Heels On The Field: A Baseball Blog

Hall Pass: Examining the Character Criteria In Baseball HOF Voting

What exactly did the BBWAA mean to say by “character” when deciding the criteria for induction into the Baseball Hall of Fame?

This question envelopes the HOF discussion, to the point of smothering, and every year the debate gets bigger, more fiery; but with no concrete answers or viable solutions to the question.

Here’s the exact wording in the BBWAA Rules for Voting:

Voting shall be based upon the player’s record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.

There’s a lot we can interpret on our own terms. Such as in regarding “integrity.” We hold different things more dear, and to different degrees. We’re not going to agree on all the variables of human behavior. Something you think exhibits a lack of integrity might not affect another person the same. And, as for voters, what they believe about integrity is to their discretion.

As we explore these ideas, weighing all the factors, there’s also not as much variety in the discussion.

A half hour of research of writing on the character question led to just one part of the voting block. And also probably the majority. Every story was written by men, most of them white. Every expression of outrage that character has been interpreted to exclude former Red Sox pitcher Curt Schilling, was mostly made by white men. They dismissed voters reasoning as “political,” or having a problem with his “personality.” One writer clarified his emotional attachment early in his story by calling Schilling “Big Schill,” then wrote that the former pitcher should merely “delete his Twitter account.”

That’s not to suggest that no white men struggle with the inclusion of character, particularly in terms of Schilling. On the contrary. There are many. Among them is Ted Berg, who describes Schilling as a “right leaning political firebrand[whose spent] post-playing days gleefully sharing specious xenophobic, transphobic, and conspiratorial memes.” Berg doesn’t dance around the subject. Schilling’s comments are pure hate in his estimation.

In the days leading up to the HOF inductees announcement, there was actually argument FOR his character as one of the reasons he should be inducted. During his playing days, Schilling was an early leader in MLB in the fight against ALS. He and his wife Shonda were inducted into the Association’s Hall of Fame in 2009, after years of relentless, passionate advocacy. He also won the Roberto Clemente Award in 2001, one of the highest honors an active player can receive. His work on behalf of ALS research and support of those with the disease, and their families, should not and cannot be erased. But neither can suggesting violence against a woman he disagrees with (“Hillary Clinton should be buried under a prison”) or journalists (in response to a Trump fan’s shirt that read, “Rope, Tree, Journalist,” he tweeted, “so much awesome).

We don’t have to reach too far back for examples of Hall voters overlooking terrible behavior. If there’s a standard, it’s not consistent.

Former Atlanta Braves manager Bobby Cox was arrested for punching his wife, and according to police reports, he had a “continuing pattern of domestic violence.” Former Minnesota Twins centerfielder Kirby Puckett allegedly strangled his wife with a phone cord. He was also charged with sexually assaulting a woman in a restaurant bathroom. Both are highly revered, deeply loved by fans and teammates. Both are in the Baseball Hall of Fame.

In researching Ty Cobb’s history, particularly that he was openly racist, is also heavily influenced by the voices of white men. It’s hard to get a full picture when white male baseball fans dominate the conversation, insisting that, no, he was not, and there’s no argument. They write books about it, and flatly deny the experiences of black players who came into contact with him. In his New York Post 2015 piece, Kyle Smith confirms that Cobb was overhead to use “the N word,” but goes on to say, “Today that behavior would certainly brand you as a racist, but racial slurs were commonplace then.” So, according to the white men, he’s been “framed as a racist.” Even though he said racist things, he is not, in their opinion actually racist. Cobb was inducted into the HOF in 1936. Would Cobb be inducted today if baseball writers knew that he’s used racist language? Probably not. In some way, that suggests that “character” is definable when writers vote.

(By the way, When researching sexist abuse by players in the HOF was called, “Feminists, Please Don’t Ruin Baseball,” written by Mollie Hemingway. So…there was that)

The discussion of character can’t exclude those who’ve been inducted. There are men there who’ve beaten women, been blatantly racist, and/or put others in harm’s way in some capacity. Are other behaviors while playing part of the equation? Drinking? Drug abuse? Generally mistreating people around them?

Character was defined differently when Hall voting began in 1936, in that there was no clear definition at all. The rules direct writers to consider “sportsmanship,” integrity,” and “character,” but they’re given no other concrete guidelines. When fans or other writers grumble that certain writers make voting “personal,” well, how can they not? Every baseball writer with a vote has to decide for themselves what character means to them. They have to ask themselves, in the context of baseball, what kind of person the player was, and they have to create their own parameters, and work within them. Even the meaning of “sportsmanship” is likely to become a bigger point of contention, with writers often arguing about how today’s generation of players celebrate home runs or wear their hat to the side.

If Schilling’s character being questioned is criticized, then Cox induction should also be a problem. His history of violence against his spouse wasn’t a secret when he was called to the Hall. Those writers made the the decision to personally define character in their own terms.

When ESPN writer and editor Christina Kahrl’s ballot was released, it was her stance on former pitcher Roger Clemens that likely caught baseball fans, and possibly some colleagues, off guard. Clemens candidacy has been feverishly debated, due to his alleged use of PED’s But it was questions about Clemens relationship with then teenage country singer Mindy McCready that bothered her most. She left him off her ballot. McCready, who died in 2013, was not entirely forthcoming about the details of her relationship with Clemens but she confirmed “an affair.” Kahrl considered the guidelines, and personally defined what character meant to her.

We can debate this forever, or we can ask for character decisions to be more clearly explained. We can ask the Baseball HOF to reconstruct the rules of eligibility. Fans can even ask that a word as subjective as character not be included in the rules, or possibly be expanded in order to be more concise. But what we can’t do is insist that any decision about character not be personal. Because that’s all it can be.

The Beautiful Science of Meredith Wills Baseball Life and Career

Meredith Wills is explaining the difference between physics and science.

She’s thorough, as you’d expect, in describing the differences in a way that doesn’t turn boring. She’s relating it to baseball, so that helps. A lot. But she to clarify exactly what her work is. Her very thorough, thoughtful explanation of the inner workings of science and physics continues.

“Actually (and despite the astrophysics background), I don't think of my baseball construction studies as "physics." Science, yes, but not physics. Physics relates to applying the laws of physics and putting them in a real-world context,” she continues, explaining, “Alan Nathan looks at physics; Barton Smith (baseballaero.com) looks at physics; Rob Arthur looks at at physics. I, on the other hand, study the structure of the baseball itself, and use my knowledge from other fields (physics, fiber arts etc.) to understand how changes to its makeup may have implications going both forward and back.”

She goes on to describe the thing that draws so many baseball fans, intellectuals, analyzers and writers to her study of that little round thing we’re happily obsessed with.

“By "forward," I mean how measurable changes (seam height, roundness, leather sm oothness etc.) could affect the ball's in-game performance. The most visible connections have been to the 2017 Home Run Surge, the 2019 Home Run Surge, and the 2019 Postseason "Dead Ball" (largely because home runs are exciting and that's what the physicists look at.) However, defensive players (outfielders, and especially pitchers) have been affected as well. For instance, changes to the 2019 regular season ball were reported by pitchers months before my June article came out. Also, one could argue that Aaron Sanchez' career was derailed by the laces on the late-2015 - 2018 ball.”

This continues, and becomes no less fascinating as she weaves intricate storytelling, personal experience and scientific (yes?) facts to explain the central aspect of her work in baseball: understanding the actual baseball. And, more than thats, she’s asking Major League Baseball to examine, with the assistance of expertise such as hers, to explain changes in the ball. One might assume that MLB would show great interest in understanding the ball, and how its changes have impacted the game. But when asked…

“ I assume you mean the work on the pre-2019 ball? Actually, there was surprisingly little response over the course of 2018. A few days after the article came out, I did have a telecon with a few members of MLB's HR Committee, but no official notice beyond that,” she said. “In fact, the closest MLB has ever come to publicly acknowledging my work is a vague parenthetical reference in the 2019 Home Run Committee Report, discounting "alternate hypotheses discussed in the media (e.g. roundness, surface roughness, lace thickness)" as affecting drag. It turns out those are all section headings in my June 2019 article,” she said.

