Let Us Like Baseball
On Sunday, I asked a few friends a question: what is your favorite sort of baseball play? One said a well-placed bunt for a hit on the third-base line. Another, preferring defensive highlights, elected for a smartly turned 6-4-3 double play with the shortstop going to his backhand, or else a home run robbed. One described the thrill of watching a pitcher who, after finding himself facing a bases-loaded, no-outs situation, manages to wiggle off the hook. Strikeouts swinging on a 100 mph fastball, and long balls that thump the batter’s eye, and outfield dances and coy smiles at a job well done, each answer was different, making up a tableau of the game’s joys.
For my part, I tend to be drawn to the interstitials between plate appearances, the little bits of tragedy or humor that bring alive the stats and those who make them, the funny faces that suggest a favorite passage from a book or that the pitcher has pooped himself. We can like so many different things, and baseball has room for all of them, the whimsy and rigor, the skill and struggle. It is your most compelling friend, your most interesting hang, a great, hard puzzle. It’s the best meal you’ve ever eaten, hearty and surprising. This is baseball’s greatest strength. It has so much to offer. But it also has some grumps.
…
I think we sometimes make the mistake of paying grumps too much attention. They’re so obviously grumps after all. When good fights present themselves, we should fight those good fights, but much of the grump’s grumping is so clearly just dumb, so plainly wrong, as to be beneath our sustained notice. This past Saturday, Braves broadcasters Joe Simpson and Chip Caray engaged in a bit of silly fuss over what the Dodgers wore during batting practice. They grumped. We chirped and rolled our eyes. We moved past it.
But on Monday, as we sifted through Sean Newcomb and Trea Turner’s tweets and subsequent apologies, and grappled with the Astros trade for Roberto Osuna, I kept thinking about Simpson and Caray. I thought about baseball, with all its room for what we like, also having room for hurt and pain. I kept thinking about how brittle our affection can be. I thought about that and those grumps, and I worried.
…
I’ve been worrying about worrying a lot lately. I don’t know how universal this is, but liking things can feel so silly these days. I worry I should be worrying more. That by not worrying all the time, I’m indulging something trite. That I should be spending time on other, more serious things. Small and large, but more serious. Writing letters to Congress, or helping old ladies with their groceries, or keeping my house cleaner. Doing those things doesn’t preclude one from liking things, even silly things, but time spent thinking deeply about Mike Trout, like very seriously thinking about him, is necessarily time I’m not spending doing my part.
And so for the grumps to go out of their way to niggle, to poke at the game as it is, to say that the way it is, as a thing I like, is worse and fallen, is a bummer, because my desire to take the time away to like things is already weak. They seem to think baseball sort of sucks, these grumps. Too much of this or that, too full of emotion or strikeouts or time. Too different from what they watched before they were grumps. And confronted with minor leaguers who are underpaid and racist tweets and players who abuse their intimate partners and front offices eager to turn those moments of abuse into postseason innings, I’m almost inclined to believe them, and do something else, some other thing closer to being serious. We can’t anticipate how others might answer the question I posed to my friends, what little things will make people sit up and think, “Baseball is one of the things I like. I’ll watch again tomorrow, to see if I still do.” My issue with grumps is that they make us think the thing we like is dumb, and unworthy. They winnow down our way to like this thing, to care about it, even as they fail to address its most serious, most important failings.
I think it is fine to fret about baseball because it is one way to love it, and keep it healthy. But I don’t know if we’re always fretting about the right things. I fret that the sport will be undermined from within by its various bad acts and bad actors; outside, I worry we will be overwhelmed by our sense that its frivolity is actually triviality. I worry we’ll feel compelled to cast it aside. I worry we’ll believe the grumps.
…
On Monday, after spending the afternoon worn out by the news of the Astros trade for Osuna and furious at Jeff Luhnow’s statement trying to justify it as anything but icky, I sat down to watch baseball. It’s my job to do that but also, baseball is a source of succor. And even on that day, a day I had spent being mad at this thing I like so much, it made me feel better. I was less sad. I felt better watching Gerrit Cole and James Paxton duel. I exhaled at the pop of the ball hitting the catcher’s mitt. It was wonderful. Baseball is wonderful. That relief is another thing it has room for.
Literature is rife with examples, both high brow and pedestrian, of becoming that which we imitate. Vonnegut warned us: “We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be.” In Annihilation, Jeff VanderMeer’s narrator, when reflecting on her childhood, notes, “I liked most of all pretending to be a biologist, and pretending often leads to becoming a reasonable facsimile of what you mimic, even if only from a distance.” Eventually, as Kesha tells us, “You know we’re superstars. We are who we are.”
Baseball can be zippy and effervescent, almost magical even, though it isn’t always. Clouds do loom. Stars disappoint us and hurt our feelings; they close the game off from us. We are made to feel implicated by our distraction from what is serious. We have evidence enough that the game is, in many important ways that have nothing to do with the shift, broken. But it also bright and lively; our best hang. All we want to do is love it with our whole little hearts, and I hope it lets us. I hope that, among the many things it makes space for and the many problems it corrects, it makes less room for the grumps. It would be a shame if we took them at their word.
Meg is the editor-in-chief of FanGraphs and the co-host of Effectively Wild. Prior to joining FanGraphs, her work appeared at Baseball Prospectus, Lookout Landing, and Just A Bit Outside. You can follow her on Bluesky @megrowler.fangraphs.com.
I recently had to stop listening to the Mets radio announcers (Howie Rose and Josh Lewin). Rose has always been kind of sarcastic, but recently, it seems like most of the broadcast is dedicated to how much he hates the current state of the game. I tuned in to the first game back from the All-Star game (which I enjoyed very much), to hear Rose go on for a full five minutes about how much the All-Star game sucked. I tuned out, and haven’t been back. I listen to baseball to FORGET how much things suck.
Rose spends 75% of the broadcast talking about the stolen base
I mean, all of the Mets problems would be solved if they were just more aggressive on the bases…
They’d be at least 5 games over .500 if they were better at hitting the cut off man
I don’t know if it’s just that this season has taken a particular toll, but I find a similar thing going on in the television booth. When once Gary, Keith and Ron seemed curious about changes in the game and willing to present new advanced statistics, now they only bring them up in order to dismiss them, or to lampoon people who believe in their importance. They’re still a joy in the booth overall and truly improve my viewing experience, but there’s been a noticeable shift this season.
