It seems backwards to say that such an important topic should not be discussed.

King complains about games being too long, then suggests that games should be stopped constantly in order to review every single close call. Reviewing more throughout the game would of course ensure that the game is officiated correctly, but it would also substantially increase the length of the game.

This actually proves the opposite point of what Matt King intended. Designated hitters don't play for both teams, they simply only play when a team is batting. This is exactly what happens in the NFL, when players only play on or the other, offense or defense.

A difference between games can make it more interesting and entertaining.

If there are different stats and ways to show that one player is definitely better than the other, and the point of a conversation is to decide who is better, then these stats are incredibly useful.

This is a hasty generalization as King's opinion of baseball fans as a whole is based off of a select few.

This implies that different baseball fields are irreversibly different from one another, when in reality, this only affects the distance required for a ball to leave the field of play, which only affects the game a handful of times, and is a very simple change.

This very specific example is valid, but has been fixed in recent years.

This is actually part of what makes baseball great. Stadiums are unique and different from one another, which leads to excitement when certain teams go to different places. Many people are much more likely to tune into a game if their favorite teams are at certain fields, just because fans want to see their favorite stadiums.

This is a total failure of providing evidence to support an argument. King is arguing that the draft is too long and the later rounds don't matter, but for some reason chooses to provide an example of a hall of fame player, and one of the greatest catchers to ever live getting drafted in one of these later rounds. Giving players like that an opportunity to stay employed and work hard at the sport they love is exactly why the draft is necessary.

This shows the perfectionism fallacy, as the author is complaining that the draft is not absolutely perfect. Also, King fails to provide any sort of solution to the problem.

This claim is flawed for the same reason that Matt King's argument of games being to long is flawed. If people are fans of baseball, why would they ever wish for less baseball?

This is a hasty generalization as one person does not represent everyone involved with the sport.This is also an example of false authority, as although John Kruk was a professional baseball player it is ridiculous to say that he speaks for all baseball players.

This is a very valid complaint. Many players who are undoubtedly deserving do not receive votes from everyone for an array of reasons. For example, Ty Cobb (the greatest baseball player to ever live in my opinion) only received 98% of the vote, and Babe Ruth (who is more popularly regarded as the greatest baseball player of all time) only received 95% of the hall of fame votes. This "reason" or claim should have been shortened to this specific flaw in hall of fame voting.

This is a claim of value as well, but it is treated as an opinion.

This is exactly why structuring an argument as a list is a very faulty plan. Small, petty, and generally insignificant claims are brought up. King likely committed to this number before coming up with all of his claims and was then forced to bring up claims like this, which work to make the whole article seem less professional. This style may make the article more aesthetically pleasing and more enticing to read, but it makes for a worse overall argument.

This is also a hasty generalization as the author is using one singular person to affect their opinion of the sport as a whole.

This whole claim is poorly thought out. For fans of the sport who enjoy watching baseball, why is it a bad thing if there is simply more baseball?

This whole reason is an example of a hasty generalization because King is basing an entire line of thinking off of only a few examples. This is also an example of confirmation bias because the author only shows injuries supporting their opinion.

If fantasy football is enjoyable because you learn and care about players you wouldn't normally be interested in, then how is fantasy baseball worse for requiring learning of new players? If the point is to find new players and teams to care about, fantasy baseball is doing just that.

This is a claim of value, but is treated as more of an opinion.

This is unfairly insinuating that baseball is a relatively poor sport because it is more wide reaching in the summer when it is "all we have." Matt King is punishing baseball because of a lack of other sports going on around it.

Making jokes such as this can make the article more entertaining, but too many of them (as seen in this article) are likely to make the audience not take the article as seriously.

Here Matt King brings up the same faulty argument used before.

How is it a bad thing if only the most deserving players make it to the Hall of Fame, instead of a large amount of players who are almost deserving?

Matt King created this text to show his audience that although baseball is entertaining and fun to watch, it has several flaws. Writing for a company like Bleacher Report, King has a very wide audience of people (specifically people who enjoy sports and would be interested in this topic) to read his article, and should have taken advantage of his platform to actually develop a well thought out argument. Instead of bringing up several petty, relatively small and unimportant arguments, King should have focused on the most important flaws, and gone on to actually inform his audience. The point of an argument is to change opinions, or at least make other people understand your side of the argument. Here, Matt King likely is not changing any opinions. People who already disliked the sport of baseball feel the same as before, and those who already enjoyed the game likely were not swayed at all by half-baked reasoning used in this article.