay attention to their scouting reports,and above all conduct scouting forays, and to ignore whatever personal gains might be achieved by a personally attractive course of action (if you are successful). Allegedly, Custer had seen a possible victory lead by himself over the Sioux as a stepping stone to national office. Instead, he died in action — one of the few U.S. Army Generals to do so. Few know today, as the statue of General Custer in his hometown of Monroe, Michigan, says how Custer was instrumental in forcing General Robert E. Lee to surrender by blocking Lee’s retreat at Appomattox in 1865. Custer’s defeat may have been inevitable but the actions of Major Reno’s premature breaking off  his initial attack on the Indian encampment, a disasterous premature, cut-and-run retreat, did not help Custer’s chances. Reno’s premature retreat allowed the counterattacking indians to turn all their force on Custer’s force, getting behind him,  surrounding Custer and his command and killing them all within an hour. Custer’s glory achieved through his death is a sobering reminder every year for those who ignore facts confronting them, and underestimate adversaries, and discount adverse conditions. We should not forget though that Custer was attempting to achieve his mission. No one can say what really motivated him 142 years ago today in the early afternoon when he launched his attack. Second-guessing is the sport of the armchair historians and military strategists who have the evidence of the result. Blame is easily distributed. That is the loneliness of command. Combat. Decisions. Risks. Surprise. They are the stuff that leaders have to deal with. On this day, we should look back and remember the courage it took to engage. Remember the bravery the Seventh Calvary displayed in defeat (despite Indian reports of many committing suicide). Soldiers today demonstrate this courage every day. We need to admire that courage. I cannot fathom what it takes to be able to be courageous like this. Leading is not for everyone.

 

WPCNR VIEW FROM THE UPPER DECK. By “Bull” Allen.  June 16, 2018:

Hello there, everybody, this is Bull Allen.

I’m sitting here in the open press box of memory, smoking hard on a White Owl Wallop with a Balentine Ale, the sweat dripping down the sides of the glass, the creamy white head revealing the ghosts of the past on the emense green of baseball’s cathedral, looking out on the emerald field of dreams lived past.

I am picking an old-fashioned rhubarb with the new “Commissioner” of Baseball. I am reading The New York  Times story in the sports section buried quite appropriately in the Business Day section, headlined,

Commissioner Considers the Shift, Gambling and that Collins Video.

And over here by the PIX tablemike, I’ve got the Washington Post AP dispatch all about how Rob Manfred, said he liked the idea of outlawing shifts to promote more hitting 3-1/2 years ago.

You can look it up at

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/sports/wp/2018/06/15/as-mlb-confronts-rise-in-strikeouts-and-decline-in-hits-defensive-shifts-may-be-its-new-target/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.d240ef31c888

Both articles deeply trouble me that the baseball owners and Mr. Manfred, the new commissioner would even consider such a handicapping of defensive baseball.

The AP writer points out how the current major league batting average is .245, the lowest since 1907 in the deadball era.

They want more action? Let me tell you Mr. Manfred, the most electrifying play in baseball is the great fielding play. The round-the-horn rally killer double play! The against the wall catch! The takeaway of a homer.

The intelligent positioning of your fielders depending on the situation in the game: guarding the line in the lates, holding the runner on; shortening up the infield with the go-ahead on third with less than 2 out; positioning players to the highest percentage of where a good hitter places the ball.

The first such shift was the Williams Shift, employed against a dead pull hitter, “Teddy Ballgame, The Greatest Hitter Who Ever Lived.” Ted was a pull hitter. The Cleveland Indians first deployed the shift against Williams in the 1940s. And in the photo above, you the
St. Louis Cardinals deploying it against Ted in the 1946 World Series. Below check out the diagram of the shift.

Now when Mr. Manfred says he wants to limit how much a team can shift to allow more hits, come on.

What are we going to do asterisk hits made after the “Manfred’s No Shift Rule.”

Will infielders and outfielders be told they can only take a straightway position?

Will outfielders, more to the point, be told they can not shift to left center and right center to the foul lines, or vice versa, allowing more “gappers?”

Will baseball in the same instant stupidity they used in bring in instant replay, have umpires review a play and turn Outs into hits if infielders, outfielders are judged to have shifted too much?

More to the point, will hits be  declared if limits on shifts are made standard by each position?

When people who do not know the game, make suggestions to change and are abetted by former players now in MLB administration start saying change is needed, this results in a disaster which makes the game nothing but a wait for a homer.

The NBA has become a game of getting hot with three-point shooting, as baseball is proceeding on a record home run pace.

However this means umpires might actually have rhubarbs, arguments again.

Will umpires perform a visual position check of every defensive player  before each at bat? How about that? That will really speed the game up, right Phil?

Despite Mr. Manfred’s opinion the great plays that are remembered are the plays that saved games— Second Baseman Bobby Richardson on the outfield grass in the 7^th Game of the 1962 series off Willie McCovey—Wes Covington’s backhand stab of the Bobby Shantz liner in the 2^nd game ot the 1957 series that saved Lou Burdette—Lou Piniella’s faking a catch in the 1978 playoff against the Red Sox that choked off the winning run.

Defense, not homers are the plays that are remembered.

As Wee Willie Keeler once said “Hit ’em where they ain’t.”