Wills goes on to say that after her first piece was published in June of 2018, there was strangely no more mention she could find of the ball, and home run production by major league players. She cites an NBC Sports piece as the sole reference to the home run resurgence. Major League Baseball Commissioner Rob Manfred dismissed any notion that there’s an issue. (https://mlb.nbcsports.com/2019/02/27/rob-manfred-still-thinks-other-factors-contributed-to-rise-in-homers/ , https://twitter.com/EricFisherSBG/status/1100838741340577795).

“Needless to say, this flat out contradicts the findings of MLB's own Home Run Committee,” Wills states.

Manfred has been a fierce protector of the gates that surround the MLB empire. This is just another example of unwillingness to examine the modern game, and how some things need to change, while other aspects clearly have already changed. To ignore the latter takes effort. But Wills work isn’t just taking up space somewhere, waiting to be attended to. She actively promotes her findings on social media (find her on Twitter @Bbl_Astrophyscs), engaging and debating regularly.

Her baseball life mixes the scientific elements with the romantic; the basis of facts with the human emotions of wonder and curiosity; the guiding light of childhood with the broader light of what lies ahead. The impact of her research was particularly felt in 2018 at a SABR Seminar, where she gave a talk on the 2017 ball, including debuting forthcoming research that thicker laces would’ve led to a “rounder ball.” She wasn ‘t entirely prepared for the response. “While the general response was positive, that of the HR Committee was unexpected. They did a panel the following morning, and for some reason spherical symmetry was not addressed as a possible way to decrease drag. In the Q&A, nobody brought up my name, but there were questions referring to my results, and the answers that were, in some cases, just odd,” she said.

There are several scenarios we can imagine in which this all happens to a woman in baseball, but one of those scenarios is that this happens to a woman in baseball because she is a woman in baseball. This possibility isn’t shocking. But looking beyond that, there’s no answer that isn’t cynical (or maybe just realistic) as to why someone as highly respected and knowledgeable should be ignored by MLB for these discoveries. What will major league baseball do with Wills findings, if anything? Whatever the answer in the future, she’s going to keep her voice.

Baseball is not a passing interest. It’s permeated her being since the day she was born. Opening Day to be exact. Wills describes a childhood that began with an early introduction to baseball, (“I was three weeks old when I attended my first ballgame.”) and parents who announced her birth with baseball in mind; she was posed in a baseball cap beside a bat, with the caption, “Just in time for Spring Training!” She shifted her career from astrophysics to becoming a sports data scientist, and works as a Product Specialist for SportsMEDIA. Oh, and by the way, she's also in the Baseball Hall of Fame. A few years ago, her other passion, knitting, led her to a contest for a knitting design. Her winning creation--a pair of Colorado Rockies socks-- was chosen to represent the fan organization Stitch and Pitch.

As her research has developed, so has her enthusiasm and interest in expanding that work. But what makes Dr. Meredith Wills run?

“Actually, that's a good question. I'd say that are two things. First, there's simply the idea of completeness. Most of the questions I'm asking aren't (in my opinion) that difficult to answer, and if the ball ever stabilizes, any additional research becomes sort of "fringe." However, since the ball keeps changing (and differently each time), I'm going to keep asking questions,” she said.

And those questions have a lot to do with the history of the little white object, and understanding more about how and when signficant changes began to show up in hitter's production. 

"I'd like to look at baseball construction historically, especially over the past 50 years. For instance, I'd be curious to see if the home run increase at the beginning of the Steroid Era was entirely player-related, or if there might have been some contribution from the ball. The 1987 Rabbit Ball is another obvious candidate. The problem is getting enough baseballs to study," she explains. 

We spend so much time--whether as baseball fans, journalists, bloggers, and/or analysts-- observing and assessing swing paths, batspeed and other aspects of hitting; Wills is providing a unique service to the baseball conversation.  

"At present, no one has any idea what that baseball will look like or how it will behave," she says later in the conversation.

 

One doesn't have to be necessarily knowledgeable about science, or physics, to find the possibilities of what she might find in the future deeply interesting, and extremely exciting.

 

 

Who Is Watching Baseball?

In a 2018 piece for SABR, Jeva Lange asked, via headline, “Women love baseball. Why doesn’t baseball love them back?”

A year later, Danielle Allentuck and Kevin Draper’s New York Times story asked, “Baseball Saw a Million More Empty Seats. Does it Matter?”

In Lange’s study, she writes in a personal tone at times, exploring the themes of the narrative that repeat over and over through time: that women fans are a novelty, a joke (women fans being mocked at an Arizona Diamondbacks game for taking selfies), or an afterthought (acquiring players who’ve committed domestic violence, such as Roberto Osuna and Aroldis Chapman)

Allentuck and Draper highlighted the dwindling attendance over several years, reporting that,“Total attendance across 2,429 major league games during the regular season dropped by about 1 million fans this season to about 68.5 million, about 14 percent lower than a high of 79.5 million tickets sold in 2007.”

Comparatively, in her decidedly optimistic New York times piece, “How Popular is Baseball Really?,” Juliette Love wrote “if viewed through the lens of total tickets sold and local television ratings, a somewhat more optimistic picture emerges: one of strong, local fan bases---and a national following that could a lot more room to grow.” She also points to Minor League Baseball, writing that, “the 160 MLB-affiliated minor league teams sold nearly 50 milliion tickets in 2017.”

Baseball, for all the Americana glory and inspired romanticism, is a business. But how is Major League Baseball Commissioner Rob Manfred so completely missing the neon signs about growing the game locally, and tapping into that passion? For all his big planning, very few devoted baseball fans want what he’s selling. And yet, there’s clear proof that those devoted baseball fans haven’t given up.

On the other hand, looking beyond the average white, male fan, there are far too many lifelong fans who are feeling increasingly alienated from the game.

“Of course there are Afro-Latinos like David Ortiz, but in terms of African-Americans? That’s another story,” says writer Stephon Johnson who wrote a brilliant piece for The Week entitled, ‘The Struggles of being a black fan.’ “There’s a specific history with that demographic that changes it’s engagement with the rest of the country. Black people are the bar  everyone measures themselves against when it comes to discrimination, prejudice and racism. C.C. Sabathia told a story awhile ago about how he was trying to explain to some white players on the Yankees the purpose of Black Lives Matters. He said they didn’t understand why you didn’t just follow the police officer’s orders? It’s that mentality that dominates the league.”

If that mentality “dominates” MLB, it stands to reason that fans who are African-American see it or, at least, know that the game is more white than ever; that the game is led by men who are utterly disconnected from their personal experience both in society and as participants in major sports. Per a 2017 study by Diversity and Ethics in Sport, the number of African-American players was just 7.7 percent, an all-time low. And a 2014 study showed that just 9 percent of the viewing audience for MLB games was black; 83 percent were white.

The varying reports show that there are signs of life. But what is undeniably clear is that kids, non-white people, women, and many other marginalized groups feel disconnected from baseball.  

Who is watching baseball?

Based on the Allentuck-Draper study, it appears the same fans watching baseball, are likely the same fans that grew up watching baseball. Per another study, just 24 percent of baseball fans are under the age of 35.

In her classic baseball fan memoir, “Wait ‘Till Next Year,” Doris Kearns Goodwin, writes poetically about the dreamy life of keeping score when she was a child.

“...the absolute pleasure that comes from prolonging the winning feeling by reliving the game, first with the scorebook, then with the wrap-up on the radio, and finally, once I learned about printed box scores, with the newspaper accounts the next day.”