This I think is the biggest issue- it’s the announcers. The people responsible for presenting game to the public. No one expects perfection from the booth, but some enthusiasm would be appreciated. Feels like I’m watching a funeral some nights, and not one for someone that was well-liked.
Agreed, its hard to keep and gain fans when your ambassadors spend a majority of the game telling you why it sucks.
Dallas Braden is a bit too enthused sometimes, but I’m glad they have him on.
He seems like a fitting personality for Oakland.
Announcers pass the dead time by for the fans. Good announcers make fans forget about the increase in dead time and game length. Bad ones remind them…
As a Cubs’ fan since birth, I cannot tell you how important I think it is to have a good booth team. If you have someone who can make you stay tuned in for a 2-7 loss you’re going to have more fans. I seriously wonder how much less popular the Cubs would have been without Harry .
Agreed. And how blessed are we as Cubs fans now to have Len and JD in the TV booth, and Pat and Ron Coomer doing the radio.
Man… Len and JD tho. So good.
I agree, except for the Pat and Ron part.
This is why I love Eck on the Red Sox games so much. You can tell in his voice that he just loves baseball in every way. He is always so enthusiastic about every call. Makes games immensely more fun to watch.
O’Brien and Remy are great too.
Matt Vasgersian has become a Grade A Grump.
Looking at you, John Smoltz.
In a baseball world that seems to revel in wasting two minutes of perfectly good time to be grumps or rewrite the laws of math to equate zero to one, we need to spend more time embracing words like these.
Thank you for the reminder that baseball is good. Well written.
What ?
Who has rewritten the world of math to equate zero and one?
Baseball isn’t inherently good- critical review is what gives it a chance to avoid corporate awfulness.
Embrace fluff instead of good content? This article is nothing more than a typical ‘crack of the bats, pop of the glove’ Tim Kurkjian type hackery.
this is a little prayer. thanks, Meg!
What in the world has happened to this website? This article is the equivalent of a teenager’s diary entry.
baseball is quite a bit more than mere graphs and numbers.
This site’s goal is/was fundamentally to be about graphs and numbers. Clearly, that may have changed, because a increasingly high proportion of articles are writers talking about their feelings. Some are happy about that change, some aren’t
#KeepNotGraphs
As long as this site has existed, its authors have been writing about things other than statistics (and have been criticized for it). I think the site’s mission is as much to celebrate the game’s aesthetics and culture as it is to analyze its numbers.
Cistulli addressed this in his inaugural post 9 years ago: https://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-long-hello-some-notes-on-luck
You are ignoring the obvious.
The site has made a conscious editorial decision to produce fluff and pivot away from what made it special.
The industry, ESPN, FOX, CAA, Boras et al., have some agendas, and they did not share fangraphs’ previous agenda: which was the put a light on how much smarter baseball could be run.
But now, fangraphs has partnered with ESPN. Now it has content jointly run on both fangraphs and FOX. Now it propagandizes for CAA & Boras, letting agents plant stories.
Now it hires authors who dismiss efficiency and obviously lack empirical ability. These authors promote some of the worst ideas that modern baseball has seen (‘every team go for broke’, ‘middle tier free agents are the new market efficiency,’ ‘MLB is colluding by not splashing the cash for Cobb, Lynn, Moustakas, Darvish et al’ ). The new writers praise EVERY free agent signing and EVERY trade that adds a name-veteran.
And fangraphs use of female authors is depressing. Has fangraphs ever had a female author who provided data-driven baseball insight? I love Sheryl’s writing on legal issues, which as been a big hit, but why are only the female authors assigned roles lacking any data-driven baseball insight. Jay Jaffe doesn’t only write about Hall of Fame issues for the site, he engaged in the site’s main content- data driven baseball insights. Has fangraphs ever featured a female or minority writer contribute substantially to data-driven baseball issues? I cannot think of one.
Meg’s remit is all too typical for female roles in sports- optimistic, peppy, positive-minded, marketing-friendly, fluff, human-interest, cheerleading.
It’s cliched in all the wrong ways.
Fangraphs is now basically an ESPN/Fox brand.
Do you read the site?
This is the site constantly talking about how the middle-tier free agents are screwed because teams are smarter now and realize they aren’t worth the money.
This is the site lambasting the Padres for throwing huge amounts of money at Eric Hosmer because he isn’t good by the numbers.
The same site where the top post is about a statistical approach to the fallout on playoff chances in the NL post the deadline.
It’s not like any of that has vanished, there’s just now more content overall that offers varying perspectives that isn’t just the numbers.
If you’re only here for the numbers, great. Click on the articles with numbers. For the rest of us that like the break from the numbers once in a while, it’s a welcome reprieve and nice variety.
To quote the very article you’re attacking “I hope that . . . it makes less room for the grumps.”
I dont support the weird Boras based conspiracy theory or misogynistic BS but its hard not to notice that the site has undergone a definite shift the past year-ish.
I get it. You cant just up and replace someone like Dave Cameron or Eno Sarris, but some of the articles that show up these days are…..sub par to put it nicely.
Right, baseball is a corporate enterprise dominated by billionaires and their corporate advertising partners.
Fangraphs has become an extension of ESPN/Fox corporate cheerleading, and this ‘everything is sunshine’ approach to journalism is an attempt to broaden the fangraphs content.
Accuracy, insight, critiquing poor strategy, etc., tends to be contrarian (i.e. grumpy) for the broad, dumber audiences.
This article is part of what makes enjoying a big-money, corporate product difficult- the nonstop dumbing-down of something that could be enjoyable, simply for revenue reasons.
Surely fangraphs has made this broader-appeal decision due to revenue, not for the ‘love of summer nights’ fake-nostalgic, fake-emotional nonsense they keep using as a reason to drop insight and peddle this sort of fluff.
You made your point ad nauseam months ago when on a daily basis you accused Travis and Craig of lacking integrity and writing articles that are contrary to their beliefs. These comments don’t add to the conversation and are insulting to FG staff and the readers who enjoy their writing.
It wasn’t a daily basis, it was about 50 comments over a period of nearly a year. If that nauseated you, you are free to pass on by.
