Skip to main content

Baseball is (already) for everyone

Image by Racool_studio</a> on Freepik
Take me out to the ballgame....

Attending a major league baseball game is a thoroughly American experience.  It's also a unique game where the defense has the ball and that ball is often hurled at 100 mph.  

It's a classic sport with something to delight everyone.  As spectators, we usually can forget about life's problems for a few innings.  Or, at least we could.

Now, the MLB, its franchise owners, the players union, or some combination thereof, have joined the ranks of those in the NFL who thought it was a great idea to radiate political messages in giant letters in the endzone.  (And even allow messaging on the back of player helmets).

I hadn't noticed anything similar in professional baseball until recently.  Just beyond the center field wall at Target Field in Minneapolis, one can see, actually one must see, a large sign blaring two words: "END RACISM". 

Who are proponents of the Target Field signage going to influence?  Put another way, who besides actual racists, would advocate for preserving racism?  The intersection of sports and politics raises concerns.  

For example, this practice could beckon all comers for equal expression opportunities.  One day will we see a large "END WOKEISM" or "BACK THE BADGE" sign in the right field bleachers?  I hope not, because overt political posturing -- whether Conservative or Progressive -- does not belong at sporting events.

All forms of injustice, including racism, are abhorrent.  I salute those who fight injustice, but I also strongly believe that every citizen has a right to pay for and receive the pleasurable escapism of attendance at a sporting event (or a "Hamilton" performance) without intrusive political messaging.  

Now, other recent changes to the game of baseball have been welcome and they involve no political expression whatever, so let's go there baseball fans....  

Many games were simply too long, but by adding the pitch clock, limiting trips to the mound for pitcher chats and implementing other measures for extra inning play, the MLB has effectively shortened the average game time, while preserving the experience for fans.  

Most unnecessary delays involve pitchers in some way, shape, or form.  Relief pitchers warm up in the bullpen, so why not reduce the amount of time they can burn after taking the mound before they face their first batter?  

If the manager is going to call for that relief pitcher, why can't he just signal that from the dugout.  His walk to the mound followed by on field discussion with the manager, catcher and a friendly pat on the back for the outgoing pitcher--which is followed by more mound chat--is unnecessary.  Just zip Joe Reliever in a golf cart directly to the mound and play ball! 

Finally, let's keep home plate umpires, but use technology to perfectly call balls and strikes.  Way too many strikes are called balls and vise versa.  This change would avoid disputes over poor calls and limit fan and player aggravation over truly God awful calls that follow so many pitches. 

Baseball fans vigorously debate changes like these, but they do so in the context of what's good for this sport that's lasted over 180 years.  Such debates don't involve ideology or political party affiliation.  Let's hope they never do. 

Popular posts from this blog

Economics 101 for the rest of us

W arren Buffet and Carl Icahn are famous investors but fewer people may know Ray Dalio.  Mr. Dalio founded an investment firm 40 years ago called Bridgewater Associates.  With $160 billion under management, Bridgewater runs one of the largest hedge funds in the world. Bridgewater founder Ray Dalio, Bridgewater website I recently discovered (among 3 million other people) a thirty minute YouTube video that Mr. Dalio produced to explain fundamentals of what he calls  the economic machine .  This video, which he narrates has been translated into several languages and viewed over 3,200,000 times.  The content begins slowly with basic concepts but progresses to explain the primary levers that policy-makers use to manage and stimulate the economy.  You can find it here .   There are numerous lessons cleverly and clearly explained here.  Example: I hadn't appreciated why economists seem obsessed with Wage Growth until I watched this simp...

Blessed with friends on the other side

Wikipedia image This post contains excerpts from an April 10 e-mail response to a dear friend of mine (edited for emphasis and anonymity).  “Dear Mortimer, I’ll say hello to the guys for you and I’ll be thinking about you this evening. As for politics, yes, we tend to gravitate toward sources that share our views.  However, I also read the New York Times Op-ed pages and watch MSNBC (as hard as those tasks are for me).  I suppose you watch Fox on occasion and I know you read the WSJ – so good for both of us.  We try.  The state-sponsored education you cite that we both benefited from, came largely from our parents' sweat equity – translated into tax dollars – that funded the University of Wisconsin system. True, my friend.  But, I'm not arguing for zero taxation, or zero government involvement in our lives.  When Progressives argue in favor of entitlement programs, they'll sometimes cite Social Security (under-...

Because it's not theirs to change

Freepik image This week  there was  controversy  stemming from a publisher's decision to edit versions of children's stories written by the late  Roald Dahl .  The edits, whether inspired by Netflix (who according to Forbes purchased the rights to Dahl's work) or the publisher  Puffin Books , sparked a public outcry and PR nightmare. The publisher curated an alternative version to the original work from Dahl's  Charlie and the Chocolate Factory,  (a story later adapted to make the film,  Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory ), ostensibly to remove insensitive terms. There are several reasons why this ill-conceived, if well-intentioned attempt at inclusiveness --  a term becoming increasingly elastic -- failed miserably.  I'm not discussing the evils of censorship today.  Altering original art work to appeal to others is ill advised for another reason.....it's not theirs to change (and doing so can backfire).   One ...