Her suburban childhood in New York was immersed in the love of baseball, not just as a fun afternoon activity, but as a central point, a touchstone, in her family life.

In Johnson’s piece, he paid loving tribute to his “pick-up baseball days” in the Bronx.

“The field was concrete, the bases were drawn in chalk, and the weather was punishingly humid. I usually played shortstop, but when it came time to step to the plate, I modeled my switch-hitting batting stance after slugging outfielders: Juan Gonzalez from the right and Barry Bonds from the left. After playing, I’d walk to my grandmother’s house across the street for a snack and turn to a game on television.”

That living and breathing of baseball was normal, natural. Summers were baseball. Playing the game and watching it was part of life.

None of the research suggest kids are watching with their parents as they used to, or that they feel what Kearns-Goodwin or Johnson felt. Baseball, once weaved into the fabric of childhood around the dinner table, around a radio and later a TV, at countless ballpark trips, when a day at the baseball game didn’t break the bank, doesn’t quite feel like that touchstone anymore. This isn’t a story with solid answers. The question is as much mine as it is yours. The solutions, whatever we believe they are, aren’t certain. We know we love baseball. But plenty of baseball fans, those who are actually younger than 35, many women and African-Americans or those in the LGBTQ community, do not feel that the game is “theirs” or that it sees their brand of passion, or their identity in the stands or at home in front of the game. The preaching about players who wear their hats to the side is just one indication of tone-deafness. And no amount of manipulation by MLB can create that feeling if they can’t hear the tone.

Baseball isn’t dead. It isn’t our “past” pastime. But what does it mean to us, and to whom does it mean something? And, most importantly, what will become of baseball in the future?

Early in December, the Winter Meetings became the scene of an unfolding story that’s gripping the baseball community that illustrates the glaring difference between baseball fans and baseball decision-makers.

In a proposal that was released to the public, MLB has tentative plans to eliminate 42 minor league affiliates, a seismic gutting of the developmental system that’s served professional baseball since 1901. MiLB is the very definition of “local” baseball, of local interest. As Love observes in her story, the local fan base is where it’s at. The community that baseball creates through love of the Dodgers or Mets is huge; but the community that the farm teams create is integral and special.  

We’re talking about connection in all these various ways. Connection is what people mean when they say baseball is romantic. Connection is what creates that lump in your throat when Kevin Coster’s Ray, in ‘Field of Dreams,’ asks the spirit of his dad to “have a catch.” Connection is rivalries, “fan base,” Bleacher Creatures, ballpark proposals (hey, it’s true), and it’s why there are thousands of team items to wear, drink out of, and display on your lawn and child. We are connecting to something we love. And it’s the one thing that MLB executives, and Rob Manfred, seem woefully unable to understand about the very sport they lead.

Oh, fine, the MiLB proposal is, basically, a bargaining technique. It’s a way to show up the minor leaguers looking for a better life, and having the nerve to question the powerfully entitled. Who could forget Stan Brand stand before a room full of baseball execs and reporters at the 2015 Baseball Winter Meetings, and declaring minor league baseball players the natural enemy of the game, because many had joined a lawsuit demanding fair pay?

“I do not want to overstate the threat this suit presents,” he told those in attendance. “So..I ask you to heed the clarion call, man the battle stations and carry the message to Congress loudly and clearly. The value of grassroots baseball and our stewardship of the game needs to be protected against the onslaught of these suits.”

It’s comical to imagine this speech in light of their proposal to eliminate minor league baseball teams, therefore eliminating a lot of “grassroots baseball,” not to mention jobs for locals that aren’t just seasonal.

As MLB works tirelessly to shrink the game but increase profit, many others pursue it’s full expansion with a sense that they too aren’t the focus of those in power.

Blue Jays blogger Tammy Rainey isn’t especially impressed with MLB’s overall outreach to LGBTQ baseball fans, saying, “I can’t say how much is going through the motions and symbolism, and how much is genuine outreach.”

That particular outreach has often seemed half-baked, or, as she suggests, not especially enthusiastic, with teams doing Pride Nights that don’t necessarily indicate much more than to say, “Hey, we’re sort of trying.”

She also sees the youth movement as part of the solution to create more excitement, but that would require them to care about the “local fan base” Love wrote about.

“[MLB has] vast money and they could use it to build connections with young kids but they won’t, or they wouldn’t be jerking around MiLB,” Rainey said.

I set out looking for an answer to the initial question: Who is watching baseball? Perhaps this piece would end with something more concrete. But no. There are obvious clues here: technology, less black players leading to less black fans, women feeling ignored or treated as non-serious; the average working family being unable to afford a day at the ballpark, who turned to minor league baseball, and now, learn that too could be taken, or at least, made more difficult to enjoy.

The answer is in there somewhere. It’s all those things. However baseball transforms and develops over the next few years, building a newer, broader fan base will be a thing that we cannot possibly have exact answers to. But paying attention to what is glaringly obvious, and to how many lifelong fans feel, like Johnson’s frustration and malaise, or Rainey’s skepticism, is the place to start.

Later in Kearns-Goodwin’s book, she wrote about years of adolescence when her interest in baseball waned. Something, however, brought her back.

“If my interest in baseball had seemed dormant, it was awakened with a start when the Dodgers (then Brooklyn) began the ‘55 series with ten victories in a row.”

As her childhood became more complicated, and tensions grew in the world and in her home, she constantly returned to the love of baseball. Something always brought her back: new superstars, exciting turns of events, the unexpected win, the historic moment.

Rob Manfred and anyone else making baseball decisions could stand to consider this reality. There isn’t a perfect formula. Altering baseball like some kind of made scientist won’t bring them to the ballpark. Perhaps he could try listening to the heartbeat of the game, pay attention to those who are missing the game, rather than those who care so little. It’s not so much about hoping million of kids fall in love with baseball like the kids who sat around a radio, but asking what fans who’ve always loved it are looking for.  

Those fans passionately expressed their rage at MLB for not paying minor league players a fair wage; for proposing cuts to those teams; for outright sexist abuse of women baseball reporters in the Astros clubhouse, after a playoff game; when players who’ve committed violence against women are embraced and signed to contracts, followed by defiant statements or lukewarm apologies.

Those fans want to be heard and seen. They want to settle in front of their television (or any screen), listen closely to the live feed like on an old radio, go to the local ballpark to the see the newest prospects, check the box score on any number of social media platforms or apps, today’s version of a newspaper; they want to be engaged, included and excited.

The answer in the end is that baseball fans are watching baseball. And if the guys in the high castle pay attention, they’ll watch them. 

To Minor Leaguers Playing With or Against Tim Tebow, His Lights are Yours

There’s something about a minor league rehab assignment that creates extra excitement around any MiLB ballpark. Most days, some teams may fudge the numbers a little to show they had higher attendance. Others regularly enjoy a strong turnout, especially on nights with popular promotions. But when a major league player comes to town on his road to recovery from injury, even more fans come out. It’s a smaller setting, more intimate, and, of course, easier on the wallet.

There’s something different going on in the Mets organization, a new way to draw ‘em in this season, and his name (have you heard?) is Tim Tebow.

What do we make of all this? Well, many hate the whole damn thing. Many players, particularly minor leaguers, have voiced their displeasure, not so much at his pursuit of a dream, but how it trickles down to impact MiLB players trying so hard for a shot. At 29, Tebow, a former football star, is somehow in the same boat with them. Seems unbalanced, sure; who can blame their frustration and distrust of the entire “experiment?” Fans have also voiced their displeasure. Traditionalists who love the game find it ridiculous, those who cover the game, some who are fans with independent blogs, have been passionately pissed off about Tebow getting through the door, in what they see as unfair advantage because the Mets see an opportunity to make money. Don’t fault the Mets minor league affiliates for kicking up their heels on this one, because this is where they make their money. They need moments like this, and they don’t come around that often.