And all of Craig/Travis’ nonsense proved laughably uninsighteful. They were literally quoting CAA/Boras and publishing planted articles. If you have any experience in a sporting front office, you’d recognize when authors are planting agent stories.
Jeff Sullivan even mentioned in a chat how journalists are simply getting the ‘collusion’ memes from agents and running with it. Again, Craig and Travis were regularly attacking Tony Clark, the head of the players union, and planting memes and quotes straight from Boras/CAA- that is disingenuous.
Do you not believe in disingenuous sports journalists?
An incredibly articulate and thoughtful teenager, with a well-edited diary?
One who writes about interesting things that make me consider baseball, which I’ve loved for the better part of four decades, in a slightly different way?
That kind?
No, typical ESPN/Fox style fluff.
This article wasn’t insightful at all. It was just a ‘let’s enjoy everything’ plea, anti-intellectual at it’s core.
Meg is a treasure! I would happily read her diary and even the stuff that didn’t make it into the diary. Great writing
Creepy.
Oh good the grump is here too!
You know the answer to that. These people are the worst.
I’m gonna guess you’re unaware of the incredible amount of sexism inherent in your comment.
Fangraphs’ use of Meg as a female writer is a bit stereotyped imo.
Fangraphs hasn’t featured much, if any, of her analytical insight, or indepth baseball analysis. Why don’t fangraphs’ female writers write about stablization rates, predictive metrics, and emerging empirical trends?
Instead female fangraphs writers get peripheral topics, this one about grumps.
I think the writers write about whatever they feel like writing about.
This is a point Thom would do well to consider. Authors may write what they want to write – he assumes FG assigns Rowley the “soft” articles, which says a lot about Thom and how he sees the world. Yet he also seems to think Meg is actually a squishy writer, something at odds with his sloppy quest to root out the true culprit. There’s a cultural studies point to be made somewhere in that.
While I am here for the stats, I enjoyed this article. And for what it’s worth, I enjoyed Thom’s comments too – more opinions, even badly written ones, are healthy in my book. And he does seem to be arguing in good faith, but ignorantly.
You do realize that Meg runs the Hardball Times and helps manage FG as well, yes?
Has Fangraphs ever featured a woman or minority author that provided a substantial amount of data-driven baseball analysis? I don’t believe so.
Meg editing the Hardball Times does not mean that fangraphs’ or the Hardball Times is diverse.
Here is the Hardball Times staff as listed (2010) on wikipedia: Richard Barbieri, John Barten, Brian Borawski, Kevin Dame, Joshua Fisher, Brandon Isleib, Chris Jaffe, Brad Johnson, Max Marchi, Bruce Markusen, Dan Novick, Harry Pavlidis, Alex Pedicini, Jeff Sackmann, Mike Silver, Nick Steiner, Steve Treder, Geoff Young, & Ricky Zanke. That’s 19 people, 19 guys.
Here are teh listed editors from that time: Joe Distelheim, Travis Conrads, Jeremiah Oshan and Bryan Tsao.
23-for-23.
And some more listed contributors: Derek Carty, Derek Ambrosino, Jeffrey Gross, Matt Hagen, Jonathan Halket, Jeremiah Oshan, Josh Shepardson, Ben Jacobs, and Jonathan Sher
So that’s 32 people, 32 guys. Nearly all with WASP names.
So they hired one girl to edit and write peppy, cheerleading, ESPN/FOX style occasional content. It’s not real diversity.
Let’s see fangraphs feature women and minority authors offering actual, cutting edge, intelligent, data-driven baseball insights.
Consider the words and phrases being used in this article, and how obvious it is that the author, whether of her own choice or due to work pressures, feels that her work should be light, cute, and fun:
“funny faces,’
“pooped himself”
“grumps grumping”
“silly fuss”
“silly things”
“bummer”
“icky”
“zippy”
“whole little hearts”
This vocabulary, and the whole article’s take in general, is juvenal, it’s childish vocabulary and a childish perspective. Far too frequently women in media are typecast into this sort of glee club role.
The article uses the word ‘grumps’ 12 times, ‘worry’ 8 times, fret another couple of times. This is not high quality content, it’s Fox-style ‘now lets have a female put out some positive-peppy things about feelings and what’s fun.’
Unfortunately, for females and minorities in sports media, this is fairly typical – particularly for females. That is, they are hired to do only a certain type of work, with a narrow remit, singled out for different treatment than other employees. Often times the actual people do not mind- only some NFL cheerleaders feel mistreated, many feel respected. The differential treatment, however, is obvious and very FOX-like.
It’s funny how you’re trying to spin this into Fangraphs being sexist instead of you being sexist.
“This article is the equivalent of a teenager’s diary entry.”
Clearly you haven’t seen Rachael McDaniels’ attempts to turn BP into a Tumblr blog. Megrowley is a breath of sober-minded fresh air after clicking over there.
The conformists shout down literally anything critical posted in these comments. You will almost never see a comment disagreeing with anything that is well received on this board, as indeed, the new marketing-friendly promotional attitude at this site is ‘let’s be super positive, because grumpy grumps are grumpy and icky and baseball is zippy and magic.”
When the corporate media pretends to be diverse, the conformist crowd strongly supports literally anything served up, no matter how fake and regressive.
Nearly all of the more thoughtful commentators here want to see women being given real platforms to offer cutting-edge baseball content.
What is sad, as you have rightly pointed out, is that instead, when companies like the HardBall Times or BP recognize that they are 99% male, they simply cover their butts by given a female a token role to provide ‘a different perspective,’ which is sexist. The changes at BP are sad and sexist in this exact manner: bring on a woman to improve the quality of the data-driven insight, please! But don’t bring on a woman just to pivot her into a tone-deaf Fox-style ‘role for females,’ giving a corporate ‘female touch’ to the content, as BP has done. The OP above is down-voted for standing up for real diversity and critiquing fake diversity. Female sports writers can do more than cheerlead, look a certain way and run social media platforms.
Why not feature females and minorities to provide normal, intelligent, data-driven baseball content? This wrongheadedness dominates the sports media industry, where really only Christina Karhl, among all female sports writers, has a major platform from which she provides high quality, cutting edge, data-driven baseball content.
Hopefully Meg can join her putting out serious and data-driven, intelligent content. This article, however, is a sad testament to how far the sports media industry still has to come on real diversity.
