This is interesting. Let's do the math on this real quick. If a team goes 8-for-8 with all eight being singles, all of them the other way, and all of them against the shift, they will load the bases with the first three hits and then the next five will all score runs. So that's five runs. Now a team that goes one-for-eight but that one is an extra base hit would be a) a terrible offense because one-for-eight is mostly awful (.125 average) and b) might get a run if that extra base hit is a homer. Otherwise, runner stranded.
But where do these philosophies meet. Clearly an eight-for-eight cannot be guaranteed. Let's say, 5-for-8. All singles. All against the shift. That's 5 total bases.
If a team slugs about .400 then it will get 3 total bases. That ain't enough for a run.
They need to go 2-for-8 with one triple and a double to match those 5. Harder to do.
This is a simple, quick/dirty, back-of-the-napkin way to look at how there's got to be a blend of approaches here, and each hitter has to weigh his best production for the team against what the defense is showing. Clearly, Kolten Wong has done well to try and break the shift. Look back at his last two, three weeks of hitting and see how he's approached the shift and the singles that have elevated his average. That fits his game. He's benefited from it. Carpenter has a different game. Goldschmidt, too. Wieters, too. And they all have to weigh because a) directing a hit like you suggest is way harder than your eight-for-eight suggests; even four-for-eight would be elite and b) it's the damage that brings crooked numbers and wins games. So, if a guy can go four-for-eight with singles, you'd rather him go two-for-eight with a double and a homer. That seems likelier.