But to the players who may hate this, who are quietly stewing or have been very vocal, and to those being supportive of Tebow’s dream, a moment has arrived for you too.

When Tebow makes his debut with the Low-A Columbia Fireflies, there will be players who’ve come off their first professional season; some ranked higher in the system, others will be fighting to stay healthy and in the mix, so as not to be forgotten after the next draft. They’re all scraping and scrapping though. They know there are no guarantees. The truth of it is, there’s no guarantee for Tebow either. His success isn’t a guaranteed gimmick, even if his being in baseball works as one for the Mets. He too will be working to get an opportunity.

The difference, of course, is that Tebow will be soaking up the spotlight in a way a low-level, barely known prospect can’t. He’ll bring big media to the ballpark and the headlines will go to him, more often than not. But, boys, those cameras aren’t allergic to you. And when the story is written, your name in the Tebow story takes on new meaning.

If you’re the guy that hits behind or ahead of him, you’re in the story. If you do something big while he’s on base, you’re in there. If you’re pitching to him, and you kick his famous butt out of that batter’s box, and bonus if you do it big, you’ll hear your name. If you make a play that puts him out, maybe even a spectacular play, you get more attention. You’ll get a little more of the spotlight than you would have at the lowest levels of the bus leagues.

This may be cold comfort. Many minor league players are still barely getting by and that counts for a lot. Plenty of players have quit early on in their careers because they just couldn’t see living that way too many more years. Tebow won’t have those concerns. He has built-in perks. But his fame is to the advantage of many in the minor leagues, and most definitely that includes players.

So to minor leaguers, take full advantage of his advantage. When you step into the batter’s box or on the mound or take your position, play it for all it’s worth; smile. You’re on Tebow camera.

Related articles

Yankees Didi Gregorious Said the Thing He Needed to Say

EXCLUSIVE: Free Chapter 'Scouts are Scouts, We Aren't' from 'Farm Life: Covering Minor League Baseball in the Digital Age'

Exclusive Excerpts on Access, Personal Stories from 'Farm Life: Covering Minor League Baseball in the Digital Age'

MLB.com releases Phillies 2017 Top 30 Prospects list - Sports Talk Philly: Philadelphia Sports News and Rumors

Three Ways MLB Can Improve Marketing Baseball to Women

No More Baseball “Clinics” for Women, Engage Female Fans as Fans- Every year we hear about the “clinics” teams hold to “teach” baseball to women and girls. This is an outdated idea that ignores nearly half the major league baseball fan base who already knows baseball, and plenty of girls who are or have played the game. MLB teams need to begin treating women fans as the knowledgeable, passionate fans and consumers that they are.

Instead of the same old workshops, teams can create baseball trivia contests to win team merchandise, have a Q&A that involves a coach or player and allow them to ask some fan based questions about the season or fun random stuff that fans love hearing about (favorite music, most fun teammate, etc.,). They can also give them an opportunity to play a little baseball on the field, without condescending to them about how to play with things like “Baseball 101.” They know. They watch. Treat them that way. One coach was quoted as saying of a past clinic, “The women were very knowledgeable.” You don’t say?

If men were at this clinic, how would MLB teams approach them? They need to consider that for the future.

Host Domestic Violence Awareness Nights in Addition to Pink Nights for Breast Cancer- MLB teams haven’t been brave when it comes to domestic violence. Long viewed as a “personal” or “family” issue and certainly as a woman’s issue they didn’t want to touch too closely, they’ve dropped the ball on a play that should be easy. Show women that an issue that affects 3-in 10 women (29%), by hosting a night of awareness that benefits a local organization. MLB teams are proud of their “Pink” events, which see baseball bats turn pink and women ticket-buyers treated as important. The fear of a night that talks about domestic violence is insulting and transparent. When teams employ a player who’s been arrested for DV, it’s kind of a sticky situation, huh? Time to be brave and take more than a technical stand with a Domestic Violence Policy; they must take a philosophical stand to send a clear message about commitment to this issue.

Assign a dollar amount for every ticket sold that goes to a domestic violence shelter, design a hat for the day, and honor a local advocate or organization and present a check in a pre-game ceremony. Stop leaning into this, MLB. Fully commit.

Survey Female Fans in the Off-Season – While this one takes some logistical planning, it can be done. On the MLB site, perhaps, they could offer this opportunity to women who frequently attend games with half or full-season packages. By narrowing it to those fans, MLB can communicate with the most devoted female fans and consumers. Ask them about the merchandise offered, the promos they’d like to see, and what kind of events they’re most interested in. In doing this, MLB will better understand women who love the game and put their hard earned dollars toward attending games throughout the season.

MLB needs to evolve and start talking to women not as a commodity or outsider, but as genuine and dedicated baseball fans.

Related articles

Yankees Didi Gregorious Said the Thing He Needed to Say

EXCLUSIVE: Free Chapter 'Scouts are Scouts, We Aren't' from 'Farm Life: Covering Minor League Baseball in the Digital Age'

Exclusive Excerpts on Access, Personal Stories from 'Farm Life: Covering Minor League Baseball in the Digital Age'

Jorge Mateo and the Fixation on Fast Maturity in Baseball

Several years ago, a scout at a minor league game paused at the mention of a player’s name.

He was quiet for a moment, then, with a measured, definitive tone said, “He doesn’t have the emotional maturity to be in the major leagues.”

This point is arguable to an extent, because we’ve seen many so-called immature players be highly or moderately successful in MLB. But there was a deeper meaning to what he was saying. And I’ve spent over a decade exploring the truth of that statement in many different ways.

You see a lot when you cover hundreds of minor league games. You observe, you listen; you pick up little comments, notice private moments, and begin to see emotional patterns. Players are like anyone. They don’t change so much as they grow. They grow into themselves physically, but it’s the growing into who they are as people that can be tougher. There was a time when being in the “farm system,” whether highly touted or barely regarded, meant that you were pretty far out of sight. Years ago, local newspaper reporters were the major sources for immediate minor league news. I’m sure there was a fair amount of talk the following day if readers caught a report on the guys in Double-A. But there was no social media to give fans the skinny every moment as it was happening. Players were able to grow without much of a spotlight bearing down on them before they even stepped into big league ballpark lights.

These days, fans hear about everything, all the time. And opinions form quickly about guys who are just out of high school or college. In Yankees prospect Jorge Mateo’s case, a private incident became a public one, and his maturity level became a major talking point.

Mateo, signed as a seventeen-year old free agent out of the Dominican Republic, is coming off of a difficult season at the plate with High-A Tampa. Though he showed some flashes of brilliance and showcased his strengths still in development, he didn’t have the kind of year the Yankees may have wanted. You add to that a reported confrontation in which he reportedly questioned not receiving a promotion to Double-A, resulting in a suspension, AND add to that Gleyber Torres is clearly the team’s future shortstop, you’re left with many questions about Mateo’s future.

This is your friendly reminder that Mateo’s 21 years old.

For anyone, growing up is hard enough. Do it in the limelight, playing for the New York Yankees, with millions of self-proclaimed experts questioning your every mistake, and it’s probably a whole lot harder. The expectation however is that when a team invests their time, money and faith in you, you have to step up to the moment and be big enough to handle the hard knocks. Sure, that’s understandable. But if the expectation is that a young player shouldn’t have the space to grow as a person, and make some errors in judgment along the way, we’re asking too much.