No number of ‘conformist bro’ down or up votes, or fake praise for this sad article, will change the fact that females and minorities don’t get a fair shake from ESPN/FOX type media outlets, like fangraphs. Measured and consistent criticism against these recent editorial changes does, in fact, get the attention of the authors and editors.
There is a certain irony to you citing Christina Karhl and Racheal McDaniel as examples of a data-driven female writer vs one peddling non-analytic fluff…
The Bends is overrated and this article is lovely.
My response article to nickpuntoforhof: “Let Us Like Radiohead”
*this is a friendly joke, not an angry one
I see the grumps have infiltrated fangraphs as well
Guys, we found one of the grumps!
Grumble grumble grump grump grumble grumble grump grump grump. Grump grumble grumble waah grump grump grumble {frown emoji} grump grumble grumble grumble grumble.
Yea, this article is horrible.
Callow, glib, corporate cheerleading. Straight out of a vending machine, comically poor.
You cutting & pasting your tedious, boilerplate ESPN corporate cheerleading argument, on the other hand, is some erudite-ass analysis.
It’s not cutting and pasting.
Nearly every critique offered in these comments objected to.
When fangraphs was quoting CAA/Boras and pumping out agent-planted nonsense attacking Tony Clark,
my critical comments pointed out those details.
When fangraphs uses females in the same manner as does Fox News, my comments address the stereotyping and asks question tailored for this situation- has fangraphs ever featured a female or minority author who provided a substantial amount of data-driven, cutting edge, baseball performance or roster-management insight?
I believe the answer is no.
Some issues can only be addressed via critiques. I do not think it is wrong to flag up fangraphs’ content-partnership with ESPN, and it’s shared interests with Fox News, when examining why the content has become so much more like ESPNs and FOXs.
My critical comments are not boilerplate, there is some thought and care invested into protesting this Fox/CAA/ESPN/Boras accommodation by fangraphs. How many of us dislike Fox News, and would hate to see our favorite media outlets team up with Fox News and become more like Fox News? How many of us would tend to critique FOX’s glib, corporate, nonsense, whenever and wherever we see it worm it’s way into our favorite journals and blogs?
Negative feedback is warranted when a high quality blog sells out and conforms to the FOX/ESPN/CAA types. Similarly, stereotyped typecasting, fake diversity, and corporate cheerleading ought to be critiqued.
This is not sexist. No, not at all. :/
Great article, with some serious layers to unpeel if we so desire! IMO, there is nothing wrong with enjoying things, even if you overall have issues with how the world is going. As for baseball lovers, they are an odd lot….in addition to complaining about their sport a lot, they seem to have this need for other people to like their sport, by trying to say how much worse the NFL or NBA is at such and such. It’s an odd coin, or die, the baseball fan with many sides of emotions about the game….
I missed Skip and Joe being the fashion police, but on an everyday basis they seem to not like baseball. They sarcastically applaud any run that scores not via a home run as a rare instance of real baseball. They relish every time a player gets a hit against the shift (even if it is clear it would have been a hit regardless). They are the voice of the old man yelling at a cloud. It’s as if all these clowns watched Field of Dreams and the famous monologue by James Earl Jones and determined that anything that ever changes in baseball is just the worst thing ever, all while ignoring that baseball has been changing for the past 150 years. Baseball executives with engineering or math degrees did not invent “changing baseball.”
There’s nothing in particular wrong with Chip. He just feels like a phony corporate face without any real personality and lots of fake enthusiasm.
Joe Simpson has spent 5 years sounding like a man who hates baseball. As if the sport itself is personally offensive to him. I frankly am confused how he can get away with being so dismissive of the thing he’s supposed to present to the public. I suppose there’s some audience of baseball fans who watch it in order to grump about it.
I’m not saying I want someone who is all sunshine and rainbows-I’m happy with some well thought-out criticism and with broadcasters willing to point out things they dislike. But he is so joyless. If he’d merely taken a few seconds to point out that he thought the t-shirt/shorts look during BP looked unprofessional, nobody would have cared (and I don’t know if many people would disagree). Instead he went on a 5 minute diatribe talking about the sanctity of the organization and claiming on his own authority that Vin Scully would be ashamed.
“There’s nothing…wrong with Chip…he just feels like a phony.” Heh. Yep. He’s a legacy hire who was handed a sinecure and has treated as just that, never grew or improved one whit since he was shuffled into the old boys’ club by his dad.
Why does everyone ignore that, in Field of Dreams 2, they grew 20 extra rows of corn in right field, bringing “the fence” in by 40 feet, just to inflate Joe Jackson’s HR total? What does Chip Scaray have to say about them ghost shenanigans?!
Since the Osuna trade, I’ve been a grump. While I believe in things like forgiveness and second chances as people make mistakes, I have a hard time with them on certain issues.
What is the right response though? If Osuna ‘pays his dues’ through the judicial system and is penalized by baseball for 75 games should he still be banned for life from his profession for this transgression?
I’m not sure what is the right response for MLB and judicial system. I know that I don’t want to to cheer for him. As such, I’m a grump.
I admit particular joy that it was *Aroldis Chapman* who gave up Rajai’s epic WS G7 hr a couple years ago.
The unfortunate fact is that under the current system, ever since the Yankees first acquired Chapman, teams have gained some kind of arbitrage from suspended players, being able to acquire greater talents for a lesser cost. The simplest fix is to render these suspended players ineligible for the postseason, the same way players suspended for PEDs are ineligible. I’m not sure if that fix needs to be collectively bargained or what, but it needs to change.
It’d be nice to see one of these guys take ownership for their actions. Osuna is apparently pleading not guilty, which isn’t a great start.
If he doesn’t plead and is found guilty? I’m not sure I’d be comfortable with an outright ban, but I’d be pleased if he were essentially blackballed. Lots of lucrative and meritorious careers out there where you don’t wear your name on your back.
No but banned from the postseason and untradeable until the offseason would be a good idea.
He was punished as deemed he should be under the collectively-bargained agreement between players and owners, provided the evidence the commissioner has seen.
Should you deem this punishment too light, voice it in hopes of the next CBA addressing the issue (which I think they will – no postseason in the season of DV suspensions, similar to PEDs). Just remember that the punishment is what the organization currently deems just – but as a public, we can sway what they think.