Writers descend like seagulls at a crowded beach on stories like this. And they write the narrative in stone. They did it with Bryce Harper, a guy many big league beat writers had the challenge of writing about from afar for a brief time, but already let Nationals fans know trouble was coming. He too had early reports of difficulties written about him. He was considered a risk, despite, oh, being one of the most exciting players in baseball history before he even played a major league game. But there needed to be a story, a focus. And all the focus was on what kind of a guy he was. Harper, as young as he was, was treated like he should have his entire act together before he was 20 years old.

We don’t know the kind of player or person Mateo will be, nor do we know that about any young player who’s just starting his professional career. We can recall our own worst growing pains, but, for some reason, we don’t. We put far too much stock in the early days of a player’s career, because we hear about so many moments, on and off the field, so fast. If a player has a moment of frustration, and lashes out at his superiors, is it really earth-shattering news? Is his personality etched in stone? How quickly do we need these guys to grow up, to fast track to the big leagues to become the stars we long for? Too quickly. We want it all, too quickly, because we consume information constantly. Developing players just doesn’t allow for that kind of hurried pace.

The slow process of a baseball game is much like the (usually) slow process of player development. There are pauses. Big failures and big successes, highs and lows, and the pace isn’t rushed…at least it wasn’t, but that’s another story. The down moments can be devastating. The highs can be exhilarating. Players talk often about not allowing either one get to them. Never get too high, never get too low, they’ll say in one way or another.

I covered Mateo in 2016. And I covered the player that the scout was completely decided on. Mateo was never blatantly disrespectful to anyone to my eyes. That “incident” was away from our eyes, as it should’ve been. He went about his business every day and his manager and coaches gave him high marks for his ability and effort. But that’s boring, right? Let’s all run with the bad seed narrative instead.

Did I mention Mateo’s 21? Also, by the way, Yankees GM Brian Cashman recently told the New York Daily News that the report of what truly happened between Mateo and team brass was, “false,” and went on to say, “None of that ever happened. We didn’t reveal why we did what we did, but I can tell you it had nothing to do with anything like that.” Mateo is also showing strong promise in Spring Training, a good sign that he’s moving forward, and, perhaps, can improve upon his 2016 results.

As for the player the scout mentioned, he was unbearable to deal with: arrogant, rude and unapologetic for his attitude. He didn’t change any opinions in the big leagues. He’s no longer in major league baseball. So, sometimes, yeah, they don’t mature. You just don’t know early on.

Player development, it’s kind of a wait and see thing.

Related articles

Yankees Didi Gregorious Said the Thing He Needed to Say

EXCLUSIVE: Free Chapter 'Scouts are Scouts, We Aren't' from 'Farm Life: Covering Minor League Baseball in the Digital Age'

Exclusive Excerpts on Access, Personal Stories from 'Farm Life: Covering Minor League Baseball in the Digital Age'

Rays Spring Training Report: Checking in with Brent Honeywell

FLA- Rays top pitching prospect Brent Honeywell continues to be the one to watch in the Rays organization as the 2017 season creeps closer.

In 2016 we talked about his finding his way in his second season in the Florida State League, about turning self-criticism into a positive, by being, say, more self-reflective, more self-assured with all of his pitches, especially his fastball. Honeywell has worked extensively with Steve “Doc” Watson, including on pitch sequencing, and after 10 games with the Charlotte StoneCrabs, he was promoted to Double-A Montgomery.There he made 10 starts, finishing with a 2.28 a slight drop from Charlotte (2.41).He finished the season with a combined 117 strikeouts.

This off-season, he said he’d hoped to see time in Durham with the Bulls. But, he added, “I just want to WIN. Wherever I’m at. I want to win.”

While the righty's screwball gets the most attention, he entered spring training with a few other things on his mind to work on. And there was something else. In talking to him, he expressed increased confidence in how he views his ability and the near future. He’s always sounded ready. He just sounded, well, readier.

When asked what the main less of 2016 was, he said plainly, “I learned that I can get minor league guys out.”

Here’s what else he said about early work in camp:

Current Focus: “Right now I’m focused on locating everything on both sides of the plate. Because I think what would really benefit me right now is to see some big league hitters. That would give me the gauge I need to make adjustments to get big league guys out. My stuff is good enough for that.”

Specifics on Pitches: “I’m throwing everything but extra time on a new breaking ball. And making the curveball a little sharper.”

Mindset Heading into the 2017 Regular Season: “Keep everything simple. Be realistic with yourself. Admit when you make a bad pitch. “

Related articles

EXCLUSIVE: Free Chapter 'Scouts are Scouts, We Aren't' from 'Farm Life: Covering Minor League Baseball in the Digital Age'

Exclusive Excerpts on Access, Personal Stories from 'Farm Life: Covering Minor League Baseball in the Digital Age'

Yankees Didi Gregorious Said the Thing He Needed to Say

Worldview from the Bus: Political Passions in the Minor Leagues

Long before professional baseball called, two boys sat at the kitchen table and listened to the adults talk politics. They learned a few things about the world. They formed a point of view. They learned more. And they gained a sense of themselves outside of baseball.

For catcher Wes Wilson, who’s in the Yankees organization, it was Sunday nights for dinner at his grandparents, what he calls his “earliest exposure” to politics, where he heard the opinions and debates that would inform and inspire his own interest.

“I’m not sure I ever contributed much. But I was definitely listening,” he said.

The Kentucky native watched, as his parents read every section of the local newspaper. It took time for him to feel connected to all of it. Baseball was calling, and he headed off to attend Indiana State, moving on to the professional ranks after the Yankees signed him. In his first off-season he got a little spark.

“I became interested in finance. I started to understand the importance of knowing the world around us,” he said.

In Ranchos Palos Verdes, California, Lenny Linsky was getting educated in a uniquely first-hand way. Linsky’s mother is a native of Spain, and had plenty to teach and tell him about political revolution. Linsky, a pitcher in the Rays organization, cites his mother and father for having conversations with him that helped shape his worldview and inspire his activism.

“My mom and I tend to fall on the same side of the fence and talks with her continue to be incredibly constructive given her unique perspective,” Linsky said.

His earliest memory of political discourse was with his father. The young man wondered why wages haven’t “proportionally increased with productivity,” and his father gave him his first day in class on the political workings of the economy.

“My economic literacy was not up to par,” he said. “And my father being an incredibly intelligent man pretty much waxed me.”

But it helped him get on course. He would explore his own ideas and the reality of politics, while developing as a baseball player. He took up surfing, too. But there was something more beckoning him.

Through the years, both players chatted with teammates about politics. But 2016 was a year unlike any other. Everyone was witnessing a shift in the mood, a sense that things were not quite as they seemed. Were we really this divided? That question continues to be front and center everywhere, and it didn’t escape the baseball clubhouses that either player was in.

One issue in particular was “locker room” related. Donald Trump’s infamous comments about grabbing women sexually and being able to get away with it due to fame were caught on tape, when he was preparing to be interviewed by reporter Billy Bush. The comment was followed by his defense that it was nothing more than “locker room talk.”

“Let’s make no bones about it, what Trump described in that tape was sexual assault,” Linsky said. “Never, at any point in my life, have I heard anyone in a locker room brag about forcefully touching another woman.”

Wilson is also clear in his experience and opinion of Trump’s comments.

“The comments made on that bus were completely out of line,” he said. “And more importantly the kind of behavior described in those comments, if carried out, would be criminal. I don’t know of any friends or teammates, nor can I imagine anyone I know, engaging in such behavior.”

The clubhouse is obviously a place where players can relax, enjoy downtime, and have fun. Reporters are permitted to be in there for an allotted time but, otherwise, it’s a kind of sanctuary. Stuff gets said in jest. For many athletes, especially those so young, someone like Trump might embody their idea of male success: ego-driven bragging, a private jet, a beautiful model for a wife. And Linsky acknowledges the “macho culture.”

“Some like to brag about their conquests. I’m not going to sit on my high horse and say I never have, “he said. “At some point it goes from young kids puffing their chests to grown men objectifying women, and viewing them as trophies, as opposed to equal humans deserving of respect.”