My being a grump has nothing to do with the MLB punishment. I’m a grump because the Astros willingly acquired a guy I don’t want to cheer. I don’t think MLB should have prevented the trade. I’m upset with the Astros decision to make the trade.
Like in many other professions, it is up to the organization to decide if they want to hire that employee ( player) I agree this looks worse for the Astros then the MLBcussion
This isn’t like many other professions, though. The Astros’ decision impacts their fans, too. Quite frankly, I don’t want to have to grapple with the moral implications of cheering for a team that buys low on a player accused of domestic violence. I just want to watch baseball games.
For some people, just watching baseball games seems to mean coming to terms with MLB’s apparent desire to attempt to be morally neutral (there have been a lot of comments to the tune of “the domestic violence policy exists only to serve the league’s financial interests” on Fangraphs lately, which is just profoundly depressing). I can’t do that. Maybe that just means baseball isn’t for me.
I don’t believe in second chances or forgiveness, but I think that if a player has harmed someone and is just harmed in return (banned), we are encouraging the next harm. The Astros have enormous incentive to get Osuna not to harm anyone. Ideally, the mechanism is that the norms in the Astro’s club house make Osuna change his perspective, but I don’t really care what mechanism they use.
Sean Doolittle tweeted about Turner “Between all the people you meet and the places you go, there is a lot of opportunity for personal growth in baseball. It’s entirely possible that those old posts no longer reflect that person’s views. But actions will speak louder than words.” Baseball can be a beautiful game.
If fans actually had trouble cheering for sex offenders, domestic violence abusers, and other violent criminals, then they would not be following and supporting MLB, NCAA, NFL, NHL, NBA etc..
Couldn’t agree more. We’ve focused as baseball fans on being too negative. This reminds me of when the All Star Game was about to happen, and we were hearing from so many people how the All Star Game is useless and pointless. Sure, there’s flaws with it, but it’s all about seeing the very best players just playing the game we love. It’s seeing Machado take a picture with Kemp after his double, or Trout hitting a home run, then giving a weather report. It’s all about seeing these players have fun with the sport we love so much.
As a lifelong Braves fan, I feel almost a weekly urge to apologize for Joe Simpson and Chip Caray, during some particularly brutal stretches, daily urges. At times, its almost like having to listen to that one still single great uncle at the family reunions who loves to go on about how much better society was when everyone knew their place.
“I think we sometimes make the mistake of paying grumps too much attention. ” such as writing this article?
People are always going to be negative about something you like or believe in. Pay them no mind. When you tune them out the game doesn’t seem so negative anymore.
Seriously, think of the most wonderful thing you can think of, puppies, true love, baseball whatever else, and google “Why I hate _____” and you’ll find numerous people hating on it. The more you talk about them, argue with them, defend against them, etc, the more fuel to their fire.
If you don’t like the announcers, write the team once and let them know, then forget about it.
So you are taking the time to comment on something you disagree with by saying that people shouldnt take the time to respond to things they disagree with and then tell them they should write the team?
Your comment has 48 syllables.
Ha! Precisely. Being grumpy about grumpy people is more irony than the author can appreciate.
I am glad to see that I am not the only one hearing things like this.
As much as I love the Mets broadcast team, who have made many a bad Mets team tolerable, I can’t help but notice that they have been kicking it up a notch on their dislike of the current game, especially Keith.
Every broadcast has featured some version of either:
“…but that is the way the game is played today…”
“…they just depend too much on those shifts/stats/moves…”
“…I just don’t understand this move…”
“…Why is he doing that? Oh my word…”
“…The umpires shouldn’t take this long for the review…”
“…I just think the flyball philosophy is [insert negative connotation here]…”
And it is not just towards the Mets either.
First off- the Mets tv and radio announcing teams are stellar. Not just my opinion- they come out at/near the top of Fangraph’s broadcaster rankings every year.
I think they have simply watched too many Mets games this year and it is eating away at them. I watch them a lot too, and they are very hard to watch as they play badly on the field, make poor in-game decisions, and of course, are rife with organizational dysfunction.
Was about to say, as a Braves fan, I would give up Gohara and Pache in a trade to the Mets that includes their broadcast team for ours. (Only half joking)
I wonder if also the tragic loss of their longtime Director, Bill Webb, has anything to do with it. One fewer trusted person to reign in Keith or somebody pushing to tamp down this line of criticism. I’m just speculating, but the last year or so has felt sort of different in tone. Of course, the last year on the field has been markedly worse as well, so who knows.
They are genuinely pissed they are working for a bottom 20% org. Could they do a better job of hiding it? Sure. Personally, as a neutral Mets observer, I prefer it exactly as is.
I know what you mean. They are only human, and it has to be frustrating to watch this Mets team, day after day. But, at the same time, you’re being paid to watch and talk about baseball. I certainly don’t expect false cheer, but it shouldn’t feel like a daily funeral march…
“Oh my word” – love it. I also love when Keith talks about people being “in their cups.”
“I’ve been worrying about worrying a lot lately. I don’t know how universal this is, but liking things can feel so silly these days. I worry I should be worrying more. That by not worrying all the time, I’m indulging something trite. That I should be spending time on other, more serious things. Small and large, but more serious.” — Being more anxious or more sad or more angry isn’t going to make anyone else feel more secure or more happy or more content. Go ahead and like things!
Just to echo other commenters, thank you for this article. It was a breath of fresh air.
My biggest issue with the grumps is that they act as if they have the sole ownership interest in the game of baseball. It’s their game, and it must be played their way. We – the fans and even modern players – are all merely bystanders. The game isn’t ours, to enjoy and mold in our image the way they were allowed to do. No, we should thank the grumps every second of every inning for letting us watch their game. They took ownership in a bygone era and choose to whom they pass it down.
Thankfully, they’re wrong. The game is just that, a game, that belongs to anyone who chooses to play or watch it. And it will change, as it has changed before, with the changing times and with the changing cultures of those who play and watch and love it.
The challenge is that there are more than 2 million paying “grumps” and attendance is down by 2 million. Grumps are actually those who are still at least coming to the game/tv/web site and if things don’t start to revert, attendance will be down by more than 2million.
Yes, the game has been changing. It doesn’t mean it’s been changing for the better.