Sports are treated as religion by fans, so passions run high. If athletes voice their opinions on issues or anything specifically political, there can be intense backlash. Former pitcher Curt Schilling came under fire for violent remarks about Hillary Clinton and, later, about trans-gender people on Twitter. Earlier in the year, San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick kneeled during the National Anthem as a form of protest against racism. The response was, literally, fiery with fans making videos of burning his jersey and many taking to social media to declare him un-American.

But Schilling is retired and has no financial worries about speaking out. Kapernick is an active player making millions. They can afford to be outspoken. For minor league players like Wilson and Linsky, the risk is higher. Offending the team, or the fans, or violating the MLB Social Media Policy, is a major concern. But so too is the risk of offending teammates in the clubhouse. As the election neared, it was hard to avoid discussing the unfolding circumstances.

Linsky, a devoted supporter of and volunteer for Bernie Sanders, who ran for the Democratic nomination, saw in Sanders someone who shared many of his beliefs, but also inspired him to get as involved as possible. His energy was high and, at times, may have come off overly aggressive to his teammates.

“I was brash and confrontational at first,” he admits. “It hindered substantive discourse. As of late, I’ve learned to be a better listener and I feel those discussions have become more enriching. We talk about all dimensions of politics. Grayson Garvin and I had some great discussions. We tend to be on different sides on how the economy should be run and we haven’t budged. But I’ve gained a better understanding, and I really appreciated our calm, respectful talks.”

Wilson points to the vast and varying backgrounds in baseball as being a way for a lot of communication to flow. He’s found that humor is also more prevalent. In the clubhouses he’s been in, no one’s gotten too serious, or much in each others way about points of view.

“A professional baseball locker room might be the most diverse in all of sports,” he said. “[You’ll] find college graduates, high school graduates, and guys who signed before finishing high school. Some are American, Latin American, and some from other countries. There are players with lots of money and others who live in debt just to pursue “the dream.” That alone contributes to a wide variety of opinions up and down the roster.”

As for the current state of things, like many Americans, he hopes for a way forward, where there’s less conflict, though it’s safe to say conflict has only just begun.

“Honestly, I’m ready for things to settle down and everyone get to work. Like nearly everyone, I’ve got reservations about what might happen during the next four years. I’m excited to see where we end up. I believe in the American people and their judgment. Despite what others might say, they’re not all [Editor’s Note: The underline was Wilson’s, via an emailed response] out of their minds, racists or misogynists.”

He talks about the “energy” needing to be used for change and concerns about the country becoming even more divided. Linsky also sees a country divided on issues of race, and that came up in the clubhouse as well.

“One topic that started out divided, but after some time became more unified was the topic of Black Lives Matter and criminal justice reform. What I found was that teammates who were opposed were not so out of malicious intent, but rather misunderstanding,” he said. “I don’t fault them one bit because in our high school textbooks we are somewhat taught that after the Civil Rights Movement, racism was magically over and we lived happily ever after. To my teammates credit, they were open to evidence that clearly shows the unequal divide in the treatment of our fellow black brothers and sisters.”

The fact that “evidence” of that was needed is another good indication people are far from where we might’ve believed in our society. It was difficult to ignore many voters open anger toward people of color and other religions, particularly Muslims. How do you have civil conversations when there are such fundamental differences in how you see the state of the world, and, in many cases, simple facts? Is that possible in a baseball clubhouse, where you’re trying to create close relationships and win together? Those distinct differences can certainly be magnified and lead to tensions. For Linsky, navigating through that was not impossible. There’s plenty of common ground.

“To my teammates credit, the Rays locker room [I was in] is one of the most civil and mature locker rooms I’ve been in. Most of the discussions revolve around hunting, fishing, baseball, obviously, and politics,” he said.

At one point, he had a Facebook group that he organized with fellow Rays minor league player Keith Castillo, as well as other friends with similar needs to express themselves. But while that didn’t last, it gave him even more of a glimpse at his possible future self.

“A dream of mine is to become a US Congressman, so that is something I’d like to be prepared for as well,” he said.

He’s doing that by continuing his education, as well as continued involvement, in any way he can, with Black Lives Matter. He also attended the post-inauguration Women’s March on Washington that drew millions, making it the largest protest march in recorded American history.

Wilson, for all his humor and light-heartedness seemed poised for a post-baseball political career in politics by declaring in his Twitter bio, his future plans to run for office. But that’s not necessarily a definite thing.

“It’s incredibly hard to have an impact so that you can honestly answer the question, “is it really worth it?” I am not sure I’m serious,” he said.

There was a moment of concern for Wilson as our discussions progressed. He wondered if he’d made the right decision discussing all this. Ultimately, he was reassured. But it’s understandable. We’re in tricky times. Ultimately, Wilson went on to say, there’s a strong desire within him to connect with people, to do things in the world that he believes in.

“I love working with people and, in my heart of hearts, I believe that there can be solutions on nearly any issue,” he said. Then, he had a thought. “You never know. Maybe I should move my target to the right….[and run in] 2052?”

For Linsky, there are private, urgent questions he’s struggling to answer, while trying to keep an open mind. He learned to listen more, but he’s continuing to speak freely and fearlessly. He didn’t hold back when considering the future of America.

“It’s hard for me to describe what I’m feeling with the [new] presidency. I’m legitimately worried for the lives of anyone who is not straight, white and male like myself,” he said. “Trump spent a year and half attacking seemingly every group from the disabled, to women, to Mexicans and Muslims. I don’t think our Constitution will allow for more of his outlandish proposals to be implemented, but at the same time I’m sad at the message that conveys to our country and the world when he’s rewarded for such behavior.”
He then struck a note of optimism, saying, “There’s nothing I like more than being proven wrong. So prove me wrong Donald.”

Sports, swimming in all sorts of glorified messages about American pride, doesn’t always welcome athletes speaking out as private citizens. Will we see baseball players, and other athletes speaking out less, or more, on politics in the years to come? For minor league players, the decision to be outspoken is tougher. But they’re watching. They’re listening. And some of them have been learning to listen better, at least in the strange bubble that is the minor leagues.

Related articles

Yankees Didi Gregorious Said the Thing He Needed to Say

EXCLUSIVE: Free Chapter 'Scouts are Scouts, We Aren't' from 'Farm Life: Covering Minor League Baseball in the Digital Age'

Exclusive Excerpts on Access, Personal Stories from 'Farm Life: Covering Minor League Baseball in the Digital Age'

MLB Rookie Hazing: New Rules a Not so Subtle Signal of a New Era

There appears to be a new culture on the rise.

The culture of baseball continues to be challenged and changed by Major League Baseball, with the PTB taking seriously issues of sexism, violence and homophobia. On Monday, MLB announced that dressing as women for rookie hazing is now prohibited.

The news was received on social media with a mix of emotions and thoughts, with many wondering what the point was, while others expressed support for the move, believing it to be a positive step toward shutting down discriminatory attitudes. The statement was part of an Anti-Bullying/Anti-Discrimination effort by MLB, which prohibits teams from the following AP wire:

“…from requiring, coercing or encouraging” players to engage in activities that include, “dressing up as women or wearing costumes that may be offensive to individuals based on their race, sex, nationality, age, sexual orientation, gender identity or other characteristic.”

There’s several disappointing elements to players being angry about new rule when you read that statement in full. The most glaring oversight from those who think the new rule is utterly dumb, is that perhaps they didn’t consider the bullying connection to young fans. Many young boys and girls falling in love with the game are also dealing with bullying at school for any number of reasons. MLB is looking to the future of the game, and seem to be saying to them, and to parents, “Don’t worry, not here.” If a young boy identifies as a girl, and his parents encourage that, and if he’s also a baseball fan, he ‘s receiving a message that dressing “as a girl” is funny and worthy of teasing.