As I hinted at below, if you want people other than the grumps to get into the game, it may help not to shit all over the things those other people like. Many young fans grew up reading about newer metrics and enjoying the flair with which some players play. Then they tune in, and announcers act as if those things are anathema to them, and crap on the players and the ideas, and stodgy players try to enforce the grumps’ unwritten rules. Hard to attract new fans like that.
Also, you know, games are expensive as shit. I make good money, and going to a game, if I want to actually have a seat that isn’t 10,000 miles from the field, is still a challenge.
Not defending any of the grumpiness and resistance to change, but if we want to over-analyze Simpson and Caray, they have a point that players should wear something during BP that identifies their names to the fans, even if it’s just on a t-shirt. It’s godawful expensive to go to a ballgame, and fans that come early are entitled to root for their favorite players during batting practice. It seems like a simple courtesy the players and league pay to their fans.
By this logic, the Yankees are the least fan-courteous team in baseball history, based on not identifying their players by name on their uniforms. I have always hated that.
Nah, they are the least fan-courteous because they don’t want poors* to ever have good seats.
* Their definition of “poors” encompasses me and almost everyone else .
I’d amend my comment to name *or* number, just something so kids can more easily spot their favorite player if they come early to watch. I don’t think this is a big burden or particularly controversial as BP is considered part of the show.
If you’re really that big a fan of a particular player, you probably know their batting stance/throwing motion so well that you don’t need a name or number.
If you want kids and casual fans to turn into fans, you should be helping them out — not telling them they oughta know all the players already by sight. I was actually being serious. Lack of names is one of a million things I will always hate about the Yankees. Arrogant and self-aggrandizing.
MLB: We have a problem attracting new and youthful fans!
Also MLB: It’s ok for teams to mainly hire announcers – our primary ambassadors to the public – who shit on the things new and youthful fans like.
There are a lot of bad people in the world. Of course some of them will make their way into baseball. Just like any other profession. There’s probably someone on FG staff that has some sort of skeleton in the closet. There’s probably 10 guys who deleted bad tweet for every 1 that is discovered.
Humans are flawed and imperfect which makes everything we touch flawed and imperfect.
It’s ok to enjoy baseball even with all the imperfection coming through. Folks need to accept that. It’s ok to like baseball for what it is, despite the fact that not everyone involved with it is pure of heart and mind.
Living in the vicinity of Cincinnati and listening to the Reds announcing team is the most depressing thing you can ask for. Everything about baseball is apparently bad.
Everything about everything is quite bad, it would seem, according to Marty Brennaman.
I think using interstitials (or even just interstices) is a shared code word for those who got graduate degrees that may not get them jobs. I say that as someone who is in that boat.
People coming to fangraphs probably don’t need counseling to enjoy baseball. If we didn’t, then we wouldn’t be here.
“…liking things can feel so silly these days.”
Why should it feel so silly these days? Life is really pretty good. At the big picture economy is growing. Unemployment is low and more and more people are returning to the work force. It has never been cheaper to feed ourselves and within your grandparents (or great-grandparents depending on how old you are) lifetimes we’ve had to redefine “food scarce” from “there is no food” to “the only grocery stores in your area offer lots and lots of empty calories. Across the world there are tens of thousands of people getting access to electricity, and all the near-miraculous benefits that entails, every day. In 50 years we’ve gone from people getting away with lynching people to it being possible to drive someone from polite society because of something under 140 characters they wrote 8 years ago. Same sex marriage is legal and it is only in the most fevered-dream imaginations of conservatives and progressives is that changing. We’re more equal than ever with greater opportunities to succeed than any society in history. If you feel guilty taking a moment to enjoy life and all the bounty you have then, honestly, it’s because you’re spending way too much time getting your panties in a bunch over meaningless crap said by stupid people on twitter.
You will get downvoted because an asshole got installed as the figurehead of the world’s premier bureaucracy and absolutely broke people’s brain
Our crappy health as a society is because we’re fat, lazy fucks. We need to eat less and work more. It is the first time in human history where we have a problem with eating too much and not being physical enough. You have to be an incredible misanthrope to not view this reversal of millennia of deprivation as an unambiguous good thing.
You are, of course, wrong. Let’s provide some evidence as to why life is not pretty good, at least for a very large number of people.
Want to buy a house? Relative to wages, you’ll be paying 4 times more than your grandparents did. House prices rose twice as fast as inflation just in the last two years. Etc. etc. https://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/23/how-much-housing-prices-have-risen-since-1940.html
The US has fewer people with health insurance than pretty much any developed country on earth. This might, understandably, cause people to be a little upset. https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/journal-article/2018/mar/health-care-spending-united-states-and-other-high-income
Actually, I can’t be bothered to go on. You’re unlikely to read this, and if you do…well, the same internet is available to you to search for answers to these questions. You’re clearly just making a sad, backwards, political point, for reasons unknown. It just makes me sad to see people so determined to not care about the well-being of anyone who isn’t them. By all means, keep going on about how it’s exercise that’s the problem, despite the fact that the US is the most overworked nation on Earth and people simply don’t have the time to do anything else. https://20somethingfinance.com/american-hours-worked-productivity-vacation/
This is a truly wonderful piece of writing.
I had soured on my beloved White Sox in the waning years of Hawk Harrelson. I originally thought these were unrelated occurrences. Thinking back, Hawk’s “neighborhood crank” style of broadcasting and general curmudgeonliness must have played a part. But now that the delightful and whimsical Jason Benetti has taken over for him, the love is back! The announcers can play a big part in how we feel about things, as others have said here.
Thanks for this post.
I came to the conclusion a long time ago that anything I enjoy – anything – is going to include people I do not like and/or people who believe things I do not like. I generally just ignore it. It takes something really bad to drive me away. That sort of tolerance is key to enjoying oneself.
I dearly love the game of baseball, and I really wish people would stop trying to fix something that isn’t broken and just /let players play baseball/. The game itself isn’t the problem. It’s the way the game is run by the MLB as a whole, and by individual organizations. Thank you for this thoughtful and insightful piece, Meg.
Some version of this thinking led me to stop complaining about Rex Hudler for the Royals broadcast a few years ago. As best I can tell, that dude genuinely loves baseball and genuinely loves coming to the ballpark to do his job, even when the Royals are bad. I can’t ask for much more. Dude’s awesome.