Digging deeper, young players are being asked to see women differently. MLB is asking them, no, telling them, to regard women through a more respectful spectrum, by challenging them to re-think their “traditions.” You might not see the practice as sexist, and that’s ok; but MLB is taking a decisive step to ensure that there’s no risk of that. The rule isn’t about players, or their feelings; it’s about people outside of their bubble, whose experience in the world is different than theirs.

Also, consider how many gay players throughout the years felt uncomfortable participating in something that celebrated hyper masculinity/machismo. Perhaps they had fun because, yes, the whole thing is meant to be fun. But homophobic attitudes have also been the norm in sports. We can imagine ignoring that underlying element was difficult. The idea is that to be gay, means you’re not a man. And what better way to humiliate a man than to make him dress as a woman?

Plenty of players, according to one former player, just didn’t get what was so great about the tradition when forced to participate.

Garrett Broshius, a lawyer who now leads the MiLB lawsuit seeking fairer pay for MiLB players, had this to say in response to one of my tweets:

“yes, this was not “fun” for a lot of players. Too often it was demeaning.”

Aubrey Huff weighed in with the opposite reaction with this tweet:

“For all u easily offended people, here’s a pic of me HARRASSING (his caps) a poor innocent rookie.”

He then attached a photo of him helping dress a rookie in a leopard suit, which, per the policy, isn’t prohibited.

Kevin Youkilis was even more emotional about the announcement, taking to his Twitter account:

“Seriously?! Had to wear a Hooters outfit going through customs in Toronto and wore it proudly because I was in the Show.”

Making his major league debut was likely cooler than wearing a Hooters outfit. But what bothers him, and other former and current players so much about this new rule? They can’t wear ladies clothes for a day? They can’t goof around without consequences? Or are they bothered by being challenged to not see feminine culture and women in general, as something worth respecting, and not reducing them to mockery? Ok, so you can’t wear garters and lipstick as a male bonding ritual (Honestly, this part loses me every time). So what?

On Tuesday, as if it hadn’t gotten weird enough, it got weirder, when San Francisco Giants broadcaster Mike Krukow made an emotionally charged statement on a radio show about the new rule.

“I think it’s ridiculous. A lot of these kids come up out of the minor leagues after having been there for four or five years, they get to the big leagues and they cannot wait to put a dress on. They want to be part of it. It’s tradition.”

He then went on to discuss Chicago Cubs manager Joe Maddon’s theme night for travel days, in which, as Krukow explains, “They put on pajamas or a superhero costume…now [MLB] is taking it to another level.”

The statement of defeated outrage likely wasn’t meant to be funny, but…it was! It’s probably news to many that baseball players look forward to wearing a dress. Again, back to the central question of why? Most players will say it’s just fun. Well, so is dressing up as a super hero. So is hanging out at a bar, shooting the breeze and having a drink. So is playing baseball, at least in many ways it is (minor leaguers definitely don’t have it easy). So then let’s expand the central question to, why is dressing in traditionally feminine attire and mocking female behavior so important? Why is losing that “privilege” such a big deal?

New York Mets pitcher Noah Syndergaard, per a New York Post story written by Ken Davidoff, said simply, “I wouldn’t say I understand it, but I really have no say in it. I’m not going to be bitter about it.”

This seemed to summarize the problem. They don’t understand it. And they’re being asked to. In any workplace, there are boundaries. But in sports, those boundaries aren’t often set, and if they are, they aren’t respected, or, as that player said, their value isn’t completely understood . A baseball field and a clubhouse aren’t like a normal office, where men and women are expected to treat each other as equals. No, in sports, women have a place and they have to fight to get outside those lines. Players wouldn’t understand that unless they tried. And many don’t want to try. That’s not to insinuate Syndergaard wouldn’t understand if you explained the other side of things. Many players will more than likely get beyond worrying about this pretty fast.

Truthfully, baseball can be a safe haven for bad behavior, as all sports are. And in recent years, decisions have been made to change that, usually due to public outcry.

A few years ago, MLB cracked down on problems with players on social media, issuing guidelines that players must follow in order to engage on SM platforms. And last year, a new Domestic Violence Policy was agreed upon, allowing MLB to suspend players regardless of a court’s decision, among other things.

How many of these same players took a vocal stand on domestic violence, when players, especially teammates, were involved? They’ll take a stand on their right to mock women, but not to actually show respect for women’s bodies and safety. The same Mets players are supporting their teammate Jose Reyes, who was arrested for violently attacking his wife. They likely would never take to Twitter to rant about that. In that NY Post story, Brandon Nimmo, a fine person whom I had the pleasure of covering in the minors, is pictured with Reyes. He had a measured, thoughtful, if not neutral response.

“For me it was a good experience. We were lucky to have a good group of veterans who didn’t exploit it.”

Nimmo never showed anything but the utmost respect to me and other women in baseball, so to categorize him as insensitive or thoughtless about the issue would be unfair. He doesn’t fit under that umbrella. Surely like many players, he’s not for or against it, and enjoyed just doing something traditional and fun when making his big league debut.

Which brings up the subject of the connectedness to all of this with women in sports media; have you ever walked into a clubhouse and been ridiculed for being a woman? Have you ever heard players screaming and yelling and catcalling so loudly, that your voice couldn’t be heard, so you walked out, only to have the player follow you and taunt you more? Have you ever heard a player faking a lengthy orgasm, of what he seems to think women sound like when sexually satisfied? Have you ever listened to two players talk about what another teammate wants to do to you sexually? Have you ever been questioned about how you look or what you’re wearing by a colleague who said you don’t look like a baseball writer, or a player who says you should expect to be sexually harassed when entering the clubhouse? Have you ever been asked, by a player in the clubhouse, “What if we were all naked?” or heard one yell, “What’s that girl doing in here?” to laughter? Have you ever come in contact with what women in sports call a “towel dropper”, and him wait until you turned, dropped the towel and laugh in your face? Well, I have. And that’s not the half of it. That’s the way many players, coaches, managers, and men working in baseball view women, and it doesn’t matter that I’m a professional. My female-ness, my being a woman, my wearing lipstick and heels and a dress are symbols of something outside the macho realm, therefore, I don’t belong. That’s why dressing up like us is so funny. We’re worthy of ridicule. And when we enter the room as serious professionals, the jig is up. The emotions run high, and their brains don’t seem to know what to do. A woman is present. And God forbid you take that seriously.

They want us to “understand” bro culture, but they plainly say they don’t understand anyone who isn’t on board with what they do or say, and they don’t want to hear from anyone who isn’t. They accuse anyone in disagreement of being too sensitive, but they’re reacting with a high level of hysteria over not being able to wear a bra and lipstick.

In response to Huff, former professional pitcher with the San Francisco Giants, Shane Loux, tweeted, “I remember that. So much fun. Has any player spoken out against this or is it only columnists who were never part of anything like this ever?”

I responded to him by saying, no, many of us weren’t part of that. Just like players aren’t a part of what we experience. As a writer and reporter, and columnist, I’ve heard every sort of offensive thing directed at me by players. But I still write about them, still keep covering the game. Because I try to understand people, and their experiences; it’s amazing what you can do when you try. And, in my case, I shouldn’t have to try to understand why I’ve been treated that way. It’s possible none of them thought about it like that. That’s fine. Then you can’t ask others to understand your fun and games, if you don’t regard others opinions and thoughts as worth listening to.

Baseball is changing, but you know what hasn’t changed? They’re playing a game for a living. And major league players making millions emoting on Twitter over not being able to have fun anymore is, well, laughable. You’ll have plenty of fun. You’re playing baseball. Women love you. Men want to be you.