Also the mustard gif.
I feel the same way about Matt Underwood for Cleveland. Sure, he’s not the greatest broadcaster in the world, but he genuinely loves baseball, loves calling games, and he likes to talk about the way the game can be played however players feel they can. He loves talking about changes players made in the offseason, or different decisions that they or managers or coaches make; it’s all just fun for him.
Also, the moon is a planet. 🙂
Going home and watching a baseball game in the evening is one of the most relaxing things to do. It’s why I love it so much. One of my most favorite baseball plays is watching a guy flying around the bases and scoring from first on a double, so much fun!
My favorite baseball play is watching a perfect throw from the outfield to throw out a baserunner. Especially when the throw is to home! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1P3br_geYFI
MLB network has increased my love of baseball more than ever! I get to tune into every close game I want, I can rematch great plays and funny bloopers, look at the game recaps each morning for anything I missed or tune into the radio for day games at work (I have the Cardinals/Rockies on right now).
Forget the grumps, this game is beautiful.
My favorite play in baseball is still the play at the plate, though. It’s just so exciting!
This is why Vin Sculley should have been cloned so he could announce forever.
I love that I just read a baseball article that quoted Vonnegut and Kesha in the same paragraph. 🙂
I spent the first 40 games of the season defending Matt Carpenter … to fellow Cardinal fans.
Didnt we all just go through 2 weeks of stories about the commissioner sort of chastising the games best player for not being more self promoting?
If he were more sef promoting, wouldnt we be chastising his arrogance?
Society tends to find the negative in every situation.
I listened to a podcast about the history of journalism and the trend to go negative, or to employ “gotcha journalism”. Seemed to start with Watergate, and has gotten more negative from there.
In sports we tend to build athketes up, and then once theyve gotten big, we tend to tear them down or bring them back down a notch. Fans are weird in that regard.
As for my favorite play, I think I preferred a called strikeout on a knee-buckling curveball.
Where are my complete-game shutouts? I want more!
This is clearly one of the worst fangraphs articles ever.
The worst part is that it is so corporate and fake, not progressive or bold at all.
This is actually an article promoting intolerance- but dressed up as happy-sunshine.
“Baseball can be zippy and effervescent, almost magical even,… All we want to do is love it with our whole little hearts… I hope that… it makes less room for the grumps.”
The argument is fake in it’s liberal disposition- posturing a ‘hey man, let’s be positive’ attitude, but really just targeting a certain group of people for expressing critical opinions. It’s a ‘no dissent’ sign with ‘zippy’ and ‘magical’ words as decoration.
Notice that the author isn’t even taking issue with being critical generally- but simply that certain people are being critical of things other than what the author wants to focus on.
“I think it is fine to fret about baseball …But I don’t know if we’re always fretting about the right things….. I worry we’ll feel compelled to cast it aside.”
MLB/ESPN/FOX and fangraphs apparently feel that negativity is hurting the game’s marketing appeal. Therefore the recent surplus of ‘let’s get back to enjoying the ole ball game’ articles in the big-time corporate sport press.
Fangraphs is a shell of it’s former self, now that ESPN/FOX have turned it into a typical PR front.
It would be far better for MLB to become more controversial, more meaningful.
I’d personally would love it if the players started protesting the anthem and all the military nonsense at parks, what a fascist concept that corporate sports clubs propagandize for the government. Sure it would be wildly unpopular given that most sports fans are fascists (supporting all major parties), but it would be something worthwhile. Apart from the data/intelligence revolution, baseball hasn’t done anything truly revolutionary and inspiring since Jackie Robinson.
This glib, vapid ‘let’s just enjoy whats on tv, no matter what’ nonsense is a huge part of the problem, not the solution.
We should let the old traditionalists moan about things they don’t understand. No problem. It would be a mistake to let the corporate press use the annoying and ill-informed complaints of a few old broadcasters to try to promote an ‘everything is better if you just imagineer it to be,’ Kimmy Schmidt type view of MLB. MLB is broken, the corporate sports media is broken, one of it’s greatest strength is the depth and passion of the critical reviews in which baseball’s more serious minded fans engage. This article is not such a review, but is instead fluff.
I really really like baseball.
extremely good take.
I’ve watched baseball on mute for at least 6 hours a day for 5+ years. I enjoy not hearing the announcers. Very, very few who don’t take away from the game.
Even better, you can put on the ballpark sounds on most MLB.tv broadcasts and have no announcers. Try it! It’s like being there but with a better view.
Osuna was never convicted. Everyone is jumping to conclusions without letting the law play out. I would say harsher penalties on people who are convicted (1 year suspension w/out pay) and no suspension on people who are merely suspected would make more sense.
Sometimes I feel like there is sort of a mob mentality here. For example, Jose Fernandez killed multiple people, including himself. If he had survived he’d be in prison most likely. Roy Holladay was breaking the law and putting innocent people at risk when he died as well. Luke Heimlich actually did his time, and a reporter broke the law, and he is going to be blackballed for life.
I just don’t get it really. Here it seems like if a guy is suspected of a crime it means he did it. If a guy was convicted of a crime he should be blackballed. Unless that crime is actually against the rules of baseball and then he belongs in the hall of fame.
First, the most exciting play in baseball is the fat guy triple. Dmitri Young hit one once that having been in the stadium with 13,000 people willing him around second was some of the most compelling drama ever… just as Moonlight Graham described.
The big problem, and somebody (Hardball Times?, I can’t remember) posted the numbers when identifying ideal expansion and relocation sites, is that baseball fans, in general, are old. Like 5 years ago, the average baseball “viewer” was in their mid 50s. That number is not getting lower, and is full of people reliving glory years in their heads. And teams, worried about chasing off their core viewers, keep the same stale voices in the booth, geared around the narrative “this isn’t the way we did it back when…”
The second, slightly smaller problem, is that women comprise a much larger percentage of the fanbase than ever before, and tend to be more informed than before. Yet the culture of baseball would prefer to talk at them like they are stupid and market to them like they are gossipy teens fawning over cute butts.
wut
Wonderful article Meg. It sums up perfectly the ‘get off my lawn’ attitude of a few veteran announcers. I’m 71 and I still enjoy the game in front of me , it’s just different than the 50’s and 60’s. You can’t go back to a place that only exists in your head.
I think this article is being misread.
Sure, we all agree that the old Yerda white-male dominated sports broadcasters are too regressive. The most regressive clubs allow their announcers to be very anti-progress (like the Mets). Their member-berry type appeal to ‘the good ole days’ is gross, anti-intellectual, and appeals to some of the lesser qualities of an aging fan base.
If Meg’s critique was limited to that- fantastic. Most of the approving comments seem to interpret this as an article denouncing regressive moron announcers.
But the article is actually quite different. It’s a marketing-friendly article promoting a lack of criticism.
Fangraphs used to specialize in criticism. Consider how fangraphs lampooned Dayton Moore for all his Bentacourt type crazy decisions. Obviously, fangraphs got burned when the dumber portion of the baseball audience pushed back against fangraphs after the Royals WS success. Jeff Sullivan has written a decent amount on how seriously this backlash effected the work at fangraphs.
In the meantime, a number of fangraphs writers made the jump to big league front offices. This is particularly true among fangraphs’ lesser writers, those who didn’t use stats but instead preferred the eye-test, scouting approach. these less controversial, industry-friendly, traditional scout-friendly writers, briefly, got a couple of ok jobs.
To add to this, fangraphs partnered with ESPN, Jeff Sullivan teamed up at FOX, and fangraphs ‘got big.’
At this point, criticism largely disappeared from fangraphs: but the site didn’t completely sell out until last offseason, with the new batch of cheerleader and fluff writers.
Meg’s article doesn’t just knock the curmudgeon announcers who wish it were still 1973. It knocks all criticism, save only harping on anyone accused of anything unpopular.
Meg’s article reflects the new ‘see no evil (except to quote Boras when ripping the players union), speak no evil (except to rip Tony Clark ever chance), never critique any MLB front offices (unless they don’t spend on free agents)’ type approach, just as ESPN/Fox do.
She is not writing- ‘hey, regressive announcers, get smart.’ She is not writing, ‘hey, stats have not ruined the game.’ She is not taking any progressive stances against regressive nonsense.
She is writing ‘let’s be positive about everything about baseball because otherwise it’s not fun.’ This article is just glib marketing and corporate sunshine. “Enjoy whats on TV, no dissent or controversial opinions” spiced up with some ‘fun for fun’s sake’ words and phrases.
Please fangraphs and David Appleman- I am troubled that, for the many years that I’ve followed fangraphs, I have never seen you feature a minority or female writer in such a manner that the female or minority writer was supported to bring forth substantial data-driven baseball insight. Please change this discriminatory treatment of your writers. Female writers can do more than glee club marketing, please feature more data-driven content by non-males and non-whites.
This piece also exemplifies the attitude that “Fangraphs writers can write anything and it’s OK because they’re on staff at Fangraphs.”
Uh, no. That’s a non-existent editorial policy. The editors should be standing up for the brand, not creating a playpen. As far as I remember, the Fangraphs brand has been: tremendous fun within the constraints of rigorous analysis — that rigor rendered all the way down is the best entertainment of all.
This article is poor (and a poor fit for what I understand Fangraphs to be) because it isn’t precise. That’s the Fangraphs I know and love. You don’t need graphs and numbers to be precise — but you do need to make an exact case, calling out exactly what you do and don’t like, so the piece doesn’t turn into a Rorschach test reflecting whatever people don’t like about the current atmosphere.
Who are the grumps, exactly, besides Simpson and Caray? Anyone who has a complaint about anything in baseball? Anyone who has a complaint that you don’t agree with? Anyone who doesn’t like three outcomes baseball? I can’t tell. The message we’re left with is: Stop complaining so much. It’s still baseball.
I guess that’s true, formally. Except that — some very smart people are making some very smart cases that the game has significantly deteriorated from an entertainment standpoint over the last decade. That corresponds with my experience. I come to Fangraphs to see arguments — rendered in excitingly fresh ways — whether my perceptions are valid or biased. Pieces like this don’t assist in that quest.
This is a “Please Join Me in Complaining About Complainers” piece. You may recognize it from 98% of the internet.
She could have very easily written an article about favorite plays and asked for examples from readers. Instead, she, in an oddly circular fashion, whined about what she perceived to be whining from announcers. Bad look.
So baseball is only meant for nerds with their numbers to enjoy? Where will the game be in 20 years if present day teenagers quit dreaming of the bases laoded in the bottom of the 9th, in game 7 of the world series?
Baseball, while imperfect as any human endeavor will be, is one of the very best things to ever come from the United States of America. Babe Ruth was an orphan, Jackie Robinson was a 5 sport collegiate All-American and Veteran, as were so many others like Ted Williams. The moral integrity of these Heroes, is indicative of the very best of our society. Sure, nowadays kids can play baseball 24/7/365 and be groomed to be first round draft picks. But with that, kids from nowhere Venezuela, Mexico, the Domincan Republic, or Europe and African nations can dream of being Big Leaguers. There was the young woman in France who was registered by the scouts as a potential draftee.
The point is, Baseball has always been changing, right along with the world at large. While I was miserable at the game myself, I cherish the fact that 5’8 170 lbs Dustin Pedroia could stand in the box and compete against 6’4 300lbs CC Sabathia. Baseball’s willingness to be inclusive, of Jews like Sandy Koufax who skipped game one of the world series for Uom Kippur, Humanitarians like Roberto Clemente, who died on a plane to Honduras for earthquake relief, to Kevin Youkilis who “waddled like a duck” is what makes it such a great game. Anyone who thinks otherwise has their ticket to hell punched already.
Humans aren’t perfect, and neither are our games. Osuna going to the Astros, is sadly not surprising. They didn’t bench Gurriel after his blatantly racist act in the world series last year. Victory can be more important than charachter to some. This IS a point to be grumpy about, especially in that shines as an opportunit for SO many around the Whole World.
One of the things I like is to watch a batter who just struck out walk back to the dugout. If the camera lingers long enough, you will inevitably see him at some point look out toward the mound like he’s trying to figure out what happened out there.
I know there are two “i”s in “millennial,” but does anyone have a count of the number of “I”s in this article?
Alternate title: “I Hate Certain People; We Should All Band Together and Hate the Same People I Hate”
FanFeels