What players now have to do, outside of the fun of playing the game, and getting a healthy paycheck is take the time to understand things they might never have before. We get it. Being feminine is humorous. It’s hilarious that we’re women, and its why many of them think they can treat us like garbage when we walk into a locker room. It’s hard to let privilege go. Replacing it with being grateful, and listening to other people who ARE outside of your experiences, isn’t easy. But that’s what’s now expected of them. These guys aren’t bad people for participating in that tradition, not by any means. But they have to move on now. Take the time to listen to the message in the language MLB is using.

Major league baseball is taking steps to be more inclusive, and to be more aware of what’s important and the message they’re sending, not just to fans, but to their players. Playing baseball for a living, not getting to dress like women for a day, sounds like a fairly easy deal. It’s a new day for baseball players. And still a pretty great one.

Related articles

Twitter Reacts To MiLB VP's Stance To 'Man The Battle Stations' In Response To Lawsuit

@JordiScrubbings: "So what type of baseball market is Tampa Bay? Or all of the above?"

Durham Bulls to Mark 20th Anniversary with 'All-DBAP Team'

When I Stopped Being A Writer

Within a few weeks, after a succession of events, my identity as a writer disappeared. It was that fast. And it was that definitive. For the first time since I was a child, and the first time in my professional writing life, I had no compass as a creative person, who’d always found putting words on paper easier than anything else in life. It started in September, in the most common of ways. I got fired. More specifically, I got fired from a job writing for a site that I’d long dreamed of writing for. I’d contacted different editors through the years, every winter, to see if there was an opening or any interest. I couldn’t believe that I’d finally gotten my foot in the door with the site, Baseball Prospectus. I thought the opportunity was the start of something that I could build on. I was eager to prove myself. At the end of the baseball season, I noticed several people resigning. I got nervous. I analyzed my communication with the editors, keenly aware something was under foot. Sure enough, I got the email many of us heard was coming. After six months, my time with BP was over. In response, my mind started to shift. I started wondering, not only, “What now?” But “What do I even want?” It was a humiliating, intense blow, and it took the wind out of my writing spirit. My certainty as a writer, with an eye on the future I’d been trying to cultivate, was gone. In the age of online media, no job is secure. In the midst of this, I was trying to moderate a private baseball chat and networking group for women in baseball. Issues had arisen, but nothing I couldn’t handle with relative ease. The group was created by me and four other women in the business. We’d expanded it outside of our circle with the intention and hope of giving other professional women in baseball a safe space to vent, talk baseball without “mansplaining,” and swap advice and support. I’d also hoped it gave women a place to report sexual harassment or sexist treatment from the team or personnel, so that we could point them in the right direction on how to handle it. I had such high hopes and was incredibly proud of this thing we’d created, something I’d thought about for a long time. And for a time, it was a success, bursting with vital energy and camaraderie. That too would change. Private conversations led me to question whether the group was serving the higher purpose we’d intended. We decided to shift the group to Linkedin, to grow the community as a larger network for women in baseball. When the announcement was made in the group, some of the members weren’t on Linkedin so that didn’t work for them. That was understandable. But the majority simply didn’t seem interested. I took it as a personal failure that I wasn’t able to develop that into what I’d hoped. But I also understand not everything works out the way we envision. The problem was that I had no other vision of that venture, and it had been in my mind for so long. It was hard to believe things went so wrong. Also, in the age of social media, no connection is quite what it seems. And the emphasis on social is sometimes lost on me. I was reminded that day. Then came another reminder about the power of social media on the creative, professional life. The name of the group, “Pitchslapped,” coined by one of the founders was beloved by many, particularly women who, like me, hated the word it derives from and liked turning it on its head. It was also, obviously, a baseball reference. It’s been used by an accapella group as well, though I didn’t know that at the time. As the group was disintegrating, suddenly, a bunch of Twitter users who didn’t like the name began to tweet really rough, personal stuff to and about me. I did my best to deflect, but the mob got louder and more joined in, including a member whom I'd welcomed into the group with open arms when she requested an invite. She was quick to publicly shame me, despite talking often about online bullying of women. All the while, knowing my history. A few years ago, I came forward as a survivor of domestic violence and devoted myself to advocacy, which included writing about DV in baseball. To be suddenly mocked and verbally attacked for hours, felt quite a lot like abuse, so that was interesting. But it tore me to my core. Domestic violence and sexual assault advocacy part of my purpose in life, and a major focus of my personal and professional life. People say that’s the price you pay for being in a public forum, for being a creative person that shares what they create with the masses. I don’t know that I agree with that. Is that our only way of viewing the public forum? As a free for all to express the worst in us? If it is, maybe I’m not meant to be on that public of a stage. I don’t relate to ripping apart others for personal gain by joining in an angry mob. If that’s social media, if that’s how we relate to each other as human beings, and if that’s being a writer, I am not in the right place. Something shifted in my spirit after the group fell apart and readers attacked me on Twitter. I started questioning how I’d prioritized and connected. I began realizing what I’d been devoting so much energy to, social media, had basically consumed my writing life. It became identity. When my sense of myself as a writer fell apart, I realized that social media had been an enormous part of it. I’m private in a careful, deliberate, at times relentless way. I don’t give easily. And yet, I’d given many more inches than I’d wanted to, in order to function as a writer. And, admittedly, to compete with the rest of the writing world, particularly for those in sports, where it’s hard to stand out and information is constant. Standing outside of the pack is difficult. I hadn’t seen how I’d allowed that to become too important. My energy was invested in a way that utterly exhausted me and left me feeling empty. I’m not “Social Media Girl.” I don’t believe in the Facebook era, where we call people friends who aren’t. I hate it. When I gave in (pattern alert) and joined Facebook, it was to manage a social media account for another company. I’d never meant to become part of the culture. But that brings me to my next and final “incident of note.” As I was going through a complete upheaval within, my existential crisis was joined with a worldlier breakdown: the presidential election. Similar to the personal, I’d been painstakingly careful about revealing anything political. I’d walked the line, and kept it all very fair and at a distance. I spotlighted others thoughts, with a focus on minor leaguers, as always. My connection to the political was more of a way of reporting what others thought. At times, my attitude and beliefs emerged, but, again, not in a way that I thought would alienate anyone. I’m not interested in being highly or consistently political, but I don’t want to hide in the shadows, afraid to stand up with a more distinct point of view; because this is different. A spark was lit in a way that made me wonder what more I could do, and how I could be more of service. My focus will continue to be on violence against women and children, and those who are particularly vulnerable. I’m not sure how a role takes shape, but I’m doing things that feel right and important. I liked Republican and CNN analyst Ana Navarro’s quip about taking off the stilettos and protesting if she can. Since there’s been some confusion this past year about peaceful protest, it’s actually allowed. You can look it up. Because this is a baseball website, and a minor league-focused one, I don’t see the need to explain further than that, maybe elsewhere. For now, it’s important that everything I touched on, though highly personal, gets me to my point. I’ve changed. My focus has shifted, my energy has shifted. And I know it’s for the better. Am I still a writer? Yes.Always. But I don’t know where I fit in as a writer, and I’m unsure if I fit into today’s definition, in a social media saturated environment, where “friends” aren’t friends by definition, colleagues are handles with avatars, and how we communicate with each other is fast, often impulsive, and often lacks meaning. This blog will continue, but I’ll search for minor league stories that dig deeper. I announced before that I’d be devoting much of the blog’s space to long form journalism, and I plan to continue on that road. What I want to say to writers, whether you’re in baseball or not, is that our art still has meaning if we decide to pursue that. Yes, we’re in an era of five second videos and hot takes that grab attention; but we’re also in the position to reach many more people, and expand our possibilities if we search for them. Don’t give that up. I almost did. And losing my direction as a writer is both the scariest and best thing that could’ve happened.